ΠΡΟΣΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ Chap. 1:1, 2. Address and greeting. 1. χρ . Ἰησ ., as in the case of δοῦλοςἸησ . χρ ., seems rather to denote possession, than to belong to ἀπόστολος and designate the person from whom sent. διὰθελ . θεοῦ ] See on 1 Corinthians 1:1. As these words there have a special reference, and the corresponding ones in Galatians 1:1 also, so it is natural to suppose that here he has in his mind, hardly perhaps the especial subject of vv. 3-11, the will of the Father as the ground of the election of the church, but, which is more likely in a general introduction to the whole Epistle, the great subject of which he is about to treat, and himself as the authorized expositor of it. τ . οὖσινἐνἘφ .] On this, and on Ephesus, see Prolegomena. On ἁγίοις , see Ellicott’ s note. 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: cf. especially ch. 5:3. καὶπιστοῖςἐνχ . Ἰ .] These words follow rather unusually, separated from τ . ἁγ . by the designation of abode: a circumstance which might seem to strengthen the suspicion against ἐνἘφέσῳ , were not such transpositions by no means unexampled in St. Paul. See the regular order in Colossians 1:2. The omission of the article before πιστ . shews that the same persons are designated by both adjectives. Its insertion would not, however, prove the contrary. ἐνχρ . Ἰησ . belongs only to πιστοῖς : see Colossians 1:2: faithful, i.e. believers, in (but ἐν does not belong to πιστός , as it often does to πιστεύω : see also Colossians 1:4) Christ Jesus. This, in its highest sense, ‘ qui fidem præ stant,’ not mere truth, or faithfulness, is imported: see reff. The ἁγίοις and πιστοῖς denote their spiritual life from its two sides— that of God who calls and sanctifies,— that of themselves who believe. So Bengel, ‘ Dei est, sanctificare nos et sibi asserere; nostrum, ex Dei munere, credere.’ Stier remarks that by πιστ . ἐνχ . Ἰ .,— ἁγίοις gets its only full and N. T. meaning. He also notices in these expressions already a trace of the two great divisions of the Epistle— God’ s grace towards us, and our faith towards Him. 2. After χάριςὑμ . κ . εἰρ . supply rather εἴη than ἔστω ; see 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:2; Jude 1:2. On the form of greeting, cf. Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3, &c. The Socinian perversion of the words, ‘ from God, who is the Father of us and of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ is decisively refuted by Titus 1:4, not to mention that nothing but the grossest ignorance of St. Paul’ s spirit could ever allow such a meaning to be thought of. We must not fall into the error of refining too much, as Stier, on χάρις and εἰρήνη , as referring respectively to ἁγίοις and πιστοῖς : see above, where these last epithets do not occur. 3-3:21. FIRST PORTION OF THE EPISTLE: THE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. And herein, 1:3-23. Ground and origin of the church, in the Father’ s counsel, and His act in Christ, by the Spirit. And herein again, (A) the preliminary idea of the Church, set forth in the form of an ascription of praise vv 3-14:— thus arranged:— vv. 3-6] The Father, in his eternal Love, has chosen us to holiness (ver. 4),— ordained us to sonship (ver. 5),— bestowed grace on us in the Beloved (ver. 6):— vv. 7-12] In the Son, we have,— redemption according to the riches of His grace (ver. 7), knowledge of the mystery of His will (vv. 8, 9),— inheritance under Him the one Head (vv. 10-12):— vv. 13, 14] through the Spirit we are sealed,— by hearing the word of salvation (ver. 13),— by receiving the earnest of our inheritance (ver. 14),— to the redemption of the purchased possession (ib.). 3. Blessed (see note on Romans 9:5. Understand εἴη (Job 1:21; Psalms 112:2; or ἔστω , 2 Chronicles 9:8. Ellicott)— ‘ Be He praised.’ See a similar doxology, 2 Corinthians 1:3. Almost all St. Paul’ s Epistles begin with some ascription of praise. That to Titus is the only exception (not Gal.: cf. Galatians 1:5). See also 1 Peter 1:3) be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Colossians 1:3— also 1 Corinthians 15:24. Such is the simplest and most forcible sense of the words— as Thl., ἰδοὺκ . θεὸςκ . πατὴρτοῦαὐτοῦκ . ἑνὸςχριστοῦ · θεὸςμέν , ὡςσαρκωθέντος · πατὴρδέ , ὡςθεοῦλόγου . See John 20:17, from which saying of our Lord it is not improbable that the expression took its rise. Meyer maintains, ‘ God who is also the Father of … :’ on the ground that only πατήρ , not θεός , requires a genitive supplied. But we may fairly reply that, if we come to strictness of construction, his meaning would require ὁθεός , ὁκαὶπατήρ . Harless’ s objection, that on our rendering it must be ὁθεόςτεκαὶπ ., is well answered by Meyer from 1 Peter 2:25, τὸνποιμένακ . ἐπίσκοποντῶνψυχῶνἡμῶν . Ellicott prefers Meyer’ s view, but pronounces the other both grammatically and doctrinally tenable), who blessed (aor.: not ‘ hath blessed:’ the historical fact in the counsels of the Father being thought of throughout the sentence. εὐλογητός — εὐλογήσας — εὐλογία — such was the ground-tone of the new covenant. As in creation God blessed them, saying, ‘ Be fruitful and multiply,’ — so in redemption,— at the introduction of the covenant, “ all families of the earth shall be blessed,” — at its completion,— “ Come ye blessed of my Father.” But God’ s blessing is in facts— ours in words only) us (whom? not the Apostle only: nor Paul and his fellow-Apostles:— but, all Christians— all the members of Christ. The καὶὑμεῖς of ver. 13 perfectly agrees with this: see there: but the κἀγώ of ver. 15 does not agree with the other views) in (instrumental or medial: the element in which, and means by which, the blessing is imparted) all (i.e. all possible— all, exhaustive, in all richness and fulness of blessing: cf. ver. 23 note) blessing of the Spirit (not merely, ‘ spiritual (inward) blessing:’ πνευματικός in the N. T. always implies the working of the Holy Spirit, never bearing merely our modern inaccurate sense of spiritual as opposed to bodily. See 1 Corinthians 9:11, which has been thus misunderstood) in the heavenly places (so the expression, which occurs five times in this Epistle (see reff.), and no where else, can only mean: cf. ver. 20. It is not probable that St. Paul should have chosen an unusual expression for the purposes of this Epistle, and then used it in several different senses. Besides, as Harless remarks, the preposition ἐπί in composition with adjectives gives usually a local sense: e.g. in ἐπίγειος , ἐπιχθόνιος , ἐπουράνιος , as compared with γήϊνος , χθόνιος , οὐράνιος . Chrys., al., would understand it ‘ heavenly blessings,’ in which case the Apostle would hardly have failed to add χαρίσμασιν , or ἀγαθοῖς , or the like. But, with the above rendering, what is the sense? Our country, πολίτευμα , is in heaven, Philippians 3:20: there our High Priest stands, blessing us. There are our treasures, Matthew 6:20, Matthew 6:21, and our affections to be, Colossians 3:1 ff.: there our hope is laid up, Colossians 1:5: our inheritance is reserved for us, 1 Peter 1:4. And there, in that place, and belonging to that state, is the εὐλογία , the gift of the Spirit, Hebrews 6:4, poured out on those who τὰἄνωφρονοῦσιν . 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. I may once for all premise, that it will be impossible, in the limits of these notes, to give even a synopsis of the various opinions on the rich fulness of doctrinal expressions in this Epistle. I must state in each case that which appears to me best to suit the context, and those variations which must necessarily be mentioned, referring to such copious commentaries as Harless or Stier for further statement) in Christ (“ the threefold ἐν after εὐλογήσας , has a meaning ever deeper and more precise: and should therefore be kept in translating. The blessing with which God has blessed us, consists and expands itself in all blessing of the Spirit— then brings in Heaven, the heavenly state in us, and us in it— then finally, Christ, personally, He Himself, who is set and exalted into Heaven, comes by the Spirit down into us, so that He is in us and we in Him of a truth, and thereby, and in so far, we are with Him in heaven.” Stier). 4. According as (καθώς explains and expands the foregoing— shewing wherein the εὐλογία consists as regards us, and God’ s working towards us. Notice, that whereas ver. 3 has summarily included in the work of blessing the Three Persons, the Father bestowing the Spirit in Christ,— now the threefold cord, so to speak, is unwrapped, and the part of each divine Person separately described: cf. argument above) He selected us (reff. I render selected, in preference to elected, as better giving the middle sense,— ‘ chose for himself,’ — and the ἐξ , that it is a choosing out of the world. The word (ref. Deut.) is an O. T. word, and refers to the spiritual Israel, as it did to God’ s elect Israel of old. But there is no contrast between their election and ours: it has been but one election throughout— an election in Christ, and to holiness on God’ s side— and involving accession to God’ s people (cf. πιστεύσαντες , ver. 13, and εἴγεἐπιμένετετῇπίστει , Colossians 1:23) on ours. See Ellicott’ s note on the word, and some excellent remarks in Stier, p. 62, on the divine and human sides of the doctrine of election as put forward in this Epistle) in Him (i.e. in Christ, as the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22), the righteous Head of our race. In Him, in one wide sense, were all mankind elected, inasmuch as He took their flesh and blood, and redeemed them, and represents them before the Father: but 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) before the foundation of the world (πρὸκατ . κ . only here in St. Paul: we have ἀπὸκατ . κ . in Hebrews 4:3; his expressions elsewhere are πρὸτῶναἰώνων , 1 Corinthians 2:7,— ἀπὸτ . αἰ ., Ephesians 3:9. Colossians 1:26,— πρὸχρόνωναἰωνίων , 2 Timothy 1:9,— χρόνοιςαἰωνίοις , Romans 16:25,— ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Stier remarks on the necessary connexion of the true doctrines of creation and redemption: how utterly irreconcilable pantheism is with this, God’ s election before laying the foundation of the world, of His people in His Son), that we should be (infinitive of the purpose, see Winer, edn. 3, p. 267, § 45. 3. (In edn. 6, the treatment of the inf. of the purpose without the art. τοῦ , seems to have been inadvertently omitted.) The Apostle seems to have Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 14:2, before his mind; in both which places the same construction occurs) holy and blameless (the positive and negative sides of the Christian character— ἅγιοι , of the general positive category,— ἄμωμοι , of the non-existence of any exception to it. So Plut. Pericl., p. 173 (Mey.), βίοςκαθαρὸςκ . ἀμίαντος . This holiness and unblamableness must not be understood of that justification by faith by which the sinner stands accepted before God: it is distinctly put forth here (see also ch. 5:27) as an ultimate result as regards us, and refers to that sanctification which follows on justification by faith, and which is the will of God respecting us, 1 Thessalonians 4:7. See Stier’ s remarks against Harless, p. 71) before Him (i.e. in the deepest verity of our being— throughly penetrated by the Spirit of holiness, bearing His searching eye, ch. 5:27: 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 ἐνώπιοντοῦθρόνουτοῦθεοῦ , Revelation 7:15. Cf. Colossians 1:22, note) in love. There is considerable dispute as to the position and reference of these words. Three different ways are taken. (1) Œ cum., &c., join them with ἐξελέξατο . I do not see, with most Commentators, the extreme improbability of the qualifying clause following the verb after so long an interval, when we take into account the studied solemnity of the passage, and remember that ἐνχριστῷ in the last verse was separated nearly as far from its verb εὐλογήσας . My objection to this view is of a deeper kind: see below. (2) The Syr., Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., Bengel, Lachm., Harless, Olsh., Mey., De W., Stier, Ellic., all., join them with προορίσας in the following verse. To this, in spite of all that has been so well said in its behalf, there is an objection which seems to me insuperable. It is, that in the whole construction of this long sentence, the verbs and participles, as natural in a solemn emphatic enumeration of God’ s dealings with His people, precede their qualifying clauses: e.g. εὐλογήσας ver. 3, ἐξελέξατο ver. 4, ἐχαρίτωσεν ver. 6, ἐπερίσσευσεν ver. 8, γνωρίσας ver. 9, προέθετο ib., ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι ver. 10. In no one case, except the necessary one of a relative qualification (ἧς ver. 6, and again ver. 8), does the verb follow its qualifying clause: and for this reason, that the verbs themselves are emphatic, and not the conditions under which they subsist. “ Blessed be God who did all this, &c.” He may have fore-ordained, and did fore-ordain, in love: and this is implied in what follows, from κατὰτ . εὐδ . to ἠγαπημένῳ : but the point brought out, as that for which we are to bless Him, is not that in love He fore-ordained us, but the fact of that fore-ordination itself: not His attribute, but His act. It is evidently no answer to this, to bring forward sentences elsewhere in which ἐνἀγάπῃ stands first, such as ch. 3:18, where the spirit of the passage is different. (3) The vulg., Ambrst., Erasm., Luth., Castal., Beza, Calvin, Grot., all., join them, as in the text, with εἶναι … ἀμώμουςκατ . αὐτοῦ . This has been strongly impugned by the last-mentioned set of Commentators: mainly on the ground that the addition of ἐνἀγάπῃ to ἁγ . κ . ἀμώμ . κατ . αὐτοῦ , is ungrammatical,— is flat and superfluous,— and that in neither ch. 5:27, nor Colossians 1:22, have these adjectives any such qualification. But in answer, I would submit, that in the first place, as against the construction of ἐνἁγ . with ἀμώμ ., the objection is quite futile, for our arrangement does not thus construct it, but adds it as a qualifying clause to the whole εἶναι … αὐτοῦ . Next, I hold the qualification to be in the highest degree solemn and 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 in their abode and breathing-place, all Christian graces subsist, and in which, emphatically, all perfection before God must be found. And so, when the Apostle, ch. 4:16, is describing the glorious building up of the body, the Church, he speaks of its increasing εἰςοἰκοδομὴνἑαυτοῦἐνἀγάπῃ . And it is his practice, in this and the parallel Epistle, to add ἐνἀγάπῃ as the completion of the idea of Christian holiness— cf. ch. 3:18; Colossians 2:2, also ch. 4:2; 5:2. With regard to the last objection,— in both the places cited, the adjectives are connected with the verb παραστῆσαι , expressed therefore in the abstract as the ultimate result of sanctification in the sight of the Father, not, as here, referring to the state of sanctification, as consisting and subsisting in love. 5. Having predestined us (subordinate to the ἐξελέξατο : see Romans 8:29, Romans 8:30, where the steps are thus laid down in succession;— οὓςπροέγνω , καὶπροώρισεν — οὓςπροώρισεν , τούτουςκαὶἐκάλεσεν . Now the ἐκλογή must answer in this rank to the προέγνω , and precede the προώρισεν . Stier remarks well, “ In God, indeed, all is one; but for our anthropomorphic way of speaking and treating, which is necessary to us, there follows on His first decree to adopt and to sanctify, the nearer decision, how and by what this shall be brought about, because it could only be thus brought about.” προ ,— as Pelagius (in Harless),— “ ad eos refertur qui antea non fuerunt, et priusquam fierent, de his cogitatum est et postea substiterunt” ) unto adoption (so that we should become His sons, in the blessed sense of being reconciled to Him and having a place in His spiritual family,— should have the remission of our sins, the pledge of the Spirit, the assurance of the inheritance) through Jesus Christ to Him (the Father: see Colossians 1:20, δι ʼ αὐτοῦ (Christ) ἀποκαταλλάξαιτὰπάνταεἰςαὐτόν (the Father). So Thdrt., all., Harl., Olsh., Meyer, Stier: and rightly, for the Son could not be in this sentence the terminus ultimus (the whole reference being to the work and purpose of the Father); and had this been intended, as Harl. remarks, we must have had καὶεἰςαὐτόν . De W., who, after Anselm, Tho.-Aq., Castal., all., refers it to the Son, fails to answer this objection of Harl.’ s. But now arise two questions: (1) the meaning. Does it merely represent ἑαυτῷ , a dativus commodi? So Grot., al., but it cannot be, after the insertion of the special διὰἸ . χ ., that the sentence should again return to the general purpose. It seems much better, to join it with διὰἸ . χ . as in Colossians 1:20, above: and so Harl., but too indefinitely, taking it only as a phrase common with the Apostle and not giving its full import. As in Colossians 1:20, the εἰςαὐτόν , though thus intimately connected with δι ʼ αὐτοῦ , depends on ἀποκαταλλάξαι , so here it must depend on υἱοθεσίαν , and its import must be ‘ to (into) Himself,’ — i.e. so that we should be partakers of the divine nature: cf. 2 Peter 1:4. (2) Should we read αὐτόν or αὑτόν It will depend on whether we refer this clause, from διὰ to κατά , to the Father as its subject, or consider it as a continuation of the Apostle’ s thanksgiving. And the latter is much the most likely; for had the former been the case, we should probably have had, instead of διὰἸησ . χριστοῦ , διὰτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦἸ . χρ ., so that reference to the Father might still be kept up. I decide therefore for αὐτόν , as Thdrt. certainly read, or his remark, τὸδὲεἰςαὐτόν , τὸνπατέραλέγει , would have been needless. And so Erasm., Wetst., Lachm., Harl., Olsh., Meyer. Then αὐτοῦ in ver. 6 naturally takes it up again) according to (in pursuance of) the good pleasure (it is disputed whether εὐδοκία has here merely this general meaning of beneplacitum, or that of benevolentia. Harl. (see also Ellicott) examines thoroughly the use of the word by the LXX, and decides in favour of the latter, alleging especially, that a mere assertion of doctrine would be out of place in an ascription of thanksgiving. But surely this is a most unfortunate position. The facts on which doctrines rest are here the very subjects of the Apostle’ s thanksgiving: and the strict parallels of Mat 11:26, Luke 10:21, should have kept him from adducing it. Granting, as we must, both senses to εὐδοκεῖν and εὐδοκία , the context must in each case determine which is meant. And its testimony here is clear. It is, as De W. remarks, not in προωρισμένοι , but in προορίσας , that the object, to which εὐδοκία refers, is to be sought: and the subsequent recurrences to the same idea in ver. 9 and ver. 11 point out that it is not the Father’ s benevolentia, but His beneplacitum, which is in the Apostle’ s mind. And so Meyer, De W., Stier, and Ellic. This beneplacitum was benevolentia, ver. 6; but that does not affect the question. See, besides Harl., a long note in Fritz. on Rom_2. p. 369) of His will, 6. to (with a view to, as the purpose of the predestination) the praise (by men and angels— all that can praise) of the glory of His grace is not indispensable: see Winer, edn. 6, § 19. 2, b: compare Madvig, Synt. § 10. 2.” Ellic.) which (there is some difficulty in deciding between the readings, ἐνᾗ , and ἧς . The former would be the most naturally substituted for an attraction found difficult: and the existence of ᾗ , as a reading, seems to point this way. The latter, on the other hand, might perhaps be written by a transcriber carelessly, χάριτος having just preceded. But I own this does not seem to me very probable. A relative following a substantive, is as often in a different case, as in the same: and there could be no temptation to a transcriber to write ἧς here, which could hardly occur at all unless by attraction, a construction to which transcribers certainly were not prone. I therefore, with Lachm., Mey., Rü ck., al., adopt ἧς . Considerations of the exigencies of the sense, alleged by Harl., al., do not come into play unless where external authorities are balanced (which is the case here), and probabilities of alteration also (which is not) He bestowed upon us (the meaning of χαριτόω is disputed. The double meaning of χάρις ,— favour, grace bestowed, and that which ensures favour, viz. grace inherent, beauty,— has been supposed to give a double meaning to the verb also,— to confer grace, and to render gracious, or beautiful, or acceptable. And this latter sense is adopted, here and in Luke 1:28 (where see note), by many,— e.g. by Chrys., τουτέστιν , οὐμόνονἁμαρτημάτωνἀπήλλαξεν , ἀλλὰκαὶἐπεράστουςἐποίησε ,— Erasm., Luth., all. But the meaning of χάρις , on which this is founded, does not seem to occur in the N. T., certainly not in St. Paul. And χαριτόω , both here and in I. c., according to the analogy of such verbs, will be ‘ to bestow grace.’ Another reason for this sense is the indefinite aorist, referring to an act of God once past in Christ, not to an abiding state which He has brought about in us. This, as usual, has been almost universally overlooked, and the perfect sense given. Another still is, the requirement of the context. Harl. well remarks, that, according to the sense ‘ bestowed grace,’ ver. 7 is the natural answer to the question, ‘ How hath He bestowed grace?’ whereas, on the other rendering, it has only a mediate connexion with this verse. Stier would unite both meanings; but surely this is impossible. The becoming χαρίεντες may be a consequence of being κεχαριτωμένοι , but must be quite independent of its verbal meaning. Conyb. remarks that it may be literally rendered ‘ His favour, wherewith He favoured us:’ but ‘ favour’ would not reach deep enough for the sense) in (see above on ἐνχριστῷ , ver. 3. Christ is our Head and including Representative) the Beloved (i.e. Christ: = υἱὸςτῆςἀγάπηςαὐτοῦ , Colossians 1:13. He is God’ s ἠγαπημένοςκατ ʼ ἐξοχήν ,— cf. Matthew 3:17; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-11). 7. Now the Apostle passes, with ἐνᾧ , to the consideration of the ground of the church in the Son (7-12): see the synopsis above. But the Father still continues the great subject of the whole;— only the reference is now to the Son. In whom (see on ἐνχρ . ver. 3— cf. Romans 3:24) We have (objective— ‘ there is for us.’ But not without a subjective implied import, as spoken of those who truly have it— have laid hold of it: “ are ever needing and ever having it,” Eadie) the Redemption through His blood (which was the price paid for that redemption, Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:20; both the ultimate climax of His obedience for us, Philippians 2:8, and, which is most in view here,— the propitiation, in our nature, for the sin of the world, Romans 3:25; Colossians 1:20. It is a noteworthy observation of Harless here, that the choice of the word, the Blood of Christ, is of itself a testimony to the idea of expiation having been in the writer’ s mind. Not the death of the victim, but its blood, was the typical instrument of expiation. And I may notice that in Philippians 2:8, where Christ’ s obedience, not His atonement, is spoken of, there is no mention of His shedding His Blood, only of the act of His Death), the remission ; see note on Romans 3:25) of (our) transgressions (explanation of τ . ἀπολύτρωσιν : not to be limited, but extending to all riddance from the practice and consequences of our transgressions: at least equipollent with ἀπολύτρωσιν :— so Thdrt., δι ʼ ἐκείνουγὰρτὰςτῶνἁμαρτημάτωνἀποθέμενοικηλῖδας , κ . τῆςτοῦτυράννουδουλείαςἀπαλλαγέντες , τοὺςτῆςεἰκόνοςτῆςθείαςἀπελάβομενχαρακτῆρας . This against Harless), according to the riches of His grace (this alone would prevent ἄφεσις applying to merely the forgiveness of sins. As Passavant (in Stier), “ We have in this grace not only redemption from misery and wrath, not only forgiveness,— but we find in it the liberty, the glory, the inheritance of the children of God,— the crown of eternal life: cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9” ), 8. which he shed abundantly (‘ caused to abound:’ ἀφθόνωςἐξέχεε , Thl.: Thdrt. has the same idea, ἀναβλύζειγὰρτὰςτοῦἐλέουςπηγάς , κ . τούτοιςἡμᾶςπερικλύζειτοῖςῥεύμασιν . The E. V. is wrong, ‘ wherein He hath abounded:’ no such construction of attraction of a dative being found in the N. T. Calvin and Beza would take ἧς not as an attraction, but as the genitive after ἐπερίσ . as in Luke 15:17, ‘ of which He was full, &c.’ But this does not agree well with the γνωρίσας , &c. below. As little can the ‘ quæ superabundavit’ of the Vulg. (and Syr.) stand: the attraction of the nominative being scarcely possible, and this being still more inconsistent with γνωρίσας ) forth to us in all (possible) wisdom and prudence (with E. V., De Wette, &c., I would refer these words to God. On the other hand, Harless (with whom are Olsh., Stier, Ellic., al.) maintains, that neither πάσῃ nor φρονήσει will allow this. “ πᾶς ,” he says, “ never = summus,— never betokens the intension, but only the extension, never the power, but the frequency,— and answers to our ‘ every,’ i.e. all possible;— so that, when joined to abstracts, it presents them to us as concrete: πᾶσαδύναμις , ‘ every power that we know of,’ ‘ that exists;’ — πᾶσαὑπομονή , every kind of endurance that we know of;— πᾶσαεὐσέβεια , &c. Now it is allowable enough, to put together all excellences of one species, and allege them as the motive of a human act, because we can conceive of men as wanting in any or all of them: but not so with God, of whom the Apostle, and all of us, conceive as the Essence of all perfection. We may say of God, ‘ in Him is all wisdom,’ but not, ‘ He did this or that in all wisdom.’  ” “ Again,” he continues, “ φρόνησις cannot be ascribed to God.” And this he maintains,— not by adopting the view of Wolf, al., that it is practical knowledge, which suits neither the context nor usage,— nor that of Anselm, Bengel, al., that σοφ . is ‘ de præ sentibus,’ φρον . ‘ de futuris,’ — but by understanding σοφία of the normal collective state of the spirit, with reference especially to the intelligence, which last is expressed according to its various sides, by the words so often found conjoined with σοφία — σύνεσις , φρόνησις , γνῶσις . So that φρόνησις , as a one-sided result of σοφία , cannot be predicated of God, but only of men. According to this then, ἐνπάσ . σ . κ . φρ . must refer to that in the bestowal of which on us He hath made His grace to abound, so that we should thereby become σοφοὶκ . φρόνιμοι :— as Olsh., ἵναἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳκ . φρονήσειπεριπατῶμεν . Chrys. joins the words with γνωρίσας , understanding them, however, of us, not of God: ἐνπ . σοφ . κ . φρ ., φησί , γνωρίσαςἡμ . τὸμ . τ . θ . αὐτ .· τουτέστι , σοφοὺςκ . φρονίμουςποιήσαςτὴνὄντωςσοφίας , τὴνὄντωςφρόνησιν . But see, on such arrangement, the note on ἐνἀγάπῃ ver. 4. Stier quotes from Passavant: “ In the living knowledge of the thoughts and ways of God we first get a sure and clear light upon ourselves and our ways, a light cast from above upon the import and aim of this our earthly life in the sight of God and His eternity. Here is the true wisdom of the heart, the true prudence of life.” But against this view, De W. alleges, (1) that φρόνησις can be as well predicated of God as γνῶσις , Romans 11:33, and is actually thus predicated, Proverbs 3:19; Jeremiah 10:12 LXX, of His creative wisdom, which is analogous to His redemptive wisdom. (2) that God’ s absolute wisdom is not here treated of, but His relative wisdom, as apparent in the use of means subservient to its end: so that ἐνπάσῃ would mean ‘ in all wisdom thereto belonging,’ as Jer.: ‘ Deus in omni sapientia sua atque prudentia, juxta quod consequi poterant, myst rium revelavit.’ And he compares ἡπολυποίκιλοςσοφίατ . θ . ch. 3:10. These last arguments are weighty, as shewing the legitimacy of the application to God: but even beyond them is that which construction and usage furnish. It would be hardly possible, did no other consideration intervene, to refer this ἑνπ . σ . κ . φρ . to other than the subject of the sentence,— cf. ἧςἐχαρ . ἡμᾶςἐντῷἠγαπ . above. I therefore decide (still; after reconsideration of Ellicott’ s note) for the application to God, not to us. It was in His manifold wisdom and prudence, manifested in all ways possible for us, that He poured out His grace upon us: and this wisdom and prudence was especially exemplified in that which follows, the notification to us of His hidden will, &c. In Colossians 1:9, the reference is clearly different: see note there), having made known (γνωρίσας is explicative of ἐπερίσσευσεν , just as προορίσας is of ἐξελέξατο above:— ‘ in that He made known.’ This ‘ making known,’ is not merely the information of the understanding, but the revelation, in its fullness, to the heart) to us (not, the Apostles, but Christians in general, as throughout the passage) the mystery (reff. and Romans 16:25. St. Paul ever represents the redemptive counsel of God as a mystery, i.e. a design hidden in His counsels, until revealed to mankind in and by Christ. So that his use of μυστήρ . has nothing in common, except the facts of concealment and revelation, with the mysteries of the heathen world, nor with any secret tradition over and above the gospel as revealed in the Scriptures. All who vitally know that, i.e. all the Christian church are the initiated: and all who have the word, read or preached, may vitally know it. Only the world without, the unbelieving, are the uninitiated) of His will (that which He purposed), according to His good pleasure (belongs to γνωρίσας , and specifies it: not to θελήμ . (τοῦκατὰτ . ε . αὐ .): i.e. So that the revelation took place in a time and manner consonant to God’ s eternal pleasure— viz. εἰςοἰκον ., &c. On εὐδοκ ., see above ver. 5) which He purposed (reff.) in Himself (ἐναὐτῷ is read, and referred (1) to Christ, by Chrys. and the ff., Anselm, Bengel, Luther, all. But this is impossible, because ἐντῷχριστῷ is introduced with the proper name below, which certainly would not occur on the second mention after ἐναὐτῷ , in the same reference: (2) to the Father, by Harless. But this is equally impossible. For αὐτῷ to refer to the subject of the sentence, we must have the mind of the reader removed one step from that subject by an intermediate idea supervening, as in κατὰτὴνεὐδοκίαναὐτοῦ . Had this been κατὰτ . πρόθεσιναὐτοῦ , the reference would have been legitimate. But when, as here, no such idea intervenes,— ἣνπροέθετοἐναὐτῷ — the subject is directly before the mind, and αὐτός , not being reflective but demonstrative, must point to some other person: who in this case can only be Christ. Our only resource then is to read αὑτῷ ) in order to (belongs to προέθετο , not to γνωρίσας . Very many ancient Commentators and the Vulg. and E. V., take εἰς wrongly as = ἐν , by which the whole sense is confused. Hardly less confusing is the rendering of Erasm., Calv., Est., al., usque ad tempus dispensations, thereby introducing into προέθετο the complex idea of decreed and laid up, instead of the simple one which the context requires) the œ conomy of the fulfilment of the seasons (after long and careful search, I am unable to find a word which will express the full meaning of οἰκονομια . The difficulty of doing so will be better seen below, after τὸπλήρ . τῶνκαιρ . has been dealt with. This expression is by ro means = τὸπλ . τοῦχρόνου in Galatians 4:4, nor to be equalized with it, as Harl. attempts to do, by saying that many καιροί .’ make up a χρόνος . The mistake which has misled almost all the Commentators here, and which as far as I know Stier has been the only one to expose, has been that of taking τὸπλ . τῶνκαιρῶν as a fixed terminus a quo, = the coming of Christ, as Galatians 4:4,— whereas usage, and the sense, determine it to mean, the whole duration of the Gospel times; cf. especially ch. 2:7, ἐντοῖςαἰῶσιντοῖςἐπερχομένοις : 1 Corinthians 10:11, τὰτέλητῶναἰώνων , and Luke 21:24, καιροὶἐθνῶν , Acts 1:7; Acts 3:19, Acts 3:21; 1 Timothy 2:6. Thus τὸπλ . τ . καιρῶν will mean, the filling up, completing, fulfilment, of the appointed seasons, carrying on during the Gospel dispensation. Now, belonging to, carried on during, this fulfilling of the periods or seasons, is the οἰκονομία here spoken of. And, having regard to the derivation and usage of the word, it will mean, the giving forth of the Gospel under God’ s providential arrangements. First and greatest of all, He is the οἰκονόμος : then, above all others, His divine Son: and as proceeding from the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit— and then in subordinate degrees, every one who οἰκονομίανπεπίστευται , i.e. all Christians, even to the lowest, as οἰκονόμοιποικίληςχἀριτοςθεοῦ , 1 Peter 4:10. So that our best rendering will be, œ conomy, leaving the word to be explained in teaching. The genitive καιρῶν is one of belonging or appurtenance as in κρίσιςμεγάληςἡμέρας , Jude 1:6), to sum up (the infinitive belongs to and specifies εὐδοκίαν ;— ἣν … καιρῶν having been logically parenthetical,— and explains what that εὐδοκία was. The verb, here as in the only other place in the N. T. where it occurs (ref.), signifies to comprehend, gather together, sum up. As there the whole law is comprehended in one saying, so here all creation is comprehended, summed up, in Christ. But it can hardly be supposed that the ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι has express reference here to Him as the κεφαλή : for 1) this is not predicated of Him till below, ver. 22;— 2) the verb is from κεφάλαιον , not from κεφαλή ; so that such reference would be only a play on the word:— 3) the compound verb, as here, is used in Rom. l. c. in the simple ordinary sense. The ἀνα -applies to the gathering of all individuals, not to any restoration (Syr., vulg., Olsh. (Ellic. in part), al.), in which τὰἐπὶτοῖςοὐρανοῖς would have no share. See more below: and cf. the ║ , Colossians 1:19, Colossians 1:20, and note there) all things (neuter, and to be literally so taken: not as a masculine, which, when a neuter is so understood, must be implied in the context, as in Galatians 3:22:— the whole creation, see Colossians 1:20) in the Christ (q. d., His Christ. The article is not expressed with χριστός after a preposition, unless with some such special meaning: see below ver. 12), the things in (lit. on; see below) the heavens (universal— not to be limited to the angels (Chrys., &c.), nor spirits of the just (Beza, al.), still less to be understood of the Jews, τὰἐπὶτ . γῆς being the Gentiles (Locke, &c.). Chrys.’ s words are so far true, μίανκεφαλὴνἅπασινἐπέθηκετὸκατὰσάρκαχριστόν , κ . ἀγγέλοιςκ . ἀνθρώποις · … τοῖςμὲντὸκατὰσάρκα , τοῖςδὲτὸνθεὸνλόγον — but the Apostle’ s meaning extends much further. The rec. ἐντ . οὐρ . seems to have been adopted from Colossians 1:20. There also ἐπί is read, but by L and a few mss. only, and evidently from our passage. The construction is a common one: cf. ἐπὶχθονί Il. γ . 195, ἐπὶπύλῃσι , ib. 149. It is strange to find in Ellicott a defence of the rec. ἐν , grounded on the fact that “ ἐπί is never joined in the N. T. with οὐρανός or οὐρανοί , and that ἐνοὐρανῷ and ἐπὶγῆς are invariably found in antithesis.” Such an argument would sweep away all ἅπαξλεγόμενα of construction, and break down the significance of all exceptional usage) and the things on the earth (general, as before τὰπάντα . All creation is summed up in Christ: it was all the result of the Love of the Father for the Son (see my Doctrine of Divine Love, Serm, i.), and in the Son it is all regarded by the Father. The vastly different relation to Christ of the different parts of creation, is no objection to this union in Him: it affects, as Beng. on Romans 8:19, “ pro suo quodque genus captu.” The Church, of which the Apostle here mainly treats, is subordinated to Him in the highest degree of conscious and joyful union: those who are not His spiritually, in mere subjugation, yet consciously; the inferior tribes of creation, unconsciously: but objectively, all are summed up in Him); 11. in Him (emphatic repetition, to connect more closely with Him the following relative clause), in whom we (Christians, all, both Jews and Gentiles; who are resolved below into ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς : see on ver. 12) were also taken for His inheritance (κληρόω , in its ordinary meaning, ‘ to appoint by lot,’ — then ‘ to appoint’ generally: κληροῦμαι , mid. ‘ to get, or possess any thing by such appointment.’ The aorist passive, if ever taken in a middle sense, cannot be thus understood here, on account of εἰςτὸεἶναι following. Confining ourselves therefore to the strict passive sense, we have three meanings apparently open to us: (1) ‘ we were appointed by lot.’ So Chrys., Thl., vulg. (sorte vocati sumus), Erasm. (sorte electi sumus). Chrys. supposes this apparently fortuitous choice to be corrected by προορ . κ .τ .λ . following: ‘ we were allotted, yet not by chance:’ others justify it, as Estius, ‘ quia in ipsis electis nulla est causa cur eligantur præ aliis.’ But to this Meyer properly opposes the fact, that we are never by St. Paul said to be chosen by any such θείατύχη , but only by the gracious purpose of God: cf. Plato, Legg. vi. p. 759 c: κληροῦνοὕτωτῇθείᾳτύχῃἀποδιδόντα . (2) ‘ we were made partakers of the inheritance,’ i.e. of the Kingdom of God, as Israel of Canaan,— Acts 26:18: Colossians 1:12. This is adopted by Harl., and Mey., and many others. But it seems without authority from usage: the instance which Mey. quotes from Pind., Ol. viii. 19, κληροῦντινι , not bearing this rendering. And besides, the context is against it: ἐκληρώθημεν being followed, as Stier observes, not by εἰςτὸἔχεινἡμ ., but by εἰςτὸεἶναιἡμ ., and thus pointing at something which ‘ we’ are to become, not to possess. Another reason, see below. (3) ‘ we were made an (God’ s) inheritance.’ This (Grot., Beng., Olsh., De W., Stier, Ellic., al.) seems to me the only rendering by which philology and the context are alike satisfied. We thus take the ordinary meaning of κληρόω , to assign as a κλῆρος : and the prevalent idea of Israel in the O. T. is as a people whom the Lord chose for His inheritance; cf. Deuteronomy 4:20, ὑμᾶςἔλαβενὁθεὸς … εἶναιαὐτῷλαὸνἔγκληρον : ib. 9:29; 32:9; 3 Kings 8:51, al. Flatt cites from Philo (qu. ref.?), ᾧπροσκεκλήρωνται , διότιτοῦσύμπαντοςἀνθρώπωνγένουςἀπενεμήθηοἵατιςἀπαρχὴτῷποιητῇκ . πατρί . Olsh. calls this ‘ the realization in time of the ἐκλογὴἐνχριστῷ spoken of before,’ viz. by God taking to Himself a people out of all nations for an inheritance— first in type and germ in the O. T., then fully and spiritually in the N. T. This interpretation will be further substantiated by the note on ver. 12 below), having been predestined (why mention this again? Harl. maintains that it here applies to the Jews only, and refers to their selection (according to him to possess the inheritance) by God: but this cannot be, because as remarked above, ἡμᾶς , which first brings up the difference, does not occur yet. The true answer to the question lies in this,— that here first the Apostle comes to the idea of the universal Church, the whole Israel of God, and therefore here brings forward again that fore-ordination which he had indeed hinted at generally in ver. 5, but which properly belonged to Israel, and is accordingly predicated of the Israel of the Church) according to (in pursuance of) the purpose (repeated again (see above) from ver. 9: cf. also ch. 3:11) of Him who works (energizes; but especially in and among material previously given, as here, in His material creation, and in the spirits of all flesh, also His creation) all things (not to be restricted, as Grot., to the matter here in hand, but universally predicated) according to the counsel of His will (the βουλή here answers to the εὐδοκία ver. 5,— the definite shape which the will assumes when decided to action— implying in this case the union of sovereign will with infinite wisdom), 12. in order that we (here first expressed, as distinguished from ὑμεῖς , ver. 13: see below) should be to the praise of His glory (see on ver. 6 and ver. 14 below), namely, we who have before hoped in the Christ (we Jewish-Christians, who, before the Christ came, looked forward to His coming, waiting for the consolation of Israel: cf. especially Acts 28:20, ἕνεκενγὰρτῆςἐλπίδοςτοῦἸσραὴλτὴνἅλυσινταύτηνπερίκειμαι — and 26:6, 7. The objection, that so few thus looked, is fully met by the largeness of St. Paul’ s own expression in this last passage. But this whole interpretation requires defending against opponents. First, the verse is variously punctuated. Harl., and Olsh. even more decidedly, read it εἰςτὸεἶναιἡμᾶς , εἰςἔπαινονδόξ . αὐ ., τοὺςπροηλπ . ἐντῷχρ . But to this it may be objected, (1) that εἰςἔπ . δόξηςαὐ ., occurring as it does again at the end of the whole passage as the final aim of all, cannot with any probability be here merely parenthetical: (2) that above, ver. 6, and below, ver. 14, it, as well as the predestination, has reference to the fulness of the Gospel, not to incomplete prefatory hope in Christ (this would be no objection to De W.’ s view: see below): (3) that thus we should require some demonstrative expression preceding, to mark out these ἡμᾶς , such as ἐνᾧκαὶἐκληρώθημενἡμεῖςοἱπροορισθέντες . The objections which Harl. brings against the ordinary construction are implicitly answered in this exposition. They rest mainly on the mistake of referring ἐκληρώθ . προορισθέντες to the Jewish Christians: see above. De W. denies all reference to Jews and Gentiles,— (1) from the analogy of words compounded with προ - (προ -ακούειν Colossians 1:5, προλέγειν Galatians 5:21; 1 Thessalonians 3:4, προγράφειν Romans 15:4, προεπαγγέλλεσθαι Romans 1:2), which he says indicate always priority as to the thing spoken of (in his idea here merely, ‘ hope previous to the fulfilment of that hope,’ i.e. προ - has no meaning, for all hope must be this), not in comparison with other persons: but (a) this is not true— cf. προελθόντες Acts 20:13, προέχεσθαι , προηγεῖσθαι , προτιθέναι , προάγειν , προπορεύεσθαι ,— and (b) if it were, it does not touch our interpretation— hoped before (Christ’ s coming):— (2) from ver. 13 saying nothing peculiar to Gentile Christians (but see there): (3) from καὶὑμᾶς , in ch. 2:1, and Colossians 1:21, not meaning Gentile Christians, but being merely addressed to the readers generally. But in both these places it is so, merely because other things or persons have just been treated of: whereas here he would understand this ἡμᾶς as including the ὑμεῖς , thus depriving it of the force which it has there). 13. What is the construction? Have we but one sentence, ἐνᾧ … ἐσφραγίσθητε , the two participial clauses being parallel, and both belonging to the verb? so the ff., Beng., De W., Ellic., (by whom the view is well defended and explained,) &c. But this seems to me impossible, from the arrangement. It would require the omission of the second ἐνᾧ , or the placing of the καὶὑμεῖς after ἀκούσαντες . As the sentence now stands, the second ἐνᾧκαί must begin a new sentence, and surely cannot be the mere rhetorical repetition of the first. This being so, we must understand some verb to complete ἐνᾧκαὶὑμεῖς . Nothing can be more usual or more simple than to supply ἐστέ : nothing commoner than ἐνχριστῷεἶναι : nothing better suited to the context than, after putting forward the Jewish believers, to turn to the Gentiles, ‘ Ye also have your part in Christ— our prominence does not exclude you.’ Some supply ἠλπίκατε (Erasm.-ver., Calv., Est., al.), some ἐκληρώθητε (Erasm.-par., Harl., Olsh., al.); but the other is far simpler; and I cannot see how it deserves the charge which Ellicott brings against it, of being “ a statement singularly frigid and out of harmony with the linked and ever-rising character of the context.” It is quite accounted for as above, as forming a link in the context, whose character is well thus described. In whom are ye also (ye Gentile believers) since ye heard (from the time when.… Their hearing was the terminus a quo) the word of the truth (the word whose character and contents are the truth of God: “ quasi extra ipsum nulla esset proprie Veritas,” Calv.: see reff. This word is the instrument of the new birth, James 1:18. See Colossians 1:5, and, above all, John 17:17), (viz.) the Gospel of your salvation (the Gospel whose contents, whose good tidings are your salvation: not a genitive of apposition, as Harl.,— cf. the expressions εὐαγγ . τῆςχάριτοςτ . θεοῦ , Acts 20:24,— τῆςεἰρήνης , ch. 6:15,— τ . βασιλείας , Matthew 9:35,— Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ , Mark 1:1); in whom (belongs to Christ, as the former ἐνᾧ — not to λόγον nor to εὐαγγέλιον ,— nor is ἐνᾧ to be taken with πιστεύσαντες , see below: but with ἐσφραγίσθητε — in whom ye not only are, but were sealed. The ἐνᾧκαὶ … ἐσφραγίσθητε answers exactly to ἐνᾧκαὶἐκληρώθημεν above; πιστεύσαντες not being by this construction rendered superfluous (Mey.); see below) also (belongs to πιστεύσαντεςἐσφραγίσθητε , not to either word alone) on your believing (terminus a quo, as ἀκούσαντες above. Not to be taken with ἐνᾧ (as = εἰςὅν , an usage unknown to St. Paul), for see Acts 19:2, εἰπνεῦμαἅγ . ἐλάβετεπιστεύσαντες ;— ‘ did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed?’ — and Romans 13:11, νῦν … ἐγγύτερονἡμῶνἡσωτηρίαἢὅτεἐπιστεύσαμεν : see also 1 Corinthians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 15:2, 1 Corinthians 15:11; Hebrews 4:3. This use of the aorist marks the time when the act of belief first took place— and it must naturally therefore stand absolutely) ye were sealed (the fact followed on baptism, which was administered on belief in Christ. See the key-passage, Acts 19:1-6. πιστεύσαντες is, and is not, contemporaneous with ἐσφραγίσθητε : it is not, inasmuch as in strict accuracy, faith preceded baptism, and baptism preceded the gift of the Spirit: but it is, inasmuch as on looking back over a man’ s course, the period of the commencement of his faith includes all its accidents and accompaniments. See Ellic.’ s note. The figure of sealing is so simple and obvious, that it is perhaps mere antiquarian pedantry, with Schö ttgen, Grot., and Wetst., to seek for an explanation of it in Gentile practices of branding with the names of their deities, or even in circumcision itself. The sealing was objective, making manifest to others (ὥστεεἶναιδῆλον , ὅτιθεοῦἐστελάχοςκ . κλῆρος , Thl.; so Chr., al.): see John 3:33; Revelation 7:3,— but also subjective, an approval and substantiation of their faith (τὴνβεβαίωσινἐδέξασθε , Theod. Mops.), see Romans 8:16; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 1 John 3:24 b) by the spirit of the promise (i.e. who was ἡἐπαγγελίατοῦπατρός , Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; Galatians 3:14, Galatians 3:22; and I therefore insert the article. This, and not the other alternative, that the Spirit confirms God’ s promises to us, is the true rendering: He was the promise of the O. T. as well as of the N. T.: as Chr.: δύοεἰσὶνἐπαγγελίαι , μίαμὲνδιὰτῶνπροφητῶν , ἑτέραδὲἀπὸτοῦυἱοῦ . To unite together both alternatives as Stier does, weakens the force of the reference of ἐπαγγελίας back to God, so necessary to the context. The fact, that the Spirit is to us the Spirit of promise, is abundantly expressed in the following clause), the Holy One (I have preferred giving the ἁγίῳ separately, feeling with Meyer that there is an emphatic pathos in it which should not he lost in the usual prefix, ‘ the Holy Spirit.’ The Spirit with whom He sealed you is even His own Holy Spirit— what grace, and mercy, and love, is here!) which of the relative clause: see ch. 3:18 reff. and many more examples in Brü der) is the earnest (“ the word signifies the first instalment paid as a pledge that the rest will follow. It is used by the Greek orators, and by the earlier Latin writers, especially Plautus and Terence. A. Gellius [xvii. 2] speaks of it as a word considered in his time [a.d. 120-50] to be vulgar, and superseded by ‘ arra,’ which is the substitute for it in later Latinity. It is remarkable that the same word ע ֵ ר ָ ב ו ֹ ן is used in the same sense in Hebrew, Genesis 38:17, Genesis 38:18, from ע ֵ ר ַ ב to mix or exchange, and thence to pledge, as Jeremiah 30:21; Nehemiah 5:3. It was therefore probably derived by the Greeks from the language of Phenician traders, as tariff, cargo, are derived, in the English and other modern languages, from Spanish traders.” Stanley, on 2 Corinthians 1:22. And so here-the Spirit is the ἀπαρχή , Romans 8:23,— the μέροςτοῦπαντός , as Chrys., or πρόδομα , as Hesych.: the pledge and assurer to us of τὰὑπὸτοῦθεοῦχαρισθένταἡμῖν , 1 Corinthians 2:12, which eye hath not seen, &c.) of our inheritance (here the first person comes in again, and not without reason. The inheritance (see above on ἐκληρώθημεν , which involved the converse idea) belongs to both Jew and Gentile— to all who are the children of Abraham by faith, Galatians 3:28, Galatians 3:29), for (‘ in order to,’ — not ‘ until,’ as E. V.; nor in ch. 4:30: nor does εἰς belong to ὅἐστιν … , but to ἐσφραγίσθητε . These two final clauses express the great purpose of all— not any mere intermediate matter— nor can the Holy Spirit be said to be any such intermediate gift) the full redemption (ἀπολ . is often used by the Apostle in this sense, e.g. ch. 4:30; Romans 8:23, of the full and exhaustive accomplishment of that which the word imports) of His purchased possession (the sense of περιποίησις has been much disputed, and many ungrammatical and illogical renderings of the words given. A full discussion may be seen in Harless’ s note. The senses to be avoided are (1) the nonsensical antiptosis, that ἀπολ . τ . περιπ . = περιποίησιντῆςἀπολυτρώσεως : (2) the equally absurd hendiadys, taking τ . περιποιήσεως for τὴνπεριποιηθεῖσαν , which fits neither the true sense of εἰς , nor the context: (3) the taking περιποιήσεως as active in meaning— ‘ redemptio qua contingat certa vitæ possession Bucer. But this it could not convey to the Apostle’ s readers, unless constructed with some substantive to indicate such a meaning, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:9, where see note. A variety of this is proposed by Grot.— ‘ rescuing,’ i.e. salvation— and defended by Hebrews 10:39, where περιποίησιςψυχῆς is opposed to ἀπώλεια . But besides that there the genitive ψυχῆς fixes the meaning,— the article τῆς here, in my view, is an insuperable objection. (4) the taking περιπ , in a passive sense, as res acquisita— making it therefore = κληρονομία , and giving to ἀπολύτρωσις the sense of entire bestowal, which it cannot have. It remains then, that we seek some technical meaning of περιποίησις , since the obvious etymological ones fail. And such a meaning is found by considering its uses in the O. T. It, and its cognate word περίειμι , are found applied to the people of God, in the sense of a people whom he preserves for Himself as His possession. So Exodus 19:5, ἔσεσθέμοιλαὸςπεριούσιοςἀπὸπάντωντῶνἐθνῶν , Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 14:2; Deuteronomy 26:18;— Ps. 134:4, τὸνἸακὼβἐξελέξατοἑαυτῷὁκύριος , Ἰσραὴλεἰςπεριουσιασμὸνἑαυτῷ — Isaiah 43:21, λαόνμουὃνπεριεποιησάμηντὰςἀρετάςμουδιηγεῖσθαι ,— Malachi 3:17, ἔσονταίμοι , λέγεικύριοςπαντοκρ ., εἰςἡμέραν , ἣνἐγὼποιῶ , εἰςπεριποίησιν , κ . αἱρετιῶαὐτοὺς … κ .τ .λ . In ref. 2 Chron. we have the wider meaning of a remnant generally. The above sense as applied to the people of the Lord, was adopted by the N. T. writers: e.g. St. Paul, Acts 20:28, τὴνἐκκλησίαντ . θεοῦ , ἣνπεριεποιήσατοδιὰτ . αἵματοςτ . ἰδίου ,— St. Peter, 1 Peter 2:9, ὑμεῖς … λαὸςεἰςπεριποίησιν . And such seems to be the meaning here: though no other case can be alleged in which the word stands so absolutely. We must suppose, that it would explain itself to the readers, from their familiarity with O. T. expressions, or with the Apostle’ s own use of it. This view is taken by the Syr., Œ c., Erasm., Calv., Grot., and most Commentators, also by De Wette, Harless, Olsh., Meyer, Stier, Ellic. Stier endeavours, as so often, to unite the meanings regarding God, and ourselves,— for that we in being God’ s possession, reserved for survivorship to others, do, in the root of the word, thus survive, are thus saved: and undoubtedly this is so, but is not the leading idea) for the praise of His glory . See the typico-historical connexion of this wonderful passage with the patriarchal, legal, and prophetic periods, unfolded in Stier, i. pp. 129-136. I would not be understood to subscribe to all there advanced: but though his parallelism sometimes borders on the fanciful, the connexion is too striking to be altogether set aside by the real student of Scripture. (B) vv. 15-23. 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. 15, 16. Introduction to the prayer. Wherefore (i.e., on account of what has gone before since ver. 3: but especially of what has been said since ver. 13, where καὶὑμεῖς first came in:— because ye are in Christ, and in Him were sealed, &c.) I also (κἀγώ , either as resuming the first person after the second, going back to the ἐκληρώθημεν ver. 11,— or as corresponding to καὶὑμεῖς above:— not, as Mey., al., because he is sensible that in thus praying for them he is helping their prayers for themselves) having heard of (on the indication supposed to be furnished by this respecting the readers, see Prolegg. § ii. 12) the faith among you in the Lord Jesus (καθ ʼ ὑμᾶς is not = ὑμετέραν , as ordinarily rendered (even by Meyer), either here or any where else: cf. the example which Mey. quotes from Thuc. vi. 16, τῷκατ ʼ αὐτοὺςβίῳ , ‘ the life which prevails among them:’ Ellic. compares, for the distinction, τῷνόμῳτῷὑμετέρῳ , addressed to Pharisees, John 8:17, with νόμουτοῦκαθ ʼ ὑμᾶς , said with reference to Jews in Achaia, Acts 18:15: nor is ‘ among you’ merely local (chez vous), but is partitive, implying the possibility of some not having this faith, and thus intensifying the prayer which follows) and [your love which is] towards all the saints cease not giving thanks for you, making mention (of them,— viz. your faith and love) in (see reff. ‘ In ἐπί with a genitive, the apparent temporal reference partakes somewhat of the local reference of juxtaposition.’ Bernhardy, p. 216) my (ordinary, see Romans 1:9 note) prayers. 17. purpose (including also the purport, see note on 1 Corinthians 14:13, and Ellicott’ s note here) of the prayer:— that (depends on the sense of μνείανποι . ἐπὶτ . προσευχῶν , implying that a prayer for them took place) the God of our Lord Jesus Christ , the Father of glory (not merely the auctor, fons, of glory, Grot., Olsh.: still less = πατὴρἔνδοξος : nor with Chrys. to be explained ὁμεγάλαἡμῖνδεδωκὼςἀγαθά · ἀπὸγὰρτῶνὑποκειμένωνἀεὶαὐτὸνκαλεῖ , ὡς , ὅτανλέγῃὁπατὴρτῶνοἰκτιρμῶν : nor is δόξης to be understood of the divine nature of Christ, as Thdrt.: θεὸνμὲνὡςἀνθρώπου , πατέραδὲὡςθεοῦ , δόξανγὰρτὴνθείανφύσινὠνόμασεν : for this would require τ . δόξηςαὐτοῦ : but God is the Father,— by being the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,— of that glory, the true and all-including glory, and only glory, of the Godhead, which shone forth in the manhood of the only-begotten Son (John 1:14),— the true Shechinah, which His saints beheld in the face of Christ, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 4:6, and into which they are changed by the Lord the Spirit, ib. 3:18. In fact, 2 Corinthians 3:7-6, is the key to this sublime expression), would give has preceded, is very simple. It 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 Herod. ii. 93, καταπλώουσιἐςθάλασσαν , κ . ἀναπλώοντεςὀπίσωτῆςαὐτῆςἀντέχονται , … ἵναδὴμὴἁμάρτοιεντῆςὁδοῦδιὰτὸνῥόον . See Klotz, Devar. p. 622) to you the Spirit (certainly it would not be right to take πνεῦμα here as solely the Holy Spirit, nor as solely the spirit of man: rather is it the complex idea, of the spirit of man indwelt by the Spirit of God, so that as such, it is His special gift, see below) of wisdom (not, which gives wisdom, but which possesses it as its character— q. d. to which appertains wisdom) and of revelation (i.e. that revelation which belongs to all Christians: see 1 Corinthians 2:10 ff.: not the χαρίσματα of the early Church, as Olsh.,— nor could the Apostle be alluding to any thing so trivial and fleeting, see 1 Corinthians 13:12. To those who are taught of God’ s Spirit, ever more and more of His glories in Christ are revealed, see John 16:14, John 16:15) in (belongs to δῴη : as the element and sphere of the working of this gift of the Spirit) the full knowledge (for the distinction between γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις , see 1 Corinthians 13:12) of Him refers to the Father,— not to Christ, as Beza, Calv, al.; cf. αὐτοῦ four times in vv. 18, 19: Christ first becomes thus designated in ver. 20), having the eyes of your heart enlightened (the construction is as in Soph. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ 2:1-22. (See on ch. 1:3.) Course and progress of the Church through the Son; consisting mainly in the receiving of believers in the new man Christ Jesus— setting forth on one side the death and ruin in which they were;— on the other, the way to life opened to them by the finished work of Christ. This throughout the chapter, which is composed (as ch. 1) of two parts— the first, more doctrinal and assertive (vv. 1-10), the second more hortative and reminiscent (vv. 11-22). In both, the separate cases of Gentiles and Jews, and the present union in Christ, are treated of. And herein. A. 1-10. 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 (8-10). 1, 2. Actual state of the Gentiles— dead in trespasses and sins, living under the power of the devil. 1. You also (καί is much more than merely copulative. It selects and puts into prominence ὑμᾶς , from among the recipients of God’ s grace implied in vv. 19-22 of the former chapter. See below), who were (“ ὄντας clearly marks the state in which they were at the time when God quickened them: this in ver. 5 is brought prominently forward by the καί : here however καί is joined with and gives prominence to ὑμᾶς . A simple indication, then, of their state, without any temporal or causal adjunct, ‘ when,’ ‘ whereas,’ &c., seems in the present case most satisfactory, as less calling away the attention from the more emphatic ὑμᾶς .” Ellicott, edn. 1) dead (certainly not, as Meyer, ‘ subject to (physical) death:’ the whole of the subsequent mercy of God in His quickening them is spiritual, and therefore of necessity the death also. That it involves physical death, is most true; but as I have often had occasion to remark (see e.g. on John 11:25, John 11:26), this latter is so subordinate to spiritual death, as often hardly to come into account in Scripture) in [your] trespasses and sins : and we want a distinction which shall embrace this case. Another question concerns the construction of this accusative clause. Some (Beng., Lachm., Harl.) consider it as a continuation of ch. 1:23, and place a comma only at πληρουμένου . But (see our division of the sense) the sentence evidently finishes with πληρουμένου , and a new subject is here taken up. The simplest view seems to be the usual one, that the Apostle began with the accusative, intending to govern it by συνεζωοποίησεντῷχριστῷ , but was led away by the relative clauses, ἐναἷςποτὲ … , ἐνοἷςκαὶἡμεῖς … , and himself takes up the dropped thread of the construction by ὁδὲθεὸς … , ver. 4. So Erasm.: “ hyperbati longioris ambitum ipse correxit Apostolus dicens ‘ Deus autem qui dives est’ … ” At all events, the clause should be left, in translation, pendent, as it stands, and not filled in conjecturally), 2. in which (ἁμαρτίαις , the last substantive, but applying in fact to both) ye once walked (we hardly need, as Eadie, al., go back every time to the figure in περιπατεῖν — the word has become with the Apostle so common in its figurative sense. See Fritzsche’ s note, Rom. vol. iii. p. 140) according to (after the leading of, conformably to) the course (so E. V.: the very best word, as so often. The meaning of αἰών here is compounded of its temporal and its ethical sense: it is not exactly ‘ lifetime,’ ‘ duration,’ nor again ‘ fashion,’ ‘ spirit,’ but some common term which will admit of being both temporally and ethically characterized,— ‘ career’ or ‘ course.’ Beware 1) of taking αἰῶνα and κόσμου as synonymous, and the expression as a pleonasm (“ utrumque nominat, seculum et mundum, cum sufficeret alterum dixisse,” Estius), 2) of imagining, as Michaelis and Baur, that the expression is a gnostic one, the æ on being the devil: for, as Meyer remarks, the ordinary sense of αἰών gives a good meaning, and one characteristic of St. Paul. See Galatians 1:4, for a use of αἰών — somewhat similar, but more confined to the temporal meaning) of this world (St. Paul generally uses ὁκόσμος , but has ὁκ . οὗτος in 1 Corinthians 3:19; 1 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:31. It designates the present system of things, as alien from God, and lying in the evil one), according to the ruler of the power of the air (the devil— the θεὸςτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου , 2 Corinthians 4:4, is clearly meant: but it is difficult exactly to dissect the phrase, and give each word its proper meaning. ἐξουσία appears to be used here as ὁμηλικίη in Homer, ἡλικία , ἑταιρία , δουλεία , ὑπηρεσίασυμμαχία , and the like, to represent the aggregate of those in power: as we say, ‘ the government.’ So that all such renderings as ‘ princeps potentissimus’ are to be at once dismissed. So also is every explanation which would ascribe to the Apostle a polemical, or distantly allusive tendency, in an expression which he manifestly uses as one of passage merely, and carrying its own familiar sense to his readers. This against Michaelis, and all who have imagined an allusion to the gnostic ideas— and Wetst., who says, “ Paulus ita loquitur ex principiis philosophiæ Pythagoreæ , quibus illi ad quos scribit imbuti erant.” Not much better are those who refer the expression to Rabbinical ideas for its source. The different opinions and authorities (which would far exceed the limits of a general commentary) may be seen cited and treated in Harless, Stier, and Eadie. I am disposed to seek my interpretation from a much more obvious source: viz. the persuasion and common parlance of mankind, founded on analogy with well-known facts. (Ellic., edn. 2, disapproves this, but without sufficiently attending to my explanation which follows, which, as in so many cases where he imagines a difference between our interpretations, is practically the same as his own,) We are tempted by evil spirits, who have access to us, and suggest thoughts and desires to our minds. We are surrounded by the air, which is the vehicle of speech and of all suggestions to our senses. Tried continually as we are by these temptations, what so natural, as to assign to their ministers a dwelling in, and power over that element which is the vehicle of them to us? And thus our Lord, in the parable of the sower, when He would represent the devil coming and taking away the seed out of the heart, figures him by τὰπετεινὰτοῦοὐρανοῦ . The Apostle then, in using this expression, would be appealing to the common feeling of his readers, not to any recondite or questionable system of dæ monology. That traces are found in such systems, of a belief agreeing with this, is merely a proof that they have embodied the same general feeling, and may be used in illustration, not as the ground, of the Apostle’ s saying. All attempts to represent ἀήρ as meaning ‘ darkness,’ or ‘ spirit,’ are futile, and beside the purpose. The word occurs (see reff.) six more times in the N. T. and no where in any but its ordinary meaning), of the spirit (τῆςἐξουσίας being used as designating (see above) the personal aggregate of those evil ones who have this power, τοῦπνεύματος , in apposition with it, represents their aggregate character, as an influence on the human mind, a spirit of ungodliness and disobedience,— the πνεῦματοῦκόσμου of 1 Corinthians 2:12,— the aggregate of the πνεύματαπλάνα of 1 Timothy 4:1. So that (against Harless) the meaning of πνεύματος , though properly and strictly objective, almost passes into the subjective, when it is spoken of as ἐνεργοῦντοςἐνκ .τ .λ . And this will account for the otherwise harsh conjunction of ἄρχοντατοῦπνεύματος . As he (the devil) is the ruler of τὰπνεύματα , whose aggregate τὸπνεῦμα is,— so he is the ἄρχων of the thoughts and ways of the ungodly,— of that πνεῦμα which works in them. The genitive, πνεύματος , must not be taken, as by many Commentators and by Rü ckert, as in apposition with ἄρχοντα , by the Apostle’ s negligence of construction. No such assumption should ever be made without necessity; and there is surely none here) which is now (i.e ‘ still:’ contrast to ποτέ ,— to you, who have escaped from his government: no allusion need be thought of to the interval before the παρουσία being that of the hottest conflict between the principles (2 Thessalonians 2:7. Revelation 12:12), as De W.) working in the sons of (the expression is a Hebraism, but is strictly reproduced in the fact: that of which they are sons, is the source and spring of their lives, not merely an accidental quality belonging to them) disobedience (the vulg. renders it diffidentia, but unfortunately, as also Luther Unglaube; for both here and in ch. 5:6, it is practical conduct which is spoken of. Doubtless unbelief is the root of disobedience: but it is not here expressed, only implied. In Deuteronomy 9:23, ἠπειθήσατετῷῥήματικυρίουτ . θεοῦὑμῶν , and the allusion to it in Hebrews 4:6, οἱπρότερονεὐαγγελισθέντεςοὐκεἰσῆλθονδι ʼ ἀπείθειαν , we have the disobedience in its root— here, in its fruits— cf. ver. 3, ποιοῦντεςτὰθελήματακ .τ .λ .): 3. among whom we also all (who? The usage of ἡμεῖςπάντες by St. Paul must decide. It occurs Romans 4:16, ὅςἐστινπατὴρπάντωνἡμῶν , undeniably for Jews and Gentiles included (for the slight difference arising from πάντων being first, and therefore emphatic, need not be insisted on): 8:32, ὑπὲρἡμῶνπάντωνπαρέδωκεναὐτόν , where the universal reference is as undeniable: 1 Corinthians 12:13, where it is still more marked: ἡμεῖςπάντες · … εἴτεἸουδαῖοιεἴτεἝλληνες , εἴτεδοῦλοιεἴτεἐλεύθεροι : 2 Corinthians 3:18, equally undoubted. It can hardly then be that here he should have departed from his universal usage, and placed an unmeaning πάντες after ἡμεῖς merely to signify, ‘ we Jews, every one of us.’ I therefore infer that by ἡμεῖςπάντες , he means, we all, Jews and Gentiles alike; all, who are now Christians) lived our life (reff. especially 2 Cor.) once, in (as in ref. 1 Pet., of the element, in which: in 2 Corinthians 1:12, the same double use of ἐν , of the place, and the element, is found) the desires of our flesh (of our unrenewed selves, under the dominion of the body and the carnal soul. See a contrast, Galatians 5:16), doing the wishes (the instances in which τὸθέλημα manifested itself: see reff.) of our flesh and of our thoughts (the plural use is remarkable. There appears to be a reference to Numbers 15:39, οὐδιαστραφήσεσθεὀπίσωτῶνδιανοιῶνὑμῶν . In Isaiah 55:9, a distinction is made, ἀπέχει … τὰδιανοήματαὑμῶνἀπὸτῆςδιανοίαςμου , which is useful here, as pointing to διάνοιαι as an improper use for διανοήματα ,— the instrument for its results. Thus ‘ thoughts’ will be our nearest word— those phases of mind which may or may not affect the will, but which then in our natural state we allowed to lead us by the desires they excited), and were (the change of construction has been remarked by the best Commentators as intentional, not of negligence,— “ to give emphasis to the weighty clause that follows, and to disconnect it from any possible relation to present time, ‘ we were children of wrath by nature,— it was once our state and condition, it is now so no longer.’  ” Ellicott. And Eadie remarks: “ Had he written καὶὄντες , as following out the idea of ποιοῦντες , there might have been a plea against the view of innate depravity (see below)— ‘ fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and being,’ or ‘ so being, children of wrath.’ But the Apostle says καὶἤμεθα — ‘ and we were,’ at a point of time prior to that indicated in ποιοῦντες ” ) children (not = υἱοί , but implying closer relation. The effect of the expression is to set those of whom it is predicated, beneath, in subjection to, as it were, the products of, ὀργή . So in the passages adduced by Harl.;— Deuteronomy 25:2, א ִ ם ־ ב ּ ִ ן ה ַ כ ּ ו ֹ ת , ‘ if he be the son of stripes,’ i.e. not as LXX and E. V. ἄξιοςπληγῶν , but actually beaten:— 1 Samuel 20:31, ב ּ ֶ ן ־ מ ָ ו ֶ ת ה ו ּ א , ‘ he is the son of death,’ — i.e. as we express it, ‘ he is a dead man,’ anticipating the effect of that which seems to be certain) by nature (the meaning of φύσει is disputed. Some of the ancients (Cyr., Œ c., Thl.), and Grot. took it as = ὄντως , ἀληθῶς , which meaning it never bears; see on Galatians 4:8. Others (Holzhausen, Hoffm.) would join it with ὀργῆς ,— ‘ anger, which arises from the ungodly natural life:’ but as Mey. remarks, even granting this use of φύσις , this would require τῆςτῇφύσειὀργῆς or τῆςἐκτῆςφύσ . ὀργῆς . It can then only mean, ‘ by nature.’ And what does this imply? Harl., in loc., seems to have given the distinctive sense well: “ φύσις , in its fundamental idea, is that which has grown as distinguished from that which has been effected (das Gewordene in Gegensass zum Gemachten), i.e. it is that which according to our judgment has the ground of its existence in individual development, not in accessory influence of another. Accordingly, φύσις , in its concrete idea, as the sum total of all growth, is ‘ rerum natura:’ and in its abstract philosophical idea, φύσις is the contrast to θέσις . The φύσις of an individual thing denotes the peculiarity of its being, which is the result of its being, as opposed to every accessory quality: hence φύσειεἶνσι or ποιεῖντι means, ‘ sua sponte facere, esse aliquid’ and ‘ natura esse aliquid:’ to be and do any thing by virtue of a state or an inclination , not acquired, but inherent: ἔξοιδακαὶφύσεισεμὴπεφυκότα | τοιαῦταφωνεῖν , μηδὲτεχνᾶσθαικακά , Soph. Philoct. 80.” If this be correct, the expression will amount to an assertion on the part of the Apostle of the doctrine of original sin. There is from its secondary position no emphasis on φύσει : but its doctrinal force as referring to a fundamental truth otherwise known, is not thereby lessened. And it is not for Meyer to argue against this by assuming original sin not to be a pauline doctrine. If the Apostle asserts it here, this place must stand on its own merits, not be wrested to suit an apparent preconceived meaning of other passages. But the truth is, he cites those other passages in a sense quite alien from their real one. It would be easy to shew that every one of them (Romans 1:18; Romans 2:8, Romans 2:9; Romans 5:12; Romans 7:9; Romans 11:21.Galatians 2:15 Galatians 2:15) is consistent with the doctrine here implied. The student will do well to read the long notes in Harl., De W., Stier, and Eadie) of wrath (whose wrath, is evident: the meaning being, we were all concluded under and born in sin, and so actual objects of that wrath of God which is His mind against sin. ὀργή must not be taken as = τιμωρία , κόλασις , as Chrys., Thdrt., Basil, Thl., al.: this would in fact make the expression mean, actually punished: see above on τέκνα ;— just as it now means, the actual objects of God’ s wrath against sin), as also are (not, were) the rest (of mankind: not Gentiles, as those hold who take the ἡμεῖςπάντες of Jews,— see above: nor, as Stier, the rest of the Jews who disbelieved: but, all others, not like us, Christians). 4. The construction is resumed, having been interrupted (see above on ver. 1) by the two relative sentences, ἐναἷς … ἐνοἷς . But (contrast to the preceding verse,— the ἔλεος and ἀγάπη , to the ὀργή just mentioned, δέ is, however, often used after a parenthesis where no such logical contrast is intended, the very resumption of the general subject being a contrast to its interruption by the particular clauses: see examples in Klotz, Devarius, II. 376, 7) God, being rich (the participial clause states the general ground, and the following διὰτ . πολλ . ἀγ ., the special or peculiar motive, of συνεζωοπ ., De W.) in compassion (for ἐν , see reff. οὐχἁπλῶςἐλεήμων , ἀλλὰπλούσιος · καθάπερκαὶἐνἑτέρῳ (Psalms 5:7; Psalms 68:13) φησὶνἘντῷπλήθειτοῦἐλέουςσου · κ . πάλιν (Psalms 1:1) Ἐλέησόνμεκατὰτὸμέγαἔλεόςσου , Chrys. ἔλεος , properly, as applying to our wretchedness before: cf. Ezekiel 16:6),— on account of His great love wherewith (the construction may be attractive: but it would appear from ref. 2 Kings, to be rather a Hellenistic idiom) He loved us (the clause belongs, not to πλού . ὢνἐνἐλ ., as Calv., al., and E. V. necessarily, by ‘ hath quickened’ following; but to the verb below. ἡμᾶς are all Christians; = ἡμεῖςπάντες in the last verse) even when we were dead (the καί belongs to, and intensifies, the state predicated by ὄνταςνεκρούς ; and is therefore placed before the participle. It is not to be taken as a mere resumption of ver. 1 (Rü ck., al.), nor as the copula only (Meyer). His objection to the above rendering, that a quickening to life can happen only in and from a state of death, and therefore no emphasis on such a state is required, is entirely removed by noticing that the emphasis is not on the mere fact ἐζωοποίησεν ,— but on συνεζ . τῷχριστῷ , with all its glorious consequences) in our (τοῖς , the π . which we committed) trespasses (see on ver. 1), vivified (not ‘ hath vivified’ — a definite act in time, not an abiding consequence is spoken of) us together with Christ (the reading ἐντ . χρ . (see var. readd.) seems to have arisen either from repetition of the -εν in συνεζωοποίησεν , or from conformation to ver. 6. It is clearly not allowable to render χριστῷ , in Christ, as Beza,— without the preposition. It is governed by the συν -, and implies not exactly as Chrys., ἐζωοποίησεκἀκεῖνονκυὶἡμᾶς ,— but that Christ was the Resurrection and the Life, and we follow in and because of Him. The disputes about the meaning ἐζωοποίησεν have arisen from not bearing in mind the relation in N. T. language between natural and spiritual death. We have often had occasion to observe that spiritual death in the N. T. includes in it and bears with it natural death as a consequence, to such an extent that this latter is often not thought of as worth mentioning: see especially John 11:25, John 11:26, which is the key-text for all passages regarding life in Christ. So here— 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. Our spiritual life is the primary subject of the Apostle’ s thought: but this includes in itself our share in the resurrection and exaltation (ver. 6) of Christ. The three aorists, συνεζωοποίησεν , συνήγειρεν , συνεκάθισεν , are all proleptical as regards the actuation in each man, but equally describe a past and accomplished act on God’ s part when He raised up Christ)— by grace ye are saved (this insertion in the midst of the mention of such great unmerited mercies to us sinners, is meant emphatically to call the reader’ s attention to so cogent a proof of that which the Apostle ever preached as the great foundation truth of the Gospel. Notice the perf. ‘ are saved,’ not σώζεσθε , ‘ are being saved,’ because we have passed from death unto life: salvation is to the Christian not a future but a past thing, realized in the present by faith)— and raised us together with Him (the Resurrection of Christ being the next event consequent on His vivification in the tomb) and seated us together with Him (the Ascension being the completion of the Resurrection. So that all three verbs refer strictly to the same work wrought on Christ, and in Christ on all His mystical Body, the Church) in the heavenly places (see on ch. 1:3, 20. “ Obiter observa, non dixisse Apostolum: ‘ et consedere fecit ad dexteram suam,’ sicut superiori capite de Christo dixerat: sedere enim ad dexteram Patris Christo proprium est; nec cuiquam alteri communicatur: tametsi in throno Christi dicantur sessuri qui vicerint, Apoc. iii. in fine.” Estius: and so Bengel) in Christ Jesus (as again specifying the element in which, as united and included in which, we have these blessings which have been enumerated— ἐνχρ . as in ch. 1:3, does not (Eadie) belong to τ . ἐπουρ . but to the verb, as an additional qualification, and recalling to the fact of our union in Him as the medium of our resurrection and glorification. The disputes as to whether these are to be taken as present or future, actual or potential, literal or spiritual, will easily be disposed of by those who have apprehended the truth of the believer’ s union in and with Christ. All these we have, in fact and reality (see Philippians 3:20), in their highest, and therefore in all lower senses, in Him: they were ours, when they were His: but for their fulness in possession we are waiting till He come, when we shall be like and with Him), 7. that He might shew forth (see Romans 9:23: and for ἐνδείξηται , reff. The middle voice gives the reference which the English sentence itself implies, that the exhibition is for His own purpose, for His own glory (see ch. 1:6, 12, 14)— see note on Colossians 2:15. This meaning of præ se ferre is illustrated by Liddell and Scott sub voce: or far better by Palm and Rost, Lex. Beware of the rendering ‘ might give a specimen of, (Rü ckert, Eadie), which the word will not bear either here or in reff.) in the ages which are hereafter to come (what are they? the future periods of the Church’ s earthly career,— or the ages of the glorified Church hereafter? The answer must be given by comparing this with the very similar expression in Colossians 1:26, Colossians 1:27, … τὸμυστήριοντὸἀποκεκρυμμένονἀπὸτῶναἰώνωνκ . ἀπὸτῶνγενεῶν , νυνὶδὲἐφανερώθητοῖςἁγίοιςαὐτοῦ , οἷςἠθέλησενὁθεὸςγνωρίσαιτίςὁπλοῦτοςτῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦκ .τ .λ . Here it is manifest (1) that the αἰῶνες from which the mystery was hidden are the past ages of this world; (2) that those to whom, as here, God will make known the riches of His glory, are His saints, i.e. His church on earth. Therefore I conceive we are compelled to interpret analogously: viz. to understand the αἰῶνεςἐπερχόμενοι of the coming ages of the church, and the persons involved in them to be the future members of the church. Thus the meaning will be nearly as in ch. 1:12. The supposed reference to the future state of glory seems not to agree with αἰῶνες , nor with ἐπερχόμενοι :— nor with the fact that the second coming and future kingdom of Christ are hardly ever alluded to in this Epistle) the exceeding riches of His grace in (of the material of which this display of His grace will consist, the department in which it will find its exercise) goodness (see especially Romans 2:4) towards us in (not ‘ through,’ as E. V.) Christ Jesus (again and again he repeats this “ in Christ Jesus:” HE is the great centre of the Epistle, towards whom all the rays of thought converge, and from whom all blessings flow; and this the Apostle will have his readers never forget). 8. For by grace ye are (perf.) saved, through [your] (or [the], but the possessive article is preferable, see below: ‘ the’ would make both objective. The abstract, ‘ through faith,’ must be the rendering if the article be omitted) faith (the dative above expressed the objective instrumental condition of your salvation,— this διὰ the subjective medial condition: it has been effected by grace and apprehended by faith): and this (not your faith, as Chrys. οὐδὲἡπίστις , φησίν , ἐξὑμῶν : so Thdrt., al., Corn.-a-Iap., Beza, Est., Grot., Beng., all.;— this is precluded (not by the gender of τοῦτο , but) by the manifestly parallel clauses οὐκἐξὑμῶν and οὐκἐξἔργων , of which the latter would be irrelevant as asserted of πίστις , and the reference of ver. 9 must therefore be changed:— but, as Calv., Calov., Rü ck., Harl., Olsh., Mey., De W., Stier, al., ‘ your salvation;’ τὸσεσωσμένοιεἶναι , as Ellic.) not of yourselves, God’ s (emphatic) is the gift ,— τὸδῶρον , viz. of your salvation: so that the expression is pregnant— q. d., ‘ but it is a gift, and that gift is God’ s.’ There is no occasion, as Lachm., Harl., and De W., to parenthesize these words: they form a contrast to οὐκἐξὑμ ., and a quasi-parallel clause to ἵναμήτιςκαυχήσ . below): not of works (for ἐξἔργων , see on Romans 3:4, and Galatians 2:16), that no man should boast (on the proposition implied, see on Romans 4:2. ἵνα , has in matter of fact its strictest telic sense. With God, results are all purposed; it need not be understood, when we predicate of Him a purpose in this manner, that it was His main or leading aim;— but it was one of those things included in His scheme, which ranked among His purposes). 10. For (substantiates vv. 8, 9. The English reader is likely to imagine a contrast between ‘ not of works’ and ‘ for we are His workmanship,’ which can hardly have been in the mind of the Apostle) his handywork are we (ποίημα , not, as Tert. and al., of our original creation: “ quod vivimus, quod spiramus, quod intelligimus, quod credere possumus, ipsius est, quia ipse conditor noster est,” Pelagius, in Harl.: this is clearly refuted by the defining clause below, κτισθ . κ .τ .λ ., and the ποίημα shewn to be the spiritual creation treated of in vv. 8, 9), created in Christ Jesus (see ver. 15, ἵνατοὺςδύοκτίσῃἐναὐτῷεἰςἕνακαινὸνἄνθρωπον , and cf. Titus 3:5, where the beginning of this new life is called παλιγγενεσία . See also 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15) for (see reff.: so Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 3, καλεῖαὐτοὺςἐπὶξενία . See Winer, edn. 6, § 48, c. e; Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 475) good works (just as a tree may be said to be created for its fruit: see below), which, (attraction for ἅ : not ‘ for which,’ which would require ἡμᾶς after the verb) God before prepared (‘ ante paravit, quam conderet.’ Fritz., in Ellic. So Philo, de Opif. 25, vol. i. p. 18, ὁθεὸςτὰἐνκόσμῳπάνταπροητοίμασεν : Wisd. 9:8, μίμημασκηνῆςἁγίαςἣνπροητοίμασαςἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς . The sentiment is the same as that in John 5:36, τὰἔργαἃἔδωκένμοιὁπατὴρἵνατελειώσωαὐτά . To recur to the similitude used above, we might say of the trees,— they were created for fruits which God before prepared that they should bear them: i.e. defined and assigned to each tree its own, in form, and flavour, and time of bearing. So in the course of God’ s providence, our good works are marked out for and assigned to each one of us. See the doctrine of præ -existence in God explained in Delitzsch’ s biblische Psychologie, p. 23 ff. Stier’ s view, after Bengel, is that the verb προητ . is neuter, having no accusative after it,— ‘ for which God made preparation, &c.:’ but this usage of the compound verb wants example) that we should walk in them. Thus the truth of the maxim “ bona opera non præ cedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum” (see Harl.) is shewn. The sentiment is strictly pauline (against De W. and Baur),— in the spirit of Rom_12, Galatians 5:22, Galatians 5:25, &c. B. 11-22. Hortatory expansion of the foregoing into detail: reminding them, what they once were (vv. 11, 12); what they were now in Christ (vv. 13-22). 11. Wherefore (since so many and great blessings are given by God to His people, among whom ye are) remember, that once ye, the (i.e. who belonged to the category of the) Gentiles in the flesh (i.e. in their corporeal condition of uncircumcision: ‘ præ putium profani hominis indicium est,’ Calv.— construction see below), who are called (the) uncircumcision by that which is called (the) circumcision in the flesh wrought by hands (this last addition ἐνσαρκὶχειρ . seems made by the Apostle, not to throw discredit on circumcision, but as a reserve, περιτομή having a higher and spiritual application: q.d.— ‘ but they have it only in the flesh, and not in the heart.’ As Ellic. well states the case— “ The Gentiles were called, and were the ἀκροβυστία : the Jews were called, but were not truly the περιτομή .” See Colossians 2:11), 12. that ye were at that time (when ye were,— not τὰἔθνηἐνσαρκί , which ye are now, and which is carefully divided from ποτέ above by ὑμεῖς ,— but that which is implied in ποτέ ,— heathens, before your conversion to Christ. On the dative of time without the preposition ἐν , see Kü hner, vol. ii. § 569, and remarks on its difference from the genitive and accusative) without Christ (separate from, having no part in, the promised Messiah. That this is the sense, is evident from ver. 13: see below. The words χωρ . χρ . are not a defining clause to ἦτεἀπηλλοτρ ., as Lachmann points them, and De W. and Eadie render: ‘ that ye were, being without Christ, &c.’ The arrangement would thus be harsh and clumsy beyond all precedent) alienated from (οὐκεἶπε , κεχωρισμένοι … πολλὴτῶνῥημάτωνἡἔμφασις , πολὺνδεικνῦσατὸνχωρισμόν . ἐπεὶκαὶἸσραηλῖταιτῆςπολιτείαςἦσανἐκτός , ἀλλ ʼ οὐχὡςἀλλότριοιἀλλ ʼ ὡςῥᾴθυμοι , κ . τῶνδιαθηκῶνἐξέπεσον , ἀλλ ʼ οὐχὡςξένοι , ἀλλὡςἀνάξιοι , Chr. 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) the commonwealth (πολιτεία is both polity, state (objective),— τῶντὴνπόλινοἰκούντωντάξιςτις , Aristot. Polit. iii. 1,— and right of citizenship, ref. Acts. The former appears best here, on account of ἀπηλλοτρ ., which seems to require as its reference an objective external reality) of Israel (either as synonymous genitive, ‘ that commonwealth which is designated by the term Israel,’ or possessive (as Ellic.) ‘ that commonwealth which Israel possessed.’ I prefer the former, as more simple) and strangers from (so Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 219, ἃ ʼ γὼξένοςμὲντοῦλόγουτοῦδ ʼ ἐξερῶ , ξένοςδὲτοῦπραχθέντος . The genitive may be explained either 1) as one of the quality, as in μέλεοςἥβης , εὐδαίμωνμοίρας ,— or as 2) one of privation = negative of possession, ξένος being resolved into οὐμέτοχος . This latter is perhaps the best. See Bernhardy, p. 171 ff.; Kü hner, ii. 163) the covenants of the promise (τίνεςἦσαναἱδ . τ . ἐπ .; “ Σοὶκ . τῷσπέρματίσουδώσωτ . γῆνταύτην ,” κ . ὅσαἕτεραἐπηγγείλατο , Chrys. See note on Romans 9:4. The meaning here, as there, has been mistaken (Calv. al.) to be ‘ the two tables of the law.’ Cf. Wisd. 18:22; Sir. 44:11), not having (μή on account of the subjective colouring given to the whole sentence by μνημονεύετε . So in ἀπιστοῦντεςαὐτὸνμὴἥξειν , Thuc. ii. 101: ὃἂνγνῶσιδυνάμενονμὲνχάρινἀποδιδόναι , μὴἀποδιδόνταδέ , Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 7: ψυχὴνσκοπῶνφιλόσοφόντεκαὶμή , Plato, Rep. p. 486 b. See Winer, § 55. 5; Kü hner, ii. § 715. 3) hope (not ‘ covenanted hope’ (τὴνἐλπ .),— but ‘ hope’ at all. The emphatic position of ἐλπίδα makes this the more necessary) and without God (this is the best rendering, as it leaves ἄθεος in its latitude of meaning. It may be taken either 1) actively, ‘ denying God,’ ‘ atheist,’ 2) in a neuter sense (see Ellic.)— ‘ ignorant of God’ , or 3) passively, ‘ forsaken of God’ . This latter meaning is best here, on account of the passive character of the other descriptive clauses) in the world . 13. But now in Christ (not merely ἐνχριστῷ as you were χωρὶςχριστοῦ , but more— in a personal Messiah, whom you know as) Jesus ye who once were far off were brought (keep the historic tense: it is the effect of a definite event of which he is speaking. The passive sense of the passive form ἐγενήθητε is well kept where the context justifies it, but must not always be pressed: see Ellic.’ s note on ch. 3:7) near (it was a common Jewish way of speaking, to designate the Gentiles as ‘ far off.’ So Bereshith rabba, in Schö ttg., Hor. Heb. in locum, ‘ Quicunque gentilem appropinquare facit, eumque ad religionem Judaicam perducit, idem est ac si creasset ipsum.’ See also reff. Isa. and Dan.) in (or the instrument by which, but more— the symbol of a fact in which— the seal of a covenant in which,— your nearness to God consists. I prefer ‘ in’ to ‘ by,’ as wider, and better representing the Apostle’ s idea. The difference between ἐν here and διὰ in ch. 1:7 is, that there the blood of Christ is spoken of specifically, as the medium of our ἀπολύτρωσις — here inclusively, as representing the ἀπολύτρωσις . ἐν would have served there, and διὰ here, but the logical exactness of both would have been weakened by the change) the blood of Christ (see remarks on ch. 1:7). 14. For He (there certainly is an emphasis on αὐτός , as Rü ck., Harl., Mey., Ellic., Eadie, ‘ He and none other.’ This can hardly be denied by any one who will read through the whole from ver. 11, and mark the repetitions, χριστοῦ — χριστῷἸησοῦ — τοῦχριστοῦ , which this αὐτός takes up) is our peace (not by metonymy for εἰρηνοποιός , but in the widest and most literal sense, our peace. He did not make our peace and then retire, leaving us to enjoy that peace,— but is Himself its medium and its substance; His making both one was no external reconciliation, but the taking both, their common nature, on and into Himself,— see ver. 15. Bear in mind the multitude of prophetic passages which connect peace with Him, Isaiah 9:5, Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 52:7; Isaiah 53:5; Isaiah 57:19; Micah 5:5; Haggai 2:9; Zechariah 9:10: also Luke 2:14; John 14:27; John 20:19, John 20:21, John 20:26. And notice that already the complex idea of the whole verse, that of uniting both Jews and Gentiles in one reconciliation to God, begins to appear: for He is our Peace, not only as reconciling Jew to Gentile, not as bringing the far-off Gentile near to the Jew, but as reconciling both, united, to God; as bringing the far-off Gentile, and the near Jew, both into peace with God. For want of observing this the sense has been much obscured: see below) who made (specification, how He is our peace. Better ‘ made,’ than ‘ hath made:’ the latter is true, but it is the historic fact which is here brought out) both (Jews and Gentiles; not ‘ man and God,’ as Stier: cf. vv. 15, 16. Neuter, as abstract,— both things, both elements) one, and threw down the middle wall of the fence (i.e. the middle wall which belonged to— was a necessary part of the carrying out of— the φραγμός . The primary allusion seems to be to the rending of the veil at the crucifixion: not that that veil separated Jew and Gentile, but that it, the chief symbol of separation from God, included in its removal the admission to Him of that one body into which Christ made Jew and Gentile. This complex idea is before the Apostle throughout the sentence: and necessarily; for the reconciliation which Christ effected between Jew and Gentile was in fact only a subordinate step of the great reconciliation of both to God, which He effected by His sacrifice in the flesh,— and in speaking of one he speaks of the other also. The φραγμός , from what has been said above, is more general in sense than the μεσότοιχον ; is in fact the whole arrangement, of which that was but an instrument— the separation itself, consequent on a system of separation: it = therefore the whole legal system, ceremonial and moral, which made the whole separation,— of Jew from Gentile,— and in the background, of both from God), the enmity (not, of Jew and Gentile: so strong a term is not justified as applying to their separation, nor does such a reference satisfy ver. 16,— see there;— but, the enmity in which both were involved against. God, see Romans 8:7. τὴνἔχθ . is in apposition with τὸμεσότ . This enmity was the real cause of separation from God, and in being so, was the inclusive, mediate cause of the separation between Jew and Gentile. Christ, by abolishing the first, abolished the other also: see below) in His flesh (to be joined not with καταργήσας , as most Commentators, which is very harsh, breaking the parallelism, and making the instrumental predication precede the verb, which is not the character of this passage;— but with λύσας . Christ destroyed the μεσ ., i.e. the ἔχθρα , in, or by, His flesh; see on ver. 16, where the same idea is nearly repeated. It was in His crucified flesh, which was ἐνὁμοιώματισαρκὸςἁμαρτίας , that He slew this enmity. The rendering, ‘ the enmity which was in His flesh,’ would certainly in this case require the specifying article τήν , besides being very questionable in sense),— having done away the law of decretory commandments (this law was the φραγμός ,— the great exponent of the ἔχθρα . Its specific nature was that it consisted in commandments, decretorily or dogmatically expressed;— in ἐντολαὶ -ἐν -δόγμασιν . So that we do not require τὸνἐνδόγ . or τῶνἐνδόγ . This law, moral and ceremonial, its decalogue, its ordinances, its rites, was entirely done away in and by the death of Christ. See Colossians 2:13-15, notes. And the end of that κατάργησις was) that He might create the two (Jew and Gentile) in Him (it is somewhat difficult to decide between ἑαυτῷ and αὐτῷ . On the one hand, αὐτῷ is the harder reading: on the other, we have the constant confusion of αὐτ ., αὑτ ., and ἑαυτ ., complicating the question. Whichever be read, the reference clearly must be to Christ, which, with αὐτῷ , is, to say the least, a harsh recurrence to the αὐτός of ver. 14) into one new man (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), making peace (not, between Jew and Gentile: He is ἡεἰρήνηἡμῶν , of us all: see below on ver. 17), and (parallel with the former purpose: not ‘ second purpose’ (Ellic., De W.), which yet must thus be the first. The καί is in fact just as in ver. 14) might reconcile again (most likely this is implied in the ἀπο . We have it only in Colossians 1:20, Colossians 1:21, where the same sense, of reinstating in the divine favour, seems to be intended) both of us in one body (not His own human body, as Chrys. (who however seems to waver,— cf. ἕωςἂνμένωμενἐντῷσώματιτοῦχριστοῦ ,— between this and His mystical body) al.— but the Church, cf. the same expression Colossians 3:15) to God (if this had not been here expressed, the whole reference of the sentence would have been thought to be to the uniting Jews and Gentiles. That it is expressed, now shews that throughout, that union has been thought of only as a subordinate step in a greater reconciliation) by means of the cross (the cross regarded as the symbol of that which was done on and by it), having slain the enmity (ἔχθρα has been taken here to mean the enmity between Jew and Gentile. But see on ver. 15: and let us ask here, was this the enmity which Christ slew at His death? Was this the ἔχθρα , the slaying of which brought in the ἀποκατάλλαξις , as this verse implies? Does such a meaning of ἔχθρα at all satisfy the solemnity of the sentence, or of the next two verses? I cannot think so: and must maintain ἔχθρα here (and if here, then in ver. 15 also) to be 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 a result of it, was done away. Ellicott, who maintained the above opinion in his 1st edn., now agrees with that here insisted on) on it (on the cross: compare Colossians 2:15, notes: not in His body: see above): and having come, He preached (how? when? Obviously after his death, because by that death the peace was wrought. We seek in vain for any such announcement made by Him in person after his resurrection. But we find a key to the expression in John 14:18, οὐκἀφήσωὑμᾶςὀρφανούς · ἔρχομαιπρὸςὑμᾶς : see also ver. 28. And this coming was, by his Spirit poured out on the Church. There is an expression of St. Paul’ s, singularly parallel with this, and of itself strongly corroborative of the genuineness of our Epistle, in Acts 26:23, εἰπαθητὸςὁχριστός , εἰπρῶτοςἐξἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶνφῶςμέλλεικαταγγέλλειντῷτελαῷκ . τοῖςἔθνεσιν . This coming therefore is by His Spirit (see on ver. 18), and ministers, and ordinances in the Church) peace to you who were far off, and peace to those (not “ to us,” for fear of still upholding the distinction where he wishes to merge it altogether) that were nigh (this εἰρήνη is plainly then not mere mutual reconciliation, but that far greater peace which was effected by Christ’ s death, peace with God, which necessitated the union of the far off and the near in one body in Him. This is shewn especially by the repetition of εἰρήνην . See Isaiah 57:19. Then follows the empowering reason, why He should preach peace to us both: and it is this ver. 18 especially which I maintain cannot be satisfied on the ordinary hypothesis of mere reconciliation between Jew and Gentile being the subject in the former verses. Here clearly the union (not reconciliation, nor is enmity predicated of them) of Jew and Gentile is subordinated to the blessed fact of an access to God having been provided for both through Christ by the Spirit); for (not epexegetic of εἰρήνην , ‘ viz. that … ,’ as Baumg.-Crus.) through Him we have our access (I prefer this intransitive meaning to that maintained by Ellic., al., ‘ introduction,’ — some (Mey.) say, by Christ (1 Peter 3:18) as our προσαγωγεύς (admissionalis, a word of Oriental courts),— not as differing much from it in meaning, but as better representing, both here and in Romans 5:2, and ch. 3:12, the repetition, the present liberty of approach, which ἔχομεν implies, but which ‘ introduction’ does not give), both of us, in (united in, 1 Corinthians 12:13) one Spirit (not ‘ one frame of mind’ (Anselm, Koppe, al.): the whole structure of the sentence, as compared with any similar one, such as 2 Corinthians 13:13, will shew what spirit is meant, viz. the Holy Spirit of God, already alluded to in ver. 17; see above. As a parallel, cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13) to the Father. 19. So then (ἄραοὖν is said by Hermann (Viger, art. 292) not to be classical Greek. It is frequent in St. Paul, but confined to him: see reff. Cf. on Galatians 6:10) ye no longer are strangers and sojourners (see ref. Acts, where certainly this is the sense. “ πάροικος is here simply the same as the classic μέτοικος (a form which does not occur in the N. T., and only once, Jeremiah 20:3, in the LXX), and was probably its Alexandrian equivalent. It is used frequently in the LXX,— in eleven passages as a translation of נ ּ ַ ר , and in nine of ת ּ ו ֹ ש ׁ ָ ב .” Ellicott. ‘ Sojourners,’ as dwelling among the Jews, but not numbered with them. Bengel opposes ξένοι to ‘ cives’ and πάροικοι to ‘ domestici,’ — and so Harless: but this seems too artificial), but are fellow-citizens with the saints (συμπολίτης is blamed by Phrynichus (ed. Lob. p. 172: see Lobeck’ s note) and the Atticists as a later word. But it occurs in Eur. Heraclid. 821, and the compound verb συμπολιτεύω is found in pure Attic writers: see Palm and Rost’ s Lex. πολῖται would not here express the meaning of comrades, co-citizens, of the saints. οἱἅγιοι are not angels, nor Jews, nor Christians then alive merely, but the saints of God in the widest sense,— all members of the mystical body of Christ,— the commonwealth of the spiritual Israel) and of the household (οἰκεῖοι , not as Harl., ‘ stones of which the house is built,’ which is an unnatural anticipation here, where all is a political figure, of the material figure in the next verse: but, members of God’ s family,’ in the usual sense of the word) of God,— having been built (we cannot express the ἐπ -: the ‘ superæ dificati’ of the Vulg. gives it: we have the substantive ‘ superstructure,’ but no verb corresponding. There is, though Harl. (see above) denies it, a transition from one image, a political and social, to another, a material) upon the foundation (dative as resting upon: in 1 Corinthians 3:12, where we have εἴτιςἐποικοδομεῖἐπὶτὸνθεμέλιον … , the idea of bringing and laying upon is prominent, and therefore the case of motion is used. Between the genitive and dative of rest with ἐπί there is the distinction, that the genitive implies more partial overhanging, looser connexion,— the dative, a connexion of close fitting attachment. So in Xen. we have, ἐπὶτῆςκεφαλῆςτὰὅπλαἔφερον , partial, ‘ over,’ — οἱΘρᾷκεςἀλωπεκίδαςἐπὶταῖςκεφαλαῖςφοροῦσι , close, ‘ on:’ see Donaldson’ s Greek Gr. § 483) of the Apostles and Prophets (how is this genitive to be understood? Is it a genitive of apposition, so that the Apostles and Prophets themselves are the foundation? This has been supposed by numerous Commentators, from Chrys. to De Wette. But, not to mention the very many other objections which have been well and often urged against this view, this one is to my mind decisive,— that it entirely destroys the imagery of the passage. The temple, into which these Gentiles were built, is the mystical body of the Son, in which the Father dwells by the Spirit, ver. 22. The Apostles and Prophets (see below), yea, Jesus Christ Himself, as the great inclusive Head Corner Stone (see again below), are also built into this temple. (That He includes likewise the foundation, and is the foundation, is true, and must be remembered, but is not prominent here.) Clearly then the Apostles and Prophets cannot be the foundation, being here spoken of as parts of the building, together with these Gentiles, and with Jesus Christ Himself. But again, does the genitive mean, the foundation which the Apostles and Prophets have laid? So also very many, from Ambrst., to Rü ck., Harl., Mey., Stier, Ellic., both edd. As clearly,— not thus. To introduce them here as agents, is as inconsistent as the other. No agents are here spoken of, but merely the fact of the great building in its several parts being built up together. The only remaining interpretation then is, to regard the genitive as simply possessive: ‘ the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,’ = ‘ the Apostles’ and Prophets’ foundation’ — that upon which they as well as yourselves are built. This exegesis, which I find ascribed to Bucer only (in De W.), seems to me beyond question the right one. See more below. But (2) who are προφῆται They have commonly been taken, without enquiry, as the O. T. Prophets. And certainly, the sense, with some little straining, would admit of this view. They may be said to be built upon Christ, as belonging to that widest acceptation of His mystical body, in which it includes all the saints, O. T. as well as N. T. But there are several objections: first, formal: the order of the words has been urged against this view, in that προφ . should have come first. I should not be inclined to lay much weight on this; the Apostles might naturally be spoken of first, as nearest, and the Prophets second— ‘ the Apostles, yea and of the Prophets also.’ A more serious formal objection is, the omission of the article before προφ ., thereby casting τῶνἀποστόλωνκ . προφητῶν together as belonging to the same class. But weightier objections are behind. In ch. 3:5, we have ὃἑτέραιςγενεαῖςοὐκἐγνωρίσθητοῖςνἱοῖςτῶνἀνθρώπων , ὡςνῦνἀπεκαλύφθητοῖςἁγίοιςἀποστόλοιςαὐτοῦκ . προφήταιςἐνπνεύματι , where unquestionably the προφῆται are N. T. Prophets; and again ch. 4:11, καὶαὐτὸςἔδωκεντοὺςμὲνἀποστόλους , τοὺςδὲπροφήτας . And it is difficult to conceive that the Apostle should have used the two words conjoined here, in a different sense. Even stronger is the consideration arising from the whole sense of the passage. All here is strictly Christian,— post-Judaic,— consequent on Christ’ s death, and triumph, and His coming preaching peace by the Spirit to the united family of man. So that we must decide for προφ . being N. T. Prophets: those who ranked next to the Apostles in the government of the church: see Acts 11:27, note. They were not in every case distinct from the Apostles: the apostleship probably always including the gift of prophecy: so that all the Apostles themselves might likewise have been προφῆται ), Christ Jesus Himself (the αὐτοῦ exalts the dignity of the temple, in that not only it has among its stones Apostles and prophets, but the Lord Himself is built into it. The attempt of Bengel, al., to render αὐτοῦ , ‘ its,’ and refer it to θεμελίῳ , will be seen, by what has been said, to be foreign to the purpose. Besides, it would more naturally be ὄντοςαὐτοῦἀκρογ .… Bengel’ s idea, that on our rendering, it must be αὐτοῦτοῦ , is refuted by such passages as καὶαὐτὸςΔαυείδ , Luke 20:42) being the Head corner stone (see, besides reff., Ps. 117:22; Jer_28(51):26; Matthew 21:42; Acts 4:11. The reference here is clearly to that Headstone of the Corner, which is not only the most conspicuous but the most important in the building: “ qui, in extremo angulo (fundamenti, but qu.?) positus, duos parietes ex diverso venientes conjungit et continet,” Est. Builders set up such a stone, or build such a pillar of brick, before getting up their walls, to rule and square them by. I must again repeat, that the fact of Jesus Christ being Himself the foundation, however it underlies the whole, is not to be brought in as interfering with this portion of the figure), 21. in whom (ὁτὸπᾶνσυνέχωνἐστὶνὁχριστός , Chr.: not only so, but He is in reality the inclusive Head of the building: it all ἐναὐτῷσυνέστηκεν , is squared and ruled by its unity to and in Him) all the building (more properly πᾶσαἡοἰκοδ .: and to a classical Greek ear, any other rendering of πᾶσαοἰκ . than ‘ every building,’ seems preposterous enough. But ‘ every building’ here is quite out of place, inasmuch as the Apostle is clearly speaking of but one vast building, the mystical Body of Christ: and πᾶσαοἰκ . cannot have Meyer’ s sense ‘ every congregation thus built in:’ nor would it be much better to take refuge in the proper sense of οἰκοδομή , and render ‘ all building,’ i.e. ‘ every process of building,’ for then we should be at a loss when we come to αὔξει below. Are we then to render ungrammatically, and force words to that which they cannot mean? Certainly not: but we seem to have some light cast here by such an expression as πρωτότοκοςπάσηςκτίσεως , Colossians 1:15, which though it may be evaded by rendering ‘ of every creature,’ yet is not denied by most Commentators to be intended to bear this sense ‘ of all creation:’ cf. also ib. ver. 23, ἐνπάσῃκτίσειτῇὑπ ʼ οὐρανόν . The account to be given of such later usages is, that gradually other words besides proper names became regarded as able to dispense with the article after πᾶς , so that as they said first πᾶσαἹεροσόλυμα (Matthew 2:3), and then πᾶςοἶκοςἸσραήλ (Acts 2:36), so they came at length to say πᾶσακτίσις and πᾶσαοἰκοδομή , when speaking of one universal and notorious building. Ellic. adds to the examples, πᾶσαγῆ , Thucyd. ii. 43, πᾶσαἐπιστολή , Ignat. Eph. § 12, p. 656. οἰκοδομή itself is a late form, censured by Phryn. (Lob. p. 421) and the Atticists) being framed exactly together sufficiently explains itself, being only found in these two places (ref.). Wetst. quotes ἡρμολόγησετάφον from Anthol. iii. 32. 4, and Palm and Rost refer for ἁρμολογέω to Philip of Thessalonica, Ep. 78) is growing (there seems no reason why the proper sense of the present should not be retained. Both participle and verb imply that the fitting together and the growing are still going on: and the only way which we in English have to mark this so as to avoid the chance of mistake, is by the auxiliary verb substantive, and the participle. The bare present, ‘ groweth,’ is in danger of being mistaken for the abstract quality, and the temporal development is thus lost sight of: whereas the other, in giving prominence to that temporal development, also necessarily implies the ‘ normal, perpetual, unconditioned nature of the organic increase’ (Ellic.)) to (so ‘ crescere in cumulum,’ Claudian in Piscator) an holy temple in the Lord (i.e. according to apostolic usage, and the sense of the whole passage, ‘ in Christ.’ The ἐνᾧ — ἐνκυρίῳ .— ἐνᾧ ,— like the frequent repetitions of the name χριστός in vv. 12, 13, are used by the Apostle to lay all stress on the fact that Christ is the inclusive Head of all the building, the element in which it has its being and its growth. I would join ἐνκυρίῳ with ναὸνἅγιον , as more accordant with the Apostle’ s style than if it were joined with αὔξει (αὔξειἐνκυρ . εἰςναὸνἅγ .), or with ἅγιον (εἰςναὸνἐνκυρίῳἅγ .). The increase spoken of will issue in its being a holy temple in Christ), 22. in whom (not ‘ in which,’ viz. the temple— it is characteristic (see above) of this part of the epistle to string together these relative expressions, all referring to the same) ye also (not, as Eadie, ‘ even you:’ there is no depreciation here, but an exaltation, of the Gentiles, as living stones of the great building) are being built in together (with one another, or with those before mentioned. An imperative sense (‘ Ephesios hortatur ut crescant in fide Christi magis et magis postquam in ea semel fuerunt fundati,’ Calv.) is not for a moment to be thought of: the whole passage is descriptive, not hortatory) for (Griesb. parenthesizes with two commas, ἐνᾧ … συνοικοδομεῖσθε , and takes this εἰς as parallel with the former εἰς . But this unnecessarily involves the sentence, which is simple enough as it stands) an habitation of God (the only true temple of God, in which He dwells, being the Body of Christ, in all the glorious acceptation of that term) in the Spirit (it is even now, in the state of imperfection, by the Spirit, dwelling in the hearts of believers, that God has His habitation in the Church: and then, when the growth and increase of that Church shall be completed, it will be still in and by the Holy Spirit fully penetrating and possessing the whole glorified Church, that the Father will dwell in it for ever. Thus we have the true temple of the Father, built in the Son, inhabited in the Spirit: the offices of the Three blessed Persons being distinctly pointed out: God, the Father, in all His fulness, dwells in, fills the Church: that Church is constituted an holy Temple to Him in the Son,— is inhabited by Him in the ever-present indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The attempt to soften away ἐνπνεύματι into πνευματικῶς (ναὸςπνευματικός , Chrys., and so Thl., Œ c., al., and even Olsh.) is against the whole sense of the passage, in which not the present spiritual state of believers, but their ultimate glorious completion is spoken of. See reff.). 3:1-21. Aim and end of the Church in the Spirit. And herein, the revelation to it of the mystery of Christ, through those ministers who wrought in the Spirit: primarily, as regarded the Ephesians, through himself. Thus first, of his Office as Apostle of the Gentiles (1-13): secondly, under the form of a prayer for them, the aim and end of that office as respected the Church: its becoming strong in the power of the Spirit (14-19). Then (20, 21) doxology, concluding this first division of the Epistle. 1-13. (See above.) On this account (in order to explain this, something must be said on the construction. (a) Chrys. says:— εἶπετοῦχριστοῦτὴνκηδεμονίαντὴνπολλήν · ἐκβαίνειλοιπὸνκ . ἐπὶτὴνἑαυτοῦ , μικρὰνμὲνοὖσανκ . σφόδραοὐδὲνπρὸςἐκείνην , ἱκανὴνδὲκαὶταύτηνἐπισπάσασθαι . διὰτοῦτοκαὶἐγὼδέδεμαι , φησίν . This supplying of εἰμί after ὁδέσμιος , and making the latter the predicate, is the rendering of Syr., and adopted by very many. It has against it, 1) that thus τούτουχάριν and ὑπὲρὑμῶν become tautological: 2) that thus ver. 2 and the following are unconnected with the preceding, serving for no explanation of it (‘ legationis, non vinculorum rationem explicat,’ Castalio in Harl.): 3) that the article ὁ with the predicate δέσμιος gives it undue prominence, and exalts the Apostle in a way which would be very unnatural to him,— ‘ sum captivus ille Christi,’ as Glass.,— and inconsistent with εἴγεἠκούσατε , &c. following, (b) Erasm.-Schmidt, Hammond, Michael., Winer (and so E. V.) regard the sentence, broken at ἐθνῶν , as resumed at ch. 4:1. Against this is the decisive consideration, that ch. 3. is no parenthesis, but an integral and complete portion of the Epistle, finished moreover with the doxology vv. 20, 21, and altogether distinct in subject and character from ch. 4. (c) Œ c. says (and so Estius and Grot.): ἀνταπόδοσίςἐστιτούτουχάριν , οἷον · τούτουχ . ἐμοιτῷἐλ . π . ἁγ . ἐδόθ . κ .τ .λ . (ver. 8) σκόπειδὲὅτιἀρξάμενοςτῆςπεριόδουκατὰτὸὀρθὸνσχῆμαἐντῇἀποδόσειἐπλαγίωσε , σχηματίσαςτ . ἀνταπόδοσινπρὸςτὸνπεριβολῶντύπον . But as Harl. remarks, this deprives τούτουχάριν of meaning: for it was not because they were built in, &c., that this grace was given to him: and, besides, thus the leading thought of the antapodosis in ver. 8 is clumsily forestalled in vv. 6, 7. (d) The idea that ver. 13 resumes the sentence (Camerar., Cramer, al.) is refuted by the insufficiency of such a secondary sentiment as that in ver. 13 to justify the long parenthesis full of such solemn matter, as that vv. 2-12; and by the improbability that the Apostle would resume τούτουχάριν by διό , with τούτουχάριν occurring again in the next verse, and not rather have expressed this latter in that case by καί . (e) It remains that with Thdrt. , Luth., Pisc., Corn.-a-lap., Schö ttg., Beng., Rü ck., Harl., De W., Stier, Ellic., al., we consider ver. 14 as taking up the sense, with its repetition of τούτουχάριν , and the weighty prayer which it introduces, and which forms a worthy justification for so long and solemn a parenthesis, τούτουχάριν will then mean, ‘ seeing ye are so built in,’ — stand in such a relation to God’ s purposes in the church) I Paul (he mentions himself here, as introducing to them the agent in the Spirit’ s work who was nearest to themselves, and setting forth that work as the carrying on of his enlightenment on their behalf, and the subject of his earnest prayer for them: see argument to this chapter above), the prisoner (but now without any prominence, or the very slightest: cf. Τιμόθεοςὁἀδελφός : it is rather generic, or demonstrative, than emphatic) of Christ [Jesus] (see ref.; χρ . first, because it is not so much personal possession, as the fact of the Messiahship of Jesus having been the cause and origin of his imprisonment, which is expressed by the genitive) on behalf of you Gentiles (see ver. 13, where this ὑπὲρὑμῶν is repeated. The matter of fact was so:— his preaching to Gentiles aroused the jealousy of the Jews, and led to his imprisonment. But he rather thinks of it as a result of his great office and himself as a sacrifice for those whom it was his intent to benefit),— if, that is (εἴγε , ‘ assuming that:’ see note on 2 Corinthians 5:3. The Ephesians had heard all this, and St. Paul was now delicately reminding them of it. So that to derive from εἴγεἠκούσατε an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle, as De Wette does, is mere inattention to philology), ye heard of (when I was among you: his whole course there, his converse (Acts 20:18-21) and his preaching, were just the imparting to them his knowledge) the œ conomy (see note on ch. 1:10. It is not the apostolic office,— but the dispensation— munus dispensandi, in which he was an οἰκονόμος , of that which follows) of the grace of God which was given me (the χάριςδοθεῖσα (beware of joining δοθείσης with οἰκονομίαν by any of the so-called figures) was the material with respect to which the dispensation was to be exercised: so that the genitive is objective as in ch. 1:10) towards you (to be dispensed in the direction of, to, you) 3. that by revelation (see reff.; the stress is on these words, from their position) was made known to me the mystery (viz. of the admission of the Gentiles (ver. 6) to be fellow-heirs, &c. See ch. 1:9, directly referred to below) even as I before wrote (not, ‘ have before written,’ though this perhaps better marks the reference. ‘ Before wrote,’ viz. in ch. 1:9 if.) briefly (διὰβραχέων , Chrys.: “ Habet locutionem hanc Aristoteles rhet. iii. 2, p. 716, ubi de acuminibus orationis, quæ ex unius aut plurium vocum similium oppositione oriuntur, dicit, ea tanto elegantiora esse, ὅσῳἂνἐλάττονι , quanto brevius proferantur, et id ideo dicit sic se habere, ὅτιἡμάθησις , διὰμὲντὸἀντικεῖσθαιμᾶλλον , διὰδὲτὸἐνὀλίγῳθᾶττονγίνεται , quoniam ea ob oppositionem eo magis, ob brevitatem vero eo celerius percipiantur.” Kypke, obss. sacræ , ii. p. 293), 4. by which (viz., that which I wrote: not the fact of my having written briefly, as Kypke) ye can, while reading (ἀναγ . absolute), perceive (aorist, because the act is regarded as one of a series, each of which, when it occurs, is sudden and transitory) my understanding in (construction see reff., and compare σύνεσινἐνπάσῃσοφία , Daniel 1:17, also Daniel 10:1, LXX and Theod.) the mystery of Christ , 5. which in other generations (dative of time: so Luke 12:20, ταύτῃτῇνυκτὶτὴνψυχήνσουἀπαιτοῦσινἀπὸσοῦ ,— Matthew 16:21 al.: for the temporal meaning of γενεά , see reff.) was not made known to the sons of men (‘ latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignorantiæ , ortum naturalem, cui opponitur Spiritus,’ Beng.; and to which, remarks Stier, ἁγίοις and αὐτοῦ are further contrasted) as (ἐγνωρίσθημὲντοῖςπάλαιπροφήταις , ἀλλ ʼ οὐχὡςνῦν · οὐγὰρτὰπράγματαεἶδον , ἀλλὰτοὺςπερὶτῶνπραγμάτωνπροέγραψανλόγους , Thdrt.) it has been now revealed to His holy (see Stier’ s remark above. Olshausen says, “ It is certainly peculiar, that Paul here calls the Apostles, and consequently himself among them, ‘ holy Apostles.’ It is going too far when De W. 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 (cf. ch. 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” ) Apostles and Prophets (as in ch. 2:20, the N. T. Prophets— note there) in (as the conditional element; in and by) the Spirit (Chrys. remarks, ἑννόησονγάρ · ὁΠέτρος , εἰμὴπαρὰτοῦπνεύματοςἤκουσεν , οὐκἂνἐπορεύθηεἰςτὰἔθνη . ἐνπν . must not be joined with προφ . as Koppe, al. (not Chrys., as the above citation shews); for, as De W. remarks, the words would thus either be superfluous, or make an unnatural distinction between the Apostles and Prophets)— that (‘ namely, that’ — giving the purport of the mystery) the Gentiles are (not, ‘ should be:’ a mystery is not a secret design, but a secret fact) fellow-heirs (with the Jews) and fellow-members (of the same body) and fellow-partakers of the promise (in the widest sense; the promise of salvation:— the complex, including all other promises, even that chief promise of the Father, the promise of the Spirit itself) in (not to be referred to τῆςἐπαγγ ., which would be more naturally, though not necessarily, τῆςἐν ,— but to the three foregoing adjectives,— in Christ Jesus, as the conditional element in which their participation consisted) Christ Jesus (see above on ch. 2:13) through the Gospel (He Himself was the objective ground of their incorporation; the εὐαγγέλιον , the joyful tidings of Him, the subjective medium by which they apprehended it): of which (Gospel) I became (a reference to the event by which. “ The passive form, however, implies no corresponding difference of meaning (Rü ck., Eadie): γίγνομαι in the Doric dialect was a deponent passive: ἐγενήθην was thus used for ἐγενόμην , and from thence occasionally crept into the language of later writers. See Buttm., Irregular Verbs, s.v. ΓΕΝ — , Lobeck, Phryn. pp. 108-9.” Ellic.) a minister according to (in consequence of and in analogy with) the gift of the grace (genitive of apposition, as clearly appears from the definition of the grace given in the next verse: the grace was the gift) of God which was given to me (δοθ ., not tautological, or merely pleonastic after δωρεάν , but to be joined with what follows) according to the working in me of his power (because, and in so far as, His Almighty power wrought in me, was this gift of the χάρις , the ἀποστολή , the office of preaching among the Gentiles, &c., bestowed upon me). 8. Instead of going straight onward with ἐντοῖςἔθνεσινκ .τ .λ ., he calls to mind his own (not past, but present and inherent, see 1 Timothy 1:15) unworthiness of the high office, and resumes the context with an emphatic declaration of it. To me, who am less than the least ) of all saints (οὐκεἰπε , τῶνἀποστόλων , Chrys.: and herein this has been regarded as an expression of far greater depth of humility than that in 1 Corinthians 15:8: but each belongs to the subject in hand— each places him far below all others with whom he compared himself), was given this grace (viz.) to preach to the Gentiles (τ . ἔθν . is emphatic, and points out his distinguishing office. There is no parenthesis of ἐμοί to αὕτη as Harl. has unnecessarily imagined) the unsearchable (reff.; “ in its nature, extent, and application.” Ellic.) riches of Christ (i.e. the fulness of wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption— all centred and summed up in Him) 9. and to enlighten (reff.; not merely externally to teach, referred to his work,— but internally to enlighten the hearers, referred to their apprehension: as when the Apostles gave witness with great power of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Acts 4:33. On St. Paul’ s mission to enlighten, see especially Acts 26:18) all (no emphasis on πάντας , as Harl.— “ not the Gentiles only, but all men,” — or as Mey. observes it would be πάντας (or τοὺςπ .?) φωτίσαι ) what (the ellipse is supplied by εἰςτὸεἰδέναι in ch. 1:18) is the œ conomy (see on ch. 1:10) of the mystery (“ the dispensation (arrangement, regulation) of the mystery (the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, ver. 6) was now 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.” Ellicott) which has been hidden from (the beginning of) the ages (ἀπὸτ . αἰώνων gives the temporal limit from which the concealment dated: so χρόνοιςαἰωνίοιςσεσιγημένου , Romans 16:25. The decree itself originated πρὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου , ch. 1:4, πρὸτῶναἰώνων 1 Corinthians 2:7: the αἰῶνες being the spaces or reaches of time necessary for the successive acts of created beings, either physical or spiritual) in God who created all things (“ rerum omnium creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquæ œ conomiæ , pro potestate Dei universali liberrime dispensatæ .” Beng. The stress is on τὰπάντα — this concealment was nothing to be wondered at— for God of His own will and power created all things, a fact which involves His perfect right to adjust all things as He will. τὰπ ., in the widest sense, embracing physical and spiritual alike), 10. that there might be made known now to the governments and to the (Stier notices the repetition of the article. It perhaps here does not so much separate the two ἀρχαί and ἐξ . as different classes, as serve to elevate the fact for solemnity’ s sake) powers (see ch. 1:21 and note) in the heavenly places (see ch. 1:3 note. The ἀρχ . and ἐξ . are those of the holy angels in heaven; not, as has been vainly imagined, Jewish rulers (Locke, Schö ttg.): Christian rulers (Pel.): good and bad angels (Beng., Olsh.). These are excluded, not by ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις , see ch. 6:12, but by the general tenor of the passage, as Ellic., who adds well: “ evil angels more naturally recognize the power, good angels the wisdom of God” ) by means of the Church the manifold (πολυποίκιλος , so far from being a word found only here (Harl., Stier), occurs in Eur., Iph. Taur. 1149, πολυποίκιλαφάρεα : in a fragment of Eubulus, Ath. xv. 7, p. 679, στέφανονπολυποίκιλονἀνθέων , and twice in the Orphic hymns, in this figurative sense: πολυποίκιλοςτελετή , v. 11; π . λόγος , lx. 4) wisdom of God (how is the wisdom of God πολυποίκιλος It is all one in sublime unity of truth and purpose: but cannot be apprehended by finite minds in this its unity, and therefore is by Him variously portioned out to each finite race and finite capacity of individuals— so that the Church is a mirror of God’ s wisdom,— chromatic, so to speak, with the rainbow colours of that light which in itself is one and undivided. Perhaps there was in the Apostle’ s mind, when he chose this word, an allusion to the πτέρυγεςπεριστερᾶςπεριηργυρωμέναικαὶτὰμετάφρενααὐτῆςἐνχλωρότητιχρυσίου , the adornment of the ransomed church, in Ps. 67:13. See Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 4:10), 11. according to (depends on γνωρισθῇ — this imparting of the knowledge of God’ s manifold wisdom was in accordance with, &c.) the (not, ‘ a:’ after a preposition, especially when a limiting genitive, as here, follows, the omission of the article can hardly be regarded as affecting the sense) purpose of (the) ages (the genitive is apparently one of time, as when we say, ‘ it has been an opinion of years:’ the duration all that time giving the αἰῶνες a kind of possession. If so, the sense is best given in English by ‘ eternal’ as in E. V.), which He made (constituted, ordained. So Calv., Beza, Harl., Rü ck. On the other hand, Thdrt., Grot., Koppe, Olsh, Mey., De W., Stier, Ellic., would apply it to the carrying out, executing, in its historical realization. I can hardly think that so indefinite a word as ποιέω would have been used to express so very definite an idea, now introduced for the first time, but believe the Apostle would have used some word like ἐπετέλεσεν . Further, we should thus rather expect the perfect; whereas the aorist seems to refer back the act spoken of to the origination of the design. Both senses of ποιέω are abundantly justified: see, for our sense, Mark 15:1; Isaiah 29:15: for the other, ch. 2:3; Matthew 21:31; John 6:38; 1 Thessalonians 5:24 al.) in Jesus our Lord the Christ (or, ‘ in the Christ, (namely) Jesus our Lord.’ The former is official, the latter personal. It was in his Christ that He made the purpose: and that Christ is Jesus our Lord. The words do not necessarily refer ἐποίησεν to the carrying out of the design. They bind together God’ s eternal purpose and our present state of access to Him by redemption in Christ, and so close the train of thought of the last eleven verses, by bringing us again home to the sense of our own blessedness in Christ. That he says, ἐντ . χριστῷἸησ ., does not, as Olsh. and Stier, imply that the act spoken of must necessarily be subsequent to the Incarnation: see ch. 1:3, 4: it is the complex personal appellation of the Son of God, taken from, and familiar to us by His incarnation, but applied to Him in His præ existence also), 12. in whom (for the connexion, see note on last verse: in whom, as their element and condition) we have our boldness (not ‘ freedom of speech’ merely, nor boldness in prayer: παῤῥησία is used in a far wider sense than these, as will appear by the reff.: viz, that of the state of mind which gives liberty of speech, cheerful boldness, ‘ freimuthigkeit,’ Palm and Rost’ s Lex.) and (our) access (see note on ch. 2:18: here the intransitive sense is even more necessary, from the union with παῤῥησίαν . We may confidently say, that so important an objective truth as our introduction to God by Christ would never have been thus coupled to a mere subjective quality in ourselves. Both must be subjective if one is: the second less purely so than the first— but both referring to our own feelings and privileges) in confidence (τουτέστι , μετὰτοῦθαῤῥεῖν , Chrys. Meyer remarks what a noble example St. Paul himself has given of this πεποίθησις in Romans 8:38 f. πεποίθησις is a word of late Greek; see Lobeck’ s Phrynichus, p. 294) through the faith (“ ἐνχρ . points to the objective ground of the possession, διὰτῆςπίστ ., the subjective medium by which, and ἐνπεποιθ . the subjective state in which, it is apprehended.” Ellic.) of (objective: = ‘ in:’ of which He is the object: see reff.) Him. 13. Wherefore (‘ quæ cum ita sint,’ viz. the glorious things spoken of vv. 1-12: and especially his own personal part in them, ἐγὼπ ., ἐμοὶἐδόθη , ἐγενήθηνδιάκονος :— since I am the appointed minister of so great a matter) I beseech you (not, beseech God,— which would awkwardly necessitate a new subject before ἐγκακεῖν : see below) not to be dispirited (not, ‘ that I may not be dispirited,’ as Syr., Thdrt., Beng., Rü ck., Harl., Olsh. Such a reference is quite refuted by the reason rendered below, ἥτιςἐσ . δὸξαὑμων , and by the insertion of μου after θλ ., which in this case would be wholly superfluous: not to mention its inconsistency with all we know of the Apostle himself) in my tribulations for you (the grammatical Commentators justify the absence of the article before ὑπέρ by the construction θλίβομαιὑπέρτινος . This surely is not necessary, in the presence of such expressions as τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα , ch. 6:5. The strange view of Harl., that ὑπὲρὑμῶν is to be joined with αἰτοῦμαι , needs no refutation), seeing that they are (not ‘ which is;’ ἥτις is not = ἡ , but = ‘ quippe qui,’ ‘ utpote qui:’ see examples in Palm and Rost’ s Lex. ὅς , p. 547) your glory . 14-19. His prayer for them, setting forth the aim and end of the ministerial office as respected the Church, viz. its becoming strong in the power of the Spirit. 14. On this account (resumes the τούτουχάριν of ver. 1 (see note there):— viz. ‘ because ye are so built in, have such a standing in God’ s Church’ ) I bend my knees (scil. in prayer: see reff.; and cf. 3 Kings 19:18) towards (directing my prayer to Him: see Winer, § 49, h) the Father (on the words here interpolated, see var. readd.), from whom every family , as E. V. The sense, see below) in the heavens and on earth is named (it is difficult to convey in another language any trace of the deep connexion of πατήρ and πατριά here expressed. Had the sentence been ‘ the Creator, after whom every creature in heaven and earth is named,’ all would be plain to the English reader. But we must not thus render; for 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. It is best therefore to keep the simple sense of the words, and leave it to exegesis to convey the idea, πατριά is the family, or in a wider sense the gens, named so from its all having one πατήρ . Some (Est., Grot., Wetst., al.) have supposed St. Paul to allude to the rabbinical expression, ‘ the family of earth and the family of heaven:’ but as Harl. observes, in this case he would have said π . ἡπατρ ., ἡἐνοὐρ . κ . ἡἐπὶγ . Others (Vulg., Jer., Thdrt.,— ὂςἀληθῶςὑπάρχειπατήρ , ὃςοὐπαρ ʼ ἄλλουτοῦτολαβὼνἔχει , ἀλλ ʼ αὐτὸςτοῖςἄλλοιςμεταδέδωκετοῦτο ,— Corn.-a-lap.) have attempted to give πατριά the sense of paternitas, which it can certainly never have. But it is not so easy to say, to what the reference is, or why the idea is here introduced. The former of these will be found very fully discussed in Stier, pp. 487-99: and the latter more shortly treated. The Apostle seems, regarding God as the Father of us His adopted children in Christ, to go forth into the fact, that He, in this His relation to us, is in reality the great original and prototype of the paternal relation, wherever found. And this he does, by observing that every πατριά , compaternity, body of persons, having a common father, is thus named (in Greek), from that father,— and so every earthly (and heavenly) family reflects in its name (and constitution) the being and sourceship of the great Father Himself. But then, what are πατριαί in heaven? Some have treated the idea of paternity there as absurd: but is it not necessarily involved in any explanation of this passage? He Himself is the Father of spirits, Hebrews 12:9, the Father of lights, James 1:17:— may there not be fathers in the heavenly Israel, as in the earthly? May not the holy Angels be bound up in spiritual πατριαί , though they marry not nor are given in marriage? Observe, we must not miss the sense of ὀνομάζεται , nor render, nor understand it, as meaning ‘ is constituted.’ This is the fact, but not brought out here), 16. that (see on ἵνα after words of beseeching, &c., note, 1 Corinthians 14:13. The purpose and purport of the prayer are blended in it) He may give you, according to the riches of His glory (specifies δῷ , not what follows: give you, in full proportion to the abundance of His own glory— His own infinite perfections), to be strengthened with might (the dative has been taken in several ways: 1) adverbially, ‘ mightily,’ as βίᾳεἰςοἰκίανπαριέναι , Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2,— to which Meyer objects, that thus δύναμις would be strength on the side of the bestower rather than of the receiver, whereas the contrast with ἐγκακεῖν (?) requires the converse. This hardly seems sufficient to disprove the sense: 2) dative of the form or shape in which the κρατ . was to take place (Harl, al.), as in χρήμασιδυνατοὶεἶναι , Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 7,— to which Meyer replies that thus the κραταιωθῆναι would only apply to one department of the spiritual life, instead of to all. But this again seems to me not valid: for ‘ might,’ ‘ power,’ is not one faculty, but a qualification of all faculties. Rather I should say that such a meaning would involve a tautology— ‘ strengthened in strength.’ 3) the instrumental dative is maintained by Mey., De W., al., and this view seems the best: ‘ with (His) might,’ imparted to you) by His Spirit (as the instiller and imparter of that might) into (not merely ‘ in,’ but ‘ to and into,’ as Ellic.: importing “ the direction and destination of the prayed for gift of infused strength.” κραταιοῖ , κατοικίζωνεἰςτὸνχωροῦνταἔσωἄνθρωποντὸνχριστόν , Schol. in Cramer’ s Catena. Similarly Orig., ὥστεεἰςτ . ἔσ . ἄνθ . κατοικῆσαιτ . χριστὸνδιὰτῆςπίστεως , ib. Both rightly, as far as the idea of infusing into is concerned: but clearly wrong, as are the Gr.-ff. in general, in taking εἰςτ . ἔσ . ἄνθ . with what follows, thus making ἐνταῖςκαρδ . ὑμ . tautological, or giving to διὰτῆςπίστεωςἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςὑμῶν the meaning, ‘ through the faith which is in your hearts,’ which it cannot bear) the inner man (the spiritual man— the noblest portion of our being, kept, in the natural man, under subjection to the flesh (reff.), but in the spiritual, renewed by the Spirit of God)— that (continuation, not of the prayer merely,— not from δῷ ,— as the strong word κατοικῆσαι , emphatically placed, sufficiently shews,— but from κραταιωθῆναι ,— and that as its result (see Orig. above: not its purpose,— τοῦκατ .). See a similar construction Colossians 1:10) Christ may dwell (emphatic; abide, take up His lasting abode: ‘ summa sit, non procul intuendum esse Christum fide, sed recipiendum esse animæ nostræ complexu, ut in nobis habitet,’ Calv.) by your faith (apprehending Him, and opening the door to Him,— see John 14:23; Revelation 3:20— and keeping Him there) in your hearts (“ partem etiam designat ubi legitima est Christi sedes; nempe cor: ut sciamus, non satis esse, si in lingua versetur, aut in cerebro volitet.” Calv.),— ye having been (Beza, Grot., al., and Meyer (and so E. V.), join the participles with the following ἵνα , justifying the trajection by Galatians 2:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:7; Acts 19:4 al. But those cases are not parallel, as in every one of them the prefixed words carry especial emphasis, which here they cannot do. We must therefore regard the clause as an instance of the irregular nominative (see ch. 4:2; Colossians 2:2, and reff. there) adopted to form an easy transition to that which follows. Meyer strongly objects to this, that the participles are perfect, not present, which would be thus logically required. But surely this last is a mistake. It is upon the completion, not upon the progress, of their rooting and grounding in love, that the next clause depends. So Orig., Chrys., all., and Harl., De W., and Ellic.) rooted and grounded (both images, that of a tree, and that of a building, are supposed to have been before the Apostle’ s mind. But ῥιζόω was so constantly used in a figurative sense (see examples in Palm and Rost sub voce) as hardly perhaps of necessity to suggest its primary image. Lucian uses both words together, de Saltat. 34 (Wetst.),— ὥσπερτινὲςῥίζαικ . θεμέλιοιτῆςὀρχήσεωςἦσαν ) in love (love, generally— not merely αὐτοῦ , as Chrys., nor ‘ qua diligimur a Deo,’ Beza; nor need we supply ‘ in Christ’ after the participles, thus disconnecting them from ἐνἀγ ., as Harl.: but as Ellic. well says, “ This (love) was to be their basis and foundation, in (on?) which alone they were to be fully enabled to realize all the majestic proportions of Christ’ s surpassing love to man” ),— that ye may be fully able (ref.: ἡἐπιμέλειαπολλάκιςκαὶτῆςφύσεωςἐξίσχυσενἐπιλειπούσης , Strabo, xvii. p. 788 (417 Tauchn.)) to comprehend (reff. “ many middle forms are distinguished from their actives only by giving more the idea of earnestness or spiritual energy: ἠριθμοῦντοπολλοὶἅματὰςἐπιβολάς , Thucyd. iii. 20: οὕτωδεῖπερὶπαντὸςσκοπεῖν · ὅτανγάρτιταύτῃσκοπούμενοςἕλῃς , οὕτωςἔμφρωνπερὶτοῦτογέγονας . Plato.” Krü ger, griech. Sprachlehre, § 52. 4) with all the saints (all the people of God, in whom is fulfilled that which is here prayed for) what is the breadth and length and height and depth . Numerous other explanations, geometrical, architectural, and spiritual, may be seen in Corn.-a-lap., Pole’ s Synops., and Eadie. The latter, as also Bengel and Stier, see an allusion to the Church as the temple of God— Chandler and Macknight to the temple of Diana at Ephesus. Both are in the highest degree improbable. Nor can we quite say that the object of the sentence is the love of Christ (Calv., Mey., Ellicott, al.): for that is introduced in a subordinate clause by and by (see on τε below): rather, with De W., that the genitive after these nouns is left indefinite— that you may be fully able to comprehend every dimension— scil., of all that God has revealed or done in and for us (= τὸμυστήριοντ . θεοῦ , Colossians 2:2)— though this is not a genitive to be supplied, but lying in the background entirely) and (τε introduces not a parallel, but a subordinate clause. Of this Hartung, i. p. 105, gives many examples. Eur. Hec. 1186,— ὅτ ʼ εὐτύχει | Τροία , πέριξδὲπύργοςεἶχ ʼ ἔτιπτόλιν , | ἔζητεΠρίαμος , Ἕκτορόςτ ʼ ἤνθειδόρυ : Med. 642, ὦπατρίς , δῶμάτ ʼ ἐμόν . So that the knowledge here spoken of is not identical with the καταλαβέσθαι above, but forms one portion of it, and by its surpassing excellence serves to exalt still more that great whole to which it belongs) to know the knowledge-passing (τῆςγνώσεως , genitive of comparison after ὑπερβ ., as in διπλήσιοςἑωϋτοῦ , Herod. viii. 137,— οὐδενὸςὕστερος , Plato, Tim. p. 20 a. See Kü hner, ii. § 540. γνῶναι … γνώσεως are chosen as a paradox, γνώσεως being taken in the sense of ‘ mere,’ ‘ bare’ knowledge (ref.), and γνῶναι in the pregnant sense of that knowledge which is rooted and grounded in love, Philippians 1:9) Love of Christ (subjective genitive; Christ’ s Love to us— see Romans 5:6 note, and 8:35-39— not ‘ our love to Christ.’ Nor must we interpret with Harl. (and Olsh.), “ to know the Love of Christ more and more as an unsearchable love.” It is not this attribute of Christ’ s Love, but the Love itself, which he prays that they may know), that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God (πᾶντὸπλήρωματῆςθεότητος abides in Christ, Colossians 2:9. Christ then abiding in your hearts, ye, being raised up to the comprehension of the vastness 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 and might and love. Such seems much the best rendering: and so Chrys. (altern.), ὥστεπληροῦσθαιπάσηςἀρετῆςἧςπλήρηςἐστὶνὁθεός . τοῦθ . then is the possessive genitive. The other interpretation taking θεοῦ as a genitive of origin, and πλήρωμα for πλῆθος , ‘ ut omnibus Dei donis abundetis,’ Est., is not consistent with εἰς (see above), nor with the force of the passage, which having risen in sublimity with every clause, would hardly end so tamely). 20, 21. Doxology, arising from the contemplation of the faithfulness and power of God with regard to His Church. 20. But to Him (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) who is able to do beyond all things (ὑπέρ is not adverbial, as Bengel, which would be tautological), far beyond (reff.: ὧν is not governed by πάντα : but this second clause repeats the first in a more detailed and specified form. “ It is noticeable that ὑπέρ occurs nearly thrice as many times in St. Paul’ s Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews as in the rest of the N. T., and that, with a few exceptions (Mark 7:37. Luke 6:38, &c.), the compounds of ὑπέρ are all found in St. Paul’ s Epistles.” Ellic.) the things which (genitive as γνώσεως above, ver. 19) we ask or think (‘ cogitatio Iatius patet quam preces: gradatio.’ Beng.) according to the power which is working (not passive: see on Galatians 5:6: the power is the might of the indwelling Spirit; see Romans 8:26) in us, 21. to Him (solemn and emphatic repetition of the personal pronoun) be the glory (the whole glory accruing from all His dealings which have been spoken of: His own resulting glory) in the Church (as its theatre before men, in which that glory must be recognized and rendered) [and] in Christ Jesus , but would make ἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ superfluous. As the text stands, we need not say that ἐνχρ . Ἰησ . is a second independent clause: it belongs to ἐντῇἐκκ . as inclusive of it, though not as descriptive of ἐκκλ .: ‘ in the Church and (thus) in Christ Jesus’ ) to all the generations of the age of the ages (probably as Grot., ‘ augendi causa duas locutiones Hebraicas miscuit Apostolus, quarum prior est ἀπὸγενεᾶςεἰςγενεάν , ל ְ ד ֹ ר ו ָ ד ֹ ר , Psalms 10:6, altera ἕωςτοῦαἰῶνος ע ו ֹ ל ְ מ ֵ י ע ַ ד , Isaiah 45:17.’ 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. Like the similar expression, αἰῶνεςτῶναἰώνων , it is used, by a transfer of what we know in time, to express, imperfectly, and indeed improperly, the idea of Eternity). 4:1-6:20. Second (hortatory) portion of the Epistle: and herein [A] (4:1-16) ground of the Christian’ s duties as a member of the Church, viz. the unity of the mystical Body of Christ (vv. 1-6) in the manifoldness of grace given to each (7-13), that we may come to perfection in Him (14-16). 1. I exhort (see reff. παρακαλῶ , τὸπροτρέπω , ὡςἐπὶτὸπολύ . Thom.-Mag. in Ellic.) you therefore (seeing that this is your calling: an inference from all the former part of the Epistle, as in Romans 12:1; but here perhaps also a resumption of τούτουχάριν of ch. 3:1, 14, and thus carried back to the contents of ch. 1:2.),— the prisoner in the Lord (who am, as regards, and for the sake of the cause, of the Lord, a prisoner; so that my captivity is in the Lord, as its element and sphere, and therefore to be regarded as an additional inducement to comply with my exhortation. “ Num quicquid est Christi, etiamsi coram mundo sit ignominiosum, summo cum honore suscipiendum a vobis est.” Calv. τοῖςδιὰτὸνχριστὸνδεσμοῖςἐναβρύνεταιμᾶλλονἢβασιλεὺςδιαδήματι . Thdrt. Beware of joining ἐνκυρ . with παρακαλῶ , as in 2 Thessalonians 3:12 (see ver. 17), which the arrangement of the words here will not permit), to walk worthily of the calling (see ch. 1:18, and note Romans 8:28, Romans 8:30) wherewith ye were called, with (not ‘ in,’ as Conyb., which, besides not expressing μετά , the association of certain dispositions to an act,— confuses the ἐν which follows) all (see on ch. 1:8) lowliness (read by all means Trench’ s essay on ταπεινοφροσύνη and πραότης , in his N. T. Synonymes (xlii.). I can only extract one sentence here, to put the reader on his guard: “ Chrys. is in fact bringing in pride again under the disguise of humility, when he characterizes it as a making of ourselves small when we are great (ταπεινοφροσύνητοῦτόἐστιν , ὅταντιςμέγαςὤν , ἑαυτὸνταπεινοῖ : and he repeats this often: see Suicer, Thes. s. v.): it is rather the esteeming ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so: the thinking truly, and because truly, lowlily of ourselves” ) and meekness (before God, accepting His dealings in humility, and before men, as God’ s instruments, 2 Samuel 16:11: resting therefore on ταπεινοφρ . as its foundation. See Trench, as above), with long-suffering (μακροθυμία consists in not taking swift vengeance, but leaving to an offender a place for repentance. From this, its proper meaning, it is easily further generalized to forbearance under all circumstances of provocation. Some, as Est., Harl., Olsh., al., join these words with ἀνεχόμενοι . But thus (1) we should have an emphatic tautology— for how could the ἀνέχεσθαι be otherwise than μετὰμακροθυμίας and (2) the parallelism, μετὰπάσηςταπ . κ . πραΰτ ., μετ . μακρ .,— would be destroyed. Still less should we, with Thdrt., Œ c., and Bengel, make all one sentence from μετὰπάσ . to ἀγάπ .: for thus (Mey.) we should lose the gradual transition from the general ἀξίωςπεριπ . τ . κλ . to the special ἀνεχ . ἀλλ .),— forbearing (see reff. and Romans 2:4; on the nom. part., see ch. 3:18) one another in love (it is very unnatural, as Lachm. and Olsh. have done, to join ἐνἀγ . with σπουδάζοντες , making thereby an exceedingly clumsy clause of the following), earnestly striving (reff.) to maintain the unity of the Spirit (that unity, in which God’ s Holy Spirit in the Church τοὺςγένεικ . τρόποιςδιαφόροιςδιεστηκόταςἑνοῖ , as Chr.: not animorum inter vos conjunctionem, as Est.,— and so Ambr., Anselm, Erasm., Calv., al. The genitive is in fact a possessive— the Spirit’ s unity, that unity which the Spirit brings about, ἣντὸπν . ἔδωκωνἡμῖν , Thl.) in (united together by: within) the bond of peace (again Lachm. joins the qualifying clause to the following sentence: here again most unnaturally, both as regards what has preceded, and the general truths which are afterwards enounced: see below. The σύνδ . is εἰρήνη , not that which brings about εἰρήνη , ‘ vinculum quo pax retinetur, id est, amor.’ Beng. So Thl., Rü ck., Harl., Stier. Colossians 3:14, which is quoted to support this meaning, is not applicable, because love there is expressly named, whereas here it certainly would not occur to any reader, especially after ἐνἀγάπῃ has just occurred. The genitive of apposition is the simplest— peace binds together the Church as a condition and symbol of that inner unity which is only wrought by the indwelling Spirit of God). 4. Lachm., joining ἓνσῶμακ .τ .λ . as far as ἐνπᾶσιν , with what has gone before, makes these words hortatory: ‘ as one Body and one Spirit, even as, &c.’ Certainly the reference to ἡκλῆσιςὑμῶν seems to tell for this. But, on the other hand, it is very unlikely that the Apostle should thus use ἓνσῶμα and ἓνπνεῦμα , and then go on in the same strain, but with a different reference. I therefore prefer the common punctuation and rendering. (There is) (better than ‘ ye are,’ which will not apply to the following parallel clauses. The assertion of the unity of the Church, and of our Lord in all His operations and ordinances, springs immediately out of the last exhortation, as following it up to its great primal ground in the verities of God. To suppose it connected by a γάρ understood (Eadie) is to destroy the force and vividness with which the great central truth is at once introduced without preface) one Body (reff.: viz. Christ’ s mystical Body. τίδ ʼ ἔστιν , ἓνσῶμα ; οἱπανταχοῦτῆςοἰκουμένηςπιστοί , καὶὄντεςκ . γενόμενοικ . ἐσόμενοι . πάλινκαὶοἱπρὸτῆςτοῦχριστοῦπαρουσίαςεὐηρεστηκότες , ἓνσῶμάεἰσι . Chrys. But these last hardly sensu proprio here) and one Spirit , as also (τὸκαθὰοἱἈττικοὶχρῶνται , τὸδὲκαθὼςοὐδέποτε , ἀλλ ʼ ἢτῶνἈλεξανδρέωνδιάλεκτος , καθ ʼ ἣνἡθεῖαγραφὴγέγραπται . Emm. Moschop. a Byzantine grammarian, cited by Fabricius, vi. 191. See also Phryn. p. 426, and Lobeck’ s note: and Ellic. on Galatians 3:6) ye were called in (elemental— the condition and sphere in which they were called to live and move, see reff. Mey. referring to Galatians 1:6, takes the instrumental sense: see there) one hope of your calling: 5. one Lord , one faith (in that one Lord: the subjective medium by which that one Lord is apprehended and appropriated: not ‘ fides quæ creditur,’ but ‘ fides quâ creditur:’ but it is necessarily understood, that this subjective faith has for its object the One Lord just mentioned) one baptism (the objective seal of the subjective faith, by which, as a badge, the members of Christ are outwardly and visibly stamped with His name. The other sacrament, being a matured act of subsequent participation, a function of the incorporate, not a seal of incorporation (a symbol of union, not of unity: so Ellicott), is not here adduced. In 1 Corinthians 10:17, where an act was in question which was a clear breach of union, it forms the rallying-point), 6. one God (the unity is here consummated in its central Object: ‘ hoc est præ cipuum, quia inde manant reliqua omnia,’ Calv. But we must not miss the distinct witness to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in these verses:— going upwards, we have 1st, the One Spirit dwelling in the one body:— 2nd, the One Lord appropriated by faith and professed in baptism:— 3rd, One God and Father supreme, in whom all find their end and object) and Father of all (masculine: ‘ of all within the Church,’ for so is clearly the primary meaning, where he is speaking distinctly of the Church:— of all (Mey.) who have the υἱοθεσία . But it can hardly be doubted, that there is a further reference— to the universal Father-ship of all men— which indeed the Church only inherits in its fulness, others having fallen out of it by sin,— but which nevertheless is just as absolutely true), who is over all (men, primarily; and from the following,— men only, in this place. He is over all, in his sovereignty as the Father), and through all (men: in the co-extensiveness of Redemption by the Son with the whole nature of man: see on ver. 10 below, and ch. 2:20, 21) and in all (men: by the indwelling of the Spirit, see ch. 2:22. So that I cannot but recognize, in these three carefully chosen expressions, a distinct allusion again to the Three Persons of the blessed Trinity. All these are the work of the Father:— it is He who in direct sovereignty is over all— He who is glorified in the filling of all things by the Son:— He who is revealed by the witness of the indwelling Spirit. Many Commentators deny such a reference. Almost all agree in ἐνπᾶσιν representing the indwelling of the Spirit: the διὰπάντων has been the principal stumbling-block: and is variously interpreted:— by some, of God’ s Providence,— τουτέστιν , ὁπρονοῶνκαὶδιοικῶν , Chrys., al.: by others, of His pervading presence by the Spirit,— ‘ spiritu sanctificationis diffusus est per omnia ecclesiæ membra,’ Calv.: by others, to the creation by the Son, ‘ per quem omnia facta sunt’ (Aquin. in Ellic.): but this seems to be a conversion of διὰπάντων into δι ʼ οὗπάντες , as indeed Olsh. expressly does, ‘ als Werfzeug¸ durch das die sind.’ Irenæ us, v. 18. 2, p. 315, gives the meaning thus, adopting the Trinitarian reference, but taking the πάντων both times as neuter, and reading ἐνπᾶσινἡμῖν : ‘ super omnia quidem Pater, et ipse est caput Christi: per omnia autem verbum, et ipse est caput ecclesiæ : in omnibus autem nobis Spiritus, et ipse est aqua viva,’ &c.). 7. But to each one of us was given (by Christ, at the time of His exaltation— when He bestowed gifts on men) [the] grace (which was then bestowed: the unspeakable gift,— or, if the art. be omitted, grace, absolutely,— was distributed to each κατά &c.) according to the measure of the gift of Christ (‘ Christ’ s gift;’ — the gift bestowed by Christ. 2 Corinthians 9:15: not, ‘ the gift which Christ received,’ — for He is the subject and centre here— so Calv.,— ‘ porro Christum facit auctorem, quia sicut a Patre fecit initium, ita in ipsum vult nos et nostra omnia colligere.’ Still less must we with Stier, suppose both senses of the genitive included). 8. Wherefore (‘ quæ cum ita sint:’ viz.— the gift bestowed by Christ on different men according to measure) He (viz. God, whose word the Scriptures are. See reff. and notes: not merely ‘ it,’ es heisst, as De W. al.: nor, ἡγραφή : had it been the subject, it must have been expressed, as in Romans 4:3; Romans 9:17 al.) says (viz. in Psalms 68:18, see below: not, in some Christian hymn, as Flatt and Storr,— which would not agree with λέγει , nor with the treatment of the citation, which is plainly regarded as carrying the weight of Scripture. With the question as to the occasion and intent of that Psalm, we are not here concerned. It is a song of triumph, as ver. 1 (cf. Numbers 10:35) shews, at some bringing up of the ark to the hill of Zion. 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 world-wide, 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 understand this, have yet their first lesson in the O. T. to learn. With this caution let us approach the difficulties of the citation in detail) He ascended up on high (viz. Christ, at His Ascension: not ‘ having ascended:’ the aorist participle denotes an action not preceding, but parallel to, that expressed in the finite verb which it accompanies: see Bernhardy, Synt. p. 383. The ascending in the Psalm is that of God, whose presence was symbolized by the ark, to Zion. The Apostle changes the words from the 2nd person to the 3rd; the address asserting a fact, which fact he cites), he led captive a captivity (i.e. ‘ those who suffer captivity:’ a troop of captives: such is the constant usage of the abstract αἰχμαλωσία for the concrete in LXX: cf. reff.: and it is never put for captivatores, ‘ those who cause captivity,’ as some would interpret it. In the Psalm, these would be, the captives from the then war, whatever it was: in the interpretation, they were God’ s enemies, Satan and his hosts, as Chr., ποίαναἰχμαλωσίανφησί ; τὴντοῦδιαβόλου . αἰχμάλωτοντὸντύραννονἔλαβε , τὸνδιάβολονκαὶτὸνθάνατονκαὶτὴνἀρὰνκαὶτὴνἁμαρτίαν , he gave gifts to mankind (Heb.: ל ָ ק ַ ח ְ ת ּ ָ מ ַ ת ּ ָ נ ו ֹ ת ב ּ ָ א ָ ד ָ ם ,— LXX, ἔλαβεςδόματαἐνἀνθρώπῳ (-ποις [] F [A def.]). The original meaning is obscure. There seems to be no necessity to argue for a sense of ἔλαβες — ‘ thou receivedst in order to give;’ as the qualifying ἐνἀνθρώποις will shew for what purpose, in what capacity, the receipt took place. But certainly such a sense of ל ָ ק ַ ח seems to be substantiated: see Eadie’ s note here, and his examples, viz. Genesis 15:9; Genesis 18:5 ,— 27:13 , 42:16,— Exodus 27:20 ,— 1 Kings 17:10 , al. Then, what is ב ּ ָ א ָ ד ָ ם First, א ָ ד ָ ם is clearly used in a collective sense: we have Jeremiah 32:20, י ִ ש ׂ ְ ר ָ א ֵ ל ו ְ א ָ ד ָ ם , ‘ Israel and the rest of mankind,’ see also Isaiah 43:4 al. In Proverbs 23:28, we have ב ּ ְ א ָ ד ָ ם used for ‘ inter homines,’ which is evidently its simplest meaning. If then we render here, ‘ hast taken gifts among men,’ hast, as a victor, surrounded by thy victorious hosts, brought gifts home, spoils of the enemy,— the result of such reception of gifts would be naturally stated as the distribution of them among such hosts, and the people,— as indeed ver. 12 of the Psalm has already stated. And so the Chaldee paraphrast (and Syr. and Arabic vss.: but their testimony, as Christian, is little worth) understood the words, interpreting the passage of Moses (which does not invalidate his testimony: against Harl.): ‘ thou hast given gifts to the sons of men.’ The literature of the passage may be seen in De W. and Meyer: and more at length in Stier, Eadie, and Harless. To give even a synopsis of it here would far exceed our limits). 9. Further explanation of this text. But that He ascended (τὸἀν . does not here mean, ‘ the word’ ἀνέβη , which does not occur in the text cited), what is it (does it imply) except that he also (as well) descended to the lower parts of the earth (the argument seems to be this: the Ascension here spoken of was not a first exaltation, but a return to heaven of one who dwelt in heaven— οὐδεὶςἀναβέβηκενεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν , εἰμὴὁἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦκαταβάς , ὁυἱὸςτ . ἀνθρώπουὁὢνἐντῷοὐρανῷ , John 3:13, which is in fact the key to these verses. The ascent implied a previous descent. This is the leading thought. But it is doubted how far the words κατώτεραμέρητῆςγῆς carry that descent, whether to earth merely, so that τῆςγῆς is the genitive of apposition,— or to Hades, so that it is genitive of possession. Usage will not determine— for 1) it is uncertain whether the Apostle meant any allusion to the corresponding Hebrew expression: 2) that expression is used both for Hades, Psalms 63:9, and for earth (θεμέλια , LXX), Isaiah 44:23 (and for the womb, Psalms 139:15). Nor can it be said (as Harl., Mey.) that the descent into hell would be irrelevant here— or that our Lord ascended not from Hades but from the earth: for, the fact of descent being the primary thought, we have only to ask as above, how far that descent is carried in the Apostle’ s mind. The greater the descent, the greater the ascent: and if the αἰχμαλωσία consisted of Satan and his powers, the warfare in which they were taken captive would most naturally be contemplated in all its extent, as reaching to their habitation itself:— ‘ this ascent, what does it imply but a descent, and that even to the lower parts of the earth from which the spoils of victory were fetched?’ And this meaning seems to be upheld by the ἵναπληρώσῃτὰπάντα which follows, as well as by the contrast furnished by ὑπεράνωπάντωντῶνοὐρανῶν . This interpretation is upheld by most of the ancients, Iren., Tert., Jer., Pelag., Ambrst.; also by Erasm., Est., Calov., Bengel, Rü ck., Olsh., Stier, Baur (uses it as a proof of the gnostic origin of the Epistle), Ellicott, al.: that of the Incarnation merely, descent on earth, by Beza, Calv., Grot., Schö ttg., Mich., Storr, Winer, Harl., B.-Crus., Meyer, De W., al.: that of Christ’ s death (and burial), by Chr., Thdrt., Œ c., al.: that corresponding to Psalms 139:15, by Beza (alt.), Witsius, al.)? 10. He that descended, He ) is also he that ascended (see again John 3:13) up above (reff.) all the heavens (cf. Hebrews 7:26, ὑψηλότεροςτῶνοὐρανῶνγενόμενος : and ib. 4:14, διεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανούς . It is natural that one who, like St. Paul, had been brought up in the Jewish habits of thought, should still use their methods of speaking, according to which the heaven is expressed in the plural, ‘ the heavens.’ And from such an usage, πάντεςοἱοὐρανοί would naturally flow. See, on the idea of a threefold, or sevenfold division of the heavens, the note on 2 Corinthians 12:2. Ellicott quotes from Bishop Pearson,— ‘ whatsoever heaven is higher than all the rest which are called heavens, into that place did he ascend.’ Notice the subjunctive after the aorist participle, giving the present and enduring sense to the verb: used, when “ res ita comparata est, ut actione præ terita tamen eventus noudmn expletus sit, sed etiam nunc duret: … Eur. Med. 215, Κορίνθιαιγυναῖκες , ἐξῆλθονδόμων , μήμοίτιμέμφησθ ʼ .” Klotz, Devar. ii. 618), that He may fill all things (the whole universe: see ch. 1:23, note: with His presence, His sovereignty, His working by the Spirit: not, with His glorified Body, as some have thought. “ Christ is perfect God, and perfect and glorified man: as the former He is present every where, as the latter He can be present any where.” Ellicott). 11. Resumption of the subject— the diversity of gifts, all bestowed by Him, as a motive to unity. And HE gave (not for ἔθετο , any more than in ch. 1:22:— the gifts which He gave to His Church are now enumerated. “ The idea is, that the men who filled the office, no less than the office itself, were a divine gift.” Eadie) some as Apostles (see 1 Corinthians 12:28, and note; and a good enumeration of the essentials of an Apostle, in Eadie’ s note here), some as prophets (see on 1 Corinthians 12:10: and cf. ch. 2:20; 3:5, notes), some as evangelists (not in the narrower sense of the word, writers of gospels, but in the wider sense, of itinerant preachers, usually sent on a special mission: οἱμὴπεριϊόντεςπανταχοῦ , ἀλλ ʼ εὐαγγελιζόμενοιμόνον , ὡςΠρίσκιλλακ . Ἀκύλας . Chr. See note on Acts 21:8), some as pastors and teachers (from these latter not being distinguished from the pastors by the τοὺςδέ , it would seem that the two offices were held by the same persons. The figure in ποιμένες , if to be pressed, would imply that they were entrusted with some special flock, which they tended, καθήμενοικαὶπερὶἕνατόπονἠσχολημένοι , as Chr.; and then the διδασκαλία would necessarily form a chief part of their work. If this view be correct, this last class includes all the stationary officers of particular Churches), in order to (ultimate aim of these offices, see below) the perfecting of the saints,— for (immediate object, see below) (the) work of (the) ministry (of διάκονοι in God’ s Church. The articles give completeness in English, but do not affect the sense),— for building up of the body of Christ (the relation of these three clauses has been disputed. Chr., al., regard them as parallel: ἕκαστοςοἰκοδομεῖ , ἕκαστοςκαταρτίζει , ἕκαστοςδιακονεῖ : but this is to confound the distinct prepositions, πρός and εἰς , after the unsupported notion that St. Paul uses prepositions almost indifferently. Others, as De W., regard εἰς … εἰς as dependent on πρός , and thus are obliged to give to διακονία a wider sense (genus omnium functionum in ecclesia) than it will bear. The best way certainly seems to be, with Mey. and Ellic., to regard πρός as the ultimate end, εἰς as the immediate use, as in Romans 15:2, ἕκαστοςἡμῶντῷπλησίονἀρεσκέτωεἰςτὸἀγαθὸνπρὸςοἰκοδομήν ), until (marks the duration of the offices of the ministry) we arrive (see reff.: no sense of ‘ meeting,’ but simply of ‘ attaining.’ Ellicott well remarks, that we must be careful of applying to later Greek the canons of the grammarians respecting the omission of ἄν , as giving an air of less uncertainty to subjunctives in such constructions as this; and he adds, “ the use of the subjunctive (the mood of conditioned but objective possibility), not future (as Chrys.), shews that the καταντᾶν is represented, not only as the eventual, but as the expected and contemplated result of the ἔδωκεν ” ), all of us (Christians, Jews as well as Gentiles: first person, because he himself was among the number. The article brings out the πάντες , as belonging to one class), at the unity of the faith (“ How so? have not all Christians the same faith?… No doubt they have, as regards its substance, but not as regards clearness and purity; because the object of faith may be diversely known, and knowledge has ever such a powerful influence on faith. Therefore he adds to this unity of faith καὶτῆςἐπιγνώσεωςκ .τ .λ .: 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.” De Wette) and of the knowledge (further result of the faith, ch. 3:17, 19; 2 Peter 1:5) of the Son of God , at a perfect man to a concrete . The singular not only denotes unity (Beza), but refers to the summation of us all in the one perfect Man Christ Jesus. The maturity of the ἀνὴρτέλειος is contrasted with the νηπιότης which follows. Among curiosities of exegesis may be adduced that which Aug. mentions, de Civ. Dei xxii. 17, vol. vii. p. 778: “ Nonnulli, propter hoc quod dictum est, Ephesians 4:13, nec in sexu fœ mineo resurrecturas fœ minas credunt, sed in virili omnes aiunt” ) to the measure of the stature (or, ‘ age?’ this is doubtful. The similitude in ἄνδρατέλειον seems to be derived from age: that in ver. 16, from stature. The fact seems to be, that ἡλικία is a comprehensive word, including both ideas— answering to the German ‘ Erwachsenheit,’ but having no corresponding word in our language. We have μέτρονἥβης in Hom. Il. λ . 225. Od. λ . 317, σ . 217. The expression itself occurs in Lucian, Imag. 7 (Wetst.), τῆςἡλικίαςδὲτὸμέτρον , ἡλίκονἂνγένοιτο · κατὰτὴνἐνΚνίδῳἐκείνηνμάλιστα … μεμετρήσθω ,— and Philostratus, vit. Sophist. p. 543, τὸδὲμέτροντῆςἡλικίαςταῖςμὲνἄλλαιςἐπιστήμαιςγήρωςἀρχή . Clearly, none of these passages settles the question. In Homer, the meaning is ‘ the measure of youth,’ — the size and ripeness of youth: in Lucian, as decidedly ‘ the measure of the stature,’ as in Philostr., ‘ the ripeness of manly age.’ The balance must here be inclined by the prevalence of the image of growth and extension, which can hardly be denied as pervading the passage) of the fulness of Christ (see note on ch. 1:23; 3:19. χρ . is a genitive subjective:— the fulness which Christ has: ‘ Christ’ s fulness.’ Cf. Galatians 4:19),— that (apparently another, and subordinate, aim of the bestowal of gifts on the church is here adduced. For we cannot go forward from the finished growth of ver. 13, and say that its object is ἵναμηκ . ὦμεννήπιοι , but must go back again to the growth itself and its purpose; that purpose being mainly the terminal one of ver. 13, and subordinately the intermediate one of our ver. 14. See Meyer’ s note) we be no more (having been so once: τὸμηκέτιδείκνυσιπάλαιτοῦτοπαθόντας . Chr.) children, tossed and borne about by every wind of teaching (τῇτροπῇἐμμένωνκαὶἀνέμουςἐκάλεσετὰςδιαφόρουςδιδασκαλίας . Thl. Wetst. quotes from Plut. de Audiend. Poetis, p. 28 d, μὴπαντὶλόγῳπλάγιον , ὥσπερπνεύματι , παραδιδοὺςἑαυτόν . The article before διδασκαλίας gives a greater definiteness to the abstract word, but cannot be expressed in English. So ἅπαξπροσουρήσαντατῇτραγῳδίᾳ , Aristoph. Ran. 95) in (elemental: “ the evil atmosphere, as it were, in which the varying currents of doctrine exist and exert their force.” Ellic. This is better than instrumental, which, as we have just had παντὶἀνέμῳ , would be a repetition) the sleight (‘ dice-playing,’ from κύβος . The word, as well as κυβεύω , was naturally and constantly used to signify ‘ entrapping by deceit:’ κυβείαντὴνπανουργίανκαλεῖ · πεποίηταιδὲἀπὸκύβωντὸὄνομα · ἴδιονδὲτῶνκυβευόντων , τὸτῇδεκἀκεῖσεμεταφέρειντὰςψήφους , καὶπανούργωςτοῦτοποιεῖν . Thdrt. See examples in Wetst. The word was borrowed by the. Rabbinical writers, and used in this sense: see Schö ttg. h. l.) of men (as contrasted with τοῦχριστοῦ , ver. 13), in craftiness (reff.) furthering (tending or working towards: or perhaps, but not so well,— after, according to, gemä ss) the system (see reff. and especially ch. 6:11, note, and Chr.’ s explanation) of error (not, deceit, though in fact the sense is so: πλάνη , even in the passages generally alleged for this active meaning, is best taken as ‘ error.’ The genitive πλάνης is subjective— the plans are those which error adopts. τῆςπλ ., as τῆςδιδασκαλίας : see above), 15. but (opposition to the whole last verse; introducing as it does, not only ἀληθεύοντεςἐνἀγάπῃ , but the αὐξήσωμεν below) being followers of truth (ἀληθεύειν cannot here mean merely to speak the truth, as the whole matter dealt with is more general; the particular follows, ver. 25. The verb has the widest meaning of being ἀληθής — and (as Stier remarks) not without a certain sense of effort, ‘ sectari veritatem.’ The Vulg. gives it well, but perhaps with too exclusively practical a bearing, ‘ veritatem facientes:’ Bengel, ‘ verantes:’ the old English versions, ‘ folowe the truth,’ which gives too much the objective sense to truth. It is almost impossible to express it satisfactorily in English. I have somewhat modified this last rendering, restoring the general sense of ‘ truth.’ The objection to ‘ followers of truth’ is that it may be mistaken for ‘ searchers after truth’ — but I can find no expression which does not lie open to equal objection) in love (must be joined with ἀληθεύοντες , not with αὐξήσωμεν . For 1) the mere participle with δέ would stand most feebly and awkwardly at the beginning of the sentence: and 2) we have already observed the habit of the Apostle to be, to subjoin, not to prefix, his qualifying clauses. ἐνἀγάπη is added, as the element in which the Christian ἀληθεύειν must take place: it is not and cannot be an ἀληθεύειν at all hazards— a ‘ fiat justitia, ruat cœ lum’ truthfulness: but must be conditioned by love: a true-seeking and true-being with loving caution and kind allowance— not breaking up, but cementing, brotherly love by walking in truth) may grow up into (increase towards the measure of the stature of;— to the perfect man in Him. Again an allusion to the incorporation of all the Church in Christ: see below) Him in all things (accusative of reference; the article implying, in every department of our growth, ‘ in all things wherein we grow,’ as Meyer) who is the Head (see ch. 1:22), namely, Christ (the nominative is best regarded as an attraction to the foregoing relative, just as in ‘ urbem quam statuo vestra est’ the substantive is attracted to the following relative. So we have, Eur. Hecub. 754, πρὸςἄνδρ ʼ , ὃςἄρχειτῆσδεΠολυμήστωρχθονός : and Plato, Apol. p. 41 a, εὑρήσειτοὺςὡςἀληθῶςδικαστάς , υἵπερκ . λέγονταιἐκεῖδικάζειν , ΜίνωςτεκαὶῬαδάμανθυςκ . Αἴακος . In the face of these examples, there is no occasion, with De W. and Ellic., to suppose that the Apostle places χρ . at the end to give force to ἐξοὗ which follows. Beware of Eadie’ s rendering, ‘ who is the Head, the (ὁχρ .) Christ,’ as alien from any design apparent in the argument, or indeed in the Epistle), 16. from whom (see Colossians 2:19, an almost exact parallel, from which it is clear that ἐξοὗ belongs to τὴναὔξησινποιεῖται — He being the source of all growth) all the body (see on Col.), (which is) being closely framed together (note the present participle— the framing is not complete but still proceeding. For the word, see on ch. 2:21) and compounded (‘ notat simul firmitudinem et consolidationem,’ Bengel),— by means of every joint (to be joined, not with the participles preceding, but (see below) with τ . αὔξ . ποι ., as Chr., Thdrt., Beng., Mey., except that they understand ἁφή to mean αἴσθησις — the perception of the vital energy imparted from the head , which is the cause of all growth to the body. But it seems hardly controvertible that ἁφή does signify ‘ joint’ in the parallel Colossians 2:19; it is there (see note) joined with συνδεσμῶν so closely, as necessarily to fall into the same class of anatomical arrangements, and cannot mean αἴσθησις . Also in Damoxenus in Athenæ us, iii. 102 e, we have it in this sense— καὶσυμπλεκομένηςοὐχὶσυμφώνουςἁφάς . Indeed the meaning Berü hrung, ‘ point d’ appui,’ would naturally lead to that of joint) of the (article just as παντὶἀνέμῳτῆςδιδασκ . above: see note there) supply (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. σῶματῆςἁμαρτίας , σκεύητῆςλειτουργίας : “ a kind of genitive definitivus, by which the predominant use, purpose, or destination of the ἁφή is specified and characterized.” Ellic.),— according to vital working in the measure of each individual part,— carries on (remark the intensive middle ποιεῖται , denoting that the αὔξησις is not carried on ab extra, but by functional energy within the body itself) the growth of the body (I thus render, preferring to join as well διὰπ . ἁφ . τ . ἐπιχ . as κατ ʼ ἐν . κτ .λ . with τ . αὔξ . ποιεῖται rather than with the preceding participles, 1) to avoid the very long awkward clause encumbered with qualifications, πᾶντὸσῶμασ . κ . σ . διὰπᾶσ . ἁφ . τῆςἐπιχ . κατ ʼ ἐνέργ . ἐνμέτρ . ἑν . ἑκ . μέρους : 2) because the repetition of τοῦσώματος is much more natural in a cumbrous apodosis, than in a simple apodosis after a cumbrous protasis: 3) for perspicuity: the whole instrumentality and modality here described belonging to the growth , and not merely to the compaction of the body. τοῦσώματος is repeated, rather than ἑαυτοῦ used, perhaps for solemnity, perhaps (which is more likely) to call back the attention to the subject αῶμα after so long a description of its means and measure of growth) for the building up of itself in love (Meyer would join ἐνἀγ . with τ . αὔξ . τ . σώμ . ποι . as suiting better ver. 15. This is hardly necessary, and encumbers still further the already sufficiently qualified αὔξ . ποιεῖται . Love is just as much the element in which the edification, as that in which the growth, takes place). [B] (See on ver. 1.) 4:17-6:9. Exhortations to a course of walking and conversation, derived from the ground just laid down, and herein (4:17-5:21) general duties of Christians as united to Christ their Head. 17. This (which follows) then (resumptive of ver. 1; as Thdrt., πάλινἀνέλαβετῆςπαραινέσεωςτὸπροοίμιον . This is shewn by the fact that the μηκέτιπεριπατ . here is only the negative side of, and therefore subordinate to, the ἀξίωςπεριπ . of ver. 1. Vv. 4-16 form a digression arising out of τ . ἑνότητατ . πν . in ver. 3. Still this must not be too strictly pressed: the digression is all in the course of the argument, and μηκέτι here is not without reference to μηκέτι in ver. 14. The fervid style of St. Paul will never divide sharply into separate logical portions— each runs into and overlaps the other) I say (see Romans 12:3. There is no need to understand δεῖν before the infinitive which follows. The μηκ . ὑμ . περιπατεῖν is the object of λέγω expressed in the infinitive, just as regularly as in βούλομαίσελέγειν . That an imperative sense is involved, lies in the context) and testify (see reff.: cf. Plato, Phileb. p. 47 d, ταῦταδὲτότεμὲνοὐκἐμαρτυράμεθα , νῦνδὲλέγομεν : Thuc. vi. 80; viii. 53, Duk.) in the Lord (element; not ‘ formula jurandi,’ see 1 Thessalonians 4:1, note), that ye no longer (‘ as once:’ implied also by καί below) walk as also (besides yourselves: though the Ephesians did not walk so now, their returning to such a course is made the logical hypothesis) the Gentiles (ye being now distinguished from them by being members of God’ s church, though once Gentiles according to the flesh. Perhaps from this not being seen, λοιπά was inserted) walk in (element) vanity (see Romans 1:21: they ἐματαιώθησαν in their downward course from God. But we must not restrict the word to idolatry: it betokens the waste of the whole rational powers on worthless objects. See also on Romans 8:20) of their mind (their rational part), being (beware of referring ὄντες to ἀπηλλ . with Eadie. Besides its breaking the force of the sentence, I doubt if such an arrangement is ever found) darkened (see again Romans 1:21, and the contrast brought out 1 Thessalonians 5:4, 1 Thessalonians 5:5, and ch. 5:8) in (the dative gives the sphere or element in which. The difference between it and the accusative of reference (τὴνδιάνοιανἐσκοτισμένους , Jos. Antt. ix. 4. 3) is perhaps this, that the dative is more subjective— The man is dark:— wherein? in his διάνοια : the accusative more objective— Darkness is on the man:— in him, whereon? on his διάνοια ) their understanding (perceptive faculty: intellectual discernment: see note, ch. 2:3), alienated from the life of God (not ‘ modus vivendi quem Deus instituit,’ as the ancients (Thdrt., Thl., and Grot., al.), for ζωή in N. T. never has this meaning (see the two clearly distinguished in Galatians 5:25), but always life, as opposed to death. Thus ‘ the life of God’ will mean, as Beza beautifully says, ‘ vita illa qua Deus vivit in suis:’ for, as Beng., ‘ vita spiritalis accenditur in credentibus ex ipsa Dei vita.’ Stier makes an important remark: “ The Apostle is here treating, not so much of the life of God in Christ which is regenerated in believers, as of the original state of man, when God was his Life and Light, before the irruption of darkness into human nature” ) on account of the ignorance (of God: see ref. 1 Pet.) which is in them (not, by nature: cf. Romans 1:21-28: they did not choose to retain God in their knowledge, and this loss of the knowledge of Him alienated them from the divine Life), on account of (second clause, subordinate to ἀπηλλ .: not subordinate to and rendering a reason for τὴνἄγν . τ . οὖσαν , as Meyer, which would be awkward, and less like St. Paul) the hardening of their heart, 19. who as (οἵτινες , see ch. 1:23 note) being past feeling (ὥσπερτῶνἀπὸπάθουςτινὸςμέρηπολλάκιςτοῦσώματοςνενεκρωμένωνοἷςοὐμόνονἄλγοςοὐδὲνἐκεῖθενἐγγίνεται , ἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲἡτοῦμέρουςἀφαίρεσιςαἴσθησινἐμποιεῖ . Theod. Mops. in Stier. From the ‘ desperatio’ of the Vulg. Syr., seems to have come the reading ἀπηλπικότες , see var. readd. The obduration described may spring in ordinary life from despair:— so Cicero, Ep. fam. ii. 16, in Bengel, ‘ diuturna desperatione rerum obduruisse animum ad dolorem novum,’ — and Polyb. ix. 40. 9, ἀπαλγοῦντεςταῖςἐλπίσι (where see Ernesti’ s note), but may also result from other reasons. Certainly despair has nothing to do with the matter here, but rather the carrying on of the πώρωσις to positive ἀπάλγησις by the increasing habit of sin) gave up themselves (“ ἑαυτ ., with terrific emphasis. It accorded here with the hortatory object of the Apostle to bring into prominence that which happened on the side of their own free will. It is otherwise in Romans 1:24, παρέδωκεναὐτοὺςὁθεός : and the two treatments of the fact are not inconsistent, but parallel, each having its vindication and its full truth in the pragmatism of the context.” Meyer) to wantonness (see Galatians 5:19 note) in order to (conscious aim, not merely incidental result of the παραδοῦναι — see below) the working of impurity of every kind (see Romans 1:21-27. Ellic. remarks, “ As St. Paul nearly invariably places πᾶς before, and not as here after the abstract (anarthrous) substantive, it seems proper to specify it (that circumstance) in translation” ) in greediness (such is the meaning, and not ‘ with greediness,’ i.e. greedily, as E. V., Chr. (appy), Thdrt., Œ c., Erasm., Calv., Est., al., nor ‘ certatim, quasi agatur de lucro, ita ut alius alium superare contendat,’ as Beza, nor as Harl. ‘ in gluttony’ (which meaning his citation from Chrys. does not bear out). πλεονεξία , the desire of having more, is obviously a wider vice than mere covetousness, though this latter is generally its prominent form. It is self-seeking, or greed: in whatever direction this central evil tendency finds its employment. So that it may include in itself as an element, as here, lustful sins, though it can never actually mean ‘ lasciviousness.’ In 1 Corinthians 5:10 it is disjoined from πόρνοις by ἤ , and joined by καί to ἅρπαξιν — clearly therefore meaning covetous persons. See also ch. 5:3, and Colossians 3:5: and compare Ellicott’ s note here). 20. But you (emphatic) did not thus (οὐκἐπὶτούτοις , Chr.— not on these conditions, nor with such prospects. Beza suggests that a stop might be put at οὕτως — ‘ ye are not thus: ye learned,’ &c.: but the sense is altogether marred by it) learn Christ (Christ personal— not to be explained away into ὀρθῶςβιοῦν , as Chr., or any thing else: cf. 1 Corinthians 1:23, ἡμεῖςκηρύσσομενχριστόν : Philippians 1:15-18; Colossians 2:6. Christ Himself is the subject of all Christian preaching and all Christian learning— τὸγνῶναιαὐτόν (Philippians 3:10) is the great lesson of the Christian life, which these Ephesians began to learn at their conversion: see next verse), if, that is (see ch. 3:2 note, and 2 Corinthians 5:3. He does not absolutely assume the fact, but implies that he then believed and still trusts it was so), it was Him that ye heard (if ye really heard at your conversion the voice of the Shepherd Himself calling you as his sheep— τὰπρόβατατὰἐμὰτῆςφωνῆςμουἀκούει , John 10:27, see also John 5:25) and in Him that ye were taught (if it was in vital union with Him, as members of Him, that ye after your conversion received my teaching. Both these clauses are contained in ἐμάθετετὸνχρ .,— the first hearing of the voice of the Son of God, and growing in the knowledge of Him when awakened from spiritual death), as is truth in Jesus (the rendering and connexion of this clause have been much disputed. I will remark, 1) that it seems by its form to be subordinate to ἐναὐτῷἐδιδάχθητε , and the καθώς to express the quality of the διδαχή : 2) that in this case we have ἐστινἀλήθειαἐντῷἸησ . answering to ἐναὐτῷἐδιδάχθητε . 3) to take the easier members first, ἐντῷἸησοῦ is a closer personal specification of ἐναὐτῷ — in Jesus— that one name recalling their union in both in His Person, and, which is important here, in His example also: 4) καθώςἐστινἀλήθεια expands ἐδιδάχθητε — if the nature of the teaching which you received was according to that which is truth (in Him). So that the meaning will amount to this— if ye were taught in Him according to that which is truth in Jesus;— if you received into yourselves, when you listened to the teaching of the Gospel, that which is true (respecting you— and Him) in your union with and life in Jesus, the Son of God manifest in the flesh. See Ellicott’ s note), 22. namely (the infinitive depends on ἐδιδάχθητε (not on λέγω , ver. 17, as Bengel and Stier), and carries therefore (not in itself, but as thus dependent) an imperative force— see on ver. 17) that ye put off (cf. ἐνδύσασθαι ver. 24: aorist, because the act of putting off is one and decisive, so also of ἐνδύσασθαι below: but ἀνανεοῦσθαι , because the renewal is a gradual process. Beware of rendering, with Eadie and Peile, ‘ that ye have put off,’ which is inconsistent with the context (cf. ver. 25), and not justified by ὑμᾶς being expressed. This latter is done merely to resume the subject after the parenthetical ver. 21), as regards your former conversation (explains the reference of ἀποθέσθαι : q. d. (for you were clothed with it in your former conversation): and must not, as by Œ c., Jer., Grot., Est., al., be joined with τὸνπαλ . ἄνθρ .: on ἀναστρ ., see note, Galatians 1:13), the old man (your former unconverted selves, see note on Romans 6:6) which is (“ almost, ‘ as it is, &c.,’ the participle having a slight causal force, and serving to superadd a further motive.” Ellic.) being corrupted (inasmuch as the whole clause is subjectively spoken of the παλ . ἄνθρ ., it is better to take φθ . (as usually) of inward ‘ waxing corrupt,’ as in reff. (especially Jude), than of destination to perdition, as Mey., which would be introducing an outward objective element) according to (in conformity with; as might be expected under the guidance of) the lusts of deceit , 23. and undergo renewal (both should be marked,— the gradual process implied in the present, and the passive character of the verb. Of this latter there can be no doubt: the middle ἀνανεοῦσθαι having always an active force: so we have ἀνανεοῦσθαιτ . συμμαχίαν , Polyb. xxiii. 1. 5: see many more examples in the Lex. Polybianum, and in Harl.’ s note here: and we have even, in Autonin. iv. 3 (Harl.), ἀνανέουσεαυτόν . Stier’ s arguments in favour of the middle sense seem to me to be misplaced. ἐνδύσασθαι is middle, but that refers to a direct definite reflexive act; whereas the process here insisted on is one carried on by the Spirit of God, not by themselves. And it is not to the purpose to ask, as Stier does, ‘ How can the Apostle say and testify by way of exhortation, that they should be renewed as they ought to walk?’ for we have perpetually this seeming paradox, of God’ s work encouraged or checked by man’ s cooperation or counteraction. The distinction between ἀνακαίνωσις and ἀνανέωσις is not (as Olsh.) beside the purpose here, but important. The reference in καινός (novus) to the objective is prominent, in νέος (recens) to the subjective. The καινός is used as opposed to the former self; the νέος , as regards the new nature and growth in it: cf. Colossians 3:10, τὸννέον , τὸνἀνακαινούμενον . Thus in Romans 12:2 it would not be said μεταμορφ . τῇἀνανεώσειτ . νοός , because it is not by nor in the ἀνανέωσις , but by or in the ἀνακαίνωσις , that the μεταμορφ . takes place. Whereas here, where a process of growing up in the state of ἀνακαίνωσις is in question, ἀνανεοῦσθαι is properly used. ἀνακαινοῦσθαι is more ‘ renewal from the age of the old man;’ ἀνανεοῦσθαι , ‘ renewal in the youth of the new man.’ See Tittmann, Syn. p. 60 ff.) by (though (see more below) the expression τῷπν . τοῦνοὸςὑμ . stands contrasted with ἐνματαιότητιτοῦνοὸςαὐτῶν , ver. 17, yet the omission of ἐν here serves to mark that not merely the sphere in which, but the agency by which, is now adduced) the Spirit of your (emphatic) mind (the expression is unusual, and can only be understood by reference to the N. T. meaning of πνεῦμα , as applied to men. First, it is clearly here not exclusively nor properly ‘ the Holy Spirit of God,’ because it is called τὸπν . τοῦνοὸςὑμῶν . It is a πνεῦμα , in some sense belonging to, not merely indwelling in, ὑμεῖς . The fact is, that in the N. T. the πνεῦμα of man is only then used ‘ sensu proprio,’ as worthy of its place and governing functions, when it is one Spirit with the Lord. We read of no πνεῦμαπαλαιόν : the πνευματικός is necessarily a man dwelt in by the Spirit of God: the ψυχικός is the ‘ animal’ man led by the ψυχή , and πνεῦμαμὴἔχων , Jude 1:19. Thus then the disciples of Christ are ἀνανεούμενοι , undergoing a process of renewal in the life of God, by the agency of the πνεῦμα of their minds, the restored and divinely-informed leading principle of their νοῦς , just as the children of the world are walking in the ματαιότης of their minds. νοῦς , see above, ver. 17), 24. and put on (see on ἀποθέσθαι above) the new man (as opposed to παλαιόν ; not meaning Christ, any further than as He is its great Head and prototype, see on κτισθ .), which was created (mark the aorist, as historical fact, once for all, in Christ. In each individual case, it is not created again, but put on: cf. Romans 13:14) after God in (element, or sphere, of the character of the new man) righteousness and holiness of truth (again, beware of ‘ true holiness,’ E. V.— as destroying the whole antithesis and force of the words. The genitive, too, belongs to both substantives. ἡἀλήθεια , God’ s essence, John 3:33; Romans 1:25; Romans 3:7; Romans 15:8, opposed to ἡἀπάτη above. “ δικαιοσύνη and ὁσιότης occur together, but in contrary order, in ref. Luke, and Wisd. 9:3. The adjectives and adverbs are connected, 1 Thessalonians 2:10: Titus 1:8. δικαιοσύνη betokens a just relation among the powers of the soul within, and towards men and duties without. But ὁσιότης , as the Heb. ת ּ ָ מ ִ י ם (Proverbs 2:21.Amos 5:10 Amos 5:10), betokens the integrity of the spiritual life, and the piety towards God of which that is the condition. Hence both expressions together complete the idea of moral perfection (Matthew 5:48). 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 Wisd. 2:23 (ὁθεὸςἔκτισεντὸνἄνθρωπονἐπ ʼ ἀφθαρσίᾳ , καὶεἰκόνατῆςἰδίαςἰδιότητος (ἀϊδιότ . F. (not A.)) ἐποίησεναὐτόν ) the physical side of the divine image is brought out.” Olsh. Stier suggests that there is perhaps a slight contrast in δικαιοσύνη to πλεονεξία ver. 19, and in ὁσιότης (τὸκαθαρόν , Chr.) to ἀκαθαρσία ). 25. Wherefore (because of the general character of the καινὸςἄνθρωπος as contrasted with the παλαιός , which has been given: εἰπὼντὸνπαλαιὸνἄνθρωπονκαθολικῶς , λοιπὸναὐτὸνκ . ὑπογράφεικατὰμέρος , Chr.) having put off (the aorist should be noticed here: it was open to the Apostle to write ἀποτιθέμενοι , but he prefers the past— because the man must have once for all put off falsehood as a characteristic before he enters the habit of speaking truth) falsehood (abstract, see reff.), speak truth each one with his neighbour (‘ sciamus de Zacharia propheta sumptum,’ Jer.: see ref. ‘ We allow ourselves the remark, hoping it may not be over-refining, that the Apostle instead of πρὸςτὸνπλησίον with the LXX, prefers following the Hebrew text and writing μετά , to express by anticipation our inner connexion with one another as ἀλλήλωνμέλη .’ Stier): for we are members of one another (Romans 12:5. The ἀλλήλων brings out the relation between man and man more strongly than if he had said, of one body: at the same time it serves to remind them that all mutual duties of Christians are grounded on their union to and in Christ, and not on mere ethical considerations). 26. Be ye angry and sin not (citation: see ref. Psa.: and that from the LXX, not from the Hebrew, which (see Hupfeld on the Psalms in loc.) means ‘ tremble (‘ stand in awe,’ E. V.) and sin not.’ The first imperative, although jussive, is so in a weaker degree than the other: it is rather assumptive, than permissive. ‘ Be angry (if it must be so):’ as if he had said, 1 Corinthians 7:31, χράσθετῷκόσμῳτούτῳ (for that must be), καὶμὴκαταχρᾶσθε . As Chr., εἴτιςἐμπέσοιποτὲεἰςτὸπάθος , ἀλλὰμὴεἰςτοσοῦτον . Thus Tholuck’ s question, Bergpred., p. 186, is answered:— “ If Paul speaks of culpable anger, how can he distinguish sinning from being angry? If of allowable anger, how can he expect not to retain it over the night?” — the answer being, that he speaks of anger which is an infirmity, but by being cherished, may become a sin): let the sun not set upon your irritation a speedy limit, and indeed that one which nature prescribes— the solemn season when you part from that brother to meet again perhaps in eternity. The Commentators quote from Plut. de am. frat., p. 488 b, a custom of the Pythagoreans, εἴποτεπροσαχθεῖενεἰςλοιδορίαςὑπ ʼ ὀργῆς , πρὶνἢτὸνἥλιονδῦναι , τὰςδεξιὰςἐμβάλλοντεςἀλλήλοιςκ . ἀσπασάμενοιδιελύοστο . παροργισμός is a late word, apparently not found beyond the N. T. and LXX: the verb -ίζω occurs ch. 6:4, where see note. The παρ - implies, irritation on occasion given, as in παρορμάω , παροξύνω ), 27. nor again give scope to the devil (not, to the slanderer, as Erasm., al.: διάβολος as a substantive always has this personal meaning in the N. T.; see reff.). 28. Let him that stealeth (not ‘ that stole,’ as E. V.; ‘ qui furabatur,’ Vulg.: cf. reff., and Winer, § 45. 7. Stier remarks well, that the word lies between κλέψας and κλέπτης : the former would be too mild, the latter too strong) steal no longer, but rather (οὐγὰρἀρκεῖπαύσασθαιτῆςἁμαρτίας , ἀλλὰκαὶτὴνἐναντίαναὐτῆςὁδὸνμετελθεῖν , Thl.: similarly Chr.) let him labour, working (cf. besides reff., John 6:27 and note) with his hands (contrast to his former idleness for good, and bad use of those hands) that which is good (τὸἀγ . ‘ antitheton ad furtum prius manu piceata commissum.’ Beng.), in order that (as a purpose to be set before every Christian in his honest labour) he may have to impart to him that has need. 29. Let every worthless (ὃμὴτὴνἰδίανχρείανπληροῖ , Chr. (in Mey.: not in Hom. h. l.): not so much ‘ filthy,’ — see ch. 5:4) saying not come forth from your mouth,— but whatever (saying) is good for edification of the (present) need (the χρεία is the deficiency: the part which needs οἰκοδομεῖσθαι , = the defect to be supplied by edification; and so is the regular objective genitive after οἰκοδομήν , which has no article, because it has a more general reference than merely to τῆςχρείας , which afterwards limits it. The renderings ‘ quâ sit opus’ (Erasm., Peile, al.), ‘ use of edifying’ (Syr., Beza, E. V.), are manifestly wrong), that it may give grace (minister spiritual benefit: be a means of conveying through you the grace of God. Such, from the context (cf. οἰκοδ . τῆςχρ .), must be the meaning, and not ‘ may give pleasure,’ as Thdrt., Kypke, al.) to them that hear: 30. and grieve not (the expression is anthropopathic,— but as Meyer remarks, truly and touchingly sets forth the love of God, which (Romans 5:5) is shed abroad in our hearts by His Spirit) the Holy Spirit of God (the repetition of the articles gives solemnity and emphasis), in whom (as the element, condition, of the sealing: not by whom; the sealing, both of the Lord and of us His members, is the act of the Fathar, John 6:27: the Spirit being the seal, ch. 1:13) ye were sealed unto (in reservation for) the day of redemption (the day when redemption shall be complete in glory— see again ch. 1:13. On the genitive, see Winer, § 30. 2,— so ἡμέραὀργῆς , Romans 2:5, &c. So far from the doctrine of final perseverance, for which Eadie more sharply than reasonably contends, being involved here, there could hardly be a plainer denial of it by implication. For in what would issue the grieving of the Holy Spirit, if not in quenching His testimony and causing Him to depart from them? The caution of Thl., μὴλύσῃςτὴνσφραγῖδα , is a direct inference from the passage). 31. Let all bitterness (οἱδὲπικροὶδυσδιάλυτοι , κ . πολὺνχρόνονὀργίζονται , κατέχουσιγὰρτὸνθυμόν , Aristot. Eth. Nic. iv. 11. ὁτοιοῦτοςκ . βαρύθυμόςἐστικ . οὐδέποτεἀνίησιτὴνψυχήν , ἀεὶσύννουςὢνκ . σκυθρωπός , Chrys. So that it is not only of speech, but of disposition) and wrath and anger (θυμὸςμένἐστιπρόσκαιρος , ὀργὴδὲπολυχρόνιοςμνησικακία , Ammon. Both are effects of πικρία , considered as a rooted disposition. See Trench, Synon., § 37) and clamour (‘ in quem erumpunt homines irati,’ Est. Chrys. quaintly says, ἵπποςγάρἐστινἀναβάτηνφέρωνἡκραυγὴτὴνὀργήν · συμπόδισοντὸνἵππον , κ . κατέστρεψαςτὸνἀναβάτην . His reproofs to the ladies of Constantinople on this head give a curious insight into the domestic manners of the time) and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice (the inner root, out of which all these spring, ἢοὐκοἶδας , ὅτιαἱπυρκαϊαὶμάλιστάεἰσιχαλεπώταται , αἵπερἂνἔνδοντρεφόμεναιμὴφαίνωνταιτοῖςπεριεστηκόσινἐκτός ; Chrys.): 32. but be ye (it is very difficult to mark the distinction between γίνεσθε and ἐστέ in a translation. Become ye (Ellic.) is certainly too far off the time present; be ye, too immediately belonging to it. The difficulty is best seen in such a command as that in John 20:27, μὴγίνουἄπιστοςἀλλὰπιστός ) towards one another kind (see note, Galatians 5:22), tender-hearted (“ εὔσπλ . profanis animosum, fortem, cordatum notat (see Eurip. Rhes. 192). At res ipsa docet h. l. esse, misericordem, benignum (ref.). In testament. xii. patriarch. p. 644, de Deo dicitur: ἐλεήμωνἐστὶκαὶεὔσπλαγχνος , ibid. paulo post; piis ἴασιςκ . εὐσπλαγχνία , ‘ salus et misericordia futura’ dicitur, ibid. p. 641, ἔχετεεὐσπλαγχνίανκατὰπαντὸςἀνθρώπου .” Kypke. So also in the prayer of Manasseh, 6, εὔσπλαγχνος , μακρόθυμοςκ . πολυέλεος ; see also the parallel, Colossians 3:12), forgiving each other (this idiom is found in classical Greek— καθ ʼ αὑτοῖνδικρατεῖςλόγχαςστήσαντ ʼ ἔχετονκοινοῦθανάτουμέροςἄμφω , Soph. Antig. 145. See Matthiæ , Gr. § 489. See remarks on its especial propriety as distinguished from ἀλλήλοις , on ref. Col.), even as (argument from His example whom we ought to resemble— also from the mingled motives of justice and gratitude, as Matthew 18:33, οὐκἔδεικαίσεἐλεῆσαιτὸνσύνδουλόνσου , ὡςκἀγώσεἠλέησα ;) God in Christ (not ‘ for Christ’ s sake,’ as E. V., see 2 Corinthians 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:20. God in Christ, manifested in Him, in all He has done, and suffered: Christ is the sphere, the conditional element in which this act took place. Chrys. appears to take ἐν as ‘ at the cost of,’ as (?) Joshua 6:26; Matthew 17:21: for he says, ἵνασοισυγγνῷ , τὸνυἱὸνἔθυσε ) forgave you , as E. V. It is the historical fact of Christ once for all putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, which is alluded to. So that we are not 1) to attempt to change the meaning into a future (“ even as thou, Lord, for Christ’ s sake, hast promised to forgive us.” Family Prayers by Bishop Blomfield, p. 43): nor 2) to render χαριζόμενοι and ἐχαρίσατο , with Erasmus, ‘ largientes’ and ‘ largitus est,’ a meaning clearly at variance with the context). 5:1, 2. These verses are best taken as transitional,— the inference from the exhortation which has immediately preceded, and introduction to the dehortatory passage which follows. Certainly Stier seems right in viewing the περιπατεῖτε as resuming περιπατῆσαι ch. 4:1, and indicating a beginning, rather than a close, of a paragraph. Be ye (γίνεσθε , see on last verse) therefore (seeing that God forgave you in Christ, see next verse) imitators of God (viz. in walking in love, see below), as children beloved and (shew it by this, that ye) walk in love, as Christ also (this comes even nearer: from the love of the Father who gave His Son, to that of the Son, the Personal manifestation of that love in our humanity) loved (not, ‘ hath loved’ as E. V.) you (the ὑμᾶς … ὑμῶν is more a personal appeal: the ἡμᾶς … ἡμῶν of the rec. is a general one, deduced from the universal relation of us all to Christ), and gave up Himself for you an offering and a sacrifice (beware of προσφ . κ . θυσ . = θυσίανπροσφερομένην (Conyb.): it is our duty, in rendering, to preserve the terms coupled, even though we may not be able precisely to say wherein they differ. The ordinary distinction, that προσφορά is an unbloody offering, θυσία a slain victim, cannot be maintained, see Hebrews 10:5, Hebrews 10:18; Hebrews 11:4. I believe the nearest approach to the truth will be made by regarding προσφ . as the more general word, including all kinds of offering,— θυσία as the more special one, usually involving the death of a victim. 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) to God (to be joined, as a (dat. commodi, with πρ . κ . θυσ .: not with παρέδωκεν (as De W. and Mey.), from which it is too far removed: still less (as Stier, who would apply the clause τῷθ … εὐωδίας , to us) with what follows) for an odour of sweet smell (the question so much discussed, whether these words can apply to a sin-offering strictly so called, is an irrelevant one here. It is not [see above] 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 here predicated of Him. The allusion primarily is to ref. Gen., where after Noah had brought to God a sacrifice of every clean beast and bird, ὠσφράνθηκύριοςὁθεὸςὀσμὴνεὐωδίας ,— and the promise followed, that He would no more destroy the earth for man’ s sake). 3-21. Dehortation (for the most part) from works unbecoming the holiness of the life of children and imitators of God. 3. But (not transitional merely: there is a contrast brought out by the very mention of πορνεία after what has just been said) fornication and all impurity or (see ch. 4:19 note) covetousness (ib.), let it not be even named (‘ ne nomen quidem audiatur.’ Calv. So Dio Chrys. p. 360 b (Mey.), στάσινδὲοὐδὲὀνομάζεινἄξιονπαρ ʼ ὑμῖν : Herod. i. 138, ἅσσαδέσφιποιέεινοὐκἔξεστι , ταῦταοὐδὲλέγεινἔξεστι . Cf. Psalms 15:4) among you, as becometh saints (meaning, that if it were talked of, such conversation would be unbecoming the holy ones of God): and obscenity (not in word only (αἰσχρολογία , ref. Col.): cf. Plato, Gorg. p. 525 a, ὑπὸἐξουσίαςκ . τρυφῆςκ . ὕβρεωςκ . ἀκρατίαςτῶνπράξεωνἀσυμμετρίαςτεκαὶαἰσχρότητοςγέμουσαντὴνψυχὴνεἶδεν ) and foolish talking (‘ stultiloquium,’ Vulg. Wetst. quotes from Antigonus de Mirabilibus, 126, τὰμεγάλακ . ἐπανεστηκόταμωρολογίαςκ . ἀδολεσχίας . Trench well maintains, Syn. § 34, that in Christian ethics, it is more than mere ‘ random talk:’ it is that talk of fools, which is folly and sin together: including not merely the πᾶνῥῆμαἀργόν of our Lord (Matthew 12:36), but in good part also the πᾶςλόγοςσαπρός of his Apostle (Ephesians 4:29)) or (disjunctive, marking off εὐτραπελία as πλεονεξία before) jesting (much interest attaches to this word, which will be found well discussed in Trench, as above. It had at first a good signification: Aristot. Eth. Nic. iv. 8, deals with the εὐτράπελος — οἱἐμμελῶςπαίζοντεςεὐτράπελοιπροσαγορεύονται ,— and describes him as the mean between the βωμολόχος and ἄγροικος . So too Plato, Rep. viii. p. 563 a,— οἱδὲγέροντεςξυγκαθιέντεςτοῖςνέοιςεὐτραπελίαςτεκ . χαριεντισμοῦἐμπίπλανται , … ἵναδὴμὴδοκῶσινἀηδεῖςεἶναιμηδὲδεσποτικοί . But Trench remarks that there were indications of a bad sense of the word: e.g. Pind. Pyth. i. 178,— μὴδολωθῇς , ὦφίλε , κέρδεσινεὐτραπέλοις , where he quotes from Dissen— ‘ primum est de facilitate in motu, tum ad mores transfertur, et indicat hominem temporibus inservientem, diciturque tum de sermone urbano, lepido, faceto, imprimis cum levitatis et assentationis, simulationis notione.’ I may add, as even more apposite here, Pyth. iv. 185, οὔτεἔργονοὔτ ʼ ἔποςεὐτράπελονκείνοισινεἰπών . Aristotle himself, Rhet. ii. 12 end, defines it as πεπαιδευμένηὕβρις . “ The profligate old man in the ‘ miles gloriosus’ of Plautus, iii. 1. 42-52, who at the same time prides himself, and with reason, on his wit, his elegance, and his refinement (cavillatus, lepidus, facetus), is exactly the εὐτράπελος : and remarkably enough, when we remember that εὐτραπελία being only expressly forbidden once in Scripture, is forbidden to Ephesians, we find him bringing out, that all this was to be expected from him, seeing that he was an Ephesian: ‘ Post Ephesi sum natus: non enim in Apulis, non Animulæ .’  ” Trench: whose further remarks should by all means be read), which are not becoming (the reading τὰοὐκἀνήκοντα has perhaps come into the text from the τὰμὴκαθήκοντα of Romans 1:28, the οὐκ of the text being preserved through inadvertence. If, however, the participial clause be retained in the text, it may be grammatically justified by remembering that, where the various objects are specified which as matter of fact are οὐκἀνήκοντα , the objective negative particle οὐκ may be used: whereas in Romans 1:28, where no such objects are specified, we have ποιεῖντὰμὴκαθήκοντα , ‘ si quæ essent indecora,’ as Winer, § 55. 5: see Hartung, vol. ii. p. 131): but rather thanksgiving (not, as Jer., Calv., al., ‘ sermo qui gratiam apud audientes habet,’ which the word cannot mean. It is a question, what verb is to be supplied: Beng. supposes ἀνήκει , which is perhaps most likely, as suiting the simplicity of the construction of these hortatory verses better than going back to ὀνομαζέσθω (De W., Mey., al.),— and as finding a parallel in ch. 4:29, where the ellipsis is to be supplied from the sentence itself. 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 connexion 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’ ). 5. Appeal to their own knowledge that such practices exclude from the kingdom of God: see below. For this ye know (indicative, not imperative: this to my mind is decided 1) by the context, in which an appeal to their own consciousness of the fact is far more natural than a communication of the fact to them: 2) by the position of the words, which in the case of an imperative would more naturally be ἴστεγὰρτοῦτογινώσκοντες : 3) by the use of the construction ἴστεγινώσκοντες , which almost necessitates a matter of fact underlying γινώσκοντες .— ἴστεγιν . is not an example of the γινώσκωνγνώσῃ (Genesis 15:13 al.) of Hebrew usage, the two verbs being different) being aware that every fornicator or (ἤ now, not καί , for individualization of each) unclean man, or covetous man, which is (i.e. ‘ that is to say,’ — ‘ quod;’ meaning, the word πλεονέκτης . This reading necessarily confines the reference to that one word) an idolater (cf. Colossians 3:5, which shews that even ὅςἐστιν would apply to the πλεονέκτης only, not, as Stier, al., to the three: see Job 31:24; Psalms 52:7; Matthew 6:24. Mey. remarks well, that it was very natural for St. Paul, whose forsaking of all things (2 Corinthians 6:10; 2 Corinthians 11:27) so strongly contrasted with selfish greediness, to mark with the deepest reprobation the sin of πλεονεξία ), hath not inheritance (the present implying more the fixedness of the exclusion, grounded on the eternal verities of that Kingdom,— than mere future certainty: see 1 Corinthians 15:25) in the Kingdom of Christ and God (not ‘ and of God’ (κ . τοῦθ .) as E. V. No distinction is to be made, χριστοῦκαὶθεοῦ 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 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 χριστοῦκ . 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). 6. Let no one deceive you with vain (empty— not containing the kernel of truth, of which words are but the shell— words with no underlying facts. Æ schines, de Corona, p. 288, says that Demosthenes had drawn up a decree, κενώτεροντῶνλόγωνοὓςεἴωθελέγειν , κ . τοῦβίουὃνβεβίωκε . See other examples in Kypke h. l.) sayings ; for (let them say what they will, it is a fact, that) on account of these things (the above-mentioned erimes, see Colossians 3:6, δι ʼ ὃἔρχεταιἡὀργ . κ .τ .λ .: not the ἀπάτη just spoken of, to which the objection is not so much the plural ταῦτα , as the τοὺςυἱοὺςτ . ἀπειθείας which follows, shewing that the carrying out of their ἀπείθεια are the ταῦτα spoken of; and the μὴοὖνγίν . κ .τ .λ . of ver. 7) cometh (present, as ἔχει , ver. 5) the wrath of God (not merely, or chiefly, His ordinary judgments, ‘ quorum exempla sunt ante oculos,’ as Calv.: nor the ‘ antitheton reconciliationis,’ as Beng., for that is on all who are not in Christ (John 3:36): but His special wrath, His vengeance for these sins, over and above their state of ἀπείθεια ) on the sons of (see on ch. 2:2) disobedience (the active and practical side of the state 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). 7. Be not (the distinction ‘ Become not’ (‘ nolite effici,’ Vulg.: so Stier, Ellic., al.) is unnecessary and indeed unsuitable: it is not a gradual ‘ becoming,’ but ‘ being,’ like them, which he here dehorts from. See on γίνεσθε not bearing the meaning “ become,” note, ch. 4. ult.) therefore (since this is so— that God’ s wrath comes on them) partakers (see ch. 3:6) with them (the νἱοὶτ . ἀπ ., not the sins:— sharers in that which they have in common, viz. these practices: their present habitude, not, their punishment, which is future: nor can the two senses be combined, as Stier characteristically tries to do). 8. For (your state (present, see above) is a totally different one from theirs— excluding any such participation) ye were (emphatic, see ref.) once (no μέν . “ The rule is simple: if the first clause is intended to stand in connexion with and prepare the reader for the opposition to the second, μέν is inserted: if not, not: see the excellent remarks of Klotz, Devar. ii. p. 356 sq.: Fritz., Romans 10:19, vol. ii. p. 423.” Ellic.) darkness (stronger than ἐνσκότει , Romans 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:4: they were darkness itself— see on φῶς below), but now (the ἐστέ is not expressed— perhaps, as Stier suggests, not only for emphasis, but to carry a slight tinge of the coming exhortation, by shewing them what they ought to be, as well as were by profession) light (not πεφωτισμένοι — light has an active, illuminating power, which is brought out in ver. 13) in (‘ in union with’ — conditioning element— not ‘ by’ — διὰτῆςθεοῦχάριτος , Chr.) the Lord (Jesus): walk (the omission of οὖν makes the inference rhetorically more forcible) as children of light (not τοῦφωτός , as in Luke 16:8, where τὸφῶς is contrasted with ὁαἰὼνοὗτος , and in next verse, where τοῦφωτός is the figurative φῶς — q. d. ‘ the light of which I speak:’ here it is light, as light, which is spoken of. The omission of the article may be merely from the rules of correlation, as Ellic.: but I much prefer here to treat it as significant); for (gives the reason of the introduction of the comparison in the context, connecting this with the moral details which have preceded) the fruit of the light (τοῦ , see above) is in (is borne within the sphere of, as its condition and element) all goodness and righteousness and truth (in all that is good (Galatians 5:22), right, and true. As Harl. observes, the opposites are κακία , ἀδικία , ψεῦδος ): proving (to be joined with περιπατεῖτε as its modal predicate, ver. 9 having been parenthetical. 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) what is well-pleasing to the Lord; 11. and have no fellowship with (better than ‘ be not partakers in,’ as De W., which would require a genitive, see Demosth. p. 1299. 20, συγκεκοινωνήκαμεντῆςδόξηςταύτηςοἱκατεστασιασμένοι : whereas the person with whom, is regularly put in the dative, e.g. Dio Cass. xxxvii. 41, συγκοινωνήσαντόςσφισιτῆςσυνωμοσίας ,— ib. lxxvii. 16, συνεκοινώνησαναὐτῇκ . ἕτεραιτρεῖςτῆςκαταδίκης . And Philippians 4:14 furnishes no objection to this rendering) the unfruitful works of darkness , but rather even reprove them (see reff.,— in words: not only abstain from fellowship with them, but attack them and put them to shame). 12. For the things done in secret by them, it is shameful even to speak of : 13. but (opposition to τὰκρυφῆγιν .) all things (not only, all the κρυφῆγινόμενα , as Ellic. after Jer. al.: the Apostle is treating of the general detecting power of light, as is evident by the resumption of the πᾶν in the next clause) being reproved, are made manifest by the light: for every thing which is made manifest is light (the meaning being, ‘ the light of your Christian life, which will be by your reproof shed upon these deeds of darkness, will bring them out of the category of darkness into light’ (ἐπειδὰνφανερωθῇ , γίνεταιφῶς , Chr.). They themselves were thus once darkness,’ but having been ‘ reproved’ by God’ s Spirit, had become ‘ light in the Lord.’ There is in reality no difficulty, nor any occasion for a long note here. The only matters to be insisted on are, 1) ὑπὸτοῦφωτός belongs to φανεροῦται , not to ἐλεγχόμενα : for it is not the fact of φανεροῦται that he is insisting on, but the fact that if they reproved the works of darkness, these would become no longer works of darkness, but would be ὑπὸτοῦφωτὸςφανερούμενα . And 2) φανερούμενον is passive, not middle, in which sense it is never used in N. T.; ‘ every thing which is made manifest, is no longer darkness, but light: and thus you will be, not compromised to these works of darkness, but making an inroad upon the territory of darkness with the ὅπλατοῦφωτός .’ And thus the context leads on easily and naturally to the next verse. The objection to this (Eadie) that ‘ light does not always exercise this transforming influence, for the devil and all the wicked are themselves condemned by the light, without becoming themselves light,’ is null, being founded on misapprehension of the φῶςἐστιν . Objectively taken, it is universally true: every thing shone upon is light. Whether this tend to condemnation or otherwise, depends just on whether the transforming influence takes place. The key-text to this is John 3:20, πᾶςγὰρὁφαῦλαπράσσωνμισεῖτὸφῶς , κ . οὐκἔρχεταιπρὸςτὸφῶς , ἵναμὴἐλεγχθῇτὰἔργααὐτοῦ ,— His works being thus brought into the light,— made light, and he being thus put to shame. Notice also φανερωθῇ in the next verse, which is the desire of him who ποιεῖτὴνἀλήθειαν . The E. V. is doubly wrong— 1) in ‘ all things that are reproved’ : 2) in ‘ whatsoever doth make manifest is light’ : besides that such a proposition has absolutely no meaning in the context. The meaning is discussed at length in Harl., Eadie, who however fall into the error of rendering φανερούμενον active (not middle),— Stier, Ellicott,— and best of all, Meyer): 14. wherefore (this being so— seeing that every thing 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) He (viz. God, in the Scripture: see ch. 4:8 note: all other supplies, such as ‘ the Spirit in the Christian’ (Stier),— ‘ the Christian speaking to the Heathen’ (Flatt),— ‘ one may say’ (Bornemann) &c. are mere lame helps out of the difficulty:— as are all ideas of St. Paul having quoted a Christian hymn (some in Thdrt.), an apocryphal writing (some in Jer., Epiph., al.), a baptismal formula (Michaelis),— one of our Lord’ s unrecorded sayings (Rhenferd),— or that he means, ‘ thus saith the Lord’ (some in Jer. al.), or alludes to the general tenor of Scripture (Wesley),— or does not quote at all (Barnes), &c. &c.) saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee (where is this citation to be found? In the first place, by the introduction of ὁχριστός , it is manifestly a paraphrase, not an exact citation. The Apostle cites, and had a perfect right to cite, the language of prophecy in the light of the fulfilment of prophecy: and that he is here doing so, the bare word ‘ Christ’ shews us beyond dispute. I insist on this, that it may be plainly shewn 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 O. T. is this a paraphrase? I answer, of Isaiah 60:1, Isaiah 60:2. There, the church is set forth as being in a state of darkness and of death (cf. 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? It is not true (as Stier), that there is ‘ no allusion to sleep or death’ in the prophet: nor is it true again, that ἐπὶσὲφανήσεταικύριοςκ . ἡδόξααὐτοῦἐπὶσὲὀφθήσεται is not represented by ἐπιφαύσεισοιὁχριστός . The fact is, that Stier has altogether mistaken the context, in saying,— “ The Apostle quotes here, not to justify the exhortation— ‘ convict, that they may become light;’ — but to exhort— ‘ Become light, that ye may be able to convict (shine):’  ” the refutation of which see above, on ver. 13). 15. He now resumes the hortative strain, interrupted by the digression of vv. 12-14. Take heed then (there is not any immediate connexion with the last verse: but the οὖν resumes from the περιπατεῖτε in ver. 8, and that which followed it there) how ye walk strictly (the construction is exactly as in ref. 1 Cor., ἕκαστοςδὲβλεπέτωπῶςἐποικοδομεῖ . ‘ Take heed, of what sort your ἀκριβῶςπεριπατεῖν is:’ — the implication being, ‘ 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.’ So that a double exhortation is involved. See Ellic. here: and the Fritzschiorum Opuscula, pp. 208 f., note), (namely) not as unwise, but as wise (qualification of the ἀκριβῶςπεριπατεῖτε , and expansion of the πῶς (μή , subj.): no περιπατοῦντες need be supplied after μή , as Harl.), buying up for yourselves (the) opportunity (viz. of good, whenever occurring; let it not pass by, but as merchants carefully looking out for vantages, make it your own: see Colossians 4:5. The compound ἐξ - does not suggest the question ‘ from whom’ it is to be bought, as Beng., Calv., al., nor imply mere completeness, as Mey., but rather refers to the ‘ collection out of’ (see reff. Gal.), the buying up, as we say: culling your times of good out of a land where there are few such flowers. The middle gives the reflexive sense: cf. ref. Dan.), because the days (of your time,— in which you live) are evil (see above. ὁἐξαγοραζόμενοςτὸνἀλλότριονδοῦλον , ἐξαγοράζεταικ . κτᾶταιαὐτόν . ἐπεὶοὖνὁκαιρὸςδουλεύειτοῖςπονηροῖς , ἐξαγοράσασθεαὐτόν , ὥστεκαταχρήσασθαιαὐτῷτρὸςεὐσέβειαν . Severianus, in Cramer’ s Catena). 17. On this account (because ye have need so prudently to define your rule of life, and so carefully to watch for opportunities of good: not, because the ἡμέραι are πονηραί (Œ c., Thl., De W., Olsh.), which would fritter down the context) be not (better than ‘ do not become,’ which though more strictly the literal sense of μὴγίνεσθε , puts the process of degeneracy too strongly in English) senseless , but understand (συνιέναι , to know intelligently,— γινώσκειν merely to know as matter of fact, as the servant who knew his lord’ s will and did it not, Luke 12:47) what is the will of the Lord. 18. The connexion seems to be: after the general antithesis in ver. 17, μὴἄφρονες , ἀλλὰσυνίετεκ .τ .λ ., he proceeds to give one prominent instance, in the same antithetical shape. And (καί is subordinate, introducing a particular after a general: so Herod. i. 73, τῶνδεεἵνεκακαὶγῆςἱμέρῳ … see Hartung i. 145) be not intoxicated with wine, in which practice (not, ἐνοἴνῳ , but ἐντῷμεθύσκεσθαιοἴνῳ — the crime is not in God’ s gift, but in the abuse of it: and the very arrangement of the sentence, besides the spirit of it, implies the lawful use of wine— see 1 Timothy 5:23) is profligacy , al., but from ἀ — σώζειν : ἀσωτίαἐστὶνὑπερβολὴπερὶχρήματα , Aristot. Eth. Nic. iv. 1. 3. But as spendthrifts are almost of necessity self-indulgent and reckless, the word comes to have the meaning of ‘ dissoluteness,’ ‘ debauchery,’ ‘ profligacy,’ — see Eth. Nic. iv. 1. 36, Tittmann, p. 152, and Trench, N. T. Syn. § 16. Theodotion renders Isaiah 28:7 by ἐντῇμέθῃἠσωτεύθησανὑπερόγκως ): but (contrast, see above) be filled (antith. to μεθύσκεσθεοἴνῳ ;— not to μεθύσκεσθε alone, so that ἐνπνεύματι should be opposed to οἴνῳ : see below) with (ἐν , as ch. 1:23, but also ‘ in:’ let this be the region in, and the ingredient with which you are filled) the Spirit (the ambiguity in the preposition is owing to the peculiar meaning of πνεῦμα as applied to the Christian:— viz. his own spirit, dwelt in and informed by the Holy Spirit of God, see note on ch. 4:23. If this is so, if you are full of the Spirit, full in Spirit, there will be a joy indeed, but not that of ἀσωτία : one which will find its expression not in drunken songs, but in Christian hymns, and continual thankfulness), speaking to one another (ch. 4:32; see also the , Colossians 3:16. It is perhaps too much to find in this the practice of antiphonal chanting: but it is interesting to remember that in Pliny’ s letter the Christians are described as ‘ soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem:’ and that Nicephorus, Hist. xiii. 8 (cited by Eadie), says τὴντῶνἀντιφώνωνσυνήθειανἄνωθενἀποστόλωνἡἐκκλησίαπαρέλαβε . Conyb. places a full stop at ἑαυτοῖς : but surely both style and sense are thus marred) in (this must be the rendering, whether the preposition is inserted or not) psalms (not to be confined, as Olsh. and Stier, to O. T. hymns; see 1 Corinthians 14:26; James 5:13. The word properly signified those sacred songs which were performed with musical accompaniment (so Basil, Hom. in Psalms 29:1, vol. i. p. 124, ὁψαλμὸςλόγοςἐστὶμουσικός , ὅτανεὐρύθμωςκατὰτοὺςἁρμονικοὺςλόγουςπρὸςτὸὄργανονκρούηται — and Greg. Nyss. in Psal. lib. ii. 3, vol. i. p. 493, Migne, ψαλμόςἐστινἡδιὰτοῦὀργάνουτοῦμουσικοῦμελῳδία ,— as ὕμνοι without it: but the two must evidently here not be confined strictly to their proper meaning) and hymns (see above) and [spiritual] songs , inspired by that fulness of the Spirit which is in him), singing and playing (as well as λαλοῦντες , not explanatory of it: ᾄδοντες and ψάλλοντες corresponding to ὕμνοις and ψαλμοῖς above) in your hearts to the Lord (i.e. Christ— cf. Pliny’ s letter above),— giving thanks (another additional, not explanatory, clause) always for all things in the name (the element in which the εὐχαριστοῦντες must take place. “ The name of the Lord is there, where He is named. How He is named, depends on the particular circumstances: it is one thing to be reproached (1 Peter 4:14), another to be saved (Acts 4:12), another to be baptized (Acts 10:48), another to command (2 Thessalonians 3:6), another to pray (John 14:13), another to give thanks (cf. Colossians 3:17) in the name of the Lord.… The Apostle says, that all the Christian would do, he must do in the name of Christ (Colossians 3:17).” Harl.: the rest of the note is well worth consulting) of our Lord Jesus Christ to God and the Father (see on ch. 1:3),— being subject to one another (a fourth additional, not subordinate clause. λαλοῦντες ,— ᾄδοντεςκ . ψάλλοντες ,— εὐχαριστοῦντες ,— ὑποτασσόμενοιἀλλήλοις : and then out of this last general injunction are unfolded all the particular applications to the relations of life, ver. 22— ch. 6:9. It is not so easy to assign precisely its connexion with those which have preceded. It is hardly enough to say that as the first three name three special duties in regard to God, so this last a comprehensive moral duty in regard to man (Ellic.): for the question of the connexion is still unanswered. I would rather regard it (as I see Eadie also does), as a thought suggested by the μὴμεθ . κ .τ .λ . with which the sentence began— 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, &c.) in the fear of Christ (‘ rara phrasis,’ Beng.: of Him, whose members we all are, so that any displacement in the Body is a forgetfulness of the reverence due to Him). 22-6:9. The Church, in her relation to Christ, comprehending and hallowing those earthly relations on which all social unity (and hers also) is founded, the Apostle proceeds to treat of the three greatest of those: that of husband and wife (vv. 22-33), that of parent and child (ch. 6:1-4), that of master and servant (6:5-9). See this expanded by Stier, in his very long note, ii. 316-329. 22-33. Mutual duties of wives and husbands arising from the relation between Christ and the Church. 22. Wives (supply, as rec. has inserted, ὑποτάσσεσθε , seeing that the subsequent address to husbands is in the 2nd person), to your own husbands , to intensify the recognition of the relationship and suggest its duties: see 1 Corinthians 7:2: also John 5:18), as to the Lord (‘ quasi Christo ipsimet, cujus locum et personam viri repræ sentant.’ Corn.-a-lap. in Ellic.: i.e. ‘ in obeying your husbands, obey the Lord:’ not merely as in all things we are to have regard to Him, but because, as below expanded, the husband stands peculiarly in Christ’ s place. But he is not thus identified in power with Christ, nor the obedience, in its nature, with that which is owed to Him): for a husband is head of his wife, as also (καί , introducing identity of category) Christ is Head of the church (see for the sentiment, 1 Corinthians 11:3 note), (being, in His case— see below) Himself Saviour of the Body ; and has noticed that in the only other place (except the pastoral Epistles) where St. Paul uses σωτήρ , Philippians 3:20, Philippians 3:21, it is also in connexion with σῶμα ): but (what I do say is, that thus far the two Headships are to be regarded as identical, in the subjection of the body to the Head) as the church is subjected to Christ, so also (again, identity of category in the ὑποτάσσ .) let the wives be to their husbands (not ἰδίοις now, as it would disturb the perspicuity of the comparison) in every thing (thus only, with Calv., Beng., Mey., Ellic., can I find any legitimate meaning or connexion in the words. All attempts 1) to explain σωτὴρτυῦσώμ . also of the marriage state , or 2) to deprive ἀλλά of its adversative force (Rü ck., Harl., al.), or 3) refer it to something other than the preceding clause (De W., Eadie), seem to me unsatisfactory). 25. I cannot refrain from citing Chrys.’ s very beautiful remarks on this next passage,— εἶδεςμέτρονὑπακοῆς ; ἄκουσονκαὶμέτρονἀγάπης . βούλεισοιτὴνγυναῖκαὑπακούειν , ὡςτῷχριστῷτὴνἐκκλησίαν ; προνόεικαὶαὐτὸςαὐτῆς , ὡςὁχριστὸςτῆςἐκκλησίας · κἂντὴνψυχὴνὑπὲραὐτῆςδοῦναιδέῃ , κἂνκατακοπῆναιμυριάκις , κἂνὁτιοῦνὑπομεῖναικαὶπαθεῖν , μὴπαραιτήσῃ · κἂνταῦταπάθῃς , οὐδὲνοὐδέπωπεποίηκας , οἷονὁχριστός · σὺμὲνγὰρἤδησυναφθεὶςταῦταποιεῖς , ἐκεῖνοςδὲὑπὲρἀποστρεφομένηςαὐτὸνκαὶμισούσης · ὥσπεροὖναὐτὸςτὴνἀποστρεφομένηναὐτὸνκαὶμισοῦσανκαὶδιαπτύουσανκαὶθρυπτομένην , περὶτοὺςπόδαςαὐτοῦτῇπολλῇἤγαγετῇκηδεμονίᾳ , οὐκἀπειλαῖς , οὐδὲὕβρεσιν , οὐδὲφόβῳ , οὐδὲἑτέρῳτινὶτοιούτῳ · οὕτωκαὶσὺπρὸςτὴνγυναῖκαἔχετὴνσήν · κἂνὑπερορῶσαν , κἂνθρυπτομένην , κἂνκαταφρονοῦσανἴδῃς , δυνήσῃαὐτὴνὑπὸτοὺςπόδαςἀγαγεῖντοὺςσοὺςτῇπολλῇπερὶαὐτὴνπρονοίᾳ , τῇἀγάπῃ , τῇφιλίᾳ . οὐδὲνγὰρτούτωντυραννικώτεροντῶνδεσμῶν , καὶμάλισταἀνδρὶκ . γυναικί . οἰκέτηνμὲνγὰρφόβῳτιςἂνκαταδῆσαιδυνήσεται , μᾶλλονδὲοὐδὲἐκεῖνον · ταχέωςγὰρἀποπηδήσαςοἰχήσεται · τὴνδὲτοῦβίουκοινωνόν , τὴνπαίδωνμητέρα , τὴνπάσηςεὐφροσύνηςὑπόθεσιν , οὐφόβῳκαὶἀπειλαῖςδεῖκαταδεσμεῖν , ἀλλ ʼ ἀγάπῃκαὶδιαθέσει . Husbands, love your wives, as also (see above) Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (better than ‘ it;’ the comparison is thus brought out as in the original. κἂνπάθῃςτιὑπὲραὐτῆς , μὴὀνειδίσῃς · οὐδὲγὰρὁχρ . τοῦτοἐποίησε . Chr.) that (intermediate purpose, as regarded her; see below, ver. 27) He might sanctify her, having purified her (ἁγιάση and καθαρίσας might be contemporaneous, and indeed this is the more common usage of past participles with past finite verbs in the N. T. (see ch. 1:9 note). But here, inasmuch as the sanctifying is clearly a gradual process, carried on till the spotless presentation (ver. 27), and the washing cannot be separated from the introductory rite of baptism, it is best to take the καθαρίσας as antecedent to the ἁγιάσῃ ) by the laver (not ‘ washing,’ as E. V.: a meaning the word never has) of the water (of which we all know: viz. the baptismal water, see ref. Tit. We can hardly set aside the reference to the purifying bath of the bride previous to marriage:— see below on ver. 27, and cf. Revelation 21:2) in the word (what word? ἐνὀνόματιπατρὸςκ . υἱοῦκ . ἁγίουπνεύματος , says Chrys. alluding to the formula in Baptism: and so many fathers:— the ‘ mandatum divinum’ on which Baptism rests (Storr, Peile):— the ‘ invocatio divini nominis’ which gives Baptism its efficacy (Erasm.):— 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 Aug. Tract. 80 in Joan. 3, vol. iii. p. 1840, Migne; where those memorable words occur, “ Detrahe verbum, et quid est aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum.” And this certainly seems the sense most analogous to St. Paul’ s usage, in which ῥῆμα is confined to the divine word. But we must not join ἐνῥήματι with τῷλουτρῷ nor with τοῦὕδατος ; for the former would require τῷἐνῥήματι ,— the latter, τοῦἐνῥήματι ,— there being no such close connexion as to justify the omission of the article; indeed the specification being here absolutely required, after so common a term as τὸλοῦτροντοῦὕδατος . So that we are referred back to the verb (ἁγ .) and participle preceding. The former connexion is not probable, on account of the participle intervening: see also below. The latter is on all accounts the most likely. Thus, the word, preached and received, is the conditional element of purification,— the real water of spiritual baptism;— that wherein and whereby alone the efficacy of baptism is conveyed— that wherein and whereby we are regenerated, the process of sanctification being subsequent and gradual), 27. that He might Himself present to Himself (as a bride, see reff. 2 Cor.: not as a sacrifice (Harl.), which is quite against the context. The expression sets forth that the preparation of the Church for her bridal with Christ is exclusively by His own agency) the church glorious (the prefixed adjective is emphatic, which we lose in translation), not having spot (a late word— τοῦτοφυλάττου , λέγεδὲκηλίς — Phryn. Lobeck 28, where see note. It is found in Dion. Hal., Plut., Lucian, &c. The proper accentuation seems to be as in text, not σπῖλος . In Anthol. vi. 252, we have ἄσπιλον , ἀῤῥυτίδωτον , beginning a hexameter) or wrinkle ρύω , see Palm and Rost, Lex. A classical word, see reff.), or any of such things, but that she may be holy (perfect in holiness) and blameless (see on both, note, ch. 1:4). The presentation here spoken of is clearly, in its full sense, that future one at the Lord’ s coming, so often treated under the image of a marriage (Matthew 22:1 ff.; Matthew 25:1 ff.; Revelation 19:7 ff.; Revelation 21:2 al. fr.), not any progress of sanctification here below, as Harl., Beng., al., maintain : however the progress towards this state of spotlessness in this life may sometimes be spoken of in its fulness and completion, or with reference to its proper qualities, not here found in their purity. Schö ttgen quotes a rabbinical comment on Son 1:5:— ‘ Judæ i de synagoga intelligunt, et sic explicant: nigra sum in hoc sæ culo, sed decora in sæ cuIo futuro.’ 28. Thus (two ways of understanding this οὕτως are open to us: 1) as referring back to Christ’ s love for the church,— ‘ Thus,’ ‘ in like manner,’ &c., as (being) ‘ their own bodies:’ and 2) as referring forward to the ὡς below, as very frequently (though Eadie calls it contrary to grammatical law) in St. Paul ,— ‘ Thus,’ ‘ so,’ &c., ‘ as (they love) their own bodies.’ After weighing maturely what has been said on one side and the other, I cannot but decide for the latter, as most in accordance with the usage of St. Paul and with ver. 33: also as more simple. The sense (against Ellic.) remains substantially the same, and answers much better to the comment furnished by the succeeding clauses:— husbands ought to love their own wives as they love their own bodies (= themselves: for their wives are in fact part of their own bodies, ver. 31): this being illustrated by and referred to the great mystery of Christ and His church, in which the same love, and the same incorporation, has place) ought the husbands also (as well as Christ in the archetypal example just given) to love their own (emphatic: see above on ver. 22) wives, as (with the same affection as) their own bodies. He that loveth his own (see above) wife, loveth himself : for (see above) no man ever hated his own flesh , but nourishes it up (through all its stages, to maturity: so Aristoph. Ran. 1189, of Œ dipus, ἵναμὴ ʼ κτραφεὶςγένοιτοτοῦπατρὸςφονεύς : and ib. 1427, οὐχρὴλέοντοςσκύμνονἐνπόλειτρέφειν (at all): ἢνδ ʼ ἐκτραφῇτις (have been brought up), τοῖςτρόποιςὑπηρετεῖν ) and cherishes , Mey., al.: for it is very forced to apply the feeding and clothing to the other member of the comparison , as must then be done (against Mey.)) it, as also (does) Christ (nourish and cherish) the church. 30. For members we are of His Body [,— (being) of His flesh, and of His bones ]: wherefore (the allusion, or rather free citation, is still carried on: cf. Genesis 2:24:— i.e. because we are members of Him in the sense just insisted on. This whole verse is said (see on ver. 32 below) not of human marriages, but of Christ and the church. He is the ἄνθρωπος in the Apostle’ s view here, the Church is the γυνή . But for all this, I would not understand the words, as Meyer, in a prophetical sense of the future coming of Christ:— the omission of the article before ἄνθρωπος sufficiently retains the general aphorismatic sense:— but would regard 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. This seems to me to be necessary, because we are as truly now εἰςσάρκαμίαν with Him, as we shall be, when heaven and earth shall ring with the joy of the nuptials;— and hence the exclusive future sense is inapplicable. In this allegorical sense (see below), Chrys., Jer., and most of the ancients: Beng., Grot., Mey. (as above), al., interpret: and Eadie would have done well to study more deeply the spirit of the context before he characterized it as ‘ strange romance,’ ‘ wild and visionary,’ and said, ‘ there is no hint that the Apostle intends to allegorize.’ That allegory, on the contrary, is the key to the whole) shall a man leave father and mother and shall be closely joined to his wife, and they two shall become (see Matthew 19:5, note) one flesh (‘ non solum uti antea, respectu ortus: sed respectu novæ conjunctionis.’ Beng.). 32. This mystery is great (viz. the matter mystically alluded to in the Apostle’ s application of the text just quoted: the mystery of the spiritual union of Christ with our humanity, typified by the close conjunction of the marriage state. This meaning of μυστήριον , which is strictly that in which St. Paul uses the word (see reff.),— as something passing human comprehension, but revealed as a portion of the divine dealings in Christ,— is, it seems to me, required by the next words. It is irksome, but necessary, to notice the ridiculous perversion of this text by the Romish church, which from the Vulgate rendering, ‘ sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia,’ deduces that ‘ marriage is a great sacrament in Christ and in His Church’ (Encyclical letter of 1832 cited by Eadie). It will be enough to say that this their blunder of ‘ sacramentum’ for ‘ mysterium,’ had long ago been exposed by their own Commentators, Cajetan and Estius): but I (emphatic) say (allege) it with reference to Christ, and [with reference to] the church (i.e. my meaning, in citing the above text, is to call your attention, not to mere human marriage, but to that high and mysterious relation between Christ and His Church, of which that other is but a faint resemblance). 33. Nevertheless (not to go further into the mystical bearings of the subject— so Meyer) you also (as well as Christ) every one (see reff. and 1 Corinthians 14:27; Acts 15:21; Hebrews 9:25), let each οὕτωτὸαὑτῆςἑκάστηἔργονἐργάζεται , κ .τ .λ . Cic. de Off. i. 41, ‘ poetæ suum quisque opus a vulgo considerari vult’ ) so love his own wife as himself, and the wife (best taken as a nominative absolute, as Mey. Otherwise we should rather expect ἵναδὲἡγυνὴκ .τ .λ . It is no objection to this (Eadie) that in the resolution of the idiom a verb must be supplied:— but the wife, for her part,— ‘ I order,’ or, ‘ let her see,’ cf. note on 2 Corinthians 8:7), that she fear (ὡςπρέπειγυναῖκαφοβεῖσθαι , μὴδουλοπρεπῶς , Œ c.) her husband. Ch. 6:1-4. See on ch. 5:22. Duties of children and parents. Children, obey your parents [in the Lord (i.e. Christ: the sphere in which the action is to take place, as usual: ἐνκυρίῳ belonging to ὑπακούετετ . γον ., not to τοῖςγον ., as if it were τοῖςἐνκυρίῳγον ., nor can this be combined, as a second reference, with the other, as by Orig. in Cramer’ s Catena, understanding ‘ your fathers in the faith, ὁποῖοςὁΠαῦλοςἦνΚορινθίων .’ I should venture however to question whether the Apostle’ s view was to hint at such commands of parents as might not be according to the will of God, as is very generally supposed (‘ quia poterant parentes aliquid imperare perversum, adjunxit in Domino.’ Jer.): for cf. Colossians 3:20, ὑπακούετετοῖςγονεῦσινκατὰπάντα . 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: but it seems to violate the simplicity of this ὑποτασσόμενοιἀλλήλοις passage, to introduce into it a by-thought of this kind)]: for this is right (Thdrt., Harl., De W., Mey., al., regard δίκαιον as explained by the next verse, and meaning κατὰτὸνθεοῦνόμον . But it seems rather an appeal to the first principles of natural duty, as Est., ‘ ut a quibus vitam acceperimus, iis obedientiam reddamus.’ So Beng. Stier, as usual, combines both senses— just, according to the law both of nature and of God. Surely it is better to regard the next verse as an additional particular, not the mere expansion of this). 2. Honour thy father and thy mother, for such is (‘ seeing it is,’ as Ellic., is rather too strong for ἥτις , throwing 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 shew its special acceptableness to God) the first commandment (in 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) with a promise (i.e. with a special promise attached: ‘ in respect of promise’ is too vague, and does not convey any definite meaning in English. The fact certainly is so, and the occurrence of the description of God as ‘ shewing mercy unto thousands, &c.’ after the second commandment, does not, as Jer., al., have thought, present any difficulty— for that is no special promise attached to the commandment. Nor does the fact that no other commandment occurs in the decalogue with a promise: see above. The ἐν , as in reff.— in the sphere or department of— characterized by— accompanied with), that it may be well with thee, and thou be long-lived upon the earth (he paraphrases the latter portion of the commandment, writing for ἵναμακρ . γένῃ , ἔσῃμ .,— and omitting after γῆς , (τῆςἀγαθῆς , so in Exod., but not in Deut.) ἧςκύριοςὁθεόςσουδίδωσίνσοι : thus adapting the promise to his Christian readers, by taking away from it that which is special and peculiar to the Jewish people. It is surely a mistake, as Jer., Aq., Est., Olsh., to spiritualize the promise, and understand by τῆςγῆς the heavenly Canaan. The very fact of the omission of the special clause removes the words from the region of type into undoubted reality: and when we remember that the persons addressed are τὰτέκνα , we must not depart from the simplest Sense of the words. For the future after ἵνα , see 1 Corinthians 9:18, note: and John 7:3; Revelation 22:14. To consider it as such, is far better than to suppose a change of construction to the direct future— ‘ and thou shalt be, &c.’ ). 4. And ye, fathers (the mothers being included, as ὑποτασσόμεναιτοῖςἰδίοιςἀνδράσιν — they being the fountains of domestic rule: not for any other less worthy reason, to which the whole view of the sexes by the Apostle is opposed), irritate not (οἷον , says Chrys., οἱπολλοὶποιοῦσιν , ἀποκληρονόμουςἐργαζόμενοι , καὶἀποκηρύκτουςποιοῦντες , καὶφορτικῶςἐπικείμενοι , οὐχὡςἐλευθέροιςἀλλ ʼ ὡςἀνδραπόδοις . But the Apostle seems rather to allude to provoking by vexatious commands, and unreasonable blame, and uncertain temper, in ordinary intercourse: cf. Colossians 3:21) your children, but bring them up in (as the sphere and element: see Plato above) the discipline and admonition (‘ παιδεία hic significare videtur institutionem per pœ nas: νουθεσία autem est ea institutio quæ fit verbis.’ Grot. Such indeed is the general sense of παιδεία in the LXX and N. T., the word having gained a deeper meaning than mere ‘ eruditio,’ by the revealed doctrine of the depravity of our nature: see Trench, Syn. § 32. Ellic. remarks, that this sense seems not to have been unknown to earlier writers, e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 3. 5, διαίτῃτήντεψυχὴνἐπαίδευσεκ . τὸσῶμα … , he disciplined &c., but not Polyb. ii. 9. 6, where it is ἀβλαβῶςἐπαιδεύθησανπρὸςτὸμέλλον . νουθεσία (a late form for νουθέτησις , see Phryn. Lob. p. 512) is as Cicero, ‘ quasi lenior objurgatio:’ ‘ the training by word— by the word of encouragement, when no more is wanted;— of remonstrance, reproof, or blame where these are required.’ Trench, ubi supra) of the Lord (i.e. Christ: either objective,— ‘ concerning the Lord:’ — so Thdrt. and very many of the ancients, and Erasm., Beza (not Est.), &c.; or subjective— ‘ such as the Lord approves and dictates by His Spirit,’ — so De W., Harl., Olsh., Mey., Stier. Conyb. renders ‘ such training and correction as befits the servants of Christ,’ which surely the words can hardly contain). 5-9. See on ch. 5:22. Duties of masters and slaves. Slaves (or as Conyb., ‘ Bondsmen.’ There is no reason to render οἱδοῦλοι , servants, as in E. V., for by this much of the Apostle’ s exhortation is deprived of point), obey your lords according to the flesh (= τοῖςκατὰσάρκακυρίοις , Colossians 3:22: not to be joined with ὑπακούετε : nor can it be here said as so often, that κύριοσκατὰ -σάρκα is united in one idea: for in the context, another description of κύριος is brought forward, viz. ὁχριστός . Chrys. sees in κατὰσάρκα a consolatory hint that the δεσποτεία is πρόσκαιροςκαὶβραχεῖα : Calv., that their real liberty was still their own: Ellic. in citing these, rightly observes, that however they may be doubted, still both, especially the latter, are obviously deductions which must have been, and which the Apostle might have intended to have been, made) with fear and trembling (see reff., and note on 1 Corinthians 2:3: whence it appears that the φόβοςκ . τρόμος was to be not that of dread, arising from their condition as slaves, but that of anxiety to do their duty,— ‘ sollicita reverentia, quam efficiet cordis simplicitas.’ Calv.), in (as its element) simplicity (singleness of view: “ so Pind., Nem. viii. 61, speaks of κελεύθοιςἁπλόαιςζωᾶς in contrast with πάρφασις , treachery: in Aristoph. Plut. 1159, it is opposed to δόλιος : in Philo, Opif. 36, 39 (§ 55, 61, vol. i. pp. 38, 41), it is classed with ἀκακία ,” Harl.) of your heart, as to Christ (again— He being the source and ground of all Christian motives and duties), not in a spirit of (according to, measuring your obedience by) eyeservice as men-pleasers , but as slaves of Christ (ὁἄραἀνθρωπάρεσκος , οὐδοῦλοςτοῦχριστοῦ · ὁδὲδοῦλοςτοῦχριστοῦ , οὐκἀνθρωπάρεσκος . τίςγὰρθεοῦδοῦλοςὤν , ἀνθρώποιςἀρέσκεινβούλεται ; τίςδὲἀνθρώποιςἀρέσκων , θεοῦδύναταιεἶναιδοῦλος ; Chrys. The contrast is between κατ ʼ ὀφθαλμοδουλείαν and ὡςδοῦλοιχρ ., and ποιοῦντεςκ .τ .λ . is a qualification of δοῦλοιχριστοῦ . This is much more natural, than, with Rü ckert, to make ποιοῦντεςκ .τ .λ . carry the emphasis, and ὡςδοῦλ . χρ . to be merely subordinate to it), doing the will of God (serving not a seen master only (ὀφθαλμοδουλ .), but the great invisible Lord of all, which will be the surest guarantee for your serving your earthly masters, even when unseen); from your soul with good will doing service (this arrangement, which is that of Syr., Chr., Jer., Beng., Lachm., Harl., De Wette, seems to me far better than the other (Tischdf., Mey., Ellic., al.) which joins ἐκψυχῆς to ποιοῦντεςτὸθέλ . τοῦθεοῦ . For 1) these words need here no such qualification as ἐκψυχῆς : if the will of God be the real object of the man’ s obedience, the μὴκατ ʼ ὀφθαλμοδουλ . will be sufficiently answered: and 2) were it so, it would be more natural to find ἐκψυχῆς preceding than following the clause,— ἐκψυχῆςποιοῦντεςτὸθέλ . τοῦθεοῦ , or ἐκψυχῆςτὸθέλ . τοῦθεοῦποιοῦντες , or τὸθέλ . τοῦθεοῦἐκψυχῆςποιοῦντες , whereas 3) the double qualification, ἐκψυχῆςμετ ʼ εὐνοίας , attached to δουλεύοντες , describes beautifully the source in himself and the accompanying feeling towards another of Christian service. On εὔνοια in this sense, cf. Eur. Androm. 59, εὔνουςδὲκαὶσοί , ζῶντιδ ʼ ἦντῷσῷπόσει : Xen. Œ con. xii. 5, εὔνοιανπρῶτον … δεήσειαὐτὸνἔχεινσοικαὶτοῖςσοῖς … ; ἄνευγὰρεὐνοίαςτίὄφελοςἐπιτρόπουἐπιστήμηςγίνεται ; and the other examples in Wetst.) as to the Lord and not to men, 8. knowing (as ye do; i.e. seeing that ye are aware) that each man if he shall have done (at Christ’ s coming) any good thing (the reading is in some doubt. If we take the rec., or that of A, &c. we must render ‘ whatsoever good thing each man shall have done,’ and take ὃἐάντι for ὅτιἄν ; so Plato, Legg. ix. p. 864 e, ἢνἄντινακαταβλάψῃ : and Lysis. p. 160, ὃςἄντιςὑμᾶςεὖποιῇ (cited in Mey.). On ἐάν , see Winer, § 42. 6 obs.), this he shall receive (see reff. where the same expression occurs— this he shall then receive in its value as then estimated,— changed, so to speak, into the currency of that new and final state) from the Lord (Christ), whether he be slave or free : 9. and ye masters, do the same things (‘ jus analogum, quod vocant:’ as they are to remember one whom they serve, so (below) are ye— and, ‘ mutatis mutandis,’ to act to them as they to you. This wider sense is better than that of Chrys., τὰαὐτὰποῖα ; μετ ʼ εὐνοίαςδουλεύετε ) with regard to them, forbearing your (usual) threatening (τήν , ‘ quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet,’ Erasm. par. in Mey.), knowing (as ye do: see ver. 8) that both of them and of yourselves the Master is in the heavens, and respect of persons . 10-20. General exhortation to the spiritual conflict and to prayer. Henceforward (cf. Galatians 6:17, note: τὸλοιπόν (see var. readd.) would be ‘ finally.’ Olsh.’ s remark, that the Apostle never addresses his readers as ἀδελφοί in this Epistle, is perfectly correct: the ἀδελφοῖς in ver. 23 does not contravene it (as Eadie), but rather establishes it. He there sends his apostolic blessing τοῖςἀδελφοῖς , but does not directly address them) be strengthened (passive, not middle, see reff.— and Fritz. on Romans 4:20) in the Lord (Christ), and in the strength of his might (see on κράτοςτῆςἰσχύος , note, ch. 1:19). Put on the entire armour (emphatic: repeated again ver. 13: offensive, as well as defensive. It is probable that the Apostle was daily familiarized in his imprisonment with the Roman method of arming) of God (Harl. maintains that the stress is on τοῦθεοῦ , to contrast with τοῦδιαβόλου below: but there is no distinction made between the armour of God and any other spiritual armour, which would be the case, were this so. τοῦθεοῦ , as supplied, ministered, by God, who ἅπασιδιανέμειτὴνβασιλικὴνπαντευχίαν , Thdrt.), that ye may be able to stand against (so Jos. Antt. xi. 5. 7, θαῤῥεῖνμὲνοὖντῷθεῷπρῶτον , ὡςκαὶπρὸςτὴνἐκείνωνἀπέχθειανστησομένῳ : see Kypke, ii. p. 301, and Ellicott’ s note here) the schemes (the instances (concr.) of a quality (abstr.) of μεθόδεια . τίἐστιμεθόδεια ; μεθοδεῦσαίἐστιτὸἀπατῆσαι , κ . διὰσυντόμονἑλεῖν , Chrys.:— the word is however sometimes used in a good sense, as Diod. Sic. i. 81, ταύταςδὲοὐῥᾴδιονἀκριβῶςἐξελέγξαι , μὴγεωμέτρουτὴνἀλήθειανἐκτῆςἐμπειοίαςμεθοδεύσαντος ,— ‘ if the geometrician had not investigated, &c.’ The bad sense is found in Polyb. xxxviii. 4. 10, πολλὰδήτιναπρὸςταύτηντὴνὑπόθεσινἐμπορεύωνκ . μεθοδευόμενος , ἐκίνεικ . παρώξυνετοὺςὄχλους . See Ellic. on ch. 4:14) of the devil. 12. For (confirms τ . μεθ . τοῦδιαβ . preceding) our (or ‘ your:’ the ancient authorities are divided) wrestling (πάλη must be literally taken— it is a hand to hand and foot to foot ‘ tug of war’ — that in which the combatants close, and wrestle for the mastery) is not (Meyer well remarks, that the negative is not to be softened down into non tam, or non tantum, as Grot., &c.— the conflict which the Apostle means (qu.? better, ἡπάλη , the only conflict which can be described by such a word— our life and death struggle, there being but one such) is absolutely not with men but &c. He quotes from Aug., “ Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, i.e. adversus homines, quos videtis sæ vire in nos. Vasa sunt, alius utitur: organa sunt, alius tangit” ) against blood and flesh (i.e. men: see reff.), but (see above) against the governments, against the powers (see note on ch. 1:21), against the world-rulers (munditenentes, as Tert. c. Marc. v. 18, vol. ii. p. 58. Cf. John 12:31 note; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19. The Rabbis (see Schö ttg.) adopted this very word ק ו ס מ ו ק ר ת ו ר , and applied it partly to earthly kings (as on Gen_13), partly to the Angel of Death; ‘ quamvis te feci κοσμοκράτορα super homines &c.’ So that the word must be literally understood, as in the places cited. Cf. Ellicott’ s note) of this (state of) darkness (see ch. 2:2; 5:8, 11), against the spiritual (armies) (so we have (Mey.) τὸπολιτικόν (Herod. vii. 103), τὸἱππικόν (Revelation 9:16), τὰλῃστρικά (Polyæ n. v. 14), τὰδοῦλα , τὰαἰχμάλωτα &c. Winer, Gr. § 34, remark 3, compares τὰδαιμόνια , originally a neuter-adjective form. See Bernhardy, Synt. p. 326, for more examples. Stier maintains the abstract meaning, ‘ the spiritual things:’ but as Ellic. remarks, the meaning could not be ‘ spiritales malignitates,’ as Beza, but ‘ spiritualia nequitiæ ,’ as the Vulg., i.e. ‘ the spiritual elements,’ or ‘ properties,’ ‘ of wickedness,’ which will not suit here) of wickedness in the heavenly places , though possibly the order of the sentence might. Rü ckert, Matth., Eadie, al., interpret of the scene of the combat, thus also joining ἐντ . ἐπ . with ἔστ . ἡμ . ἡπάλη . The objection to this is twofold: 1) that the words thus appear without any sort of justification in the context: nay rather as a weakening of the following διὰτοῦτο , instead of a strengthening: and 2) that according to Eadie’ s argument, they stultify themselves. He asks, “ How can they (the heavenly places, the scenes of divine blessing, of Christ’ s exaltation, &c.) be the seat or abode of impure fiends?” But if they are “ the scene of” our “ combat” with these fiends, how can our enemies be any where else but in them? Two ways then remain: to join ἐντοῖςἐπουρ . a) with τὰπνευματικὰτῆςπονηρίας — b) with τῆςπονηρίας only. The absence of an article before ἐν forms of course an objection to both: but not to both equally. Were b) to be adopted, the specifying τῆς would appear to be required— because the sense would be, ‘ of that wickedness,’ viz., the rebellion of the fallen angels, ‘ which was (or is) in the heavenly places.’ If a), we do not so imperatively require the τά before ἐν , because ἐντοῖςἐπουρ . only specifies the locality,— does not distinguish τὰπνευματικὰτῆςπονηρ . ἐντοῖςἐπουρ . from any other πνευματικὰτῆςπονηρίας elsewhere. So that this is in grammar the least objectionable rendering. And in sense it is, notwithstanding what Eadie and others have said, equally unobjectionable. That habitation of the evil spirits which in ch. 2:2 was said, when speaking of mere matters of fact, to be in the ἀήρ , is, now that the difficulty and importance of the Christian conflict is being forcibly set forth, represented as ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις — over us, and too strong for us without the panoply of God. Cf. τὰπετεινὰτοῦοὐρανοῦ , Matthew 6:26; and reff.). 13. Wherefore (since our foes are in power too mighty for us,— and in dwelling, around and above us) take up (i.e. not ‘ to the battle,’ but ‘ to put on:’ ‘ frequens est ἀναλαμβάνειν de armis;’ Kypke in loc. He refers to Diod. Sic. xx. 33, ἕκαστοιτὰςπανοπλίαςἀνελάμβανονἐπὶτὴντοῦφονεύσαντοςτιμωρίαν ,— and many places in Josephus. See also Wetst.) the entire armour of God (see on ver. 11) that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day , and having accomplished all things , nor again, understood of preparation only (= παρασκευασάμενοι , 1 Corinthians 14:8) as Erasm., Beza, Bengel, al. To finish, or accomplish, is the invariable Pauline usage of the word when taken in a good sense) to stand firm (at your post: as Estius, reporting others,— ‘ ut posteaquam omnia quæ boni militis sunt, perfeceritis, stare et subsistere possitis:’ — that you may not, after having done your duty well in battle, fall off, but stand your ground to the end. The other interpretation, ‘ stare tanquam triumphatores,’ is precluded by what has been said above). 14-20. Particulars of the armour, and attitude of the soldier. 14. Stand therefore (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), having girt about your loins with truth (not truth objective, which is rather the ῥῆμαθεοῦ below, ver. 17: but ‘ truthfulness,’ subjective truth: to be understood however as based upon the faith and standing of a Christian, necessarily his truthfulness in his place in Christ. As the girdle (hardly here, however true that may have been, to be regarded as carrying the sword, for that would be confusing the separate images, cf. ver. 17) kept all together, so that an ungirded soldier would be (see Mey.) a contradiction in terms,— just so Truth is the band and expediter of the Christian’ s work in the conflict, without which all his armour would be but encumbrance. Gurnall’ s notion (Christian Armour, vol. i. p. 378), that ‘ the girdle is used as an ornament, put on uppermost, to cover the joints of the armour, which would, if seen, cause some uncomeliness’ , is against the context, and against the use of the phrase ζωνν . τ . ὀσφ . in the N. T.), and having put on the breastplate of righteousness (see ref. Isa., and Wisd. 5:19. As in those passages, righteousness is the breastplate— the genitive here being one of apposition. The righteousness spoken of is that of Rom 6:13— the purity and uprightness of Christian character which is the result of the work of the Spirit of Christ; the inwrought righteousness of Christ, not merely the imputed righteousness), and having shod your feet (as the soldier with his sandals— cf. the frequent description of arming in Homer— ποσσὶδ ʼ ὑπαὶλιπαροῖσινἐδήσατοκαλὰπέδιλα . The Roman caliga may be in the Apostle’ s mind: see on ver. 11) with (local again, not instrumental: see on ver. 14) the readiness (the uses of ἑτοιμασία (‘ in classical Greek, ἑτοιμότης , Dem. 1268. 7.’ Mey.) in Hellenistic Greek are somewhat curious, and may have a bearing on this passage. In Psalms 9:17, it has the sense of inward ‘ preparedness,’ — τὴνἑτοιμασίαντῆςκαρδίας — of outward, in Jos. Antt. x. 1. 2, δισχιλίους … ἵππουςεἰςἑτοιμασίανὑμῖνπαρέχεινἕτοιμόςεἰμι : of preparation, in an active sense, Wisd. 13:12, τὰἀποβλήματατῆςἐργασίαςεἰςἑτοιμασίαντροφῆςἀναλώσαςἐνεπλήσθη : in Ezra 2:68, it answers to the Heb. מ ָ כ ו ֹ ן , a foundation, τοῦστῆσαιαὐτὸν (the temple) ἐπὶτὴνἑτοιμασίαναὐτοῦ , see also Psalms 88:14, δικαιοσ . κ . κρίμαἑτοιμασίατοῦθρόνουσου , and Daniel 11:7 Theod. From this latter usage (which can hardly be a mistake of the translators, as Mey. supposes) some (Beza, Bengel, al.) have believed that as the ὑποδήματα are the lowest part of the panoply, the same meaning has place here: but no good sense seems to me to be gained: for we could not explain it ‘ pedes militis Christiani firmantur Evangelio, ne loco moveatur,’ as Beng. Nor again can it mean the preparation (active) of the Gospel, or preparedness to preach the Gospel, as Chrys. and most Commentators (‘ shod as ready messengers of the glad tidings of peace,’ Conyb.), for the persons addressed were not teachers, but the whole church. The only refuge then is in the genitive subjective, ‘ the preparedness of,’ i.e. arising from, suggested by ‘ the Gospel of peace;’ and so Œ c. (2), Calv., Harl., Olsh., De W., Mey., Ellic., al.) of the Gospel of peace (the Gospel whose message and spirit is peace: so ὁμῦθοςὁτῆςἐπιστήμης , Plato, Theæ t. p. 147 c: see Bernhardy, p. 161), besides all (not as E. V. ‘ above all,’ as if it were the most important: nor as Beng., al. ‘ over all,’ so as to cover all that has been put on before:— see especially reff. to Luke. And the all, as no τούτοις is specified, does not apply only to ‘ quæ cunque induistis’ (Beng.), but generally, to all things whatever. But it is perhaps doubtful, whether ἐνπᾶσιν ought not to be read: in which case it will be “ in all things,” i.e. on all occasions) having taken up (see on ver. 13) the shield (θυρεός , ‘ scutum:’ οἷόντιςθύραφυλάττωντὸσῶμα : the large oval shield, as distinguished from the small and light buckler, ἀσπίς ,‘ clypeus.’ Polybius in his description (6:23) of the Roman armour, which should by all means be read with this passage, says of the θυρεός ,— οὗτὸμὲνπλάτοςἐστὶτῆςκυρτῆςἐπιφανείαςπένθ ʼ ἡμιποδίων · τὸδὲμῆκος , ποδῶντεττάρων . Kypke quotes from Plutarch, that Philopœ men persuaded the Achæ ans, ἀντὶμὲνθυρεοῦκαὶδόρατοςἀσπίδαλαβεῖνκαὶσάρισσαν . He adduces examples from Josephus of the same distinction,— which Phryn. p. 366, ed. Lob., states to have been unknown to the ancients, as well as θυρεός in this sense at all. See Lobeck’ s note, and Hom. Od. i. 240) of (genitive of apposition) faith, in which (as lighting on it and being quenched in it; or perhaps (as Ellic. altern. with the above), “ as protected by and under cover of which” ) you shall be able (not as Mey., to be referred to the last great future fight— but used as stronger than ‘ in which ye may,’ &c., implying the certainty that the shield of faith will at all times and in all combats quench &c.) to quench all the fiery darts , is evidently ungrammatical. See Smith’ s Dict. of Antiq. art. Malleolus, and Winer, Realw. ‘ Bogen.’ If the art. τά be omitted, a different turn must be given to the participle, which then becomes predicative: and we must render, ‘ when inflamed,’ even in their utmost malice and fiery power) of the wicked one (see reff. and notes on Matthew 5:37; John 17:15. Here, the conflict being personal, the adversary must be not an abstract principle, but a concrete person). 17. And take (‘ accipite oblatam a Domino.’ Beng.) the helmet (πρὸςδὲτούτοις … περικεφαλαίαχαλκῆ . Polyb. ubi supra) of (genitive of apposition as above) salvation (the neuter form, from LXX l. c.: otherwise confined to St. Luke. Beng. takes it masculine, ‘ salutaris, i.e. Christi,’ — but this is harsh, and does not correspond to the parallel, 1 Thessalonians 5:8, where the helmet is the hope of salvation, clearly shewing its subjective character. Here, it is salvation appropriated, by faith), and the sword of (furnished, forged, by: cf. τ . πανοπλ . τ . θεοῦ vv. 11, 13: not here the genitive of apposition, for ὅἐστιν follows after) the Spirit, which (neuter, attracted to ῥῆμα : see ch. 3:13 and reff. there) is (see on ἐστιν , Galatians 4:24 reff.) the word of God (the Gospel: see the obvious parallel, Hebrews 4:12: also Romans 1:16: and our pattern for the use of this sword of the Spirit, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10); with (see reff.: as the state through which, as an instrument, the action takes place. The clause depends on στῆτεοὖν , the principal imperative of the former sentence— not on δέξασθε , which is merely a subordinate one, and which besides (Mey.) would express only how the weapons should be taken, and therefore would not satisfy πάσης and ἐνπαντὶκαιρῷ ) all (kind of) prayer and supplication (“ it has been doubted whether there is any exact distinction between προσευχή and δέησις . Chrys. and Thdrt. on 1 Timothy 2:1 explain προσευχή as αἴτησιςἀγαθῶν (see Suicer, Thes. s. v. 1),— δέησις as ὑπὲρἀπαλλαγῆςλυπηρῶνἱκετεία (so Grot. as ἀπὸτοῦδέους , but see 2 Corinthians 1:11): compare Orig. de Orat. c. 33 (vol. i. p. 271). Alii alia. The most natural and obvious distinction is that adopted by nearly all recent Commentators, viz. that προσευχή is a ‘ vocabulum sacrum’ (see Harl.) denoting prayer in general, ‘ precatio:’ δέησις a ‘ vocabulum commune,’ denoting a special character or form of it, ‘ petitum,’ rogatio: see Fritz. Romans 10:1, vol. ii. p. 372. Huther on Tim. l. c.” Ellicott) praying in every season (literal: cf. Luke 18:1 note, and 1 Thessalonians 5:17. There seems to be an allusion to our Lord’ s ἐνπαντὶκαιρῷδεόμενοι , ref. Luke) in the Spirit (the Holy Spirit: see especially Jude 1:20, and Romans 8:15, Romans 8:26; Galatians 4:6:— not, heartily, as Est., Grot., al.), and thereunto (with reference to their employment which has been just mentioned. Continual habits of prayer cannot be kept up without watchfulness to that very end. This is better than to understand it, with Chr., &c. of persistence in the prayer itself, which indeed comes in presently) watching in (element in which: watching, being employed, in) all (kind of) importunity and supplication (not a hendiadys: rather the latter substantive is explanatory of the former, without losing its true force as coupled to it: ‘ importunity and (accompanied with, i.e. exemplified by) supplication’ ) concerning all saints, and (καί brings into prominence a particular included in the general: see Hartung, i. 145) for me that there may be given me (I do not see the relevance of a special emphasis on δοθῇ as Mey., Ellic. That it is a gift, would be of course, if it were prayed for from God) speech in the opening of my mouth (many renderings have been proposed. First of all, the words must be joined with the preceding, not with the following, as in E. V., Grot., Kypke, De W., al., which would (see below) be too tame and prosaic for the solemnity of the passage. Œ c. (and similarly Chr.? see Ellic.) regards the words as describing unpremeditated speech: ἐναὐτῷτῷἀνοῖξαιὁλόγοςπροῄει . But as Mey., this certainly would have been expressed by ἐναὐτῇτῇἀν . or the like. Calv., ‘ os apertum cupit, quod erumpat in liquidam et firmam confessionem: ore enim semiclauso proferuntur ambigua et perplexa responsa,’ and similarly Rü ck., al., and De W. But this again is laying too much on the phrase: see below. The same objection applies to Beza and Piscator’ s rendering, ‘ ut aperiam os meum:’ and to taking the phrase of an opening of his mouth by God, as Corn.-a-lap., Grot., Harl., and Olsh. from Psalms 50:17 and Ezekiel 29:21. The best rendering is that of Est. , Meyer, Eadie, Ellic., al., ‘ in (at) the opening of my mouth,’ i.e. ‘ when I undertake to speak:’ thus we keep the meaning of ἀνοίγειντὸστόμα (reff. and Job 3:1; Daniel 10:16), which always carries some solemnity of subject or occasion with it), in boldness ((subjective) freedom of speech, not as Grot. (‘ ut ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem evangelicum,’ &c.), Koppe (objective), liberty of speech) to make known the mystery of the gospel (contained in the gospel: subjective genitive. ‘ The genitive is somewhat different to τὸμυστήρ . τοῦθελήματος , ch. 1:9: there it was the mystery in the matter of, concerning the θέλημα , gen. objecti,’ Ellic.), on behalf of which I am an ambassador (of Christ (ref.): to whom, is understood: we need not supply as Michaelis, to the court of Rome) in chains (the singular is not to be pressed, as has been done by Paley, Wieseler, al., to signify the chain by which he was bound to ‘ the soldier that kept him’ (Acts 28:20): for such singulars are often used collectively: see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 58 f., Polyb. xxi. 3. 3, παρὰμικρὸνεἰςτὴνἅλυσινἐνέπεσον . Wetst. remarks, ‘ alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant.’ His being thus a captive ambassador, was all the more reason why they should pray earnestly that he might have boldness, &c.), that (co-ordinate purpose with ἵναδοθῇ , not subordinate to πρεσβεύω . See examples of such a co-ordinate ἵνα in Romans 7:13; Galatians 3:14; 2 Corinthians 9:3. But no tautology (as Harl.) is involved: see below) in (the matter of, in dealing with: cf. λήθηἐντοῖςμαθήμασι , Plato, Phileb. p. 252 b: and see Bernhardy, p. 212: not as in 1 Thessalonians 2:2, ἐπαῤῥησιασάμεθαἐντῷθεῷἡμῶν , where ἐν denotes the source or ground of the confidence) it I may speak freely, as I ought to speak (no comma at με , as Koppe— ‘ that I may have confidence, as I ought, to speak;’ but the idea of speaking being already half understood in παῤῥησίᾳ , λαλῆσαι merely refers back to it. This last clause is a further qualification of the παῤῥησία — that it is a courage and free-spokenness ὡςδεῖ : and therefore involves no tautology). 21-24. Conclusion of the Epistle. 21. But (transition to another subject: the contrast being between his more solemn occupations just spoken of, and his personal welfare) that ye also (the καί may have two meanings: 1) as I have been going at length into the matters concerning you, so if you also on your part, wish to know my matters, &c.: 2) it may relate to some others whom the same messenger was to inform, and to whom he had previously written. If so, it would be an argument for the priority of the Epistle to the Colossians (so Harl. p. lx, Mey., Wieseler, and Wigger’ s Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 432): for that was sent by Tychicus, and a similar sentiment occurs there, 4:7. But I prefer the former meaning) may know the matters concerning me, how I fare (not, ‘ what I am doing,’ as Wolf: Meyer answers well, that he was always doing one thing: but as in Æ lian, V. H. ii. 35, where Gorgias being sick is asked τίπράττοι ; or as in Plut. inst. Lac. p. 241 (Kypke), where when a Spartan mother asks her son τίπράσσειπατρίς ; he answers, ‘ all have perished’ ) Tychicus (Acts 20:4.Colossians 4:7 Colossians 4:7. 2 Timothy 3:122 Ti 3:122 Ti 3:12. He appears in the first-cited place amongst Paul’ s companions to Asia from Corinth, classed with Τρόφιμος as Ἀσιανοί . Nothing more is known of him) shall make known all to you, the beloved brother (reff.) and faithful (trustworthy) servant (‘ minister’ is ambiguous, and might lead to the idea of Estius, who says on ‘ in Domino,’ — ‘ non male hinc colligitur Tychicum sacra ordinatione diaconum fuisse:’ see Colossians 4:7, where he is πιστὸςδιάκονοςκαὶσύνδουλος , and note there) in the Lord (belongs to διάκονος , not to both ἀδ . and διάκ . He διηκόνειἐνκυρίῳ , Christ’ s work being the field on which his labour was bestowed); whom I sent to you for this very purpose (not ‘ for the same purpose,’ as E. V.) that ye may know the matters respecting us (see Colossians 4:8, where this verse occurs word for word, but with ίναγνῷτὰπερὶὑμῶν for these words. Does not this variation bear the mark of genuineness with it? The ἡμῶν are those mentioned Colossians 4:10) and that he may comfort (we need not assign a reason why they wanted comfort:— there would probably be many in those times of peril) your hearts. 23, 24. Double Apostolic blessing; addressed (23) to the brethren, and (24) to all real lovers of the Lord Jesus Christ. 23. Peace (need not be further specified, as is done by some:— the Epistle has no special conciliatory view. It is sufficiently described by being peace from God) to the brethren (of the Church or Churches addressed: see Prolegg. to this Epistle, § ii.: not as Wieseler, ἀδελφοῖς to the Jews, and πάντων below to the Gentiles: for least of all in this Epistle would such a distinction be found) and love with faith (faith is perhaps presupposed as being theirs: and he prays that love may always accompany it, see Galatians 5:6: or both are invoked on them, see 1 Timothy 1:14) from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (see note on Romans 1:7). 24. General benediction on all who love Christ: corresponding, as Mey. suggests, with the malediction on all who love Him not, 1 Corinthians 16:22. May the grace (viz. of God, which comes by Christ) be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruptibility (i.e. whose love is incorruptible. The method of exegesis of this difficult expression will be, to endeavour to find some clue to the idea in the Apostle’ s mind. He speaks, in Colossians 2:22, of worldly things which are εἰςφθορὰντῇἀποχρήσει · — ἄφθαρτος is with him an epithet of God (Romans 1:23. 1 Timothy 1:17): the dead are raised ἄφθαρτοι (1 Corinthians 15:52): the Christian’ s crown is ἄφθαρτος (1 Corinthians 9:25). ἀφθαρσία is always elsewhere in N. T. (reff.) the incorruptibility of future immortality. If we seek elsewhere in the Epistles for an illustration of the term as applied to inward qualities, we find a close parallel in 1 Peter 3:4; where the ornament of women is to be ὁκρυπτὸςτῆςκαρδίαςἄνθρωποςἐντῷἀφθάρτῳτοῦπραέοςκ . ἡσυχίουπνεύματος — the contrast being between the φθαρτά , ἀργύριονκαὶχρυσίον , and the incorruptible graces of the renewed spiritual man. I believe we are thus led to the meaning here;— that the love spoken of is ἐνἀφθαρσία ;— in, as its sphere and element and condition, incorruptibility— not a fleeting earthly love, but a spiritual and eternal one. And thus only is the word worthy to stand as the crown and climax of this glorious Epistle: whereas in the ordinary (E. V.) rendering, ‘ sincerity,’ — besides that (as Mey.) this would not be ἀφθαρσία but ἀφθορία (Titus 2:7) or ἀδιαφθορία (see Wetst. on Tit. l. c.), the Epistle ends with an anti-climax, 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. As to the many interpretations,— that ἐν is for ὑπέρ (Chr. 2nd alt.), διὰ (Thl.), μετά (Thdrt.), εἰς (Beza), σύν (Piscator)— that ἐνἀφθαρσίᾳ is to be taken with χάρις (Harl., Bengel, Stier), that ἐνἀφθ . means ‘ in immortality,’ as the sphere of the ἀγάπη , cf. ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις , ch. 1:3,— that it is to be joined with Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ (‘ Christum immortalem et gloriosum, non humilem,’ Wetst.), that it is short for ἵναζωὴνἔχωσινἐνἀφθαρσίᾳ (Olsh.), &c. &c. (see more in Mey.), none of them seem so satisfactory as that assigned above).