Critical and Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament by Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Epistle To The Ephesians and The Epistle To Phiiemon.

r
3352^=15
r^(o\3
Ca;
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT

BY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER,

OBERCONSISTOEIALKATH, HANNOYEK.
Th.D.,
dTiom
tlje
(German,
luitlj
t\)t
Sanction
of
tlje
Sutljor.
THE TEANSLATION EEVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM
P.
DICKSON",
D.D.
TBI:
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS AND THE EPISTLE TO PHIIEMON.
T.
&
T.
EDINBURGH: CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXX.
,,
I'RINTED EY MORRISON
ANIil
GIBR,
FOR
T.
&
T.
CLARK, EDINBURGH.
HAMILTON,
AD.-VMS,
LONDON,
DUBLIN
NEW
YOT!K.
.... ....
AND
i-'O
ROBERTSON AND
CO.
SCRIBNER AND WELFORP
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HANDBOOK
TO THE
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

AND THE
EPISTLE TO PHILEMO]^.
BY
HEINPJCH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE,

OBEKCONSISTOKIALRATH, HANNOVER.
Th.D,
TKANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
REV.
MAUEICE
J.
EVANS,
B.A.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM
P.
DICKSON.
D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
T.
&
T.
EDIKBURGH: CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXX.
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.
HAVE
own
which
I
at length the pleasure of issuing the last
volume
of the English translation of Dr. Meyer's
part in the great
work which bears
his
name,
and of thereby
completing an
undertaking
on
have expended no small amount of time and labour

I
at intervals for the last eight years.
am
aware that I have
taxed considerably the patience of the

publishers, but I felt
it
subscribers and of the

to Dr.
due to them, as well as
Meyer
care
who had
entrusted
me
with the charge of seeing his work
faithfully reproduced, that the
work should be done with

skill
rather than with haste.
The present volume has been translated with

judgment by
Mr. Evans
from
the
fourth
and
the
edition
of
German
the last form, in which this portion of the

revision.
Comfifth
mentary had the advantage of Meyer's own

edition has since appeared (in
1878), imder the charge of
Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in which he has the book in a way similar to that adopted by Dr. Weiss treated with the Commentary on Mark and Luke, although not alterProfessor
ing
it
to
an equal extent.
It is difficult to see
why he
should
have followed such a course, for he himself states that he

"
has never been able to approve the custom of allowing other

I
hands to remodel the works of the departed."

expressed, in the prefatory note to the
have already
]\Iark
volume on
and
Luke, the grounds on which I take exception to the plan so

pursued, and I content myself with here referring to them as
5.
VI
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.
equally applicable in principle to the less important changes
made by Dr. Schmidt.

remark as
to the
I find a striking corroboration of
my
work manipulated by Dr. Weiss
being " to a
considerable extent a
new book by
another author, and from a
standpoint in various respects different," in the judgment pro-
nounced by Dr. Schrer, in a recent review

zeitung,
{Theol. Literatur-
9th October 1880), on the same
editor's
treatment of
the
Commentary on the Gospel
of John, when, after mentioning
various features of " complete independence " and " thorough

remodelling," he states that the result of the whole
essentially
is
"
an
new
work."
;
Dr.
it
Schrer indicates apjDroval of
the course pursued
but
seems to
me
alike unfair to the
memory
of Meyer, and uncalled for under the circumstances.
It is quite
open to an editor to write a book of his own on
the subject, or to append as

his author's text
much
as he
deems necessary
;
to
is
by way of addition and correction
but
it
not open
exegesis,
to
him thus
to recast an epoch-making work of
and
to retain for its altered shape the sanction of
the author's name.

far as the English
At any
rate, I
have thought
it right,
so
reader is concerned, to present, according
to
my
promise, the work of Meyer, without addition or sub-
traction, in its latest
and presumably best form
as
it left
his
hands.
I
may
add, that whatever care
may have been bestowed

many
on the revision of the Commentary by Dr. Schmidt has not

apparently extended to the correction of the press, for
errors,
which have been discovered and corrected by Mr.

in preparing the translation,
still
Evans and myself

the
disfigure
new
edition of the
German.
It
is,
of course, extremely
;
difficult to
avoid such errors in a work of the kind

that,
and
have no doubt
to
notwithstanding the care of the printers,
whose excellent arrangements I
am much
indebted, the
refer-
reader
ences,
may
light
on not a few mistakes, as concerns

like
;
accents,
and the
but, as Dr.
Meyer was not a

that
particularly
good corrector of the press, I trust
the
PEEFATOEY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

Englisli
Vll
edition
may
be found in that
resiêct
fully
more
accurate than the original.
In the General Preface prefixed to the first volume issued (Romans), I stated the grounds that had induced me to undertake the superintendence of the work, and
the revision of
the translation, in the interests of technical accuracy and of
uniformity of rendering throughout.

subscribers
And
in order that the

thei'ein
may
be assured that the promise

of
implied
it right,
has been
fulfilled to the best
my
ability, I
think
in conclusion, to state for mj'self (and I believe that the
same
may
lent
be said for
my
friends
Drs. Crombie and Stewart, wlio
me
their aid at a time
when
other work was pressing
heavily upon me) that I have carefully read and compared
every sentence of the translation in the ten volumes which I

edited
collating
its
it for
the most part in MS., as well as sub;
sequently on
passage through the press
that I have not
hesitated freely to
translators as
make such
to
;
cliauges
on the work of the
seemed
me
needful to meet the requirements

that,
which I had in view

alone
and
under these circumstances,

for the
am
formally and
finally responsible
shape in
which the Commentary appears.

prise
All concerned in the entergratified
have much reason to be

it
by the favour with

indeed,
which
has
been
received.
style,
have,
to
seen
some
use of
exception taken to the

technical terms such as
object
and
the
frequent
like
;
telic, jprotasis,
and the
but our
was
to translate the
book into
intelligible English, not
to recast its literary
form (which, as I have formerly explained,
has suffered from the
mode
in
which the author inserted

;
his
successive alterations and additions)

nature, destined mainly for ministers
to be familiar
and
it
is,
from
its
very
and students, who ought
with the import of those convenient technical
terms.
At
the close of the article
by Dr. Schrer,
" there
of
which I have
spoken before, he asks leave
to repeat
an urgent wish which he
had some years ago expressed, that
might be appended
Vlll
PEEFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.
to the introtluction of each
volume of the German Commentary
list
of the exegetical literature."

this
He
does not seem to be
aware that in the English edition

with considerable fulness.
want has been supplied
I shall be glad to place the lists

to
all of
which were prepared by me, except that prefixed
the Gospel of John, for which I

at the service (a
original.
am
indebted to Dr. Crombie
few errors apart) of any future editors of the
In order to complete the present
series,
a supplementary
volume accompanies
of Liinemann's
this one, containing Dr. Gloag's translation

the Epistles to the Thcssalonians.
Commentary on
from Messrs.
And
Dr.
I learn
Clarlc
that
they have received
encouragement to issue also the remaining volumes, for whicli
Meyer
called in the aid of accomplished scholars.
These
volumes are of much value in themselves, and as serving to

supplement the work of Meyer
different authors,
;
but as they proceed from

object
and
my main
I
was
to
secure uni-
formity in the rendering of the several portions that issued
from Meyer's own hand,
have not thought
it
necessary to
undertake any similar revision or editorial responsibility in

their case
;
and
I can
only express
my
best wishes for the
success of the further enterprise in the hands of the experi-
enced translators.
WILLIAM
P.
DICKSON.
Glasgow College,
October 1880.
PREFACE OE THE AUTHOR.
IXCE
this
the year
1859, when the thml edition

issued, there
of
Commentary was
exposition
has appeared
hardly any contribution of scientific importance to

the
of the Epistle to
the Ephesians.
The Commentarms
doubtless,
Criticus of the late Dr. Eeiche contains,
many good
his
exegetical remarks
is
but they are sub-
servient
to
main aim which
critical,
;
and elucidate
which has
series of
merely detached passages or expressions
while the Lectures
of Bleek are very far from having the importance
been justly recognised as belonging to the previous

Lectures by
him on
thus,
the Synoptic Gospels. apart
But while
particular
from various able discussions of

less
passages, I
was
directly stimulated
by new
diem
literary a})paratus to subject

itself
my work
to revision, the labour
was not thereby rendered the

fully conceded
lighter.
The
dies
docet could not but, in the case of a task so

its
momentous, have
title
and
it
will be found that I have
sought to place
much on
a better and more complete footing,
so as to do fuller justice to the great object of ascertaining
thoroughly, clearly, and dispassionately the meaning of the

Apostle's discourse.
By
this I
do not understand the discovery
of those fanciful illusions [Phantasmagorieeni that people call
profound.
For the
latter there is assuredly little
need in the
case of Paul, who, with the true penetration characteristic of

his views
his
gifts
and ways of unfolding them, knows how

of
to wield
discourse
so
that
his
meaning
shall
be
clear
PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR.
and palpable and apt

to the
and
least of all
in the
case of this
very Epistle, where the Christological teaching
rises of itself
utmost height and embraces heaven and earth.
This
distinctive character cannot be injured by the circumstance
that the apostolic writing, as a

as,
letter to the E'phcsians,

it is
such
according to the critically-attested address,
and will
an open
remain,
continues to be, at
its
all
events, an enigmatical pheno-
menon, and
question.
historical conceivableness in so far
Its elevation above the changes
and controversies
of Christological formulae
and modes of conception cannot

prominent position in the
be thereby affected, and
its
New
Testament
cannot,
as
at once
testimony and a test of the truth

strife,
amid any such change and
be prejudicially
endangered.
Hannover,
Idth Nov. 1866.
EXEGETICAL LITEEATUKE OF THE EPISTLES
EPHESIANS AND PHILEMON.
[For commentaries and
collections of
list
notes embracing the whole
New
Testament, see the
prefixed to the
Commentary on the
of
Gospel of
Matthew
for
those
which
treat
is
the
Pauline,
or
Apostolic, Epistles generally, see that which
prefixed to the
list
Com-
mentary on the Epistle
to the
Eomans.
The following
includes
only those expositions which relate to the Epistle to the Ephesians

or to the Epistle to Philemon, or in which one of these Epistles
holds the
first
place on the title-page.
Works mainly
of a popular
and practical character have, with a few exceptions, been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in themselves, they have but
little
affinity
with the strictly exegetical character of the present
Avork.
Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in he. The editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently
;
reissued
marks the date of the author's death

it.]
= circa,
an
approximation to
Attersoll (William), Minister at Infield, Sussex: upon the Epistle to Philemon. Lond. 1G12.
commentary
Second edition. 2, Lond. 1633.
Battus (Bartholomaeus), t 1637, Prof Theol. mentarius in Epistolam ad Ephesios.

.
at Greifswald:
.
Com-
4,
Caumgarten (Sigmund Jakob), t 1757,

Galatians.
11
Prof. Theol. at Halle.
Gryphisw. 1619. See
XU
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
Baumgarten-Crusius (Ludwig Friediicli Otto), t 1843, Prof. Tlieol. at Jena Commentar ber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. Herausgegeben von Ernst Julius Kimmel.
: . . . . .
8,
Jena, 1847.
Bayne
(Paul),
1 1617, Minister at Cambridge An entire commentary upon the whole Epistle ... to the Ephesians.
: . . .
2,
Lond. 1643.
Bleek
(Friedrich), t 1859,
die Briefe
an die
Prof Theol. at Berlin: Vorlesungen ber Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser.
.
. .
8, Berl.
1865.
BoDius.
See Boyd.
of Trochrig, t 1627, Principal at Glasgow and Edin:
Boyd (Robert)
burgh
In Epistolam ad Ephesios praelectiones supra cc.

2,
Lond. 1652, al
Braune
Die Briefe S. Pauli (Karl), Superintendent in Altenburg an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper. Theologisch-homiletisch
:
bearbeitet.
[Lange's Bibelwerk.]
8, Bielefeld,
1867.
Translated from the German, with additions [Ephesians], by
BucER
(Martin), t 1551,
in
M. B. Riddle, D.D. Prof Theol.
8,
New
York, 1870.
Cambridge: Praelectiones Epistolam ad Ephesios habitae Cantabrigiae ... in lucem

at
editae diligentia Im. Tremellii.
2 Basil. 1562.
in
Chandler (Samuel), D.D., t 176G, Presbyterian Minister

[See Galatians.]
London.
Cramer (Johann Andreas), t 1788,
Prof.
Theol.
at
Kiel:
Neue
Uebersetzung des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer Ausle4, Hamb. 1782. gung desselben. Crocius (Johann), t 1659, Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Commentarius 8, Cassellis, 1642. in Epistolam ad Ephesios.
at Orthes Commen8, Genev, 1579. ad Philemonem. Davies (John Llewelyn), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone. See
Danaeus [Daneau] (Lambert), t 1596, Pastor

tarius in Epistolam
Philippians and Colossians.
Demme (Jakob
DiNANT
Friedrich Ignaz)
Erklrung des Briefes an den
Philemon.
(Petrus),
8^ Breslau, 1844.
at
t 1724, Minister
Rotterdam:
Albans:
De
Brief aan die
van Efeze verklaart en toegepast.
4, Rotterd.
1711,
al.
Dyke
(Daniel), f c. 1614, Minister at St. tion upon Philemon.
fruitful exposi4,
Lond. 1618.
Eadie (John), D.D., t 1876, Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United PresbyA commentary on the Greek text of the terian Church 8, Lond. and Glasg. 1854, Epistle to the Ephesians.
:
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE,
XlU
Ellicott (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A critical and grammatical commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to 8, Lond. 1855, al. the Ephesians. EsMARCH (Heinrich Peter Christian), f 1831, Kector at Schleswig: 8, Altona, 1785. Brief an die Epheser bersetzt. Ewald (Georg Heinrich August), t 1876, Prof. Or. Lang, at Gttin-
gen
erklrt.
Sieben Sendschreiben des Neuen Bundes uebersetzt und [Sendschreiben an die Heidenchristen (die Epheser).] 8, Getting. 1870.
Ferguson (James), tc. 1670, Minister of Kilwinning. See Galatians. Flatt (Johann Friedrich von), t 1821, Prof. Theol at Tbingen.
See Galatians.
Gentilis (Scipione), t 1616, Prof. of Law at Altdorf: Commentarius 4, Norimb. 1618. [Grit. in Epistolam ad Philemonem.
Sac.
vii.
2.]
:
GuDE
Grndliche (Gottlob Friedrich), f 1756, Pastor at Lauban Erluterung des lehrreichen Briefes an die Epheser. 8^ Lauban, 1735.
Hagenbach (Karl Rudolph), + 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Pauli Epistolam ad Philemonem interpretatus est C. E. Hagenbach.
4,
BasiL 1829.
Harless (Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von), t 1879, President of the Commentar ber den Brief Pauli an Consistory at Munich
:
die Epheser.
8,
Erlang.
834,
cd.
See Heinrichs (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf. Koppe (Johann Benjamin). HoDGE (Charles), D.D., t 1878, Prof. Theol. at Princeton A commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. 8^ New York, 1856, al. Hofmann (Johann Christian Konrad von), f 1877, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhngend untersucht. Theil iv. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser. iv. 2. Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon.
:
8,
Nrdlingen, 1870.
HoLTZMANN (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theo), in Strassburg: Kritik 8, Leip. 1872. der Epheser- und Kolosser-Briefe. ... Holzhausen (Friedrich August) Der Brief an die Epheser bersetzt 8, Hannov. 1833. und erklrt. Hummel (Johann Heinrich), t 1674, Dean at Berne: Explanatio
:
Epistolae ad Philemonem.
2, Tiguri,
1670.
XIV
A commentary on the Epistles to Philemon Jones (William), D.D. 2, Lond. 1635. and Hebrews. ...
:
KAHLER
(C.
N.)
Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Epheser.

8, Kiel,
1854.
Koch (August)
Koppe
Commentar ber den Brief Pauli an den Philemon.

8, Zrich,
1846.
(Johann
Novum
tratum.
Benjamin), t 1791, Testaraentum Graece

Voll,
i.-iv. 8,
Superintendent at Gotha: perpetua annotatione illus-
Gtting.
1778-83.
[Vol.
vi.
Editio tertia Epp. ad Galatas, Ephesios, Thessalonicenses. emendata et aucta. Curavit H. Chr. Tychsen. Vol. vii. 1. Epp. ad Timotheum, Titum, et Piiilemonem. Continuavit J. H. 8, Gtting. 1828.] Editio secunda. Heinrichs, 1798.
Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), f 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna Der Brief an die Epheser bersetzt und mit Anmerkungen 8, Frankf. a. M. 1789. begleitet. KHNE (Franz Robert): Die Epistel Pauli an Philemon in Bibel:
stunden
ausgelegt.
2 Bndchen.
8, Leipz.
1856.
Lagus
(Daniel), t 1678,
Prof.
Math, at Greifswald:
4,
Commentatio
quadripartita super Epistolam ad Ephesios.
Gryphisw. 1664.
See Philip-
LiGHTFOOT (Joseph Barber), D.D., Bishop of Durham.

PIANS and Colossians.
Locke (John), t 1704.
See Galatians.
Luther
(Martin), t 1546,
Eeformer
ausgelegt, aus seinen Schriften herausgegeben
Die Epistel an die Epheser von Chr. G.

8, Stuttg.
Eberle.
1878.
Major [Mayer]
(Georg), t 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Enarratio Epistolae PauUi scriptae ad Ephesios. 8, Vitemb. 1552.
:
Matthies (Conrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald Erklrung 8, Greifsw. 1834. des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. ...
Meier (Friedrich
Commentar Karl), t 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen 8, Berl. 1834. ber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser.
:
Morus (Samuel
Friedrich Nathanael), t 1792, Prof Theol. at Leipzig.

Prof. Theol. at Berne.
See Galatians.
Musculus [Meusslin] (Wolfgang), t 1573,

See Galatians.
OosTERZEE (Johannes Jakob
Pastoralbriefe
van), Prof.
Tlieol.
XV
at Utrecht:
Die
und der
Brief
an Philemon.
Theologisch-
homiletisch bearbeitet.
[Lange's Bibelwerk, XI.]

8, Bielefeld,
'
1861.
Translated from the German, with additions, by Horatio B. 8, New York, 1869. Hackett, D.D.
Passavant (Theophilus) Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des 8, Basel, 1836. Briefes Pauli an die Epheser.
:
Popp (G.
C.)
Uebersetzung und Erklrung der drei ersten Kapitel

. .
.
des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer kurzen Einleitung. 4, Eostock, 1799.
RoELL (Herman Alexander), t 1718, Prof. Theol.

mentarius
in
at
Utrecht: Com-
principium Epistolae ad Ephesios.

4, Traj.
ad Rhen. 1715.
Et commentarii
pars altera,
cum
brevi Epistolae ad
Colossenses exegesi.
Ed. Dion. And. Roell.

4, Traj.
ad Rhen. 1731.
:
RoLLOCK (Robert), t 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh In Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios commentarius. 4, Edin. 1590, al.
Et
in
Epistolam ad Philemonem. ...

:
8,
Genev, 1602.
his-
RoTHE (Moritz)
Pauli ad Philemonem
epistolae
interpretatio
8,
torico-exegetica.
Bremae, 1844.
RoYAARDS (Albertus):
Paullus' Brief aan de Ephesers schrift4,
matig verklaart.
3 deelen.
c.
Amsterd. 1735-38.
RCKEET (Leopold Immanuel), t
1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena:
Der
Brief Pauli an die Epheser erlutert
und
vertheidigt.
8, Leip.
1834.
Schenkel (Daniel), Prof. Theol.

beitet.
at
Heidelberg: Die Briefe an die

Theologisch-homiletisch bear8, Bielefeld,
Epheser, Philipper, Colosser,
[Lange's Bibelwerk, IX.]
1862.
ScHMiD t 1836, Pastorat Glsa: Pauli ad Philemonem Epistola, Graece et Latine illustrata. 8, Lips. 1786.
(Leberecht Christian Gottlieb),
.
.
ScHMiD (Sebastian), t 1696, Prof. Theol. super Epistolam ad Ephesios.
at Strassburg: Paraphrasis
4, Strassb.
1684,
cd.
ScHNAPPiNGER (Bonifacius Martin "Wunibald), t c. 1825, Prof. at Heidelberg Brief an die Epheser erklrt und erlutert von 4, Ileidelb. 1793. Bonifaz vom heil. Wunibald.
:
XVI
Schtze (Theodor Johann Abraham), t 1830, Director of the Gymnasium at Gera Commentarius in Epistokim Pauli ad
:
Ephesios.
S, Lelp.
1778.
Spener (Philip Jakb), t 1705, Consistorlal-Eath at Berlin: Erklrung der Episteln an die Epheser und Colosser. 4, Halae, 1706, aL Stevart (Peter), t 1G21, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt: Commentarius 4, Ingolstad. 1593. in Epistolam ad Ephesios. Stier (Rudolph Ewald), t 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben Die Gemeinde in Christo. Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. 8, Berl. 1848-49.
. .
.
Taylor (Thomas), t 1632, Minister in London: Commentarius in 2, Lond. 1659. Epistolam ad Philemonem. See Romans. TiL (Salomon von), t 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden. Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., t 1861, Prof. of Bibl. InterpretaThe Epistle to the Ephesians in Greek tion at New York and English, with an analysis and exegetical commentary.
:
Tychsen (Thomas
Christian),
f 1834.
8, New York, 1856. See Kopfe (Johann Benjamin).
Yatablus [Vastebled]
:
t 1547, Prof. Heb. at Paris Testamentum. [Critici Sacri.] Explicatio familiaris in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Vincent (Jean) 2, Paris, 1647. Philemonem.
(Francois),
Annotationes in
Novum
"Weller (Hieronymus), t 1572, Superintendent
at Freiberg:
Com-
mentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios.

8,
Noriberg, 1559.
WiEsiNGER
(J. C.
August).
See Philippians.
at
Zachariae (Gotthilf Traugott), t 1777, Prof. Theok
Kiel
See
Galatians. Zanchius (Hieronymus), t 1590, Prof. Theok at Heidelberg: Com2, Neostadii, 1594. mentarius in Epistolam ad Ephesios.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
INTEODUCTION.
SEC.
1.
KEA-DERS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE

ing abode of commerce,
arts,
IS
ADDRESSED.
Epliesus, the capital of proconsular Asia, a flourish-
and
sciences,
and the
seat of the world-renowned worship of Artemis,
which, formerly one of the principal settlements

of the Ionian population, has, since
its
destruction by
ruins,
tlie
and now by the small village of Ajasaluk, or, according to Fellows, Asalook Pococke, 11 3 ff. (see, generally, Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. von Schubert, Reise in das Morgcnl. I. Morgenl. III. p. 66 ff. p. 284 ff.; Guhl, Eiohcsiaca, Berol. 1842; YoWo^'s, Journal vjrittcn during an Excursion in Asia Minor, London 1838, Paul planted Christianity (Acts xviii. 19, xix. 1, p. 274 f.), and his successful labours there, during a period ol etc.)
Goths, had
its site
marked only by gloomy
nearly
three
years,
relations to the church, of
elders
(Acts xx.
its
church was on
him in the close confidential which his touching farewell to the 17 ff.) is an imperishable memorial. The foundation a mixed one, composed of Jewish
placed
xix.
and Gentile Christians (Acts

later date,
when our
Epistle
was
1-10, xx. 21); but at the composed, tlie Gentile-
Christian element, which already appears from Acts xix. 26
extensively diffused, so greatly preponderated, that Paul could
address the church a potiori as a Gentile-Christian one

i.
see
12
f.,
ii.
ff.,
11,
19,
iv.
17,
iii.
1.
Hence
it
must
not be inferred from
this, that
the
Epistle could not have
Meyer Eph.
"
been addressed to the Ephesian church (Keiche, Bleek, and

others).
Our
Epistle
is
expressly addressed, in
i.
1, to the
Christians
For the words iv 'E(j>icr(p are so decisively at Ephesus} that they cannot be deprived of their right to a place attested, in the text, either by isolated counter-witnesses, or by the internal grounds of doubt as to the Ephesian destination of the Among the manuscripts, N has iv Ê(f>6<7(p only from Epistle. the hand of a later corrector B has the words only in the margin, and (in opposition to Hug, de antiq. Cod. Vat. p. 26)
;
not from the
first hand (see Tischendorf in the a%. K.-Zeit. 1843, No. 116, and in the Stud, und Krit. 1847, p. 133);
while in the Cod. 67, proceeding from the twelfth century,^ it was placed certainly in the text by the first hand, but was
deleted by a second
with B).
Ê<f)e(7q)
;
hand (which betrays generally an affinity The evidence of the versions is unanimous for iv
but in the Fathers we find undeniable indications
that the omission in
x*,
and the deletion in Cod. 67, are
founded upon older codices, and have arisen out of critical For Basil the Great, contra Eunom. ii. 19 {Ojip. ed. grounds.
Gamier,
sense)
eLTTOiV
I. p.
rjvwfikvoi'i Tc3
8t'
254), says: rdl^ Êêaioiyvr](TLO)<i ovTi (that is, to Him vjho is existent, in the absolute
ovTa<;
iiri'yvcocreeo'i,
avToi)^
lSiaôvTo}<i
oovo/xaaev
Tot9 <yiot<i T0t9 ovaiv Kal iriaTol'i iv XpicTut Ovro) yap koI ol irpo rjficv TrapaSeBco/cacrt, Kal r}pbel<i Îrjcoi).
iv Tot9
ira\aLoi<i
it is
tGxv
avnypaôiv
evprJKafiev.
it
From
this
passage
,
clear that Basil considered
indeed certain that
the Epistle was written to the Ephesians, but looked upon the words iv 'Eêato as non-genuine, to which conclusion he had
been led not merely by way of
tradition, but also
through the
old MSS. existing in his time, which he had himself looked

See Liinemann, deep, ad Eph. authentid, etc., 1842; Anger, ber d. LaoReiche, in his Comment, crit. z. Einl. in's N. T. I.), 1843. in N. T. II. 1859, has the most fully and thoroughly con<rot'e-êrf the view of the Epistle being destined for Ephesus, and the genuineness of the words iv 'Eip<ra;.
dicenerhrief {Beitr.
also Weiss in Herzog's Encykl. XIX. s.v. " Epheserbrief. According to others, including Reiche {Comm. crit. p. 102), even from the ninth or tenth century but not from the year 1331, as Credner, Einl. I. 2, This year belongs to the Codex 67, which contains the Acts and p. 397, states.
Comp,
2
Catholic Epistles.
See Griesbach,
II. p.
xv.
Scholz, II. p. x.
INTKODUCTION.
into,
It has, however, been and which had not iv 'E<peao)} incorrectly asserted that Jerome also did not find iv 'E^katp in MSS., but knew it merely as a conjecture (Bttger, Bcitr. 3, Olshausen). He says, namely, on i. 1 {0pp. ed. Vallars. p. 37 VII. p. 545) Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant ex cof Moysi dictum sit [Ex.iii. 14]: haec dices liis Israel: qui quod est misit me, etiam eos, qui Fphesi sunt sancti etfideles, essentiae vocahulo nuncupatos} Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui
; :
.
sint, sed
But
et fidcles sint, scriptaTn arhitrantnr. this " scriptam arhitraniur " does not refer to the fact that
qui Ephesi sancti

"
had thought that the readers of the Epistle were to Jerome, on the contrary, iv 'E(f)ea(p is quite an undoubted part of the text {sanctis omnibus, qui sunt Ephesi, is his reading), and he only adduces two different explanations of Tot^ ovo-Lv, by which, however, iv Ê^kaw is not affected. /According to the one interpretation, the Christians at Ephesus were designated as existing in the metaphysical sense accordthe Ephesians
;
these " alii
We
must candidly recognise
this as the result of the
words of
Basil.
It is
a partisan and ndstaken view to assert that, in
making the above quotation oi the address of our Epistle, he had not included h 'EfiffM, because he had previously said ToTs ''Eipurion i-rurrtfL Xat, and that his appeal to tradition and the
old MSS. applied only to the article
ra7s
before
ova-iv
(I'Enfant, Wolf), or to
otxri*
(Wiggers in the Sttcd. u. Kr'it. 1841, p. 423 f.). In opposition to I'Enfant, it may be urged that Basil must necessarily have written rev; ovras previously, because the genuineness and the stress of the article (which is still wanting in Cod. 46) would have been in question in opposition to Wiggers, that not the slightest
;
critical trace of a
previous omission of
eSa-iv is
to be found
it is
while, in opposition
in the highest degree
to both,
we may urge the
decisive consideration, that
arbitrary to assume that in the case of a verbal critical citation, such as Basil here
gives with so earnest
and emphatic
a statement of his reason for
doing so
{a'vra
yap X.T.X.), words Were passed over, because they would be obvious of them-
and words, too, which were so far from being unimportant, that in fact was only their absence that could warrant the metaphysical explanation of ToTs ou(riv, and did beyond doubt give rise to it. And if Basil were concerned only with to7s or oltnv, why, then, has he not merely cited the passage as far as ouriv, but also added the xai TirT/iTs iv X. 'I., so unimportant for that metaphysical conception of to7s olnv, and strangest of all omitted just the I 'E(p%irtu which stood between ? An inconceivable parsimony No no reader could understand the o'ura yap k.t.x. otherwise than of the form of address just literally cited in the reTg ayioi; -roTs ovrm xai vi/rroTi X. 'I., from which the recension which was then current differed, in that it contained v 'Eipsa-w. ^ Probably (see the scholion from Origen in Tischendorf) this exi)lanation proceeded from Origen, since it looks quite like him, and he wrote a commentaiy on the Epistle, which was used by Jerome.
selves,
it
ill
ing to the other, rot? ovaiv was taken in the usual simple
and consequently the Epistle was regarded as directed existent Ephesian Christians, but to the Christians wJio were to he found at Ephesus. Thus Jerome has not mentioned the omission of eV 'E^kcrtp, and therefore probably was not aware that the opinion of those " quidam " had originated from th very reading ivitliout iv Êêaw on which account he looked upon this opinion as a curiosity. Hence he furnishes, almost contemporaneously with Basil, an important counterpoise to his testimon}''. But if Basil in his time stands alone, he has a precursor, whose testimony points back to a considersense,
not to the
ably greater antiquity, in Tertullian,

V, 1 1
:
" Praetereo hie et de alia epistola,
who says, contra Marc. quam nos ad Uphcsios
praescriptarn} hahemus, haeretici vero

V.
ad Laodicenos; " and at guidon veritate episiolam istam ad Ephesios Jiahcmus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum
17:
" Ecclesiae
aliquando interpolare
quasi
et
{i.e.
to
make
it
otherwise, alter
it) gcstiit,
in
isto diligentissimus explorator; nihil
autem de
titulis
interest,
cum ad omnes
to
this,
apostolus
scrip)scrit,
dum ad
quosdaon."
According
in
Tertullian's
time
acknowledged by the
himself (comp,
co7it.
orthodox
iv.
church,
the Epistle was and by Tertullian

haer.
Marc.
5, de 2yraescrip.
36),
as
an Epistle
regarded
it
to the Ephesians,
and only heretics

Laodiceans
'E(f)eo-),
i,
;
like
Marcion
as addressed to the
but Tertullian
because other-
cannot have read or known of iv
1,
wise he would not have spoken merely of a change in the

superscription {praescriptam, titidum ; comp, on this last, de pudic. 20, al), and would not have appealed to the " Veritas
ecclesiae,"
but to the
is
text.
It has
especially, Harless
and Wiggers, and compare

critical
been objected, indeed (see also Liinemann),

standpoint of our
that this
^
an inference from the
That
is,
superscribed.
titulus praescripitus est."
the " ipsissima verba " of
cui Comp, for example, Gcllius, v. 21, "epistola The words " ad Ephesios " and " ad Laodicenos " are Hence titidus and praescri. the tittihis p7-aescriptus.
.
. .
lere are not to be referred to the address
and
salutation,
which
are, in fact,
an
integral part of the epistolary text itself (in opposition to Harless, Liinemann,
and
others,
also Reiche,
and Laurent in the Jahrb. fr Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 131). See Comment, crit. p. 109. The reading perscriptam in the above
is
passage of Tertullian has evidently arisen from 2naescriptam (which
contained
iu the editions of Pamelius and Eigaltius) not having been understood.
INTRODUCTION.
time,
and that it would have been quite natural in TerBut this summarily to bring in the " Veritas ecclesiae." would only have been natural for him in the event of the
tullian
question relating to a falsification of the text by Marcion.
The question here concerns a

which,
if
falsification
of
the
titulus,
the words iv Ê<ê<T(p had stood in the text, would
have been at variance with the text ; and what would have been in that case more natural than to appeal to the apostolic iv '0eVft) ? The invocation of the " Veritas ecclesiae " serves precisely to prove that an apostolic iv Êêa-w was not known This at the same time applies in opposition to Tertullian. to the remark of Wiggers, I. 1, p. 429, that Marcion could not have read anything else than iv Ê(f)iaa) in the address, if he had discovered anything to be changed in the superscription, which was naturally (?) of the same tenor (?7 tt/so? No, he not merely may, but must Ê(f)(7Lov'i iina-ToXt]). have read in the address nothing at all of the place for which the Epistle was destined otherwise he must have falsified the address also, and not merely the traditional superscription which is not to be assumed, since Tertullian brings a charge against him merely as concerns the tituhts, and, on his own part, betrays no knowledge whatever of an iv Ê(f)ecra) in the
;
address.
How,
omnes,
then, could Tertullian dismiss the falsification
of Marcion with the evasive nihil autem de titulis interest,
cum ad
iv
etc., if
Ê<f)ea-(p,
before
he had before him in the apostolic text which the title tt/jo? AaoSiKa<; would at
?
once have broken
down
Little as it fell in
with Tertullian's
falsi-
purpose to assail Marcion at length on account of his

fication of the title, since
dogmatic
errors, surely it
he was occupied in confuting his would have required no more words
to dispose of the falsifier of the title
by an appeal
to the text,
than
de
to get rid of the
matter with the superficial nihil autem

could Marcion himself (evidently on
1
titulis, etc.
And how
iv.
the ground of Col.
the
i.
title
?
have hit upon the idea of changing had read iv 'E(f)ea(p in Dogmatic reasons, which at other times determined the
6)
of the Epistle, if he himself
heretic in his critical proceedings, did not exist here at

If,
all.
in accordance with all this, the testimony of Tertullian, as
well as the procedure of Marcion, to which he bears witness,

adverse to the iv
Ê<f)e(Tfp
is
that,
on the other hand,
of
Ignatius,
ad
UjjJi.
12,
is
not to be used either for or against,
whether we look
recension.^
at his
words in the shorter or the longer

is
But although, when the matter
thus cleared up, Basil on
the ground of older MSS. rejected iv 'Eêaw, and Marcion and

Tertullian did not read the words, they are yet to be most
decidedly retained as original, for the following external and

internal reasons (in addition to the attestation,
upon which
ancient
we have
already remarked, of
all
:
other
still
extant witnesses,
entire
and especially of the versions)
(1)
The
church has designated our Epistle expressly as Epistle to the Epliesians (Irenaeus, Haer. v. 23 Clemens Alex. Strom, iv. 8,
;
p.
592,
ed. Potter; Tertullian, Origen,
and
others,
even as early
Or. vi.
as the
Canon Murat., and Valentinus
in the
Pliiloso2')li.
34), without even a single voice, with the exception of Marcion's,
being raised against this view.

.
I /
But if the words iv 'E(jieo-w had been wanting fro7n the outset, and the Epistle had thus borne on the face of it no place of destination, such a consensus would have been quite as inexplicable in itself as at variance with the analogy of the other Epistles, in which throughout the judgment of the church as to the first readers coincides with the superscription, where there is one, and beyond doubt depends upon it. (2) In all his Epistles Paul
'
According to the longer recension

((TTi
(in Dressel,
. . .
p.
332)
'TfnT; Ss Uxvf.cu
tucT;
%ivi<rifftv
ffU/tftuffTai
hyioLffnitov,
ftifia.pTiipvf'ivou
ravTOTS
iv
Following the reading hfict, Credner here concludes that our Epistle was not directed to the Ephesians alone. But it would apply to 'Hhe Pauline Christians in general," so that it would not at According to the shorter reall contain a reference to the individual Epistle. cension, the passage runs thus: Xla.iy.ou x.T.X.,o; I -rairti IvitrroX^ fivnfiovivti Here h ^s- WiaToX^ does not mean, in the whole Epistle, a linguistically iftJv.
fittifi)iivii
iifiay
avTov
(vulg.
rifcv).
erroneous interpretation which, though
still
defended by Harless and repeated

;
who
would yield a quite irrelevant meaning for how strange to say to A, has received a letter from B B makes mention of you in his whole letter This is surely obvious of itself, and is not at all a point appropriate to be dwelt
by
Dressel,
upon
On
the contrary,
ev
-ratrri
l-jriffreX^
Ignatius does not
mean our
:
Epistle alone, nor yet
means by
in every Ejîstle
vfiv specially
so that
the Ephesians
as such, but the Ephesians as Pauline Christians generally (as regards category),
and hence could say he makes mention of you in every Epistle. It is not difficult to see how, in the words under consideration, the longer recension is related
as explanatory to the shorter.
INTRODUCTION".
designates in the address the recipients most definitely, even
when he
(1 Cor.
i.
does not write to the Christians of a single town

2
;
2 Cor.
i.
1),
or to a single church (Gal.
i.
2).
Accordingly our Epistle,

the
address,
if fairly
regarded in accordance with

not be genuine, would be
should
iv
Êcpeaoi
marked out as a catholic one, without any limitation whatever of locality or nationality of the readers,
view with
as well
which the contents

variance.
(i,
15,
ii.
11,
iii.
1, iv.
17,
etc.)
as the mission of Tychicus
21) would be decidedly at On each occasion, when St. Paul in the address (3)
(vi.
^.
has used
readers.
rol'i
ovatv,
i.
it
serves to specify the locality of the

:
See Rom.
1.
rot? ovatv iv 'Pcofirj

i.
Phil.
i.
rot?
ovaiv iv îklinroL'^
1 Cor.
t^ ovarj iv Kopivdw, and

in the Ignatian
/
even so 2 Cor.
Epistles.
i.
Compare the addresses
Paul had written rot? dylofi rol'i ovaiv /cat (4) inaToh, we should have a form of address, which does not even admit of any tolerable explanation. It would yield
If
<^
the meaning
to
the saints, v^ho
are also (not merely saints,
but
also)
heUcving}
severance of
But what a diffuse and inappropriate the ideas "saints and believing," which should
i.
rather be conjoined into ttnity (comp. Col.

apostle there are no saints,
2)
With
the
who
are not also believers.
The
explanation of Meier
priateness
faithful
:
is
chargeable with the same inapproare also faithful (since the un;
to
the saints, ivho
have ceased to be
saints)
and, moreover,
it
is
to be
taken into consideration that
Trtcrrot? is
not defined to have
the sense of faithful by the context, but rather,

in the address, and connected with iv
when used
Credner,
X.
'I.,
i,
most naturally
2,^
presents
Einl.
I,
the
sense
of believing, as in
Col,
2, p, 400, translates: to the saints, who are in fact also believers, and this is held to mean to the saints, who are true believers in the mouth of Paul equivalent to
:
'
It is
i.
not necessary that in this case

;
BU(nv
should stand after
iritrols.
Comp.
:
John
^
49, iv. 9
Acts
vii.
Eph.
ii.
1, etc.
This also holds in opposition to Bttger's views, Beitrge,
3, p.
29
ff.
to the
saints,
who
there are also faithful, in which the oZtrn presents a contrast to the
apostate Jewish-Christians,
sarily,
Itself.
who had been faithful. Such a contrast would necesfrom the very nature of the case, have been spoken of in the Epistle We may add that already the Gothic version has translated xurtoli,
").
faithjul (" trUjgvaim

But, in this case, roh ovaiv could not,
Pauline Christians.
without
risk
of
being
misapprehended,
dispense
with
must have written Tot? Kol ovcrtv TTtcTTo??, in which case by means of Kai the special emphasis of ovav might be indicated (who are not merely called believers, but also are so). Yet even thus the expression would not be clear, and the meaning to the Pauline Christians, would be purely imported. In a context, where auline and anti-Pauline Christians were spoken of, the reader might without further indication understand under true believers the former but not in the address, where this reference is not suggested by anything, and the less so, seeing that this contrast does not come once under discussion in the Epistle itself. Schneckenburger and Matthies attach to?? ovo-lv to toI<; ayioi';. The latter (comp. Bengel) explains roi'i ova-tv, -who are there (namely, in Asia Minor, whither Tychicus was journeying to visit them), which imputes to Paul a strange clumsiness. But Schneckenburger {Beitrage, p. 133) renders: to the saints, loho But even thus Paul, in order to obviate are in fact such.
defining addition {in fact), or Paul at least
:
misunderstanding (and in the address of an
official
writing at
any rate people express themselves definitely and clearly), could not have dispensed with some defining adjunct {in fact) to toi'^ ovcnv and, even apart from this, how unsuitable would the address be, whether we explain the true saints as standing in The former contrast to the nominal Christians or to the Jews would yield an indefinite designation of the readers, and would contain an exclusion and separation unsuited to the apostolic spirit and working. And the latter would be quite out of place, since the Epistle has nothing at all to do with the
;
!
contrast to
Judaism.
All
explanations ivithout
iv
'E(f)(T(ii
are fanciful impossibilities, unless
we keep
ev
to the first-given
simple translation of the words.

Encyhl.
saints,
Iêio
"Weiss does this in Herzog's
XIX. p. 480; rejecting who are helievers also on

But
this
""Eêaa, he
to be
makes
the
Christ,^
said
of the
Testament saints in contrast with those of the Old Testacontrast
ment.
would
itself
;
be quite Avithout any
motive in the contents of the Epistle

'
indeed, in the at {cdso)

:
in
So in substance also Reiche, Comm. Christum protentlhas."
cr'd. p.
122
"
Sanctis, iisdeviquejldan
INTKODUCTIOX,
there would be implied a side-glance at the unconverted Jews,
which would be out of place and unsuitable. In view of all that has been said, we must defend But wherefore was Ê(f)eaq), i. 1, as decidedly genuine.
in Basil) in a portion of the codices
?
iv
it
omitted at so early a period (Marcion, Tertullian, the old mss.

Certainly this omission
;
was not a mere is such an error
transcriber's error (Lilnemann)
for
not only
main point of the address, but it would not have obtained any considerable diffusion. Further, the possible reason, which may account at Eom. i. 7 for the absence of eV 'Pcofirj in various mss.,
in itself improbable at the very
namely, though a transcript of the Epistle for public reading

in another particular church, is here at
any
rate improbable,
must have been circulated in very different regions (Asia and Africa) and in very considerable number. This latter fact might point to
since the manuscripts not containing iv
Ê(f)<Tq) it was sought an Epistle so general in tenor and weighty, the impress of a Catholic one (comp. Wieseler, Chronol. des apost.
the hypothesis that, by omitting iv Êêcrw,

to give
to
Zeitalt. p.
438).
But, in point of
fact,
the apostolic Epistles
ad quosdam were already of themselves regarded as written ad omnes (Jerome, c. Marc. v. 1 7), and hence there was no need of the procedure indicated. Equally inadmissible, moreover, is the view (see below), that from the very first in a portion of the manuscripts the place for the local name was left vacant, and thereby iv Ê^kcra was omitted.^ Nor yet can we accept the dogmatic reason, that the name of the place was deleted with a view to favour the metaphysical explanation of Toi? ovaiv, specified in Basil and Jerome, since the converse
directed
alone
is
natural, namely, that the metaphysical interpretation
of TOi? ovcLv arose
from the
fact of the text being already
deprived of the iv Êcpeatp.
The omission would rather appear due

criticism.
to ancient historical
From
the contents of the letter at a very early period
^ Schott, hag. p. 279, suggests that perhaps Paul himself had commissioned Tychicus to have copies for other churches made at Ephesus, and to have the names of these other churches inserted therein in place of the sv 'Eipiiru which came from himself and that a copyist had left a blank for the future insertion
;
of the name,
which he had forgotten
thereafter to
fill
up.
10
tlie
TUE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
inference had been drawn,that it was addressed to persons who were as yet personally unknown to the apostle, and still novices in Christianity.^ And how naturally did this lead to the view that the Ephesians had not been the recipients, and so to the The text written without iv Êêaq) deletion of eV Êj>eaw
!
was
soon laid hold of to support the metaphysical explanation
of Tot? ovcTiv, which

diffusion
which the
latter received
had arisen out of it from
its
and the favour and accordance with
the taste of the age necessarily contributed to the spread of the text which was denuded of the ev 'Eêcrco.
of these words, thus originated
The omission
and
diffused, could not indeed
do away with the correct ecclesiastical tradition of the Epistle being destined for Ephesus, or frustrate the preservation of iv
and the triumph of that original reading (supported was by all the versions), which had been already achieved by the time of Jerome but it did make it possible for Marcion,
Êj>e(T(
as
it
seeing that he already found iv Êêa-w no longer in the text,

to alter, in opposition to tradition, the title tt/jo? Êêalov^
into
7r/)o9
Aao8LKa<;, regarding the Epistle on the basis of
in the service of 16 as addressed to the Laodiceans the same criticism, under which, only handled in a negative sense, iv 'Ecpeatp had disappeared. Col. iv.
But,
I
it is said,
the contents
quite general in tenor, without
personal reminiscences and references, without salutations (not
even Timotheus and Aristarchus are mentioned, as in Col. i. 1, iv. 10; Philem. 2 4), without any trace of that close intimacy
in which Paul had stood to his Ephesian converts, as a father to
his children^
^
are of such a character that the Epistle of itself
Historical traces of tins ancient view are to be found in Theodoret, Praef.,

relates "that some had asserted that Paul //.riii'Trcd mhs had written this Epistle to them " and also in Euthalius s iv t} Zaccagni in Collect, mon. vet. eccl. p. 524) rpos 'E^nrlou;
i.
and on
(ap.
15,
who
''Eipia'tovs
Tihec/îyot
vrpoypeiîj
to ftvfrrifiov ixTihrai,
vrapcdXriffiu;
'jTfo;
r^ "^ph
'Pu//.aiiiv;'
fiiporipoi;
oi
i%
xoTJs yvwpiusi;,
xai
il(rii/
aiirai
avrioiairToXhv
apâ) xttTnôvfiivuiv xai TirTuv
u/raytayai.
Comp,
:
also the Synops. scrij)t. sacr. in Athanasius,
0pp.
III.
i>.
194, ed. Bened.

"hi
TauT? l-rKTrlXXn
'E(pia-icov).
ro
'Paftn;,
eil'^riu
/*sv
avrohs lonpaxa;, aKOVcras
f/t,ttfii
"Trip)
a.vTu> (tum
It is arbitrary
(in the
and contrary
to the
manner
of the apostle to assume, with
Tub. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 98), that Paul, because of painful experiences which he had had in Ephesus, avoided mention of previous occurrences. How altogether different is his procedure, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians
Wurm
INTRODUCTION.
betrays that
passages,
i.
it
was not directed

iii.
to
the Ephesiaus
and the
not
15,
1-4,
iv.
21, point to readers
who had
been
in
any personal connection with the
apostle.
based on this internal character of the Epistle, hypotheses concerning the readers for whom it was destined
Mainly we find two

:
^1
iv.
I.
Following Marcion, Grotius,
Hammond,
Mill, Pierce,
du
et
n.
Wall, the younger Vitringa, Venema, Wetstein, Paley,
/yâl., including, recently,
Holzhausen and others

to
16), as well as Ebiger, Christologia Paul. p.
on Col. 48, have sup(see

1).
posed^ that the Epistle was addressed

being personally
of
the Laodiceans, as
ii.
unknown
to the apostle (Col.

p.
While
may,
this hypothesis (to

itself, if
which Baur,
457,
it
is is
also inclined) falls
the genuineness of iv Ê<êaw
established, it
moreover, be urged in opposition to
procedure we
ecclesiastical
may
from Marcion's For the not infer an Asiatic tradition.

{a) that
is
tradition
quite unanimous in regarding the

;
Ephesians as readers of the Epistle there

pation or echo of his critical paradox.
is
no trace of deviation
Since, according to
the heretic stands alone with his adherents, without any antici(&)
Col. iv. 16, the Epistle to the Laodiceans
had
become known in two different churches, in Laodicea and Colossae, and without doubt was disseminated from both by copies, it is the more incomprehensible how the Ephesians could appropriate to themselves the Laodicean letter, and how universal ecclesiastical tradition could support this view without meeting with opposition in the church itself. The appeal to the earthquake, which, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiv. 27, in the year 60 (according to Eusebius, Chron., and Orosius, Hist. vii. 7, only at a later date; see Wieseler, p. 455) destroyed Laodicea (according to Eusebius and Orosius, Colossae and Hierapolis also), yields no result, since, according to
at the
very
first
See, in opposition to this assumption, also Satori, hcr d. Lnodicenerbriej,
especially Eeiche, p. 131 sqq. Reiche, however, considers our Epistle as identical M'ith that mentioned in Col. iv. 16; in his view it was destined not merely for the Laodiceans, but also for Hierapolis and other churches of that region, and thence had no place specified in the opening address but Paul had orally imparted to Tychicus more particular directions as
;
Lbeck 1853, and
to that point.
See, in opposition to the alleged encyclical destination of the
Epistle, generally
what
is
said below under II.
The view
of
Weiss
is
essen-
tially similar to that of Reiche.
12
Tacitus,
I.e.,
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIAKS.

LaoJicea was soon restored
;
and the Christian

iii.),
church there cannot have perished (Eev.
still
less the
knowledge of the Epistle which Paul had written to them. No doubt, in view of Col. iv. 16, there must have been an affinity of contents between the Epistle to the Laodiceans and that to the Colossians, which seenis to tell in favour of the identity of our Epistle with the former but may not Paul, besides our Epistle and that to the Colossians, have written a third kindred in its contents ? which has perished, like a letter
;
to the
Corinthians (1 Cor.
iii.
on
left
Phil.
1,
v. 9), one to the Philippians (see Eemark), and perhaps also others, which have
no traces behind, (c) If our Epistle is the Epistle to the Laodiceans, it must have been written lefore the Epistle to
iv.
the Colossians (Col.
16), which, according to 2, is not to
be assumed.
vi. 21 and Col. iv. 7, there might possibly be not even meant one and the same journey of Tychicus (which yet forces itself on us so undeniably in pursuance of the words and the geographical relations), seeing
Indeed, at Eph.
that Paul, in the Epistle to the Colossians
(iv.
15), directs the

to
Laodiceans, and an individual
among them,
he
saluted,
which, from the nature of the case, he would hardly have done,
if
that
he had been sending to them at the same time a letter, and by so trusted a fellow-labourer,^ who, besides, had to travel
ly vjay of Laodicea to Colossae (see on Col. iv, 16, Eemark). (d) What Holzhausen says of Col. ii. 2, that it was written
with
consciousness
of
the
Epistle to the Ephesians,

it,
is
purely imaginary.
See, in opposition to
Harless,
p.
xxxix.
'
The
This enigma would only admit of solution from the domain of conjecture. easiest thing would be to say, that Paul, when he had the Epistle to the
Colossians with his salutation to the Laodiceans already completed, had only then resolved to send further with Tychicus a letter to the Laodiceans, in drawing up which he was aware that Tychicus would reach Laodicea before Colossae. But with all hypotheses, which are not made in the consistent followOthers ing out of an ascertained fact, the ground falls away under our feet. have asserted that Paul wished to repeat the salutations, or that he had only, as he was writing to the Colossians, heard about Nyniphas through Epaphras but these, after all, are nothing but suppositions, which, moreover, are invalidated
;
fact that our Epistle is to be placed after that to the Colossians (see 2). Bertholdt considers the salutation in Col. iv. 15 merely as introduction to the subsequent commission ("have the letter brought to the Laodiceans with my But how utterly in opposition to the connection ! salutation ").
by the
INTEODUCTIOX.
II. Following Beza/ and Ussher in his Annalcs ad ann. 64, .garnier, ad Basil. I.e., Bengel, Benson, Michaelis, Zachariae, ^ iôppe, Ziegler (in Henke's Magaz. IV. 2, p. 225 ff.)> J^^sti {vermischte bliandlungen, II. p. 81 ff.), Stolz, Haenlein, Schmidt,
~^\
^-^
Eichliorn, Bertholdt,
Hug,
Flatt,
Hemsen,
Schott, Feilmoser,
Schrader, Schneckenburger, Neander, Etickert, Credner, Matthies,
Meier, Haiiess, Bottger, Anger, Olshausen, Thiersch {Kirche
im
apost.
Zeitalt. p.
145
sqq.),
Guericke, Lange, Bleek, and
others have, though with manifold variations in detail (see
Lnemann,
p.
33
sqq.),
regarded our Epistle as a circidar
letter.
In that case Ephesus has mostly been included in the circle as by Koppe, Haenlein of churches concerned, but sometimes (who has even lighted on the Peloponnesus !), Eichhorn, Berentirely excluded while Laodicea and its tholdt, and Pteiche neighbourhood have been in various ways brought in (according to Credner, e.g., one copy of the letter was sent to Ephesus to be circulated among the churches on the west coast of Asia
Minor
the churches in the interior), in
and another copy to Laodicea, to be circulated among fact, have even been regarded as the localit}' for which the Epistle was primarily and specially destined Bleek being withal of opinion that the Ephesians only got it to read from Tychicus on his journey to Phrygia, and
;
;
retained for themselves a cof)y of
it.
But, in opposition to the
view of any
again
sort of encyclical destination,

{a)
we may
decisively
urge
the
universal and
undivided
ecclesiastical
tradition,
which does not exhibit the very
slightest trace
of
such a destination.
are
Indeed, both the orthodox and Marcion
here at one, since both
name only one church
as the
receiver of the Epistle.
And when we remember what
a high
honour any church could not but consider it to have received an apostolic writing, the utter disappearance of all knowledge that our Epistle had belonged to other churches, or had been claimed by them as their property, would be quite inconceivable. (5) Even apart from the circumstance that Paul does not in the Epistle give the slightest hint of any encyclical
Who, on tlie subscription to the Epistle, expresses the conjecture that it was sent not so much ad Ephesios ijisos proprle, as rather to Epliesus, " iit ad ceieras Asiaticas ecdesias transmitteretur;" and that hence, probably, arose the
'
partial omission of
i 'Eif-;.
14
destination for

it,
the words of the address iv
Ê(j)e<Ta),
cannot critically be dislodged, expressly testify against

could not thus address
ferently he
it,
if
he had intended
it
which Paul for more

it.
extended circulation, or even
for other localities.^
How very dif!
knew how
to
Corinthians the body of readers for
stamp on the face of the Epistles to the whom they were intended
is
But
if
the iv 'EcêVo)
held to be spurious (against this

'E(f)ea-q> is
view, see above), then the address, which vnth iv

too limited for a circular letter,
too toide for
would
witJiout these
words be
the purpose
for then
no local definition of the
readers wJuctcver would be indicated, and the Epistle would
present itself not as an encyclical, but as a catholic^ Epistle.

(c)
If,
with Rckert and Olshausen, we should assume that
Paul, in the several copies which he gave to Tychicus, had

This holds also in opposition to the form which Harless has given to the The readers, in his view, were daughter - churches of Ephesus, or Christians scattered about the country, who had first been made acquainted
*
matter.
with the gospel from Ephesus, and of whom Paul had received intelligence through the Ephesians. To these Christians he had forwarded the Epistle through the Ephesian church. But as the Ephesian church itself might also extract benefit and edification from it, the apostle had wished that the Epistle should be publicly read to the principal church and remain with it. Harless conceives of Tychicus as giving the following message to the Ephesians " / brinj
:
to
you here a letter ivhich concerns you all, hut specially the Gentile Christians, Take care that the letter, when it has of whom you have spoken to the apostle. been read ivith you, should also come into their hands, ye who know best the ways and means for that end ; and bring me to them, hi order that 1, in accordance loith the apostle's commission, may tell them what I have told you concerning his condition." Thus the letter would primarily and mainly have applied to readers outside of Ephesus, and Paul would have addressed it roT; ovcriv 'EN 'Eip'iircy ? He would have suppressed its principal destination, and would have No, Paul would have placed as the address only a mediate and subordinate one ? known how really to express in the opening address the relation which Harless
has merely presupposed,
2
See also Reiche, p. 127. if he had so conceived of it. Success cannot attend the attempt mentally to supply the local destination of the letter (that disappears with the rejection of Iv 'EipsV?/) from any other
"Weiss, I.e. quarter in dealing with so singular and nameless an address. (comp. Reiche), thinks that Paul had given information to Tychicus for what
tradition
churches in Asia Minor the letter was intended ; but that the later had appropriated it to the chief town and chief church, and had completed the address accordingly. But that premiss is arbitrarily assumed,
circle of
and
this bold stroke of tradition
would hardly have gained universal assent,

If
it,
especially in view of its enigmatic relation to the contents of the Epistle.
Ephesus did not from the first stand in the text, as Marcion did not read latter would have acted with more tact in having recourse to Laodicea.
the
INTRODUCTION.
15
left
"subsequently
blank the name of the place in order that it might be filled up with the names of the churches confirst
cerned (Ussher
suggested
this,
followed by Garnier, Bengel,
Eichhorn, Hug, and others), or that at least in some copies a
vacant space was
Michaelis, Bertholdt,
an arbitrary
from which
be filled up at pleasure (Moldenhauer, Hemsen, and others), this is (a) altogether transplanting of a modern procedure from tlie
left to
counting-houses of the present day back into the apostolic age,
we have
circular letters indeed, but
no trace of such
a process of drawing them out, the mechanical nature of which
'would hardly square with the

(yS)
spirit of the apostolic age.
And
would not the Epistle, even if every church concerned had received a copy provided with its own name, have yet remained a circular letter ? Thus, indeed, in the individual church-names of the different copies there would have been
just so
Epistle.
to
many contradictions to the proper Why, then, should not Paul in
destination of the
case of his giving
named
whole
ed.
Tychicus the alleged circular letter in several copies have in every address uniformly the recipient churches as a
?
would have been utter folly (comp. Matthaei, if Paul in a portion of the copies had left the name of the place hlank to be filled up according to pleasure in a manner which had not already been fixed. Could he write i. 15 ff., vi. 22, without having quite a definite conception what churches he had in view ? (S) If only the name was to be left hlank, why was eV also omitted ? why did not the copies run roh ovaiv iv koI 7j-taToc<i
(7)
It
min. III.
p.
203)
K.T.X
(e)
How
inexplicable, that only copies with iv 'E(f)6a(p,'
and, in addition, those having no name whatever, should have had the good fortune to be preserved and distributed Each of the churches in question would have sought to pre^ serve and to multiply the copy addressed to it under its name and different traditions with regard to the readers would
;
inevitably have been current at a very early date in the church

side
by
side.
(^)
If Laodicea
was
in the circle of churches
in question, Colossae also
But Colossae did not get the alleged circular letter through the despatch of a copy intended for the Colossians, and addressed to them,
so (Col. iv. 16).
was
but had to procure
for
itself
the
Laodicean Epistle from
16
Laodicea (Col.

l.c).
These arguments
tell
at the
same time
against Bleek's hesitating conjecture, that Paul in the Epistle,
which was primarily intended for Laodicea, Hierapolis, etc., had left a gap after toI<^ ovatv, because, at the time of writing the letter, he was not yet able to specify all the several
churches
;
as
likewise
against Anger's
view,
that the
cir-
same time been destined for the danghter - churches of Asia, and among these, also for Laodicea that Tychicus had to bring it first to Ephesus, from whence it was to make its way to the other churches, and so to Laodicea, and from thence to
cular letter, primarily destined for Ephesus, had at the
;
Colossae.
In opposition to
p.
this view, see Zeller, Thcol. Jahrb.

d. ap. Zeitalt
.
1844, L
Similarly
I
199
ff.
Wieseler, Chronol.
f.
p.
442
sq.
Laurent in the Jahrh.
Deutsche
Theol.
18G6,
131, who assumes that Paul had intended the Epistle for two churches, Laodicea and Ephesus, but had only despatched one copy for the two, in which he left the desigp.
the
nation
of
the
place open.
of the place had
arisen through transcripts,
AaohiKeia, some with iv

the upper hand.
Thus copies with designations some with eV Êîaw, the latter of which obtained
But from the evidence of TertuUian (see gather that he had seen MSS. with iv AaoBiKela. Besides, there would subsist no reason at all why Paul, if he had written to these two churches, should not also have mentioned both of them in the address.
above)
we cannot
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, no other
criti-
cal procedure in ascertaining the readers of the Epistle rests
on a
i
historical basis
commentators,
Epistle
which
but that adopted by most of the later arrives at the conclusion that our
Uphesians and
to
was directed
to the
no further cMirch,
in
in pursuance of the genuine ev
'E(f)6cr(p,
and
agreement
with the primitive and universal tradition of the church. So among the later commentators Whitby, Wolf, Cramer, Morns,
and more recently Einck, Sendschr. der Korinther, p. 31 ff., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 948 ff. Wurm in the Tilh. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 97 f; Wiggers^ in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 412 ff. Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 443.
;
'
Yet he
also takes
up the view (already expressed by Beza
in his remarks
on
the subscription), that the apostle has not merely regarded the word spoken to
INTRODUCTION.
We
must, however, candidly confess that, while the difficulties

individual passages
1.
of the
15, the
iii.
1-4,
iv.
21,
may be
elucidated
by
their
exegesis,
tone
and contents of so
etc.,
general a tenor, the absence of any reminiscences of personal
connection with the readers, the want of salutations,
in
an Epistle to the Ephesians, remain more surprising than would be the case in any other Epistle. The appeal made by Wieseler (p. 449) to the elevated and didactic character of the Epistle is not sufficient to explain this strange pheno-
menon
and
we
lack the historical information for this purpose,
scientific
modesty and prudence prefer
to confess in this
case the non liquet, rather than to construct hypotheses which,

as has been shown, fall to pieces of themselves.^
liave
There must
existed
historical
circumstances which occasioned the

it
Epistle to receive the strange form that
undoubtedly has,
but
we
are not acquainted with them.
It is very natural,
however, to think of the phenomenon in question as, in part at least, causally connected with the mission of Tychicus, In
accordance with
to
for this
be orally communicated by the
fitted
Paul may have reserved all details latter, who seemed specially purpose, since he, as an inhabitant of Asia,^ as
vi.
21
f.,
the Ephesians as spoken to them, but has desired and designed a diffusion of the
and a knowledge of it in, wider circles, so that under the one church he is addressing the whole body of Asiatic Christians, which had Ephesus as their mother-church and centre. But against this view it must be urged apart from the circumstance that St. Paul says nothing whatever of this supEpistle among,
posed design
that in
all
the other Epistles too he might presuppose their being
communicated
iTito particulars,
and yet is not thereby withheld from entering sending salutations, and the like. ^ This holds also of those hypotheses, which do not keep to the view of the Christian church at Ephesus as such, regarded as a whole, being the readers of
to wider circles,
Thus Neudecker {E'ml. p. 502) holds that the Epistle is directed church which had been converted by the disciples of the apostle after he had left Ephesus and Liinemann conceives that Paul has written to a church which had been founded but a short time before in the immediate neiyhhourhood of Epliesus, and which was so closely bound up with the Ephesian Church that it might be considered as a part of it. Such hypotheses are strikingly and decisively disposed of by the simple and definite To7; ouffiv iv 'EÊfl-w, which does not admit of any more limited interpretation than the addresses to?; oSinv iv "Puf/.ri, Kom. i. 7 Ta/"; oZiriv h îXiT-rots, Phil. i. 1, etc. ^ Perhaps even from Ephesus. In Acts xx. 4, Tychicus and Trophimus are
the Epistle.
to that portion of the
; ;
named
as
"of
Asia," but the latter at least
is definitely
designated in xxi. 29 as
an Ephesian.
Meyer.
Eph.
18
a witness of Paul's farewell to the presbyters (Acts xx. 4), and

as an emissary to Ephesus (2 Tim. was undoubtedly very accurately acquainted with the 12), relations of Paul to the Ephesians whilst on the part also of the apostle himself there might be special motives (based jjossibly on the accusation brought against him by the Jews, Acts xxi. 28, 29, and on the covetousness of the venal Felix, Acts xxiv. 26), arising from the conditions of his imprisonment and surveillance, for his deeming it advisable by way of precaution to compose his Epistle to tliis particular church, with which he was on the most intimate footing, without setting forth personal relations and special circumstances. Nevertheless, this
also
iv.
;
named elsewhere
Epistle, as
an apostolical
letter to the Ephesians,
with
its
so
general, and, even in various particulars, surprising contents,
and we must Ephesus had not been given as the place of destination, criticism would least of all have been likely to light upon this church among the Asiatic churches known to us.
remains an enigma awaiting further solution
confess that
if
;
SEC.
2.
PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION.
St.
iv.
1, vi, 20.
this
Paul was a prisoner when he wrote the Epistle, iii 1, It has always been the prevailing opinion that imprisonment was the captivity at Rome, narrated in the
.
Acts of the Apostles.

Krit.
1829,
p.
f. ;
612
If.,
But David Schulz in the Stud. u. and after him Schneckeuburger,
Beitr. p.
144
Schott;^ Bttger (in connection, doubtless, with
his hypothesis that that
Eoman imprisonment
8t%icl.
only lasted a
p.
few days); Wiggers in the

Thiersch,
d.
u.
Krit.
p.
1841,
436
f.
Kirche
im
apost.
Zeitalt.
176;
Ptcviss,
Gesch.
der
heil.
Sehr. H. T.
Herzog's EncyU.
XIX.
Pastoral-theol. Blatt.
also Weiss in 718); and Zckler in Vilmar's 1863, p. 277 f., have decided in favour
114; Schenkel (comp,

p.
of the captivity at Caesarea.

as if the friends of Paul,
letters
And
are
to
rightly
so.
Not, however,
who
named
in the contemporary
to the
ff.,
Colossians and
Philem. 10
'
23
f.),
Philemon (Col, iv. 9-14; could not have been with him at Ptome,
Graul (Lips. 1836) wrote in opposition to Schulz and Scliott.
INTRODUCTIOX.
as
has been sought to be inferred from the Epistle to the
which only (i. 1) mentions Timotheus ;^ nor, on account of tt/jo? wpav, Philem. 15, which expression as contrasted with alcoviov by no means presupposes merely a quite short separation of the runaway Onesimus from his master nor yet because Paul at Eome could not have obtained
Philippians,
again,
;
sufficiently accurate information
concerning Colossae, for this
by means of Epaphras more natural and probable that the slave Onesimus had run away from Colossae as far as Caesarea, than that he should have fled, at the cost of a long journey by sea, to Eome, the more especially as the fugitive was not yet a Christian. The objection (see Wieseler, p. 417), that in the great city of Eome he would have been more secure from being tracked by the fugitivarii, who wêre everywhere on the look-out for runaway slaves, cannot be maintained, since this police-agency was certainly most to be dreaded in the capital itself and in the company of a statejmsoncr. (2) If our Epistle and the Epistle to the Colossians had been sent /ro??^ Eome, then would its bearer Tychicus, who was accompanied by Onesimus (Col. iv. 8, 9), have arrived at Ephesus first, and then at Colossae and accordingly we might reasonably expect that Paul would have mentioned to the Ephesians along with Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21, 22) his comj)amon Onesimus (as he does in Col. iv. 8, 9), in order by that means to prepare for his beloved Onesimus a good reception among the Ephesians. If, on the contrary, Tychicus started with Onesimus from Caesarea, he arrived by the most
might, in
(Col. iv.
fact,
;
have been got
sufficiently
12)
but, (1) because it is in itself
'
direct road, in keeping
Onesimus,
had,
in
first at
Colossae,
with the design of the journey of where he left the slave with his
;
master, and thence passed on to Ephesus
accordingly Paul
the
circumstance that Onesimus did not go with
Tychicus to Ephesus, a natural reason for not including a mention of Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Comp.
Wiggers,
I.e. p. 440 ff. It is not enough to explain this nonmention from the general absence of individual references in
later. But these might just as well have been with the apostle at Eome as at Caesarea, as certainly was the case with Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10 Philem. 24), Acts xxvii. 2.
^
In any case the Epistle to the Philippians was written
friends
20
THE EnSTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

tlie
our Epistle (Wieseler), since here

passage,
(3)
question concerns a single
which
vi.
is really
of an individual
v/jiet<;,
and personal
tenor.
In Eph.
21, Xva Se elBrJTe koI
this Kal indicates the
conception that, when Tychicus should come to the Ephesians, he would have already fulfilled the aim here expressed in the
case of others.
And
these others are the Colossians (Col.
iv.
8,9), with regard to whom, therefore, Paul knew that Tychicus would come rst to them, which again tells in favour not of
Eome, but of Caesarea, as the starting-point. If the messenger had been despatched from Eome, and so had proceeded from Ephesus to Colossae, we should then have expected the kul at
the corresponding passage in the Epistle
Further,
(-1)
to
the
Colossians}
Paul, in Philem. 22, asks Philemon to prepare a
(See on Philem. I.e.) on the one hand, presupposes the fact that his present place of imprisonment was much nearer to Colossae than the far distant Eome, especially considering the slowness of naviand this is withal the gation in those days on the other hand, main point, we must assume, in the light of this request, that Paul thought of coming from his place of imprisonment, after the speedy release which he hoped for, direct to Phrygia, and in particular to Colossae unto Philemon, without making any intermediate journeys, since otherwise there would be no motive
lodging for him, and that, too, for speedy use.

This,
for the request as to the
immediate preparation of a lodging for
him
house of Philemon simultoMeously with the taking back of Onesimus. But now it is plain from Phil. ii. 24 that
at the
Paul, when he was lying a prisoner at Eome and was there hoping for his liberation, intended to journey to Macedonia
' Wiggers appeals to ver. 22, holding, namely, that Paul could not legitimately have written 'v 'ivi/jiôt. Tps if^.; il; ccro toto X.T.X., if Tychicus must, in the very natui-e of the case from his being destined for Colossae, have come But wrongly. For even if Tychicus, in virtue of the direction of to Ephesus. his journey (from Rome to Colossae), would necessarily have been brought by way of Ephesus, he might nevertheless have merely passed through it, if St. Paul had not expressly given him orders for the definite object of Eph. vi. 22, and entrusted him with commissions to the church. The fact that Tychicus must necessarily have travelled by way of Ephesus would not therefore exclude "We may add, that from Rome the the truth of the eVe^'v^ prpos f/.s x. r. X. travellers might have reached Colossae, without even touching at Ephesus, by way of Miletus possibly, so that Paul, ii Rome be presupposed as the starting-
point,
might the more
fitly
write these words.
IXTRODUCTION.
(not to Spain, to
Eom.
XV. 24),
which
his views
had been directed
earlier,
is
which, after what has been said above,
not
in keeping with the bespeaking of a lodging with Philemon.
This bespeaking, on the other hand,
is
quite appropriate,
if
for, he intended to journey through Phrygia and Asia generally, and next to carry out his old plan, which was directed to Eome (Eom. i. lOff. Acts xix. 21).
;
Paul was at Caesarea. release which he hoped
From
that place, after
the speedy
AVliether at this time he
still
entertained his earlier plan of a

;
journey
it
to
Spain (Eom. xv. 24
at Phil.
ii.
up), is a matter of indifference for our question.
24 he had given But it is
certain that Paul at Caesarea, considering his gentle treatment
and the lax prosecution of
his trial
speedy liberation (Acts xxiv. 23, 26).
under Felix, might hope for It has been maintained
(see Wieseler, p. 420, Guericke, and others) that neither the freedom to preach (vi. 1 9 Col. iv. 3 f. is not here relevant), nor the conversion of Onesimus (Philem, 10), suit his condition
;
at
Caesarea, but
that
they suit only his position at

f.
;
Eome
much,
according to Acts xxviii. 3

for the notice at
but this
is to
assert too
Acts xxiv. 23 leaves
suffictent scope for our
recognising such activity on the part of the captive Paul even

in Caesarea.
If,
Comp.
Introd. to Col. 2.
accordingly, Paul composed the Epistle in Caesarea, the

its
date of
composition
is
either A.D. 6
or A.D. 6
Finally, the
ColossioMS
logical
question whether this Epistle or that

is
to
the
VMS first ivritten, basis ^ by considering
not to be answered on a psycho-
their inner relationship
and peculiar
left for
character, because in that case there is too

^
much
scope
written earlier
157, who holds that the Epistle to the Ephesians was Because its aim is the more general, and that of the Epistle to the Colossians, as the special, is subordinate. (2) Because the former, as directed (according to Credner's view) to imknown Pauline Christians in Asia, would have requii'ed the most mature consideration, whereas the Epistle to the Colossians would be much more easily drawn up, since Paul had Epaphras and Onesimus with him and so it could not fail but that a portion of the ideas laid down in the former Epistle would be transfen-ed also to the latter, in such wise that what was there general in tenor would assume a special form.
As,
e.g.,
by Credner,
(1)
(3)
Because in our Epistle the expression
is
more
abstract, etc.
It
would not
to the
be difficult, with equal plausibility, to invert the relation, and to represent the
more special, the easier, and more concrete as psycliologically antecedent more general, more difficult, and more abstract shape.
22
subjectivity,
as,
indeed, on such grounds
some have found the

(Cornelius
Epistle
to
the
Ephesians
the
earlier
Lapide,
Bhmer, Credner, Schneckenburger, Matthies, Anger, Guericke, Eeuss), and others that to the Colossians (Schleiermacher,
Harless, Neander, Meier, Wiggers, de Wette, Bleek, Weiss)
nor yet by inferring, with Hug, from the non-mention
oj
Timothy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that this Epistle was written earlier than the letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, because in the latter Timothy shares in the salutation, and must thus have joined Paul later.^ But that the Epistle
was written before that to the Ephesians, is assumed for the following reasons (1) As Colossae was the first and nearest goal which Tychicus, in company with the Colossian Onesimus, would reach from Caesarea (see above), it could not but be the most natural and obvious course for
to the Colossians to be
:
the apostle to write the letter to the Colossians sooner than

the letter
which was
to be delivered only at
vfit<;, vi.
a further stage of
his friend's journey; (2) /cat
21, refers to the passage
Col. iv. 7, and presupposes that Paul had already written and had in his recollection this latter Epistle. If, indeed, the Epistle to the Laodiceans were identical with the Epistle to
the Ephesians, then, according to Col.
iv. 1 6,
the Epistle to the
Colossians would necessarily be the later.
But
see 1,
and
on
Col. iv. 16.
SEC.
3.
GENUINENESS OF THE
K
EPISTLE.
After previous expressions of doubt on the part of Schleiermacher {Vorl. b. Einl I. T. -p. 165 f, 194) and Usteri, de Wette has come forward more decidedly than before, assailing the genuineness of the Epistle
{cxcget.
Hanclhuch, zweite
Aufl. 1847, and Einl., fnfte Aufl. 1848); and the critics of Baur's school (Schwegler, hrit. Miscellen zum E'pheser'br., in
Zeller's
^
theol.
Jahrh. 1844, 2,
p.
378
ff.;
nachapostol. Zeitalt.
We might,
in fact, with equal right infer the converse, viz. that
Timothy
had, at the writing of the Epistle to the Ephesians, already left Paul again and had joiirneyed to some other quarter, so that this Epistle would be the later as
Schott really judges
it
to be.
INTKODCTION".
23
418 ff., comp, also his\ 4 ff.) relegate the Epistle to the age of Gnosticism and Montanism, whereas de "Wette
IL
p.
330
ff.,
375
K:, Baur, Paulus, p.
Christcnth. d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 1
(comp. Schleiermacher)
age,
still
allows
it
to belong to the apostolic
and
to a gifted disciple of the apostle as its author.
Soj
Zeit.
too
p.
Ewald 243 ff)

it
;
(Sendschr. d.
;
P.
p.
it
xii.
Geschichte d.
cqjost.
he denies that
was written by Paul, but yet
places
much
nearer to the great apostle than the Pastoral
while Weisse {Dogmat. I. p. 146) lightly characterizes an unapostolic paraphrase of the Epistle to the Colossians, and Hausrath {d. Ap. Pcmlus, 18G5, p. 2, 138) speaks of it as an Epistle to the Laodiceans retouched by another hand.
Epistles
as
it
De
Wette's reasons, in addition to his finding the destina:
Ephesus unsuitable, are as follow that the Epistle, which is devoid of all specially distinctive character in its aim and references, is so dependent on the Epistle to the Colossians, which is almost a mere verbose amplification of it,
tion for
as to be out of keeping,
false teachers.
when
is
divested of the reference to the

is
Such a copying from himself
unworthy
it is
of
the apostle
the style, too,
un-Pauline, overladen as
with
parentheses and accessory clauses, involving a want of connection

(ii.
1, 5,
iii.
1, 13),
copious in words but poor in thoughts
so, too,
are the divergences in particular expressions,^ as well as
in
the thoughts, doctrinal opinions, and

"
10, vi. 12
mode
of teaching.^
'
ro7s I'Toupa.nois,
i.
3, 20,
ii.
6,
iii.
ra. prv.ufjt.aTtK, vi.

KoiTfiox.ft,Tufi,
iii.
i.
12
S/a/3Xsj,
trmTripiov,
iv.
27, vi. 11 (elsewhere only in 1
and 2 Tim.);
i.
vi.
12;
vi. 16.
Words
i.
differently used
;
oUovoula,
i.
10,
2,
f^viTTvpiov,
ii.
v.
32
i.
(as
in Eev.
aieov, ii.
20, xvii. 5, 7)
;
-rXripafia,
;
23 (comp. Col.
vi.
;
19,
9)
;
ilxoyia,
!npi-!fo'im's, i.
Iv,
14
a.(p6ap(Tia.,
TXrjpova-âi
XptiTToZ, V.
V.
TO
18
crX'/i.
ih,
iii.
19
24 ; fâvSavitv, iv. 20 ipeuTi^tiv, iii. 9 the combinations atrixa, toZ QioZ xa)
;
6iXniJt,a.
;
tou Kvplou, V. 17.
Interruption and resumption of the con;
sti'uction,
'/va
iii.
2-14
i.
the constructions "a-n yivua-xovrts, v. 5

i.
'iva
(po^rai, v.
33
with the optative,
17,
ii.
iii.
26.
Frequent omission of the

21
f., f.,
article before defin-
ing additions,
3, 15,
7, 11, 15,
pleonasm,
points."
i.
19, vi. 10,
iii.
18
ii.
21
and other passages; diffuseness and {Iv Xpuri-w 'itia-ov), and various other
^ " Unbecoming appeal of the apostle to his insight, iii. 4 putting together of the apostles and prophets, ii. 20, iii. 5 ; arbitrary use of the passage in the Psalms at iv. 8 ; quotation of a non-biblical passage, v. 14 ; the conceptions of demon;
ology,
ii.
2, vi.
12
the characteristics of God,

v. f."
i.
17,
iii.
9,
15
the laying stress

iv.
on Old Testament promise, un-Pauline salutation, vi. 23
f.
the dissuasion from theft,
28
the
2-4
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIAXS.

(a)
But
while the absence of any concrete and direct peculi-
arity of character in its
aim and references
is
surprising,
its
it is
altogether unfavourable to any doubts as to
genuineness,
partly because the bringing out at all of a writing under an

apostle's
name and
authority
makes us presuppose more
definite
tendencies and more readily recognisable conditions as aimed at

in
it
;
partly because, in particular, the circumstances of the
Ephesian church, and the close relationship of the apostle to them, must have been so generally known, that a non-apostolic author would either have deliberately taken account of and employed them, or else, if the design of his undertaking permitted it, would have made another and happier selection of
He who could prepare an address than this very iv ''Eêcrw. under the name of the apostle an Epistle of so thoroughly Pauline a tenor, must have been quite able to imitate him in the mention and handling of concrete circumstances, and would, by
such an omission of those matters as
personating Paul
his part.
is
apparent in our Epistle,
neither have satisfied himself nor have answered his design of

so much would he have failed in acting The very fact that the Epistle, as an E])istlc to the Epliesians, had its genuineness so generally recognised by the ancient church, is, when we consider the general nature of its contents, which always remains mysterious, a doubly valid
immediate and objective

as
is
evidence that this recognition has historically arisen out of Further, (IS) as regards the certainty.
well known,
literal
relation of the Epistle to that to the Colossians, there appear,
many
resemblances in matter and form

Epistles.^
some even
fact that
^
between the two

i.
This may, how-
ever, be sufficiently explained, in part subjectively
from the
Paul had just written the Epistle to the Colossians

7,
Epli.
i. i. i.
i.
comp. Col.
,,
,, ,,
14. 20.
3, 4.
Eph.
iii. iii. iii. iii.
2, 3,
7,
comix
,,
Col.
,,
i. i. i.
25
26. 23, 21
27. 10.
10,
i.
i.
15-17,
18,
,,
,,
,,
i.,27.
i.
f.,

,,
,,
i. i.
i.
i.
21,
16.
iv. 1,
f.
,,
22
f.,
ii.
1, 12,
ii.
5,

,,
,,
,,
i.
i.
18
21.
13.
iv. 2,
,, f., f.,
,,
iii. iii.
ii.
iii.
12 14
19.
f. f.
iv. 3
iv.
,,
ii. ii.
i.
i.
15 22
25
,,
,,
ii. ii. iii.
15, 16,
1,
,,
,,
14.
iv. 19, iv.

i
,,
,,
1, 5.
20
24.
tr.,
iii.
iii.
ff.
,,
iv.
f.,
f.
INTKODUCTION.
Lefore writing to the Ephesians, so that his
of
25
mind was still full and pervaded by the ideas, warnings, and exhortations in part objectively v.'hich he had expressed in the former from the fact that the state of affairs at Ephesus must have been well enough known to the apostle to induce him to repeat various portions of the writing which he had just composed for another Asiatic church, and that to such a degree that he considered it fitting even to reproduce various things word for word from the Epistle to the Colossians, which lay before him. To declare this a course unworthy of the apostle is rash, since we have no other pair of letters from his hand issued so contemporaneously and under the influence
;
of so similar a train of thought.
But while
certainly several
elements from the Epistle to the Colossians have been amplificcl

as to vei'hcd exjyression in ours, there are also several that are
compared (e.f/. i. 15-17 4 Eph. ii. 16 with Col. i. 20 Eph. iv. 32 with Col. iii. 12 f., and others); and those amplifications admit of natural explanation from renewed dwelling on the same thoughts, in which Paul did not proceed mechanically, and a mind such as his easily had recourse to more words rather than fewer in setting forth the subject afresh. At any rate, de Wette's judgment of it as almost nothing hut a verbose am2)lification, is exaggerated, seeing that the two Epistles present in their course of thought, tenor, and mode of treatment very essential differences (see Harless, p. Ixix. ff. Lnemann, de Ep. ad Uph. authentid, etc., p. 10 ff.), and the conclusion that a pseudo-Paul was at work would, at all events, be too hasty, so long as it was not from other sufficient grounds clear that
reproduced
in a more concise form
;
with Col.
i.
3,
Paul could not have been himself the amplifier.

Ei.li.
On
the other
26
hand,
it

is
scarcely conceivable of
an amplifying imitator,
with the apostle's ideas
that one so
intimately acquainted
have chosen a single Pauline Epistle for the and often literal basis of his work for thereby he would merely have imposed an unnecessary restriction on himself, and have increased the probability of his fiction, made up though it might be in the best sense, being recognised as such. A man, who could think and write in so Pauline a manner as that wherein the portions not parallel to the Colossian Epistle are thought and written, might with ease have given to his pretended apostolic treatise a shape quite different and not so palpably exhibiting any single source. (c}/With respect
and
diction, should
sole
to the objections taken to the style of the Epistleas too diffuse, loaded with parentlieses and accessory clauses, carrying with it a want of connection (ii. 1, 5, iii, 1, 13), verbose, and poor in
new
ideas, it is to
is
verdict
be observed, first, and generally, that this an unfavourable judgment resting on taste and subjec;
tive in character
and, secondly, that in
its
individual concrete
references
it is
relates to
a certain peculiarity of the Epistle,

fact,
wliich yet
of
not un-Pauline, seeing that, in
the unity
mould and flow, the pectus atgiie indoles Paulinae mentis (Erasmus), which pervades it from beginning to end,^ leads us more fairly and justly to set down the greater diffuseness, and what is called overloading, to the account of the apostle himself, deeply moved as he was by his subject. There is greater
diffuseness certainly, but
how natural
is this,
when we
!
consider
the general character of the grand subject-matter and of its There are a evolution, and the absence of casual contents
certainly, but and natural enough to a writer so full of the ideas concerned and the collateral thoughts suggested by them. Nowhere is there in reality want of connection,
number
of parentheses and accessory clauses
not after an un-Pauline fashion,
as
it is
new
ideas
A poverty of the province of the exposition to show. is merely apparent in proportion to the standard of
the expectation cherished a priori; the letter abounds in manysided modifications and expanded statements of thoughts which
were vividly present to the writer's mind, in part from the

i
" Idem in hac
epistola
Pauli fervor,
eadem profunditas, idem omnino
Spiritus ac pectus," Erasmus.
INTRODUCTION.
Epistle to the Colossians, but a rich accession of
27
new
ideas
was neither withal intended nor

troversy
respects
(as to the
{clY
called forth
by
dialectic con-
copiousness of diction, see above).
As!
the particular divergences of style, anfra Xeyofievai
are found in every Epistle of Paul, as well as other peculiar
modes of expression,
as
may
readily be conceived in the case of
a letter-writer having so delicate and comprehensive a masteryj
but no one of the proofs brought forof the Greek language ward by de Wette (which are in part inappropriately selected,^ and, on the other hand, might have had their number increased)' And, is at variance ivith the idiosyncrasy of the apostle.
;
further,
C^
aira^
voovfjbeva
are
not appropriate grounds
fori
doubting the genuineness of a writing in dealing with one
whose mind was
so inexhaustibly rich,
and whose conception

rtiany-sidcdncss in the
St.
moved with such admirable freedom and

Christian sphere, as
is
Paul. Everything adduced as surprising in conception and doctrine may be psychologically and historically explained as standing in full accord with the pure Pauline Gospel (see the exposition), and the objections which are taken to the mode of teaching find analogies in other Pauline Epistles, and rest upon aesthetic presuppositions, which in a historico- critical examination of the New Testament writings supply us with but very uncertain criteria, seeing that in such a case modern taste is much too easily called in as an extraneous ground influencing the judgment. The more candidly de Wette speaks out as to the
was the case with
which
Epistle not having been composed in the apostolic age,
makes a
gifted disciple
of Paul to be its author, the
and more
insoluble he
makes
left his treatise
tlie riddle, that such an one should have without trace of individual historical relations
of the apostle to the Ephesians,
which
it
easy for him to interweave.
Lastly, the reasons urged
school of Baur, according to which this panion Epistle to the Colossians, forming a spurious pair, are held to be a product of Gnosis in opposition to Ebionitism (comp, on Col. Introd. 3), are disposed of, when the exposition,
would have been so by the Epistle and the com-
dealing in a strictly objective manner, demonstrates in the very

places which have been called in question simply Pcndine contents.
See, in opposition to Baur's contrast, specially Klpper, de
28
orig. cpp.
ad
Epli. ct Col., Grypli.
1853
;
and with regard
to the
Christology of our letter and that to the Colossians, Rbiger,

de Christolor/ia Paulina, p.
42
ff.
Lange, apost.
Zcitalt. I. 1, p.
119
ff.^
The more
decisive in that case becomes the weight,
which the
co^/fcnirt/ ^êstoh"o?i
by uninterrupted church-tradition
but in Ignatius, Eph, 12, the
(see above, 1), and said: " ut in Ms scrii^turis
:
throws into the
scale.
This attestation has been even dated
back to the
Epistle
is
-^^ôsô/t'c iâê?-;
not at
all directly
mentioned
it is
in Poly carp, Phil.
12, where
Irascimini et nolite pcccare, et Sol non occidat est iracundiam vestram," there is no quotation of Eph. iv. 26, but rather, as in his scripturis (comp, inmiediately before in sacris Uteris) and the intervening et prove, the citation of two Old Testament sayings, namely, Ps. iv. 5 and Deut. xxiv. 13, 15, though the eonnccting of these two passages may be Apart from the citabased on a reminiscence of our Epistle.'^ tions in the interpolated Ignatian letters, the undoubted and express ecclesiastical attestation begins with Irenaeus, Haer. v. 2, 3, and V. 14. 3, and is not interrupted by any contradiction (Marcion held it as Pauline, but as addressed to the Laodicean s). Even the Valentinians already in Irenaeus, i. 8. 5, cite Eph.
dictum
super
V.
13 expressly
vi.
as a saying of Paul,
7/)a^7;.
and in the
Philosojyh. of
Origen,
34, as
to the first Epistle of Peter of expressions and thoughts in the Epistle to the Ephesians (see Weiss, Petrin. Zehrbcgr. p. 426 ft", who has, however, adduced under this head far too much) are too little characteristic adequately to justify us in ])resupposing a dependence of our Epistle on that of Peter (Weiss, who considers both
PtEMAPtK.
The apparent resemblances
Lange, however, wrongly defines the Christological distinction of the two p. 117, to the effect, that in the Ephesian letter Christ is the Omega, in the Colossian the Alpha, of all things. In both letters He is the A and the n, bat in the Colossian letter the Christological theme stands in the
1
Epistles,
foreground, and
^
is treated more sedulously and more comprehensively. The general question, whether at this date Apostolic Fathers adduce New Testament sayings with us yiypcfrrai, ypa.^-/i, and the like, does not therefore
Specially important in this relation is the citation in Barnabas 4, in regard to whicli Credner, Beitr. I. p. 28, has been mistaken in answering that question in the negative, as the Codex Sinaiticus showed. The citation from Barnabas is certainly not to be referred to a written source (jcnercdly (Weizscker), nor even to 4 Esdr. viii. 3, which passage is held to be confounded with Matt. xix. 30 (Volkmar).
pertain to us here.
; :
LNTRODCTION.
29
Schwegler, Avho regards both as spurious). "VVe should rather assume tlie converse, when we remember how strictly Paul preserved and acutely vindicated his apostolic independence but it is quite sufficient to take our stand on the creative power of the church-language formed by Paul, from which Peter -was neither able nor willing to hold himself aloof, while it remains an open question whetlier he had read Epistles
genuine
of Paul.
2 Pet.
(iii.
15 f )
is
not genuine.
SEC.
4.
OCCASION,
it
OBJECT,
AND CONTENTS.
any special
We
are unable to perceive from the letter itself
occasion given for
on the ijart of the Ephcsians ; hence it seems to have been called forth by mere accident through the mission of Tychicus and Onesimus to Colossae an opportunity,
which Paul made use
of to send Tychicus also to Ephesus, in
order not only to supply the Christians there with (oral) news of him, and to obtain news of them, but also to address to them a
written discourse, partly on the glory of redemption and of their

state as Christians, partly
in order to strengthen
on the conduct in keeping with it, and further them in stedfastness and
;
imity of faith and Christian morality

proper aim of the Epistle (de Wette)
irenic section iv.
is
yet not
so,
that the
to be discerned in the
false
1-16.
There are no traces of Ephesian

(this in
teachers, similar to those at Colossae
opposition to
Michaelis, Haenlein, Elatt, Schott, Neudecker, and others), in
the Epistle (for

neither
iv.
14
f.
may
be explained from the general

G relates to moral seductions)
experience of the apostle, and

is
v.
a precautionary regard to such theosophy and ascetip.
cism (see Schneckenburger, Beitr.

also
135
ff.
Olshausen
comp,
Meier and Weiss) at any rate capable of proof, since in Bengel well says the Epistle itself it is not at all hinted at. " Singulare haec epistola specimen praebet tractationis evangelicae in thesi inde nullum speciatim errorem aut vitium Paul may, howrefutat aut redarguit, sed generatim incedit."
.
have had in the background the thought of the possible approach of that Gnostic danger, though he did not consider it necessary or suitable at this time to furnish an express
ever,
reference or warnins; to that effect.
30
THE EFISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
As
regards contents, the Epistle divides itself into a pre-
dominantly dogmatic and a predominantly hortatory portion.
The dogmatic portion
is
a lofty
effusion over the glory
and
blessedness of the redemption effected through Christ, to which

also the readers, formerly Gentiles,
had attained, and thereafter

i.-iii.).
over the relation of the apostle to this saving dispensation, and

to the share of the readers therein (chap,
The Iwrtatory
calling,
;
portion
and,
summons them
of
all,
to a
conduct worthy of their
1-16) and then to a moral walk opposed to their previous Gentile life which is illustrated in detail as concerns very diversified conditions and relations (iv. 1 7vi. 2 0). By way of conclusion, Paul refers, as regards his personal relations, to Tychicus, of whose mission he specifies the object (vi. 21 f.), and ends with a double benediction (vi. 23 f.). Luther (in his editions of the N. T. down to 1537) reckons the Epistle among " the genuine and noblest books of the New Testament, which show to thee Christ, and teach everything which it is necessary and good for thee to know, even though thou shouldest never see or hear any other book or doctrine."
first
to Christian unity (iv.
raZrce. ivTOivâ,
ln>.ol:,
ClirySOStom.
CHAP.
A B D E F G K S,
scription:
s-marohri
'Trpog
'Eips(yio-jg.
min. have the shorter and older superUa-JXoj 1, min.: rou yiou TOSroi.ou
'Trpog 'E<psff.
CHAPTEE
I.
Yer.
See Introd. 1. Tisch, has put it in brackets. an before Xpiarui is wanting only in some min., omission, which, although followed in the editions of Erasmus, Steph. 3, and Beza, and approved of by Mill, is not at all Ver. 6. iv ?] deserving of notice as a various reading. B N* min. Chrys. (alio.) have vg. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Elick., and rightly so. The attraction was resolved partly by the simple fj (so Theophyl. Ambrosiast.), partly, in keeping with the prevalence of h in the context,
Ver.
1. Iv'Efiseuj]
3.
iv
by
IV
fi,
grounds. Ver. 10. rd h roTg oupavoTg] The TS read in EIz. after ra is, on decisive evidence, deleted by the later editors (except Harless). But in place of li/, B E L N* min. Theodoret, Dam.
which
latter
is
defended by Eeiche on insufficient
Oecum.
iii.
Tert.
received.
15),
which Lachm. and Eilck. have rightly The usual form of conception, h roTg ovpavoTg (comp,
have
j^/,
superseded the apparently unsuitable J-t/, At Col. i. 20, min. Chrys. and Theodoret have likewise It/ roTg oupavoTg, where Jtt/, indeed, is too weakly attested, but has most probably come from our passage. Ver. 11, IxXripojdrnMsv] E F G, It. have szX'/idrj/xsv. Eecommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Eiick. But Matth. Harless, Tisch. Eeiche have rightly defended the still more considerably attested Receptee as the more difficult reading, glossed by IxX-^dri/Msv. The gloss is to be derived from Eom. viii. 13 oD? ds 'irpoupiei, rourovg zai h.dXiss. Ver. 12, rrig before So'^Jig is, following Griesb., deleted by the more recent editors (except Harless) on preponderating evidence. An addition easily suggested; comi^. ver, 14. Ver. 14 &.;] B F G L, min. than, Cyr, Euthal, Chrys. (in the text) have o. So Lachm. and Eiick. But was, on account of the preceding Ti/fD/Aa, the more easily introduced and retained, since by that
many
AD
6'
32
means tlie old opinion, that og applies to Christ, was met. Ver. 15. rr,v dyd'Tryjv t/jv] Lachm. has only ryjv, following B K* 17, Cyr. (alio.) Jer. Aug. (alio.), copyist's error, and how easily caused by the repetition of the rrivl If the addition had been made from Col. i. 4, t^v 'iyjn would have been inserted instead of the second r^jv. Ver. 16. The second i//zS)v is wanting in B N, min. Cant. Goth. Hil. F and G have it after voiovfuvoc. Deleted by Lachm. and Eiick. defining addition, which was first written in the margin, and. then inserted, sometimes before, sometimes after a-owv/Mwg. Ver. 18. zap^/ag] Elz. has havoiag, against decisive testimony. An interpretation. xa/] is wanting in B D* F G N* 59, It. Goth. Ambrosiast. Victorin., and is deleted by Lachm. and Eiick., but came to be more readily left out than added, because the concluding xa/ only comes in afterwards. Ver. 20. hrjpyri<îv] Lachm. reads Iv^j^y/jxji', after AB, Cyr. Procop. and rightly so. The aorist, in itself more in current use, was suggested by the aorists following. And the attestation is strong enough, since the vss. and Latin Fathers cannot be taken into account. ixaSiasv] Lachm. and Eiick. read za6!aag, following B N, min. Slav. Vulg. Cyr. utr. Euseb. Procop. Tert. Jer. Ambr. oupavoTg, instead Pel. An attempt to help out the construction. of iTovpavioig, though adopted by Lachm., is too feebly attested by B, Victorin. Hilar. Ver. 23. ra\ is wanting in Elz., but has been, upon decisive evidence, restored by Bengel, Griesb. and the later editors ; comp. ver. 22.
Contents.
After the usual address and apostolic saluta-
tion (vv. 1, 2), St. Paul begins with an ascription of praise to
God
{(i)
for the salvation in Christ (ver. 3),
as already lovingly predestined
praise of
His grace
(vv. 4, 5)
6, 7)
;
which he sets forth by God in eternity to the (h) as brought about by the
(c)
death of Christ (vv.

(vv.
then
as
made known according

all
to the purpose of the divine kindness, to unite
in Christ
8-10)
and
lastly, {d) as really
appropriated according to
respect as
the predestination of
well to those
God (ver. 11); this latter in who had been Jews (ver. 12) as to
(vv. 13, 14),
those
who
had been Gentiles

also
the praise of the divine glory.
both of
whom
were destined to
Wherefore, since the Gentiles
had attained to such happiness, he too, after having heard of their faith and love, ceases not to give thanks for his readers, when marking mention of them in his prayers, in order that God might enlighten them by His Spirit concerning the hope to which their calling exalted them, concerning the glory of the
CHAP.
I.
1-3.
33
future salvation, and concerning the greatness of the divine
15-19), whicli power they were by what God had wrought in the case of Christ, whom He had raised from the dead and exalted above all, and had given Him as Lord over all to be Head to the church, which is His body that which is filled by Him, who filleth
in the believers (vv.
to recognise
power
20-23). Vv. 1,2. A CO. 6e\i]fx,. eov] See on 1 Cor. i. 1. rot? dyioi^;] koI 7naTol<; iv X. 'I.] furnishes, with rot? See on Eom. i. 7. d<yLoc<i, the coinpldcncss of the conception, hence it is not epexegesis (Beza, Vorstius, Calovius, and others), but an appended element, and Kai is the closely copulative and. Comp. Col. i. 2.
all
with
all (vv.
It is not,
which Meier
is
;
however, the conception of fidelity and perseverance appended (Grotius, Locke, Baumgarten, EosenmUer, see, on the other hand, already Calovius), but the notion
yioL<i
where the persons are alone would not yet characterize the readers expressly as Christians. Comp. Phil. i. 1. iv XpiaTM Îrjcrov] does not belong to ayioa and 7naroc<i, so that it would denote the sphere, within which the Christians are saints and believing (Harless;
of faith in Christ, since in the address,
to be designated very distinctly, to??
comp. Boyd, Storr,

otherwise
Ojnisc.
i.
II. p.
121, Meier, Schenkel), for

be quite
(comp, on Col.
2)
koI Tna-rolf would
superfluous and a tame and heavy addition, inasmuch as the
notion of yio'i iv
iv Xpiaro); but
XpiarS
p)'i'csnp)poses
:
the notion of irtaTo^
merely
to TTio-Tot?
i.
fidem in Christo reponentihus.

;
Comp. i. 15, and see on Mark on Eom. i. 7.

Ver.
5
;
15
Gal.
iii.
26,
Ver.
2.
See
ix.
Comp. Eom. Kings xv. 39. It is ^prefixed here, since, as in most doxologies (see on Eom. ix. 5), in keeping with the emotion of the heart which breaks forth in songs of praise, the emphasis lies on it. Where the stress in conformity with the context rests upon the person, this is prefixed, as at 1 Kings x. 9 2 Chron. ix. 8 Job i. 2 1
3.
Ev\oyr]ro'i\
i.
praised
i.
(^'i'^^),
5c.
eli].
2 Cor.
Luke
68
1 Pet.
i.
Ps. Ixviii. 20, cxii. 1, 2;
Eom.
ix.
5.
The second
Epistle to
the
Corinthians begins also with an ascription of praise to God, and the general character of that now before us cannot, in view of the general contents of the Epistle (comp. 1 Pet.
Meyer.
Eph.
34
i.

ff.),
appear un-Pauline (in opposition to de Wette), especially

5
as the thanksgiving which has reference to the readers comes
in afterwards in ver.
f.
6 0eo<?
is the
/cat
Trarrjp
rov Kvpiov
K.T.X-I God, who at the same time
See on Kom. xv. 6

phylact,
Father of Jesus Christ. Theodore 1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 31

;
of Mopsuestia in Cramer's Catena.
Jerome, Theodoret, Theo-
and
others,
including
Bleek,
" the
Olshaiisen,
Schenkel,
Michaelis, Koppe, Eckert, have incorrectly attached tov
Kvplov
rjjxtav
also to o 0eo9.
It is true, indeed, that there is
no objection to the idea before Kal would not be

iv.
God
of Christ " in
itself,
and re
at all necessary, as Harless thinks (see

;
1 Pet.
ii.
0eo9 Kal
only,
nrart^p,
but against it stands the fact that 6 25, aL) even without a genitive, was a stated Christian
designation of
God (comp, on Eom. xv. 6), in which case irarrjp and not eo?, requires a complementary genitive (v. 2
24;
Jas.
i.
1 Cor. XV.
the
27,
iii.
9).
Moreover, the expression

in the N. T.
it
God of
Christ stands so isolated
ver. 17), that

it
we may
not attribute to
(see on any such currency, as

6
must have had,
if it
were contained in the formula

k.t.X.
Kal iraTTjp rov Kvplov

the
0eo?
o ev\o<yrjaa<i
rjpâsi]
Aorist: by
work
of redemption.
evXo'yrjro'i
Observe the ingenious correlation of

as well as the
the passive
dilogia,
and the active evXayâ-w;,
by which the former denotes the blessing in word, and the latter the blessing in deed (comp. Eom. xv. 29 2 Cor. ix. 5 f.; Gal iii. 8, 9, 14; Acts iii. 26). rifx(; applies to the Christians generally, not to Paid (Koppe), against which view the unsuitableness of such a thanksgiving of the apostle
for himself at the head of the Epistle, as well as the actual plurality of persons in the whole context (vv. 4, 11, 12), and
Kayco, ver. 15, are decisive.
iv irdarj evXojLo. irvevfxarLK^]

to
instrumental
hij
His imparting
us every sjnritual blessing

;
XII. Patr. p. 722 eiiXo'y. iv dya6oL<i) none has He This, however, is not to be explained as withheld from us. Messing, tuhich concerns our sjririt (Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, Eosenmliller Koppe and Eckert are undecided), but |:>?ôceeding from the Holy Spirit, because the distinctively Christian Comp. Eom. benefits are meant, and these are 'âpLa/uiara. This blessing is wrought by God 1 Cor. xii. 1 ff. i. 11, XV. 29 from heaven through the communication of the Spirit (ver. 1 3 j
(comp.
Test.
; : ;
CHAP.
I.
3.
35
Gal.
for
iii.
1 Cor.
it.
We may
promised to
ings of the
(Schttgen),
xii. 6, and elsewhere), hence God is praised add that a contrast to the earthly benefits the Jews in the Old Testament (Grotius and
others, including recently Holzhansen), or to the typical bless-
Jews and the empty possessions

is
of the Gentiles
foreign to the context.
Paul denotes the mataccording

to its
ter in a purely positive

teristic
form as
is
it
is,
charac-
natiire
hence there
not in nraar) any contrast to
merely sporadic blessings in

in the
love, hope,
the 0. T.
The evXo^la
consists
most varied expressions,

v.
as in grace, truth, peace, joy,
consolation, patience,
the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.

Trav
and all Christian virtues as Compare 22; Eom. v. 1 ff.).
djaOop to eV
12.
it
rjfuv,
Philem.
6.
iv rot? iTrovpavloL'i] local

ver. 20,
ii.
in the heavenly regions, in heaven.

vi.
Comp.
6,
iii.
10,
Against the
is
instrumental
the
rendering,
according to
which
imderstood, as a more precise definition of the

of
spiritual
blessing,
heavenly possessions^ (Chrysostom,

Piscator, Vorstius,
Flatt, Bleek,
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Castalio,
Homberg, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus,
and
others),
we may
less,
urge, not the article (in opposition to Kckert,
Olshausen),
category,
which would
fact,
Har-
very appropriately denote the

iirovpavloi^
is
but the
that Paul has not added <ya6ol<; or

rol<i
'âpia-fiaat, just
because in our Epistle iv
constantly a designation of place?

pavlot,<i is referred,
The
local eV rot? iirov-
either to God, so that heaven appears as the where the divine blessing is heing prepared (Beza, Boyd), but how idle and self-evident that would be or to r]fiel<i, so that heaven, as the seat of our irdXlrevixa (Phil. iii. 20), would be the scene of the divine blessing. So Pelagius, Beza (who
seat
' These would not be possessions, wliich have reference to the heavenly life, but possessions which are to be found in heaven and are imparted to us. For iôvpavio; always means "<o be found in heaven.^' See Wetstein, I. p. 447; Bleek on Heb. iii. 1, p. 375. Comp. <ra s^J toTs olipavoTs, ver. 10. ^ The expression Iv toTs iTovpavim;, which occurs five times in this Epistle and nowhere else in the N. T., is surprising. In the case of any writer, no doubt, a phrase not in current use with him at other times may be accidentally and temjjorarily suggested to him, the use of which he involuntarily appropriates and soon again as involuntarily abandons yet it remains a surprising f;ict that the expres;
sion
not also Used in the Epistle to the Colossians written at the same time, where there was no lack of opportunity (i. 5, 16, 20) for the use
roTs
l-rovpavioi; is
of the expression, although the two Epistles exhibit so
much
verbal affinity.
36
leaves a choice between the two views), Grotius (who says

ct spe ct jure in coelo), Baumgarten, The aorist would not be at Koppe, Kckert, and others. variance with this view, since the matter might be set forth proleptically in accordance with an ideal mode of looking at But the whole explanation is far-fetched it (comp. ii. 6). and opposed to the context for TrvevfiariKr] shows that Paul has not thought of our having received this blessing in the heavenly TroXtVef/xa, seeing that the Holy Spirit is received on earth as the present earned of the heavenly
that the blessings place us
heritage
(vv.
13,
14).
Accordingly,
the
third
reference
remains the only correct one,

pavioi<i is
ivith
under which eV Tot9 eirovattached as a local definition to evXoyia TrvevfiariKfj

:
every spiritiud henefit in heaven,

Spirit is in heaven, as is
so
that,
because the
KaroiKLav
Holy
Spirit
God Himself
39),
6 ttjv
eiTovpaviov
are
eywv
(2
Mace.
iii.
the blessings also of the
regarded as to be found in heaven and brought

to us.
down from thence

case
;
See Hel).
vi. 4.
eV
Xpiarw]
for in
Christ lay the ground of that evXoyelv accomplished in our
not out of Christ, but in
Him
lay the cause that

since
God
blessed us with
every spiritual
ver, 4.
blessing,
His act of
redemption
blessing.
is
the eausa meritoria of this divine bestowal of
Comp,
4.
Ver.
ver. 14.
Furtlier amplification of 6 evXoyijaa'i k.t.\.
See the contents.
on to
Kadco<i'\
even
as,
denotes that
that evXoyeiv has taken place in conformity with the fact that,
etc.,
and
xiii.
is
consequently argumentative
John
Ptom.
34.
see
on 1 Cor.
1 Cor.
i.
efeX-eâro
r]p,<i\
He
has chosen us (from the

i.
collective
ix.
Comp. mass of men) for Himself {sibi). 1 11, xi. 5, 7, 28; John xv. 19
;
27;
9
f.
Pet.
I.
ii.
Entirely without reason does Hofniann, Schriftheweis,
p.
223,
deny that eKXeyeadab here has reference to others not chosen, and assert that it applies only to that which we, in the absence This is according to the of election, should not have become. very notion of the word quite impossible. 'EK\e<yea6ai always has, and must of logical necessity have, a reference to others,
to
whom
iv.
the chosen would, without the eKXayt],

5,
xiii.
still
belong.
Even
Deut.
in Acts vi.
17; 1 Tim.
v.
21; Ex.
xviii.
25;
3 7,
it
sets forth the distinctive
separation from the
CHAP.
I.
4.
37
is
remaining mass, just as also Christ, as one wlio
cliosen out
from
ix.
all
that
is
iv avro}] for in nothing else and in no one whose future work of redemption God lias else than foreknown and decreed from eternity (Acts xv. 18; Eom. 2 Tim. i. 9 1 Pet. i. 20, al.), lay the ground, that xvi. 25 electing grace (Eom. xi. 5) chose us (comp. iii. 11) hence the God had, as respected the subjects to be affected by the election, to deal, not in any arbitrary manner, but according to His Trpoyvwaa of the same {praecognovit crcdituros). See on Eom. viii. 29, Christ is not, however, here conceived of as Himself chosen of God, and we as included in Hhii (iv avrwi), as Hofmann, p. 229, thinks but, as the more precise explanation in
35, xxiii 35).
man,
is called the eK\eKT6<i of
God (Luke
in Christ,
ver. 5 shows, the divine act of
our election has in Christ

is
its
determining ground, so that to us by this act there
assigned
and
no other than the salvation to be gained through (who in the fulness of the times was out of His preexistence to be sent as Incarnate and was to accomplish the
allotted
Cltrist
work
of salvation).
A]jart
election with Christ
from this connection of the we should not be chosen but in

;
divine
Christ
lay for
reference of ev
causa meritoria of our election.^ The avrw to God (Al. Morus, Holzhausen with Himself, in His heart) is to be rejected on account of the utter superfluousness of this definition, and on account of the
the
:
God
preceding iv Xpiaraj.
all
ii.
irpo KaTao\i]<i Koafxov^
thus before
ff.
;
time, already in eternity.
Comp.
ii.
Col.
;
i.
15
2 Thess.
13; Matt. xxv. 34; also 1 Cor.

is
eipression
xiii.
i.
9. The 7 nowhere else found in Paul but see Matt. 35; Luke xi. 50; John xvii. 24; Heb. iv. 3; 1 Pet.
2 Tim.
;
i.
20
Eev.
:
xiii.
8.
elvai T^/ia? yLov<i k.t.X.'] Infinitive of the

he, etc.
design
[E. T.
in order that we shotdd
See Winer,
p.
298
f.
399
f.].
The predicates
017409
and
afiwjxo'i
(hlame-
^ Beyschlag {Clmstol. d. N. T. p. 141) finds in b irf the thought, " that the divinely conceived prototypes of perfected believers are from eternity posited by
God
in the
One Prototype
of
humanity acceptable unto Him,

and perfection."
as the countless
multiplications of the same, to be thereupon brought through the historically

realized
this view
One Prototype to we may simply

is
their realization
\irge
In opposition to
Iv
the context, according to which
alrS: denotes
Christ as the personal ground of the ixXoy*)
made
before all time, in so

6, 7.
Jar as
He, as Reconciler,
the bearer
of the divine grace, vv.
38
less,

Herod,
ii. 177; Theoc. xviii. 25) exhaust the conception and negatively. Comp. Pint. Fericl. p. 173 D: KaOapof koI aîavro^, and see on Col. i. 22 Eph.
;
positively
i6<;
V.
.
27.
It is not, however, to be explained of the holiness
conditioned by morality and virtue (Chrysostom, Theophylact,

Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Calixtus, and
many
others, includ-
ing riatt, Eiickert, Matthies, Meier, Schenkel), in which case

reservations
on
account
or
it
of
is
human
referred,
;
imperfection are
as
often
arbitrarily inserted,
by
Eiickert, to the
view of the apostle but rather of the holiness and blamelessness brought about through the atoning death of Christ by means of the SiKaioavvT] Geov thereby attained (Rom. iii. 2 1 ff., V. 1 ff., viii. 1, 3 3 ff. 1 Cor. vi. 1 1 Heb. x. 1 0, 1 4, 2 9), in favour of which the very elvat (not ytveaOat) and the whole context are decisive (vv. 5, 6, 7). We may add that, if the emphasis with which our Epistle brings into prominence the
ideal point of
; ;
holiness of the church (comp, v, 27) is to be held as betraying
the standpoint of the second century (see Schwegler in Zeller's

Jahrh. 1844,
iii.
p.
382), for which especial reference
is
made
to
10, 31, with equal reason the like suspicion
may
be thrown
even on the most fully acknowledged Epistles (such as the

Epistles to the Corinthians).
eyes, judice
KarevcoTTtov avTov] before God's
Deo (Col. ii. 14; Eom. iii. 2, iv. 5). It is God's judgment, which has posited the reconciled as holy and blameless, and that by imputation of faith unto righteousness thereupon He gives to them every evXoyla irvevâTLKrj, ver. 3. The reference of awro? successively recurring to different and subjects cannot surprise us (Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 179])
;
so
it
is
not to be written avTov (as Harless
still
does),
but
avTov, from the standpoint of the author (Dissen, ad Dem.

de
Cor.
p.
is
afydTrrj]
attached by
eV 276; Khner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2, 49). many to ver. 4, so that it is connected
either with eêkeâro (Oecumenius,
Baumgarten,
Elatt,
!
and
others), but in
r)fjiayiov^ k.t.X. (Vulgate,
Am-
Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, but Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others, including Eiickert, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius), so with hesitation,
that iv
yciTTr}
would be the ground, or rather the element
CHAP.
I.
5.
39
{evangclii to ttuv, says
Grotius, lies in love), of the holiness

this
is
and blamelessness.
correct explanation of
But
not compatible with

afxcofôv^,
the
<yiov<;
Kai
as a state hrouglit
ayaTTTj,
about hy the ikaarrjpiov of Christ, according to which, not ev but iv TTtarei, would have been a definition of the
element of holiness in keeping with the context. Hence the connection with irpooplaa';, ver. 5, remains as the only corSo the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, rect one.
Augustine, Estius (but with hesitation), Bengel, Michaelis,
Lachmann, Harless, The only one of the objections made to this view which is plausible is that of Matthies and Meier, that the following Kara rrju evhoKtav rov deX.rjfidTO'i avTOV would render the preceding But see on ver. 5. iv dyaTTT} in this connection superfluous. Ver. 5. Love was the disposition of God, in which He Hence through this our election "predestined us to vioOecrla.
Zachariae, Koppe, and others, including
Olshausen, de Wette, Tischendorf, Schenkel, Bleek.
this divine motive, therefore, is prefixed
with emphasis, quite
in keeping with the character of ascription of praise
marking
the discourse.
us.
Consequently
in that
He
in love predestined
of irpoopicra'i to iêXeâro as
Hombercj has indeed conceived the relation of the time " postquam nos praedestinavit adoptandos, elegit etiam nos, ut simus sancti ;" but the usual
:
view correctly conceives irpooplaa'; as coincident in point of time, and accomplished simultaneously with iêXeâro, so that it is regarded as the modus of the latter (see on r^vwpla-a^, ver. 9). For the praedestinatio (the irpoopiêiv) is never elsewhere distinguished from the eleetion as something preceding it it rather substantially coincides with it (lienceat Ptom. viii. 29
only the expression rrrpocopiae
is
used, while in
viii.
33 only
is
2^'^'i'Or,
eKkeKTol are mentioned), and only the
'Trpoyvwa-L'i
Rom.
Comp. Lampsing, Pauli de pracdcstinat. deereta, Leovard. 1858, p. 70. See on this use of the aorist partiBernhardy, p. 383 Winer, ciple, Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774 It is, we may add, purely arbitrary p. 321 [E. T. 430]. to distinguish eêkeâro and 'Trpooplaa<;, so that the former
I.e.
; ;
should apply to individuals, the latter to the
ivhole (Schenkel).
Both verbs have
in fact the
same
viii.
objects
the persons); see on Pom.
29.
The
(i?/^?,
which denotes
irpo in irpoopicra^;,
40

realization. hefore
the
'
heforchand, points to the future,
Certainly
tlie
predestination
has
;
taken
place
is
creation
Trpo,
of the
world
(ver.
4)
but this
not
expressed by
which
rather looks always towards the future setting in of the thingEph. i. 1 1 1 Cor. ii. 7 predestined. See Eom. viii, 2 9
; ;
Acts iv. 28; Heliod. p. 298, 14, p. 266, 15; Sopater in et9 vloOealav Slol Îrjaov Xpta-rov Walz, Bhet. V. p. 152, 20. unto adoption et? avTov] are to be taken closely together
through Jesus Christ in reference

destined us
to
to
Him,
that
is,
He
has
stand in the relation of those assumed as children through mediation of Jesus Christ to Him (to God). Comp. Eom.
29. That vloOeaia is nowhere merely childship (as Meier and Bleek still take it here, following Usteri), but adoption} vlodeala is never prediGal. iv. 5. see on Eom. vii. 15 cated of Christ Himself ; for He is the horn Son of God (Eom. Gal. iv. 4), who procured for His own the assumption viii. 3 into the place of children (whereby they became de jure His The pre-eminence of Christ is brethren, Eom. viii. 29). therefore essential, not merely prototypal, as of the head of humanity He is the ijuovo'yevi]^. Through adoption believers
viii.
;
;""*
have passed out (comp. Eom. vii. 24 f) of their natural state, in which they by sin were liable to the wrath of God (ii. 3), and have entered into the state of reconciliation, in which they, through the mediation of the reconciling death of Christ (vv. 6, 7), by means of the faith in it which was counted to them for righteousness (Gal. iii. 26 Eom. iv. 5, 23 f.), have forgiveness of sins, and are heirs of the Messianic l^lessedness
;
(ver.
of
14; Gal. iv. 7; Eom. viii. 10, 11, 17), as a guarantee which the Holy Spirit is given to them (ver. 1 4 Gal. iv. 6
viii.
Eom.
16).
eU
avrov] does not apply to Christ (Anselm,
Thomas, Castalio, Vorstius, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including de Wette), since Christ is mediator of This simple sense the adoption, and this is a relation to God. of reference toward is to be maintained, and we must not import either ad gloriam gratiae suae (Piscator
;
comp, Schenkel)
^ Even the old theocratic ulohtria, was adoption ; for the Jews were as such, and not as men generally, the chosen and peculiar people to whom the Messiah was promised. See on Kom. ix. 4.
-
In opposition to Beyschlag, Chrlstol.
d.
N.
T. p. 222
f.
CHAP.
I.
6.
41 At
or Tjjv et? avTov avaôvcrav to <yevo^ rjfxwv (Theopliylact).

Aâriance with
linguistic
usage,
Beza, Calvin, and Calixtus
take
it
for iv eavTw,
Trpoopia/jLof
;
divine
and discover in it the independence of the and Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Koppe,
it
Holzhausen, Meier hold
as equivalent to sibi,
'h ("
as children,
His own," Meier). Comp, also We may add that here, too, we must not on Col. i. 20. write (with Beza, Stephanus, Mill, Griesbach, Knapp, Meier, and others) avrov, but avTov. Comp, above on Karevcoiriov Kara rrjv evSoKiav rov OeX.i^fiaro'^ avrov (not avrov) avTou. conformably to the lcasurc of His will, just as it was the purpose of His will. Comp. Matt. xi. 26 Luke x. 21. So Vulgate, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, Matt, and others, including
rightly belong to
as
who
Him
Eiickert, de Wette, Bleek.
It
may
also signify
according to
the benevolence of His will (see, generally, Tritzsche,

II. p.
ad Bom.
369
ff.).
So Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusiua,
following older expositors.
But
this
;
more strongly contained

desert, as regulative
in ev aydirrj
notion is already and and the element which is

all
here meant, of free self-determination, independent of

in the parallel by yv irpoiOeTo iv avrw.
human
11
;
of the irpoopcêiv, is clearly pointed to
Comp,
also ver.
2 Tim.
i.
9.
Eemark.
Predestination
is
not
made dependent on any
sort
(comp. ver. 11), but is simply an act of free divine kindness, whose determination has its causa im'pulsiva only in Christ so that, in the case of the predestined subjects, faith is set forth as the causa a^jj^rcheiidens of the salvation destined for them -/.aToc 'Trpyvuiv (Eom. viii. 29) and with this Eom. ix., when rightly apprehended, agrees. The conditions mentally supplied by expositors (as e.g. Grotius, who finds in our passage " decretum ejus, quod Dens face.re vult, si et homines faeiant, quod debent;" comp, already Jerome) remove the relation out of the sphere of the divine s-jdoxla roD diX'/j/Marog into that of dependence on human self-choice, and consequently into the domain of the accidental. The notion of absolute decree, however, breaks down before the wpoyvuaig as the necessary premiss of the divine IxXoyri a premiss, which doubtless involves the necessity of morally lestricting their uncus aut lapis of the Formula Concordiae (comp. Luthardt, Lehre vom freien Willen, p. 272).
;
of causa meritoria
on the part of
man
Ver.
6.
As
love
was the
disposition serving as motive for the
42
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPIIESIANS.

is
divine predestination (ver, 5), so love (which, however,

its
is
the glorifying of the divine
here designated in accordance with

it
distinctive peculiarity, because
refers to si7iners,
ii.
ff.,
as grace) its divinely conceived ultimate aim, not, as Grotius
would have
Phil.
i.
11.
it,
consequens
aliud.
Comp.
Cor.
i.
20;
ei9 eircuvov B6^t]<; ttj^ ')(apLTo<i

to
avrov (not avrov)
means neither
of His grace (Grotius, His glorious grace (Luther, Castalio, Beza, and most expositors, including Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Holzhauseu, Meier), the one of which is just as arbitrary as the other but to the praise of the glory of His grace. The
the glorious praise
Estius), nor to the praise of
its greatness laudably evincbrought into prominence as the object of the praise to be bestowed on it. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 53 f. Held,
qiiality of the grace, its glory
ing itself
is
ad Timol.
p.
368.
Bengel already in his day aptly distin-
guished the notions

inde laus gloriae."
"
Primum
nascitur laus gratiae, ver. 5,
Sol??? loithout the article
may
not surprise
US on account of the genitival definition that follows.
-i;? 155 f.]. eâplrwo-ev 7]fi<; iv ra> p. ^YttTT.] rj<i is attracted by the preceding tj}? '^dpLTo<i (x^P^^ âptrovv is conceived of as arfdirrjv arâitav, ii. 4 John xvii. 26 comp. Dem. 306, 28 'x^dptra^; 'xapiêa-OaC) instead of Comp. iv. 1 and see on 2 Cor. i. 4 Horn. U. xxii. 649 riv. Arist. PL 1044 t^? vpea ri^ vpiô/nat. XapiToo) means:
Winer,
118
f.
[E. T.
See
gratia cdiquem
afficere;
and, according as the %a/3i9
is
conceived
of subjectively as love-worthiness, or objectively as the divine

grace, the sense
may either be to make love-worthy, as Chrysostom ^ and his followers (comp, also Luther), Cornelius a Lapide, and many Eoman Catholics (including Bisping), have taken
:
it,
understanding thereby not merely the reconciliation, but

or: to
it is
also the positive sanctifying, the justitia inhacrcns;
grant grace (as

(see Wetstein,
taken usually).
In the former sense

ii.
I. p.
651), the word occurs, Niceph. Prog.

;
Symm.
Cod.
Ps. xvii. 2 8
;
Ecclus. xviii. 1 7 and Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 1 1
also Ecclus. ix. 8
in
in the latter sense, in
Luke
^
28;
Test.
XII. Patr.
if
p.
698.
make a
The
latter is
here
into
Clirysostora says
just as
one were to
sick or famished
man
a beautiful youth, so has

angels and
all saints
God made our

for Himself.
soul beautiful
and love-worthy
for the
and
en AP.
I.
7.
43
r?}?
'x^dpLTo<i,
decidedly correct, since the preceding
especially
with
grace.
179
as the reading, permits no deviation from that meansets forth
ing, just as ver. 7
simply the work of 2Mrdoning v

Christ as
iii.
eV rat
i.
'^yaTrrj/xevo)]
the viof
is
Ti]<;
<yd7rr)<;
avTov, Col.
heloved of
fact that
13 (comp. Matt.
gave
17),
Kar
iô^nv the
the
God, and in
He
Him has God shown us grace, i.e. in Him up to death for us (ver. 7), He
Comp.
ii.
;
has
:
13 Eom. viii. 39 by 6 '^ya7r'^/xvo<; The 2 Cor. v. 19. divine grace. Comp. Eom. makes us feel the greatness of the John iv. 9 f. John i. 16 1 viii. 32, v. 8 ff. Ver. 7. More precise elucidation, on the basis of experience (e-xô/jiev), of what had just been said, eâpir. ^/xa? iv rw riyair.
brought home to us His grace.
designation of Christ
; ;
its
iv w] so that in
Him
is,
our possession of the redemption has

12), no
is
ground.
He
it
without whose person and work we

(ii.
should not have been redeemed; %w/3t9 Xpcarov

iroXvrpcoai^.
Comp. Eom.
(see,
iii.
24.
The
relative
has, as
often
p.
the
f.;
case
generally,
Stallbaum,
12.
ad
Flat.
Phil.
195
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 371), argumentative sig-
nificance.
Comp, here especially

namely, from
entrance
i.
iii.
rrjv
iroXvTpcoaLv]
penalties,
the
redem2Jtion,
God's wrath
faith
v.
which
ii.
before
our
into
iii.
and we had
vii.
incurred
ff.
;
through sin
3,
V.
(Eom.
i.
18,
23,
ff.,
6, al),
as those
who were under

;
the
Eph. dominion of
7
the devil (Col.

(1
Cor. vi. 20,
vii.
The purchase-price 13; Acts xxvi. 18). 23 Matt. xx. 28 Mark x. 45) through
;
which
Christ, in voluntary obedience towards God's gracious
counsel, accomplished this aTroXvTpcoaL'i,
was His
blood,
which
He
shed as an IXaarijptov for the benefit of

9
;
v. 8,
13 f.). which case the blood of Christ is always conceived of as the purchase-price, see Eom. iii. Sta Tov aLiiaTo.
Paul might have written
iv
To)
aiixaTt
avTov
(ii.
1 3)
but he in general prefers an

; ;
interchange of prepositions (comp. 2 Cor.

Gal.
ii.
16; Philem.
5), to
iii. 11 Eom. iii. 30 which he was here specially led by

iii.
his epexegetic purpose (comp.

(f)aiv Tov TrapaTnco/xaToiv]
1 Thess.
iii.
7).
rrjv
apposition to rrjv aTTdXvrpuxnv, the
44:

is i\\Q forgiveness
essence of which
tlie
of sins obtained on account of
between irdpeaL^ (Rom. iii. 25) and êai<i (used by Paul also in Col. i. 14), tcov TrapaTTTcofidrcv denotes always see on Eom. iii. 25. and see on Eom. v. 20);r\yy4' the actual individual sins (ii. 1 ff. hence Paul has not mentally included a forgiveness of inKara rov ttXovtov rrj'i %/3iborn sinfulness (Olshausen). avTov] is not to be resolved into an adjective (" gratia T09 liberalissima," Koppe) but the oîcJies, i.e. the great fulness )< has to Tfkrjdo^), of the divine grace is that, in con(Codex 1 7 It is sequence of which M'e have in Christ the redemption.
death of Christ.
to the distinction
As
to be noted that here, as well as in ver. 6, the reference to the
divine grace serves to wind up one element of the discourse,
and (by
(ii.
-^9)
to
annex another.
As
to
irXovro'i r?}? 'x,^piTo<i
7,
iii.
16), see on
Eom.
ii.
4.
We may
F G
;
add that Lachmann,
Eckert, Tischendorf have the form to ttXoOto?, following
AB
D* E
(?)
X* min.,
to
which
also
fall to
be added with the
transcriber's error rov ttXoiJto?

viii. 2,
and
rightly.
See on 2 Cor.
Eemark; and
'^H<?
see Winer, p.
64
[E. T. 76].
eirepLo-cevaev et? ;/ia9] ^9 stands by attraction not for y (Camerarius, Calvin, Piscator, Erasmus for the Schmid), so that eireplaa. would be intransitive,
Ver. 8.
(comp. ver.
6),
attraction of the dative, rare even in classic authors
(Krger,
f.),
Gramm.
mann,
51. 10. 3, and Châmmat. Unters. III. p.

T.,
274
is
not
found in the N.
not even in the passages adduced by Butt[E. T.
ncut. Gr. p.
247
287],
ix.
but
for
rjv,
iii.
so that eireplaa.
:
is transitive (2 Cor.
12) which He has made abundant, has shown in an exceedingly high degree If, with Calvin (a(f)$6v(o^ iê'êe, Tlieophylact), towards us.
iv.
15,
1 Thess.
and Beza (comp,

attraction
at
also Holzhausen),
we should
not assume any
all,
but should take the genitive as at Luke

result the sense, unsuitable to
XV. 17, there
would
:
what follows
(yv(opi(Ta<; k.t.X.)
iv
irdar)
of which He had superahundaoice towards us. aocfila Kol ^povrjaei] is not, with Chrysostom,
Jerome, Theodore t, Homberg, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, Griesbaeh, Koppe, Holzhausen, Scholz, to be attached to ^^voiplaa^, because
?\i
the attrihide
would thus, like iv ydirrj in ver, 5, denote of God operative in the 'yvwpiêtv, which, on
it
If,
account of
irdarj (see below), is not admissible.
again,
we
CHAP.
I.
8.
45
should, with Chrysostom (comp. Michaelis and others), regard

it
as the state of
men brought about by
yvcoplaa'i k.t.X., this
would be forced, and, as concerns the sense, there might be urged

against
it
the circumstance that, in the

set forth,
making known
of the
^
divine mystery, Paul had to
not the divine display
of grace in itself (this was given in the ^ôr^ of redemption,

vv. 6, 7), but the disj^lay of grace as revealed.
Hence
:
it
was
a
necessary that there should be added to ^9

definition,
disjilayedj
iirepLcra: et?
tvliicli
rjfi.
and
this is iv irdar]
aoff). k. (ppov.
He
i.
has
ahiindantly toioards us hy every kind of toisdom
and
discernmeiit (with
which
He endowed
us,
comp. Col.
9), in
that
He made known to us, etc.
Observe here withal the climax,

779 e;;â|9tTft)<7ey ?7/ia9,
:
in which, rising from the simple
ver. 6, the
'
apostle now, at this further display of grace, says
^9 iirepia-
Eckert (comp. Jerome, Castalio, de Wette, connecting it with ^9 eireplcrcr. eh ^/ti., incorrectly holds the divine wisdom to be meant, and takes the sense to be, that God has with highest wisdom and discernment dispensed His grace over us. Not only would this introduce here something remote from the point, since in the whole context Paul is commending only grace as such, and not any other attribute along with it, but the words themselves are opposed to it, not indeed by ^povrâec in itself, which (in opposition to Harless and Schenkel) might be used also of God (1 Kings iii. 28 Prov. iii. 19 Jer. x. 12), but certainly by iraar). For iracra aoîa does not mean summa sapientia, but every hind of luisdom, which, according to a popular mode
et9 ?7/ia9.
aevaev
and
others), although
of expression, like our " all possible

p. 7),
iii.
can be said only of men.

is
wisdom " (Theile, ad Jacob. The ttoXvkoIkCk.o'^ aocfjia,

to de Wette), but
10,
not analogous
(in opposition
denotes the absolute

manifestation.
wisdom according to its manifold modes of koI ^povijaei] Comp. 1 Kings i v. 29 eScoKC
:
Kvpio<i (ppovrjatv to3 âXco/xcov
Kol ao(f)iav TToWrjv
Dan.
ii.
21
otSou9
(70(f)Lav
T0i9
ao(f)ot<i
Kol ^povrjcriv to?9 elhat
avveav
Joseph. Antt.
Prov.
ii.
5. 7, viii. 7. 5.
(77
^povrjaa
o-ocjiia
is
an aptitude, which
<pp6vTf]cnv,
is
proceeds from wisdom

X.
Be
avSpl riKret
23), in connection with

is
which the distinction
to
be noted, that ao^la
the general notion {eTnarrjixr} deioav
re KoX avOpooirivwv irpayfidrcov, Sext.
Emp.
adv. phys.
i.
1 3),
46
to divine
which embraces the collective activity of the mind as directed aims only to be achieved by moral means (comp. on Col. i. 9) whereas ^povqacî denotes the more special
;
notion of the morally determined intelligence, the insight

practical reason regulating the dispositions (eTriaT'^fii]
of yaOoJv
Kai
KaKwv, Plato, Bef.
p.
411 D;
k.
i.
e^t?
akrj-q^
fjuera
Xjov
rrrpaKTCKT) Trepl
r avOpcoirw dyaOa
Off.
Kaicd, Arist. Eth. vi. 5. 4).
Comp, on cf>p6v'r}ai<;, which 17 Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 62. Ver. 9. In that He has made knoion to us the mystery of His will. The aorist participle signifies an action coincident and completed at the same time with eireplaa-. See on i. 5. 'qplv] applies, as in the whole connection, to the ChrisSee, especially, also Cic.
43.
Paul has not elsewhere, Luke
i.
iii.
tians generally
but in this case the extraordinary kinds of
making known, which individuals among them had experienced (such as Paul himself, who was instructed Be diroKaXv-êco'i,
3
;
Gal.
i.
12), are left out of account.

OekrjiJb. is
to fivarrip. rov
the mystery
6e\r)p,.
avTov] rov
the
genitive
is
ohjecti.
And
it
that concerns
divine will
Chiîst,
the
counsel of redemption
is
accomplished through
not in so far as
in itself
as,
incomprehensible for the understanding, but in so far
while
formed from eternity, it was until the announcement of the gospel hidden in God, and veiled and unknown to men. By Col. i. 26. See Ptom. xvi. 25 f. Eph. iii. 4 f., 9, vi. 19 tlie prophets the mystery was not unveiled, but the unveiling of it was merely predicted; here at the proclamation of the gospel the prophetic predictions became means of its unveilKara rrjv vSok. avTov] belongs not to ing, Eom. xvi. 2 5 f. TO fivar. rov 6e\. avr. (Bleek), in which case it would stand in a tautologic relation to rov 6e\. avr., but rather to rypcopla-aq K.r.X., stating that God has accomplished the making known Comp, on ver. 5. in 2yursuancc of His fixe self-determination. fjv irpoeOero ev avru>\ would be in itself redundant, but hence no serves for the attaching of that which follows comma is to be placed after avru). It is not, however, to be written as avrw (as by Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf), since here the auro'i cannot appear as the third person, as would be the case if the text had run in some such form as Kara rrjv
;
;
j\
)<
rrpodeaiv avrov,
and
as
was previously the case with the thrice
'
CHAP.
I.
10.
47
If avro) were to be read, a subject different occiimng avTov. from God- would be meant as, indeed, Chrysostom and his successors, as well as Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others, in
;
reality understood
it
of Christ, although the latter only
in again at ver, 10,
and that by name.
comes
it)
irpoeOero] set before
Himself (Rom.,
Himself,
i.e.
i.
13), purposed (namely, to accomplish

to be conceived as
in
in His heart (anthropopathic designation).

is
;
This
purpose, too {irpoOeai';, ver. 11),

before the creation of the world
formed
without this idea, however,

not even to be taken tem-
being expressed by
irpo,
which
is
porally, but locally (to set before oneself),

ôfiat.
comp, on Trpoêipcfor
Acts
iiL
20.
There
is
incorrectness,
the very
reason that eV avro) does not apply to Christ, in the translation

of Luther (comp. Vulgate)
bracht] the
this
" and has brovght forth [hcrfUrgcsame by Him," though Trpoid. in itself might have meaning. See on Eom. iii. 25.
:
Ver. 10. El<i oiKovopblav rov
irXrjpcofi.
ro)v
Kaup^ Unto the

fyvcotjv
dispensation of the fulfilling of the times, belongs not to

pL(Ta<;
(Bengel), but to the immediately preceding
irpoWeTo
inserted solely with a view to attach to it and eh does not stand for iv (Vulgate and several fathers, also Beza, Piscator, and others), but denotes what God in forming that purpose had in viciv, and is thus telic ivith a design to. With the temporal rendering, usqiie ad (Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, Estius, Er. Schmid, Michael., and others), we should have to take Trpoedero in a pregnant sense, and to supply mentally " consilio sccretum ct abditum esse
iv avrS,
is
which
ei9 oLKov. K.T.\.
Toluit "
(Erasmus, Paraphr.), which, however, with the former

is
explanation
it
superfluous,
and hence
is
arbitrary here, although

p.
would in
itself
be admissible (Winer,
577
2),
[E. T. 77G]).
oIkovojjlio]
house-management (Luke
xvi.
used also in
the ethico-theocratic sense (1 Tim. i. 4), and specially of the functions of the apostolic office (1 Cor. ix. 17; Col. i. 25), here signifies ixgulation, dispositioii, arrangement in general, in
which case the conception of an olKov6fio<; has receded into the background. Comp. iii. 2 Xen. Oi/r. v. 3. 25 Plut. Pomp. 5 frequently in Polyb. (see Schweighaeuser, Zex.
; ; ;
Polyb. p.
Act.
402); comp, Thom. 57. The
also
Mace.
iii.
14; 3 Mace.
iii.
2;
TrXijpwfMa
twv
Kaipcov, id quo imp)lcta
: ;
48
sunt (comp, on

iii.
19) tempora,
is
not in sitbstance different
from TO
ning
is
ifKrjpwixa tov ^povov, Gal. iv.
nevertheless, in our
passage the pre-Messianic period running on from the beginconceived of not as unity, as at Gal.
its
I.e.,
but accord-
ing to
different sections of time
marked
off"
by
different
epochs, the last of which closes with the setting in of the
Messianic work of redemption, and which thus with this setting

in
become
full (like
a measure), so that nothing more
is
lack-
ing to
make up
:
the time as a whole, of which they are the parts.
This
TrXtjpcofia is
consequently not, in general, tcmpus justum

of the times,
i.e.
(Morus
at its time), but the fulness
that
point of time, by the setting in of which the pre-Messianic

ages are
made
iii.
full,^
:
that
is,
are closed as complete.

S'
Comp.
av^pl
i.e.
Herod,
22
oySooKovra
erea
^0779
'TfX^pcofxa
fiuKporaTov TrpoKeeaOat (implementum vitae longissimum,
longissimum temjms, quo im'pletur
vita),
and see on Gal.

Thesauri
p.
iv.
Wetstein on Mark
N. T. glossae
i.
15.
Fritzsche (in
qiLo sacrae
illustr.
specim.,
Kostock 1839,
it
ifK.ripri'i,
25, and ad
that
ttX.
r.
Rom. IL
TrXrjpcofia
p.
473) conceives
otherwise, holding
to
ic.
is iilenitas,
the abstract of
hence
plenum
tenipus, ol TrXrjpea
KaipoL
Tro.
But while
824,
?
TrX^jpcofia
;
doubtx.
less signifies imj^lctio, like TrXi'-jpcoai^, in Ezek, v. 2
Dan.
Soph. Traeh.
leing full.
1203;
to
Eurip.
it
never denotes the
Noio, in what
he
way
is the
genitive-relation olKopofiia
TOV TrXrjpMfiaro^
he,
understood
genitive of the object

irXrjpcofji.
(Menochius, Storr, Baumgarten-Crusius) tov
cannot
inasmuch as
not
it
it
may
doubtless be said of the
irXTjpcofjba
iv.
twv
4),
Kaip. as a point of time fixed
by God
it
comes (Gal.
but
is
arranged, oiKovo/juecTai.
Harless
(jrXyp.
takes the
t.
genitive as epexegetic.
(iannot logically be
But a point of time

is
Kaip.)
an appositional more precise definition of
a fact (oUovo/jila). the

characteristic
" dispensatio
The genitive
(temporal)
rightly taken as expressing
peculiarity,
propria plcnitudini tcmporuni."
Just as
KpL(Tt<; fjL>ydXr]<i r)fiepa<i,
Jude
6.
by Calovius Comp. Eckert, Hence ivith a view to

as
:
the dispensation to he established at the setting in of the fulness

1
The
ff.
apostolic idea of the
rrXriftaiâ.
tv Kaipv excludes the conception of a

(Piothe).
series of Avorlds
p.
without beginning or end
See Gess,
v. d.
Fers. Chr.
170
CHAP.
I.
10.
49
For, ore r)\de ro TrXrjpco/jba rov ^povov, iâiriof the times. areiXev 6 0eo9 tov vlov avTov, Gal. I.e., and on His emergence
TreirX/jpoiTUL
6
Kaipof,
Mark
i.
15.
There was no need that

because of the
the
article
should
stand before olkov. just
complete definition contained in the following genitive.
Comp,
on
to
ver. 6.
to
it
It
would only be required,

idea, as is
if
we should have
mentally
supply to oiKovo/niav a geuitival definition, and thus
make
an independent
is
done by
it
many
(Wolf,
Olshausen, and others),

(jratiae,
who
explain
as administrationcm
a view which
it,
erroneous, just because a genitive

TrXrjpcofMaro'i
already stands beside

TOiv
although oiKovo/xia rod

is
Kaipwv, taken together,
the Christian dispensation of

it
(sc.
grace.
This genitival definition standing alongside of

et?
also
prevents us from taking, with Luther,

/xva-TTjpiov) as:
otKovo/jLiav
;''
rov
"that
it
should he preached
or from supply-
ing,
with Grotius and Estius (comp. Morus), t?}? evBoKia'i avrov with olkov., in neither of which cases would there be
left
any explanation of the genitive sense applicable to rov Quite erroneous, lastly, is the view of Storr, Opusc. I. p. 155, who is followed by Meier, that otKovofiia tov For irXrip. T. K. is achninistratio eoruni quae restant temporum.
7r\7]p)fjbaTo<i T. K.
T. irkrjp. t. k.
to take
in the sense of reliq^ta tewpora,
i.e.
novi
foederis, is in the light of Gal. iv. 4,
ra nravra iv tm which gives information as to the {namely) again to gather up actual contents of that oiKovo/jiia together, etc. Therein the arrangement designated by oiKovo/xia T. ttA,. t. k. was to consist. This connection is that which naturally suggests itself, and is more in keeping with the simple mode followed in the context of annexing the new portions of the discourse to what inmiediately precedes, than the connection with irpoeOero (Zachariae, Flatt, and others), or with TO pbV(7Tr)p. TOV de\. avTov (Beza Paul is explaining quid mysterii nomine significare voluerit ; also Harless, comp. Olshausen, Schmid, hihl. Theol. II. p. 347, and others). We may add that Beza, Piscator, and others have taken et<? oIkov. T. TT A,. T. K. along with avaKeâX. as one idea but in that case the preceding rjv irpoedeTo iv avTot must appear quite superfluous and aimless, and et? oUovop,. k.tX., by being preto misap]3rehend
it.
avaKecpaXaicoaacroaL
:
Mark
i.
15, decidedly
XpiaTw]
cpexcgetical infinitive,
AIeyeu
Ei'H.
50
fixed to vaKej)aX., irrelevantly receives the
which
it
is
not to
be
main emphasis, removed from avuKeôK. vaKe<â-'
Xaidoaaadai]
Ke(f)a\.acov
in
the
verb
Ke(j)aXac6o)
means,
as
(see
coli.
does also in classical usage, chief thing,

xiii.
Wetstein, ad Rom.
ligcre, as in
9)
main point hence KecpaXatoco summatim

:
Thuc.
iii.
67. 5,
vi.
91.
6, viii.
53. 1
Quinctil.
;
6.
Comp.
ligere,
(TvyKe(f)a\aiova0ai,
1, 7, iv. 1. 9.
which
is
Xeu. Cyr. viii. 1. 15 Polyb. iii. 3. Consequently dvaK(f)a\ai6) summatim recolsaid in Eom. xiii. 9 of that which has been
:
previously expressed singulatim, in separate parts, but
now
I.e.
is
again gathered up in one main point, so that at Eom.
iv
rovTw
Tft)
X07&) denotes that main point, in wliich the gathering
up up
is
contained.
And
here this main point of gathering

;
up
again, unifying all the parts, lies in Christ

is
hence the gathering

as
is
not verbal, as in Eom.

It is to
I.e.,
but
real,
distinctly
iirl
apparent from the objects gathered up together, ra

ovpavol'i K.T.X.
Ke(f)aX.
toI^
be observed withal, (1) that dvaalthough He does not designate Christ as KeiâXrj
really is so (ver. 22)

fjbiav
K(jiaXr)v
would be tantamount to viro ayetv (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,

so that
it
Erasmus,
Zachariae,
Luther,
Piscator,
Calovius,
Bengel,
Michaelis,
Koppe, Matthies, Meier, de Wette, and others), but as K6(f)dXaLov, which is evident from the etymology (2) that we are not to bring in, with Grotius and Hammond, the conception of scattered warriors, or, with Camerarius, that
of an arithmetical
sum
(KecfjdXaiov, see
Wetstein,
;
I.e.),
wliich
must have been suggested by the context

of the middle is the less to be overlooked, of
(3) that the force
inasmuch as an act
government on God's part

that
is
denoted
sibi
summatim
recol-
we may not (4) ; iterum (Winer, de verhr, eum

ligere
p.
give up the meaning of dva,

pracp. eonj. in N. T. usu, III.
f.),
which points back

(in
to a state in wliich
no separation
as yet existed
opposition to
Chrysostom, Castalio, and

its
many
others).
This dva has had
just force already recog-
nised by the Peshito and Vulgate (instaurare), as well as by

Tertull.
de Monog. 5 {ad initium reeiprocare)} although Keâ-
Xato)
is
overlooked by the former, and wrongly apprehended

latter.
^
by the
See the more detailed discussion below.

:
Comp. Goth.
" a/tra
u^fulljaii" {again to fill up).
CHAP,
I.
10.
Cl
merely to
intelli-
ra TrdvTo]
is
referred
by many
itself
(see below)
gent beings, or to men, whicb, according to a well-known use

of the neuter,
would need
:
admissible (Gal. iii. 22), but It is quite by the context. Comp. vv. 22, 23. all created things and beings. general TO. eVt TOi? ovpavob'i koX ra iirl Tr]<; 77}?] that which is on
would be in
be
to
suggested
the heavens
and
that lohich
is
on
the earth,
eirl toi<;
ovpav.
(see the critical
remarks)
is
so conceived of that the heavens
are the stations at which the things concerned are to be found.
TTiikrjacv
Comp, the well-known eVt ')(dovL (Hom. (IL iii. 149); eVt irvpyrp (II.
II. iii.
195, al)
eVt
in
vi.
431).
Even
the classical writers,

close
we may
add, prepositions occurring in
succession often
it.
vary their construction without any

See Khner, ad Xen. Mem.
i.
special design in
1.
20.
Comp,
//.
i.
as to the local eVt with genitive
and
to,
dative,
tol<;
e.g.
Hom.
is
486.
As
regards the reed
sense,
eVl
ovpav.
not to be arbitrarily limited either to the spirits in heaven

generally (Eiickert, Meier), or to the angels (Chrysostom, Calvin,
Cameron, Balduin, Grotius, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, Michaelis,

Zachariae, Eosenmiiller, Baumgarten- Crusius, and others), or
to
the
blessed spirits
of the pious
men of
the
0.
T.
(Beza,
Piscator,
Boyd, Wolf, Moldenhauer, Flatt, and others), nor

it
must we understand by
as,
the Jews,
and by ra eVt
Teller,
it all
t?}?
7%
the Gentiles (Locke, Schoettgen,
Baumgarten,
Ernesti),
indeed,
Koppe was
able to bring out of
mankind by
K6(7fMo<i
;
declaring heaven and earth to be a periphrasis for

Jjut, entirely
without restriction,
cdl things
and
beings existent
in the heavens
and upon earth
are meant, so that the preceding
ra TTcivra
is
specialized in its
two main
divisions.
Irenaeus,
Adv. Haer. iii. 18, quite arbitrarily thought of all events which should have come to pass on earth or in heaven, and which God gathers up, i.e. brings to. their complete fulfilment,
in Christ as in their goal.
Comp. Chrys.
to.
<yap 8ca p,aKpov
-^povov ocKovofiov/jLeva avrjKe(f)a\ai,)craTO ev

avverefie.
things, things heavenly
far has God gathered together again all and things earthly, in Christ ? Before the entrance of sin all created beings and things were undividedly united under God's government all things in the world were normally combined into organic unity for God's
hoiv
;
But
Xpiarw, rovreari
62
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESUNS.
ends and in His service.
But through sin this original union and harmony was broken, first of all in heaven, where a part of the angels sinned and fell away from God ^ these formed, under Satan, the kingdom antagonistic to God, and upon
;
earth brought about the

their
fall
of
man
(2 Cor. xi. 3),
extended
sway
farther and farther,
and were even worshipped in
With the fall of man x. 20 f.). an end also the normal state of the nonheaven and earth, which intelligent KTtai<; (Rom. viii. 19 ff.) had become the scene of sin and of the demoniac kingdom destined by God to destruction, in order (ii. 2, vi. 12), were that one day a new heaven and a new earth in which not sin any more, but moral righteousness shall dwell, and God shall be the all-determining power in all (1 Cor. xv. 28) shall
the heathen idols (1 Cor.
there
came
to
come imperishable (Kom. viii. 21) in its place (2 Pet. iii. 13). ^he redeeming work of Jesus Christ (comp. Col. i. 20) was
designed to annul again this divided state in the universe,
heaven and upon earth, and to re-establish the unity of the kingdom of God in heaven and on earth so that this gathering together again should rest on, and have its foundations in, Christ as the central point of union and support, without which it could not emerge.
which had arisen through
sin in
^Before the Parousia,
it
is
true, this dvaKe(J3a\ai(i)ac<i is

;
still
but in course of development
for the devil is still witli his
demons iv rot? iirovpavioa (vi. 12), is still fighting against the kingdom of God and holding sway over many many men But with reject Christ, and the Krla-tf longs after the renewal. the Parousia there sets in the full realization, which is the Acts iii. 21 2 Pet. diroKarua-Tao-L'i irdvrwv (Matt. xix. 28 when all antichristian natures and powers shall be iii. 10 ff.)
;
;
discarded out of heaven and earth, so that thereafter nothing

in heaven or
together
again.
upon earth shall be excluded from this gathering Comp. Photius in Oecumenius. Finally,
{sibi
is
the
1
middle
For this
first
voice
recolligere)
has
its
warrant in
the
falling
away
the necessary presupposition for the Satanic seduc;
tion of our
parents, 1
evil nature of the devil
John iii. 8-10 John (Fvommann, Hilgenfeld)

I.
j).
viii.
is
44,
where an orujinally
iii.
not to he thought of; see

1
Hahn,
Theol. d.
N.
T.
319
fi'.
On Jude
and
Tim.
6, in
which
passages a reference has been wrongly found to the

see Huther.
first fall in
the angelic world,
CHAP.
I.
10,
53
fact that God is the Sovereign (the head of Christ, 1 Gov. xi. 4 and iii. 23), who fulfils His will and aim by the gathering up again, etc. so that, when the avaKâXaLci)aL<i is completed by the victory over all antichristian powers, He resumes even the dominion committed to the Son, and then God is
;
the sole ruling principle (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28).
Our passage
is/
accordingly so framed as to receive

elucidation from the N.
T.,
its historically
adequate!
;j
and there system of
is
no reason
for seeking
(p.
and especially from Paul himself to explain it from a later

424),
ideas, as
Baur does
who
traces
it
to the
underlying Gnostic idea, that
all spiritual life
from the supreme God must return to its that view the " affected " expression et? oIkov.
is
which has issued original unity, and in

t. irXt^p. t.
Katp.
held to convey a covert allusion to the Gnostic pleroma of

its
aeons and
Christol.
economy.
p.
Paulina,
55.
See, on the other hand, Ebiger, The "genuinely Catholic consciousd.
ness" (Baur, Christenth.

Epistle
is
drei erst Jahrh. p.
109) of the
just the genuinely a'postolic one, necessarily rooted
in Christ's
own word and

"
work.
The person
of Christ is not
presented
under the point of view of the metaphysical

(Baur,
necessity of the process of the self - realizing idea "

neutest.
Theol. p. 264),
but under that of
its
actual history,
as this
was accomplislied, in accordance with the counsel of

1.
the Father, by the free obedience of the Lord.
Eemark
for ra
ZTTi
The
illustration
To7c,
ovpavoTc %.
ra
k-iri
r^g
which Chrysostom has given yr^z, from the conception of a

ihoi ra
-/.ai
house repaired (wg

iyo'jrig' dvwKod(j,ariai
av
rrtv
'ztft olzlrjcg Tig
ixsv
ea&pa.
b'i
leynjpa
or/Jav
ovroo
Evravda Tai/rag
i/to ^/ai/
'/lyayi xspaXijv), has been again employed by Harless, whose view of the passage (approved by Schenkel) is that the apostle speaks thus, " because the Lord and Creator of the tohole hod(/, of loMch heaven and earth are members, has in the restoration of the one member restored the whole body ; and in
this consists the greatest significance

is
of the reconciliation, that it not merely a restoration of the life of earth, but a bringing back of the harmony of the universe." But in this way the
words of the apostle are made withal to suggest merely the doing atoay of the contrast between heaven and earth (or, according to Schenkel's tortuous metaphor, " between the heavenly glorified centre of creation and the earthly, sintroubled circumference of creation "), and there is conceded to
54
the T
s'TTi

roTg
ohpavoTg merely an indirect participation in the and the direct dc facto operation of tlie Messianic (ilxovciMia on the heavenly world is set aside which appears the less admissible, inasmuch as rd s';ri r. ovp. has the jyi'cedence. According to Paul, the heavenly world aoid the earthly world were to he affected, the former as immediately and properly as
avuxapakaioiGig,
the latter,
by
tlie
avazsipaXaiMGig
tojv
'^dvruv
for the
Satanic
kingdom,
for the destruction of
which Christ came, and whose

;
destruction was the condition of the arnxspaXa/wc/?, has its seat in the regions of heaven (vi. 12 comp. Hahn, 2'heol. d. iV. T. I. p. 343 ff.), and works in the vioT r^g d'rii&iiag (ii. 2) upon earth, so that in heaven and upon earth there exists no unity under
God.
E EM ARK
those
still
2.
The doctrine of Restoration,
who have continued
according to which unbelieving and the demons shall
ultimately attain to salvation, altogether opposed as it is N. T., finds no support in our passage, wliere (in opposition to Origen, Saumel Crell, and others), on the contrary, in the d\iay.i(pa'k. x.r.x. there is obviously implied, from the general point of view occupied l)y Christian faith, the separation of unbelievers and of the demoniac powers, and their banishment into Gehenna; so that the dva-/.i(paXaiuaig is not meant of every single individual, but of the whole aggregate of heavenly and earthly things, which, after the antichristian individuals have been separated and consigned to hell, shall again in the renewed world be combined into unity under God, as once, before the entrance of sin, all things in heaven and on earth were combined into such unity. Hence Olshausen is wrongly of opinion that our jDassage (as well as Col. i. 20) is to be brought into harmony with the general type of Scripture doctrine by laying stress in the infinitive ^roxsâX. upon the design of God " which, in the instituting of a redemption endowed with infinite efficacy, aims at the restoration of universal harmony, at the bringing back of Apart from the fact that dvaxupaX. is only all that is lost." an epexegetical infinitive (see above), it is altogether opposed to Scripture to assume that the aim in redemption is the restoraI'or those passages tion of all that is lost, even of the devils. as to the universality of redemption, and sayings like 1 Pet. iv. 6, Phil. ii. 10 f., leave the constant teaching of the N. T. concerning everlasting perdition entirely untouched (comp, on Eom. V. 18, xi. 32 Phil. ii. 10) and as regards the devils, the design of God in the economy of redemption was to vanquish them (1 John iii. 8, and elsewhere 1 Cor. xv. 24 f.), and to deliver them up to the penalties already prepared for them of everlasting pain in hell (Matt. xxv. 41 ; Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4
to the
;
;
CHAP.
I.
11.
55
comp. Bertboldt, Christol. p. 22.3). The restoraTiev. XX. 1 f. tion of the devils, as an impossibility in the case of spirits radically opposed to God, is not in the whole N. T. so much as
;
thought
of.
rd It! roTg ovp. S2:)ecially of the angels (see above) have been driven inasmuch as these pure spirits have no need of redemption in the proper sense to unbiblical shifts, such as the view of Calvin (comp. Boyd) that the angels before the redemption were not extra perictdum, but had through Christ attained " prinntm ut perfecte et solide adhaercant Deo, deinde lit perpetuum statum retineant " (of all which the N. T. teaches nothing !) or that of Grotius " antca inter angelos factiones erant et studia pro popidis (Dan. x. 13 !) ea sustulit Christus, rex /actus etiam angclorum, unum ex tot popiulis sihi yo'pulum colligens ;" or that of Augustine and Zeger, that the number of the angels, which had been diminished by the fall of some, was completed again by the elect from among men. Baur (comp. Zanchius), out of keeping with the notion of the va-/.i(pa>Mtu6i;, thought of the knowledge (iii. 10) and bliss (Luke xv. 10) of the angels as heightened by redemption. Others again (Chrysostom on Col. i. 20 Theophylact, Anselm, Cornelius a Lapide, Hunnius, Calovius, Bengel, et cd.) have found the mjii(pa.'kaiu<sic in the fact that the separation which sin had occasioned between the angels and sinful men was done away.^ So also in substance Eiickert " Originally and according to the will of God the whole world of spirits was to be one, through like love and obedience towards the one God. ... Sin did away with this relation, mankind became separated from God hence also of necessity the bond was broken, which linked them to the higher world of spirits. Christ ... is to unite mankind to Himself by a sacred bond, and thereby to bring them back to God, and by that very act also ... to do away with the breach all is again to become one." Comp. Meier, as But the apostle is in fact speaking of also Bahr on Col. i. 20. the reuniting not of the heavenly with the earthly, but of the heavenly and the earthly (comp. Remark 1) moreover, according to this explanation, the ava-z.icpa^.aiueic, of the heavenly spirits with men would be the consequence of the expiation made for men by Christ, and thus Paul must logically have written ra 'T/ Trig y^S '' '" STT/ roTg ol/pavoT;.
3.
Eemaek
Those
The prince of
this
world
is
only Judr/ed.
who understand
Ver. 11. 'Ev avTw] resumes with emphasis the eV Xpicnu)

^
In connection with this view
it
was quite
arbitrarily,
and with a
distinc-
tion at variance with Scripture, assumed that Christ was, as to His divine
nature, the head of the angels, and as to His
human
nature, the head of men.
56
(Herrn,
ad
Virjcr.
pp.
734, 735
Bernhardy,
p.
289
f.),
in
order to attach thereto the following relative clanse (Khner,
IL 630, 5); hence before iv avTa> a comma is to be placed, and after it not a full stop, but only a comma (so, too, Lachmaun, Tischendorf). Comp, on Col. i. 20. tV c5 Kal iKXrjpcodrjfxev] in whom (is the causal basis, that) we have also obtained the
inheritance.
Kal, in the sense of also actually introduces the
accomplishment corresponding to the preparation (which was expressed by fjv Trpoedero ev avraJ et? olKovofilav k.t.X.). See Hrtung, Partikel. I. p. 132; Klotz, aclDevar. 636 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. 152. It has reference to the thing, not to i\\Q persons,
since otherwise it must have run koI rjêh eKXrjp., as in ver. 13 hence the translation of the Vulgate " in quo etiam nos," etc., and others (including Erasmus, Paraiohr., and Eosenmiiller), is
;
:
incorrect.
The
subject is
not the Jewish Christians (Grotius,

Schenkel, and
Estius, Wetstein, Eosenmiiller, Meier, Harless,

others), because
ver. 13,
ivere
there
is
no antithesis of
r)fiei<;
but the Christians in general.
eKXrjpcodrj/Mev
and vp,et<i, means ive

:
made partakers of
the KXrjpo<; (Acts xxvi. 1
Col.
i.
1 2),
is, of the 2Wssession of the Messianic kingdom, which before the Parousia is an ideal possession (ver. 14; Eom. viii. 24),
that
and thereafter a real one. The expression itself is to be explained in accordance with the ancient theocratic idea of
the
npm
its
(Deut.
iv.
20,
ix.
26, 29), which has been transferred

reference
from
original
Palestinian
(Matt.
v.
5)
to
the
kingdom of the Messiah, and thus raised to its higher Christian meaning (see on Gal. iii. 18) and the passive form of this word, which is not met with elsewhere in the N. T., is quite
;
like (pOovovfxai, SiaKovovfxat, irtarevo/aat,
(see
on Gal.
viii.
iv.
;
20),
19 Thuc. vi. 42). Others (Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and Bleek) have insisted on the signification of being chosen by lot (1 Sam. xiv. 41, 42 Herod, i. 94 Polyb. vi. 38. 2 Eurip. Ion. 416, al), and have found as the
since
find
we
KXrjpovv
tivI
used
(Pind. 01.
reason for the use of the expression

nulla est causa, cur eligantur prae
case,
"
quia in ipsis electis
aliis " (Estius), in

is
which
however, the conception of the accidental
held as
excluded by the following TrpoopcdO. k.tX. (see Chrysostom and Estius) ; but it may be urged against this view that,
"
CHAP.
I.
12.
57
according to Paul,
it is
God's gracious will alone that deter;
mines the eKXoyr] (ver. 5 Eom. ix. 16 ff.), not a deca Tv-)(r], which would be implied in the eKXrjp. comp. Plato, Lef/g. vi.
;
p.
759 C
KX.7)povv ovtco rfj Oela TV)(r) aTroSiSovra.
irpoopicyto the
6evre<; k.t.X.] jJ^êdestined,
namely, to the
K\rjpo<;,
according
'purpose of
Him, wlio worketh all things according to the counsel of His will. The words are not to be placed within a parenthesis, and ra irdvra is not to be limited to what pertains to the economy of salvation (Piscator, Grotius), but God is designated as the all-working (of whom, consequently, the circumstances
of the Messianic salvation can least of all be independent).
Comp.
TravepyeTT]'; Zev<i,
is
all-working, so
Clem. Cor.
6e\7)/j,a,
I.
8.
As
Aesch. Ag. 1486. But, as God is the His decree the iravroKpaTopLKov ov\r]/jba,
to the distinction
i.
between ovXrj and

is
comp, on Matt.
19.
The former
the deliberate
self-determination, the latter the activity of the will in general.
Ver. 12. Causa finalis of the predestination to the Messianic
Kkripa
-.^
in order that
vj>e
might redound
to the
praise of His
glory (actually,
by our Messianic
KXijpovofiLa), loe
beforehand ^^laced our hope on Christ,

to
we
et?
who have
object of
Jewish- Christians,
whom
Christ even before His appearing
was the
their hope.
Only now, namely, from
to elvai
rifi<i
onward,
does Paul divide the subject of eKXrjpcoO. and irpoopiaOevre'i,
which embraced the Christians generally, into its two constituent parts, the Jeivish-Christians, whom he characterizes by ^/Aa9 Tou? irporfkTrLKOTa'i iv roS Xptarw, and the GentileChristians, whose destination to the same final aim namely, et9 TO elvai eh eiraipov k.t.X. he dwells on afterwards in vv. 13, 14 (passing over to them by iv m Kal v/xet^), and hence ver. 14 concludes with a repetition of et<? eiraLvov t?}? 80^^79 avTov?
.
riii<i]
has emphasis, preparing the way for the subsequent

vfiei^.
introduction of Kal
roi;? 7r/307?\7rt0Ta9] quip)p)e qui, etc.
Many
others, including Flatt, Meier, Harless,
vfoofiaL {predestined, to be, etc.);
analogous ih iTraivov did not yet refer specially to the Jewish-Christians. -Thus what Paul dwells on in vv. 11-14 maybe summarized thus: "In Christ we have really become partakers of the Messianic salvation, to which we were predestined by God, in order that we Jewish- Christians, and also you GentileChristians, should redound to the praise of His glory.
have attached s/j to uva.i to but this is not only not in keeping with the k.t.X., vv. 6 and 14, but also inappropriate, because "^poopKr^.
58

'KpoekiTLêiv, to
liopc
On
before,
comp. Poseidippus in Athen.
ix. p.
377
C.
The
irpo does not transfer the

it
hoping into the

Boyd, Estius,
praescientia Dei (Jerome), nor has

lioping of the
a reference to the later
Gentiles (Beza, Piscator, Grotius,
Bengel, Michaelis, and others), since the hoping of the Gentiles

is
not subsequently expressed
nor
is irporfKir.
equivalent to the
simple
form (Morns,
;
Bretschneider), which
is
not the case of
any verb with irpo but it applies to the fact that the Jews had the Old Testament- 'prophecies, and hence already before Christ set their hope upon tlie Messiah (Eom. iii. 2, ix. 4
Acts
iii.
25, xxvi.
it,
f.,
22, xxviii.
20,
al.).
So, correctly,
Zockler takes
de vi ac notione vocah.
eXTrt?,
1856,
p.
32
f.
But de Wette, who (comp.

Bleek) denies the division
and
his successors
^yLta?,
standing
also unnoticed by Chrysostom Jewish and Gentile Christians (undergenerally, of the Christians, and y/iet?, ver. 13,
Riickert, Holzhausen, Matthies,
into
of the readers), takes irpo in 7rpor)\7r. as
before the Parousia.
Comp. Theophylact irplv rj eiriarrj 6 pêXXcov aloov. way the 'irpo would be without significanee, while,
us, it is characteristic.
But
in this
as taken
It is incorrect, too, that ver.
by 13 affirms
nothing peculiar of the Gentile-Christians.

contrast
to
As
standing in
what
is
of the Jewish-Christians, said in ver. 13 serves precisely to characterize the

the
irporfkTnKora'i
elvat
Gentile-Christians.
They, without having entertained that

12), have heard, believed, etc.
The usual by the very sequence of the after the example of Morns, Koppe, ed. 1, words, has been Flatt, and Matthies departed from by Harless, followed by Olshausen, inasmuch as he regards eU eiraLvov ho^rjq avTov as an inserted clause [ijicisiir/i] " we tvho were predestiiied, etc., to ivlio already before hoped to the ^raise of His glory be those In this way Paul would point to the reason, why in Christ." But (1) in the Kkrjpo^ had first been assigned to the Jews. that case iKKnrjpwO. and TrpoopiaO. must already have applied specially to the Jcivish-Christians, which no reader could guess and Paul, in order to his writing intelligibly, must have indiev w rjixeh eKXripcacated, by putting it in some such way as
previous hope
(ii.
construction, suggested of itself
Oripev, ol 'JTpooptaOevTe'i
K.r.\.
et?
to elvau
rov<i irporfk,'TTLKOTa<;
As the passage
actually stands, the reader could find the
CHAP.
I.
13.
59
Jewisli-Christians designated only at ver. 12, not previously.
avrov has, in accordance with the 6), by no means the character of an incidental insertion, but the stress of defining the ultimate aim, and that not in respect of a pre-Christian
(2)
eh
eiraivov
86^r}<i
context (see ver. 14; comp, also ver.
state,
but of the Christian one.

felt,
This, however, only
becomes
suitably
when we read
(3)
et<?
to elvat
rjixa.'^
avrov
is
together.
The predestination
related
of
eh eiraivov S6^r]<i God (irpoopiadeure^)

-
in
the connection
as,
not to a pre
Christian state,
iv
such
T.
according to Harless, the elvai

be,
Tov<i irporfKiTLKora^
Xpiarcp would
but to the realization of the Messianic
blessedness (ver. 5).

also Acts iv. 28.
Comp. Eom.
viii.
29;
Cor.
ii.
7; as
Lastly, (4) the ohjeetions taken
to the usual connection of the

(a)
the
symmetry
of the
words are two corresponding sentences in form
by Harless not tenable. For
and thought depends on the fact that in the case of both sections, the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, the glorifying of God is brought into prominence as the final aim of their attaining to salvation, and hence ver. 14 also closes with et? eiraivov T. 8of. avrov. (h) The repeated mention of the predestination on God's part to salvation is solemn, not redundant and the less so, inasmuch as the description of God as ra irdvra ivepjovvro'i is added, (c) The objection that we cannot tell
;
why
the apostle brings in that predestination only with regard

TrporjXTTiKore^,
is
to the
while yet
it
manifestly applies also to
the Kovaavre<i,
to
based on the misunderstanding, according
Jewish-Christians
and irpoopiaO. are already restricted to the for the subject of these words is still the Christians witliout distinction, Jewish and Gentile ChriseK\,7]p(ii0.
;
which
tians,
so that the predestination of those
and
these is asserted.
only at ver. 12 that the division of the subject begins, which is continued in
It is
Ver. 13, so that iv
o5
Kal v/xeh leads over to the second
constituent element (ôu Gentile-Christians).

construction,
it is
As regards the
regarded by Wolf, Bengel, Morus, and others
(comp, already Jerome), including Elickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, de Wette, Bleek, Bisping, as anacoluthic; the ev a> of the second half of the verse is held to resume the first. Incorrectly, since in the
resumption Kal vfieh would have been
60
essential.
As Paul has
added to
written
the
passage {koX iriareua:),

of the
there
L'/x-et?
is
what has previously heen affirmed

;
(aKovaavre^), a neio affirmation
hence eV
&
k.
fnar, k.t.X.
is
the contimudion, not the resumption of the discourse.

eV
The
verb after
&
koI
vfiel<i
is
therefore to be supplied; not,
however, r/XirUaTe (Erasmus in his version, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Estius, and others), since in fact the preceding irporjkTTtKOTa^
element of the discourse
which, besides, wâs only an appositional constituent would yield irporfkirLKare, which
;
is
inapplicable to the Gentile -Christians
nor yet
i/cXrjpcoSTjre
(Erasmus, Parap)lir.; Piscator, Zanchius, Cornelius a Lapide, Boyd, Vorstius, Zachariae, Koppe, and others, including Meier,
Harless, Olshausen), since
eKXrjpoodrj/jiev, ver.
11, already
emto
braced the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and with

elvat,
rifi<;
649
k.tX.
right
vcrl),
a new
course
is
ijortion
of
to
the
in.
The
merely
development sets supply mentally the

expression
life,
substantive
in
accordance with the current
iv
in
Xpiarw
elvai, to
belong to Christ as the element of
which one exists. Paul paves the way
Hence
for
in
whom
how
it
also ye are.
Thus
his transition to the Gentile-Chris-
tians, in order, after first specifying
was that they had
Ijecome such (vv. 13, 14), finally to assert of them also the aKovaavre^; top Xoy. et? eiraivov Trj<i Sof?;? avrov (ver. 14).
T?)? uXrjO.]
after ye have heard the ivord (the preaching) of the
truth
for after this hearing there set

elvat.
in with
is
them the
iv
Xptarw
Xoyo'i.
The truth kut

to the
iô'^yjv
the contents of the
But a contrast
;
types and shadows of the 0. T.
(Chrysostom), or to heathen error (Cornelius a Lapide,

garten
Grotius thinks of both),
Col.
i.
Baumv/jl.]
is
Comp.
2 Tim.
ii.
15.
to
not implied in the context.

evayy.
r.
acoTTjp.
descriptive apposition to
also denotes the contents
;
Xoya
t?}?
aXrjO.
is
The genitive here
that which
made known
is
in the
gospel
is
the Messianic salvation.
Harless takes both genitives

the truth and
as genitives appositionis,
inasmuch as the gospel

is
the aarrjpia.
The
gospel, however,
not the salvation, but
an exertion of the power of God, which leads to salvcdion (Eom. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 18); the analogous combinations, too,
of TO evayy. with a genit. abstract., as to evayy.
tt}?
'^dpcTo<; t.
eov (Acts XX. 24),
t?;?
elp/prj'i
(Eph.
vi.
15), t^9 acrc\ia<i,
CHAP.
I.
13.
Gl
are opposed to the assumption of a genit. apposit.
Mark
it
i.
1.
Finally, the
context also, by dKov<ravT<;

x. 14.
7rio-revaavTe<;, points
not to what the doctrine
proclaims.
Comp. E,om.
is,
Comp, on and but to what

became
iv
o)
koI irLcnevaavTe'i
/c.T.X.]
further stage of the setting forth

to reach
its
how
eh
tliey
what they were, in order

80^77? avro, yer. 14.
goal
eiraivov rf/?
Precisely with regard to the Gentile-
Christians,
who had
previously been aloof from
all theocratic
connection (no irporfKiriKOTe^ iv Ta> Xpiarcp), the apostle feels
himself impelled not to be content with the simple

also
" in
whom
ye
are,
after
ye have heard the gospel," but specially

sealing of the Holy Spirit. iv (f] by those who regard it as resumptive by many others with Luther (including
to bring into relief the

is
referred not merely
(see above),
but also
Harless, Meier, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel), to

Christ
;
but
why
should
we
pass over the nearest antecedent
The Kai
XV. 1).
finds its reference, agreeably to the
context, in the
accession of the
faith to the hearing (Rom. x. 14; 1 Cor. Hence iv & is to be referred, with Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and others (comp. Erasmus, Parcqjhr),
to TO evayyeXiov,
(xavTe<i,
and
to be joined, with
Castalio, to Tricrreu-
not to icrcppayiaO. (as usually), according to which
TTiaTevcr.
would be
superfluous,^
and the periodic flow of the
discourse would be injuriously affected.
having become
to
irtcTTevetv
believers,
were sealed through the

i.
Hence in which yc Holy Spirit. As

:
iv
(Mark
on vv.
15), see
on Gal.
it
iii.
26.
nricrTev-
aavTeî] is not to be taken,
with Harless, as contcmp)oraneous

;
with iacppay.
(see
5, 9)
but
contains that which was

of conversion
Spirit.
prior to the acfipayiêaOai.

hearing, faith,
The order
of the
event of
was
baptism,
reception
See Acts
'
If
iv
:
S belongs
to
iinp/iay.
we must,
in the
a?
applying to the Gospel,
explain
became believers (or ye, after ye also became believers), were sealed." Comp. Beza. But if ^ is to apply to " in whom (being) ye also, after ye became believers Christ, the sense would be ye, after ye also became believers), were sealed. " (or How utterly superfluous iTKmiircivTii is in either case, will be at once felt. Harless regards b ai as more -precisely defined by -rf xnvjji.a.Ti, inasmuch as the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Gal. iv. C). But even thus jrKXTiUu.vTi;
of wliicli ye also, after ye
: :
"by means
remains unnecessary, since union with Christ.
u S
surely expresses the already existitig spirituil
62
ii.

37,
iii.
viii.
12,
6.
17, xix. 5, 6;
Eom.
vi.
3,
Tit.
iii.
f.;
Gal.
2, iv.
Certainly even the becoming a believer
is
not the work of

Phil.
i.
human
xii.
self-determination (see Acts xvi.
14;
21);
;
Eom.
3 relates to the measure of faith of the

is
baptized)
yet this divine operation

Spirit,
only preparatory, and the
effusion of the
properly so called, ensued only after
baptism
OrjTe]
:^
hence
loater
i.e.
and Spirit (John
iii.
5).
icr(j)a<yLa--
ivere sealed,
confirmed, namely, as KXrjpovofioi of the
Messianic kingdom.
see on
See what follows.

;
Comp.
iv.
30, and
the in-
2 Cor.
i.
22
John
iii.
33.
This sealing
is
dubitable guarantee of the future Messianic salvation received
in one's own consciousness (Eom.

Spirit,
viii.
16) through the Holy
not the attestation before others (wcrre elvat SrjXov, otl

Xd-ô'i k.
K'\rjpo<;,
0eou eare
Cornelius
Theophylact
comp. Chrysostom,
Lapide,
Piatt,
Holzhausen, and others).
An
allusion has betin arbitrarily found in ea(f)pay. to circumcision
arly/xara of heathen ceremonies non extra signati estis in cute, quomodo Jiidaei circumcisi et Graecorum idolorum punctis notati "), nay, even to the (T<^pa<yi5<? iirayy. is genitivus qnalitatis, denoting the promise
iv.
(Eom.
11), or
to
the
"
(Grotius assumes both
as characteristic of the
Spirit promised in the
Holy
Spirit,
ii.
for
He
ff.
;
is,
in fact, the
iii. 1-5; 10; Isa. xxxii. 15, xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 26 f., Comp. Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4; Gal. iii. 14). xxxix. 29. and as early as Others (Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Piscator Chrysostom and Theophylact, alongside of the former correct view) the Spirit, who confirms the promise (of salvation). But how wholly imported, since in irveOfâ itself there is
0. T. (Acts
16
Joel
Zech.
xii.
implied nothing at
all of
the notion of confirmation

to
No,
the Old Testament promise belonged

fically the Spirit of promise,
the Spirit
and by that very
He is specifact He became
;
for the
recipients
the
sealing
of Messianic blessedness.
raJ
yltp] is not
added accidentally, nor yet because the sanctifi-
catio of the Spirit

*
would be the confirmatory element (Pelagius,

on
As
to the single instance of the effusion of the Spirit before baptism, see
Acts
X. i\.
CHAP.
I,
14.
63
implied the quality, not
to bring out very
Lombard),
'phatically
for in Tt3
07/0)
;
there
is
the effect of the Spirit
but l*aul desires
em-
and
solemnly that, by which the acfipajiêa-Oac has

eirajyeXia'; rai ayup.
been accomplished; hence he says, Avith corresponding pathos:

Tc3
TTvevfiajL
rr]<?
We
and
may add
that
we
are not
to
think, with Grotius, Estius,
others, of the
miraculous gifts of the Spirit, since, in fact, the vjjLel^ generally are the a-(f)pa<yicr06vre^, but rather of the outpouring of the
Spirit,
which
2
all
experienced after their baptism (Acts
Gal.
in
is
iii.
ff.).
See also ver. 14.
According
ii.
38
to
Sehwegler
eTrayyeX.
Zeller's
Jahrh.
1844,
p.
383, the
irvev/xa tt)?
to be held
as pointing to the later period, to
which the
belongs.
John But comp. Gal. iii. 14. Ver. 14. "O9 iariv appaoov Trj<i K\ripovofjiia<; //i.] stands in significant relation (as affording more precise information) to ia(})pa'yl(r6r]T who is earnest of our inheritance ; for in the redoctrine of the Paraclete in the (not genuine) Gospel of
:
ception of the Spirit the recipients have obtained the guarantee
0?,
as one receives earnest-money as a guarantee of future pay-
ment
in full
that they shall become actually partakers of the

viii.
Messianic blessedness (comp. Rom.
15-17
708
Gal.
iv.
6, 7).
applying to the
irvedfia,
not to Christ, agrees in gender

Viger. p.
p.
;
with dppacov.
Phaedr.
p.
See Herm. ad
;
Heindorf, ad
279
Buttm. ncut. Gr.
241
el<;
[E. T.
281].
As
tTj'^
to the
cpexegetic relative, see Ngelsb.
on Horn.
to appa(i)v, see
TTotrô-ew?]
iv.
on 2 Cor.
i.
2 2.
Ilias, ed. 3, p. 3.
As
irept-
dTroXvrpcoaiv
unto the redemption,
etc.,
is
likewise (comp, also
30) the causa finalis of ia<^pa'y(a6'qTe k.tX., consequently that, to which the puAyose of God was directed, when ye were
sealed.
r]fjb)v
Comp.
is
ver. 10,
Others connect
it
with 0? iartv
al.),
(Estius, Flatt, Rckert,
Schenkel, Bleek,
in
which
taken by some likewise in a telic sense, by others ad (the latter at variance with the parallel eh which follows). But the more precise definition thus resulting would in fact be, after t. KXrjpov. quite self-evident and unnecessary. The d'iroXvrpccn'i is here in accordance with the whole connection, and because the TrepLirotriai^ (see below) is the subject which experiences the d'jroXvTpoiai^ the final consummation of the redemption effected by tlie Xvrpov of Christ
case et9
as iisque
rj/j,.,
64
(ver. 7) at the Parousia (Luke xxi. 28), when suffering, sin, and death are wholly done away, and in the glorifying (resurrection, or relative transformation) of the body there sets in the 86â of the children of God, and the in all all- determining dominion of God (1 Cor, xv. 28). See Eom, viii. 18-23; 1 Cor. XV, 54 ff. Comp. Eph. iv. 30. Beza aptly terms this final definitive redemption aTroXvrpoyaiv iXevOepcocreco^;. The 7repc7rolr}(Ti'i avTov (for avrov at the end does not apply, as it is usually referred, merely to tj}? Bo^r}^, but also to t^? irepiTTOiyjo:, whereby the latter obtains its definite character, and the
discourse gains in vividness and energy')
is
the acquisition of
God,
is
i.e.
the I'êople acquired hy
God for His
^possession,
by which
God, acquired by
here meant the whole body of Christians, the true people of God as His property by means of the
;
redeeming work of Christ. Comp. 1 Pet. ii, 9 as also Acts XX. 28, where the Christian conmiunity is presented as the
acquisition of Christ (comp. Tit.
The expression quite by which the people of Israel is designated as the sacred peeulium Dei, and opposed to the Gentiles. See Ex. xix. 5 Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18 f; The LXX. too, though usually expressing the Ps. cxxxv. 4. notion of rhiD by irepiovaia, translate it, Mai. iii. 17, by 7r6pt,7roL7]cri<i. Comp, also Isa. xliii. 21 Xaov p,ov ou TrepieiroLr]The objection to this view (which is adfirjv y^'T^l) K.T.X. followed, after the Peshito and Oecumenius, by Erasmus,
ii.
14),
corresponds to the
Hebrew
nirT"
n))Jp^
Calvin, Grotius, and most expositors, including Flatt, Eiickert,
Meier,
Harless,
Olshausen,
irepiirolrjo-L';
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
never in
itself,
Schenkel), that
without defining
addition, signifies the people of
God
take
(see specially
Koppe),
:
entirely
disappears
when we
in
the
avrov
"
unto
redemption of His acquired possession, tinto the praise of His (jlory." Others, retaining likewise the signification of acquired
p)Ossession,
explained
it
:
in the neuter sense, like Calovius (comp,

"
already Bugenhagen)
nohis acquisitae."
plena fruitio redemtionis haereditatis

:
Comp. Matthies
"
unto the redeeming of
the promised glorious possession."

of the salvation acquired for us,
But how can it be said And that it is redeemed ?

wrongly denying the
29; and Schenkel.
the plena fruitio

^
is
imported.
Beza,
II. 2, p.
So alsoHofmann, Schrifthew.
CHAP.
I.
15.
65
concrete use of
trepLirolrjai';, insists
upon
tlie
ahstrad notion
:
of vindicatio, assertio,
and
specifies as the
libcrationem vindicemur"
But
word
this
meaning " dum in would need to be expressed

(comp. 1 Thess.
v.
by
2
et?
irepiiroLricnv
ii.
t/"}?
d7ro'\.vrp)aeoi<;
is
Thess.
14).
Tlie
also
it
taken in the abstract
sense by those
who understand
2
as 2J'i'^servation, co7iscrvatio
Test.
(Heb.
Plat.
("
X.
39;
p.
Chron. xiv.
13;
All. Patr.
p.
633;
Bret-
Dcn.
("
415 C; Wetst.
II. p.
424), like Bengel, Bos

affert "),
redemtio, quae salutem et
conservationem
schneider
redemtio, qua vitae
aeternae servamur"), Holz-
hausen (who, following Homberg, arbitrarily assumes diroX.

T?}? irepiTT. to
stand for airoX. kuI

it
irepiir.).
But against these

life,
explanations
TreptTrotrjcri'i
may
be decisively urged that in the case of

:
the
thought
unto everlasting
or the
like,
is
added
arbitrarily,
and that the assumed genitive
relation
does not arise out of the notion of diroXvTpoia-L^, according to
which the genitive is either the subject, which is redeemed (Luke xxi, 28; Eom. viii. 23), or expresses that, /;w?i tvhich one becomes free (Heb. ix. 15 Fritzsche, ad Rom. IL p. 178).
;
To the erroneous attempts at explanation belongs (Vatablus, Koppe) which takes r?}? irepiiroirjaewii for
TT 017)6 elcrav,
also that
r-qv irepi-
the
redcmiition acquired for us, or (so Bleek) the

is
redemption, which
Tfj<i
to
become our 2ôsscssion}
et? eiraivov
Sof?7?
avTov] a climactic parallel to what goes before, conit
taining as
does the nal aim of
God
o5
in the sealing with the
Holy Spirit. had in view

the
And
to
thus has Paul accordingly reached what he
in the joining
on of
eV
kuI vfieU, ver, 13, namely,
assigning
the
Gentile- Christians the same ultimate
destination, wliich he has in ver.

Christians.
(not,
The
is
12 predicated
of the Jewish-
reference of avrov to God, as in vv. 12, 6

i<T(f>pa'y.,
ff.
with Estius and Hofmann, to Christ), flows from

is
which
GocVs act.
See van Hengel, Annot.
p.
198
The
glory of
God
for
the final aim of the whole unfolding of salvation.
Ver. 15.^ Only now, after the general ascription of praise

to
God
the Christian
since ver. 3 flowed forth from

'
economy of salvation, which had him in an enraptured stream,

TripiToinciv
This sense, too, would in fact have needed to be expressed by tU
On
VV. 15-19, see Winzer, Commentat., Lips. 1836.
Meyee Eph.
Q6
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIATSTS.
does Paul reach that, with which he

at once to begin
is
wont on other occasions
the thanksgiving to
God
for the Christian
IJOsition of the readers,
hia tovt6\ has reference to vv. 13, 14 because this is the case, that ye too are in Christ and have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, etc.
:
and
intercession for them.
See already Theophylact. There is no reason for going farther back and referring it to the whole preceding development from ver. 3 onward (Harless, Winzer, Schenkel, and others,
Oecumenius), since thanksgiving and intercession have reference to the readers, and it is only ver. 13 that has led over to the latter. Kayoo] I also ; for Paul knows that by his exercise of prayer, ver. 16, he is co-ojyciâting with the readers. Comp, on Col. i. 9. dKovaa<i] does not serve to prove that the Epistle could not have been written to the
following
Ephesians, or not to them alone (see Introd.

fact has already aptly
1);
Grotius in
remarked " Loquitur autem apostolus de profectu evangelii apud Ephesios, ex quo ipse ah Ulis discesserat." Comp. Winzer, p. 5; Wiggers in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, Wiesele r, p. 445 and already Theodoret in loc. p. 430 f. 'N-o doubt Olshausen (comp. Bleek) maintains that Paul so
;
;
expresses himself as to
make
it
apparent that with a great
proportion of his readers he was not personally acquainted,
appealing to Col. i. 4. But may he not here, as at Philem. 5, have heard respecting those who were hnoion to him, what at Col. i. 4 he has heard respecting those who were previously unknown to him ? Tr]v kcuO vix<; irlaTiv] fidem, quae ad vos
'
pertinct,
i.e.
vestiâm fidem.
vi.
Comp. Acts
(to) kcut
xvii.
28,
;
xviii.
15,
xxvi. 3.
ii.
Thuc.
16. 5
avroii^. i(p)
Ael. V.
H.
12
vfjb<i
Kar avrov per/f). The difference between rj kuO^ TTi'cTTt? and rj ttlo-tc^ vfjucov lies only in the form of con(97
ception, not in the thing itself
Yet the mode
of expression,
not occurring elsewhere in the letters of the apostle, belongs

to the peculiar
phenomena
of our Epistle,
The
assertion of
Harless, that
it
denotes the faith of the readers objectively,
as in itself a thing to be found
among them, while

according
to
its
ttlo-tk
vcv
denotes
it
subjectively,
individual
is
character in each one (comp. Matthies and Schenkel),

less capable of proof, in pro|)ortion to the prevalent use
the
among
the later Greeks of the periphrasis of the geuitival relation by
CHAP.
I.
16.
67
4
Kara.
p.
See Valckenaer, ad Luc.
p.
330; Wesseling, ad Diod.
Sic.
xiv.
belonging to Triariv (fidem vestram in
ad Lonrj. rw Kvplw] Christo repositam), and

f.
;
Scliaefer,
12.
iv
blended without any connecting
article into
unity of idea with

:
Winzer connects it wdth vfx<; it. See on Gal. iii. 26, " fidem, quae vobis, Domino Jesu veluti insitis, inest ;" but /cat rijv ^dir. forbidden by the order of the words. this is Tr)v eh iravra^ /c.t.A,.] Here, too, Paul, might have left out
.
the second article, so that the sense would be

vfx<i
e')(etv
koI to <ydTrr]v
2 Cor.
vii.
et?
Trdvra'i (comp. Col.
i.
4), as at
first
Tov
vficov ^rjkov virep ifiav.

itself,
But he has
rr/v
thought of the
notion of love in
and then added
thereto, as
important element, the thought,

"character Christianismi,"
7rdvTa<; eh Trdvra'; r. dy. Bengel. Comp. vi. 18; Philem. 5.

:
a special
We may add Chrysostom's apt remark

avyKoWa
piBa.
Ti]v irlaTiv.
v.
Traz^Ta^ôu avvdirTei koX
koI
6
;
rrjv
dydirrjv
6av[xa(n/]v rcva ^vvw-
Comp. Gal.
1 Cor. xiii.
Ver. 16.
Ou
thanksgiving
iravoixaC] a popular
so
i.
full
and
ii.
urgent
is
form of hyperbole. My it can find no end.
Comp.
1 Thess.
alvewv ovK iTravero.
Luke
37; Herod,
vii.
107: tovtov
to give
Be
ev')(âpiarwv virep v/xwv^

jâi'ticijyle,
thanks
on your account.
Bernhardy,
p.
On
;
the
see Herrn,
ad
Viger. p.
477; and on
1
uirep
1.
Rom.
i.
8,
Elz.
Tim.
ii.
(siqjcr vobis),
comp.
v.
771 20;
;
fivelav
irocov/xevo';
iirl
:
roiv
accompanying definition to ev')(apiaTo)v lohile I make meoitio7i in my prayers. Comp, Rom. i. 9 1 Thess. 2 Phil. i. 3 i. Philem. 4. What Paul makes mention of is learned from the context, which furnishes not merely vfxwv (Elz. see the critical remarks), but a more precise definition, namely of what he has heard concerning the faith and love of the readers, and for which he gives thanks on their account. This iivdav TTOLovp.evo^ k.t.X., however, is not superfluous, and after evâp. virep v/x. self-evident but it serves, through the close joining on to it of the following tva k.t.X. (after ver. 16 only a comma is to be placed), as a means of leading over from the thanksgiving to the intercession connected with it, and is thereby accounted for. eVt] of the prevailing relations and circumstances, in or under which anything takes place. See on Rom. i. 10.
irpocrev^. jiov]
;
;.
68
THE EPISTLE TO THE

Ver. l^/'Iva 6 0eo?
/c.r.X.]
EPIIESIANS.
contains the design cherished by

:
Paul in the
fiveiav
irpoa-ev^. /xov
in order that God might

is
give you, etc.
In this expressed design

;
implied the inter'Iva is
cessory tenor of the fxvelav iroLelaOat
hence
not here to
be deprived of its notion of design, nor is it to be explained comp. Eckert, Olshausen, Winer, and others) by (Harless
;
supplying before
it
the conception of " pxiying."
The
apostle
would say that
ivhat he has heard of their faith, etc., induces
him
etc.
to
unceasing thanksgiving on their hehalf, while he makes

it
mention of
in his frayers to the end that

ottc?,
God might
I.e.
give them,
The
telic
Philem.
6,
stands in another connection
than the
Sair)
iW
in our passage.
See on Philem.
The
ojytative
(on this form of later Greek instead of

I. p.
80/77,
see Butt-
mann,
507
is
Lobeck, ad Phryn.
sidjjective
p.
346)
is
used, because
the design
of God,
thought of as
the realization of which
is
and expectation, dependent entirely upon the will

conception
^
'
and consequently belongs only to the category of On 'iva with an optative after what is wished and possible. the present or future, see, generally, Hermann, ad Soph. El. 57 ad Aj. 1211 Peisig, ad Oed. Ch. p. 168 if. Bernhardy, eos and especially Klotz, ad Devar. p. 622 if. p. 407
; ; ; ;
Tov Kupiov
i)iJb.
'I.
X.] for
God has
sent Christ
who, having
i.
before all time proceeded from His essential nature (Col.
was
the creative organ of the Father
15),
forth in the fulness of
the time in pursuance of His decree, to which the Son was
obedient (Phil.
exalted
xi. 3),
ii.
8), -has
is
given
Him up
to death, raised
and
Him, and
continually the
Head
of Christ (1 Cor,
who even
as avvOpovo^ of the Father is subordinate to

viii.
the Father (Piom.
34),
and
finally will give
back to God
the dominion which
God has given
to
Him
(1 Cor. xv. 27, 28).
In the consciousness of His relation of dependence on God, Matt, Christ Himself calls the Father eo? (xov, John xx. 1 7 Comp. Col. ii. 2, Lachm. The opinion extorted in xxvii. 46.
;
the anti-Arian interest from the Fathers (see Suicer, Thes.
I.
^ Lachniann and Riickert (as also Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 230) write 4)) with an iota suhscriptum under , so that it woukl thus be the Ionic subjunctive
(Od.
xii.
216).
N.
T., this
But often as the aorist subjunctive of lilu/ii occurs in the Homeric form never presents itself. The form Sf in B is a manifest
emendation.
CHAP.
I.
17.
69
p.
944), that
irarrip
I
6 06o<i
Tov Kvp. applies to Christ's

to the divine {Boâv
;
human
nature,
(f)vatv
and o
rrj'i 86^rj<i
jap rrp Oelav
cDvo/jiacTev
Theodoret and Oecumenius
Bisping),
is
comp, even Bengel and to be mentioned only as matter of history, as are
which Menochius and Vatablus were induced by a like prejudice to resort, that eo? and t?}? irarr^p being S6^r]<i are to be taken together (tov Kvplov
also the forced construction, to
. . .
inserted),
and the
at least
more
skilful turn of Estius
qui est Domini nostri Jesu Christi pater gloriosus."

rrj'i
"
Deus,
o irarrjp
tJie (/lory
Bo^rjsi]
the Father (namely, of Christians) to ivJwm
(the majesty
1 Cor.
ii.
Kar
iô^vv) hclongs.
See on Acts viL

is
?;
2,
and
8.
The
resolution into an adjective pater gloriosus

in itself arbi-
(Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, and others)

trary, does not
exhaust the eminent sense of
hoâ, and fails

Vigcr. p.
to perceive the oratorical force
(Hermann, ad
;
887)
of the substantival designation.
Others take rrarrip in the

Bucer, Cornelius
derived sense of aitctor (Erasm. Fa^rai^hr.

Olshausen), so that
a Lapide, Grotius, Wolf, and others, including Holzhausen and
God
is
designated as He, from

:
whom
the
glory of the Christians (according to Grotius
of Christ
and
be
the Christians) proceeds.
Certainly the idea of auctor
may
;
expressed, specially in the more elevated style, by irarTjp (Job

Jas. i. 17, where the ^cora are personified Find. 313, where Orpheus is called oihv Trar^p and see Ast, Lex Flat. III. p. 66 Jacobs, ad Ach. Tai. p. 392 f. John
xxxviii.
28
Pgth.
iv.
viii.
44
is
not here applicable)
but as this
is
nowhere
else
done by Paul, so here he has no reason for resorting to such an usage, to which besides the analogous expressions, 0eo<i tt}? B6^7]<i (Ps. xxix. 3 Acts vii. 2), /Sao-iXey? t?'}9 S6^7]<; (Ps.
;
xxiv. 7), Kvpio<i T^9

ix. 5),
Bo^Tj'i (1
Cor.
ii,
8), Xepovl/jb Sof?;?
(Heb.
are opposed.
.
We may add,
;
that the description of
God
by
o Geo'i
B6^7]<i
stands in appropriate relation to the design

for of the
of the intercession
God
of Christ
glory
it is
to
be expected that
He
will do that,
and Father of which the

kuI
cause of Christ demands, and which serves to the manifestation of

Trpo?
His own glory.
Oecumenius rightly remarks
ro TrpoKeifxevov ovofidêc rov Qeov.
Truevfxa (TO<pca<} K.
uTTOKaXv-^.^
spirit
The Holy
is
Spirit, too
(for it
is
not the hiiman
that
here
meant, as Michaelis, Eckert, de Wette,
"
70

it^),
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek would take

characterize
iv.
iTpo<i
to
nrpoKeijxevov,
Eom.
viii.
Comp. 2 Tim. i. 7. 13; Gal. vi. 1. wisdom and gives revelation (1 latter is a greater result of the work of the Spirit,^ in accordance with which He not only by His enlightening operation furnishes wisdom {yva)<Tt<i 6emv k. avOpcoTTLvcov conTrpajfiaTcov Koi rwv rovrcov alrccov, 4 Mace. i. 16 ceived of, however, by Paul in reference to the Christian
wlio works
;
is wont to 15; 2 Cor. Here: the Spirit Cor. ii. 10). The
Paul
2,
economy of salvation, comp. ver. 8), but further, as the organ of God, effects also special revelations of divine saving truths Harless regards k. airoand purposes not otherwise known. Ka\. as the objective medium, which brought about the state of
(70(J3ia,
so that the character of the aoijiia is
defined
K.
by
k.
airoKaX.
But
in passages like
more Eom.
precisely
5, %ajOiy
i.
ra 'âptcr/xara k. 7) KXrâfi tov @eov, the discourse advances from the general to the special, not Logically from the thing itself to its objective medium. more natural, besides, would be the advance from the objective medium to the subjective state, according to which Paul
uiroaroXi^v, xi. 29,
would have written aTroKaXv^jrea)'; koI crocîa'^. Finally, the climactic relation, which is brought out in the two words under our view, makes the wish of the apostle appear more It fervid and full, and so more in keeping with his mood.
:
is
obvious of
itself,
we may
add, that Paul here desires for his
readers, to
whom
in fact the Spirit has been already given
from the time of their

'
:
conversion
(ver.
13),
continued
Rckert "God grant you a heart wise and open for His revelations;" " the quality of mind which consists in wisdom (mediate knowledge) and revelation (susceptibility for the immediate knowledge of divine truth). According to Schenkel, it is the spirit wrought in the regenerate by the Holy All this is opposed to the N. T. use of nvfji.a, with the genitivus abstracti. Spirit. And nowhere in the N. T., where the being given is predicated of the TTviZ//.,, is it anything else than the objective tv., whether it be divine or demoniacal (Luke John iii. 34 Acts viii. 18, xv. 8 1 Thess. iv. 8 2 Tim. i. 7 ; 1 John xi. 13 Rom. v. 5, xL 8). The presence or absence of the article with rviZf/.a iii. 24 makes no difference see on Gal. v. 16. As to the singular expression rvsUj ccynairivn;, used of the Spirit of Christ, in Rom. i. 4, see on that passage. ^ But not, as Olshausen (comp. Grotius) maintains, the x^-fttTf/.. of prophecj'', of which the more detailed exposition, ver. 18 ff., shows no trace. And Paul, in
de Wette
:
fact, is
praying for all his readers.
See, however, 1 Cor. xii. 29.
CHAR
I.
17.
71
lightenment.
bestowal of the same for their ever increasing Christian enComp. Col. i. 9. Baur, p. 437, conjectures here
something of a Montanistic element.

Montanists that the
irvevfia
;
But
it
was not by the
was
first
regarded as the principle
of Christian wisdom, etc.
That avrov does not apply Baumgarten, Flatt), but to God (although we have not to write avTov), is clear from the avTov of vv. 18, 19 it is only at ver. 20 that the discourse Nor is iv iinyv. avrov, with Chrysospasses over to Christ.
whole
N".
T.
it is
so already in the teaching of the
iv iirtyvdoaeL avrov]
to Christ (Beza, Calvin, Calovius,
toni,
Theophylact, Zachariae,
Koppe (with
to this
hesitation),
Lach-
raann,
Olshausen (who was forced

k.
by
his
explaining
irvevfxa aocp.
dnroKaX. in the sense of extraordinary charisivJiat
mata), to be attached to
(TTvevfxa
v/jb.,
follows,
whereby the parallelism

r.
6(f)d. r.
(TO(f).
k. clttok. is
parallel with Trecfxor.

et?
KapB.
and iv
iiriyv. avr.
with
rb elhevat k.t.\.) would without

;
reason be destroyed (see Harless)
but
it
denotes the sphere of

tliat
mental
activity,
in lohich they, already at work therein (and
likewise through the Spirit, ver. 13), are to receive the spirit of
wisdom and
is
revelation.
Comp. 2
Pet.
i.
2.
Erroneously iv
taken for
et? (Luther, Castalio, Piscator,
Cornelius a Lapide,
Wolf, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Eosenmiiller, and others), or as

2oer
(Erasmus, Calovius, and others), which latter would repre-
tion of the
God as bringing about the communicaand so invert the state of the case. No doubt Calovius remarks " quo quis magis agnoscit Christum, ;" eo sapientior fit et revelationem divini verbi magis intelligit but the question is one, not of an agnitio, but of a cognitio, and
sent the knowledge of
Spirit,
:
not of understanding the revelation of the word, but of a revelation to be received through the agency of the
In iiriyvcoaa observe the force of an exact and j^cnetrating 'yvwcn'i, as is very evident especially from 1 Cor. xiii. 12, and is wrongly denied by Olshausen.^ Comp. Col. i. 9.
Olshausen appeals to the fact that, just where the most exalted fonn of the cliarismatic is spoken of, the word employed is not Wiyvutri;, Tvffi;, however, in the charismatic sense was but yvutris, 1 Cor. xii. 8, xiii. 8. the name as it were, the terminus technkus for the thing which as such was meant to denote the essence, not the degree.
'
Holy Spirit. the compoimd, which implies
knowledge
72
Ver. 18.
(as

Tl6(f)}TLcr/ji6vov'i
tov<;
6(f)6akijLov'? k.t.\.] is
usually
by Eckert, Matthies, Meier, Holzhausen, Harless, Winzer, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten- Crusius, Schenkel, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 272 [E. T. 317]) taken as ajjposioncd, and made dependent on Bwt) v/xiv in which case it has been
also
;
rightly
observed that the translation should not be, with

eyes, but,
Luther: enlightened
give to you the eyes enlightened, etc.
on account of the article: He may But (1) in general an

not proper to be set forth as in
enlightened understanding
apposition to the
is
Holy
Spirit,
but rather as the

gives to
effect
of the
same.
(2)
The conception that God
them
their eyes
ment, as
;
(which as such they already have) in the condition of enlighten7re0coTtcr/Ltez/oy?, remains in any case an awkward
inasmuch as we should have to transform the giving, one which was still a proper and actual giving in ver. 17, zeugmatically into the notion of mahing at ver. 18 (Flatt, following Heinsius, quite arbitrarily supplies elvai), in order to remove
the incongruity caused by the presence of the
article.
Bengel,
with his
et
fine insight, aptly
sine articulo,
cum
det
Quodsi 6(ji6dk/jLov<; esset posset in sensu abstracto sumi (enlightened eyes) construi." Hence, with Beza, Bengel, Koppe,
remarks
"
absolute,
is to be taken as the so-called accusative from a mingling in the conception of two sorts of construction, is to be met with often also in classical and that without repeating the subject {v/Ji<i) in the writers instead of another accusative (in opposition to Buttmann) case which would be required in strict accordance with the construction, particularly instead of the dative {virearl ixoi dpdao^
Bleek,
Trecfxoricr/ji,.
such
as,
SvTTvovcov
K\vovaav
prio)'?
ouecpdrcov.
Soph. Ul.
4/9
f.;
Plat. Lach. p.
posal to read
7re<pcoTia/j,evoi<i
186 D; Time. v. was
79. 1); and thus Beza's proentirely uncalled for.
Comp.
Acts xxvi.
Athen,
p.
3.
See, generally, Brunck,
ad Soph.
I.e. ;
Jacobs, ad
97; Stallbaum, ad
B,
;
Rep. pp.
Anal),
i.
386
2.
500
to
C,
176 D, and ad 586 E; Khner and Krger, ad Xen.

Plat. Symp). p.
3, p.
Ngelsb. on Iliad, ed.

v/xtv,
:
181.
Accordingly,
7re(f)(0TLcrfji.
relates
and
rov'i 6(j)d. is
the accusative of
more
heart,
precise definition
i.e.
enlightened in respect of the eyes of your
so
that ye are then enlightened, etc., with

result
expressed
the
of
the
which is communication of the Spirit
CHAP.
I.
18.
7o
prayed
p.
for (1 Thess.
f.;
897
Pflngk,
Phil. iii. 21 iii. 13 ad Eur. Hcc. 69).

;
Hermann, ad
rou?
Vigcr.
t^}?
ocfiOaX/j,.
KapB.
v/x.]
figurative designation of the understanding (Plat.
Pol. vii. p.
533
TO t^? '^^X^l'^
ofifia,
Soph.
p.
254
The
comp.
is
Ovid. Met. xv. 64, and see Grotius and Wetstein), which
cnligJdencd,
when man
xi. 8,
discerns the divine truth.
opposite:
Eom.
i.
21,
is
10.
knoiulcdgc
necessarily given
The reference of the enlightenment to by 6^6a\fxov<;, and should not
have been regarded as one-sided (in opposition to Harless) and the power of the new life is not here included under the irecfxTiafjb., since it is not the heart in general, but the eyes of
the heart that are set forth as enlightened, consequently the
organ of cognition.
T04? ofi/iaai
rrj6dX/xol
t)]<;
Kaphla'^.
Kaphia] does
not merely denote, according to the popular
biblical usage, tlie faculty of
Oimsc. p.
is
159
Stirm in the
Till. Zcitschr.
emotion and desire (Olshausen, 1834, 3, p. 53), but

all
the concrete expression for the central seat of the psychicothe
pneumatic personality, consequently embracing together
agencies (thinking, willing, feeling) in the exercise of which
man
in
has the consciousness of his personal inward experience which case the context must suggest what side of the selfactivity of
of.
conscious inner
life
(here,
the
cognitive)
;
is
in
;
2 Cor. iv. 6 Comp. Eom. i. 21 Heb. iv. 12 Phil. iv. 7 2 Pet. i. 19 and see, on the activity of the heart in thinking and cognition, Delitzsch, Psychol.
particular to be thought
;
;
p.
248
f.,
as also
Krumm,
de notionih. fsychol. Paid. p. 50.^

irecficoTtcrfji.
et?
TO elSevai u/â?] aim of
k.t.\.
in order that ye
The observation of the latter, that the cognitive activity of the heart is based on internal experience (which, however, holds good not only as to St. Paul, but also elsewhere in the N. T.), is not refuted by the rejoinder of Delitzsch, p. 177. In this very passage (comp. iii. 18) the cognition is not merely discursive, but the experience, in which it has its root, is that of the divine communication of the Spirit and enlightenment. Analogous is the case with 2 Cor. iv. 6. As
'
to Phil. iv. 7, see
on that passage.
is
The
heart, as the seat of self-consciousness

it.
and
of the conscience,
hihl.
it
the receptacle of experience and elaborates

If it does
Comp.
Beck,
Seelenl. p.
67.
elaborate
iv. 18),
unto saving knowledge, it (Luke xxiv. 25), covered as with a veil (2 Cor. understanding, etc. See also Oehler in Herzog's Encykl. VI. p.
slothful
not admit the experience, or does not is closed (Acts xiv. 16), hardened (Eph.
iii.
15), void of
17.
; ; !
74

ivliat
may hiow
(quanta)
is the is
great and glorious hope

called to the
(T'^}9
hope of His calling, i.e. what a given to the man, whom God has
kingdom
of the Messiah,
by means of that
eX7ri<i,
calling
KKrjo: is genitive
of the efficient cause).
accord-
ingly, is not here,
any more than elsewhere (Eora.

it.
viii.
24
Gal. V. 5
Col.
i.
5, al.), res sperata, as
the majority, including
Meier and Olshausen, take
Observe also here the three

:
main elements in the subjective state of Christians faith, and love, and hope (vv. 15, 18) in presence of faith and love the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit is to make the glory of hope more and more known; for the irokhevâ of Christians is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20), whither their whole thoughts and Faith, with the love which accompanies efforts are directed.
;
it,
remains the centre of Christianity

of their aim.
ff.
;
but hope withal en18ff.

Phil.
courages and animates by holding before them the constant

ohject
ix.
24
i.
2 Cor.
iii.
iv.
17,
Comp. Eom. xiii. 12 f.
v.
2,
viii.
;
Cor.
ff.
Gal. vi. 9
iii.
12
Col.
23,
ff.
This in opposition to Weiss,
who
here
hope brought into prominence, " quite after the Petrine manner," as the centre of Christianity {Petrin. Lehrhegr. p. 427).
finds
Koi
TL<;
6 ttXouto? .t.A,.] this is

t/<?,
now
the
ohject
.
of the hope.
.
The
repetition of
as well as
the Kal t/?
koI
tl,
has
rhetorical emphasis (comp.

86^7]<i TTj'i KX7]povo/jbia<i
Eom. xi. 34 f.); and, in 6 7rXovro<; rrj^ auTov, what a copious and grand accumuthing itself
the
lation, mirroring, as it were, the weightiness of the
which
is
not to be weakened by adjectival resolution of the
genitives.
Comp.
Col.
i.
27
2 Cor.
iv.
1 7.
Boâ, glorg,
is
essential characteristic of the Messianic salvation to be received
from God as an inheritance at the Parousia (Eom. viii. 17) and how great the rich fulness of this glory is, the readers are called to realize, iv rot? ayloa does not mean the Holiest of all (Heb. ix. 12), as Homberg and Calovius conbut among jectured, for this is not suggested by the context the saints (Num. xviii. 23 Job xlii. 15 Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18)
:
for the
community
of believers
(these
are the
afytoi,,
i.
1, 4),
inasmuch
is
as they are to be the subjects of the Messianic bliss,
the sphere, outside of which this TrXoyro? k.t.X. will not be
found.
Comp.
6 K\rjpo<i rcov dyicov. Col.
i.
12.
It is
rtV,
connected
with the iarc to be mentally supplied after
so that
we
CHAP.
I.
19.
75
article before ttXoOto?:
have
ichat,
to translate, as is required
i.e.
by the
how
great and exceeding,

tliat
is the riches, etc.,
among
the
saints.
d<yioi<i,
Paul must have written 6 iv to?? and that iv toU yloc^ receives unduly the main stress.
Harless objects
ti? icrriv o irXouro'? iv
rol<i
But the construction
a'ytot9
is
in
and iv rot? dyloi^ would have of necessity the main emphasis only if it stood after riV. Usually (as by Elickert, Harless, Winzer, Olshausen, but not by Koppe and de Wette) iv rot? dyioi'i is regarded as an appendage to " the inheritance given by God among tt}? K\r]povo/x. avTov the saints," in connection with which Eiickert, quite at variance with N. T. usage, explains ol ayioi of the " collective body of morally good beings in the other world." But since rj KX7)povo/jLui eov is completely and formally defined by this very Oeov (avTov), and does not first receive its completeness by means of iv Toi<i d<yioL<; (see, on the contrary, Eom. viii. 1 7 Gal. iv. 7), this more precisely defining addition must have been attached by means of t^?, and passages like Eom. ix. 3 1 Tim. vi. 17 1 Cor. x. 18 2 Cor. vii. 7 (see Fritzsche, ad Bom. I. p. 195 f.), are not analogous. If avrov were not in the text, iv roh d>yioi<i might be the definition of the kXt]povofiia here meant, and blended with t^9 KkrjpovofMia'^ so as to form one idea. We may add, that Harless wrongly refers
fact logically quite correct,
:
the riches
of the glory,
etc.,
preponderantly to the present
Comp, de Wette. It is only the future kingdom of God, to be set up at the Parousia, that is the object of the KkrjpovofMla (1 Cor. vl 9, xv. 50 Gal. v. 21 Eph. V. 5 Matt. xxv. 34) and here in particular the context (eA,7ri9, ver. 18; iyeipa'i k.t.\., ver. 20) still points to the future glory, which Paul realizes as already present. Ver. 19 ff. After the object of the hope, there is now set
earthly aaCkela tov eov.
;
;
forth also that hy which
it
is
realized,
namely, the infinite

:
power of God shown in the resurrection, etc., of Christ and what [quanta) is the exceeding (surpassing all measure) greatness of His poiuer in relation to us who believe. The construction is as in the preceding portion, and consequently such, that et?
-qixm rov<} iriar. attaches itself not to t?}? Swap,,
avrov (Meier,
Harless,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
;
Bleek, after
many
be
older expositors
comp. 2 Cor.
xiii. 4),
but to the
Icttl to
7b
mentally supplied after tL

(eX-TTt?
From
as
the
context precedin.s;
KkripovoiJLia<i)
Paul
is
and following (ver. 20 f.) it is clear that not here speaking of the power of God already in the
life
earthly
manifesting
itself
regards believers in
their
inward experience (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Photius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, and
otliers,
including Flatt, Matthies, Eckert,
Meier, Harless), not even of this as included (Schenkel), but
only of the power to be shown as regards believers in future

at
the
Paronsia,
where
this
Christ's resurrection, exaltation,
mighty working displayed in and appointment as Head of
the cliurch, must necessarily, in virtue of their fellowship with
redound to the fulfilment of the hope, to the Sofa tt^? Hence Paul continues Kara Kk.rjpovojjiia'i (see vv. 20-23). rr}v ivepyeLav /c.tA.] This is indeed connected by many with
Christ,
:
Toy? TTiarevovTa'i (see Erasmus, Calovius, Eosenmliller, Flatt,

Elickert, Matthies,
and
others), in
which case the

k.t.X., as
irta-revetv
appeared as consequence of the ivepyeia

a view, which was helped
especially, Calovius)
epjov eou
among
the
older
expositors (see,
by the interest of opposition to Pelagian and Socinian opinions but in this way the whole course of thought is deranged, and the simple and solemn exposition in ver. 20 is made subservient to an expression quite immaterial, which Paul might equally well have omitted (Tov<i
;
in(jTevovTa<i).
It is
not the design, according to the connection,
to prove the
origin of faith.
Chrysostom, Calvin, Calixtus,
Estius, Grotius,
and
others, including
found in Kara
real
rrjv ivepy. k.t.X.
Meier and Winzer, have an amplification (de Wette the

:
ground
in this
comp,
all
also
Bleek) of to virep.
p,eje6o<i
k.t.X.
But
way
that follows would only be destined to hold
descri2:ition, and would be isolated which yet was the definite basis of the discourse hitherto and this isolation there is no reason to assume. Hence we have to take KaTa r. ivepy. k.t.X. as What is the the ground of hiowledge of the 'preceding point. exceeding greatness of the divine power towards believers,
the disproportionate place of a

vpb^,
;
from eU to elSevai
the readers
are
to
know
accordance with this
in in virtue of the operation, etc. operation they were to measure that

;
exceeding greatness.
ceding point, but to
all
Harless refers
it
not merely to the pre-
the three points adduced after et? to
CHAr.
I,
20.
77
t/}?
elhevai
vfMa.<;.
But, as
tlie
ivepjeta rou fcpdrov^
la)(yo^
corresponds simply to the notion of the Svva/jii<;, we are not entitled to refer farther back than to the point, in which the
hvpa/Mi^
was spoken
form
;
of.
rrjv
ivepy.
rov Kpdr.
in
rfj'i
la^vo^
avTov] a touching accumulation of terms, presenting the matter

in genetic
for
tcr;^^?
is
strength
xii.
itself
ii.
as
inward
power, as vis or virtus
(Mark
30
2 Pet.
11), Kpdro^,
might expressing itself in overcoming resistance, in ruling, Heb. Actsxix. 20 Eph. vi. 10 Col. i. 11 etc. (Luke i. 51 Dan. iv. 27; Isa. xl. 26), and ipipêia, the ejffieacious iL 14; working, the active exertion of power. For similar combinations
; ; ;
;
words having a kindred sense, see Lobeck, Paralip. I. Comp. Soph. Philoct. 590: Trpo? la')(yo<i Kpdro<i. p. 5 3 4 f. The Vulgate aptly renders "secundum Job xxi. 23 (LXX.). " t. oparctiojicm potentiae virtutis ejus," and Bengel remarks ivepryecav, haec actus est KpdTov?, hoc in actu est." rov 205 Ver. 20. "Hv] namely, ivepy eiav see Winer, p. iyetpaf;] iv TM Xptarw] in the case of Christ. [E. T. 273]. aorist participle, contemporaneous with the act of the verb, Kal eKadtaev] deviation from the like <yvo)pL(Ta<i, ver. 9.^ participial construction after kul. See Hermann, ad Soph. El.
of
: :
p.
153, and note on

382]. iv
of
Col.
i.
Buttm.
neut.
Gr. p.
327
f.
[E. T.
is
T0i9 l'Kovpav?\^ in the heaven (see
on
ver. 3),
not to be transformed into the vague conception of a status

a
coelcstis,
higher relation
to
the
world,
and
the
like
(Calovius,
Harless, Hofmann, and

place.
others),
is
but to be
glorified
left as
specification of
For Christ
with
hody, as
avvQpovo'^ of the Father on the seat where the Divine Majesty

vi. 9), exalted above the heavenly heaven (Phil. iii. 20 f.); so Stephen beheld Him (Acts vii. 55), and the seer of the Apocalypse (Rev. v., a/.) and^from thence, surrounded by the angels. He will return, even as He has bodily ascended thither (1 Thess. iv. IG Acts i. 11, iii. 21 1 Pet. iii. 21 f. Matt. xxiv. 30, XXV. 31); hence also those wlio arise and are changed at the
is
enthroned (see on Matt.

(ver.
angels
21),
in
'
sr'e
In connection with this, observe the interchange of the perfect {ivnfyriKit, the critical remarks) and the aorist (lys/âj) which (working) He has
:
wroufjht (concluded action, regarded from the standpoint of the writer),
when
He raised,
etc.
78
Parousia, are caught up ek aipa, to meet the Lord coming from heaven (1 Thess. iv. 17). Up to that time He intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father (Eom. viii. 34). The true commentary on eKaOtcrev Iv heîa aurov ev toU
eiTovp. is accordingly,
Mark
xvi. 1 9
vekr^^r]
eh rov ovpavov
itself,
Koi
ver.
iKaOtaep e
heîwv
iv.
rov &eov.
And
our passage
o
20
ff.
(comp.
10), is the
ii.
commentary on
06O9 avTov
virepvylrcoae k.t.X., Phil.
9.
no parenthesis, since neither the construction nor virepdvoi the logical progress of the thought is interrupted. expresses not the infinite exaltedness (the Greek Fathers, Beza, Estius), nor yet the dominion over (Bengel), although the latter
Ver. 2 1
is
: ;
is
(Heb.
puer.
implied in the nature of the ix. 5 Ezek. i. 26, viii. 2

;
case,
;
but simply
7
;
up
above
tr.
Deut. xxviii. 1
ix.
;
Cant.
37
.
.
Tob.
is
i.
Ael. V.
H.
vi.
Polyb.
xii.
The opposite
dp'^7]^
.
vTroKarco,
is
Mark
11
to
Heb.
be
ii.
8.
24.
1).
Trdarjî
Kvpi6T7)T0<i
neither
understood,
with
Schoettgen, of the Jcivish hierarchs, nor, with van Til (in Wolf),
of the
various
grades of Gentile ruleis, nor, with
Morus, of
human powers
in general, nor, with Erasmus, Vorstius, Wolf,
Zachariae, Eosenmller, Flatt, Olshausen, and others, of quocl-
eumque gloriae et dignitatis genus (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 24) but, ev to2<; as is shown by the immediate context (eKdOta-ev iirovpav.) and the analogous passages, iii. lU, Col. i. 16, Eom. viii. 38 (comp, also 1 Pet. iii. 22), of the angels, who are designated according to their classes of rank {ahstracta pro
;
.
concrctis), and, in fact, of the
good angels, since the apostle

xv.
is
not here
speaking (as in 1 Cor.
24) of the victory of
Christ over op)]josing powers, but of His exaltation above the
powers in heaven. See, moreover, on Eom. viii. 38. In opposition to Hofmann, who {Schriftlcto. I. p. 347) would find in the different designations not any order of rank, but
existing
only various relations

d.
to
N. T.
I. p.
291
ff.
God and the ivorld, see Halm, TJieol. Comp, also Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 558 f.
;
Christ Himself already. Matt, xviii. 10, assumes a diversity of
rank among the angels

expressions
it
is
thus the more arbitrary, that

use,
evidently
in
stated
two apostles and then

this idea (even apart
in the
Test.
which in the case of XII. Pair, correspond to
from the Jewish doctrine of classes of
CHAP.
I.
21.
79
angels) should not be referred to

tion,
it.
More
precise informa-
however, as to the relations and functions of the different

is
grades of angels^
not to be given, since Paul does not himself
enter into particulars on the point, and the Eabbinical theory of

classes of angels, elaborated
under the influence of Platonism,

II. p.
yet dissimilar (see Eisenmenger, EntdecJd. Judenth.

Bartolocci, Bihl. Rahb.
p.
I. p.
374;
I,
267
ff.
Gfrrer, Jdlirli. d. Heils,
357
ff.),
is
not in keeping with the designations of the

loc. ;
apostle
(see
Harless in
Fritzsche,
ad Rom.
II. p.
226),
and has evidently been elaborated

according to a descending climax
;
at a later date.
It is never-
theless probable that the order of succession is here arranged

for (1) the
apostle, in look-
ing at the matter, proceeds most naturally

tvard,
above downfrom the right hand of God to the heavenly beings which hold the next place beneath Him, and so on; (2) the a,p')(ai, iôvcriat, and Bvvd/j,6L<i are always mentioned in the same order
from
(iii.
10
Col.
i.
16,
ii.
10;
(Col.
1 Pet.
i.
iii.
22)
the eôvalai,
how-
16) are. Test. XII. Patr. p. 548, placed in the seventh heaven, and the Bwufxei^; only in the
ever,
with the dpovot

547),
are
as,
third
(p.
indeed, in
Jamblichus,
v.
the
this,
Svvd/j.et<i
placed far below the dp-âL

i.
21, p. 136, According to
the OpovoL and Kvpc6Tr]r<i, Col.
16, would be placed in
juxtaposition as the two- extremes of the angelic series.
view
is
taken by Hahu, Theol.
d.
N. T.
I.
p.
297
f.
Another That
Paul, moreover, sets forth Christ as exalted above the angelworld, with a 2ôlemic purpose in opposition to the 6pr]aKeia
djyiXwv of the Gnosis of Asia Minor (comp. Col. ii. 18) (Bucer, Estius, Hug, and others), is not to be assumed, since
the form
character,
of
the
representation
itself
maintains purely a
2ôsitive
was no natural to the Christian consciousness generally (comp. Heb. i. 4), and to the connection in the case of our passage in particular, as to need no polemic occasion in order to its being expressed, and expressed
^
and the thing
Ignatius,
Trail.
i.
5,
calls
them
the
txs totoHhtIxs ra; ayyiXiicas.
Comp,
also
Hennas, Past.
3, 4.
But
if
apxi^^'
x-^.X. are angels, they are also conceived
of as personal, not as "principles and potencies, powers, forces, ordinances, and laws" (Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. p. 244), consequently in an abstract sense. The abstract designation has its basis in the fact that classes or categories of personal beings are expressed, just as, e.g., iôuirU
is
said of
human
authorities,
which consist
of jêrsons.
80
with such solemnity.

possible
Even
purpose of guarding against
infection
on the part of such a Gnosis (Schnecken-
is at least not expressed or more specially may, however, have still been partially present to the mind of the apostle from the sphere of thought of the Comp. Introd. previously composed Epistle to the Colossians.
burger, Olshausen)
;
indicated
it
nravro^ 6v6fiaTo<; /c.r.A,.] and, i.e. and generally (see ad Matlh. pp. 786, 870), above every name, loliieh Let any name be uttered, whatever it is, Christ is is named. above it, is more exalted than that which the name so uttered affirms. Comp. Phil. ii. 9. That vo/.ia is here dignitatis potentiaeve nomen (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others), as Strabo, vi. p. 245 {iv ovofxaTi elvat), and Horn. Od. xxiv. 93 .Jacobs, ad Antliol. the like (see Wolf, ad Dem. Lcpt. p. 346
4.
KOI
Fritzsche,
IX.
p.
226),
this
is
not to be supposed on account of ovo/Jiaô/xivov,

the
since
makes
one
simple
Plato,
literal
Sojjh.
meaning 7iame the

p.
262 B); and, if and Elickert) have Morus and Harless (comp, also Michaelis supplied the notion underlying the preceding abstract nouns " above every name, namely, of such character," they have
only
possible
(comp.
done so
tion,
arbitrarily, as iravro'^ stands

:
without restrictive addi-
irav ovo/jia is quite general
any name whatever

is
from
the heavenly powers, above which Christ

of the
placed, the glance
apostle
stretches
to
every
(created)
thing genercdly,
which may anyhow be named.

ov
fjLovov
;
Comp.
irdvTa, ver.
k.t.X.
22.
/c.T.X]
cannot
belong to
iKuOcaev
(Morus,
comp, already Beza and Zanchius), since eKuiaev is which has taken place in the alcov avro^, but it belongs to ovofxaô^. which is named in the present world-period, before the Parousia, and in the future one, after the Parousia. As to alcov o5to? and aloov fieXkcov, see on Matt. xii. 32. ' Natural and supernatural order of the world " (Schenkel), and similar conceptions, are not to be substituted for the
Koppe
an
act,
historical idea.
Ver.
22.
While Paul has before been
setting forth
the
sitb-
exaltation of Christ over all things, he
now
expresses the
jection therewith accomplished oj all things
under Christ
koX
iruvTa
avTov, with which consequently the same thing

the highest KvpLOTrj'i (Phil.
ii.
installation into
10
f.)
the
is
ex-
CHAP.
I.
22.
81
pressed, only from another point of view (from below, from
the standpoint of the object subjected
previously from above,
from the seat of the exalted Lord), in order to present it in a Such a representation is not thoroughly exhaustive manner.
tautological, but
emphatic.
:
Theodoret, with
whom
Harless
Kai rr^v Trpo^rjTtKTjv i7n]'Ya<ye makes the purpose But the words, while doubtless a reminiscence of fiaprvplav. Ps. viii. 7 (6), in such wise that Paul makes the expression of the Psalm his own, are not a citation, since he does not in the least indicate this, as he has done at 1 Cor. xv. 27 Certainly, however, he recogby the following orav he etirrj. nised that, which is said in Ps. viii. of man as such, as
agrees,
receiving
its
antitypical fulfilment in the exalted Christ (see
on 1 Cor. I.e., comp, also Heb. ii. 8), and thereby it was the more natural for him, when speaking here of the dominion of Christ, to appropriate the words of the Psalm. irdvra has the emphasis, like irda-iri and iravr'i before. All all that
If
is
created
God
has
that
subjected
resists
to
Christ.
Paul
had
is
meant simply
no mention
all
Christ
(Grotius, Eosenmiiller,
so,
Holzhausen, Olshausen), he must have said

of subjecting
since
thê
what
is
hostile either before or in the
eighth Psalm.
kol avrov
all.
k.t.X.~\
and Him, the One thus

;
exalted and ruling over
Him
even
emphasis of the avrov prefixed.

in
Him
!
:
"
He gave, etc. observe the What dignity of the church

tiOtj/ml
eScoKe]
is
usually taken in the sense of
(Harless
and
installed
Him
as
Head over
all
things for the

;
church ;" comp. Hofmann,

as arbitrarily as at
it
Schriftbeiu. II. 2, p.
117)
but here
iv.
. .
11.
.
Grotius and Ptckert rightly take

If Paul
as
rfi
He
gave
Him
to the chaixh.
had conceived
Ke<f}.
of
IkkX. not as dependent on eScoKe, but as attached to
virep irdvra, it
would be
rrj^
difficult to
see
why
Col.
he should not
i.
have written
jrdvra']
^
eKK\r]aia<i}
Comp.
18.
virep
exalted above all things, is neither transposed (Peshito,

that,
if tlaxi
xtipccX.
Hofmann no doubt thinks
ixxXntrla
were to be taken
?
together, Paul -would not have inserted

,
Ivif âvra.
But why not
The
very position assigned to xi(p. v-jr. -r. as placed apart from arov, is in keeping with the importance of this definition of quality, which at the same time, so placed, brings together with striking emphasis ivip viMTa and t UxX. Christ has He
given as
for it
Head over
all things to the church.
So high and august
is
His esteem
Meyeu Eph.
Jf
: :
82
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESxANS.
"
Chrysostom, Theopliylact, Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) ipsum super omnia (sc, positum) dedit ecclesiae ut caput
ejus," Grot.
;
nor does
it
signify es-pccially
it
;
{iirl irao-iv, vi.
16),
as
Boyd and Baumgarten would have
nor
is it,
in its true
connection with Keâk., to be taken as
summum
caput (Beza,
Morus, Koppe, Eckert, Holzhausen, Meier, Olshausen, Bleek, comp. Matthies) by which, according to Koppe and Olshausen, it is meant to be indicated that Christ is higher than the
;
apostles, bishops, etc.
In opposition
to this interpretation, it
may
be decisively urged that only One

of,
Head
to the
church can
at all be thought
and that iravja here
calls for the
planation as above in the case of iravra uTrera^.
same exHence rather

position,
and
Him He gave
as
Head
over all things (to
which
as just shown.
He had
exalted
as a whole).
Since He, as
it is
Him) to the church (Christians Head over all things, was given to
the church,
obvious that
He was
;
to belong to her in a very

it is,
special sense as her
own Head
hence
in accordance with
a well-known hreviloquentia (Matthiae, p.

p.
1533; Khner,
II.
602), unnecessary to supply Ke(j)aXi]v again before rfj Ver. 23 gives information (^Tt9, nt quae, denotes the
;
e/c/cA,.
attri-
bute as belonging to the nature of the eKKXtjala

11. p.
see
Khner,
497) as
to the relation in to
it.
this
Head given
It
is
the hod^/ of the
which the church stands to to Head.
acofia avrov] namely, in the mystical
sense, according to the
life, which unites the mass of believers with Christ, their Euler, into an integrant and organic unity, wherein each single individual Comp. ii. 16, iv. 4, is a member of Christ in Christ's body. Eom. xii. 5 ii. 19, iii. 15 12, 16, V. 23, 30 Col i. 18, 24,
essential
fellowship of spirit and of
collective
1 Cor.
vi.
15, x. 17,
xii.
13, 27.
to
irXrjpwixa tov to, irdvTa
iv Traat
TrkTjpovfj,.]
a significant explanatory parallel to
to
crw/xa avTou,
which more precisely characterizes the relation
of the church to Christ, in so far as the latter, as

all,
Head over
and that in non-figurative language. The church, namely, is the Christ-filled, i.e. that which is filled by Him,^ in so far, namely, as Christ, by the Holy Spirit, dwells
is
also
its
Head
1 Not, as Eisner {Ohss. p. 204) would take it that, hy which Christ is filled, against which there would be doubtless no linguistic objection (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469 f.), but it may be urged that the church is not to be thought
:
CHAP.
I.
23.
83
and rules in the Christians, penetrates the whole Christian mass with His gifts and life-powers, and produces all Christian life John xv. 5 Eph. iii. 17 2 Cor. iii. 17 (Rom. viii. 9, 10 His presence and activity, through the medium Col. i. 27).
; ;
;
of the Spirit,
fills
the collective Christian body.
And
Christ,
by whom the Christian church is filled, is the same tvlio filleth the all {i.e. the rerum universitas, whose Head He is, for by Him was the world ver. 22) ivith all (omnibus rebus) created, and by Him, as the immanent ground of life (Heb. i. 3), Col. i. 16 ff. is it maintained and governed (1 Cor. viii. G Usteri, Lehrlegr. p. 315 ff.) hence this interpretation of ev
;
;
irao-L
yields
no intolerable sense (Schenkel), but

is
is
entirely
is
Pauline.
Accordingly, by the fact that the church

the
named
of the
the TrXT^pwyua of Christ, the idea that Christ

clmrch, of His body, receives elucidation
teristic
;
Head
and by the characiraat

irXrjpovî.,
is
designation
tov
-
to,
irdvra
ev
is
elucidated the conception, that

of the church, ver. 22.
He
as
Head
is
over all
Head
rb TrXijpcofia
here (comp, generally
Thus, as is well 10) known, not only are ships' cargoes or crews (Dem. 565, 1), but also the ships themselves so far as they are freighted or
ver.
on
equivalent to to nreifk'qpwpLevov.
manned
it
called
irXrjpcfiaTa (Lucian, V. If.

et
ii.
37, 38); thus
is
said
in Philo, de praem.
poen. p. 920, of the soul
yevofjievT)
Be irXrjpcofia aperoov
is
thus
among
the Gnostics the

in opposi-
supersensible world
called to
nXijpto/jLa, the filled,
tion to TO Kevwjxa, the empty, the world

Gnosis, pp.
of the senses (Baur,
See also Fritzsche, ad Bom. II. 157, 462 ff.). 470. v iraai is not: everywhere (Baumgarten-Crusius), all modes of manifestation (de Wette, Bleek), in all points
p.
(Harless), or the like

oil ;
2.
but instrumental^ as at v. 18 with and TrXrjpov/xevov is middle, as in Xen. Hell. v. 4. 5Q, vi. 14; Dem. p. 1208, 14; 1221, 12, in connection with
;
:
of as dwelling in Christ, but Christ as dwelling in the church (1 Cor. 2 Cor. vi. 12
;
iii.
Eph.
ii.
22),
and that the following paraphrastic designation

:
of
Christ would not be in keeping with that conception.

^ Comp. Plut. de plac. phil. i. 7. 9 i-rX^puTo U fia.xa.pirtiTi. Paul himself has employed -rXripouv with such varied construction (with the dative, Eom. i. 29 with the genitive, Rom. xv. 14 with the accusative, Col. i. 9), that even thei combination with Iv cannot surprise us, a combination which he has also in
;
;
Phil. iv. 19.
84

:
which the medial sense is not to be overlooked qui dhiimplet; for Christ is Lord and final aim (ver. 22 Col. i. 16; Heb. ii. Comp. Barnabas, Ep. 12 e;\;et9 koX iv rovra 10) of all. rrjv Boâv Tov Îrjcrov, on iv avrS iravra koL et? avTov. The vMquity of the hodij of Christ, which our text was formerlyemployed to defend (see especially Calovins), and even now is once more adduced to prove (Philippi, Bogm. IV. 1, p. 434),
; :
is
the less to be found here, seeing that the ev iracn, to be
taken instrumentally, makes us think only of the all-penetrating

is
The continuity of this activity which Hofmann, II. 1, p. 539, finds a gradual development, and that of the restoration of the world of which last there is here no mention at all, but, on the contrary, of the upholding and governing of the world, as Col. i. 17; Heb. Comp. Hermas, Past. sim. 3.
continuous activity of Christ.
implied in the present
ifkrjpovfi., in
;
i.
iii.
9.
14.
As
and
regards the explanations that differ from ours,
we may remark
TrXijpafxa
(1)
Many, who have

wrongly
rightly apprehended to
ifKr^povfievov,
restrict
ra iravra iv
Tracrt
to the spiritual operations in the Christians, either, as Grotius

"
Christus in omnibus, credentibus sc, implet omnia,
mentem
luce,
voluntatem
)(apicTfjiaTa
piis
affectibus,
corpus
ipsum
or,
obsequendi
(comp.
facilitate,
ad quae dona perpetua accedebant primis temporibus

ilia
etiam
Trvev/xariKa, etc.,"
as Flatt
Zachariae and Morus): "

nations,
who
fills
all
without distinction of
?],
Jews and
Gentiles, everywhere, or always [iv iraai

is
with good."
limitation,
In this view the fact
overlooked that
to.
irdvTa,
after the preceding Ke4)a\r]v virep irdvTa, admits of
and
that,
if
tov
TrXrjpovfievov
no sort of were designed
how far the church is the nrXrjpcofâ of Christ, this whole addition would be quite as superfluous for the Christian consciousness as it would be indistinctly expressed. We have, on the contrary, in to TrX^jpcofia tov k.t.X. a climax of the representation, which advances from that which the church is in relation to Christ {to TrX-^pcofia avTov) to His relation
only to say
towards
'
the
universe
(hence,
too,
to,
irdvTa
is
prefixed).^
It is
the more mistaken a course, in spite of this advance, yet again to refer
sv Tafft
to the Christians.
:
the tho>ight
aim of
the
members of the Christian community [it "rffi] Creator, undeHying (hi structure of the universe, receives
all
" in
This error has misled Schenkel to put into our passage the Divine
its
accom-
CHAP.
Since avrov and tov tu
r.
23.
85
TrXrjfjovfi.
(2)
tt.
iv
ir.
are significantly
parallel,
and
no change of subject
is
indicated; and since, on the

is
other hand, the thought, that the church
the irkiqpuifia of
:
God, would be inappropriate here, where the idea

head,
is
dwelt on,
CJirt
is its
all
explanations
fall to
the ground which

:
refer rov TrXrjpov/j,. to God, such as that of Theodoret
iKKkrj-
aiav
'irpoari'y6peva&
tov fiev Xpiarov
acofia,
rov Be irarpo^
TrXijpcofxa'
eTrXijpwae
yap avrrjv TravTohairoiv
')(apLcrp,dr(ov k.t.X.,
:
and of Koppe, by whom the sense is alleged to be " the whole wide realm of the All-Euler !" Comp, Eosenmiiller. Homberg, Parerg. p. 289, Wetstein (" Christus est plenitudo, gloria patris omnia in omnibus implentis "), and Meier refer
the
to
all
genitive to God,
but regard to irXrjpwiia as apposition

the
fulness
of
avTov; Meier:
in
all
ii.
;
"Him,
it
Him who
universe"
lilletli
for
in
Christ there
is
dwells
fills
the fulness
of
God
(Jer.
(Col.
xxiii.
9),
and
eVrt
God who
explanation
the
24,
al.).
This
to
is
manifestly
insertion
involved,
makes
Jxi?
awfia
l)e
avrov
to
an
it,
which,
if
nothing further were to

Ke(f)aXr)v
TO,
.
irdvra ev
would be after ehwKe ttj eKKXrja-ia quite aindess and idle, and leaves irat without more precise analysis. The same
added
.
reasons hold also in opposition to Bengel,

TrXripoifia
who
regards to
xii.
:
as accusative absolute (comp,
on Eom.
2
1),
as
epijjhoncma of what was said from ver.
onwards
"
Hoc,
nobis
quod modo
matici dicunt
explanavi,
inquit
apostolus,
repraeseutat
plenitudinem Patris omnia implentis in omnibus, ut niathe:
id
quod
erat
demonstrandum."
of the church,
(3) Since
is
it
is
self-evident that Christ, as

this
Head
not without
apostle's
His body, and since it could not therefore enter the mind, at the solemn close, too, of the section, to bring-
forward the fact that the body belongs to the completeness of

the head,
all
those explanations
fell to
the ground as quite
inappropriate, which take to irXijpcofia as supplevientum (Matt.

ix.
16
Mark
ii.
21),^ in
which case some were consistent

Redeemer floiving
it is
pUshment through
this
'
the life of the exalted
into them. "
But
littl
skill is attributed to the apostle,
when
supposed that he designed to
expie.s.s
thought by means of the words he has written. So also Schwegler in Zeller's Jahrb. 1844, p. 387, where, moreover, the comparison of the union of Christ and the church to marriage (v. 25 ff. ) is brought in q[uite unwarrantably. As man and wife supplement each other to form the totality
86
enough
to take

TrXrjpovfievov likewise in the
sense of com-
pleting, as
Chrysostom, Oeciimenius, Theophylact, Menochius,

otliers
;
Boyd, Estius,^ and

explain
it,
and some inconsistent enough
to
incompatibly with the paronomasia, by implere, and

TrXyjpatfia, as Beza,^
;
thus differently from

"
Calovius, comp. Calvin,

iV.
Balduin, Baumgarten
also
Hahn,
Theol. d.
T. p. 2 1 9
f.
His destination,
to
fill
all in all, is
completely attained only
in the church."
(4)
The necessity
is fatal to
for taking irkrjpwfia in
one
and the same sense

equivalent to
Stolz,
the explanation of irki^poifia as
irXrjOo'i, copia, coehis numerosus (Storr, Morus, Koppe, Eosenmller^), or even full measu7'e (Cameron,
:
of the species (as head and body), so, too, the church (as the body of Christ) is Baur, too held to be the complementum of Christ (as the head of the church). {Paulus, p. 426), takes the union of Christ with the churcli here as marriage
(as a syzj'gy),
and exphains
TO. -TrivT. \v
vXrifuf/.a,
entirely from the Gnostic point of view.

in his view, nothing else
is
By
TO
-prXrip.
' '
Tov
Tcciri TXvfov//..,
affirmed
than that
fills
Christ
is
the
rxftfufji.a.
sense, in so far as it is all
of the aeons) in the highest absolute in an absolute manner (ra vccvra. Iv Tan), which He
{the totality
with Himself as the absolute contents thereof, "
Accordingly,
-yrXripiuftec
is
to
be taken neither simply in an active nor simply in a passive sense, but in such
wise that the two notions pass over the one into the other
;
because, iu fact, that

is filled
which makes
its definite
full is in
tum
that which
its definite
is
made
full,
iv
;
that which
Christ
is
with
contents.
"As
v^npav/nves ra i-dvra
-TTa-ai,
the
Tti^ripufia,,
filling
the
jrdivTa iv -rffi
with
contents
absolute totality filled with

d, drei ersten
its
absolute contents."
and this TrXripuf/.a, itself is the Comp. Baur, d. Christenth.
Jahrh. p. 296, and Neutest. Theol. p. 258. Operations of this which do not exegeticallj'^ educe their results, but import them, are too much dominated by the presupposition of post-apostolic relations not to be safely left to their own fate, to which they have already been consigned. 1 " Qui secundum omnia, s. quoad omnia in omnibus sui corporis membris adimpletur. Nisi enim esseut hie quidem pes ejus, ille vero manus, alius autem non perficeretur Christus secundum rationem capitis," aliud membrum . Estius. He is followed by Bisping, who here finds the basis and germ of the
sort,
. .
doctrine of the treasure of the merits of the saints

^
" Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non inCalodigere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus re vera," Beza.
vius
"Tan to
in pretio Christus
suam habet
ecclesiam,
tam
teuere amat, ut se
qviodammodo imper/ectum et mancum reputet, nisi nobis conjungatur, et nos Comp. Luther's gloss ipsi tanquam corpus capiti uniamur ceu ^Xji/is^ ejus." Calvin, moreover, prefers to limit ra Tavra to the also Apol. Conf. A, p. 145.
;
spiritucdis gubernatio ecdesiae.
Morus: "Quae proinde est societas subditorum ejus et hominum magna hunc (quae subest huic, quae sub hoc rege vivit), qui omnes omnino in hoc eoetu omnibus generibus bonorum accumulare de die in diem solet." Rosenmller: " Coetus numerosus illius, qui omnes (homines) omnibus Ijonis replet," by which God is held to be meant.
.
copia, qua colit
CHAP.
I,
23.
87
Bos).
Further, (5) the passive construction of TrXrjpovfievov

for
(Vulg.) leaves absolutely no tolerable explanation of r itavra

iv Trao-t
;
which reason not only the exposition of Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, Estius, and others (see above, under No. 3), but also the similar one of Jerome ^ and that of Holzhausen,
are to be rejected.
" Christ carries in
(t<z
The last-mentioned discovers the meaning " Himself the fulness of eternal blessings
!),
iravra iv iraat, signifying the eternal
Yet, again, (6)

njâtJ'
seeing that to irXrjpwixa neither in itself nor in accordance
with the context, denotes the Divine Z6â, of which the
was the
falls to
real presence (Buxtorf, Lex.
Talm.
p.
2394
f.),
there
treat
the ground not only the explanation of those

that of Harless
"
who
TO irXrjpwfxa as equivalent in meaning to temple, like Michaelis
and Bretschneider, but

where
[?]
also
the apostle
else-
designates the church with the same word,
by which he
designates the abundance of the glory dwelling in
Christ and God, and issuing from

fulness of Christ, not as though
in
it
Him. It, however, is the were the glory which dwelt

to dwell, as in all
Him, but because He causes His glory

it.
the universe, so also in
It is the glory, not
of one
who
;
without
it
would
;^
starve,
but of
77
Him who
He
is
fills
the universe in
(Isa. vi, 3)
it
all respects
it
irXijprj'i
Traaa
body."
yrj Bîri
avrov
but
is
the glori/ of Christ, because
united with
alone,
as the
head with
its
Lastly, (7) Eiickert also proved

it
:
unsuccessful in his attempt to explain

view,
is
the church, in his

that
designated as the means (to
TfKrjpcDjjia,
whereby
. .
.
^ " Sicut adimpletur imperator, si quotidie ejus augetur exercitus, Dominus noster Jesus Christus in eo, quod sibi eredunt omnia et per
ita et
dies sin-
gulos ad fidem ejus veniunt, ipse adimpletur in omnibus, sic tamen, ut omnia
adimpleantur in omnibus,
sint."
^
i.e.
ut qui in euni eredunt, cunctis virtutibus pleni
According to Harless, h
vra.fi
means
in every
way, and implies that not in

;
one
way
(only) is the sphere of earth full of the glory of Christ

is
the glory of the

i.
Creator
one, that of the Enlightener before the incarnation (John
3) another,
that of the Redeemer another.

earth to be justified
after all the reader
But how
is
the limitation of
ra,
rvra, to the
? And are, then, these three modes of glory adduced, which must have guessed at without any hint, sufficient to exhaust the quite unlimited Iv ^r.tn ? and is the thought of the glory of the Creator and
the Enlightener before the incarnation in keeping with the present participle ? The whole explanation pours into the simple words a series of thoughts and
reservations,
in
presence of which the words remain
a very riddle of the
Sphinx.
88
the irXrjpovv comes about) by which Christ carries out in all

is committed to Him for commeans of His accomplishing the great destination which devolves upon Him, namely, the Against this universal restoration and bringing back to God."
(Traa-i,
masculine) that which

{to,
pletion
iravra), as " the
may
never
be urged both the language

signifies the
itself,
since to itXrjpwîa
means
of accomplishment,
and the context,
which
is
neitlier
speaks of a restoration and bringing back to
God nor
furnishes any limitation of
implied in the divine plan.
We
to,
irdvTa to that which
may add
that
there
cannot be shown here as regards the use of
irX-^pco/xa,
more than previously
as regards the classes of angels,

to
any any direct

later
or indirect polemic preference
Gnosticism.
To the
speculations of Gnosticism, however, the forms of the tran-
scendent doctrines of the apostle could not but be welcome; not
had thought out its material in accordance with such Scriptural forms (TertuU. de praescr. 38), but it poured it into their mould, and, moreover, further developed and amplified the forms which it found ready to hand.
as if Gnosticism
CHAP. IL
89
CHAPTER
Ver.
IL
1. After aiMapriaig, B E F G X, min. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Ann. Viilg. It. Theodoret, Lucif. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pel. have i//iwi/, which Lachm. and Tisch, have rightly received into the text. On account of the redundancy of the pronoun and its absence in ver. 5, the omission of it was easier than its addition from a comparison of Col. ii. 13 (in opposition to Pieiche). Ver. 3. Ti7.va (pli6ii\ Lachm. and Rck, read <p(j6ii r'sxva, following A E r G L, min. Vulg. It. Or. (once), and other Fathers. But considering how closely rsxm ipyi^g go together, the transposition (p-jasi Tixva was SO natural, that in opposition to these K, most min. important witnesses the liecepta, attested by B Or. (thrice) Chrys. Dam. TheophyL Oec, is, with Matth. Scholz, Ver. 11. Harless, Olsh. de Wette, Tisch., to be maintained. B The order cro v/xiTg in Lachm. and Tisch, is justified by D* E N* codd. of It. and Fathers. More feebly attested is the order h/sv. syyg, ver. 13, in Lachm., which weakens the antithesis. Tui /.aipui] sv is wanting in decisive witnesses. Ver. 12. Explanatory addition. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch, and Rck. Ver. 15. sv savTO)] Lachm.: sc u-jtQ. The witnesses are greatly divided. Ver. 17. xa/ But E was easily passed over after Ev. roTc] Lachm. Tisch. Rck. zal iiprivnv roTg, according to decisive testimony. The emphasis of the repetition of e/pj^v. was not duly regarded, and so the apparently redundant word was neglected. For the same reason there was written in ver. 19, instead of the far preponderantly attested aXX' iers, simply aXXd (Elz. Scholz). Ver. 21. Tarn olxod.'] Elz. Scholz, Rck. Reiche read -Traaa oiKod. EFG But the article is wanting in B L N* and many min., also in Clem. Bas. Chrys. (in the commentary) Theodoret, Oec, and was added (A C, Chrys. Theophyl.) because it seemed needed by the sense. See, however, the exegetical remarks.
si^
i]
as indeed of
of
You also, when ye were dead through sins, we Jewish-Christians too were in the same condition sin and liability to the divine wrath, God has by virtue His love made us alive with Christ, raised us and transferred
Contents.
90
US into heaven, in order, in the world-ages to come, to show His

grace towards us in Christ (vv. 1-7).
For out of grace have
ye attained to salvation, not through merit of works (vv. 8-10).

hallowed and unhappy, but
ye were formerly as Gentiles unnow through the death of Christ ye For Christ has are in quite a different position (vv. 1113). through His death established peace between Jews and GenYe, consequently, are no longer aliens, but tiles (vv. 14-18).
Eemember,
therefore, that
fellow-members of the theocracy, members of the household of

God, built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, wherein the corner-stone is Christ, in whom every building is built, and ye too, unto a holy temple (vv. 19-22). Ver. 1. Connection: After Knatchbull and others (mentioned by Wolf, Cur. on
77/ia9 Tov'i
i. i.
19) had attached koI u/ia? to

19, and Bengel to
rjv
ivrjp'y.,
i.
et?
'KL(7TevovTa<i,
20
(both arbitrarily confusing, and the former also mistaken for

the reason that
Jytta?,
ver. 19, already
included the readers).

koI avrov eBcoKe
Lachmann and Harless have

and annexed koX
/C.T.X.,
closed
1.
23 with only a comma,

to
{crwe^woiroirjcre)
vfi<;
So also de Wette, without, however, approvBut in this way we should ing the mere comma after i. 23. have to expect not vfi<;, but r}fx,<; (comp. i. 19 et? ri<; to? 7rcgrevovTa<;), for Paul would attach to what God has done in relation to Christ that, which He has at the same time done in And, inasmuch as he has employed the case of the Christians.
ver. 22.^
:
tlie
pronoun of the second person, he has thereby indicated

beginning of a neio
for
the
portion.
Moreover,
i.
23
is
so
majestic and solemn in import and form, that

suited
it is
admirably
sonorous
parenthetic insertion.
conclusion, but hardly for a mere No, after the apostle has previously
spoken of the exceeding power of God in the case of believers, which may be recognised by virtue of what He has done in the case of Christ, whom He raised, exalted, etc., he wishes
now, in application of
1
this to
the readers, to
bring the latter
Calovius, Cramer, Koppe,

23,
to
i.
namely, to
jrXnpou[/.iyov:
and Rosenmller attached xa) i/tSj immediately " qni sicut omnes alios beneficiis cumulat, sic
is
etiam vos," Kosenmiiller.

correct explanation of
correlati-on of viKpav;
rat/
This, however,
entirely incompatible with the

i.
ra Tavra
iy
-iratt
-rXnpoviîvov,
23,
and with the
and
irvnâor.
CHAP. IL
1.
91
also
to the consciousness that
God has made

sins, to
them (koI
v/u,<;),
Avhen they were dead in their
be
alive, etc.,
with Christ,
The
means
the
and thus has shown
also in their case that exceeding power.

off,
even before the subject and the verb are expressed, by the afflux of the thoughts in the relative clauses which begin ver. 2, but is resumed ver. 4 by
construction is Iroken
of
Be,
so that the subject not yet
named
4
;
in ver. 1 is
ver. 5
at length
named and
characterized in ver.
and in
verb
(avve^cooTroirjae)
what has been had already in ver. 4 passed said in the intervening clauses, over into the first person and thus become universal (^7/^?). As to the details, see below. The resumption accordingly
object, which, however,
comes in with
repetition of the
in accordance with
begins already, in ver. 4, with 6 8e 0eo9 (as even Theophylact

expressly observes)
;
not
first
with
ver. 5, as
1,
Wolf and
others,
including Griesbach, Koppe, ed.
Scholz, Meier, Eckert,
Holzhausen, would have
it,
because otherwise ver. 4 in turn

6
would
be
avve^woir.
ev,
anacoluthic,
and yet
eo?
k. t.
is
the
subject
vfioov]
of
vKpov<; rot?
TrapaTrr.
fiapr.
The
dative denotes the causa efficicns of the death.
The expresrejects
vi.
sion with
Col.
ii.
13,
is
not equivalent.
(not
Estius,
is
Quite at variance
with
the
context,
Cajetanus
who
this|
explanation) holds that the dative
as in
Eom.
11, in
which
case the force of 6vTa<i as a present participle is urged
since ye are
dead for
the sins,
vfiwv also is against this, as wêll
as the plural, since in the being
as principle Toofiara
(Eom.
vi.
11).
dead
for sin the latter appears
real distinction
and afxapriai does not exist,^ same thing (the peccata actiialia in thought, word, and deed) in a twofold form of conception as "missing"
sions denote the
^
between irapairin so far as both expres-
Augustine, ad Lev.
qii.
20,
makes the former denote the
desertio boni, the
latter the perpetratio mali, or the
former to be the sin of rashness, the latter that which is deliberate, which last distinction is adopted also by Tittmann, Synon. p. 47. Jerome makes the former delicta cogitatione inchoata, the latter sins of deed ; comp. Olshausen. vapa-rr. applies to the Jeivs, and Bengel
:
Meier (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) the two words are distinguished as act and state. Matthies the former are mental errors and the obscurations, the latter moral sins and vices. Harless and de Wette former denotes single transgressions, the latter all kinds of sins, including sins
fiapr.
to the Gentiles.
in thought.
92
and
" fall" (see,

generally, Fritzsche,
ad Rom.
rj
I. p.
324); and
tlê
abstract d/jLapTiat<i cannot mean, like
a/xapTia at
Eom.
v.
20,
sin in ahstracto as ruling poivcr, but in virtue of the plural
can only mean the actual sins

V. 20.
{ctfiapTT^fiaTo)
comp, on Eom.
6vTa<i] state,
alive.
made them
which was present

is
at the time,
when God
veKpov'^']
understood by the expositors

Eosenmiiller, substi.notion of wretched, miscraUe)
i.e.
(apart from those who, like
Koppe and
tute for the literal
meaning the
" alienatio
oi spiritual death (comp. v. 14),
of the deadness of true

;
moral
life
through the
Delitzsch, PsyclLol. p.
spiritual
127.
?
animae a Deo," Calvin But by what, we ask,

veKp.
com]).
this
k.
is
sense indicated
Must not
toU
irapairr.
raU afxapr. have reminded the readers quite naturally and necessarily of the connection, well known to them, between unexpiated sins and the eternal death (the eternal condemnation),
a connection, in which
vi.
they once as Gentiles shared

vii.
is
See on Eom.
16, 22
f.,
9-11, 24,
viii.
2, 6.
The
is
;
i
explanation of physical death
inadmissible, because this

sins,
a consequence not of individual

see
but of the sin of
Adam
The expression veKpol is when ye were dead through your sins, i.e. when you proleptic had through your sins drawn upon you death, had become
on Eom.
:
v,
12
1 Cor, xv. 22.
liable to eternal death, so that
in this
way
the eerto morituri
Comp. Eom. vii. 10, viii. 10, and the well-known yfrv^dpiov el aardôv veKpov, Epict. Anton. iv.-41. Without Christ the everlasting death, See also on Col. ii. 12. which they had incurred by their sins, would not be annulled and averted from them but, after that Christ has completed the work of atonement and they liave become believers in Him, eternal life has become the portion of those who were by their sins liable to eternal death, and that by means of the fellowship of life, into which they are brought through faith with the Christ who is made alive from the dead, raised, and exalted to heaven, which is more fully expressed, vv. 5, 6, by awe^cooiroLTjae rw Xpicrw k.t.X. Thus the passage certainly treats of the ato')U7nent accomplished by Christ, to which The moral restorabelievers owe eternal life (see vv. 7, 8). tion (Hofmann) is the consequence of the atonement (ver. 10), The the ethical product of the same through the Spirit.
are designated as veKpoi.
;
CHAP.
II.
2.
9S
ii.
relation,
we may
add, of our pas.sage to Col.
13 and
i.
is not that of a slavish dependence, but that of a fresh
21 and
living
remembrance with new and peculiar amplification. Ver. 2. Shadows before the light which arises in ver. 4.
It is the pre-Christian sphere v ah'] domain, in ivhich, etc. and then follows {Kara k.tX.) the normal standard of life,
which
991.
rules in
it.
ah
has shaped
itself after
the
gender
to
of the last substantive, but embraces both.

J).
Kara
See Matthiae,
rov alwva
i.e.
rov Koafiov rovrovj according
the a(jc of this world,
as
was
in keeping with the period of
time appointed for the present world (subsisting up to the
For immorality is the characteristic of this (Rom. xii. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 12) in contrast to the future new world, in which BiKacoavvTj bears sway, and the nearer the Parousia, the more the alcov is 7rovr}p6<; (see on Gal. i. 4; comp. v. 16, and on vi. 13). ( )thers comp. H. explain alcov as life (so also Harless
Parousia).
world-period
.Stephanus
"
secundum eam, quae
in hoc
et at.)
;
mundo
for
it
est,
vivendi
rationem," ('astalio, Beza, Grotius,
which Riickert
as equivalent
:
who, in a strangely erroneous way, explains

to
Kara rov alwva rovrov rov Koafiov and Mattbies put spirit the time, and Olshausen tcndenn/ of the time ; comp. Bleek. of But, however current aionv in the signification of life may be in classical Greek, especially in Homer, Pindar, Herodotus, aud the tragic poets (see Duncan, ed. liost, p. 47 Blomf. ad Aesch. From. 887; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 50), yet in the N. T., often as the habitually used word recurs, it is never
:
so employed, biit always in the

time, age.
signification
of Jimcture of
which Koppe has recourse (comp. Estius and Flatt), that almv and Kcfiof; are synonymous heuce Ivoppe makes 6 alcov rov Koa/xov rovrov equivalent to o Koa/xoii otTo<? stands on a level with the capricious inversion of Bretschneider, who makes it tantamount to 6 Ka/xa rov aloiva rovrov homines pravi ut nunc sunt. No, Paul might have written briefly Kara rov alwva rovrov (comp. i. 21); but,
The
shift to
in accordance with the graphic amplification of the passage
carrying
such terrible emphasis, he has paraphrased this rovrov by rov Koaixov rovrov. According to Beausobre and
('
Michaelis
the
God
of this world
"),
aloiv
rov
k6<t/j.ov
rovrov
9 4:
is
meant
Baur,
to
denote the devil

(see
in
polemic reference
follows).
is
to
tlie
Gnostic doctrine of aeons

to
p.
what
According
Gnostic one,
433
But
f.,
the expression itself

vi.
equivalent to the KoafxoKpdrcop (comp.
12), and denoting
the devil.
thought.
if
this is
imported, inasmuch as the explanation
of alcov in the sense usual in the N. T. yields quite a Pauline
The devil appears only in what follows, and would, he was to be designated already here, and that as Lord of
as o deoq rov alwvo^ tovtov, or in a like concrete manner.
ap-^ôvTa
tt}?
the pre-Messianic period, have been designated, as at 2 Cor.

iv. 4,
Kara rov
to
iôvaia'i rod dpo<i\ climactic parallel

res
;
the
preceding.
is
" Sic
fit
expressior,"
Bengel.
The
Kara Qeov, iv. 24 2 Cor. vii. 9. Comp. 1 John The f?m^ Paul here repreV. 14: Kara to Oekrjfxa rov Geov. sents as the ndcr over the might of the air, in which iôvcria is collective, denoting the totality of the mighty ones (the Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. demons. Matt. xii. 24) concerned.
opposite
p.
469
Bernhardy,
exists
p.
47.
This iôvaia has
its
seat in the
dipos:)
;
air,
which
between heaven and earth (rov
the
atmosphere, pertaining, in contrast to the higher pure aWijp

(see
Duncan, Lex. Horn.,

seat,
ed. Post, p. 36), still to the

(7?}? la6p,oipo<i
physical
realm of earthly things

is
drjp,
the
the
territory
of
the
might
Soph. 1. 87), of the demons.
This and nothing else Paul expresses in distinct words, the

ivaepio'i
Biarpi^
depo<i
v7rovpdvio<i
(Oecumenius, comp. Theophylact), the rdira (Chrysostom) of the demons; and neither
to
ought Tov
TOV
have been taken
(Clericus,
Heinsius,
Michaelis, Storr, Tlatt, Matthies, and others) as equivalent to

(TKOTovf; (vi.
often does in
12; Col. i. Homer, denote
13), because, though
it
may, as
it
mistT/ gloom, clouds, etc., in contrait
distinction to the pure aldrjp,
never takes the place of the

I. p. it
absolute cr/coro? (comp. Buttmann, Lexilog.
115), and in
to
the N. T. always means simply air
nor ought
d.
explained by a
others).
dkpo<i is
metonymy
as
mundus (Thomas,
N. T.
Bullinger,
p.
have been and

f.,
According to Hahn, Thcol.
328
tov
;
designed to express the aeriform nature of the demons
they are not really spiritual, but only spirit-like ; aeriformness This is already in itself incorrect, is their physical constitution.
since the
demons must
of necessity have the
same physical
CHAP.
II.
2.
95
constitution as the angels

tvial corporeity,
(including also their supra-terres-
comp, on Matt. xxii. 30), and hence, although they have become aKadapra, they have yet remained TTveii/xara, see in this veiy Epistle, vi. 12 (ra 'jrvevariKa rr/? irovrj/3i'a?).
Olshausen would remove the demons from the atmo-
sphere by taking di]p as equivalent to ovpav6<i} appealing to

iv. 17 (where, however, arjp is nothing else than and even giving out this passage as the only one in the N. T. where the word drjp elsewhere occurs (but see Acts Eev. ix. 2, xvi. 17). xxii. 23 As an 1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9 equally exemplary companion - piece of rationalizing artifice
Thess.
air),
may
"
be quoted the interpretation of Stolz, Eiiut.
p.
175
have here to think of the rational beings acting and walking iipon the earth, of men, who as sensuous creatures breathe in the air, in the atmosphere surrounding the earth." Hofmann, who elsewhere took d^p erroneously as equivalent
to TTvevfia,
We
would now
irveufMaro^
(Schrifth.
I. p.
457) not
less erroneously
make rov
latter
dependent upon tov dipo^, and by the
that TTveifia.
the atmosphere formed hy the breathing of So long as they [the disobedient] allow this spirit to be their spirit, they live in the atmosphere thereof, and as it were inhale it an atmosphere, which is the sphere of dominion [the eôvaia] of Satan." But apart from the clumsy and obscure accumulation of three genitives (at 2 Cor. iv. 4, 7, they flow easily and clearly one out of the other), there may be urged against this view generally the strange awkwardness of the thought (" the air of the spirit which worketh in the disobedient is the atmosphere formed by the breathing of the same spirit "), and more specially the considerations, first, that
understand
"
iôvala does not
mean
s])here of
dominion
secondly, that
He
characterizing the
holds that Paul has perhaps employed the expression for the purpose of demons as not indeed earthly, but yet also as not heavenly.
He
making
feel
has employed the expression, just because he conceived of the demons as their abode in the atmosphere. And he does not choose a higher exj^res-
vi. 12) for this sphere, because he wishes here to make the reader the lower domain of the power as opposed to the heavenly domain, and thus also the ignominious character of the same ; hence the expression is neither accidental nor strange (in opposition to Hofmann).
sion (as in
Not even
in
Luke
oi jurisdiction.
xxiii. 7, where it expresses the idea of governing authority, So often in Plutarch, Diodoius, etc.
96
there
is

nothing to indicate that the
di]p originated
through the
hreathing (or blowing) of the spirit (we should at least expect
the essential irveovro'i instead of evepyovvTo<})

if kôvcria
is
thirdly, that,
to denote the sphere of dominion, t?}? eôvaiaf
would be only an ambiguous pleonasm, and we cannot see why Paul should not have written merely top ap')(ovTa rov depo'i K.T.X. As regards the historic hads of the conception of the apostle, that the demons have their abode in the air, he has carried it over from his pre-Christian, Jewish-Rahbinic circle of
ideas into the contents of his Christian helief
It is true that
there are found
among
the Eabbins very diverse, confused, and
at times very monstrous assertions
concerning the dwelling-
place of the
Jiulcnth. II, p.
demons
(see, especially,
Eisenmenger, Entdeckt.
437
ff.),
but Harless (followed by Olshausen)

:
seeks in
" in such sloughs as these one vain for the explanation of the apostle^s expression!' For while there are found diverse opinions in the Eabbins, and
far too hastily thence concludes
among them
also that
which assigns
he
to the
a territory, the expression of the apostle shows us

different liabbinic conceptions
lias not
e.g.,
demons the which
air as
of the
is
followed, and v)hich

the doctrine
accepted by him.
Bechai, in Pcntat.
f.
Thus
doubtless,
which
90, 1, presents as a ivell-hnown one, that
only those demons which produce dreams dwell in the

those which seduce
t)thers in
man
to sin in the
man
himself,
air, but and yet
is not the view of the apostle. which Paul here announces as his own and presupposes in his readers, namely, that the demoniac kingdom in general, and not merely a single division of it, is in
the depths of the sea,
But
the belief,
the
air, is
to
be found very definitely preserved among the
Rabbins
also.
nature of the demons

Bartolocc.
I.
Por (1) the very Rabbinical tenet of the winged (Talmud, Chagig. 2 R. Eliezer in
;
manifestly points to the region of the air as their abode, since they are shut out from the communion
p.
ff.,
320
aZ.)
of God.
(2)
In particular passages this

lihr.
is
expressly stated.
Comment, in
Ahoth.
f.
83, 2
"
Sciendum, a terra usque

praefectis, et infra
ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et

et accusantes, et
ther, it is said
(that is precisely in the drjp) plurimas esse creaturas laedentes
omnes
stare ac volitare in aere," etc.
Fur-
in
Tuf
haarcz, f 9, 2, that under the sphere
ciiAr.
II.
2.
97
all, is
of the moon,
. .
.
\vliicli is
the last under

Further, E.
a firmament (ypi)
and there are the

II.
p.
souls of the devils, etc.
See Eisen-
f. 411. explaining how it comes about that the 139, 4, where he is demons know what is future " because they dwell in the air (T-lxa), they learn future things from the princes of the
menger,
Bechai says, in Pentat.
planets."
The same E. Bechai, in Pentat. f. 18, 1, relates, as Noah had in his ark, according to vi. 19, preserved devils also, and says in confirmation of Gen. this exposition for it would have been impossible for them to remain in their own place, which is the air ("Tiisn ^\r\rw DDipon). Comp. Nishmaih chasim, f. 115, 2. The assertion, too, of
a Eabbinical tradition, that
:
E.
Menasseh, in Eisenmenger,
of the incense
II. p.
456
f.,
that
the rising
smoke
food,
which was
{Call),
offered to the devils

;
was
their
points
"
to
the air as their dwelling-place
as,
indeed,
according to the Cabbala
denud.
I. p.
^
dwell
below the upper

is clear
sanctuary."
417), the demons Thus much, conse" muddy sloughs''
quently,
and
irans'parent
enough in the
of Eabbinical tradition, that the kingdom of the demons was
located in the air
and with
this
we
find the apostle in agree-
ment.
Hence we have no
right to
deny that he has retained
from the sphere of his Eabbinical training, it would be quite unwarrantable to attribute to him tlie singularities associated with this tenet by the Eabbins, since, in fact, he asserts notliing more than that the devilish powers are in the air. This is a simple historical
this conception
but at the same time
statement, in which,
we may
add,
it is
quite arbitrary to dis-
cern a "profound hint," namely, of their dismal and spectral
nature (in opposition to Schenkel).
The
right explanation is
given also by Schmid, BiU. Thcol.

the Pythagoreans, too,
Laert.
viii.
Among 86, and Bleek. we meet with an analogous view (Diog.

/xh'
32
Kara tov
IIu6dyopai> elval re Trdvra rov

haifj.ovd<; re
aepa
'^v)(Oiv e/xirXeov, kgX
tovtov^
Kol ripwa<i vofii-
t,e<j6ai,
'
and compare the other passages

this Eabbinical
tou BsX/a;,
:
in Wetstein,
:
and
With
uif'iou
Tytiifiecri!;
view agrees also Test. XII. Pair. p. 729 h-Ttl to where aifiov means to he found in the air. See Plat.
aifiov Ti yivss.
J^pin. p.
948
laifiavas,
Comp.
Test.
XII. Patr.
it
p.
ftil.
If
we take
(Arist.
s^/aj
in snch passages as aeriform (Hahn),

;
we confound
with
xifivoi
:
de Anim. iii. 13 Metaph. ix. 7). Comp, rather, Ascens. ha. 10 " descendit in firmamentnm, ubi princeps hujus mundi habitabat."
Meyer Eph.
98
Eisner, p.
is
127); but quite unfounded ita loquitur ex principiis philosophiae Pytliagoreae, quibus illi, ad quos scribit, imbuti Paul presupposes in his readers an acquaintance with erant." his expression as the expression of Ms doctrine, and speaks so emphatically and solemnly that any sort of accommodation is rov Trrev/âTo?] is still dependent on not to be thought of. Tov apôvra, so that the power over which the devil rules, after being designated as regards its outward existence by the phrase iôvaia^; tov aepa, is now designated as regards its active operation in men's hearts, namely, as the spirit which is at work in This irvevfia, of which Satan is the ruler, is the disobedient.
206; Dougt. Anal.
p.
the assertion of Wetstein
" P.
not, however, to
be thought of as being the
human mind,
would not suit as apposition to the T?79 iôvaLa<i rov dpo<i which is different from the human individuality, as, indeed, rov evepy. k.t.X. points to an agent different from the human individual but rather as the principle proceeding from its ap'^cov, the devil, and passing over into men to become operative in their hearts the antithesis of the Comp, on 1 Cor. ii. 12. Holy S'pirit vjhieh proceeds from God.
since, thus understood, it
;
This TTvev/ia
TTvevfia
T?7<?
is,
in contrast to to irveviia rrj^ akr}deia<;, the
TrXavrj^, 1
is it "
John
iv.
6.
It is not,
however, " odd
"
(de Wette), nor
unnatural
" (Bleek), to
speak
of a " ruler
of this spirit;" but this is quite analogous to the conception, according to which Christ is spoken of as " Lord of the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor. iii. 18). have further not to understand
We
rov
the
TrvevfjLaro';
collectively
;
(Vatablus,
Grotius,
Estius,
is,
Wolf,
indeed,
spirit,
Micliaelis,
Holzhausen)
for the iôvcria rov epo<i
sum
total of the plurality of the
demons, but the
which is brought by its ruler, the devil, into the hearts of men and operates within them, is in all viol ri]<t aTreiO. one and the self-same spirit, just as the Holy Spirit is in all Others regard rov individuals who believe one and the same.
rrvevpâro'i
as apposition to rov a.p'^. r. iôvcr. r. aep., in that they either assume the use of an abnormal case occasioned
by a deviation from the construction

as Piscator, Calovius, Semler,
(genitive for accusative),
Koppe, Eosenmiiller, Eiickert, de Wette, Bleek, or look upon the genitive as one of apposition to rov apôvra, as Flatt. But how purely arbitrary is the former
!
CHAP.
II.
-2.
99
rov apôvra in accorddemands a defining genitive, and already has it in t^9 iôva. r. dip., and consequently rod vvv\ is TTvevfiaro'i cannot be taken in any other relation emphatic, not, however, as Meier supposes (comp. Zanchius): " even now, when it is so powerfully counteracted by the gospel," which must have been expressed by koX vvv (as Ignat. ad Smyrn. interp. 7) but vvv stands opposed to the preceding irore, when the diabolic irvevfia was active in all, even in the readers. Comp. ver. 3. Kckert (comp. Bengel and
latter, since
and how impossible the

its
ance with
significance
Holzhausen) thinks of the extraordinary, especially dangerous
power which
that
tlie
Satanic kingdom developed just at the time

ii.
of the redemption (2 Thess.
ff.)
so also de Wette.
ivepy.,
could not be understood

or the like.
from the simple
But and
be
would have required the addition of a

\6vT)<i,
TrepLaa-oTepco^,
virepaXis
According to Olshausen, vvv
to
held as opposed to the future age, and to

activity
make
the diabolic the

it
activity appear as limited, in contrast to the everlasting, divine
of the
is
Holy
all
Spirit.
But a contrast
;
to
alwv
fiiWcov
not at
implied in the context
indeed,
was
entirely self-evident that the Satanic activity extends only to
the time before the Parousia;
how then
could
it
occur to a
reader to find in the vvv a negation of the alcbv

iv
roi<;
niWwv
The expression viol T. aTreiO. is Hebraizing (for among Greek writers are found only such expressions as via Â-âiMV, 7ratSe9 ^(oyp(f)(i)v, and
vioU
rrjif
uTretO.]
in their souls.
the like, but not with abstract nouns

Fers.
see Blomfield, Gloss.
408, p. 138; Stallb. ad Flat. Fhil. p. 107), and denotes the dependence which has its basis in the relation of the person or thing concerned to the genitive-noun, here the
(jenesis
(comp.
p.
i.
Eom,
of the spiritual condition, so that rol'^ ef aireiOetaî ii. 8) would signify the same thing. Comp. Winer,
213
14.
[E. T, 298].
The opposite
however,
is
is
reKva
viraKorj^;,
Pet.
By
utreiOeia,
not meant unbelief (Luther,

;
Bengel, Koppe, Harless, and others)

logically included
for tliis could only be under the notion of disobedience as refused of belief, consequently as opposite to the viraKorj iriarcw'i (Eom. i. 5; Heb. iv. 6, 11 and see Pritzsche on Eom. xi. 30). And with tlcat sense in the present case the following iv ah
;
100
Koi 7]êh Tr'az/re? would be at variance, since not all JewisliChristians had, like Paul, resisted the faith.
Now,
as
Paul
is
speaking only of the immorality of the unbelievers (vv. 1, 3), arnreldeia is here the want of compliance towards God (Eom.
xi.
30),
i.e.
towards His revealed and natural- law respecii.
tively
(Kom.
3.
ff.),
displaying itself through their immoral
conduct.
Ver.
After the apostle has just depicted the pre-Christian
corruption of the readers,

ful corruptness of all
who were
Gentile-Christians, the sin-
this basis for his enthusiastic certainty
of the universality of the redemption (Ptom.

iii.
19, 23,
at the
lie
Gal. ii. 15, 16, 22, xi. 32 same time with such vividness before
;
iii.
al.)
i.
18
ii.
24,
presents itself
his
mind, that
now
also includes with the others the tohole hod// of the
Jewish-Christians (kuI
rjfxei'i irdvre'i) in the same state of corand aceordingly, on the resumption of the argument at ruption, ver. 4, he cannot again employ the second person introducdd Inasmuch as Kal in ver. 1, but must change this into r]â<^. ioe also, must necessarily denote the class falling to he rjfiel^, added to u/â?, ver. 1, we cannot understand by it the Christians generally (Estius, Koppe, and others) but, since the vfieh are Gentile-Christians, we must take it to mean the Jewish^ The general moral description which follows is Christians. not opposed to this view (as de Wette objects), since it was
;
the very object of
tlie
apostle to delineate the essential equality
in the moral condition of both.^
Comp. Ptom.
:
i.
2,
3.
De
Wette explains
already a
it
quite arbitrarily
"
we
considerahle time
Tol<i
Christians."
also,
%cho have been
iv
oW]
is
not to
be referred to
that reference
irapaTTTcofian, ver.
(Peshito,
Jerome,
Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Baumgarten, Koppe, Eosenmller), for

is
not to be supported by Col.
iii.
7, but,
on
the contrary,
ver, 1,
is
and
is,
impossible with the reading v/xmu after dfiapr., moreover, to be rejected, because Paul has not
again written iv ah, and because the reference to the nearest subject is altogether suitable ; for the Jewish-Christians also
all
walked once among
the disobedient,
as
belonging to the
ethical category of the same,

'
inasmuch
as they likewise before
In doing which Paul could,

Pliil. iii. 6,
least of all, venture to except himself, although,
according to
the justitia externa had not been wanting to him.
; ;
CHAP.
II.
3.
101
immoral walk disobedient
9
ff.).
their conversion were througli tlieir
towards God (Eom,

T/}? (TapKo<^
77/i.]
.
ii.
17
ff.,
25,
iii.
iv ratf
iTTiOufx,.
more precise
.
definition to
said
eV
oh
Xen.
5),
dvea-rpdcfirjixev
domain
comp.
ix.
of the pre-Christian state

Af/es.
ix.
what has just been irore, denoting the immoral 2 Pet. ii. 18 (2 Cor. i. 12
;
4;
this
Plat.
Legg.
ix.
p.
865 E; Polyb.
whose im7
Gal. v.
21.
in
which
walk took
place, namely, in the
desires
of our
corporeo-psychical
human
vii.
nature,
pulses, adverse to
God, had not yet experienced the overcom-
ing influence of the
Holy
Spirit (Piom.
14
ff, viii.
and hence rendered ineffectual the moral volition directed towards the divine law (Rom. vii. 1720).
17
Rom.
viii. 2, al),
The opposite
fi7]
is
Trveuiiart irepLiraTeiv
v.
{koX iTnOuiMMV aapKo<;

viii,
reXelv),
Gal.
16; comp. Rom.
13.
7rotovvTe<;
k.tX.] so that
ivc, etc.,
now
specifies the ivay

iroiovvre';
and manner
of this
walk, wherein the prefixed

it
has the emphasis, in that
predicates
what they
did, as afterwards rjêv,

xiii.
The
6e\y]piara (comp,
i.
on the plural, Acts
what they were. 22 Jer. xxiii. 26

;
2 Mace.
Oufiiat,
3) are here in reality not different from the eVi-
which, however, are conceived of as
will, that
activities of the take place on the part of the adp^ and the Buivoiat
(both conceived of under a personified aspect as the power

ruling the
rgo
of the unconverted man).

t?}? <7apfc6<i
is
As
regards
rv
BiavoiMv, which stands related to
as the special to
the general, the bad connotation

as Harless conjectures
not implied in the plural,
(who finds therein " fluctuating, changing opinions "), but in the context, which makes us think of the nnlioly thoughts,^ whose volitions were directed to evil, in. the Comp. Num. xv. 39 fivrjaOrjcreade state of disobedience.
:
iTacrwv Tcbv ivTo\o)v Kupi'ov KoX iTOLrjaeTe avrd^' koI ov Siaarpa<p7](Tecrde

Isa.
Iv.
oTriaco
70)v
hiavoiMV v/mmv
also Jer.
xxiii.
26;
(ra Scavorj/xara), where likewise

lies
the
prejudicial
connotation
Kol
rjfxev
not in the plural, but in the connection.

(f)vaet
TeKva
opY?}?]
Instead of continuing the con-
struction in uniformity with iroiovvreî
by koI
6vr<i,
the apostle
passes over, as at
'
i.
20
(see
on that passage), emphatically into
itself,
I.
That these were selfish, is in itself correct, but is not implied in the word and is not expressed by Paul (in opposition to Hofmann, Schrifthew,
p. 563).
102
the oratio finita, depicting, after the immoral
the unhafinj condition in which withal
mode we found
of action,
ourselves.
noticed,
on this account rjêv is 'prefixed has been left unand hence koX rjixev has been either tacitly (so usually) or expressly (as by Fritzsche, Conjcct. p. 45, who takes ev ral'i eTTiOvfJi. tt]^ aapKo^ rjfjbSiv iroiovvTe<i k.t.X. together Harless avearp. as one clause) connected with iv oh regards the words as only a supplemental and more exact
The
fact that
definition
and modification
;
of
the
thought
expressed
im-
mediately before
is
but in that case an isolation of the words
needlessly assumed, and likewise the correlation of the pre-
fixed verbs 'rroiovvre^
and
rjfiev is
overlooked.
2), that
reKva
6pyi]<{
are children of vjrath (comp, on ver,
is,
however, not
merely
those ivorthy of loraih
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, OecuCalvin, Grotius,
menius, Theophylact, Castalio,
and
others),
which
relation of
dependence
is
not in keeping with the conshows, ver.

v.
1, subject to
;
text, but, as veKpov<i roi^ irapain.
wrath,
irae ohnoxii, standing
under wrath (comp.
Matt,
xxiii.
15
John
So most expositors rightly take it. To whose wrath they were subject, Paul does not indicate (for he does not write T^? opyP]<;, comp. Kom. xii. 19), but (comp. Eom. iv. 15)
xvii. 12).
he leaves it to the reader to say for himself that it is God's wrath he has to think of (see ver. 4). As to the trath of God, which here, too, is not to be understood merely of that of the future judgment (Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 17), the holy emotion of absolute displeasure at evil, which is necessarily posited by absolute love to the good, and is thus the necessary principle of temporal and eternal punishment on the part of God (not ^vaei] dative the punishment itself), comp, on Eom. i. 18. Kara (pvaiv), may either attach of the more precise mode ( itself merely to reKva (not to ^/jev), so that the idea expressed natare-children, TKva (pvcrtKa 6pyr]<i (see on such datives is Heind. ad joined on to nouns, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 688
Cratyl. p.
131); or
6py7]<i,
;
it
may more
:
precisely define the whole,

-
notion reKva
6p<yr)<i
thus
2vrath
children hy nature, TeKva

t.
(f)vaiKd
so that the reKva opy., like viol
aTreideia^,
ver. 2,
forms a single idea.

is
The
latter is the correct view, be-
cause TCKva
used figuratively and receives the real contents
of the conception only
by means
of
opyij'i,
for
which reason
it
CHAP.
II.
3.
103
The notion
from the
is
not to be thought of as separated therefrom.^

(f)vaei
of
must obtain
ii.
its
more precise
it
i.
definition solely
context, as to whether, namely,

(as in
betokens an innate relation
^y.
GaL 1280
15
C.
.
Xen. Mem.
4.
14
1297
. .
Isoc. Evarj.
'ttoX.lttjv
16
Dem. 1411 ult. Soph, tw fiev yap rjv (pvaei

; :
7raTpi<i,
Tov Be
voo)
iireTroLTjvTo
specially
7),
structive are Plat. Prot. p.

it is
323 C D, Dem. 774,

innata (Wisd.
in-
whether
consequently equivalent to yeveaei, and the sonship of

is
iJ,<f>uTO'i,
wrath
xiii.
qualitas
xii.
and thereon Grimm, Handh. p. 233), or, on the other hand, a relation hrought about by development of a native
1,
10, comp,
indoles,
one that has
heeî i^^ôdiiccd
hy virtue of natural endov:-
14; Xen. 3Iem. i. 2. 14, Ael. V. H. ii. 13. 3, xxii. 9. 1 see also Wetstein in loc, and Loesner, p. 340 f.). In the latter sense David is said by Josephus, Antt. vii. 7. 1, to have been cpva-ec Sikuw; koI 6oaerjc\oycopy6TaTO'i, Plut. Artax. 6
(as
ii.
ment
Eom.
;
14;
Cor. xi.
iv.
1.
3;
Plat.
Legg. vi.
p.
777 D;
6vfxo<i
ovcra, Arist. Polit.
i.
1.
v6pco7ro<;
^vaet iroXtriKov
rj/xev
^(oov,
(f)ua-ec 6pyrj<i
and many others. would have

reKva
According to this view,

to be paraphrased
reKva
c})vaet
by
rjfiev,
ry
XPW"-H-^ôL,
opyrj'i.
Prom
early
times
(see,
already,
Augustine, Retract,
i. 10. 15; de verb. ajp. 14) the word in our passage has been employed in defence of original sin as
nans), as
an inborn condition of culpability {inborn peccatum vere damindeed even Kckert, Harless, Olshausen, Usteri,'^
^ According to this view, there is here in the position of the words a severance (Khner, II. p. 627) whereby the genitive is separated from its governing word (Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 332 [E. T. 387]). This hyperbaton has for its oliject the reserving of the whole emphasis for the closing word Ipy'^s, and letting it fall thereon. Comp. Philem. fragm. p. 354, ed. Cleric: roxxv (puiru mTs xiri*
Usteri, Lehrhegr.
p.
30,
we may add,
suspects the genuineness of

see above.
(ptru,
partly on account of its alleged singular position, partly on account of the
various readings.
But
as regards the position,

all,
And
of various
readings there are none at

ings,
since different translations are not various read-
No doubt Clem. Alex, ad Gent. {0pp. where the passage is cited without (puau. But in Clem. I.e. (comp. p. 560) we have no citation, but merely a free use of the passage, from which the existence of variations cannot be made good. Clement, we may add, singularly explains Tsva i^yn; by Tfitfofuvx ofyii, ifyr,; ^pi/ifixrei.
ivru
is
omitted only in 109, Aeth.
ed. Pott, p. 23) is also adduced,
10-
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPIIESIANS.
Julius Mller, Lechler, Philippi, Thomasius, and others have
understood an inlorn childsliip of wrath.

peccato gigni testatur,
"
Paulus nos cuvi
ex utero afferunt," neque enini totus homo, quantus quantus est, prosternitur naturam dicit laesam, sed mortuam per peccatum ideoque irae obnoxiam," Beza. Comp, Form. Cone. p. 639 f. But (1) the context points, in vv. 13, as again also in ver. 5, to an actually produced, not to an inlorn state of guilt.^ Further, (2) if
;
quemadmodum serpentes suum venenum " Hoc uno verbo, quasi fulmine, Cahdn.
Paul had wished,
after touching
on the sinful action, to bring

t^vaei
into prominence the inhorn state of culpability, and so
taken the course ah
effcctu
ad causam,
had would have an

in fact,
emphasis, which would

it
make
its critically
assured position, as
;
stands in the Rcccpta, appear simply inappropriate
not even the position in
Lachmann
{rjfiev
(pvaet,
would be
sufficiently in keeping,
:
but
we
reKva 0/37%) should be obliged

"
logically to expect
kuI ^vcrei yjxev reKva
o/^y?}?,
by
birth were
we
children of wrath," in which
and (already) would lie the

dogma, that
source of sinful action.
But
(3) the ecclesiastical
man
is
a horn subject of wrath, fro7n hirth an object of the

is
divine condemnation,
not at
all
a doctrine of the apostle,
according to
of
whom man by
i.
his actual sin falls under the
wrath
God (Eom.
18,
ii.
8, 9, vii.
f.,
al),
inasmuch, namely, as
he becomes subject to and follows the inborn principle of sin (Eom. vii. 14 ff.), in opposition to his moral will, which he likewise by nature bears in himself; in connection with which,
we may
add, bodily death has its causal basis not in the
individual sin of the particular persons, but in the connection

of the whole race with the fall
and death-penalty of
its
first
progenitor (see on
Eom.
v.
12).
And
as
(4)
how
could Paul,
of
speaking of the
wrath,
d<yia<i
Jcics,
predicate of
them an inhorn childship

K\d8ov<; dyLou<i
rr}?
when he regarded them (Eom. xi. 16) They were

!
p^^vi
in fact ol Kara îktlv KXdSoi
of the sacred olive-tree of the theocracy (Eom. xi. 21);
how
could they be at the same time the opposite (observe the Kard
'
Quite mistakenly Grotius argues from the context against the ecclesiastical
exposition in this
way
"
Non
agi hie
de labe originaria, satis ostendunt

Gal.
22, al.
l>raecedentia, tibi descrlhmitur vitia,
a quibus multi veterum fuere immunes. "

32
;
See,
on the other hand, Rom.
i.-iii., xi.
iii.
CHAP.
ir.
3.
105
ii.
(f)U(riv),
horn reKva
6pyP]<i
See also Gal,

is
15, where the
(f)uat
^lovSaloi are opposed to the e^ idvcov aâproiXov} as well

ix,
as
Eom.
4,
where of them
predicated the possession of

childship of wrath
the vloOeaia, consequently the type of the Christian childship of God, whereof the inborn
would
be the direct opposite.

in (}>vaec the sense
See, generally,
p.
people of God, Ewald, AUerth.

:
on the sanctity of the 262 ff. Several have found
from the special relation in which they as Israelites stood to God" (Thomasius, I. p. 289); but
this is just
" apart
a mere saving clause obtruded on the text, in

is
connection with which there
nevertheless retained the unwrath, consequently of
Pauline conception of
&or;i liability to
condemnation from the very first, without any personal participation and contracting of guilt, before one yet hioios sin (Kom. vii. 7), This remark also holds in opposition to the
Hofmann, p. 565, comp. 274, and Julius Miiller, v. d. Snde, Further, (5) if Paul had thought of an inborn p. 377 f. liability to wrath, he could not have regarded even the children and infant of Christians as holt/ and pure (1 Cor. vii. 14) baptism must have been already ordained in the N. T., and that, indeed, with the absolute necessity, which had to be subessentially similar interpretation in
Schmid,
libl.
Theol. II. p.
sequently assigned to
the
it
in consistency with the elaboration of
dogma
of original sin bringing eternal condemnation on
every one born by ordinary generation. The explanation of an inlorn state of wrath (which also does not tally with the fact that Jesus promises the kingdom of heaven to those who
should be like children. Matt,
xviii.
to
f.,
xix.
14
f.)
is
accord-
ingly to be rejected as opposed
the context
and un-Paulinc
and (^vaeu defines the childship of wrath to the effect, that it has arisen in virtue of natural constitution (observe the justmentioned iTTtOu/jiiai T?;9 aapK6<i, comp, the v6/j,o<; iv toi<} fie\e(7L, which overcomes the moral law in man, Eom. vii.
man is lorn with this natural, sinful with the principle of sin, by the awakening and development of which the moral will is vanquished (Rom. vii.;
23, 24). Certainly
quality,
i.e.
comp, also John

1
iii.
6)
it
is
not,
however, the mere fact of

II. 1,
p.
Wliich Hofmann, Schri/thew. I. p. 564 fcom. his Heil. Sehr. N, T. 24), denies on invalid linguistic grounds see on Gal. I.e.
;
106
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHKSIANS.

having
its
this inborn presence
basis in his o-up^, that in
of itself^
makes him the

N. T.
p.
child
of wrath (comp.
so,
and Bey schlag,
Christol. d.
207), but he only becomes
when
that
constitution of his moral nature, that mingling of

principles in his natural disposition, has
is
two opposite
iii.
which, however,
;
the case with every one (Eoni.
iii.
9, xi.
32
Gal.
22)
brought about the victory of the sin-principle, and therewith the aapKLKov and Treirpa/xevov viro rrjv aâpriav elvat
Others, such as Erasmus, Balduin, Bengel, (Eom. vii. 14)." Morus, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Matthies, de Wette, Bleek (comp, also Weber, vom Zorn Gottes, p. 88), have explained it of the
man, i.e. of the state of the prewhich was as yet aloof from the intluence of but in this way, ;)^;apt<? (ver. 5 ff.) and of the Holy Spirit for while the whole properly speaking, nothing is explained description, and not merely ^vaet, delineates " the natural state " in which the redemptive activity of God found the nations
so-called natural state of
Christian
life,
(de Wette), in connection with <f)vcri there always remains the special question, whether the " by nature " denotes an inborn
relation to
<f)vaet
life "),
0/077/9
Holzhausen would even combine wrath or not. (" wrath which comes from the ungodly naturea view from which, even if (f)vai<i meant nature-life,
The
my
it is
explanation, inasmuch as the sinful disposition
objection of Lechler, p. 107 (comj). Philipjji, Dogin. III. p. 205 f.) that is inborn, thereby after all
concedes the traditional Church-view overlooks the essential distinction, that only according to the latter that man is born as ol^ject of the divine wrath ;
w hereas, according to
my
view, the natural disposition to sin does not yet in

object of wrath, but he becomes so only through
it is true,
and by
itself
make him such an
does not fail to enêrge in any one According to the traditional view, even the newly-born unconscious child is already guilty and liable to the Divine wrath so that in this way the imputation attaches itself not merely to the perpetration of sin, but even to the occasion to sin, which every one has by nature. This is, so far as I can see, exegetically incompatible with the anthropological teachings of the apostle elsewhere, especially with his exposition in Eom. Only with the actual sin, according to Paul, is the ijuilt connected, vii. 7 f. and consequently the wrath of God. An inborn guilt is not taught by tlie apostle as is rightly brought out by Ernesti, but is only hesitatingly hinted at by Bleek. ^ Through Christian regeneration the moral will attains, by virtue of the Spirit (Rom. via. 2), the ascendancy in man, and he becomes therewithal qualitatively 6ua.s xoivavos (puineii;, 2 Pet. i. 4, and /u,'.TxXa/:ixvci>v rij; ayioTfiTos Comp. 1 John v. 18. roZ Biov, Heb. xii. 10.
the setting in of actual sin, which,
lives
who
long enough to be able to sin.
CHAP.
II.
4.
107
the very absence of any article ought in itself to have pre-
cluded him
the
like,
t^9
rfj
(pvaei
op'yrj^,
or
t%
e'/c
t^9
^v<j. opyfj'i, or
must have been
used.
Moreover, Cyril, Oecumenius,

(}>vaet
it
Theophylact, Grotius, erroneously hold
as equivalent to
aXrjdm (comp, others

it
in Jerome,
iv.
who
take
as prorsus), "vvhich
never
is,
not even in Gal.
8, to
v/hich Grotius appeals.
Lastly, in a cpiite peculiar

p.
way
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Snde, II.
174 tf., obtains the exact opposite of a born liability to wrath by conducting his interpretation so as to enclose reKva (f)vcreL within two commas, and to connect 0^77^9 with rjfxev
:
"
We
were in consequence of our actual sinfulness, although
children [of
liable to
God
wrath even as
6p<yi]<i
in the Israelitish sense, Eom. ix. 4] hy nature, the Gentiles ;" according to which, thereis
fore, rjpbev
explained from the well-known usage of
elval 7ivo<i
in the sense of " belonging to."

first,
But
;
it
may
1
be
decisively urged against this view,
that the supplying the
thought of Qeov after reKva

Gal.
iv.
(as Isa. Ixiii. 8
Kom.
viii.
7
is
6)
is
not in any
way
suggested by the context, but

so,
purely arbitrary, and the more

in the text a genitive of reKva
;
inasmuch as there
is
already
which offers itself to complete the notion and secondly, that there is nothing to indicate the contrast assumed by Ernesti {althoiigh, etc.), for in order to write in some measure intelligibly, Paul must at least have
said
:
Kal
rjfiev
reKva
fxev (f)vaei, opyrj'i Be,
although
this,
too,
on account of the absence of a definition to reKva, would have been enigmatic enough. Equally to be rejected is the quite similar interpretation of Nickel (in Eeuter's Repert. 18G0, Oct., Ka\ TJfiev eov p. 1 6), who explains as though the words ran
fjiev
reKva
(f)vac,
opyrjf Se reKva.
tu?
Kol ol XoiTrot]
;
sc.
rjaav.
The
Kai
XoiTTol are the Gentiles

is
(Rom. iii. 9 1 Thess, iv. 13), and not adhuc (Grotius), but the also of comparison.
Ver. 4.
Now
begins, after the intervening clauses, vv. 2, 3,
stihject, which Paul already had in mind at ver. 1. See on ver. 1. It is not, however, hy_ovv, but by Be, that the thought is taken up again, because that which is now to be spoken of (the abundant compassion of God) stands in an adversative relation to what has been said in the relative clauses. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 377. ifKovdLO'i wv iv eXeet /c.t.X.] The connection is God, hoivever,
the resumption, and that with the
108
since
. .
.
He
.
.
is
.
rich in mercy, has fur
us
alive
m
ii.
Christ,
eXeo9 and
1 Cor.
T-qv
i.
olKTipix<;, see
;
His much loixs seile made As to the distinction between on Eom. ix. 15. On eV ekeet, comp.
ix.
Jas.
2 Cor.
11
Tim.
order
vi.
18.
hia
it}
TToXk.
a'ycnrrjv
avrov]
:
namely,
through
in
to
satisfy
love.
Luther erroneously renders

Vulgate, rightly
:
His great
Pliilem.
8.
The
6.
jjiôpfer,
etc.
Comp.
We may
i.
add that not aviov

rjv '^ydir.
tj/j,.]
is
to
he written, but avrov, as at

xvii. 26.
as in
John
is
Comp, the
classical epcora
epav, Lobeck, Paral. p. 516.
The manifestation
of the divine
love thereby
meant
the atoning death of Christ, in which,
in pursuance of the
great love of
God communicated
;
abundance of the divine compassion, the Eom. v. 18 itself to us.
John
16 Eph. v. 2, 25. 77/^^9] After the glance has extended from the readers (vv. 1, 2) also to the Jewish Christians (ver. 3), the resumption of the object with rjixca now embraces hoth, the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Ver. 5. The Kai is not to be taken as in ver. 1 ("also us collectively," Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlier expositors), which, apart from the universal reference of the r]îa<i, the order of the words forbids (/cat t^/aS? must have been written), according to which, also, the Kal of ver. 1 can by no means be here resumed (Eckert, Matthies, Holzhausen, and most of further, Kat is not, with Koppe, to be the older expositors) taken as although, seeing that, in fact, a making alive cannot take place otherwise than from a state of death, and consequently /cat cannot convey any climactic stress, on which account Harless explains incorrectly from a logical point of view " even in the state of death, in which we were " (comp. Calvin and de Wette). Erasmus paraphrases as though Kal stood before awe^wcn-., and even the shift to which Morus has recourse, that /cat corresponds to the /cat of ver. 6 {non modo verum, etiam), would demand this position. Others give other explanations, and many are silent with regard to it. If /cat M'ere also, it would have to be referred to ovra';^ and
iii.
; . . .
'
The great love

uyvn
of God,
who
them
is
rich in
the motive for not leaving

related to the
^
to their misery, bnt, etc.
mercy towards the wretched, was The 'ikios is tliiis
as the species to the genus.
For, as to the fact that a/, also, always lays the stress
upon
tliat
word,
CHAP.
II,
5.
109
would express the

(Hrtung,
for the
I. p.
reality
f.).
of the relation asserted in ver. 1

to call
132
But there would be nothing

reality.
assurance
of this
It
r.
is
ratlier
the simple
r/y.
rj/j,.
copula
and, annexing to the hia
rrroW. dy. f)v
further element.^
full light
The two elements,
side
by
side, place in
the
what God has done. God has, on account of His and when we were dead in the sins, made us alive with Christ. The /cat might also he omitted but the keeping
much
love,
of the points thus apart strengthens the representation.

irapa'TTT.']
rot?
The
article denotes the sins,
which
1
.
with a retrospective glance at
ver.
ive
had committed,
avve^woirolrjae
tm
Xp.]
is
by most expositors (including
ITatt, Eiickert, Meier,
Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Schenkel, Hofmann, Bleek) understood of

ing
(^'
new spiritual quicken-
justificationem et rcgcnerationem nostram complectitur,"

;
Boyd
tion).
Eiickert would have us think mainly of the justifica-
the reader
But how is this to be justified from the context ? If was reminded by veKpov<; roc<; irapaTTT. of the eternal death, to which he had been subjected by his preChristian life of sin (see on ver. 1), he would now have to think of the eternal life, which begins wdth the resurrection, and he could the less think of anything else than of this real
resurrection-life,
since afterwards there is
further expressed
then,
in ver. after
V,
the
translation
together into
of
heaven, and
to
the
intention
God
is
referred
the
f.
times
the
Parousia.
And had
not
?
already
i.
18
pointed definitely
to the future KXypovo/jiia
How,
in this connection, could a
reader light
(Bom.
vi.
4f.
upon the merely ethical, spiritual quickening 2 Cor. v. 15; Gal. ii. 19 f.)? No, God has
;
onade believers alive ivith Christ
i.e.
in Christ's revivification,
which God has wrought, theirs also is included. By virtue of the dynamic connection in which Christ stands with His believers, as the head with its body (i. 23), their revivification is objectively comprehended in His, a relation, in fact, of which the Christian is conscious in faith " quum autem fides suscipitur, ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini, et ab homine rata
before which,
p. 638.
^
it
stands, see Haupt, Ohss.
Crit.
p.
55
fi'.
Klotz,
ad Devar.
it.
Bleek describes this view of mine as probably the correct one, and follows

110
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPIIESIAXS.
"
liabentur," Bengel.
So the matter stands in the view of the
apostle as accomplished, because the
accomplished
the future actual

the
making alive making alive, or,
of Christ is
as the case
is
may
be,
change at
Paronsia (1 Cor. xv. 23),
then the
is
subjective individual participation of that which

objectively given on the part of
Christ.
already
God
in
in the resurrection of
Certainly Paul might,

it,
accordance
with another
mode
that
of looking at
have expressed himself by the future,

;
as at 1 Cor. xv.
22; cf. Eom. viii. 1 7 but who does not feel by means of the aorist (" ponitur autem aoristus de re, quae, quamvis futura sit, tarnen pro peracta recte censeatur, alia re jam facta contineatur," Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. cum p. 20G) the matter stands forth more forcibly and triumphantl}. . .
out of the believing conviction of the apostle

TovTov<i Kol eSo|acre,
Rom.
viii.
30.
The avv
o&? iSiKalxre
in crvve^cooir. is
et
by Beza, erroneously
referred to the coagmentatio gentium
Judaeorum, a reference which is forbidden by the tw Xpta-ro) and by Grotius, Koppe, Eosenmller, and others, it is explained ad exemplum (comp. Anselm sicut), by which the Pauline idea oi fellowship with Christ, which also lay at the bottom of Comp, on Col. i. 19, is quite arbitrarily explained away.
:
X^ptTt eVre creo-wo"^.] hy grace (not by merit) are ye partakers of the Messianic salvation ! an impassioned (hence expressed in the second person),
ii.
;
13
Pom.
viii.
17
2 Tim.
ii.
12.
parenthetic reminding the readers of the divine basis of the
which had accrued to them, designated by crvve^woTToiTjae a reminding, which was very natural for the apostle in general (for its tenor was the sum of his doctrine and the constant echo of his own experience, 1 Cor. xv. 10), and
salvation
;
more
especially here,
where he represents the quickening of
behevers as accomplished with the making alive of Christ, which could not but repel even the most distant thought of
personal merit.
In connection with
is
a-vve^woTr.
r.
Xp. the
possession of the Messianic bliss
designated as an already
fact, although it was before the Parousia (Col. merely a possession in hope (Rom. viii. 24), and the That the %a/3tTt final realization was yet future (Rom. v. 10). emphatically placed at the beginning (for " gratiam esse docet
accomplished
3
f.)
iii.
proram
et
puppim," Bengel) means the grace of God, not of
CHAP.
II.
C.
Ill
Christ (Beza
comp, the inserted ov in

constantly the subject.
D* E F
G-,
Vulg.
It.
Victorin. Aug. Ambrosiaster), is manifest
from the context, in

grave
which God
Ver. 6.
is
After the making alive of Christ in the

as likewise
followed His resurrection, with which Paul regards that of

Ijelievers
which
(" to
accomplished. Hence koL a-wrj'yeipe, manner is not to be taken in the spiritual sense make them enter upon the new life of grace," Eiickert)
:
in like
With strange inconsistency several exbut see on ver. 5. positors, such as Menochius, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, Grotius,
although taking a-vve^woir. metaphorically, nevertheless haAê
taken this
the element that follows) in and mentally supplied nempe spe, or the like. Kol avveKadiaev ev rot? eVoup.] and lias given to us joint-seat in the hcxwcnly regions (comp. i. 20), so that we have part (see on 1 Cor. vi. 2) in the dominion of the Exalted One (2 Tim. ii. 12); which Paul likewise sees as already accomplished^ with the installing of Christ at the right hand of God hence, there was no need at all for supplying the thought jure et vira-wrj'yeipe (as well as
literal sense,
tute spirituali (Bengel), or for
a transference of the matter to
the praescientia Dei (Jerome), and other such expedients.

XpicTTo} Îrjaov] belongs to crvvijyei.pe
eTTovpav., so that
iv
and avveKadcaev
ev Tot<?
what was expressed

is
in the case of crvve^coov.
by (aw)
T5
Xpia-rm,
here expressed, in yet more exact con[ev XpiaroJ),
ception of the relation, by (aw) ev Xpiaro) (jointly in Christ).
Inasmuch, namely, as God raised and exalted Christ
He
'
has raised and exalted us with Him.

Explanations in the spiritual sense.
Calixtus
:
eV Xpiarco accord" Ea nobis dedit dona, quae

nos ornavit,
civibus coelorum propria sunt."
Rosenmiiller
"Summa felicitate
;
quasi
jam
:
in coelo essemus recepti."
Eiickert and Bleek remind us of the
-raXiTtv/ia of Christians, which is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20 comp. Col. iii. 1 ft".). Meier "Exaltation into a celestially enlightened, pure and holy, state of life." Matthies "The spiritual kingdom of heaven or of God." Olshausen "The awakening of the heavenly consciousness." Koppe remarks superficially and " Nobis quidem in omnibus his 'C,>î>'ron7(r6ai, lyslpia-âi, xa6lZ,itv with hesitation
:
:
iTouf. nihil inesse
videtur nisi
summae
et universae felicitatis,
vel
jam
fruuntur, vel olim magis etiam fruituri sunt, descriptio. "

is
qua Christiani According to
Baumgarten-Crusius, there
like state."
expressed "exaltation into a purely spiritual heaven-
De Wette
takes ffunZ,uoi: of the deliverance out of the misery of

spiritual
sin, ffvtriyuft of regeneration
body guaranteed in the

sternal Vola.
and, at the same time, of the resurrection of the life, and <rvvix,6i(nv x.r.x. of the hope of the
it
Schenkel interprets
of the presentiment of the future glory.
il2
ingly
is
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPIIESIANS.
by no means intended
(Olshausen).
figurative
Bengel,
"
we may
on i, 3) add (comp, already Estius), aptly remarks

ev rot?
iirovpav.
(see
On
to denote the (TvyKaOiêiv
as
non
dicit in dextra ; Christo
sua manet excellentia."
The
transitive av^KaOiêiv is not elsewhere preserved.
6.
Xva
Ver.
7.
Aim
of
God
in connection with
what
:
is said, vv. 5,
ivhel^T^Tai] prefixed
with emphasis
in order
not to
leave concealed and unknown, but

fest, etc.
Comp. Eom.
coming on,
i.e.
ix.
23.
to exJiihit
iv rot?
and make manialwai roU iirep'^.] in

11; Judith
Od. xxiv.
:
the ages
in the times after the Parousia, as being
already on the approach (comp.

ix.
LXX.
26
Isa. xliv. 7, xlv.

;
5
;
3 Mace. v. 2
Luke
xxi.
Jas. v. 1;
Hom.
:
142
Time.
i.
126
r
Plat. Soph. p.
234 D; Aesch. Prom. 98

01.
x.
TO irapov TO
ivrep'^ôfievou,
eirekOiv 6 fxeXkcov y^pvo^).
eicaOev <yap 11 In the times from the Parousia
Pind.
(conceived as near at hand) onward, the manifestation designed
by God
of
His grace towards believers was

believers,
Christ, be
etc.,
to
take
place,
because not before, but only after the Parousia, would the
making alive of the the making alive of

subjects.
implicitly contained in
actually accomplished in the
Incorrect, seeing that the apostle
was previously
etc.,
speaking, not of the spiritual, but of the real resurrection,

is
the rendering of
in
quum
Morus " per omne vestrum tempus reliquum vita tum in futura quoque," as well as that of hac
:
Wolf (comp.
Calvin, Piscator, Boyd, Estius, Calixtus, Michaelis,

:
Zachariae, Meier, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek)
"
tem-
pera inde ab apostolicis

brings
out,
is
illis
ad finem mundi secutura."

it is
Koppe
"
ut
aeternum
are
duraturum argiimentnm extaret"

true that the aiS)ve<i
which
01
quite mistaken, since, while
eTTep')(pi.ievoL
eternal times, the words do not signify
tempera aeternum futura. Eespecting the plural Tot<i alwai, comp, on iii. 21. To infer from this that the setting in of the ]\Iessianic period will not be accomplished suddenly, but by way of successive development (Schenkel), is at variance with the whole N. T. The future alcav sets in through the Parousia very suddenly and in an instant. Matt. xxiv. 2 7 1 Cor. xv. Hence we have not mentally to supply with ivSet^. 52, al. anything like " ever more completely " (Elatt), or " ever more " (Schenkel), which is sheer caprice. The form tc effectively
;
CHA.P.
II.
8.
113
See on
i.
ttXoto?
is
here also decisively attested.

60'
rjijby
wJiat
God
will mani-
exceeding great riches of His grace in the ages to
the fact that
come, &y kindness towards us in Christ Jesus, i.e. by means of He shows Himself gracious towards us, of which
8).
the ground lies in Christ (not in us, see ver.
The
article
was not
i(f)'
at all requisite before e'^'
rjfia';,
since x^prjcrTorrjTL is
like 'x^prjarbv elvai
anarthrous, and besides

rjixa^
')(pr)<7T6rr}
rifj,<i,
(Luke
vi.
35), can
The Comp, on i. 15. which latter displays XPVO"^TT]<i,

thought.
be closely joined together in

%a/3t9 is
itself
;
the source of the
in forgiving (comp.
ii.
Prayer of Manass. 1 1
titing,
Tit.
iii.
Eom.
4)
and in benep.
and therefore
is
the evidence of the former, the opposite

22.
of
ciTTOTOfjiia,
Eom.
xi.
Comp. Tittmann, Synon,

682.
I justified in saying
:
195
van Hengel, ad Bom.

Ver.
8.
II. p.
How
entirely
was
to virep-
aXKov ttXouto?
which
his heart
tj}? '^dpiro'i
avTov
it
for, etc.
Thus Paul now

ver. o, inter-
expresses himself with more detail as to the great truth, of
was
so full that
rupted the course of his address.
had already,
ttj
'^dpiTo]
hy the grace.
is
Py
the article
tlie
divine gi'ace just noiu spoken of
indicated,
after it ver. 5,
grace).
had been meant doubtless by the anarthrous 'x^dpiri, but designated by it only as regards the category {hy
8i
r?}?
Tr/-rew?]
iii.
for
the faith in
al.) is,
the
atonement!
made by
Itendcns
Christ (Rom.
25, 30,
as the causa appre-l

\
I
of
the
IMessianic
salvation,
the_ necessaiy_j?ig(jz' te
is
instrument on the part of man, while the %a/3i?

motive,
the divine
the causa
is
efficicns
rfj
of the bestowal.
'^dpiTt alone,
aeacocrfi.
The emphasis,
ttj^
however,
retained by
only the modal definition to

vfjbSiv
and Sia
Kal
ttlct. is
tovto ovk i^
K.T.X."]
Nothing
is
here to be treated as parenthesis
neither the whole Kal tovto

Scholz), nor merely
down
to epycov, ver. 9 (Griesbach,
@eov to Bwpov (Lachmann, Harless, de

is
Wette), since neither the construction nor the course of thought

is
interrupted.
Kal tovto
referred
by the Fathers
in Suicer,
Thes. II. p.
728, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel,
Michaelis, and others, including Koppe, Kosenmller, Flatt,
Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, to the faith (to irtaTevetv),

Mfa'er
Eph.
114
comp. Phil.
In that case Kal tovto i. 29 2 Cor. iv. 14. But how Bupov would have to be taken parenthetically. violent is this taking to pieces of the text, since ouk e'f vficov
;
.
and ovK i^ epycov present themselves in a manner alike natural and weighty as elements belonging to one flow of the Rightly, therefore, have Calvin, Calovius, Baumdiscourse garten, Semler, Zachariae, Morus, and others, including Eiickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, Harless, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek,
!
referred
it
to the salvation just designated as regards its specific
Paul very earnestly and emphatically enters into more detailed explanations as to what he had just said, ry yap %/3tTt K.T.X., namely to the effect, that he briefly and forcibly places in the light of the respective contrasts, first, that ohjcctive element
mode.
by OVK ef
:
which has taken place (t^ 'x^dpin) Oeov to hwpov, and then the subjective element t. kuv^. (8ia T^9 TTtcTTea)?), by ovk e^ epywv iva His thought " Through grace you are in possession of salvation by means is
of the saving deliverance
vfidoi',
fj,.
of faith,
and
that to the exchision of your ovjn causation

"
is
and
operative agencyT
This latter he expresses with the vivacity

:
and force of contrast thus

xiii.
and
that (/cat rovro, see
on Eom.
lorks,
11) not
from
you,
order that no one
may
"
takes place with a
in from The asyndetic juxtaposition propria quadam vi, alacritate, gravitate,"

it
God's gift; not
toast."
Dissen, Exc. II. ad Find. p. 273.

their
ovic
i^
vfiayv]
negatives
own
personal authorship of the salvation (Ellendt, Lex.
Sojjh. I. p.
551
f.).
@eov
to Sojpov]
i.e.
eov
Sa)pov to Soopov,
a-ea-axT/jiivov
God's gift is the gift in question (namely, the

etvaC).
Comp, already Bengel.
ovk e^ 'epywvl Parallel of
OVK ef vficov, hence to be completed by icrTe aeacoafiivoi (not by TO Zoipov (TTi), not from ivorh-merit does it come that you have the salvation. The 'ipya would exclude the iriGTL'i as the subjective condition of salvation (Eom. iii. 28, iv. 5, ix. 32 Gal. ii. 16, iii. 2), as e^ vfjicov would exclude the %apt9 as the
;
ohjcctive
it presupposes the ISla doubt e| epywv excludes also but the xapt9, as does likewise e| vficov exclude the Trt'o-rt? the two elements opposed to the %a/3t9 and the Tr/o-rt? are, on
cause of salvation, because
BiKULoavvr} (Eom. x. 3).
No
occasion of the proposition r^ yap '^dpnt
rricrTeco'i,
held
apart after the
manner
of a formal parcdlclism.
That, more-
CHAP.
II.
10.
11
over, the notion of the epya is determined not merely

Jeicish law, but
part
Gentile-Christians
f.),
inasmuch
by the
as the readers were for the
by the most
14
is
self-evident.
ovK e^ p<yo)v, is so mental proposition of the Pauline Gospel, and certainly so

often expressed
apostle
its
by the natural law (Eom. ii. The proposition in itself, however, essential and universally valid a fundaalso
among Jews and
Gentiles, that
having no meaning, when laid down without reference to the Mosaic law, must appear unfounded (in opposition to de Wette). Iva] design of God in the
the severe judgment as to
relation indicated
Holzhausen).
itself,
by ovk k^ epycov, not echatic (Koppe, Flatt, Comp. 1 Cor. 29, 31, and as regards the thing
i.
Eom.
iii,
27.
Grotius aptly says: "quicquid est in

is
Huniine, fonti debetur," which, however,
not to be limited
merely to the ijvima gratia.

1 Cor. XV. 10.
See
ver.
10; 2
Cor. x.
17;
. .
Ver. 10. Eeason assigned for the previous ovk e^ vfiMv

Kav-^rja.
If,
namely,
we
are God's
TroLTj/xa,
our Messianic
salvation cannot be of our
own
acquiring, but only God's gift
and
if
we
are created in Christ unto good works,
how
could
merit of works (which

of our
salvation,
would need
to
have been already
acquired in the time anterior to this our creation) be the cause
and subject of our own boasting ? The lies consequently (1) on avrov, and and then t? irporjToifiaaev k.t.X. is an (2) on KTiaOevre'i elucidation significantly bearing on KTia6evTe<; iv X. 'I. iirl epj. ay., which makes the impossibility of pre-Christian merit of works thoroughly palpable. avrov] with emphasis His, just Ris work, and no other's, are we. Comp. Hom. Od. x. 27 avTwv jap a-TrooXfjieB' a(^pahir}aLv. Winer, p. 140 [E. T. 193]. TTOiTj/xa, thing made (comp. Eom, i. 2 0-), refers to the ethical creation (that of the new spiritual state of life), which the
argumentative
stress
;
Christian as such has experienced {iraXiyjeveaia, Tit.

not, as Tert.
c.
iii.
5),
Marc.
v.
17, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, and
Photius would have it, to the physical creation (the spiritual being only introduced by KrL(T&evTe<i k.tX), which is opposed
to the context, as is also the
combination of the
:
tivo
creations
by Pelagius, Erasmus, Matthies, and Eiickert " as Christians we are God's work just as well, as in respect of our being
.
.
lie
onen at
all."
THE EPISTLE TO TUE EPHESIAKS.
Only the form, in which the constituting of the of life is expressed, is derived from the physical iv Xptaro) creation. KTtcr6evTe<;'] by God at our conversion. Gal. Îr](rov\ for ec rt? ev Xptcnu), Kaivr) KTiat<;, 2 Cor. v. 17 vi. 15. Christ is the specific element of life, within which the ethical 7roi7]fj.a Oeov has come to pass, but apart from which eVl epyoa a<ya6ol<;] this creative process has not taken place. moral aivi. On the thing itself, comp. Rom. viii. That, hj which God prepares what is created by Him in Christ for Gal. iii. 2 this moral end, is the Holy Spirit, Eom. viii. epâ vofiov) are fruits of Good works (not John iii. 5 f. oh 7rpor]Toifj.. o orgcncration, different from epymv, ver. 9.
new condition
0eo9]
oU
p.
is
to be taken, according to the usual attraction (see
Winer,
Castalio,
147 f. [E. T. 203]), for a (Syriac, Gothic, Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Grotius, and others,
p.
including Harless, Matthias, Holzhausen, Olshausen, de Wette,
Lamping,
vjalJc
87 f; Bleek)
which God hath before (previously
to the KTiaOevTe^) placed in readiness, in order that ive anight
in them, that they might be the element in which our
life-walk should take place (ttjv iir

hr\\oi,
auroU airavarov
cr-^katv
Oecumenius).
'1
he prefixed
Trporjr.
has in the circum-
stances significant emphasis. Paul conceives, namely, of the morally good works in which the walk of the Christian moves,
as being already, even before his conversion, placed in readiness (Plut. 3Ior. p.
230 E
ix.
Joseph. Antt. xvii.
5,
LXX.
Isa.
XX viii. 24
Wisd.
And
this could not hut
by God, namely, in His decree. be the case, if God would create unto
8)
good works.
For, if the
converted
life,
man
is
God's creature,
which the specific nature of the Kaivr) KTi(Ti<; is to manifest itself, and without which he would not be God's iroirjfia and KTiai<;, must likewise proceed from God consequently, when the moral creative act (the regeneration) is accomplished, must already in God's counsel and will be in such wise i^r^/io^^f? and held ready for communication, that it has to receive the new creature from its Creator, and in this way to work the works of God. Thus these good works following regeneration are as it were outflowings from a divine treasure beforehand placed in readiness, from which the regenerate man has received them, when he does them and
then the moral activity of
in
;
;;
CHAP.
II.
10.
117
word
to
walks in tliem.^
changed,
if
it
The sense
of the
TrpoeroifiaêLv
is
is
explained only as
predestine (Augustine'
and and
others,
including Harless, Lamping), which

ad.
would
be
expressed by irpoopiêtv (see Fritzsche,

it is
Rom.
II. p.
339)
rationalized
aioay,
when Olshausen
it is
says that the
circumstances
and
relations,
under which
possible to
It
is
men
to
perform good works, are ordained by God.

circumstances
not of the
which render the works

as accordingly,
possible,
but of the
works themselves, that Paul affirms that
God
has before placed

are accomplished,
ii,
them
it
in readiness
when they
is
God who works
the willing and working (Phil,
1 3).
According to Hofmann, Schrifthew. II. 1, p. 365, II. 2, p. 294, the good works are once for all present in Christ, so that they need not to be brought forth first by us the individuals, but are
produced beforehand, in order that our fellowship with Christ may be also a fellowship of His conduct that our walk in Him may be a walk in them. But in this way Paul would have left the very point of the thought in Trporjroi'fj,. (namely, in
Christ) unexpressed.
Others take oh as dative of the destina-
tion:
icnto
which God hath prepared us (Luther, Clericus, In this case, iva ev avroU
Trepnr.
Semler, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Flatt, Meier, Schenkel,
and
others).
would by no
means be a redundant and

poses, but
feeble tautology, as Harless sup-
view
an emphatic epexegesis of oU. But against this urged that Paul must necessarily, because the verb would be quite objectless, have added ^^/xa?,^ the
it
may be
omission of which, considering the frequency of the attraction
of
049
for
a,
could
only have led the reader astray
would receive no emphasis accordant with the prefixing of Trporjroifi., inasmuch as the time of the irpoeroifjbdêiv would coincide with that of the Kriêcv. Valla and Erasmus take oh as masculine : for whom He hath hefore appointed, that we, etc., to which also Ptckert, although hesitating between this and the preceding explanation, is
moreover,
irpo
'
operum
rpo ^
" praeparavit turn praesjribendo formam Explanations like that of Grotius turn dando Spiritum," etc., fail of doing justice to the case by making in "TforiT. synchronous with KTuroivTis. This also in opposition to Calovius, who takes ol; in the ablative sense
;
:
" quihus,
sc.
hacteniis dictis
per justificationem et renovationem, prae-
paravit vel disposuit (nos), ut
in
operibus bonis ambulemus."
118
inclined.
and how Quite arbitrary changed is the literal sense of nrpoeToifxaêiv and erroneous, finally, is the view of Bengel, Koppe, and Eosenmller, as also of Baumgarten-Crusius, that it is to be
what
is
But how arbitrarily in this way is 0*9 more remote and different from avroh
I
referred to
!
explained per Hehraismum (see, on the other hand, Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 139) for eV ot9 'Cva rrepiTrar'qaco/jiev Trporjr. 6 0609, in which case Koppe and Eosenmller make irpoeroifiêiv equivalent to velle, juhere
!
;
According to Schwegler,
in Zeller's
Jalirl).
1844,
de Wette, there
t'pycov)
is to
p. p. 453, and be discovered in our passage the post-
391
Baur, Paulus,
apostolic tendency to
combine the doctrine of Paul {ovk
e'f
with the Jewish-Christian view (that of James) con-
cerning good works.
As though
all
the works were not in our

Epistles,
passage
too,
as
in
ev
Pauline
'I.)
!
(observe, withal,
X.
The
:
based upon faith
Pauline faith has always
moral practice as its necessary vital activity, and this is consequently always the aim (not ultimate aim) of the new creation wrought through faith by means of the Spirit. We
may add
that the good works, even at our passage,
where,
moreover, they are traced back wholly to

are so far from being the condition of
"
j
God
as the author,
ustification, that,
on the
:
contrary, the dogmatic canon here receives full confirmation
Bona opera non praeccdxint justificanduni, scd sequuntur justiComp. Calovius. Aptly does Bengel remark on fication" irepnraT. " amhula7'emus, non salvareonur aut viveremus" The
:
assertion, that here (and in
Colossians)
much
is,
greater importletters
ance
is
ascribed
to
good works than in the other

Thcol. p. 270),
of the apostle (Baur, ncut.

vv. 7-9, incorrect.
looking even to
Ver. 11.
A to]
the
T/i?'f/ore,
because such exalted and unmerited
benefits have been imparted to us (vv. 4-10).
These benefits
should
move
reader to remember his former miserable

v.
heathen state
of his
(Trore,
gratefully to appreciate,
present state.
8; CoL i. 21), in order the more by contrast with the past, the value
on,
is
:
irore
to
vfieU
r Wviq ev aapxQ
Neither yre nor 6VTe9
be supplied, but (observe the

vfiel'i)
order critically vouched for
ttotc
irore
on
is
taken up again
ver.
by the on
of ver. 12,
and
by
to)
Kaipw eKeivw,
12
CHA.P. IL
11.
119
v/xet?, to
while ra edur) iv aapKi
is
a descriptive definition to
which
it
is
related
by way of apposition, and

u/êt? to,
ol Xeyoîevoi,
K.T.X. is attributive definition to
edvr) iv crapKL:
that
at one time ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, ye

ivere
who (quippe qui)
named Foreskin
is
that ye at that time, etc.
to. edvrj
and hence This iv aapKC is, as to without the article before iv aapKL its meaning, necessarily defined by the undoubted meaning of the following iv aapKi-, on which account it is neither to be
iv aapKi]
closely connected as one conception,
taken, as a contrast to regeneration, of the former unholy
life
of the readers (Ambrosiaster, Calovius, Wolf, Holzhausen), nor as origine cariiali, natalibus (Bucer, Grotius, Estius,
Koppe,
oêspectu
Eosenmller, Flatt), nor

status externi (Morus).
is
it
to
be generalized into
It has reference to the foreskin.
In
the
the flesh, on account of the non-circumcised foreskin, the character cthnicus

article,
was inherent.
The
ra
edvr)
iv a.,
with
designates the readers as to their category.
The
con-
tempt, however, incurred in their pre-Christian state lies not
in r edvr)
iv
a.
(for
this
;
they
still
remained), but in the

not,
following ol Xe'yoiievoL k.tX.
although
we may
by mentally
supplying (with Chrysostom and his successors) the contrast
ouK iv
TTvevfjiaTL,
mendation.
make
iv arapKt into
.
.
an element of recomis
ol Xeyo/xevoi,
;)êt/j07r.]
not to be placed
it is
in a parenthesis
(Griesbach, Scholz), seeing that
a con-
tinued description of the Gentile state of the readers.

the edvr]
Foreskin
tion
is
!
TT]
aapKi,
they were
those
designated
this
by the
As name
And, then, the delineation of
despised relaspecified hj
brought to a yet higher climax when
it is
vjhom they were thus reproachfully designated, namely, hy the

so-called Circumcision,
which is made in So low was the position you occupied
the flesh ivith the

!
hand.
bear
By
those
who
;
the
name
3
;
of this surgical operation performed on the flesh
iii.
Eom. ii, 2 8 f Phil, 11 Acts vii. 51), and hence have by it in and of itself no pre-eminence at all, you must allow yourselves to be designated, for want of this external rite, with the reproachful name of Foreskin ! iv aapKi 'xêcpoir. does not pertain to Xeyo/A., but is an addition of the apostle himself to irepcr., describing how the matter stands. The abstrcccta aKpo. and
(counterpart of the ideal circumcision,
Col.
ii.
;
120
'!rptT.
do not here stand pro concretis, but are stated names, by which the concretes were in accordance with their peculiar character designated. Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 4 eVl irdvra \e<y6/xevov Qeov r) aeacrfia. The circumstance that Paul, instead of vTTo Trj<; Xeyo/jLevrj'i, has not again employed the plural expression vtto twv Xeyofiivcov, is to be explained by the fact that he wishes to indicate the irepirofirj as a name, which is
:
not adequate to the idea of

so termed
:
it
in the case of the subjects
by the
so-called circumcision.
viii.
The expression
is
depreciatory (comp. 1 Cor.
5) as concerns the people
who
bore the
name
7rept.T0/j,r}
whereas ol Xeyo/xevoi aKpavaria
would indicate not the conception

Foreskin
"
of " so-called," but, in a purely objective manner, the mentioned fact " those called
:
(Heb.
ix. 3).
Ver. 12,
Tc3
As regards the
construction, see on ver. 11.
Kaipw
e'/ceiVft)]
takes the place of the irore, ver.
11, and
means the
pre-Christian, heathen period of the readers.

f.
On
the
f.].
dative of time without eV, see Wiuer, p. 1 9 5

^ft)/3i?
[E. T. 2 7 3
Xptarov] aloof from connection with Christ ; for " xoi)pl<i ad subjectum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur," Tittmann, Synon. p. 94. It is dependent on rjre as its first sad predicate, and does not belong, as a more precise definition, to the subject (" when ye were as yet without Christ," Bleek), in which case it would in fact be entirely self-evident and superfluous. In hoio far the readers as Gentiles were without Christ, we are told in the sequel. They stood afar off and aloof from the theocratic bond, in which Christ would have been to them, in accordance with the promise, the object of their faith and ground of their salvation. If Paul had wished to express merely the negation of the Christian relation (ye were without knowledge of Christ; comp. Anselm, Calovius, Flatt), how tame and idle would this in itself have been and, moreover, not in keeping with the
!
connection of that which follows, according to which, as
is
already clear from ver. 11, Paul wishes to bring out the dis-
advantage at which the readers, as Gentiles, had been placed

in contradistinction to the Jews.
dicates
"
Hence Grotius rightly in12 to ver. 13 Nunc eum (Christum) non minus possidetis vos gûam ii,
the relation
as
to
contrast of ver.
CHAP. n.
12.
121
refers
to
%ft)/3i9
quiliis
promissus
fucrcit."
Eckert
0. T.
x. 4.
activity of Christ
under
the
previous
X. to the His incarnation,

("
with an appeal to 1 Cor.
Comp. Olshausen
the im-
manence
To) Kaipa>
of Christ as regards His divinity in Israel ").

i/ceivM, in fact,
But
applies to the pre-Christian lifetime
of the readers, and thus comprises a time which was subsequent

to
the
incarnation,
XpicTov means
the historical
Christ,
so
far as
He was
is
the very promised Messiah.
The
relation %)/3t9
Xpiarov
described from the standpoint of the apostle, for
The
cession
whom
the bond with the Messiah was the bond with Christ.
charge that the author here makes an un- Pauline conto
Judaism (Schwegler,
ix.
I.e.
p.
888
f.)
is
incorrect,
since the concession concerns only the pre-Christian relation.
Comp. Eom.
4, 5.
superiority of Judaism, in respect
of the pre-Christian relation to Christianity, Paul could not but
necessarily teach (comp. Acts

Gal.
iii.
iii. 25 f.; Eom. i. IG, iii. 1 f.; 13 f.); but that Christianity as to its essential contents was Judaism itself, merely extended through the death of
Christ to the Gentiles also, he has not taught either here or

elscM^here
;
in fact, the doing
away
of the
law taught by him
in this very passage is the very opposite thereof (in opposition to Baur, Paidus, p.
p.
107).
TrrjkXorpiwfievoi,
3; Polyb.
i.
545
Christenth.
.t.X,.]
der drei ersten Jahrh.
Comp, on diraWoTpioat,
82. 9; often in the
Dem. 255,
(Schleusner,
p.
iv.
79.
p.
i.
LXX.
Obss.
Thesaur.
I.
325) and Josephus, Krebs,

alien
326.
The notion
Col.
i.
of
does
not
here (comp, also
18
21) presuppose the existence of an earlier
the
was their status ethnicus itself} by which were at one time placed apart from connection with the TToXtTeta rov ÎcrparfK, i.e. whereby this aWofellowship, but it
readers
Tpi6T7)<i
took place.
The opposite
as
vii. p.
lSloi,
olKeioi,
a-vfxiroXLrai
(ver.
19).
ii.
TToXtreia signifies
;
well
political
;
constitution
(Thuc.
36
iv.
Plato, Polit.
4. 1
viii.
;
520 B
viii.
Legg.
;
Arist. Polit.
iii.
Isoc. Evarj.
10
Xen. Ages.
2 Mace.
11,
;
Dem. 161, 11
^
17) as right of citizenship Thuc. vi. 104. 3; Diod. Sic. xii. 51

it
712 E; i. 37 (Herod, ix. 34;

iv. p.
; ;
3 Mace.
Not, as Grotius woultl have

:
(whom
Rosenniiiller follows)
the diversity of
iiou
political institutions
"In
ilia
icpublica a
Deo
;
institata
non modo honores
poteratis capere, sed nee pro civihus haberi
adeo dUiahaut instiiuta."
122
iii.

xxii.
28; Josepli. Antt. xii. 3. 1). The latter assumed by Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Bullinger, But the idea of right of citizenship Michaelis, and otliers. was for the apostle, himself a Eoman citizen, as well as for tlie readers, a secular privilege, and one therefore foreign to the connection of our passage, where everything points to the theocracy, and this was the political constitution of the tov ^laparfk] The divine name of Jacob (Gen. Israelites.
21; Acts
signification is
xxxii. 28, XXXV. 10)
is,
according to the traditionally hallowed
usage of the 0.
genitive,
T.,
the theocratic
ix.
name
18
;
of his posterity, the

Gal. vi. 16,
al.
Jewish people, Rom.

however,
;
1 Cor. x.
The
is
not to be explained like aarv ÂOrjvcov
(Harless)
for 6 'lapa/jX is the people,

r?}? iTTwyy.J
Koi êvot roiv BiadrjKcov
which has the polity. and foreign to the cove;
nants of the promise (not belonging thereto) these words are to be taken together (in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Cornelius a Lapide, Morns, Rosen miiller, and others,
iTrayy. to v/liat follows)
;
who
attach
t?)?
for only thus
do the two elements

in harmonious
belonging to each other and connected by kul, which serve

for the
elucidation of %)/3t9 Xpiarov, stand

;
symmetry
to the
only in this way, likewise,

last
is
similar justice done

Kai,
two
particulars
connected by
ôvT<; Kul adeoi iv

ality
tm
;
Koo-fiw
which
iXirtSa
fjurj
in their very gener-
and brevity carry the description of the Gentile misery

only in this way,
lastly,
to the uttermost point
does îvot
it
rwv
BiaOrjKcov
acquire the characteristic colouring which

r.
needs, in order not to appear tame after TrrjXXorp.

T. Î<rp.,
ttoX.
for precisely in the
characteristic
t%
eTrayy.
lies
the
sacl significance of the being apart from the TroXireia rov ^la-parjX. The covenants of the promise, i.e. the covenants with
salvation (Rom,
which the promise Kar eô')(fjv, namely, that of the Messianic Gal. iii.), was connected, are the coveix. 4
;
nants made with

20, xxii. 16
ff.)
Abraham
(Gen.
xii.
f.,
7, xiii.
15, xv. 18, xvii.
and repeated with the other patriarchs (Gen. xxvi. 2 ff., xxviii. 13 ff.), as also the covenant formed with the The latter is here (it is otherwise at people through Moses. Rom. ix. 4, where there specially follows rj vopLodecria) neither excluded (Rlickert, Harless, Olshausen, and others), seeing that
this covenant also
had the promise of Messianic
life (6 7roir)cra<i
CHAP.
II.
12.
123
meant
Either
avTCL
^rjaerav
ev
avToh, Gal.
iii.
12), nor exclusively
(Eisner and Wolf, as was already suggested by Beza).

is
arbitrary,
and against the
latter
there
may
be
urged
specially the plural, as well as the eminent importance which
Paul must have attributed to the patriarchal covenants in particular. On fei/o? with a genitive (Khner, II. p. 163),
comp. Xen. Cyr.
p. 1
7 D,
al.
ekiriha
vi.
2.
Soph. Oed. R. 219

ray
iirayy.,
Plato,
Apol.
fir)
e^. k. adeot ev
.
.
k."]
consequence
of the preceding aTrrjXXorp.
climax
is
The very
generality of the expressions,
and in what a tragic inasmuch as it
not merely a definite hope (Paul did not write rrjv ekirlha)
definite relation to
and a
God
!
that are denied, renders these
last traits of the picture so dark
eKiriha]
Bengel
" Si pro-
missionem spem habuissent respondentem." But in this way Paul must have written ttjv eXiriha. No, those shut out from the promise are for the apostle men ivithout hope at all ; they have nothing to hope for, just because Comp. they have not to hope for the 'promised salvation. Every explanation of a definite hope (of the 1 Thess. iv. 1 3. resurrection and life everlasting, Bullinger, Grotius, and many of the promised blessings, Estius of deliverance, Harless comp. Erasmus and others) conflicts with the absence of the article, and weakens the force of the picture. fxr) eôi^Te?] is not to be explained from the dependence of the thought fir) on what immediately precedes (" foreign to the covenants of the promise, ivithout having hope" as Harless would take it), by which the independence of the element iXir. fir) e^. would be sacrificed to the injury of the symmetry and force of the passage but the subjectivity of the negation results from fivr)fiovevere, ort, ^re, in accordance with which fir) Xovre<i is a fact now conceived in the recollection of the readers (comp. Khner, II. 715, 3). The fir) refers the e'Xvr. fir) e^. to the conception of the subject of the governing verbum sentiendi {fivrffiovevere).
habuissent,
illi
;
adeoi] the lowest stage of Gentile misery.
We may
119
;
ex-
plain the
word
24,
p.
(see,
generally, Diog. Laert.
vii.
Sturz
in the Coram,
soc.
phil. Lips. II. p.
65
ff.
Meier in the Hall.
Encykl.
I.
466
ff.),
and not
in
at all in the
LXX.
God, atheists
(Plato,
which occurs only here in the N. T., or Apocrypha, either not believing Apol. p. 26 0; Lucian, Alex. 25
:
124
Aelian,
F",

H.
ii.
31
comp. Ignat. ad Trail, 10
6eoi
ovTe<;,
Tovreartv aTriarot), or godless, impii, reprobate (Plato, Legg.

xil p.
or: without God, sine
ii. 5. 39 Pindar, Fijth. iv. 288), Deo (Vulgate), i.e. witJiout divine help, without the protection and assistance of God (Soph. Oed. R. 633 6eo<;, (j)cko<i, comp. 254). The last-mentioned sense,
;
:
966 E; Xen. Anah.
as yielding the saddest closing predicate
(comp, ddeel, Horn.
Od. xviii.
352
Mosch.
ii.
148),
is
here to be preferred.
The
Gentiles had gods, which, however, were no gods (Acts xix. 26,
15 Gal. iv. 8); but, on the contrary, what they worshipped and honoured as divinities, since the forsaking of the natural knowledge of God (Ptom. i. 19 ff.), were demons (1 Cor. x. 20);
xiv.
;
so that for
them with
all
their BeLa-iSai/jLovia (Acts xvii. 22)
God was
and they apart from connection with Paul God's grace and help lived on in a God-forsaken state. might have written OeoaTvyeh, as at Eom. i. 30, but he continues in the stream of negative designations, which gives to his eV ra> Koaixai] is referred by picture an elegiac colouring. Calovius and Koppe to the preceding elements as a whole. But in this way it would have something of a dragging effect, whereas it attaches itself with force and suggestiveness to the bare adôi, whose tragical effect it serves to deepen. Only it must not be explained, even when so connected, with Koppe " inter ceteros homines, in his tcrris," in which sense devoid of significance. Nay rather, profane it would be humanity (observe the contrast to the TroktreLa rov ^la-parjX), the Gentile ivorld, was the unhallowed domain, in which the
really wanting,
readers in former time existed without God.
It
adds to the
:
imgodly
this
evil
How
the ungodly Where.
Olshausen explains
"
" in
world, in which one has such urgent need of a sure
but this is imported, no predicate stands beside Koafiw. According to Elickert, " in the it is to form a contrast to adeoL, and that in the sense world, of which the earth is a part, and which stands under God's government."^ But Paul must have said this, if he had meant it (by iv rw Kcafico tov eov, or something similar).
hope, a fast hold to the living
since
; :
God
So in substance also Grotius

sc.
"per omnes terrarum

uon
oras
verum Deum,
Deos ab
miindi
ojnficem, aut ignorabatis, aut certe

fictos,"
colebatis, sed pro eo
Lomiuibus
CIIAl'. IL
13.
125
Oecumenius and Meier eV t^ Kara rov irapovra iov ttoXiThis would be expressed by Kara top Koajxov. k6(t/jlu> The question, we may add, whether the ikvlBa applies to all Gentiles, not even a Socrates or a Plato excepted, is, in the view of the apostle, to be answered affirmatively, at ff., xi. 1 6 ff. 1 Cor. i. 1 9 ff.), all events in general (Rom. iii. 1 but has only an indirect application here, since the apostle is speaking of his readers, whom he describes as to their category. That, if the subject of his discourse had called for it, he would have known how to set limitations to his general judgment, may be assumed of itself, and in accordance with Kom. ii, 1 4 f. Comp. Acts xvii. 28. Ver. 13. But noio in Christ Jesus yc, once afar off, are made vvv\ he\ contrast to ra> Kaipa nigh hy the Mood of Christ. eKelvM, ver. 12 hut as your relation now stands. Comp. Rom.
:
Tela, etc.
vi.
22,
vii.
Col.
i.
21,
iii.
8.
"),
iv Xpiaroj
'It^ctoi)]
not to
be supplemented by eVre (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor yet a more precise definition of vvvi (Rckert " under the new
:
constitution, founded
by Christ
in
which case
:
several, pro-
ceeding more accurately, supply oVre? (Calvin
postquam in But such a Christo estis recepti," Koppe, Harless, Bleek). more precise definition would be very unnecessary, and would have significant weight only if a special emphasis rested upon
v as in
"
contradistinction to
%(/3t?, ver.
is
12, which, however,
cannot be the case, since there
not again used merely eV
XpiaTM, but
etvat of
iyev^Tjre,
ev
XptaTtp
Îrja-ov.
The
not
;
iv
Xpiaro)
to
Îrja-ov
the readers, moreover, was
2^'''ôr
the 771/?
but
its
immediate
it,
conseqiience
hence we should
have at
recepti,
least to
explain
not
jpostquam in Christo estis
but
cum
in Christo sitis recepti, wherewithal there
would
still
remain the very unnecessary character of this more

'I. is
precise definition, or of this conditional accessory clause (de
Wette).
iyevi]d.
:
Accordingly ev Xp.
to
be connected with 771'?

this has its
efficient
ye are in Christ Jesus, in

;
whom
cause, viade near
and
i.
ev
tu>
aXfiaTi tov
Xp.
'J.
is
then the
more
as
precise definition of the

7.
TOV aifiarof avrov,

iv Xp.
mode of eV Xp. Hence we have not to
place a
Comp. Bi comma,
T-achmann and Tischendorf have done, either before or after 'I. 'Ir]<rov] could not be added at ver. 1 2, but might
126
be added here, where the Christ

person of Jesus
of the
is
intended.
who
historically appeared in the

.
fiaKpdv] figurative description
was expressed in ver. 12 by aTrrjX-' XoToicofjievot T?7<? ttoXlt. rov Îcrp., and êvoi twv BiaOijK. iyyvii ijevjjO. iv tc3 aifi. r. X/9.] For, by the T?79 eTTwyy. fact that Christ shed His blood, the separation of the Gentiles from the Jews was done away, and consequently the fellowship of the former with the community of God's people (which See the true Christian Israel henceforth was) was effected. The hînging to participation in the hlessi7igs of ver. 14ff.
same
relation as
the
theocracy
is,
after the precedent of Isa. xlix.
1,
Ivii.
19,
Eabbins by the figurative propinquum facere (which with them is, with special frequency, equivalent to proselyturn facetx), and in that case the subject to whom the approach is made is always to be derived from as e.g. Vayikra B. 1 4, where God, and Mechilta, the context
expressed often also
the
;
among
f.
38. 12, where, as here, the theoaâcy
is
to be thought
of.
See, in general, the passage in Wetstein and Schttgen, Horae,

p.
761
T.,
ff.
771/9 yiveadai,
to
co7ne
near; only here in the

v. 4.
N,
frequent in the classic writers (Xen. Anah.
16,
iv. 7.
23; Thuc.
iii.
40.
6).
Ver. 14.^ Confirmatory elucidation to ver. 13, especially as

to
element implied in the iv XptaTM precisely in the iv tu aijiar. rov Xptarov.

the
avr^]
Îrjaov,
and more
ipse
;
as
regards His
own
person,
is
not put in opposition to the thought

the peace (Hofmann), which
;
of ourselves having
fact quite
made
is
in
foreign to the passage
but
and
what a triumph
of the
is
certainty
therein implied
et
pacem peperit what follows.

elpi]vrj,
and completeness of the blessing obtained " non modo pacificator, nam sui impensa ipse vinculum est utrorumque," Bengel. See
!
denoting the peace kut

[E. T.
Observe also the presence of the article in 17 iô^rjv (Buttmann, neut. Gr.
p.
109
125]);
to
He
the
is
for us the
ver.
peace absolutely, the

15.
absolute contrast
e^dpa,
The Eabbinical
Isa. ix. 6) is
p.
passages, however, in
which the Messiah (comp.

loc. ;
called )b^ (Wetstein in
Schttgen, Horae, II.
1 8),
do
is
not bear on this passage, since in them the point spoken of

'
"Yev. lJ-18 ipso veiborum tenoie
et (piasi iliythmo
cauticum
iiiiitatar,"
li'lliTfl.
CHAP.
II.
14.
127
Gentiles.
not, as here,' the pecace hetiueeyi

/c.T.X.]
Jews and
o TroLrjcat
quippe qui
fecit,
etc.,
now
begins the
more precise
peace.
information,
dfi(f)6Tepa]
how Christ has heeome Himself our

two [Germ, das Beides],
Gentiles.
ev.
i.e.
ra
the
the two existing,

corre-'
:
parts, the
Jews and
The neuter expression
Nothing is to be supplied (Grotius r/evT]). v] not so, that one part assumed the nature of the other, but so that the separation of the two was done away That was the with, and both were raised to a neio unity. Comp. Col. union of the divine oiKovofiia. See the sequel.
sponds to the following
iii.
1 1
X.
16.
Gal.
iii.
28
Rom.
x.
12;
<^p.
Cor.
xii.
13
John
546]
Kal TO /juea-oTOfôv tov

it {Kai,
f.).
Xucra?] is related to the
foregoing as explicative of
Fritzsche,
aijposiiion
:
see Winer, p.
388
is
[E. T.
Quaest. Luc. p. 9
rov
(l}payfMov
genitive of
(well-
the
partition-wall,
which consisted in the
known) fence. What is meant by this, we are then told by means of the epexegetic ttjv e'Ôpav hence Paul has not by
;
the figurative to /Meaor. rod (fipay/iov Xvcra^ merely wished to
express the (negative) conception that Christ has done away with
the isolation of the 0. T. commonwealth, as Ilofmann, Schrifthcw.
XL
1,
p.
connecting
rr]v e'Ôpav
375, holds, refining on to with Karapyâa^.

is
fieaor.
r.
(pp.,
and
De Wette
censures
the " extreme tameness " of the explanation, according to which

TO ixeaor. k.t.X.
as a preliminary designation of the e^^pa.
taken not as a designation of the law, but But the twofold

it
designation of the matter, describing
first
figuratively
and
then properly,
the
figure
is
in keeping with the importance of the idea,
direct expression
of
an
effect the
more
striJcing.
which produces after the previous To take the genitive in
an adjectival sense, as equivalent to to fiearoi'xôv Btacppdaaov (Vorstius, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Eosenmller, Meier, and others), is wrong, because the characteristic adjective notion
is
implied in to fieaorocxov {paries intcrgerinus, found else-
where only in Eratosthenes quoted by Athen, vii. p. 281 D, in Hesychius under KarrjXLyjr, and in the Fathers^), which has
>
tlie
In opposition to Hofniann, Sclmftbexo. II. 1, p. 374, who, at variaiire witli context, understands ilpr.in primarily in relation to God similarly Calovius
;
and
^
otliers.
In Atlicn.
I.e.
it is
masculine:
ts t?5
riloii.s
kui afiTr,; /iKroTciôv.
128
been
used.
felt also
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. by Castalio and Beza, innsmuch

it
as tliey errone-
ously translated
as
though top
(f>pay/nbv
tov ixeaoToi')(ov were
reference,
we may
add, to a definite ^pajfioî, which

is
underlies the figurative expression,
not to be assumed, since
the words furnish nothing of the
sort,
and cmy
Icind of fence
serving as a partition-wall illustrates the e)(6pa.
Some have
thought of the stone screen which in the temple-enclosure
marked off the court of the Gentiles, and the inscription of which forbade every Gentile from farther advance (Josephus, Bell. V. 5. 2, vi. 2. 4 Antt.vm. 3. 2 f., xv. 11. 5, ed.; Middoth,
;
So Anselm, Ludov. Cappellus, Hammond, Bengel, Wetstein, Krebs, Bretschneider, Holzhausen, and others. But at most this could only be assumed, without arbitrariness, if that screen had statedly borne the name of <f}pa'y/x6<i. Other
ii.
3).
references,
still
more
foreign to the matter,

to
which have been
introduced, such as
the Jewish districts in large towns,
which were marked off by a wall or otherwise (Schttgen and others), may be seen in Wolf. Among the Eabbins, too,
the figure of a fence
s.v.
^D.
Joh.
ii.
is
in very frequent use.
See Buxtorf,
(Wetstein,
Xvara'i']
in the sense of throwing
down
not
ad
19), belongs to the figure,

rrjv
and
is
chosen on
account of the
wards,
eÔpav which does not come in till afterwould be chosen siiitahly thereto (see Wetstein in loc). It has been wrongly designated as an un-Paidine idea, that Christ through His death should have united the Jews and Gentiles by means of the abolition of the law (see Schwegler, I.e. p. 389 f.). This union has in fact
although
it
taken place as a raising of both into a higher unity, vv. IG,

18,
21
f.;
hence
his
that
doctrinal
principle
is
sufficiently
explained from the destination of Paul as the apostle to the
and from his own not have as a presupposition the post-apostolic process of development on
Gentiles
and
personal
experience,
elsewhere
the
"
attested
universalism,
and
need
part
of the
church gradually gathering
itself
out
of
heterogeneous elements into a unity, so as to betray a later

catholicizing tendency " (Baur).
Ver. 15.
Tr]v e-xOpav]
This,
still
included in dependence
upon
\vaa<i, is
now
the p.eaioi'xpv broken

It
is,
(namel}') the enmity.
after the
down by Christ example of Theodoret
CHAP. IL
15.
120
by the majority
Baumgarten-
(comp.
Tire?
in
Clirysostom),
understood
(including
Liitlier,
Calvin, Bucer, Clarius, Grotius, Calovius,
]\Ioms, Eosenmller, Flatt, Meier, Holzliauseu,
Crusius, de Wette) of the Ilosaic law as the cause of the enmity
between Jew and Gentile, in which case the moral law is by But, in accordance with some included, by others excluded. the reader is led to nothing else than the opposite of ver. 14, elpi'-jVT], i.e. to the abstract enmity ; and in the sequel, indeed, the abolition of the law is very definitely distinguished from the destruction of the enmity (as means from end). Hence the only mode of taking it, in harmony with the word itself and
with the context,
is
:
the
enmity luhich existed between Jeivs
and
Gentiles,
comp. ver. 16.
So Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and others, including Eiickert and
Bleek; while Hofmann turns the notion of ex^pci into the
mere
airaXkorpioicn'i
of
ver.
12,
and,
referring
it
to
the
estrangement on the part of the Gentiles towards the theocracy

hated by them, removes the distinctive mark of reciproccdncss
demanded by the
context.
Quite erroneously, Chry-
sostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and lately Harless, hold
Jews and Gentiles towards God is In accordance with the context, ver. 14, the ixeaoroL-xpv can, in fact, only be one separating the Jews and Gentiles from eaeh other, and not something which separates both from
that the enmity of the
meant.
God ; and how mistaken is such a view also on account ot what follows for tlie Mosaic law might be conceived of as producing enmity towards God so far doubtless as the Jeios are concerned (1 Cor. xv. 56; Eom. v. 20, vii. 13; Gal.
!
iii.
19), but never as respects the Gentiles,

all relation
who
ii.
stood aloof
from
it)
to the
Mosaic law (Eom.
12).
eV t^
"
crapKl avTov] does not belong (as
Lachmann
also punctuates
to Tr)v e^dpav, so that " the national hatred in
His people
would be meant (Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, Schulthess, Engeltuclt, ip. 193); nor yet to Xucra? (Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Eiickert, and others), because in that case this mention of the death of Jesus would be irrelevantly dissevered from the modal definition tov vo/xov KaTapy7]aa<;, to which, in the nature of the ease, it belongs as an essential element but it stands with an emphasis suitable to the context (comp, avro^
;
Meyer.
Eph.
130
<ydp, ver.

14) at the head of the specification that
now
follows,
ivJiat
lay Christ has effected

.
what was
said in ver.
14 by
avTo<i
yap iariu
i.
away with
the law,
He hy His flesh has done namely, when He allowed His flesh to he

c'Ôpav
:
so that
crucified (Col.
21
f.),
dissolved thereby the tie with the law
that brought
men under
curse (see on Gal.
iii.
13),
opened up the
justification
through faith (Eom.
iii.
and thus 21 ff.),
whereby the institute of the law was emptied of its binding power (comp. Eom. x. 4 ff vii. 1 ff Col. ii. 14). The moral commands also of the law had thereby, while not ceasing to be
,
.
valid, ceased to
institute as such justifying in the

its fulfilment,
be held as constituent elements of the laiuway of compliance with it ; and
and that in augmented power, now proceeds from (Eom. viii. 4), on which account comp. Christ, although He is the end of the law (Eom. x. 4 2 Cor. iii, 11), could nevertheless say that He had come to voixov fulfil the law (Matt. v. 1 7), and Paul could assert
the
new
vital principle of faith
tarco/xev,
Eom.
iii.
31.
:
Hofmann imports
into the eV t^ aapKt
and with the doing away of His life He was an Israelite, Christ has rendered the appertaining to His community independent of As though the the religious - legal status of an Israelite.
avTov the thought
tlie flesh,
in
in
in respect of ivhich
atoning death of Christ, in the usual dogmatic sense of the
had not been most distinctly indicated already before by the ev tm atfxaTt rov XpcaTov, ver. 13, as afterwards by the aTTOKaraWd^y k.t.X., ver. 16, and by the Trpoa-ajcoy^, ver. 18 This meaning is not here, any more than at Col. tmv i. 2 1 f., to be exegetically modified or explained away. ivroXwu ev ho'yiiaai] to he taken together, yet not in such a way that ev stands for avv (Flatt) or /cat (Koppe, Eosenapostle,
!
mliller),
but as
(as
is
the laiv of the
commandments
consisting in
injimctions,
whereby the
a
whole,
exhibited.
dictatorial
character of the
as
legal
institute
not merely partially,
Schenkel
imports)
The genitive tmv cvtoXmv denotes

given.
the contents of the law, and iv Soyfiaac the essential foriî in
which the evrokai are

article
{twv) before ev Soyfiaai,
The connecting link of the was not requisite, since we

evToXrj ev SoyfxaTi
may
correctly
say
ivreXKeadaC re ev Bojfiarc or ivrdKrjv
BiBvai ev Boj/xaTi,
and therefore
may
be
CHAP.
II.
15.
131
Comp, on
iii.
conjoined so as to form one conception.*
13
Eom.
is
vi.
Gal. iv. 14,
iii.
26.
This view of the connection
adopted, after the precedent of
many
older expositors,
by
Eckert, Matthies, Meier, Winer, pp. 123, 197 [E. T. 169, 257], Bisping, Schenkel, Bleek.^ Comp, also Buttmann, ncut.
Cr. p.
80
[E. T. 92].
If one should, with the Syriac, Arabic,
Vulgate, Pelagins, Chrysostom and his successors, Theodore

of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Holzhausen, and others,
including Eritzsche, Diss, in

h^fjb.
Cor.
ii.
to KaTap<yr)<Ta^, there
would result
even
p.
168
f.,
refer eV
apart from the
fact that
with our mode of connecting ev t^ crapKi avrov, this

is
construction
not even possible
the wholly untrue
and
un-Pauline thought that Christ has through injunctions abolished

the law.
No
doubt some have imputed to iv Boy/xaai the

faith
sense praecepta stahiliendo (Eritzsche), in doing which they
had in view the evangelical doctrine of

Theophylact, Estius, Bengel, and others).
and the gratia
universalis (see Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret,
But even thus the

a doctrinal way,
;
sense remains untrue and un-Pauline, seeing that the doing
away
of the
law has taken place not at
all in
but hy the fact of the death of Christ (Eom. vii. 1 f. Gal. iii. 13 Col. ii. 14). And what a change would be made in
;
the meaning of the word
Boy/jua,
which in the
(Col.
ii.
N".
T. signifies
throughout nothing else than injunction

;
Luke
ii.
Acts xvii. 7, xvi. 4 comp. Plat. Zegg. i. p. 644 D ; Xen. Anah. iii. 3. 5, vi. 6. 8 Dem. 774. 19 Herodian, i. 7. 6 ; 4 Mace. iv. 23 f ) The distinction ought not to have been overlooked between ivroXrj and Boyfia, which latter puts the meaning of the former into the more definite form of the
; ;
!
There
is
consequently no need whatever for the evasive view of Theile (in

I.
"Winer's Execjet. Stud.
p.
188
ff.),
which
is
arbitrary
and makes the meaning

as to rZv hroxv.
:
of the expression simply ambiguous, that Paul has not added the article, because
\v "hityfi.
is
to be conceived of in the like relation to tov
vo^mov
Several of the older expositors, nevertheless, explained

Castalio,
legem mandatorum
in decretis sitam (Erasmus, comp.
Beza, Calvin, and others), so that
they connected b Voyfi. with to a^. But in that case ra must of necessity have stood before h Voy//,. And to excuse the absence of the article " o& congeriem articulorum " (Erasmus) is arbitrary. How often have classical wi'iters accumulated articles! Plato, Phileb. p. 33 A Dem. Ol. iii. 11, and many others. They avoid only the coming together of the same article, e.g. ro ri (Stallbaum, ad Flat. Rep. pp. 332 C, 598 B).
;
132
THE EFISTLE TO THE EPIIESIANS.
enjoining decree.
peculiar view
is
taken by Harless
ev
Soy/j,.
(fol-
lowed by
Olshausen)
likewise
connecting
with
KaTap<yr](Ta<i,
and holding that iv denotes the
" side
;
on which
(jklclv
that efficacy of the death of Christ exerts itself " Christ did
not render the law ineffectual in any such capacity as

TOiv fMeWovTcov, or as
TraiSayaybv
et?
Xpicrrov, but
07i the
side
commanding form of its Incorrectly, because Sy/xaat, must of precepts," Olshausen). necessity have had the article, and because it is nowhere taught that the law is done away only in a single respect. The Mosaic legal institute as such, and not merely from a certain side, has in Christ its end (Eom. x. 4) the a-Kia rwv fxeWovof the Boy/xara
("
in reference to the
Tcov in the
on Col. ii. with the attainment of maturity on the part of his pupils
iii. 24 f.). Incorrect also is the view of Hofmann, o77, who, likewise takmg iv BSyfiaa-t as modal definition p. to KaTap<yy](Ta<i, and for the expression with iv comparing 1 Cor. ii. 7, finds the meaning by tlie very fact that Christ has put an end to pxccjots gcncrcdly. He has invalidated the 0. T. law of commandments. The statement that Christ has
law has only a transient typical destination (see 1 7), and the work of the iraiSayco'yc'i is at an end
(Gal.
put an end to Soy/iara gcncrcdly,

in general,
is
i.e.
to
at variance A^dth the
whole N.
commanding ])rcccpts T., which contains
teaching of Paul,
21, of a
numberless definite commands, and, in particular, with the who even places Christianity as a whole
under the point of

ix.
view,.
Eom.
iii.
27,
ix,
31, Gal.
vi. 2,
1 Cor.
all
i/c/i09
(which, without BojfiaTa,

Col.
ii.
is
not at
Paul would at least have made a limiting addition to iv Soyfiaa-o, and have written something like ev B6j/j,aat Bov\eia<; (comp. Eom.
conceivable^),
and specially with
14.
viii.
15
Gal. iv. 24, v. 1).
iva toi/? Buo
elpt^vrjv']
a state-
ment
of the object
aimed
at in the just expressed abrogation
of the law, which statement of aim corresponds to what has been said concerning Christ in ver. 14, more precisely defining
and confirming the same. Harless arbitrarily passes over what elp/prjv expresses immediately precedes, and holds that ha the design of 6 Tronja-a'i to, afJucôTepa ev, in which case too, we
. . .
'
The
Voyfioira. of
Christianity are the true u
praôvTa. 1'oyyt.ce.Ta,
Plato, Theaet.
p.
15S D.
CHAP. IL
15.
133
would result a tautological relation of the The Jews and Gentiles, who before were designated in accordance with the general category under a neuter form, are here conceived of concretely as the two men under discussion, of whom the one is the totality of the Jews, and the other that of the Gentiles, out of which two men Christ This is the collective subject of has made a single new man. the KaiV7] KTLo-fi, Gal. vi. 15 (the whole body of Christians).
acid,
may
thought.
there
Tov'i Bvo]
iv eavro)] is neither,
with Grotius, to be taken as

Chrysostom,
2^cr
Oecumenius, and others, as equivalent to Be eavTov (Oecumenius ov 8c dyjeXmv rj aXkwv rivMv BvvdfMecov), but it affirms that the unity to be brought about out of the two by the new creation was to be Christ Himself, that is, was to have the basis of founded its existence and continuance in Him, and not in any other
doctrinam
:
suam, nor,
with
unifying principle whatever.

viduals,
In the case, namely, of all indifrom among the Jews and Gentiles, who form the one new man, the death of Christ is that, wherein this new unity has its causal basis; withe ut the death of the cross it would not exist, but, on the contrary, the two would still be just in the old duality and separation as the Jew and the Greek. Calvin well remarks that in se ipso is added, " ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem quaerant." Comp. Gal. iii. 28. This
union, negatively conditioned by the abolition of the law, and
having
1 Cor.
its
basis in the self-sacrifice of Christ, is
positively
accomplished
xii.
as
regards
the
subjects
through
the
Spirit,
But objectively accomplished namely, as a fact before God and apart from the subjective appropriation by means of the Spirit it is already by virtue of the death, which Christ has undergone for the reconciliation of both parties, Jews and Gentiles, with God; see ver. 16. kulvov] For this one is now neither Jew nor Greek, which the two, out of which the 07ie has been
13.
Comp, subsequently
ver. 18.
made, previously were but both portions have laid aside their former religious and moral attitude, and without further
;
distinction have
obtained the quite

If kulvv
new
nature conditioned
by Christian
had not been added, the et? vdpo37ro<; might be incorrectly conceived of as an amalgam of Jew and Gentile. To exclude, we mav add, from Katvov the
faith.
134

is
moral element (Meier, comp. Ecliert)

but, according to the apostolic
not merely arbitrary,
way
of looking at matters, even
impossible, 2 Cor. v.
eiprjvrjv]
17;
Gal. iv. 27, vi.
14
f.,
v. 6.
iroiiv
Present participle, because the establishment of peace
as what was duly to set in with the designed new creation, was implied in the very scope thereof; it was that which was to be brought about in and with it. Observe that ttolcov
elpijvrjv is
in iva Tov'i Bvo k.t.X.,
spoken from the standpoint of the design expressed and is included as belonging to what is
:
designed
consequently
so
that
He
(by this
is,
new
creation)
makes peace (not made peace),

of the
elpijvrj
in accordance with
the context, the opposite of exOpa, ver. 1 5, consequently peace
nor
Trpo?
two portions with each rov Qeov Kal
other,
not
with God (Harless),

(Chrysostom,
irpo^
W^\ov<;
Oecumenius).
Ver. 16. Continuation of the sentence expressive of the
design.
Christ has by His death done
order to
15),
make
the
Jew and
the Gentile into one
away with the law, in new man (ver.

of
and (and consequently)

cross,
so to accomplish the reconciliation
hoth with God, that they shoidd as one hody he reconciled with
God
through the
of thought
after
He
has slain thereon the enmity which
hitherto existed hetween them.

;
/fat] is
the and of the sequence

the
;
from what was before said resulted
way and
manner
hence also aTro/faraXXacrcrci), only here and a-TTOKaTaXk, is prefixed. Col. i. 20; in the other Greek writings only KaraWaa-aco is preserved, which is not distinguished from BcaWdaao) (in opposition to Tittmann, Synon. p. 101 see Tritzsche, ad Bom.
of the reconciliation of the
two with God
I.
p.
276
ff.).
analogy of
The composition with otto may, after the other compounds with tto (comp. iroKaOia-Trjfit,
al.),
diroKaTopOoo),
denote again (Calvin

it
" reduxerit in
unum
gregem," also Harless), but
may
also (comp. aTrodav/jbdôy,
dirodepaireixo, al) strengthen the notion of the reconciliation.
adapted to the context {iv evl aooîaTt In opposition to Hofmann's conversion of the notion into that of the restoration of fellowship with God, We may add that aTroKaraW. does not see on Col. i. 20. apply to the mutual reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles
latter is better
ver. 18).
;
The
and see
(GrotiuSj according to
whom
to5
ew
is
then equivalent to ut
CHAP.
11.
16.
135
Qeaj says (Rom.
v.
Deo serviant
2 Cor.
V.
!),
but, as the express
tm
10
18, 20), to the reconciliation of both ivith God, whose wrath, namely, against sinners Christ has by His IXaGTrjpiov
changed into grace.

V.
10.
Comp, on
Col.
i.
21
2 Cor. Civ
v. 1
Eom.
Tov<i djjLcporepovi^
not again
roi/?
Bvo, because
they are
now
is
conceived a s uni ted, comp, v v. 14, 18.
evl acofiart]
held by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, Calovius,
Calixtus,
Wolf,
Bengel,
Zachariae,
Koppe,
Flatt,
Eckert,
Matthies, ITarless, Hofmann, Lechler, and others, to be the body

of Christ ^Jby the offering
with
G od. J
up of one body loth are reconciled But how superfluous in tbat case would the Bca
^
!
70V aravpov be
Moreover, Christ
is
in fact the subject,
and how could
it
be said of Christ that by a single body
He
has reconciled both with God, or

the Pauline doctrine of atonement
as Hofmann
T.
gives to the
meaning a turn quite departing from the N.

body {His body, namely)
in the like
to be their unity
and especially
that He has made a single

embracing them
as
fellowship of
God,^ since in fact the case of a
plurality of bodies on the part of Christ
was not even
an
abstraction
conceivable
This inappropriateness, hardly exto Tov<i fi(f)Tepov<i,
would only cease to be felt, if God were the subject, so that Paul might say that God had by the surrender of ooie body reconciled the two (2 Cor. v. 18 Col. i. 21) with Himself. Hence Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, Photius, Anselm, Erasmus, Bucer, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Grotius, Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, BaumgartenCrusius, de Wette, Winer, Bleel/, have rightly found in ev a-(o/j,a
T. (Calovius),
;
cusable by the reference by the pure invention offered up under the 0.
and not removed

the
of a
contrast
to
many
bodies
' Hofmann, after Tertull. c. Marc. v. 17, attaches it to the following utoxt., by which, however, the emphasis that manifestly lies on croxr. is pushed forward to oia <Tou (TTavfov. ^ " In His person subsists the newness of human nature for them, and in His
body, wherein [as a bodily living man]

place where
He
has gone unto God, they have the
mankind
With
nect
this explaining
Tov frTavfou
2/a;
witli God," Hofmann, p. 380. atonement it was no doubt consistent to conwith avoKr., and to refer back %i alru to the e iTf/.a,. The
is
restored to
of the
communion
away
simply correct rendering is given, e.g., in the version of Castalio " < in sese ex duobus conderet uiuim novum hominem fadendo pacem, et umbos urn in corpore reconciUaret Deo per crucem peremtis in ea inimicUlis,"
:
136
the
formed of the Jews and Gentiles v6 pwiro'i.Jl Comp, on gv owîa, Eom. V. 12; 1 Cor. X. 17; Eph. iv. 4; CoL iii. 15. Clirist has reconciled the two in one 'body, i.e. constituting one body witliout further separation the two portions of humanity as one v^liole unto God. How entirely is this mode of taking it in keeping with the whole context See especially vv. 15, 14.
corinis, wliicli is
/caivo'i
unum
united into a eh
aTTo/CTetm?
;
ttjv
e-^dpav iv avjui] after he shall have slain,
etc.
for it is inserted in the
second half of the affirmation of
dcsig.
which begins with the

"
ha
of ver. 15, so
first half.
that
it
is
correlative to the
irotwv elpyjvTjv of the

:
On
cittokt.
Grotius correctly observes
idem hie
valet,
quod modo
\vaa-^,
sed crucis facta mentione, aptior fuit translatio verbi airoKreiva'i,
quia crux mortem adfert."
And
the eÔpa (here perver. 1 4

;
sonified) is not to
be explained otherwise than in
hence
not the law (Michaelis, Koppe, Holzhausen), nor the hostile

relation of the
Jews and Gentiles towards God (most The aim
expositors,
1/
including Eiickert, Meier, Harless, Hofmann), but the enmity

of the
two
totvards each other.
of the apostle
was
not to explain the nature of the atonement in general as such,
but to show how Christ has reconciled with God the Jews and Gentiles combined into unity, and to this end it was pertinent
to say that
He had
cancelled the enmity which had hitherto
subsisted between them.
The
aorist participle,
we may
has
add,
ut
affirms not something simultaneous with diroKaraXk.

interficeret),
(itct
but someihm^ preceding {after that
He
slain), so
that the relation of time is conceived of otherwise than in the case of the correlative iroicov elprprjv, ver. 15. Paul, namely,_^_^
has conceived the matter thus
by His death on the cross to cancel the mutual enmity between Jews and Gentiles (see on ver. 15), and then by means of this death to reconcile both, who should now in this manner be united into one aggregate, iv ivl orm/xari with God. In reality
:
'
Christ has
desired
these are indeed only different sides of the effect of the death of
Christ on the cross, not separate and successive effects ^ but in
the representation unfolding the subject, in which Paul will

here, as in a picture, set the matter before us in its various
elements, they appear
so, and this is in keeping with the whole solemn pathos which is shed over the passage. iv
CHAP.
II.
17.
137
to
ad/xarc
avroi]
i.e.
on the
cross.
The reference
(Eengel,
Semler, Hofmann, following TertuUiau) falls with the correct
explanation of eV em acofiarc.
The reading
It.
iv eavTcp (F
Syr. p.
(t,
115,
but
is
codd. in Jer,
Arab. pol. Vulg.
Gotli.
Ambr.
Aug.) would yield the same sense as that reference to aoofian,

a conformation to ver. 15, in accordance with which
"
Luther also translated
through Himself."
Ver. 17. After Christ has established peace.
He
has come
and has
also 2Jroclaimcd
it,
to the Gentiles
and the Jews.
This
proclamation, namely, cannot be regarded as preceding the fact
by which the peace was established, so that iXOcov would apply to the hodily advent of Christ upon earth (Chrysostoni, Anselm, Estius, Holzhausen, Matthies, Harless), and the connection with ver.
(ver.
14
would be
" Christ
is
peace in deed
2:)roclaiinecl
peace, but He 17); Himself at His appearing on earth," Harless. For, when it is said in ver. 14, avTo) elp7]V7] rj/xcov, the time thought of is, as vv. 1416 show, the time after the crueifixion of Christ, through which and since which He is our peace, so that KaX i\6cov k.t.X. does not merely attach itself to avToydp iariv i] elpi'prj tj/mmv and leave all that intervenes out of view but, on the contrary, this intervening matter is so essentially bound up with avro<i y. e. r) elp. rj/j,., that now
14) and
it
ivord
(ver.
He
not only
is
Kal
eXOoiv K.T.X.
can introduce not a irpojepov, but only a

it
varepov of the crueifixion, annexing as

course
of
does the further
most expositors have understood in iXOwv an advent follovnng the crucifixion of Christ, in connection with which either the resurrection of Christ has been thought of (Bengel, Elickert), or His having come in His Spirit (Olshausen), or in the preaching that took place through the apostles (so most), in which latter view iXOcov is wrongly by many, as Eaphel, Grotius, Wolf, Zachariae, Koppe, EosenmUer (comp. Meier), regarded as without signithe
matter.
Eightly,
therefore,
ficance
it
is
in
truth
an
" insigne
verbum," Bengel.
is
The
correct explanation
(comp, ver, 18)
given by Olshausen;
comp.
Sehrifthei.
and de Wette, also Hofmann, In the Holy Spirit, 475, and Bleek. namely, not only according to John (John xiv. 18, al), but
Baumgarten-Crusius
II.
1,
p.
also according to Paul, Christ
Himself has come
(in so far as
138

from heaven
5
Gal.
ii.
it is Christ's Spirit)
to
those
who have
received
9,
the Spirit, and dwells and rules in 2 Cor.

iii.
them (Eom.
viii.
10
17,
xiii.
20), and this proclamation has
taken place at the instance of the Spirit (Eom. viii. 16), and through the Spirit Himself (Rom. xv. 18; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3).
The point of time expressed by evrjyjekia-aro is the conversion of the persons concerned, at which they received the Spirit
(Gal.
iii.
Eph.
i.
13).
Accordingly
rot? fiaKpdv),
the
apostle
first
could,
without writing at variance with history, name

as original Gentiles
for
{v/jllv
the readers
and then the Jews
when
the Ephesians became Christians, there had already
long since been converted not merely
Jeios, but Gentiles and meant the actual coming Had he, on the other hand, Jews. of Christ upon earth and His oral preaching, the historical necessity would have presented itself of mentioning first those We may that were near and then those that were afar off. concrete and vividly depicting expression iXdoov add that the eviryy., can the less occasion surprise, as the whole passage Comp, also Acts xxvi. 23. bears the impress of emotion. lp7]V7]v] has been, from the time of Chrysostom, ordinarily explained of peace with God, while only a few, as Estius and
Koppe, suppose peace with each other to be included; but Olshausen rightly understands the latter cdonc, as does also Bleek. Only this is in keeping with the whole connection (see, moreover, the immediately preceding uttokt. rrjv eÔpav, and comp. ver. 19), and, moreover, has ver. 18 not against it, vixlv rot? ixaKpdv and but in its favour (see on ver. 18).
Tot? 6771^9] (both to be explained in accordance with ver. 12,
and comp. Isa. Ivii. 19) are dependent on evrjyyeXi'aaTO, the view which immediately and most naturally suggests itself. Harless would attach both very closely to elprjvnv, a course to which he was impelled by his explanation of eXOoov evrjyy., in order not to present the apostle as saying what is inconJohn x. 16 sistent with history (Matt. xv. 24, comp. x. 5 f. But the inconsistency with history would ]\Iatt. xxi. 43, al).
still
remain.^
The
repetition of elprjvqv (see the critical remarks)
^ If Paul had understood 1x6. ilfiyy. in the sense of Harless, he must at all events have written tip. roii \yyu% k. tip. hft rols fji.cix.pa.)i. Harless himself has paraphrased (comp. Erasm. Paraphr. ) " The contents of his message was a peace
:
CHAP.
II.
18.
139
;
has rhetorical emphasis, John xiv. 27
Buttm.
ncut. Gr. p.
341
however (Nagels[E. T. 393]. II. i. 436), excludes the view of Wieseler, bach on Horn. p. 444, that TOi? 771;? also is in apposition to v/jllv, and means
This iirifiov^ of the expression,
specially the Jewish- Christians in U^jJicsus.
Ver. 18.
Prooffrom an appeal
main
to
fact for
what has
just
been said
evl TTvev/M.
eurjyj. eiprjvrjv v/xlv t. fxaicp. k. elp. Tot<i iyyv';.
In
this case the
stress of the proof lies in 01 ap.<^6repoL iv
If,
namely, through Christ, hath in One Spirit have
the 'Trpoaaywyi] to the Father, to both must the same news,

that of peace, have
been imparted by Him.
This
is
the
necessary historic premiss of that happy state of unity

actually subsistent through Christ.
elprjvt]
now
He must
have proclaimed
to the
one as to the other
of this Paul
now
gives the
'prohatio ah
tents of
effectii.
Others hold that on, introduces the con-
the message of peace (Baumgarten, Koppe, Morus,
riatt).
But the
contents is fully expressed in the elprjvrj itself,

;
agreeably to the context
hence, too,
is
we may not
explained.
say,
with
Eckert, that the essence of the elpi^vq

reality of the possession.
According
to Harless, the truth of that proclamation is
shown from the

introduced not
Trpoaaycoj^v]
But
in this
way
a subsidiary thought
is
(namely, that the proclamation was true)
merely
Christ
arbitrarily,
but also unsuitably
(for
which has been proclaimed was

is
self-evident).
the truth of that

t7]v
;
not conceived of as door (John
x.
Beza, Calvin),
which
remote from the context, but as hringer ; in which case there may be an allusion to the Oriental custom of getting
is
access to the king only through a irpoaa'yco'yev'; (see on

v.
Eom.
with
2),
but not to
ii.
sacrificial
processions in
accordance
58 (Meier), which would be an unsuitable comparison. Before Christ had reconciled men with God, communion with God was, on account of the wrath of God (ver. 3 Eom. V. 1 0), denied to them Christ by His IXaan^piov removed this obstacle, and thus became the irpoaay o)yev<;, through the mediation of whom (Be avrov) we now and henceforth have the bringing near (Thuc. i. 82 Polyb. ix. 41. 1, xii. 4. 10
Herod,
;
;
which availed
for all,
Jews as
ivell
as Gentiles."
Evidently under an involuntary

for all, Gentiles as well as
sense of the historical relation, but in opposition to the words, according to which
Harless ought to have paraphrased
" availed
Jews."
140
Xen. Cyr.
vii. 5.

In substance the having the 45) unto God. is not different from the elprjvr] 7rpo<; rov
'rrpoaa'yairyri
to
God
0e6v (Eom.
ciled.
v. 1),
and from the
filial
relationship of the recon-
It
is
the consequence of the atoning death of Jesus
the peaceful relation of believers towards God, brought about
through this death.
Comp. 1
Pet.
iii.
18.
Here, moreover, as at
is
Eom,
by
V. 2,
the notion of Iringing towards, which the word has,

aipiproacli
not to be interchanged with that of

Elickert, Harless, Bleek), as
or access (as
still
though irpoorohov were written

efficacy of
in the text.
Christ
is
by the continuous power and
His atoning act

iii.
12.
the constant Bringer to the Father.
Comp,
iv ev\ Trvev/xarc] for the Ilolg Spirit is to both one
and the same element of life (comp, on Eom. viii. 15), apart from which they cannot have the irpoaajcoyi] to God. The referring of it to the hitman spirit {p[xo6vfxah6v, Anselm, Homberg, Zachariae, Koppe, Morns, Eosenmliller) ought to have been precluded by taking note of the Divine Trias in our passage (St avrov, iv evl irvevfjuaTi, irpo'^ rov irarepa) comp. vv. 12, 22. Observe, further, the difference of meaning between the e'xpjxev (denoting the continuously present
possession of the signal benefit) and the

V.
ia')(7]Kafiev of
Eom.
2 (see on the latter passage).
draws the inference from vv. 14-18 same in its tenor with what was said at ver. 13, but is carried out in more detail; for this is just what was to be proved ver. 14 ff. (qttod erat demonstrandum). êvot] i.e. such as are not included as helonging to the theocracy, but are related towards it as strangers, who belong
Ver. 19.
"Apa
ovv]
and
this inference is the
to
another state
ver. 12.
the
opposite
is
a-vfiiroXlTat
tcov
ayicov.
The same is indicated by irdpoiKOi: inquilini,^ those who, coming from elsewhere, sojourn in a land or i.e. city without having the right of citizenship (Acts vii. 6, 29 1 Pet. ii. 11). See, in general, Wetstein, ad Liic. xxiv. 1 8 Gesen. Thcs. s.v. 2C'in. It is the same as is expressed in classic Greek by fieroLKoi, (Wolf, ^^ro/. Dem. Lept. p. Ixvi. ff. Hqx; ;
;
Comp.
\\\?a\)i,
Staatscdterth. 115), in contradistinction to tlie ttoXiti]^
Among
Greek writers
it
veighhour;
lias
it,
^dpoiKts has not this signification, but is eqûivalent to however, in the LXX. (Ex. xii. 45 Lev. xxv. 6-23).
;
Comp.
TToi.pmM,
Acts
xiii. 17,
and
in the
LXX.
Clem. Cor.
ii.
5.
"
CHAP.
II.
19.
141
or aro'?
in the
citizens
The Gentiles are (Plat. Pol viii. p. 563 A, al.). commonwealth of God only inquilini, sojourners, not
;
ruled by
they have no irokireia therein although they are God (Kom. iii. 29) and included in the Messianic
;
(Eom. iv. 12 f.), they are so in the second place and without participating in the time-hallowed peculiar prerogatives of the Israelites (Rom. iii. 1, ix. 4 ff.).
promise
(Rom.
i.
16),
The
referring of irdpotKoi to the conception
of a household
(persons pertaining to the house,
not to be
xxii. 10),
members of the family) is made good by linguistic usage (not even by Lev. and is not demanded by the antithesis of oiKeloi
(in
Tov
Oeov
opposition
to
Bengel,
Koppe,
Flatt,
Meier,
Harless, Olshausen, Schenkel), inasmuch as

sustains a climactic relation
oliceloi
tov Oeov
to the preceding (tv/mttoX. twv and the two together form the contrast to êvot and irpoLKOL. The reference to the proselytes (Anselm, Whitby, Cornelius a Lapide, Calixtus, Baumgarten) is quite at variance aXX eVre] emphatic repetiwith the context (vv. 1113). Comp. Rom. viii. 15 1 Cor. tion of the verb after aXXd. ii. 8; Heb. xii. 18 ff. o-vixiroXiTai] belongs to the inferior Greek Lucian, Solocc. 5 Ael. F. H. iii. 44 Joseph. Antt. xix. 2. 2. rwv aytirwi/] i.e. See Lobeck, ad Phnjn. p. 172. These were of those who constitute the people of God. formerly the Jews (ver. 12), into whose place, however, the Christians have entered as the ^laparjX tov eov (Gal. vi. 16), as the true descendants of Abraham (Rom. iv. 10 fi'.) and God's people (Rom. ix. 5 ff.), acquired as His property by the work of Christ (see on i. 14). The Ephesians have thus, by becoming Christians, attained to the fellow-citizenship with the saints, which saints the Christians were, so that twv aylcov does not embrace either the Jews (Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, Morus) or the ^:)a;!rfarc7is (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others Theodoret yLov<; ivravOa ov fiovov
arjUov,
T0U9
T?}9 ')(api,To<;,
uXKa Kol
oiKetoi tov
Tov<i iv vojxw
koX
Tov'i irpo vpiov
Xeyei),
with
whom
(Calvin, Flatt).
even the
angels
have
been associated
eou] merabers of God's household.

n.
The theocracy is thought of as family, dwelling in a house, of which God is the olKohecnrTTj':;. Heb. 1 Tim. iii. 15 iii. 2, 5, 6, X. 21 1 Pet. iv. 17. Comp, nin- r\'2, Num. xii. 7
;
142
Hos.
viii.
I'HE EPISTLE TO
THE EPHESIANS.
1.
Harless: belonging to the house of God, as the
huildiiig -stones of the house, in
which God
dwells.
But thus the

is
following figure
to the irdpoLKoi.
is
antici2Mted,
and that in a way contrary to

afforded
the meaning of oIkio^; and an incongruous contrast
Ver. 20.
The conception
oIko^
Geov leads the
apostle, in
keeping with the many-sided versatility of his association of

ideas, to
make
the transition from the figure of a household-
fellowship, to the figure of a hovLBQ-structure,

to give to oliceioi rov
kJ
and accordingly 0eov a further illustration, which now is no longer appropriate to the former figurative conception, but only to the latter, which, however, was not yet expressed eTroiKoBofir)Comp. Col. ii. 6, 7. in oiKeioi rov Oeov. 6evTe<i] namely, when ye became Christians. The compound does not stand for the simple term (Koppe), but denotes the building vp. Comp. 1 Cor. iii, 10, 12, 14; Col. ii. 7; Xen, eVi, ivith the dative, howIfist. vi. 5. 12; Dem. 1278. 27. ever (comp. Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 11), is not here occasioned by the aorist participle (Harless), which would not have hindered
the use either of the genitive (Horn.

-Lcgg. V. p.
//.
xxii.
225
iii.
Plato,
;
73 G E) or of the accusative
(1 Cor,
12
Eom.
but the accusative is not employed, because Paul 20) has not in his mind the relation of direction, and it is
XV.
;
purely accidental that not the genitive of

of rest is
employed.
rest,
-irpo^.]
rojv
airoaT.
k.
but the dative is taken by
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Morns,
and
others, including Meier,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
de Wette, as genitive of apposition; but wrongly, since the
and prophets are not the foundation, but have laid it The foundation laid hg the apostles and pro10). phets (as most expositors, including Koppe, Elatt, Eckert,
apostles
(1 Cor.
iii.
Matthies, Harless, Bleek, correctly take

Christ,
it)
is
the gospel of
which they have proclaimed, and by which they have established the churches; see on 1 Cor. iii. 10. "Testimonium apost. et proph. substructum est fidei credentium omnium," irpo^rjrwv] has been understood by Chrysostom, Bengel. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Baumgarten, Michaelis, and others, including That not these, howEckert, of the Old Testament prophets.
CHAP.
II.
20.
143
xii.
ever,
but the
New
Testament prophets (see on 1 Cor.
10),
are intended
(Pelagius, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, Zachariae,

Flatt, Harless, Meier, Matthies, Olshaiisen,
Koppe, Eosenmller,
is clear, not indeed from the non-repetition of the article, since the apostles and prophets might be conceived as one class (Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 5 ol a-Tparr)yol Kol Xoâyol comp. Saupp. ad Xen. Venat. v. 24
:
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek),
373), but (1) from the very order of the words,^ which, especially from the pen of an apostle,
cor.
Dissen, ad Dem. de
p.
would most naturally have been rwv 'Kpo^rjrwv (TTokwv and (2) from the analogy of iii. 5, iv. 11
;
k.
airo-
the fact
from that the foundation-laying in question can, from the

;
(3)
nature of the case, only be the preaching of the Christ
who
has come, because

of
upon
this
foundation the establishment

in
the
church took place, and

also ver. 21.
at
the
that
preaching
the old
prophetic predictions were used only as means (Rom. xvi. 26).
Comp,
here
Harless supposes that the apostles are
called
same time
proj^hets.^
is
In
this
way, no
doubt, the objection of Elickert
obviated, that, in fact, the
prophets themselves would have come to Christianity only
by
and would themselves have stood only 6efi\io<i tcSi/ aTroaroXcov but (a) from the non-repetition of the article there by no means follows the unity of the persons (see above), but only the unity of the category, under which the two are thought of. (5) There may be urged against it the analogy of iv. 11, as well as that in the whole T., where the ecclesiastical functions are already distinguished ^ and prophets are mentioned, apostles are not at the same time
of the apostles,
;
means on the
^ This has been very arbitrarily explained by the assertion that the apostles preached the gospel immediately, that they possessed the greater endowment of grace, that the foundation had been no recens positum, and such like. See specially Calovius and Estius.
'^
So
also Eiickert
on
iii.
5,
and Hofmann,
Sclirifthew.
II.
2,
p. 122.
The
adduces as a reason, that vpoip. is no peculiar N. T. designation like .TTffT. This, however, it surely is, namely, in the N. T. sense, for which the 0. T. word was the most suitable vehicle. Philippi also, Glaubenslehre, I.
latter
p. 288, ed. 2, declares himself in favour of Harless.
^
This
is
of Christian teachers
parallel
not yet the case at Matt, xxiii. 34, where rather the whole category is still designated by Old Testament names. In the
xi.
Luke
49,
on the other hand, the apostles are already adduced as
such by name.
14i
intended.
It

is
true that the apostles
had of necessity
to
possess the gift of prophecy, but this vras understood of
itself,
and they are always called merely

having received the
gift
ajyostles,
while simply those

not at the
of prophecy,
who were
same time apostles, are termed ^:)roj:/iefe ; comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28 f. (c) There would be no reason whatever bearing on the matter in hand why the apostles should here be designated nay, the contrast of 31oscs and the specially as prophets Ijrophcts, arbitrarily assumed by Hofmann, would only tell against the identity (Luke xxiv. 27, 44; Acts xxiv. 14; John i. 46). That objection of Klickert, however, disappears entirely when we contemplate the prophets as the immediate and
;
principal fclloio-lahourers in connection with the laying of the
foundation done primarily by the apostles, in which character

they, although themselves resting
apostles, yet in turn
upon the
OefieXiov of the
were associated with them as founders. And the more highly Paul esteems prophecy (1 Cor. xiv. 1), and puts the prophets elsewhere also in the place next to the apostles (iv. 11; 1 Cor. xii. 28 f.), with so much the more
justice
might he designate the

;
apostles
and
ptvoplids as laying
the foundation of the churches
and the
less are
we
warranted,
with de Wette, in finding here traces of a
disciple of the apostles,
who
has had before him the results of the apostolic labours as well as the period of the original prophecy as concluded, or with
Schwegler
as the
'I.
(in Zcllcrs Jahrh.
1844,
p.
379) and Baur
(p.
438),
in recognising traces
of 3ontanism with
apostolate.
continuers
of the
its
new
prophets
6Vto9
aKpoy. avrov
X.] lohcrcin Jesus Christ Himself

essential
is corner-stone.
On
this
most
lack
point,
without
question upon the apostolic
up in and prophetic foundation would

which
the
building
its uniquely distinctive character, liinges the whole The gospel completion of the sublime picture, vv. 21, 22.
preached by the apostles and prophets is the foundation, the basis, npon which the Ephesians were built up, i.e. this apostolic and prophetic gospel was preached also at Ephesus,
and the readers were thereby converted and formed into a but the corner-stone of this building Christian community
;
is
Christ Himself, inasmuch, namely, as Christ, the historic,
living Christ, to
whom
all
Christian
belief
and
life
have
CHAP.
II.
20.
145
as necessarily conditions through Himself the and endurance of each Christian commonwealth, as the existence and steadiness of a building are dependent on the indispensable corner-stone, which upholds the whole structure (on dKpoyo}vcaco<i, sc. Xcdo'i, which does not occur Symm. Ps. in Greek writers, comp. LXX. Isa. xxviii. 16 on the subject-matter, Matt. xxi. 42). 1 Pet. ii. 6 cxvii. 22
reference,
existence
Only
as to the figure, not as to the thing signified, is there a
difference
at 1 Cor.
lies in
when
iii.
Christ
is
here designated as the corner-stone,
and
1 1 as the foundation.
The
identity of the matter
tov Kei/xevov, 1 Cor.

corner-stone
figure of the
I.e. See on that passage. In the (which " duos parietes ex diverse
venientes
conjungit et continet," Estius)
many have found
the union of the Jews and Gentiles set forth (Theodore t, Menocliius, Estius, Michaelis, Holzhausen, Bretschneider, and others).
But this is at variance with iracra oUoS., ver. 21, according to which for every Christian community, and so also for those consisting exclusively of Jewish-Christians or exclusively of Gentile-
Christians, Christ is the corner-stone.

to
avrov] does not apply
tS
OefieXi) (Bengel,
Cramer, Koppe, Holzhausen, Hofmann,

is
II. 2, p.
122), for Christ
conceived of as the corner-stone,

the building (ver.
21).
is
not of
the foundation, but of
It
belongs to Îrjaov XpiaTov, which with this avrov

K.T.X. that
placed
emphatically at the end, in order then to join on by eV
which is to be further said of Christ, in so far as He is Himself the corner-stone. The article avrov rov 'I. X. might be used Christ would then be conceived of as already
;
present in the consciousness of the readers (ITe Himself Christ

see Fritzsche,
ad Matth.
is
p.
117):
it
was not
;
necessary,
how-
ever, to use it (in opposition to Bengel)

is:
ii.
but the conception
Christ Himself
1. 5,
corner-stone
see
Apol. 11,
cd. ;
{II. vi. 450; Xen. Anab. Bornemann, ad Aiudi. i. 7. 11
Krger on Thuc. i. 27. 3), so that Christ Himself, as respects His own unique destination in this edifice, is contradistinguished from His labourers, the apostles and prophets. Whether, it may be asked, is rw deixekiw masculine (see on
1 Cor.
that,
iii. 10) or neuter? It tells in favour of the former with Paul, it is at 1 Cor. iii. 11 (also 2 Tim. ii. 19) decidedly masculine, but in no passage decidedly neuter Meyer Eph. K
! ;
146
(Ptom. XV.
that
the
20; 1 Tim. vi. 19). Harless erroneously thinks neuter is employed by the apostle only meta-
phorically.
Ver. 21.
An
elucidation to oVto? aKpoy. avrou
'I.
X., bear-
ing on the matter in hand, and placing in yet clearer light the thought of ver. 1 9
also yours (ver. 22),
f.
:
in whom, each community, in
whom
holy
destination}
blus,
means neither hj whom (Castalio, VataMenochius, Morus, and others, including Flatt), nor
iv
o5]
organically developes itself unto
its
wpon whom
Christ (for
(Estius,
Koppe, and
others),
but
in v:hom, so that
applies neither to aKpoy., as Castalio, Estius,
and
Koppe
have
has
it,
suppose, nor to
deixekiw, as
Holzshausen would
but to the nearest and emphatic avrov Îrjaov X.)

point of support (comp.
10).
appears as that wherein the joining together of the building

its
common
:
i.
iraaa
oIko-
hofxr)]
not
the whole building (Oecumenius, Harless, Olshausen,
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek), which would be at

variance with linguistic usage, and would absolutely require
the reading (on that account preferred
others) vraaa
building.
r]
by Matthies, Winer, and

:
olKoBofii] (see
the critical remarks), but
every
The former
interpretation, moreover, the opposition
of
is
to
which to linguistic usage is rightly urged also by Eeiche,'^ by no means logically necessary, since Paul was not obliged proceed from the conception of the ivhole body of Christians
'
as one living organism.

16'2
2
;
Observe the apostle's view of the church, as a whole and in its single parts, Comp. Thiersch, die Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 154,
ELrenfeuch-, er, pral-<. Theol.
I.
p.
55
ff.
The
admissibility of the anarthrous form
-rffa. olxoSofi^,
in the sense of
"the
cannot be at all conceded, since oixoôy.n is neither a proper name, nor to be regarded as equivalent to such. See Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 140] Buutmann, neut. Gram. p. 78 [E. T. 86]. In general tZ; in the sense of tvhole can only be without an article, when the substantive to which it belongs would Hence ^raira not need the article even without -preis (Krger, 50, 11. 9). In the e/*aS. can only signify either eve7-y building, or else a building utterly. latter sense Chrysostom appears, very unsuitably, no doubt (see above), to have
ivhole building,"
taken it. According to Hofmann, II. 2, p. 123, -Trira. aUoS. is meant to signify " whatever becomes a constituent part of a building" (thus also the Gentiles who become Christians). As if Uolofi^ could mean constituent part of a building
It signifies,
even in Matt. xxiv.
1,
Mark
xiii. If.,
edifice.
And
this
as if -xaca,
every part of the building,
when
in fact only two constituent parts,
rendering
and Gentiles, could be thought of, were in harmony with is linguistically and logically incorrect.
namely Jews Th relation

!

CHAP.
]I.
21.
147
readers (ver. 22), but might pass conception " every community " to the equally well from the conception "also ye" (ver. 22), and thus subordinate the parto the
community
of the
ticular to the general.
The objection that there
is
only one
oLKoSo/jur] (de Wette) is baseless, since the collective body of Christians might be just as reasonably, as ewry community for
itself, is
conceived as a temple-building.
iii.
The
latter conception
is
found, as in 1 Cor.
16, so also here,
where the former

is
linguistically impossible.
Chrysostom, however,
is
wrong in
holding that by iracra oIkoB.

building (wall, roof,
etc.),
signified
every part of the
since ol/coho^rj rather denotes the

edifice,
aggregate of the single parts of the building, the

since
and
not
wall, a roof, etc.,

is
whole which
/Ao\.]
thought
of,
but only the building as a avvapcan grow unto a temple.
becoming framed
together;
still
for
the
'present
participle
represents the edifice as
indeed every community
is
in the process of building, as engaged in the progressive develop-
ment
of its frame of Christian life until the Parousia (comp,

iii.
on 1 Cor.
15).
The
participle is closely connected with

i.e.
iv (p: every building, while its framing together,
the har-
monious combination of
its
parts into the corresponding whole,

etc.
takes place in Christ, grows,
\oyelv (with classical writers a-vvapfioêtv)
The compound avuapixois met with only
here and
iv. 16, but dpfj,o\o<yeiv in Philipp. Thcss. 78. avêc] form of the present, read in the N. T. only here and at Col ii. 19, but genuinely classical, see Matthiae, p. 541.
On
ei?
this
vaov aycov] Final result of this growth.
It is not,
how-
ever, to
be translated
unto a holy temple,
for the concep-
was foreign to the apostle with his Jewish nationality, but unto the holy temple, in which there was no need of the article (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16). To realize
tion of several temples
:
the idea of the one temple
that
is
the goal unto which every
community, while
life has its firm support in Christ, groweth up. KvpLw] By this not God is meant, as Michaelis, Koppe, Eosenmller, Holzshausen, and others suppose, but Christ (see the following eu c5). By the
its
organic development of
majority it is connected with ajLov, in which case it would not have, with Beza, Koppe, Piosenmller, Platt, to be taken for the
dative, but
(so
also de
Wette, Hofmann^ Bleek) would have

148
to be explained of the yioTTj^; of the temple, having its causal ground in Christ, thus specifically Christian. But the holiness of the temple lies in the dwelling of God therein (see ver. 22);
it
does not, therefore, first come into existence in Christ, but

already existent, and
lioly
is
the
church
becomes in Christ that

as in this church the idea
which the
fore,
temple with
is,
inasmuch
itself.
of the holy temple realizes
Others have rightly, thereis
connected
et ed.,
it
avêi,,
although ev
jêr.
not,
with Grotius,
Wolf,
to
be translated by
is
In the case of every
building which
the holy temple takes place also in
framed together in Christ, the growing into Christ (as the one on
whom
this further
development depends).
The being framed

its
together and the growing

destination
up
of the
building to
sacred
hoth not otherwise than in the Lord.

is
Ver. 22. Êv w\ applies to ev Kvplw, and

quite like ev
u>
to be explained
in ver. 21.
The reference
liosenmliller, Matthies) appears
vaov (Calixtus, on account of the immediately

to
preceding ev Kvpiw arbitrary, and, according to
the correct
apprehension of iraaa
following
fielade]
is
el<i
olkoS., as
well as with regard to the

impossible.
KaroLKrjrrjptov
k.t.\.,
awoLKoho-
indicative, not imperative (Calvin, Meier), against
which vv. 19, 20 are decisive,^ according to which Paul says not what the readers oiight to he, but what they are; hence he,
at ver. 22, attaches in symmetrical relative construction the
relation of the readers to that

every Christian
which subsists in the case of The compound, however, community, ver. 21. may mean either ye are built along with (the others), comp. 3 Esdr. V. 68 {avvoLKohoybr^cruniev vjuv), so that the church of the readers would be placed in the same category with the or ye are other churches (so it is ordinarily understood) together of huilded together, so that avv relates to the putting
: ; :
the single parts of the building (comp. Philo, de praem.

poen.
p.
et
928 E
i.
otKiav ev a-vvcoKohofMTj/xevrjv
;
k. (Tvvrjp/xoafjLevrjv,
comp. Thuc.
to
1
93. 3
Dio
Cass, xxxix.
61).
The
latter is
be
preferred, because
itself
the parallelism of vv. 21

tlie {al.
and 22
In and of
Herod,
the relative clause would not exclude

See, e.g., Soph.
imperative (in
731)
:
opposition to Hofmann).
exviTn,
i.
Oed. Col. 735
v f^^tr
89.
Comp, the
familiar olrf S Ipximv,
and the imperative
often standing after ufTu
CHAP. IL
22.
14'
makes the
Tjjpiov Tov
attacliing of different senses to the
avvapfi,o\oy.
and
@eov]
(tvvoikoS.
appear groundless.
eh
et?
two compounds
KarotKrj-
unto the
dioelling of God, quite
the same,
only witli a variation of expression, as before

xxiii. 21),
vaov wîov
and pertaining to avvoiKoS. The was (comp. Matt, Grieshach and Knapp, that iv a k. vjjl. avvoiKoB. supposition of is an interjDolation, and et? KarotK. k.t.X. still belongs to avêt as, again, the expedient of Koppe and Eiickert, that et? KarotK. rov &ov means, in order that a dwelling of God may arise; and finally, the assertion of Harless, that KarotK. rov eov is not identical with the vao'i ajto<i, but that the individual Christians were so termed because God dwells in them and the v)hoU
forms a
vao<i
yio<;,
are only different forced interpretations,

as the whole building.
resulting from the linguistically unwarranted explanation of the
above rraaa
receives from
otKoSofii]
iv Trvevfxart]
"
most expositors an
adjectival turn
a sjnritual
temple, in opposition to the stone one of the Jews," Eiickert,
How
arbitrary generally in itself
how
arbitrary, in particular,
not to refer iv irvevjxart to the Holy Spirit! since
we have
here,
exactly as in ver. 18, the juxtaposition of the Divine Trias,
while the context presents nothing whatever to suggest the

contrast with a temple of stone.
Harless (comp. Meier and

is
Matthies)
"
dwelling, which
!
Spirit;" and this, forsooth

the Spirit chvells in
is
in the indwelling of the held to mean: " inasmuch as
Christ!'
them, they are a dioelling of God and of " But, apart from the fact that of this " and of Christ
there
fiari,
nothing whatever in the text, in this way iv irvevwhich according to the literal sense could only be the continens, would in fact be made the contentum ! Trom this
is
the very analogies, in themselves inappropriate (because they

are
dbstracta),
irv.,
ydirrj iv
to
connect
it
which Harless employs x^pa iv irvevfxaTi, ought to have precluded him. The true view is not merely with KarotK. rov Qeov, but with
:
(TvvoiKoBofiela-Oe et?
KarotK. rov
eov, and iv
is
instrumental.
Ye
hi/
are being builded together unto the dwelling-place of

virtue of the
God
Holy Spirit ; in so far, namely, as the latter dwells in your Christian community (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16 f. comp. Jas. iv. 5), and thereby the relation of being the temple of God is brought about a relation, which
;
150
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPIIESIANS.
without tins indwelling of the Spirit would not occur, and
would not be
the conditio
possible.
For the
Spirit of
God
is
related to
is
the ideal temple as the Shechinah to the actual temple, and

siyic
qua non of the same.

irv.
Comp,
also
Hofmann,
t.
Avho, however, likewise connects iv
only with kutock.
0.
The
objections of Harless to the instrumental rendering of eV

;
are not valid
for (a) the circumstance that
iv irvevfiaTi
was
placed only at the end not only very naturally resulted from the parallelism with ver. 21, seeing that in ver. 21 there is not
contained an element corresponding to the iv irveu/xari, and consequently this new element is most naturally appended at
but the position at the close imparts also to the iv an unusual emphasis (Khner, II. p. 625), comp, also and (b) the suggestion that irvevfia, as the objective iii. 5 medium, must have the article, is incorrect, seeing that Trvev/xa, with or without an article (in accordance with the nature of a
the end,
irvevfjb.
;
proper noun),
is
the objective
Holy
Spirit.
CHAP. HI.
151
CHAPTER
Ver.
Ver.
3.
III.
lyvupifrs,
lympiri] Elz.
Matth. Eeiclie have
in opposigloss.
tion to decisive testimony.

5.
more precisely defining
likewise against decisive testimony, IV, which was attached on account of the double dative. Ver. 6. aurov] after Ivayy. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon Ver. 7. e/sv^z/'îv] preponderating evidence, to be deleted. B D* E G N. With Lachm. Tisch. Rck, read lymh^, after this preponderant attestation the more to be preferred, in pro-
Before
erspaig Elz. has,
portion to the ease with which the more current form might Lachm. and Rck. rr^z rr^v hk7(sav\ involuntarily creep in. BC Attested, it is true, by dodilffrii, approved also by Griesb. D* F X, min. Copt. Vulg. It. Latin Fathers but how readily would the genitive present itself to the mechanical copyist B C N, min. Copt. after ver. 2 comp. ver. 8. Ver. 8. h roTgl have merely roTg. So Lachm. and Rckert. Strongly enough attested specially as the parallel in subject-matter, Gal. i. 16, offered sv as an addition. The neuter to tXovtoc is also here Ver. 9. cracT?] susand at ver. 16 preponderantly attested. pected by Beza, placed within brackets by Lachm. But it is The wanting only in N, two min. Cyr. Hilar. Jer. Aug. omission, at any rate too feebly attested, may have been accioi-/.ovofMia] Elz. dental, or even after in roTg Uvsaiv intentional. has xoDiuvla, in opposition to almost all the witnesses. An interpretation. After Krlaavn Elz. has Bia 'l7i<ro\J Xpiarou, which is defended, it is true, by Rinck (in whose view Marcion had deleted it) and by Reiche (who holds it to have been omitted by the orthodox), but is condemned by the decisive countertestimony as an exegetico-dogmatic addition. Ver. 12. rriv
TrappriGircv x. ttiv 'jpoffayojyyiv]
The SeCOnd
rrjv
is
wanting in
A B N*
Lachm. Rck. but its superfluousness occasioned the omission. F G have r^v nrpoaayuyriv iig rriv vapprialav, a change produced by the absolute rriv rrposay. Ver. 14. roD y.vpio-j riiJ-ojv 'Insoxj X. is wanting in A B C N 17, 67** Copt. Aeth. Erp. Vulg. nis. and important Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Rck.
17, 80,
;
Harless.
An addition to ircn'ipa readily offering itself, although defended by Reiche (on insufficient internal grounds). Ver. 16. 6w?j] B C F G N, 37, 39, 116, and several Fathers have a p. So
152
Lachm. and Eiick. With this important attestation bOj is here the more to be preferred, as bd)ri offered itself to the copyists Ver. 18. d&og %. "o-ôc\ Lachm. reads v-ôg %. og, from i. 17. on considerable but not decisive evidence. But the sequence Comp. of thought, " height and de^jth" was more familiar. Ver. 21. h rf vAxXneia h xpigrui 'irjov] So D** Eom. viii. 39. K L, min. Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. and other Greeks. But A B C t< 73, 80, 213, Copt. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. Jer. Pel. have h r. ExxX. xai h X. 'l. (so Lachm. and Rck.). D* F G, It, Ambrosiast. have sv X. 'l. xa/ rri InxX. Only 46 and Oros. have sv X. 'i. merely, without h rJj B-/.-/.X., evidence which is far too weak to S-/.XX. (in opposition to Koppe and justify suspicion of h Rck.). The x/, although strongly attested, is an old unsuitable connective addition and the placing of h r. skzX. after Ik
7-Jj
a transposition in accordance with the sense of rank. Hence, with Tisch, and Reiche, the Ecccpta is to be upheld.
X.
'l.
is
Contents.
On
this account
tlie
am
I,
Paul, the prisoner of

1).
God
for the sake of you,
Gentiles (ver.
Effusion over the

(vv.
nature of his
office
as
apostle of the Gentiles
2-12),
which concludes with the entreaty to the readers not to become discouraged at the sufferings which he is enduring on
their behalf (ver.
13).
On
this
account he beseeches
God
that they might be inwardly strengthened in the Christian

character, in order that they
of the love of Christ,

gifts of grace (vv.
may know the whole greatness and thereby become filled with all divine 14-19). Doxology, vv. 20, 21,
account, namely, in
Ver.
1.
On
this
order that ye
of the Spirit
may
(ii.
be
built unto the dwelling of
God by means
2 2),
towards that goal,
on this hchalf, that your Christian development may advance am I, Paid, the fettered one of Christ Jesus
The position of Paul in for the sake of you, the Gentiles. ^ fetters on account of his labours as the apostle of the Gentiles
could only exert a beneficial influence upon the development
of the Christian life of his churches, as edifying
for
them (comp.
ver. 13), as,
redounded as a scandal to
the persecutions (GaL
vi.
and elevating on the other hand, it must have them, if he had withdrawn from
;
12
2 Cor.
xi.
23
ff.;
Hence the tovtov

^
%apti' emphatically prefixed.

incidit in
Phil.
ii.
l7f.).
i'yw ITaOXov]
"Quia gentes Judaeis adaeqnabat,

Comp. Grotius, Calovius.
suorum popularium odium,"
Diusius.
CHAP.
III.
1.
153
ill
tlie
consciousness of his personal antliority (comp. 2 Cor.

;
Philera. 9), 2; 1 Thess. ii. 18; Col. i. 23 which the bonds could not weaken, but only exalt (2 Cor. Bea-fiio<; rov 'I. X.] The article denotes the xi. 23 ff.). bound one of Christ kut eôxv^, such as I*aul could not but,
X.
1; Gal. V.
in accordance with his special relation to Christ (Gal.

vi.
i.
1,
The genitive expresses 17), appear to himself and others. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 8 Philem. 9. the author of the being bound.
;
Paul regards himself, in keeping with the consciousness of his entire dependence on Christ (as Bov\o<; Xptcrrov), as the one ivhom Christ has put in
See Winer,
p.
170
[E. T. 236].
chains.
el/jii
As
and
regards the
construction,
by many the simple

'I.
is
rightly supplied after 6 Sea/xio<; tov Xp.
(Syriac,
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cajetanus, Beza, Eisner,

Calovius, Wolf, Michaelis, Paraphr.;
miiller,
Morus, Koppe, Eosenrov X.

'I. is jJ^'cdicate,
others), so that o
Zea-pîo^;
in
connection with which some have neglected the
article,
others
have rightly had regard
to it (see especially Beza).
He is, how;
ever, the Becr/xLo^ of Christ on hehalf of the Gentiles
and
this
thought leads him in the sequel to explain himself more fully

regarding his vocation as Apostle of the Gentiles, whereupon
he only briefly returns to the point of his imprisonment in

ver. 13, after
having been led away from
it
by the detailed
exposition of the theme, to which he had been incited by the
TMv eOvoiv. Free movement of thought natural in a Supplementary additions, such as legatione fungor (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus), or hoc scriho (Camerarius, and the like),^ are not implied in the context, and are Others have regarded the discourse as therefore erroneous. hrohcn off, and have found the resumption either at ver. 8 (Oecumenius, Grotius), or at ver. 13 (Zanchius, Cramer, Holzvirep
letter.
liausen), or at ver.
14 (Theodoret, Luther,
Piscator, Calixtus,
Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Romberg, Schttgen, Bengel,

garten,
Baum-
and
others, including Flatt,
Lachmann,
;
Pickert, Winer,
Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, Bisping, Bleek
de Wette, cha-
racterizing this construction as "hardly Pauline"), or only at

1
Already in early -witnesses supplementary additions are met

:
-nitli
in the
text
n-fiffivu
;
in
D* E
10, followed
by Castalio and Calvin
postulo in Clar.,
Germ.
KtKa,vx.ri/Jt.a.i
in 71, 219. al.

154
iv.
(Erasmus Schmid, Hammond, Michaelis in note to liis But all these hypotheses are inasmuch as, according to the above explanation, ver. 1 in itself yields with ease and linguistic correctness a complete and suitable sense unnecessary complications of the discourse. Baumgarten1
translation).
Crusius regards the discourse as entirely hroJcen

pressure of the crowding thoughts, so that
in the sequel.
of under
the
Ver.
2.
After ver. 1 only a comma is to be placed. Confirmation of that which has just been said, virep
eOvoiv,
it is
not at all resumed
what the readers have For you, the Gentiles" I say, v.2')on the presiqjjyosition that, etc. This presupposition he expresses by eHye, i.e. turn certe si (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 308), it being implied in the connection (for of his church he could not presuppose anything else), not in the word itself, that he assumes this rightly. He might have written eiirep, if at all, 'provided that, or eXirep ye, 2^^"ovided namely (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 4, Anab. i. 7. 9 often in the tragedians), but he has conceived the presupposition under the form at least if, if namely, and so denotes it. Comp, on Gal. iii. 4 and 2 Cor. v. 3 wherever et'ye is used and the assumption is a certain one (as also at iv. 21), the latter is to be gathered from the collection. From whom, the readers had heard the matter in question, their own consciousness told them, namely, from Paid himself and other Pauline teachers, so that el<ye rjKovaaTe k.t.X.
vfi(ov roiv
by the
recalling of
"
heard concerning his vocation.
is is
a rQvamdiQT of his preaching
among
them.
Hence our passage
wrongly regarded as at variance with the superscription tt/jo? Ê(}i6(Tiov';, and as pointing to readers to whom Paul was not
personally
known
whilst others, as Grotius (so also Einck,
Sendschr. der Korinth. p. 56, who, however, takes the correct

in the Stud. it. Krit. 1849, p. 954), have, without any ground in the context, assigned to the simple aKoveiv the signification hene intclligere; Calvin, on the other hand, had recourse
vie">v
to the altogether unnatural hypothesis
"
Credibile est,
quum
{Beitr.
ageret Ephesi,
iii.
cum
refers
taeidsse de his rebus; "

it
and Bttger
p.
46
ff.)
to
the hearing of this Epistle read,
against which the very avayivcoa-Kovreî that follows in ver. 3

is decisive.
Estius very correctly states that eiye
is
not "
diibi-
tantis, sed fotius affirmantis ;
neque enim ignorare quod hie
CHA.P.
III.
3.
155
plusquam hiennio
dicitur poterant Epliesii, quihus P. ipse evang.
praedicaverat."^
Paul might have expressed himself in the form of an assertion (jiKovaare <yap, or iirel rjKova-are), but the hypothetic form of expression constitutes a more delicate and
suggestive
way
;
of recalling his preaching
among them
(as also
the Attic writers, in place of

thetic eLje
eirei ye, delicately
use the hypo-
Khner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), without, howan oUiquam reprehensmiem (Vitringa, comp. rr]v Holzhausen), of which the context affords no trace. i. oLKovofiiav TYj'i ')^dpLTo^ K.T.X.'j the arrangement (see on 10)
see
ever, containing
vjhich has been

ivith
made regarding
to
the grace of
is
God given
to
me
reference
you
(t?}v
)(apLToi? is here, in accordance with the
context
(t?}9
Bo9. fioi et9
vfj,<i),
the divine bestowal of grace
that took place in the entrusting
him with the

et al.,
apostolic
office.
Comp, on Eom.
uIkov.
t.
xii. 3,
xv. 15.
Others, like Pelagius, Anselm,
Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Eosenmller,

X"^P- ^^
it
^^'^
have explained
against this
BoOelaav,
may
office of administering evangelic grace ; but be urged that not t^<? Soê/a?;?, but rrjv
must have been afterwards used. This mistake is the p. 446 f., where he takes it as office for which I have been qualified by the grace conferred upon me on your behalf. This office the readers had heard, inasmuch as they had heard the preaching of the apostle. But how are we to justify the expression " to hear the office," instead of " to hear the oi^cial preaching " ? The words would merely say if ye have heard of the office, etc., Gal. i. 13; Col. i. 4 Philem, 5. Ver. 3. In this more detailed specification of the olKovofiia meant in ver. 2, Kara airoKoXvy^Lv has the emphasis hy way of revelation, expressing the mode of the making known,
avoided by Wieseler,
: : ; :
it down that the readers had no need, if the had already exercised his apostolic calling among them, now first to learn from himself that he had received it. But in so speaking he has not
^
De
"Wette dogmatically lays
apostle
hx.ov<ra.ri is not the reception of the but the mode of this reception (namely, *ar a.'TOKi.Xv^ti, ver. 3). This account of the manner in which he had become their apostle he communicated to them when he was with them, and of this he reniiuds them now.
attended to the fact that the object of the
apostolic vocation in general,
156
in accordance
p. 241).
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EI'IIESIANS.
with a well-known adverbial usage fBernliardy,

Si"
In substance the
aTroKa\vêw<i of Gal.
i.
12
is
According to the history of the conversion in Acts xxvi. (not according to Acts ix. and xxii.), we have here to think not merely of the disclosures that followed the event
near Damascus (as Gal. nected with this event
revealed
is
i.
not different.
12), but also of the revelation conitself;
for the
contents of what
is
here the blessing of the Gentiles, and with this

;
cfTTOKoX.
comp. Acts xxvi. 17, 18, as also Gal. i. 16 hence from KaTo. we may not infer a post-apostolic time of composition
(Schwegler).
vv. 2, 5.
TO
iyvcopladr]] namely, on the part of

fiva-r7]pLov]
God; comp,
see on
i.
it
applies here,
how-
ever, not to the counsel of
redemption in general, but to the

it.
inclusion of the Gentiles in
It is not until ver. 6 that the
apostle comes to express this special contents
meant.
to
which
is
is
here
KaOdo^
down
r.
to
the
end of
ver,
4,
not to be
treated as a parenthesis,
the
v TO) fivo-r.
inasmuch as o, ver. 5, attaches itself X. immediately preceding. Ka6)<i
TTpoeypaylra iv oXiyw] as
hefore vjrote in brief, refers
not to
Kara aiToicaXv^^LV, but to iyvcop. fioi to fivcfrrjp., as is shown by ver. 4, wliere Paul characterizes that which was before
Avritten as evidence of his hnoivledge of the mystery, but not as
evidence of the revclatioii by which he has attained to this
knowledge.
Groundlessly, and at variance with the subseavayLV(i)aKovTe<i,
quent present
liave (although it
Calvin, Hunnius, and others was already rejected by Theodoret) referred
Trpoiyp. to an epistle ivhich has noio teen lost, in support of which view the passage in Ignatius ev irdcrrj iTriaroXfj (see Introd. 1) has been made use of. See Fabric. Cod. Apoc. I. It applies (not to i 9, 10, as many would have it, p. 916. but), as is proved by the here meant special contents of the
fivaT^piov (ver.
6), to
the section last treated
of,
concerning
the Gentiles attaining unto the Messianic economy of salvation,
11-22. Comp, already Oecumenius. iv oXlyo)] Bid Chrysostom eV is instriLmental} See Acts xxvi. 28. Comip. the classical ht oKlywv, Plat. Phil. p. 31 D, Legg. vi. The p. 778 C, ev paêl and iv pariert (Dem. 592, 8).
ii.
pa')(ewv,
'
Yet
it
:
may
in
also
be conceived of
locally, as
Time.
iv.
26.
96.
(see
Klger)
small space, in a concise passage.
; ;
CHAr.
III. 4.
157
4,
same
is
expressed by
:
crvpT6fjiu)<;,
Acts xxiv.
summarily.
pauca tantum attigi, cum multa dici Wetstein well puts it Following Theodoret, Beza (M'ith hesitation), Calvin, possent." Grotius, Estius, Erasmus, Schmid, Koppe, and others have taken it as a more precise definition of the irpo 2'x^'^'^lo ante. But in a temporal sense iv 6\lj(p means nothing else than in a sJiort time (see on Acts xxvi. 2 8 comp. Plat. Apol. p. 22 B Dem. xxxiii. 18 Find. Pyth. viii. 131 iv S" 6\l<y(p pojwv to irpo oXiyov must repirvov avêrai), which is not suitable here xxi. 38 2 Cor. xii. 2, al. ; Plat. have been used (Acts v. 36, Symp. p. 147 E, al). Comp. oXiyov ri Trporepov, Herod, iv. 81. Ver. 4. In accordance with which ye, while ye read it, arc 7r/oo9 o applies to that which Paul able to discern, etc.^
"
: ;
; :
'Kpoeypa-yê,
and
tt/jo?
indicates the standard of the judging
in accordance with
Soph.
II. p.
vjhich.
See Bernhardy,
p.
p.
205
Ellendt, Lex.
:
652
Winer,
361
[E. T. 505].
The inference
ovK eypa-êv oaa ixPV^> ^.W' oaa i'^copovv voelv (Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom Bengel compares ex ungue leonem), finds no justification at all in what Paul has previously written.
;
is
dvajLvcoaKovres:] not attendentes (Calvin), but, as always in the
N.
to
T., legentes.
tt]V
avveaiv fiov iv
it
ra> fivarripup
tov X.]
be taken together, and before iv
was not needful
to repeat
the article, because avvievai iv

matte?)
(to
have understanding in a
;
was a very current expression (2 Chron. xxxiv. 12 Comp. 3 Esdr. i. 33 T779 o-vveaeco'i Josh. i. 7; Dan. i. 17). Thc genitive tov XpiaTov is avTov iv TO) vofiw Kvplov.
:
ordinarily taken as genitivas objecti

reference to Christ.
the mystery which has

i.
But, even apart from Col.
2 7, the whole
subsequent detailed statement as far as ver. 12 suggests the contextually more exact view, according to which Paul means
the fivaTTjpLov contained in Christ.
Christ Himself, His person and His whole work, especially His redeeming death, connecting
^
Wiggers {Stud.
u. Krit. 1841, p. 433) regards as subject

:
the Ephesians, not

Arbitra-
as such, but as representatives of the Gentile world

rily imported,
"ye
Gentiles."
Doubtless the (rCnfis of the Ap. iv <tS (turrtifty rov X. must have been entirely beyond doubt for the readers in consequence of their personal connection with him but thereby his appeal to what he has just written does not become inappropriate, but only the more
entirely unnecessary.
;
and
forcible
lie
and
effective.
There
lies
a certain fniurn in this reference to that which
has just written.

158
also

the Gentiles with the people of
concretum of the Divine mystery.
The
God
(ver,
6),
is
the
assailants
of the
genuineness of the Epistle find ver. 4 incompatible with the

apostolic dignity (de Wette), nay, even " self-complacent and But here precisely the point courting favour " (Schwegler).
brought into prominence, that the mystery had become

to
known
his
him Kara
airoKoKvy^tv, justifies the stress laid
upon
(Tvve(TL<i
in the mystery, so far as he has already manifested
the same in his Epistle.
The
apostle might have appealed in
proof of this avveai<; to his worldng, but he might also

especially taking into account the change
which had mean-
while occurred in the personal composition of the church
adduce
apostolic
for this
purpose his
raised
^vriting, in
doing which his very

of
dignity
him
above
considerations
the
Hardly would semblance of self-complacency and the like. another, who had merely assumed the name of the apostle
Paul, have put into his
(Tvvai<;
5.
mouth such a
fall
self-display
of his
which, in order not to
out
apostolic part, he
would rather have avoided.
As
of
his
assumed
a-vvea-c'j,
to
see on Col.
i.
9.
was speaking and the design of bringing in a mere explanation would not be in keeping with the elevated solemn style of the whole verse
Ver.
explanation, to ivhat extent he
:
Not an
of a mystery (Eiickert, Meier)
for that the readers knew,
but a triumphant outburst of the conscious exalted happiness of belonging to the
number
revelation of the mystery
an
of those
outburst,
who had received the which was very naturfiva-Trjpiov,
ally called forth
by the sublime contents of the
erepaiii jeval<;~\
ii.
may
(so
be either a definition
;
oj
time, like
the dative at
12
taken usually)
in that case
:
êveah
is
not periodis or tcmporihis in general, but

so that yeveal'i
in other generations
(comp, on ver. 21) ; or it may express the simple doMve relation, which to other geneis genera tionihus (Vulgate)
:
rations ivas not
made
p.
hnoion, according to
which
z.
Tot9 vloh
av6p. would form a characteristic epexegesis (Lobeck,
twv ad Aj.
3,
308; Bernhardy,
pp.
55; Ngelsbach, Anm.
lUas, ed.
272, 307).
simple
This was
my
previous view.
explanation, as being likewise linguistically
Yet the former correct, and withal
more
and more immediately in keeping with the
CHAP.
III.
5.
159
erepat, yv. are the
contrast vvv,
is to
be preferred.
The
;
gene-
rations ivhich have preceded the vvv
and
rot? utot?
tmv avdp.
(not elsewhere occurring with Paul) has the significance, that

it
characterizes
their "
men
according to their lower sphere conditioned

"
by
ortum naturalem
in
(Bengel), under
which they were

the
ix.
incapable
themselves
xi.
of
viii.
understanding
5, xi.
ixvarripiov.
Comp. Gen.
specially
Ps.
the
0.
T. prophets
are
is
dv0p(7r., as
ayioi'i
Bengel supposed,^
k.t.X.,
6. That meant by toI<; vlol<i twv wrongly inferred from T0i9
Wisd.
airocrrokoL'i
since the contrast does not lie in

{eTpai,<; <yeveal<^
.
the persons,^ but in the time

true Ezekiel often bears the
not, however, as prophet,
vvv).
It is
name
'^'?"!^ (vii.
;
1, xii. 1, ed.),
but as ma7i
and thereby likewise
human lowliness and dependence upon God are brought w?] By this expression, which (in opposition home to him. to Bleek) is to be left as comparative, the disclosure made to Abraham and the ancient prophets of the future participation
his
of the Gentiles in Messiah's
kingdom (Gal. iii. 8 Rom. ix. 24-26, XV. 9 ff.) remains undisputed; for " fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum," Beza; hence the prophetic prediction served only as means for the making known of the later complete revelation of the
;
mystery (Kom.
xvi.
i.
26).
Comp.
Pet.
12. the
vvv']
in
the
Christian
period.
aireKaXix^dT}]
not a repetition of
iyvoypiadr},
but
distinguishing
is
mode
in
which
:
this
manifestation took place,
intended to be expressed
3.
aTroKaXvy^Lv iyvcopladr), ver.
k.
Kara
T0t9 ayioL'i airoaT.

after
t.t.X.] is
not to be divided
Bisping),
by a
comma
so that airoar. avT.
7rpo(p.
7/0^9 (Lachmann, would be apposition
more precise definition, whereby the flow of the expression would be only needlessly interrupted. The predicate hob/ was already borne by the Old Testament prophets (2 Kings iv. 9 Luke i. 70 2 Pet. i. 21), and this appellation at our passage by no means exposes the apostolic origin of the Epistle to suspicion (de Wette derives djioa from the passage Col.
or
; ;
'
In quite an opposite way Jerome would exclude the ancient patriarchs and
vloTs
prophets from the

^
rv
vlp.
for these
The
avcffToXei
and
Trptxfrjrai
Were also
were rather sons of God ! vloi TU1 ai6p., hut a sacred ixXoyn of
the sam.
IGO
i.

recast in post-apostolic times
26
Baur
apostolic reverential looking back to tlie apostles)
from the postbut it is

;
very naturally called forth by the context, in order to distinguish the

the
viol
recipients of
Tcov
the revelation amidst the

in
mass of
connec-
av6pct)7rcov,
accordance
with the
tion, as
God's special messengers and instruments, as ayioi

Pet.
i, 21); whereupon the apostolic conwas great and decided enough not to suppress the predicate suggested by the connection,^ while he is speaking of the apostles and prophets in general, wliereas,
Geov avdpwiroi (2
sciousness in
Paul
immediately afterwards, at
particular,
ver.
8, in
speaking of himself in
he gives
full
play to his individual deep humility.

5
How
can we conceive that the author should thus in one
breath have fallen out of his assumed part at ver.

Tol^ ayioi'i,
\'er.
with
it
by a
efiol
" slip "
(Baur),
and then have resumed

!
8 with
ra>
eka'^LcnoTepw
is
at
aiirov]
not of Christ
20.
(Bleek), but of God,

d7reKaKv(j)0T].
TTuev/j-aTL]
Kal
whose action
irpocpiJTaL'i]
implied in iyvcopiadi] and

as
at
ii.
quite
eV
The Holy
Spirit is
the divine principle, through
the aTreKoXixpOr] took place. Comp. i. 17; 1 Cor. 10 ff, Riickert wrongly takes it as in an inspired state, which TTvevfia never means, but, on the contrary, even without the article is the objective Holy Spirit. Comp, on ii, 22. Koppe and Holzhausen connect eV irvev/j.aTi {sc. oixtl) with Trpo(jii]Tai^. In this way it would be an exceedingly supertchich
ii.
:
fluous addition, since prophets,
who should
not be iv
irv.,
are
was conceivable even otherwise than through the Spirit (by means of theophany, angel, vision, ecstasy, etc.). Meier connects ev trv. even with sacred cnthtisiasm ! and yLot<i, so that the sense would be Ambrosiaster (comp, Erasmus) with the following elvai k.tX. Baur, p. 440, knows how to explain ev TrpevfMari, from a Montanistic view, and thinks that it is only on account of the
inconceivable,
whereas
revelation
prophets that
Ver,
6.
it is
applied to the apostles also.
Epexegetical infinitive,
:
more precisely specifying the

the
Ge7itiles
contents of the fiva-Ttjptov
that
are fellow-heirs,
^ A side-glance at the Jews, who would have seen a blasphemy in the apostolid message of the joint-heiiship of the Gentiles (Lange, postol. Zdtalt. I. p. 128), la utterly remote from the connection.

CHAP.
III.
6.
161
he) is
etc.
This etvai (which
is
not to be changed into sliould
objectively contained in the
redeeming work of Christ, and
the subjective appropriation takes place by the conversion of crvyK\T]pov6/Ma] denotes the joint possession the individuals.
(with the believing Jews) of eternal Messianic bliss,
a possesiii.
now indeed accomplished at the setting up Eom. Acts xx. 32 i. 11, 14, V. 5
sion
still
ideal
(Kom.
24), but to be really See on of the kingdom.

viii.
viii.
17
Gal.
is
28.
suffi-
avao-Mfia Kol avf^fiero^â
/c.t.X.]
That which
already
ciently designated by avyK\7)p.
is
yet again twice expressed,

;
once figuratively and the next time Literally ^ in which no climax is to be found (Jerome, Pelagius, Zanchius, Schenkel),
but the great importance of the matter has led the apostle, ava-deeply impressed by it, to accumulated description.^
aco/ia denotes
helonging jointly to the tody
(i.e.
as
members
to
ii.
the
16).
Fathers
formed
Arist.
Messianic community, whose head is Christ, i. 23, The word does not occur elsewhere, except in the (see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1191), and was perhaps by Paul himself. Comp, however, avao-wfiaroirotelv,
iv.
de mundo,
7,
30.
avfifiero'ôi;,
too, occurs
only here
and
vii.
V.
Fathers.
8.
and besides, in Josephus, Bell. i. 24. 6, and the Xen. Anah. Comp. <Tvfx/x6re')(co, 2 Mace. v. 20
;
17;
Plat.
Thcaet.
p.
181
C.
promise of the Messianic hlessedness, He, however, ivho has joint share in the 0. T., comp. ii. 12.
the promise is
The eirayyekla is the which God has given in
he to
whom
;
it
jointly relates, in order to be

rj
jointly realized in his case
hence
iirayyeXia
is
not to be
interpreted as res promissa, which several (Menochius, Grotius,
Bengel
iii.
14; Heb.
comp. Estius) have referred to the Holy Spirit (Gal. vi. 4; Acts ii. 39), but at variance with the
iii.
context
of the
(arvyKXrjp.).
Jews (Acts
The 26
thrice occurring
;
aw
its
has the irpwrov

presupposition.^
Eom.
i.
16) as
' Harless thinks, the one time after the analogy of persons, and the other time after the analogy of things. But as well in au(TauiJi,a. as in irvfji,fciT. the
relation of persons
^
and of things is combined. the accumulation of synonymous expressions in earnest emotional discourse, comp. Dntzer, Aristarch. p. 41.
On
' But the thought that the substantial contents of the gospel are identical with Judaism (Baur, Neutest. Theol. p. 276) is incorrectly imported. See, in
opposition to
it,
especially
ii.
15.
MeyerEph.
1G2

TU)
iv
XpL<7Tw\ dependent on
etvai, applies
to
all
three
Christ,
elements, as does also the following

objectively founded
ha
tov eiayy.
In
as the Eeconciler, the avyKkrjpovoixia k.tX. of the Gentiles is

;
and through
the gospel,
which
is
pro-
claimed to them, the subjective appropriation in the way of faith is brought about. The annexing, with Vatablus, Koppe, and Holzhausen, ev rw Xpiarto to r>}9 eirayy., is not to be
approved, just because the reader, as he needed no more precise
definition
in connection
with
the
o-vjKXrjp.
and
auaaco/na,
understood also of himself what eTrayyeXia was meant, and

the absolute
t%
irrajy.
(see
critical
remarks)
2
Cor.
is
more
also
emphatic.
Ver.
7.
2.
AidKovo<i]
Comp.
Col.
i.
23
iii.
Luke
Paul became a servant of the gospel when he was enjoined by God through Christ (GaL i. 1, 15 ff. Acts ix.
i.
;
22, 26)
gospel.
to devote his
activity to the proclamation of the
The
distinction
from
v7rr}peTr]<i
(used by Paul only at
1 Cor. iv. 1) is not, as Harless supposes, that 8cdKovo<; denotes
the servant in his activity for the

to this, 1
iv. 6)
;
service,
while
3
vTrrjpeTi]^
denotes him in his activity /or the Master

Cor.
xii.
(see, in
vi.
;
opposition
Col.
i.
Ptom.
xiii.
2 Cor.
7,
but both words indicate witliout distinction of reference the relation of service, and the difierence lies only in this, that
the two designations, in accordance with their etymology, are
originally borrowed
from different concrete relations of service rower; see the Lexicons, and on Lexil. I. p. 218 ff.) in the usage, however, of the N. T., both words have retained merely the general notion of servant, as very frequently also with Greek writers. In opposition to Harless it may be also urged that not only is
runner; BiciKovo'i, Buttm.
(SiaK.,
virrjp.,
;
the expression hiaKovelv tlvI rt used, but also in like

vTrrjpeTelv
manner
Anab. vii. 7. 46, Cyr. i. 6. 39; Soph. Phil. 1012). Tlie gift, which was conferred upon Paul hy the divine grace, and in consequence of which he became a servant
tlvC tl (Xen.
of the gospel,
is,
agreeably to the context, the apostolic
office
(comp. vv.
2, 8),
not the
donum linguarum
(Grotius), nor yet
the gift of the Holy Spirit (Flatt, after older expositors).
Kara rrjv ivepy. r. 8vv. avTov'\ belongs to rrjv Soecadp fioi. To the efficacious action of the p)oiver of God (comp. ver. 20,
CHAP.
III. 8.
1G3
grace leads back the
and on
i.
19) the bestowal of the
gift of
mind
of the apostle, in the consciousness of
what he had been

ejus
efficacia,
before.
Gab
i.
13
ff.
"Haec
est poientiae
ex
nihilo grande aliquid efcere," Calvin.

fact, of that gift of
By
the bestowal, in
into
the divine grace Saul had become changed Paul ; hence Kara rrjv evepy. r. Buv. avrov. Ver. 8. The apostle now explains himself more fully on what had been said in ver. 7, and that entirely from the
standpoint of the humility, with which, in the deep feeling of

his personal
unworthiness, he looked forth upon the great-
ness and glory of his vocation.

ver. 7 a full stop is to
Comp, be placed, and
1 Cor. xv. 9.
After
rot? eOveaiv evayy. is

ifiol
.
the explanation of the %pi9 avrr).

avTT)
Harless regards
ii.
as
a parenthetic exclamation, like

a more precise definition of what
it
ei/ayy. as
is
and rot? edv. meant by Bcoped.

6,
He
tion
finds
(vv.
contrary to nature to meet in the long intercala-
2-13) a halting - point, and yet not a return to But in opposition to the whole view of the main subject. And hardly could it such an intercalation, see on ver. 1.
occur to a reader not to connect evayyekiaaarOai with the
immediately
preceding
rj
%a/)t9
avrr),
specially
when t
eKa-^KTTOTepfp k.tX. points to the contrast of the greatness of
the vocation, which very greatness

truly grand a
style
!
is
depicted,
and in how
from Tot9 edveaiv forward.

see
Sturz,
p.
On
the
forms of degree constructed from the superlative (or even the

comparative,
as
Lobeck, ad Phryn.
the
analysis
least, lesser
p.
John 135
4),
f.;
Winer,
is
ad Maitt. p. 44 65 [E. T. 81]. In

be maintained (the
the comparative sense

all).
than than
The
twv
to
expression of humility Travrcov

is
ayiwv}
i.e.
all
Christians,
eiire
1 Cor. XV. 9.
OvK
irocrroXcov,
even far stronger Chrysostom.
than
What
was the ground

p.
of this self-abasement (which, indeed, Baur,
447, enumerates among the " heightening imitations") the reader knew, without the necessity for Paul writing it to him,
*
in 4 and Chrys., avotrroXut in Arcliel., and aylrji attempts at interpretation, of wMch .vp'X'u* was meant to guard against understanding tlie uym of the angels uylav is wayiting only in Marcion and 72*, and Semler ought not to have looked upon it as
avffpa-ra>v
The readings
i'TixrroXa in 46, are
spurious.
164
namely, not the consciousness of sin in general (Harless), in
which respect Paul knew that he stood on the same level with any other (Eom. iii. 22, xi. 32; Gal. iii. 22), as with every believer upon an equal footing of redemption by the death of Christ (Gal. iii. 13, 14; Eom. vii. 25, viii. 2), but the deeply humbling consciousness of having persecuted Christ, which, inextinguishable in him, so often accompanied his recalling of
the grace of the apostolic
XV. 9
;
office
Phil.
iii.
comp. 1 Tim.
Gentiles.
was apostle
XpLCTTov]
tion,
is
of
the
i.
vouchsafed to him (1 Cor. Tot9 edvecnv] Paul 13).
to
dveîx^.
irXovro^
rov
meant the whole divine fidness of salvaof which Christ is the possessor and bestower, and which
this is
By
of such a nature that the
human
intellect cannot explore it
This does not so as to form an adequate conception of it. hinder the proclamation, which, on the contrary, is rendered possible by revelation, but imposes on the cognition (1 Cor. xiii. 9-12) as on the proclamation their limits. As to ave^L'xy., see on Eom. xi. 33. Ver. 9. Kal ^coTiaat Trdvra^'] According to Harless, who is followed by Olshausen, Paul makes a transition to all men " not, however, to the Gentiles alone, but to all," Wrongly, since Paul must have written kuI irdvra<i ^coTLcrac, as he had
before prefixed
roU
edveaiv,
7rdvTa<i applies to
all
Gentiles,
and the progress of the discourse has regard not to the persons, but to a particular main point (kuI, and in particular), upon which Paul in his proclamation of the riches of Christ gives
information
to
all
Gentiles.
^wTicrat]
collustrare,
of
the
enlightenment of the mind (John i. 9), which is here to be conceived of as brought about by means of the preaching.
Comp. Heb.
others)
hits
vi.
4 (and Bleek, ad
JDoccrc
loc.), x.
32
Ps. cxix.
130
Ecclus. xlv. 17.
(Grotius, Bengel, Eosenmiiller,
and
doubtless
figure.
the
real
sense,
but
unwarrantably
abandons the
self is
The
possible difficulty that Christ

i.
Him-
35) disappears on considering that the apostles are mediately the enlightened ones (2 Cor. iv, 4 Matt. v. 14), the proclaimers and bearers
in fact the light (John.
9, xii.
;
(Acts xxvi. 18) of the divine light and

T49
r)
its
moral powers
(v. 8).
oLKovofiia K.T.X]
i.e.
what
is the
arrangement, which
to oUovofiia, see
is
made with regard
to the mystery, etc.
As
on
CHAP.
the mystery
III.
9.
165
L 10,
iii,
;
is
that indicated as to its contents
in ver. 6
and what has been adjusted or arranged with regard

oLKovofila rov fxva-TTjpLov), consists in the fact that
thereto
(j)
this mystery,
made known
hidden in God from the very first, was to be in the present time through the church to the
See what follows.
25.
heavenly powers.
fievov, Horn. xvi.
a.TroKeKpvfi.']
a-ecrLyr]-
airb 7; CoL i. 26. Tcbv aloivcov] from the world-periods, since they have begun to run their course,/ro7n, the very Icginning. The mystery, namely, was decreed already irpo rcov alwvcov, 1 Cor. ii. 7, comp. Eph. only since the beginning of i. 4, but is conceived of as hidden
Comp.
Cor.
ii.
was no one previously for whom it The same thing with airo twv alcovcov here is denoted at Eom. xvi. 25 by the popular expression 'x^povoi'^ al(ovioL<i. We may add that airo twv alcovcov occurs in the N. T. only here and Col. i. 2 6 elsewhere is found the expression current also in Greek authors, air alwvo<i (Luke i. 70 rw ra Trdvra Acts iii. 21), and e/c rov alwvo<i (John ix. 32), Herein lies and this KTio-avTi] giiippe qui omnia^ crcavit. is the significant bearing of this more precise designation of God a confirmation of what has just been said, rov airoKethe ages, because
there
could be hidden.
Kpvjj,.
airo
Tcov
alcov.
iv
tJ
Oeat.
Bengel
aptly observes
"
fundamentum est omnis reliquae oeconomiae, pro potestate Dei universali liberrime dispeusatae." He who has created all that exists must already have had imrerum
creatio
plicitly contained in
omnium
His creative plan the great unfolding of
the world, which forms the contents of this mystery, so that
thus the latter was airo rov alcovcov hidden in God.

6 iroiwv
Comp, on ravra jvcoaTa air* alcova, Acts xv. 18, and as to the idea which underlies our passage also, that already the creative word contemplated Christ as its aim,^ Col. i 1 6 ff., and the commentary thereon. Kiickert thinks that Paul wishes to indicate
'
which exists, the whole world. Every limitation of this unwarranted, as when Beza, Piscator, Flatt, and others refer it to mankind. "Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes adse vocat," Beza. Holzhausen, too, arbitrarily limits it to all spiritual beings, called to everlasting life while Matthies mixes up also in uria-avTi the
totality of that
is
The
universal meaning
effecting
2
of the spiritual
blessedness.
Xp.,
Hence il; 'immdv XpKrrliv would have been a more which the Recepta has.
correct gloss than 2/
'ittfoZ
166

far it
how
may
not surprise us that He, from

to light only at
whom
all
things
are derived, should have concealed a part of
plan, in order to bring
it
His all-embracing the due time. But,
apart from the fact that the creation of all things does not at
all
involve as a logical inference the concealment of a part of

it
the divine plan,
was not the

it,
aTroKeKpv/j,.
in itself that needed

is
a ground assigned for ro)v alcovcov.
since in fact this predicate
neces-
sarily implied in the notion of fivcrrripiov,
but the iroKCKp. airo
This
a-Trb
row
aloivcov is the
wliich was introduced with the
ktlo-i<;
terminus a quo, tmv irdvrwv. At variance
with the context, Olshausen holds that Paul wished to call attention to the fact that the establishment of redemption itself
[of
of God,
which the apostle in fact is not speaking] is a creative act which could have proceeded only from Him who created
Harless places
ru>
all things,
ra irdvTa
ktIct.
in connection
with iva
K.T.\., ver. 1 0.
But
see on ver, 1 0.
Eemark.
When
dia 'Jriaou Xpidrov is
recognised as not genuine
taken away of referring Kuavri to the moral creation by Christ, as is done by Calvin, Zanchius, Calixtus, Grotius, Grell, Locke, Sender, Morus, Koppe, Usteri, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others. But even if those words were genuine, the formal and absolute tctiûv, as well as the emphatically prefixed and unlimited r -Trdvra, would justify only the reference to the physical creation, Gen. i. Comp. Calovius and Eeiche.
(see the critical remarks), the possibility is
Ver. 10. "Iva] not ecbatic (Thomas, Boyd, Zanchius, Estius,
Koppe, Eosenmller,
design, not,
Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen), introduces the

t&>
however, of
ra irdvTa Kria-avri,
ktict.
as, in
addition
to those
who understand
k.t.X.
of the ethical creation, also
The latter sees in rm ra iravra it.^ an explanation " how the plan of redemption had been from all ages hidden in God; inasmuch as it was He who created the world, in order to reveal in the church
Harless would take
KTtaavTt Xva
But the very of Christ the manifoldncss of His ^visdom." doctrine itself, that the design of God in the creation of the
world was directed to the making known of His wisdom
the angels,
'
to
and hj means of
it,
the Christian church,
has nowhere
So
also Baiir refers
p. 425,
but explains the thus resulting aim of the
creation from the doctrine of the Valentinians.

CHAP.
III.
10.
167
i.
an analogy in the N,
T.
according to Col.
16, Christ (the
personal Christ Himself) is the aim of the creation of all things, even of the angels, who are here included in ra rrdvra.
But as ryvcopiaOfj evidently corresponds to the airoiceicpvîtiivov, and vvv to the diro rcov alcovcov, we cannot, without arbitrary
disturbance of the whole arrangement of this majestic passage, regard iva yvwpia-Of} as other than the design of rod diroKeicp.
diro Tcov al(ov(ov iv raJ
.--<^r-*^-^_
QeS.
This statem ent of aim
st ands in
f.,
exact significant relation to the vocation of the apostle, ver. 8
thrugli2^wliich_this_jve^
knovvn to the
heavenly
The less is there reason for taking iva yvcop^K.r.X., with de Wette (on ver. 11) and Hofmann, Schriftheu\ I. p. 361 (who are followed by Schenkel), after earlier expositors, as defining the aim of the preaching in which case, besides, it would be offensive of Faul, ver. 8 f that Paul should ascribe specially to his work in preaching as its destined aim that, in which the other apostles withal (comp,
powers was partly
effected.
;
.
in particular Acts xv. 7), and
the
many
preachers to the
Gentiles of that time (such as Barnabas), had a share.

joining on
The
to the adjectival element aTroKeKp. k.tX. produces

is
no syntactical incongruity, but
as
the carrying forward of the discourse

vvv]
much in keeping with by way of chain in our

is
Epistle, as in accord with the reference of so significant a bearing to ver, 8

f.
jvcopia6fj
The emphasis
not upon vvv
(Rckert and others), but upon yvcopiady, in keeping with the diroKeKp. in order that it should not remain hidden, but
:
should
he
made
hnoion, etc.
rat? dp'âi<;
k. t. eôv(TiaL<i\
See
on
i.
21-/xhe
angelic powers are to recognise in the case of
the Christian church the

glorifying
wisdom
of
God;
what
a church-
design, out of which God kept the fivar-qpiov from the beginning locked up in Himself!/ To the heavenly powers (comp. 1 Pet. i. 12), which therefore are certainly not thought of as abstractions, the eart hly institute is to show the wisdom of God an even, however, is quite arbitrarily
;
inserted before rat?
dp')(^.
(Grotius, Meier).
The explanation
at least
(it is
of the diabolic poioers (Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, not Estius),
which Vorstius, Bengel, Olshausen, Hofmann, Bleek

otherwise at
vi.
understand as included, is entirely foreign to the context

12), even though iv
rot?
i'jrovpavtoi';
(comp.
168
i.

20) were not added.
3,
contrast of earth and heaven prevails.
Throughout the whole connection the Wrongly, too, we may add,
secular rulers (Zeger, Knatchbull), Jeunsh archons (Schttgen,
Locke), heathen priests (van

(Zorn),
Til), and Christian church-overseers have been understood as here referred to (comp. i. 21) while Koppe would embrace " quicquid est vi, sapientia, dignitate insigne," and would only not exclude the angels on
account of ev
rol'i iirovp.
i.
iv Toi<i iirovp.
:
is,
as always in our
:
Epistle (see on
3), definition of place
in heaven, not
in the
case of the heavenly things,
which are
to be perceived in connec-
tion with the church (Zeltner, comp. Baumgarten),

(see in Wolf).
vi.
It is
12) with rat? ap'^. needful to place Tal'i before iv
and such like most naturally to be combined (comp. k. t. iôva., in which case it was not
rol'i
iirovpavioL'i, seeing that
the ev Toh iirovpav., more precisely fixing the definition of the notion of the ap-âi and iôva-cai (for even upon earth
there are ap')(ai and iôvalai),
is
blended into a unity of notion

I. p.
with those two words (Fritzsche, ad Bom.

there
ev
is
195), so that
did not
no
linguistic necessity for connecting, as does Matthies,^
Toh
eTToup.
with
yvoyp.
The
is
question
why Paul
write simply rot?
ajyeXoa
not to be answered, with Hof-
mann,
to the effect, that the spirits ruling in the ethnic
world
(by
refers
are intended, because such a special reference of the general
expression
^
r.
dpx-
k.
t.
iôva:
must have been

by Matthies
is
specified
The whole apprehension

TO. "Ttatra,
x-r'ttr.
of our passage
mistaken.
He
TM
to all that
God has
either created in the natural reference
of the term, or accomplished in a spiritual respect for the salvation of

;
men.
According to his view, "ya applies to tZ to, !r. xr/ir. the afxôa xa) tôufficti are "the high and mighty ones who live in the world, or even in an invisible spiritual manner play their part in the same ;" ra. ivvfdna. is to be taken "as the actually subsisting aggregate of all that is heavenly as the kingdom of God." In the heavenly kingdom the wisdom of God becomes manifest by means of the church, and particularly to these high and mighty ones, because these are now, in the heavenly kingdom founded by Christ, brought, by means Thus, in fact, there of the church, to the consciousness of their powerlessness. are, as well in the notion of rtZ,uv as in that of p;^.) k. lôur., two wholly different conceptions combined, in oj^position to the hermeneutic principle of the unity of the sense ; ra iTroupavia is arbitrarily generalized in a spiritualistic way, and the thought that the apâi xa) lôuirlxi are brought to the conscious-
ness of their powerlessness
is
purely imported, and the more mistakenly, inasit is
much
as
it is
God's
ffoipia,
not His ^vvxfus, of which

ilou(r.
here said that
it is
made manifest
to the apxiî '
CHAP.
III.
10.
169
;
the addition of rcov iOvcov, or something of that sort)
but to
rf;?
the
effect,
that the designation of the angels on the side of

to
their
power and rank, in contradistinction
the Bia
iKKkr}crta<i,
serves for the glorifying of the eicKkrjala.
The
designation corresponds to the fulness and the lofty pathos
by which
is to
the whole passage

is
is
marked.
In
i,
21, also, an
It
analogous reason
found, namely, the glorifying of Christ,
be observed, in general, that the name ayyeXo^s does not Bia t^? eKKXrjatasi] The Christian occur at all in our Epistle.
church (i.e. the collective body of believers regarded as one community, comp. 1 Cor. xii, 28, x. 32, xv. 9; Gal. i. 11; Col. i. 18, 24, hence not betraying the later Phil. iii. 6 Catholic notion) is, in its existence and its living development, as composed of Jews and Gentiles combined in a higher unity, the medium de facto for the divine wisdom becoming known, the actual voucher of the same because it is the actual voucher of the redemption which embraces all mankind and raises it above the hostile contrast of Judaism and heathenism, this highest manifestation of the divine wisdom (Eom. xi. 32 f.). To the angels, in accordance with their ministering interest in the work of redemption (Matt, xviil 1 Luke XV. 7, 10; 1 Cor. xi. 10; Heb. i. 14; 1 Pet. 1. 12), the church of the redeemed is therefore, as it were, the mirror, by means of which the wisdom of God exhibits itself to them. TToXvTTot'/ctXo?] Eur. I]jh. T. 1149; Eubul. in Athen, xv. It signifies much-manip. 679 D; Orph. v. 11, Ix. 4.
;
fold,
i.e.
in
a high
degree
manifold, quite
it
corresponding
to the Latin multivarius.
That
signifies very vjise (Wolf,
Koppe, Eosenmiiller) has been erroneously assumed from

Aesch. Prom. 1308, where ttoIkiKo^ means crafty.
iroiKiko'i,
As
iroXv-
the
wisdom
of
God
manifests itself to the angels
through the church, inasmuch as the counsel of the redemption of the world is therein presented to them in its
ways and measures of God, which He had hitherto taken with reference to the Jews and Gentiles, all now in their connecuniversal realization, and they thus behold the manifold
tion with the institute of redemption,
their goal.
all
uniting in this as
The church is thus for them, as regards the manifold wisdom of God, the central fact of revelation ; for
170
the TToXviroLKLkov; oSov^ &eov, which they before

to their ultimate end, but only in
knew not
as
and by themselves (and how diverse were these ways with the Jews and with the
Gentiles
("
!),
they
now
see in point of fact, through the church

est,"
haec enim operuni divinorum theatrum
Bengel), as
irdXviroiKiXo'; aocpia.
as a fact in
Thus by the appearing of the eKKXrja-ia the history of salvation, the wisdom of the divine
government of the world has been on every side unveiled Entirely without warrant, Baur and brought to recognition. assumes, p. 429, that the Gnostic aocfila, with its heterogeneous forms and conditions (comp. Iren. IIae7\ i. 4. 1), was present
to the
mind
of the writer.
Ver. 11.
Kara
Trpodeaiv tcov alonvcov]
belongs neither to
'TToXv-jTOLKiXo^
(Holzhauseu) nor to aocpla (Koppe, Baumgartenit
Crusius), nor does

all
relate to ver. 9 (Michaelis), nor yet to
that precedes from ver. 3 or ver. 5 (Flatt, comp. Zanchius,

'yvcopiadfj
k.t.X.,
:
Morus), but to Iva

jiortant
giving information imin accordance with

the
in its
bearing on this iva
jmrpose of the looiid-pcriods, i.e. in conformity with the purpose which God had during the world-periods (from the commence-
ment
of the ages
up
to the execution of the purpose)

it
for
was formed, i. 3, but from the beginning of the world-ages it was hidden in God, ver. 9. On the genitive, comp. Jude 6 Ps. cxlv. 13 Winer, p. 169
already irpo KaraoXrj'^ Kap.ov
;
[E.
T.
234].
Others,
incorrectly, take
it
as:
the
purpose
concerning the different periods of the loorld, according to which, namely, God at first chose no people, then chose the Jews,
and
lastly called
Jews and
Geiitiles to the
Messianic kingdom
(Schoettgen, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, Cornelius
a Lapide, Baumgarten, Semler)
for it is only the
one purpose,
accomplished in Christ, that
is
spoken
of.
See what follows.

:
According to Baur, Kara irpodeaiv tmv aloov. means according to what God ideally proposed to Himself in the aeons (that
is,
the subjects of the divine ideas, constituting as such the
essence of God).
after it has
According to the Gnostic view, this returns,
been accomplished in Christ, as the realized idea rjv iirolrjaev iv X. 'I.] applies not to back into itself. ao(j>La (Jerome, Luther, Moldenhauer), but to irpoOeaiv, and
means
which
He
has fidfilkd in Christ Jesus.
So Castalio,
CHAP.
III.
12.
171
Vatablus, Grotiiis, Zachariae, Koppe, Eosenmller, Holzliausen, Comp, to Matthies, Olshaiisen, de Wette, Bleek, and others.
6i\r]fia TTOLetv
iroielv
(ii.
Matt. xxi. 31
Others:
(Acts xvii. 17).
John which
;
vi.
38), r'qv
<yv(fir}v
He
has formed in
Christ Jesus. So Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, Morns, et ed., including Flatt, Elickert, Meier, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius
also
Hofmann, Schrifthew. Comp. Mark iii. 6, xv. 1

context
tells
I. p.
;
230.
Linguistically admissible.
Isa. xxix.
15
Herod,
i.
127.
But
tlie
in favour of the first-named interpretation,

is
since
what follows
the explanation assigning the ground of

effect ;
the purpose not as formed, but as carried into
hence
not merely eV Xpi<TTu>

i.
is
said,
but ev Xpicrraj 'Irjaov (comp.

its
5), since
not the forming of that purpose, but

in His personal self-sacrifice
is
accomplish-
ment, took place in the historically manifested Messiah, Jesus
in
Him,
the realization of
that divine purpose contained.
Ver. 12. 'Ev
u>
/c.t.X.]
gives the experimentally

rjv
(exofjêv)
confirmatory proof for the just stated
See on
dicendi,
i.
7.
tTroirjaev
ev
X.
'I.
rtjv
irapprjalav']
denotes not the lihertatevi

apostle's
as at vi. 19, since not
merely the
(Vatablus)
experimental consciousness, but that of the Christian is, in liarmony with the context, expressed by exofiev; and the
limitation to prayer (Bengel, Holzhausen) is entirely arbitrary.
mood of those reconciled to God, in which they are assured of the divine grace (the opposite fear Comp. Heb. iii. 6, iv. 16, x. 19, 35 1 John of God's wrath). also Wisd. v. 1, and see Grimm ii. 28, iii. 21, iv. 17, v. 14; This TrappTjcria Kar' in loc. ; Bleek on Hchr. II. 1, p. 416 f. Kal rrjv Trpoa-aycoyijv'] eô'^Tjv is denoted by the article.
It is rather the free, joyful
:
See on
ii.
18.
'rreiroiOrjaei]
Likewise a formally consecrated notion. Fundamental disposition, in ivliich we have,
ev
etc.
For without confidence (see, as to Treirold., on 2 Cor. i. 15) the irapprjaia and the 'jrpoaa'ywyr] are not possible. How gloriously is this 'Ketrold'qaL'i on the part of the apostle expressed at hua rrj^ iriareoj^ avTov\ Causa medians e.fj. Bom. viii. 38 f of the exopêv k.tX. Christ is the objective ground on which this rests, and faith in Christ is the subjective means for its In appropriation and continued possession, Eom. v. 1, 2. (see on avrov there is implied nothing more than in et? avrov
.
172
Eom.
faith
iii.
22
Gal.
iii.
22), and
what Mattliies
finds in it (the
having reference to
Him
alone) is a sheer importation.
Ver. 13. Once more reviewing the whole section concern-
ing the great contents of his

(vv.
office
as apostle of the Gentries
212), he concludes
it,
in especial retrospective reference
to the introduction thereof (ver. 1),
with the entreaty

etc.,
ff.
to
the
readers not to
become discouraged,
attach to
them,
ver.
in order thereupon
yet further to
intcreession for
14
a rich outpouring of
which terminates in an enthusiastic doxology (ver. 20 f). According to this view, hlo has its reference not merely in ver. 12, but in the whole of what Paul has said, vv. 2-12, regarding his office, namely: On that account, because so great and blissful a task has by God's grace been assigned to me in my calling, / entreat you, etc. The greater the office conferred by God, the less does it become those whom it concerns to take offence or become downcast at the sufferings and persecutions of its holder. yu.^ iKKUKelv] applies
to the readers: that ye become not disheartened, faint-hearted
and cowardly in the confession of the gospel,

that
not to Paul
become not disheartened, as Syriac, Theodoret, Jerome,
Bengel,
Sender,
and
others,
-
including
it.
Eiickert,
Harless,
In opposition to the latter, it may be urged that the supplying of &e6v after ahov/iai, demanded in connection therewith, is in no wise indicated l)y the context, which rather in the bare alrovfiat (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20, x. 2) conveys only the idea of a request
Crusius, take
to the readers
7jTt<;
Olshausen, Baumgarten
(it is
otherwise at Col.
i.
Jas.
i.
6).
Further,
Boâ v/iwv manifestly contains a motive for the readers, to fulfil that which Paul entreats. Only from tovtov Xdpiv, ver. 14, begins an intercession for the readers, that God may strengthen them} The iiov, finally, after &Ki-<êaL is wholly superfluous, if Paul is imploring constancy /or himself but not, if he is beseeching the traders not to become faintiarl
hearted,
while he
is
suffering for them.
As
to the
i'yKaKeiv in
^
Lachmann, Tischendorf, and
Eiickert, see
form on 2 Cor.
" ut pro se primum, : change of the persons would have needed to be indicated by emphatic pronouns, if it were not to be looked upon as
Harless finds, witli Ehenferd (in "Wolf), the connection
Ephesiis oret. "
tum pro
But
this
imported.
CHAP.
III.
13.
173
v/ii.']
iv.
1.
ev
7al<i
OXiyfrea-i
fiov
virep
in the tribulations
which
vTrep
endure for your sake
(namely, as apostle of the
Gentiles).
Comp. Paul's own

Phil.
ii.
so touching
comment upon
way.
this
vficov, in
17.
The
iv denotes
the subsisting
relation, in vjhich their courage is not to give

p.
See Winer,
07i
346
[E. T.
48 3J.
To
this conception the explanation
account of (Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Estius, and others) is also virep v/xwv is rightly attached, without repetito be referred,
tion of the article, to rac<; 6\iyjr. fiov, because
one
i.
may
say
XleaOat virep
tivo<;
(2 Cor.
i.
comp. Col.
v[x,.
24).
Comp,
:
with ahovfiaL / pray for your henet. How violently opposed to the order of the words, and, with the right view of alrovixat, impossible rjTL'i iarl B6â vfiwv] is designed to animate to the
on Gal.
iv.
1 4.
Harless connects virep
fulfilment of the entreaty, so that ^rt? introduces an expla-
nation serving as a motive thereto (Herrn, ad
Occl.
B.
688;
EUendt, Lex.
what Mem.
is
p. 385), not equivalent to ^, but referring predicated " ad ipsam rei naturam " (Khner, ad Xen,
So2Jh.
IL
may
v/jbcov
tjtc^ p. 190), like qui quidem, quippe qui, idpote qui. be referred either to the firj eKKUKelv (Theodoret, Zanchius,
Harless, Olshausen, Schenkel) or to rat9 OXiyêau fiov virep

(so
usually).
In either case the relative
is
attracted
by the following Boâ, and this not as Hebraizing (Beza, Matthies, and many), but as a Greek usage. Comp, as regards the ordinary exegesis, according to which the number also is attracted, Dem. c. Aphob. p. 853. 31 e^êt ojSorjKovra jxev and see, in general, Winer, ixva<i, rjv eXae irpol/ca rrj^; /Mr]Tp6<i The usual reference is the right one; p. 150 [E. T. 206].
:
the sufferings of the apostle for the readers were a glory oj the
latter, it
redounded to their honour that he suffered for them,^
* This assertion stands in correct connection with his high apostolic position. That the apostle as Ua^fno; tov XptrTou suffered for the Gentile-Christians, could only redound to the honour of the latter, inasmuch as they could not but appear of the higher value, the more he did not refuse to undergo afflictions for them. This we remark in opposition not only to Eiickert, who finds it most
advisable to leave the contents of the clause indefinite, in order not to deprive it of its oratorical significance, but also in opposition to Harless and Olshausen,
who
are of opinion that the sufferings of the apostle could not in themselves be
for the Gentile-Christians.
any glory
the sufferer,
and of his
relation to
They are so on account ot the those/w whose sake he suffered.
dignity of
174
and
to

this relation could not but raise
else they
their
them far above the eKKUKetv, would not have accorded with the thought brought consciousness by the ^rt? icrl Boâ v/ncov. The
firj
referring of ^ri? to
eKKUKeiu
is
inconsistent with the correct

;
for if Paul had said that was glorious for the readers not to grow faint, he would either have given expression to a very general and commonplace thought, or else to one of which the specific contents must
explanation of the latter (see above)
it
first
be mentally supplied (gloria spiritualis)

:
wherea' the
is
proposition
"
my
tribulations are your glory"
in a high
degree appropriate alike to the ingenious
mode
of expression,
of personal dignity, in which is Comp. Phil. ii. 1 7. Vv. 14, 15.^ TovTov xapti'] on this account, in order that Against the view ye may not become disheartened, ver. 13. that there is here a resumption of ver. 1, see on that verse.
and
to the apostolic sense

lioly
implied a
pride.
KafiTTTCo
/c.T.X.]
TTjv
KaTavevv^jxevqv
ii.
Berjaiv
eB)]\(j)crev,
Chry-
sostom.
so that
See on Phil.
10.
"A
signo
rem
denotat," Calvin
we have
not,
with Caloviusând others, to think of an
actual falling on his knees during the writing.
who makes
of
reference to the genua mentis.

:
the
activity
before
the
:
Father.
Comp. Jerome,
Trpo?]
direction
e^
ov iraa Trarpi
K.T.X.]
Instead of saying
before the Father of all angels
and
men him
(a designation of
God which
naturally suggested itself to
an echo of the great thoughts, ver. 10 and ver. 6), himself more graphically by an ingenious paronomasia, which cannot be reproduced in German {iraTepa irarpid) from whom every family in heaven and upon
as
Paul
expresses
earth bears the name, namely, the

is 7raT7]p
name
irarpid, because
God
of all these irarptaL

justice
to
Less simple and exact, because

purposely
chosen
not
rendering
the
expression
:
view of de Wette " every race, i.e. every class of beings which have arisen (?), bears the name of God as its Creator and Father, just as human races bear the name from their ancestor, e.g. the race of David from David." ^ ov] fortli from tvhom ; origin of the name, which On ovofidêadat k, comp. is derived from God as irar-^p.
employed by Paul only
here, is the
Hom.
II. x.
68
1
irarpOev
e'/c
'yeverjf;
ovo/jid^cov
Crit. p.
avBpa eKuarov.
ff.
On
ver. 15, see Kciche,
Comm.
156
CHAP.
III.
14, 15.
175
Xen, Mem.
iv. 5.
12
ix Tov avviovTWi Koivfi ovKevecrdai.
e^^ he koI to hiaXeyejdai ovofxaaOfjvac Soph. Oed. JR. 1036.

with classical writers ordinarily body belonging to a common
irao-a
Trarpid]
irarpLo,,
irdrpa, is equivalent to gens, a

stock,
whether
it
be meant in the narrower sense of a family};
or in the wider, national sense of a tribe (Acts

xvi.
28;
;
Ps. xxii,
here
for
iii. 25 1 Chron. In the latter sense every gens in the heavens can only apply to the
27; Herod,
i.
200).
classes of angels (which are called irarpLai, not as though there were propagation among them. Matt. xxii. 30, but because they have God as their Creator and Lord for a Father) as a suitable analogue, however, to the classes of angels, appear on earth not the particular families, but the
various
nationalities.
Eightly Chrysostom and his successors explain the
word by
says
:
'yeveai or êvrj.
The Vulgate has
paternitas, a sense
indicated also by Jerome, Theodoret, and others.

09 akrjoo'i virdp-êi iraTrjp, 0? ov irap
Theodoret
aXkov tovto Xacov eêi, aXX' avTo<i Tol'i aX\oi<i fxeraSiScoKe tovto. This view (comp. Goth. " all fadreinis ") is expressed by Luther (approved in ^Vho is the true Father over all that are the main by Harless) called children, etc. But TraTpid never means fathership or fatherliness (TraTpoTvs:), and what could be the meaning of that iraaa, every, shows that Paul did not fathership in heaven ? ^ think only of tivo iraTpiai, the totality of the angels and the totality of men (Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Koppe, and others), or of the blessed in heaven and the elect on earth (Calovius,
'
: :
Wolf), but of a plurality, as well of angelic as of

TTUTpiai;
human
dif-
and
to
this extent his conception
is,
as regards the
numerical form, though not as regards the idea of TraTpid,

ferent from that of the Eabbins, according to
which the angels

Talm.
p.
(with the Cabbalists, the Sephiroth) are designated as familia

superior (see Wetstein, p.
*
247
f.;
Buxtorf,
Zt'aj.
1753
To
this
head belongs
ii.
also the Jewish-genealogical distinction
from
(puX^,
according to which -rarpid denotes

(ipvXv).
a branch of one of
of the
the twelve tribes
See on Luke
4.
Similarly in the sense of a family-association
often with Pindar.
Boeckh, ad Find.
% 5. 4, 10.
2
On the relalTon Nem. V. L. iv. 47
word
to the kindred (fparpia, see

;
Dissen, p. 387
Hermann,
:
Staatnalterth.
Jerome
finds it in the
archangels, and Theodoret says

cites 1 Cor. iv. 15.
oipccviovs
irxrifa;
rov; Tviu/iccTixovs kccXu,
and
176
'rraaa
Schoettgen, Horae, p, 1237 f.). Some have even explained iraTpia as the whole family, in which case likewise
either the angels
and men
(Michaelis^ Zachariae, Morus, Meier,
Olshausen, and earlier expositors), or the blessed in heaven and

Christians on earth (Beza), have been thought of: but this is on the ground of linguistic usage erroneous. Comp, on ii. 21.
ovofidêTat] hears the nam.e, namely, the
name
;^
'Trarptd
see
above.
The text does not yield anything
else
and
if
many
(Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Tlatt and Olshausen) have understood the name children of God, this is purely
imported.
Others have taken " nomen ^ro re

ct
al.),
"
(Zanchius,
Menochius, Estius,
existere.
so that ovo/jidêadai
would denote
So, too, Eiickert, according to
whom
express the thought that

as all that lives in
God
is
called the Father,
Paul designs to inasmuch
existence and
name
heaven and upon earth has from Him {i.e. dignity and peculiarity of nature).
;
Contrary to linguistic usage

Isaeus, de Menecl. her.
Plat. Fol. iv. p.
etvat ovo/ndêrat,
must
at least
have been used in that case instead of ovcfidêrat (comp.
41
rov nrarepa, ov elvai
cDvo/jidaOijv,
428 E:
:
6vop,dôvral, rive<i elvai).
Incorrectly
Holzhausen ovofidêLv means to call into existence. Reiche takes e'^ ov ovofJidêTai, (of whom it hea.rs the name) as the expression of the highest dominion and of the befitting reverence due, and refers irdaa iraTpid iv ovp. to the pairings of
also
the Aeons.
The former without
linguistic evidence
the latter
a hysteroproteron.
Eemaek 1. In if ou ovoiMa'C.iTai God is certainly characterized as universal Father, as Father of all angel-classes in heaven and all "peojples upon earth. Comp. Luther's gloss " All angels, all Christians, yea, all men, are God's children, for He
.
created them all." But it is not at all meant by the apostle in the bare sense of creation, nor in the rationalistic conception of the all-fatherhood, when he says that every -Trarpid derives this
For the very reason that Paul does not put any defining addition to ove/naNor is it to be objected, with Reiche, that the human TaTpia, bears the name not from God, but from the human ancestor. This historical relation remains entirely unaffected by the hiyher thought, that they are called yrarfudi, from the universal, heavenly Father.
1
îTai (in opposition to Keiche's objection).
CHAP.
III.
16.
177
h Gioij, as from its father but in the higher spiritual sense of the divine Fatherhood and the sonship of God. He thinks, in connection with the J^ ol, of a higher 'zarpokv than For '^rarpiai, so termed from God as that of the mere creation. their rrarrip, are not merely all the communities of angels, since these were indeed viol QioZ from the beginning, and have but also all nationalities among not fallen from this uiorric. men, inasmuch as not only the Jews, but also all Gentile nations, have obtained part in the Christian v'lodisla, and the
name
; ;
latter are evyxXripovo/jiâ x/ aaau/Mo, xai <sv}iiii7oya
7r\c,
litayjikiai
TU)
Xpiaruj (ver. 6).
If this has not yet
become completely
realized, it has at
writes
any rate already been so partially, while Paul and in God's counsel it stands ideally as an accomplished fact. On that account Paul says with reason also of
;
every nationality
upon
earth, that
it
bears the
name
TaTpid,
because God is its Father. Without cause, therefore, Harless has taken offence at the notion of the All-fatherhood, which is here withal clearly though ideally expressed, and given to the passage a limitation to which the all-embracing mode of expression is entirely opposed " whose name every child [i.e. every t7'ue child] in heaven and upon earth bears." Consequently, as though Paul had written something like Jg ol 'jrea dXrioivYj 'xarpid n.r.'k. With a like imported limitation Erasmus, Parajohr. : " omnis cognatio spiritualis, qua conglutinantur sive
: :
angeli in coelis, sive fideles in terris."
the non-genuineness of tou xvplov ^/mZv remarks) falls also the possibility of referring IB, ol to Christ (Beza, although with hesitation, Calvin, Zanchius, Hanmiond, Cramer, Eeiche, and others). But if those words were genuine (de Wette, among others, defends them), s^ S would still apply to God, because st, ol %.r.\. characterizes the fatherly relation, and ha bOj -/..r.}.. applies to the Father. Lastly, polemic references, whether in opposition to the imrticularisTn of the Jeivs (Chrysostom, Calvin, Zanchius, and others), or even in opposition to " scholam Simonis, qui plura principia velut plures Deos introducebat " (Estius), or in opposition to the worship of angels (Michaelis), or in opposition to the Gnostic doctrine of Syzygies (Eeiche), are to be utterly dismissed, because arbitrary in themselves and inappropriate to the character and contents of the prayer before us.
2.
'I.
Eemark
With
X. (see the
critical
Ver. 16. 'Iva 8c5] (see the critical remarks) introduces the
design of the
Kafiina)
k.t.X.,
i.
the prayer.
Comp, on
1 7.
Kara
and
thcreivith the
contents of
t?;?
is
So'^t??
to ttXouto?
avrov]
i.e.
in accordance with the fact that His glory
in so
MeyerEph.
; ;
178
great fulness.
viiiv or
It may be referred either to Sw The former is the most natural comp, i, 17. According to His rich fulness in glory, God can The hoâ, namely, and will bestow that which is prayed for. embraces the wliole glorious perfection of God, and can only with caprice be limited to the 'poiocr (Grotius, Koppe, and others) or to the grace (Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, and others
to
Comp, on what follows.
i.
7.
Svvdfxet KpaTaicocomp. Matthies, Holzhansen, Olshausen). toith iJoiver (which is instilled) to drjvac] instrumental dative
:
he strengthened ;
opposite of eKKaKelv, ver.

is
13.
That which
it
effects this
strengthening
the 13.
Holy
Spirit {Sia tov irveufiarof

is
avTov).
Comp. Eom.
xv.
According to Harless,
roi'i
dative of the
ii.
form (comp,
la'^vei.v
aco/xacri,
is
Xen. 3fem.
regarded as
7. 7), so
that the being strengthened in poiver
opposed to the being strengthened in knowledge, or the like. But to what end would Paul have added et? tov eaw av6p., if
he had meant such special strengthening ? The strengtheninghence the reference to a is to concern the whole inner man
;
single faculty of the

to
mind (Olshausen
:
refers Bvvdfiec primarily
the
taill)
has no ground in the context.

adverbially
Others
have
explained
it
in a 'powerful manner (Beza, Vater,

ed.
Eckert, Matthies).
p.
See Bos,
Schaef. p.
743
Matthiae,
is
897.
In this way 8wa/ii9 would on

the
be power, which
Comp. Xen. Cyr. part of the strengthener. But our interpretation better accords with the coni. 2. 2. trast of eKKaKelv, which imj)lies a want of power on the part et? tov eato avd pa)TTov'\ et?, not for ev of the readers.
applied
(Vulgate, Beza, and others), but in reference to the inner
man,
See
containing the more
precise definition of the relation.

I.
Khner,
identified
II.
557, note
The inner
man
(not to be
with the Kaivo^ avOpcoTra) is the subject of the the essence of man which vov<i, the rational and moral ego, which is in is conscious of itself as an ethical personality,
harmony with the divine

case of the unregenerate
but in the under bondage to the power of sin in the flesh (Kom. vii. 2 3), and even in the case Eom. of the regenerate ^ needs constant renewing (iv. 2 3
will
vii.
(Rom.
16, 25)
is liable to fall
It
(as here
must be decided exclusively by the connection on each occasion, whether and 2 Cor. iv. 16 comp. 1 Pet. ill. 4) the inner man of the regenerate
;
CHAP.
III.
17.
179
whose
seat of
xii.
2)
and strengthening by the

it is {Svvdfiei
Spirit of Gocl,
operation
KpaTaL(o6P]vai,
Bca tov Trvev/jâTo^), in
order not to be overcome by the sinful desire in the arap^, of
which the '^v')(r], the animal soul-nature, is the living principle The opposite is 6 e^co avOpcoiro'; (2 Cor. (Gal. V. 16 f.). iv. 16), i.e. the man as an outward phenomenon, constituted by the aco/xa t?}? aapKo^ (Col. ii. 11), which, by reason of its psychical quality (1 Cor. xv. 44), is the seat of sin and death The inner man in and by itself is (Eom. vi. 6, vii. 18, 24). by virtue of the moral nature of its^vou?, as the Ego exerting the moral will, and assenting to the divine law (Eom. vii. 20, 22) directed to the good, yet without the renewing and strengthening by the Holy Spirit too weak for accomplishing, in opposition to the sinful principle in the crdp^, the good which is perceived, felt, and willed by it (Eom. vii. 1523).
We may add, it
is all
the less an " absurd assertion " (Harless),
that the conceptions o
'iaco and 6 e^w vOpoiiro'i are derived from Plato's philosophy (see the passages from Plato, Plotinus, and Philo, in Wetstein, and Pritzsche on Eom. vii. 22), inasmuch as for the apostle also the vov<i in itself is the moral faculty of thinking and willing in man inasmuch, further, as the Platonic dichotomy of the human soul-life into irvevîa comp. (1/01)9) and -^/^f^?/ is found also in Paul (1 Thess. v. 23 Heb. iv. 12), and inasmuch as the Platonic expressions had become 'po'pidar (comp, also 1 Pet. iii. 4), so that with the apostle the Platonism of that mode of conception and expression by no means needed to be a conscious one, or to imply an acquaintance with the Platonic philosophy as such.
; ;
Ver. 17. KaroLKTiaai

Orjvai,, etc.,
/c.t.A,.]
Parallel to hvvd[xei Kparaico-
which " dcclarat, quale sit interioris hominis robur," Calvin. According to Eiickert, something different from what forms the object of the first petition is here prayed for, and there is a climax. In this way we should have, in the absence
of a connecting particle, to take the infinitive, with de Wette,
as the infinitive of the
aim
but the circumstance that with
Christians the being strengthened

is
by the
Spirit,
who
is
indeed
however
intended, or that of the unregenerate (Rom. vii. 22). The man is regenerate, (in opposition to the evasive view in Delitzsch, Psych, p. 380 f.), only of water and the Spirit (Tit. iii. 5).
180
the Spirit of Christ, cannot at all be thought of as difftrent
from the indwelling of Christ (Eom.

Phil, iv,
viii.
9,
10; 2 Cor,
xii.
13; Eom. xv. 1 7 f.), and the subsequent eppi^. k. reOefx., which manifestly further expresses the conception of The explanathe KparaLwOrjvai,, decide for the former view.
tory
element,
:
however,
lies
in
take
the
emphatically
prefixed
up His abode by means of In the Holy Spirit, namely, which is faith in your hearts. the Spirit of Christ (see on Eom. viii. 9, 10 Gal. ii. 20, iv. 6
KaroLKYjcraL
that Christ
may
2 Cor.
iii.
17), Christ fulfils the promise of

;
His
spiritual preii.
sence in the hearts (John xiv. 2 3
comp, above, on
17;
2 Cor.
xiii.
5), in
which
faith is the appropriating instrument
Where thus on the part of man (hence Bia rr)<i Trto-Tetw?). there is a KparaicodrjvaL Sia tov irvevfxaTO'i, there is also to be found a KaroLKrja-ai, of Christ; because the former is not possible without a continuous activity of Christ in the hearts. Opposed to the KaroiKâat of Christ in the hearts is a transitory
{'Trp6(7Kaipo<i)
reception of the
definition,
Holy
of
Spirit (Gal.
iii.
3).
more precise
by
virtue
which the clause

to
KaroiKTJaat k.t.X.
that
may
is
in reality be
an explanatory clause
which precedes,
thus before us, namely, in the prefixed This in opposition to Harless and
emphatic KaToiKrjaai
Olshausen,
itself.
who
find this
more
ii.
following iv y. eppi^. k.
sense, comp.
Test.
redefj,.
On
;
precise definition only in the
KaToiKeiv in the spiritual

; ;
5 2 Pet. iii. 13 XII. Pair. pp. 652, 734 and the passages in Theile, ad Jac. p. 220. The conception of the temple, however, is not found here for the temple would be the dwelling of God, and Christ the corner-stone, ii. 20 f. Ver. 18. Êv iydirrj eppt^. k. reOep,.'] is not to be separated by interpunction from the following ha, because it belongs to Xva K.T.X. (comp. Lachmann) in order that, rooted and grounded Thus the aim of the two precedin love, ye may he able, etc. ing parallel infinitive clauses is expressed, and the emphatically prefixed iv dj. ippi^. k. reOeî. is quite in keeping with the
Col.
i.
19,
Jas. iv.
Pauline doctrine of the

V.
7ricrTL<i
Bl
d<yd'iTr}<;
ivep<yovfji,ivr}.
Gal.
1 Cor.
xiii.
Through the strengthening of
their inner
man by means
of the Spirit, through the KaroiKrjo-aL of Christ
in their hearts, the readers are to
become established
in love,
CHA-P.
III.
18.
181
and, having been established in love, are able to comprehend the greatness of the love of Christ.
How
often Xva
is
and other
conjunctions follow a part of the sentence which
with special
emphasis prefixed, no matter whether that part of the sentence

be subject or object (Eom.
xi.
/.),
31
2 Cor.
Acts xix. 4; Gal.
ii.
10,
may
ii. 4 2 Thess. ii. 7 be seen in Fritzsche, ad

;
Rom. II. p. 541; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 333 [E. T. 389]. This construction is here followed Comp, on Gal. ii. 10. by Beza, Cajetanus, Camerarius, Heinsius, Grotius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Eosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, Schenkel, and others, including Winer, ed. 6 [E. T. 715], and Buttmann [E. T. 299]. Comp, already Photius in Oecumenius. eV '^. ippt^. k. reOe/i. is, on the other hand, connected with what precedes by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, Estius, Er. Schmid, Michaelis, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Eiickert, Matthies, Harless,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, holding

it
that
attaches
itself,
with abnormal employment of

v/jlcov}
case, pre-
dicatively to iv
raU
KapS.
of the construction continued in

itself
To the abnormal nominative participles there would be in
nothing to object (see already Photius in Oecumenius,
ad loc; Winer,
p. 505 [E. T. 715]; Buttmann, p. 256 [E. T. 299]); but here t\\Q ^perfect participles are opposed to this, since they in fact would express not the state into which the readers are to come (" ita ut in amore sitis stabiles," Morus),
but the state in which they already are

state
(so also Eiickert), the
which is presupposed as predicate of the readers (so Harless and Olshausen). But to the desire that the readers might he strengthened, and that Christ might make His dwelling in
their hearts, the presupposition that they were already iv ajdirr}
would stand in quite illogical relation. Present would be logically necessary " inasmuch as ye are being confirmed in love," namely, by the fact that Christ takes up His dwelling in you. De Wette, on the other hand, is wrong in appealing to CoL ii. 7, where, indeed, in the case
ippi^wfievoL
participles
:
of ippi^cofxivoc the having received Christ appears as having
already preceded.
iv dyaTry]
is,
in accordance with the fol-
' Harless holds that the changing of the construction is here, as Col. ii. 2, the more natural, inasmuch as the predicate is equally applicable to Kocpîccis
and
ifiy,
and as an essential element must stand forth independently.
182
lowing
love

figures, the soil in
love,
which the readers were rooted and

the
effect
grounded, namely, in
;
of faith, Christian hrotherly
no reason in the relation of faith to love^ for supplying after eppt^. k. TeOe/j,., with Holzhausen and Harless, eV XpiaTM, which is not even required by the anarthrous dyaTrrj for without an article (m amando) it has " vim quasi verhi," Khner, ad Xcn. Mem. i. 1. 9. Such a supplement is, however, the more arbitrary, inasmuch as there is already a
hence there
is
;
definition
by
ev
consequently the reader could not light upon

ev 07. epptt^.
k. redep,. is
the idea of supplying such in thought,
prefixed with emphasis, because only the loving soul position to recognise the love of Christ (comp. 1
is
in a
Erroneously Beza says
" charitatem intellige,
John iv. 7 ff.). qua diligimur a
Deo"
(so also Calovius,
Wolf, and others), and Bengel holds that
the love of Christ, ver. 19, is meant; against which in the very mention of love along with faith (i. 15; 1 Cor. xiii.) the absence of a genitival definition
Te6eixe\.'\
is
decisive.
epp^^- kôX
:
a twofold figurative indication of the sense
stedfast
and enduring.
(comp. Matt.
Paul, in the vivacity of his imagination, con-
ceives to himself the congregation of his readers as a ;plant

xiii.
ff.),
perhaps a
tree
(Matt.
ii.
vii.
17),
1 Cor.
and at
iii.
the same time as a huilding.
Comp.
Col.
9.
Passages from profane literature for the tropical usage of both
words
may
905,
be seen in Eaphel, Herod,

p.
183
Wetstein,
II. p.
248.
p. 534; Bos, Exerc. p. Comp, the Fathers in Suicer's Tlies.
e'ficrûo-T^Te]
ye
may
he fully able (Ecclus. vii.
Plut. Mor. p.
to a-pipreliend,
801 E;
Strabo, xvii. p. 788).
KaraXaeadai]
Karavoelv.
viii. Q. b,
i.
Comp. Acts
with
iv.
13, x. 34, xxv. 25
Josephus, Antt.
classical writers in the active.
Comp, on John
to
5. is
of,
Strangely at variance with the context
(because the object
not suited thereto), Holzhausen takes

as a prize in the
it
mean
iii.
to
lay hold
Phih
12).
avv
games
(1 Cor. ix.
24
Traat rot? 7/049]

(Phil.
iii.
The highest and most

only as a
individuals, for
all ;
precious knowledge
8) Paul can desire

;
common
possession of all Christians

it,
whom
as the
he wishes
^
are to have
it
in
communion with
Calvin already aptly remarks

sit
.
. .
"neque enim disputat

"_).
P., uhi salus nostra

:
fundata " quam
sed
quam
firma et tenax debeat in nobis esse Caritas" (rather

esse in caritate
firmi et tenaces
debeamus
CHAP.
III.
18.
183
attaining of the
K.r.X.'\
hnoioledgc of the
ground of
salvation, so tlie
salvation itself (Acts xx. 32).

illustration
rt
to 7rXdTo<;
Sensuous
"
(arbitrarily declared
by de Wette
to
:
be
hardly
"
in keeping with the Pauline style) of the idea

every relation.
Jiow great in
The deeply affected mind with its poeticoimaginative intuition looks upon the meta'physical magnitude
as a physieal, tnathematical one, o-w/xanKoU
a-'^^tjfiaat
(Chry-
sostom) extending on every side.
Comp. Job
xi.
79.
The
many modes of interpreting expositors may be seen in
the several dimensions in the older
Cornelius a Lapide and Calovius.
Every special attempt at interpretation is unpsychological, and only gives scope to that caprice which profanes by dissecting the outpouring of enthusiasm.-^
Of
luhat, Jwivever, are these
dimensions predieated
Not
of the
Christian chnreh, as the
spiritual temple of God, Eev. xxi. 1 6 (Heinsius,

]\Iichaelis,
is
Romberg, Wolf,
is
Cramer, Koppe, and others

;
comp. Bengel), which

not
at variance with the context
inasmuch as a temple
spoken of either before or after (TeOe/xeXioo/jievoi ... to 'ttXtjNot of the woi'Jc of redemption (Chrysostom: poyfia Tov ov !). TO /nvar/jpiov to virep vficov olKovo/xrjOev, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Calovius, and
others, including Paickcrt, Meier,
Harless, Olshausen,
Baumis
garten-Crusius, Bleek),
discourse
is
because, after a
new
portion of the
commenced with
;
ver. 14, the
/.ivaT'qptov
not
hence also not of the mystery of the cross, in connection with which marvellous allegories are drawn by Not of Augustine and Estius from the figure of the cross."'^ the love of God to us (Chrysostom to /xeêô? t?}<? aydirr]'; tov Qeov, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Vatablus, Grotius,
again mentioned
:
Baumgarten, Flatt)
^
because previously iv
subjoin some of these
aydrn-r}
does not
By way
of example,
;
we
modes
of explanation, e.g.
Oecumenius
in
it is
indicated that redemption and the knowledge of Christ were

(^>?x;),
foreordained from eternity

their efficacy {o;),
extend to
all (^rXaT?),
reach even to hell
and that Christ has ascended above the heavens Erasmus, Paraphr.: ^'alt'dudine ad angelos usque se proferens, profundi' {'u4">s). tte ad inferos usque penetrans, long'dudine ac latitudine ad omnes hujus mundi plagas sese dilatans." Grotius, "latissime se effundit in omnes homines, et in longum, i. e. in omnia saecuia se extendit, et ex infima depressione hominem For other instances, see Calovius. liberat, et in loca suprema evehit. "
^
far as the cross-beam
According to Estius, the length applies to the upright beam of the cross as the breadth, to the cross-beam ; the Jiîght, to the portion
;
"
184
apply to this love.

(Matthies),
Not
of the " divine gracious nature

if
which would only be correct
the predicates were
exclusive attributes of the divine nature, so that, as a matter

of course, the latter
of the ivisdom of God,
duces from Col.

ver. 19, is the
ii.
would suggest itself as the subject. Not which de Wette quite irrelevantly introThe love of Christ to men, 3 Job xi. 8.
;
subject (Castalio, Calvin, Calixtus, Zachariae,
Morus,
adding
Storr, Eosenmliller,
is
Holzhausen), the boundless greatInstead, namely, of the apostle

i/iô?
ness of which
t?}?
depicted.^
aya.Trrj'i
rov Xpiarov immediately after

far as
and
thus bringing to a close the majestic flow of his discourse,
now, when he has written as

itself to his lively
conception the
i5-\|ro9,
there
first
presents
as regards sense, climacti; . .
colly parallel to the just expressed
this,
oxymoron '^vwvai rrjv and can now no longer express the love of Christ in
;
.
KaTaXaeadai v'>ô|ro9
genitive, so that to vrXaro?

tive,
remains loithout a geni-
but lays claim to its genitival definition as self-evident from the yTrrjv tov XpiaTov immediately following. re] and, Ver. 19. Fvcovai] Parallel to KaToXaeadat.
denotes, in a repetition of M'ords of corresponding signification (KaToXaea-dat

.
fyvcvai),
the harmony, the symmetrical
relation of the elements in question (Hrtung, Partihellchre,

I. p.
105); hence we have the
less
to
assume a climax in
clearly
t?}?
connection with <^vwval re k.tX., since this must have been

hinted at least by yvMvai
KoX
<yv(ovat, or
("
the like.
Be,
or
more
rijv
virepaW.
'yvuxjeco'i]
by fiaXXov Be The
Bengel)
lies
oxymoron
suavissima haec quasi correctio
est,"
in the fact that
an adequate knowledge of the love of Christ transcends human capacity, but the relative knowledge of
]irojecting
above the cross-beam the depth, to the portion fixed in the ground. the length of the cross, who perceives that from the beginning to the end of time no one is justified save by the cross the breadth, who reflects that the church in all the earth has come forth from the side of Christ the height, who ponders the sublimity of the glory in heaven obtained through
He comprehends
Christ
the depth,
who contemplates
the mystery of the divine election of grace,

!
and
is
how
lose
1
This as a warning instance thereby led to the utterance, Rom. xi. 32 even the better exegetes, when they give the reins to subjectivity, may
interpretation.
themselves in the most absurd attempts at Comp. Luther " that nothing is so broad, the power and help of Christ."
:
long, deep, high, as to be
beyond
CHAP.
III.
19.
185
is
the same opens up in a higher degree, the more the heart

filled
and thereby is itself strengthened which knowledge is not of the disin loving (vv. 17, 18), cursive kind, but that which has its basis in the consciousness Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly says to ^vojvat, of experience.
with the Spirit of Christ,
avrl Tov aTToXavcrat Xejet,

ft)?
eTrl
irpayfidrcov
fioL
elircttv
rijv fyvcoatv,
iv
"âKfxo)
TO
i'yvoopicrd<i
68ov<i
ô)?}?,
avrl
tov iv
iroXavcreh
<T(o<i is
/xe r?}?
^w?}?
KaTeaTTjawi.
The
genitive
t^9 yvco-
//. xxiii.
dependent on the comparative virepaXkovaav (Horn. 847 Plat. Gorg. p. 475 C Bernhardy, p. 170), not
;
;
upon
(also
d'^d'iTrjv,
from which construction the reading of Jerome
A, 74, 115,
though we should understand, with Grotius, the love (to God and one's neighbour) which flows from the knowledge of Christ yields an inappropriate sense, dyaTrrjv tov XpcaTov] genitive and obliterates the oxymoron. the subject. It is the love of Christ to s (Rom. viii. 35), of
which in any case
even
al.,
Ar.
p.), rîTTjv Trj<i 'yvcoaeco'i,
has arisen,
shown
hausen)
in His atoning death (Gal.

still
ii.
20; Eom.
v. 6
f.,
al).
Incorrect (although
is
unhappily enough defended by Holz" that to love Christ is 1545 At variance with the words,
^
:
the view of Luther,
much
better than all knowledge."
since ttjv virep. ti}9 jvaxr. can only be taken adjectively;

at variance
and
not
with the context, since love

Xva
.
.
to
Christ
is
spoken of in the whole connection.

vv.
8,
12.
Comp, on the other hand,
7rXr]pcD0i]T6
k.t.X.]
Aim
of the
iîa^veiv
KaTokaeadav
irXripajxa
XpiaTov
in order that ye
may
he filled
up
to
the whole fulness of God.
to ifkrjpcojxa tov Qeov (comp.

is,
iv.
13,
tov XpcaTov)
according to the context, which
speaks of the operationes gratiae (vv. lG-18, 20), the charismatic fulness, which is bestowed by God. Hence the sense
in order that ye
with divine gifts of grace to such extent, that the whole fulness of them {irav has the emphasis) shall have passed over upon you. TfK-qpwâ namely, the definite
he filled
may
meaning
i.
of
which
is
gathered from the context (comp, on

virtue of
its
first
10,
i.
23), has,
by
signification:
id quo
res impletur, often
also
the derived general signification of
copia, 7rXouT09, irXrjOo^, because that,

^
by which a space
the love of Christ,
is
made
In the
earlier editions
he had correctly
which yet suV'
passes all knowledge.
-:
18G
full,

appears as copiously present.
iiSuTcov,
So Song of
Sol. v. 1 2
irkr)
p(0[jiaTa
Eom.
xv.
29
irXrjpania euXoyiw? Xptcrrov,
Eph. iv. 13;^ Eur. Ion. 664: (jilXcov TrXrjpco/jba. Hesychius Trkrjpcofia' ttXô?, Fritzsclie, ad Rom. IL
:
Comp.
p.
471.
Quite so the
German
Flle.
Grotius takes
it
actively, thus
Deus This is not, indeed, at variance with impUre sold homines." linguistic usage (see on i. 1 0), but less simple, inasmuch as the passive ifkrjpwOrjTe most naturally makes us assume for ifkrjpcofia also the passive
as equivalent to irXijpojai'?, inaldng full: " donis, quibus
notion, namely, that of the experienced

Other's,
divine fulness of
gifts.
retaining the signification
id
quo
res impiletur,
but not the signification copia derived there:
from, have assumed as the meaning
the perfection of God.

rj<i
See Chrysostom
6
" in
TrkTjpova-dai 7rdar]<? aperrj'^
7r\i]pr)<;
icrriv
060 9. Comp. Oecumenius and

order that you
others.
Recently so Eiickert
filled
may
be continually more
with
all
perfection, until
you have
finally attained to all the fulness
But this goal Comp. Olshausen. of the divine perfection!^ cannot possibly be thought of by Paul as one to be realized in
the temporal
to Matthies,
life (1 Cor. xiii.
10-12).
This also in opposition
who understands
Christ.
the infinite fulness of the
grace, truth, etc., inexhaustible
in
essence of God, whicli has
become manifest in
i.
Harless here, too (but see on
23), will have the gracious presence of the divine Soâ, with
which God fills His people, to be meant; just as Holzhausen makes us think of the Shechinah filling the temple (comp. Baumgarten, Michaelis). The church, however, is not according to the context here meant by irXrjpcfia (Koppe, Stolz, and others) and the turgid and involved analysis given by
;
Schenkel in this sense

meaning,'^ since et?
tt.
is
r.
quite an arbitrary importation of

r.
irXrjp.
O. can only state simply
that the irXrjpcoOijvai

irXripwiJLa
is to
be
a,
full one, consequently ttuv to
must be the
by the irXrjpwOrjvat.
1
totality of that
which
is
communicated
eW]
does not stand for eV (Grotius,

:
n.r.x.)
2
Not even in John i. 16, where, rather, the context (ver. 14 TX^pn; x^f^'^ demands the first signification: that, of which Christ is fll.
" The world-whole
[1)
fulfilling itself (1) in
God,
i.e.
completing itself unto the
expression of the highest perfection, reflecting itself in the church (?), in so far as complication of there is no longer found in it any want, any kind of defect."
ideas, of
which the clear-headed rational Paul was quite incapable.
CHAP.
III.
20, 21.
187
:
and does not signify either hito ilic very (becoming merged into), as Matthies, nor up tovmrds, as Schenkel explains it, to which TrXTjpcofia is not suitable but it indicates Matthiae, p. 1348. the quantitative goal of the fulfilment.
Estius, Eosenmiiller),
;
petition, is at
Vv. 20, 21. That which is strictly speaking the prayer, the an end but the confidence in the Almighty,
;
who can
of
still
a right full
do far more, draws forth from the praying heart and solemn ascription of praise, with the fulness
xvi.
which that of Eom.

ie.
25-27
is
to be compared.
vTrep
irvTa TTOLrjcai] to be taken together.

all,
To
he alle to
do heyond
more than
all,
is
a pojmlar expression of the very
highest active poiver; so that iravra is quite unlimited,

is not,
and
it
with Grotius, arbitrarily to be limited by quae hactenus This virep iravra does not belong to hwafjuevco visa sunt.
(Holzhausen), because otherwise Troirjaat would be superfluous nor does virep stand adverbially (2 Cor. xi. 23), as Bengel would have it, which could not occur to any reader on account
;
of the iravra standing beside
it.
There
limit;
voov/x.]
is
nothing at which
can do
still
the action of
God would have
its
?)
He
more.
virepeKirepcaaov oiv alrov/x.
a more precise defini-
and indefinite virep iravra, specializing and at the same time enhancing the notion of virep ahove measure more than ivhat we ask or uoiderstand. According to Eiickert, a)v alrov/x. has reference to iravra Paul namely,
tion to the universal
:
instead of adding
first for
mv
alrov/x.
immediately after iravra, has
the strengthening of the virep introduced the additional
and now must needs annex in the genitive what ought properly, as construed with iravra, to follow in the
virepeKirep.,
A course in itself quite unnecessary and if the had been concerned only about a strengthening of the virep, and he had, in using iravra, already had a alrov/x. in his mind, he must have written after virepeKirep.: irdvrcov a alrovfi.; so that the sense would be more than all (which we ask, etc.), exceedingly more than all, which we ask, etc. virepeKirepcaaccusative.
;
apostle
with the exception of 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 13 (Elz.), codd. at Dan. iii. 22, nowhere else preserved. Comp., however, virepeKirepiaa-co<i, 1 Thess. v. 13 Clem. Cor. I. 20 Xiav
aov]
is,
;
eK ireptaaov,
irepia-aevco,
Mark
vi.
Eom.
v.
51; virepirepiaam, Mark vii. 3 7 virep20 2 Cor. vii. 4. The frequent, and in
;
;

188
part bold,
compounds with
vTrip used
by Paul
are at such
places in keeping with the intensity of his pious feeling, which

struggles after adequate expression.
tive of comparison.
mp, for tovtcov a, is genip.
139. rf\ Whether our asking or our apprehending be regarded, the one as the other
See Bernhardy,
is
infinitely surpassed
by God's active power.

gradatio," Bengel.
latius patet
quam
2)reces;
" Cogitatio
tt)v evepyovfj,.']
not passive (Estius), but middle.

regard to the divine power, which
See on Gal.
v. 6.
eV rjfuv]
in our minds, appeal to the consciousness of experience with

is at work in the continued enlightenment and whole Christian endowment of the inner man.-^ Michaelis arbitrarily refers it to the miraculous gifts,
which in
would be applicable only to individuals. pointing back with rhetorical emphasis. rj See Schaef. Melet. p. 84 Khner, II. p. 330. hoâ] sc. ei-T}: the hcfitting honour. Comp. Eom. xi. 36, xvi. 27; Gal. Phil. iv. 20. Certainly God has the glory (i. 17), from i. 5 which fact Harless explains the article but it is not of this
fact
Ver. 21.
avj(t)\
that the doxologies speak, not of this fact being
testified to
God,
but of His receiving the

(Eev.
Oeo),
iv.
human
praise,
which
to
Him
;
pertains
11).
xvii.
Luke
iv.
Eev.
9.
Compare the conception, hovvai, Soâv tc5 18 Acts xii. 23 John ix. 24 Eom. iv. 20
;
;
iv
rfj
ckkX. iv
XpiaTM
'I.]
not to be taken
decidedly
together (Luther, Michaelis, Koppe, Eosenmller, Flatt, Holz-
hausen, Meier, Olshausen), against which

urge, not indeed the
we may
?5
want
of the article,
since
iKKkTja-ia iv
XpiaTM, the Christian church, might be combined as 07ie idea in contradistinction from the Jewish, or any other iKKXrjaia
whatever,
but the utter superfluousness of

;
this distinguishing
designation
for that
rj
eKKXrjata was the Christian church,
the iKKXrjaia Kar

ckkX. the outward
iv
iô')(rjv, was self-evident. Eather is eV ry domain in which God is to be praised, and Xpt(TTu> the spiritual sphere in which this ascription of
praise Christ
is
to
take place
of the
for
not outside of Christ, but in
as the specific element of faith, in
life-activity
Christian
moves
which the pious

God.
does he praise
Comp.
*
vv. 5, 20.
Allied, but not identical (in opposition to

this, too,
Chrysostom aptly remarks that
we should
neither have asked nor
hoped.
CHAP.
III. 21.
189
Grotius and others),

vii,
is
the conception Bia Xpiarov, Rom.

Col,
iii.
25.
Both conceptions:
17.
i.
8,
et?
Tracra?
ra?
jevea<; k.tX.]
unto all generations of the world-age of worldThe This cunmlation of the expressions is solemn. aloav TOV alcovcov denotes the eternal ivorld-pcriod Icginning with the Parousia, the altav /lekXcov, conceived of as the
ages} superlativuni of all world-periods (Winer, p. in so far as
it,
220
[E. T.
309]),
and eternal one, transcends all Comp. Dan. other alove<; since the beginning of the world. The plural expression ol aloov<i twv 3 Esdr. iv. 38. vii. 18
just as the last
;
alwvcov (Gal.
i.
Phih
is
iv.
20,
al.)
is
not different as to the

;
thing intended, but
so as to
the conception
since in
it
the Messianic period, although equally thought of (comp, also on Luke i. 50) as the superlative of all the alu)ve<i, is not
thought of in
its
unity without distinction, but as a continuous

:
series of several periods
consequently not as a single totality,
as in the case of o
stituent
parts,
al(i>v,
but according to the several con-
which
Messianic eternity,
yevea'i
collectively
form the whole of the
in short, not as the time of times, as in
By et? 7rdo-a<i ra? our passage, but as the times of times. k.t.\. the thought is expressed, that the indicated
God
will extend to all the generations of
i.e.
ascription of praise to
the (nigh) Messianic world-period,
that this ascription of
praise in the church is to endure not only
up
to the Parousia,
but then also ever onward from generation to generation in consequently to last not merely e'? to the Messianic aeon,
irapov, but
also
e'?
to
athiov.
On
lyeved,
generation
xiv.
(three
of
which
;
about
=100
years),
comp.
Acts
16,
24.
and
the passages from the

Thcs.
LXX. and Apocrypha
in Schleusner's
I,
from Greek writers, in Wessel, ad Diod.

<yeveai, is
The
designation of the successive time-spaces of the everlasting
Messianic ala)v by
derived from the lapse of time in
the pre-Messianic world-period

generations one age of
in
which with the changing
man
is
ever succeeds another
by
virtue
of a certain anthropological
mode
of regarding eternity.
Of
the chureh, however,

so, too,
1
will it
presupposed that she herself (and be with her praising of God) endures on into
it
" aitss,
periodi oeconoiniae divinae ab
una quasi scena ad aliam decur-
rentes," Beugel.
190

she has
still
the everlasting alwv, but not that

teinporal
a very long
duration Icfore the Parousia, according to which de

to the apostle's expecta-
Wette has here found a contradiction
tion elsewhere of the nearness of the Parousia.
The Parousia
brings for the eV/cXT/cr/a not the end, but the consummation.
Hofmann, Schriftbcw. II. 2, p. 127, retaining Kai before eV Xp. 'I. (see the critical remarks), would have eU 7rd(ra<i ra? ryeved<i k.t.X., to belong only to iv Xp. 'I., and not to eV Trj iKK\,r](TLa for only at present and upon earth does the
;
glorification of
God
take place in the church, but in Christ
it
takes place eternally.

glorification does
'Irjaov,
Incorrectly, because even the temporal
not take place otherwise than iv Xpia-roj

/cat
would have had its logical posiIf Kal were genuine, it would equivalent to he, as would need to be assumed on not be Hofmann's view, but it would be et quidcm, idque, however superfluous and cumbrous such a stress laid on it might be. According to Baur, p. 433, there meets us again here the Gnostic idea of the alcove^;, in accordance with which they, " as
consequently the
tion only after
XpiarM
Îrjaov.
the <yeveai tov alwvo<i tcov alcovwv, are the aeons in the sense, in which
God
Himself, as the extra-temporal unity of time,
individualizes Himself in the aeons as the elements of self-
unfolding time."
In
this
way one may
over-urge Gnosticism.
CHAP.
IV.
191
CHAPTEE
Vek.
{/.a/i;
IV.
Chrys.
6.
After
iraeiv
Elz.
Gr
has,
with min.
Theodoret,
and many min., also several vss. and Fathers, read jj/x. So Griesb. and Scholz. But neither pronoun is present in A B C K and several min. vss. and The pronouns are exegetic additions, designed to Fathers.
for
which
DEE
KL
secure the reference of ituvtuv, iravruv, -Traffiv to the Christians. L, Dam. Ver. 7. The article of xdpig is wanting in B D* F
Deleted by Lachm. But it was more easily absorbed through the preceding H than brought in through writing it twice and in its favour tell the readings ^ %ap/j Crjj in C**
min.
;
glossed.
%a^;5 avrov in Aeth., in which the article is Before UcaKi Elz. Scholz, and Tisch, have -/.at, which has against it C** D* E F G N* 17, Copt. Slav. ant. Vulg. It. and several Latin Fathers, and hence is suspected by But considerable witnesses Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. still remain in favour of xai; and since the LXX. does not have it at Ps. Ixviii. 19, the omission seems to have taken place Ver, 9. After xaTsrj Elz. has in accordance with the LXX. rrpujTov, in opposition to decisive witnesses, although defended more precisely defining addition, as is also [I'spn by Eeiche. Less weighty authority, it is true, in Elz. after xarur. testifies against this /lipr} (hence it is retained not only by Eeiche, but also by Lachm. Scholz, and Elick.), but it betrays itself as a glossing product of the very old explanation of the descent into hell, in order to designate the place whither Christ B Ver. 15. Instead of h Xpiarog, descended as subterranean. C N* min. Fathers have merely XpioTg. So Lachm. and Tisch, To Ver. 16. be preferred, on account of the oldest MS. attestation. fiipoug] C, 14, 66 (on margin), Syr. Arr, Copt. Arm. Vulg. and several Fathers have fiiXovg, which, after Grot. Mill, and Bengel, is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Elick. (not Lachm.). An interpretation in accordance with the context. G has Ver. 17. fisTpoug, which likewise testifies in favour of /jîpovg. Xoz-ra] is wanting with B D* F G K, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Clem, Cyr, and Lat. Fathers, Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Elick, But how naturally might it be omitted, since Paul was speaking to Gentiles who
10, 31, Cyr.,
Ver.
and
8.
jj
192
were now
!
Christiaiis, and upon a comparison with 1 Thess. 5 Ver. 18. i<!-/.oTi(![isvoi'\ Lachm. Tisch, read (rxorw//,i/o/, following B K, Ath. Eightly the current form was brought in. Ver. 26. The article before Tapopy., deleted by Lachm., is wanting in B N*, and is more likely to have been added on account of the definite reference in the text, than to have been omitted. Ver. 27. m'î] All uncials have [irihL On that account, even apart from the greater linguistic probability, rightly
i\^
approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, Eck.
and Harless. Ver. 28. rh aya&hv raTg x^paiv] j\Iany variations, among which raTg /dla/g yjpd rh ya66v (so Lachm. and Eck.) is by far the best attested reading (A D E F G N* min. Ar. pol. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Basil, Epiph. Naz. Jer. Aug. Pel.). The shortest readings are merely to yav with Clem., and merely ra7g -/ipaiv with Tertull. Harless (comp. Mill) conjectures that the latter is the original form, and that 1 Cor. iv. 12, Gal. v. 10 gave occasion to glosses. But only 1 Cor.
:
here parallel, because Gal. vi. 10 does not speak of There would hence be more warrant for regarding the simple to ayaov in Clement as original. But in opposition to this, it may be urged that TuTg yjpalv is wanting in no other witness, and is in the highest degree appropriate to the connection ; whereas to yaUv, since the mention is of manual labour, might easily appear inapprojiriate. The true reading accordingly I hold to be raTg yipel to ayaov, which remains, if we delete ihiaig in Lachm., as an addition from 1 Cor. iv. 12, And with this agree also B X** Amiat. Ambrosiast., which actually read Ta7g yjpsi to ya6v. Ver. 29. ypiiag] D* E* F G, 46, Arm. in several codd. of Vulg., codd. of It., Lat. codd. in Jer. and several Fathers cr/Vrsw?. An interpretation. Ver. 32. hi\ is wanting, no doubt, in B and min. Clar. Germ. Clem. Dam. Gee, and is deleted by Lachm., but was easily dropped out through the last syllable of yinek. Omitted, it was then in accordance with v. 1 made up for, in many witnesses, by oh (D* F G, lect. 6, 14, codd. of It.). i///,] Lachm. j^/xTi/, after B** E L, min. Syr. utr. Ar. pol. Sahid. Arm. Chrys. in comm., Theodoret, Theophylact. But rifj^h appears an alteration in accordance with v. 2 ; where, no doubt, the variations Ifjâg and fjiôiv are found, but in opposition to so decisive a preponderance of witnesses reading r/âs and ni^civ, that hfiag and Ifiojv only become an evidence for the originality of our li^Tv.
iv.
12
is
literal labour.
The paraenetic portion of the Epistle begins Contents. with the general exhortation to the readers to live worthily of their vocation, whereupon, especially, mutual loving forbear-
CHAP.
IV.
1.
10:;
is
and the preservation of Christian unity are brought Thereon follows, vv. 4-16, a detailed exhibition of those relations, which render the (a) that preservation of Christian unity a duty, namely Further, (p) that there is one body, one Spirit, etc., vv. 4-6. to every individual is grace given in the measure in which Christ apportions His gift, vv. 7-10. And (c) that Christ has given the different teachers, until all should have attained to unity of the faith and of knowledge, in order tliat dependence on false teaching may cease, and, on the other hand, the truth may be acknowledged in love, and thus all may grow in relation to Christ the head, from whom the whole church, the body, accomplishes in love its organic development to perfection, vv. 11-16. Hereupon the discourse returns to the form of exhortation, namely, that they no longer walk after a Gentile manner (vv. 17-19). They had, indeed, been quite otherwise taught, namely so, as it is truth in Jesus, that they sliould lay aside the old man, and, on the other hand, should be renewed in their mind and should put on the new man (vv. 2-24). Lastly, thus grounded, there follow the special exhortations no longer to lie, but to speak the truth not to sin in anger, etc, no longer to steal, but to work, etc. to hold no bad discourse, but, etc. not to be bitter, passionate, etc., but kind, compassionate, forgiving (vv. 25-32). Ver. 1. See on vv. 1-6, Winzer, Cammentat., Lips. 1839. irapaKoXco] " Parte doctriiiae absoluta venit, ut solet, ad
ance.
prominently" forward (vv. 1-3).
adhortationes,"
Grotius.
No
doubt, there presently begins

it
again at ver. 4 a doctrinal exposition as far as ver. 16, but

subservient to the paraenesis,
and
paraenetic element (vv. 14, 15).

tion from the
pervaded by the ovu] deduces the exhortais itself

iii.
immediately preceding
is
21.
For a walk
in keeping with the vocation, through which one belongs to the
church,
is
what
practically in keeping with the praise of
God
gives
in the church.
it
the preference over the

its
The suitableness of this nearest reference more vague ordinary view, that
xii.
ovv draws
inference from the whole contents of the
three chapters.
Comp, on liom.
quo
sit
1.
first
iyo) 6
Seafiiof iv
Kvp.l gives to the irapuKoXSi evv a touching force "
ad excitan;
dum
affectum,
efficacior
exhortatio,"
Estius
comp.
Meyek.
Eph.
194
Calvin.

Similarly
Ignat.
Îrjcrov
Trail.
12
irapaKokec
vfx<;
ra
But all that has been said about exciting sympathetic feeling (Koppe and older expositors), cheering obedience/ and the like, is quite inappropriate, since it was just in his sufferings that Paul was conscious of all his dignity with holy pride (comp. iii. 1 3 and on Gal. vi. 17). So here, too, in the irapaKaXco, the reader was to be affected by the consciousness of the dignity and
Bea-fxd fjLov,
a eveKev
Xpicrrov nrepKêpoa.
greatness of the martyr
who utters it.^ According Paul wishes to present himself as an example Olshausen comp, also Koppe). In that case he least have written: irapaKoXoi ovv eyoi o Becr/j,. iv
;
to others,
(Harless,
u/ia9
n^loi<i
irepiir.
k.t.X.
Kvp.
must at Kal
iv
Kvpi(f\
does not belong to

;
TTupaicakoi (Semler,
Koppe with
hesitation
it),
Zanchius already
SeV/ito?, beside
suggested, but did not approve
but to o
which
comp.
its
it
stands,
1
;
iii.
(the article
and which alone needs its significant reference; Phil. i. 13. Paul was the prisoner in the Lord as iii. 1), for he did not endure a captivity having
such as one suffers who for ground aimrt from Christ, any other reason is placed in bonds, but in Christ his being boimd had its causal basis, just because he was bearing the
chains for Christ's sake
without, however, ev Kvpiw signifying

i.
"for Christ's sake" (comp, on Gal.

Theophylact, and
iv
24), as
Chrysostom,
iK'KeKrb<i
many would have

iv
xvi. 3,
8,
9,
it.
Comp,
al.
rather, auvepyo'i
XptaTM,
dyaTrrjTO^;
KvpLUi, Soki/jlo^
iv XpLcrroJ,
iv Kvpla,
Se(rfxio<i its
Eom.
10, 13,
It gives to the
by which therefore the captivity was essentially distinguished from any other. iv Kvplw] is annexed without an article, because it is blended with 6 Bea-fiio^ into a unity of conception. The genitive designation, iii. 1, expresses the same thing, but otherwise conceived of d^L(o<i
specific character,
TrepLiraTrjaai /c.t.X.]
i.e.
to lead
such a life-walk as
tanta
gratia
is
approCalvin.
;
priate to the call to the
Messianic kingdom issued to you (at

sint
i.
;
your
conversion),
Phil.
iii.
"
;
ne
indigni,"
;
Comp.
Matt.
^
27 8; Eom.
i.
Col.
xvi.
10 1 Thess. ii. 12 2 Thess. i. 11 The future 2; Bernhardy, p. 140.

Imfinrxi
" Ut Paulum obsequio
exliilararent," Bengel.
:
Theocloret aptly remarks
to7s
î
tov
'S.piirrh
^lo-juoTs
fe,a,>.'ko))

CHAP.
IV.
2.
195
is
possession of the kingdom, forsooth,
destined only for those

sanctified
by the Holy 17; Gal. rj<;] V. 21 f.; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f., al. as at i. 6 and see on 2 Cor. i. 4. Attracted instead of 7]V. Yet Paul mi/jht have
ethical frame is
Spirit.
whose
renewed and
See vv. 21
ff.,
30; Kom.
viii.
4 K,
xiv.
;
written
y,
2 Tim.
i.
1 Cor. vii. 20.

k.
Ver. 2. MeTo,
dispositions
p.
irdcr. raTretvocjip.
Trpaor.^ the characteristic

;
337
xi.
[E.
accompanying this irepiirarrja-ai see Winer, T. 471], and with regard to 'irdarj<i, on i. 8 it
;
belongs to hoth substantives.
On
the subject-matter, comp.
Matt.
v-y^rrfk
29;
vi.
Col.
iii.
12. 16,
(fipovelv,
Eom.
3.
xii.
The opposite of humility: ra xi. 20 1 Tim. vi. 17; BoKetv

;
ehal
rt,
Gal.
On
p.
the notion of
p-era
irpaoTTj^;, gentleness,
is
see
Tittmann, Synon.
Calvin,
Estius,
140.
p.aKpod.]
attached by
Michaelis,
Zeltner,
Calixtus,
Baumgarten,
Zachariae,
Eckert, Holzhausen,
Harless,
Olshausen, to the
following dv^6p.evoc.
tion, to
which appeal
is
But the very repetition of the preposimade, most naturally points backwards,
tt.
so that /xera p,aKpo6. appears as parallel to fiera

K.
raTTeivocfjp.
inasmuch, namely, as Paul makes the general be followed by the special, and then gives to the latter the
irpaoT.,
elucidation
dve-ôpêvoc
dve-^p,.,
k.t.X.
Besides,
pêra
p,aKpod.,
if
it
belonged to
would have an undue emphasis, since without long-suffering the dve')(eadai dXkrjXiv would not exist Col. iii. 1 2 f. at all Bengel and Matthies, following Theodoret and Oecumenius, have attached the whole p,era tt. rair. K. irpaoT., pberd p,aKpo9. to dveôpevoc. But in this way we
;
lose the gradual transition
from the general
d^[co<; TreptiraT. r.
k\. to the special dveôtx. aXX7]\.,
which under our construc-
tion
is
very naturally brought about.
avxop>. dXKijX. iv
dydirr]]
The
1
recijjrocal forhearance in (ethical habit) love

;
(comp,
liom. XV.
Gal.
vi.
2) is
iii.
the practical expression of the

13.
It consists in the fact that
paKpo6vp,ia.
Comp.
Col.
we
aequo animo ferimus, nee ob ea, quae nobis in proximo displicent, ab ejus amicitia recedimus, sed personam constanter amamus, etsi vitia in odio habeamus,"
infirmitates
" aliorum
Calovius.
is
The nominative of the participle (comp. Col. i. 10) put Kara to voovpbevov, because the logical subject of d^/eo?
vp,e'i<i.
TrepLirar., ver. 1, is
See on
iii.
18
comp, on 2 Cor.
196
i.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ErHESIANS.
Ignoring this familiar and Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 970. KnatchbuU, and Homberg have placed a full stop after ver. 1, and then supplied estote to the participles a course, which would only be admissible if, as in Eom. xii. 9, this concise, pregnant mode of expression were implied
7,
construction, Heinsius,
in the context.
eV cvydirrj] belongs to the preceding.

xiii. 4.
On
the
thing
itself,
comp. 1 Cor.
it
Olshausen attach
to
Lachmann, Holzhausen, and a-7rovSdôvT<;. The reason given by

is
Olshausen, that, as the fiuKpoO.

love, iu yaTTT) could
set aside,
only a form of expression of
not belong to what precedes, would be
even
tion
of /iera fjuaKpod.
taken alone, harmonious is the structure, when both participial clauses begin with the participle and close with the definitions attached by eV, in which definitions there is opened up the whole ethical domain {love and 'peace) to which the beforenamed special virtues belong (1 Cor. xiii.)! Ver. 3. Parallel of vej(oixevoi k.tX., which is characterized t7;i/ as respects the effort by which it must be upheld.
were in itself valid, by the correct separafrom aveyjux. And dveyoyij. aXkilfk.^ renders the discourse simply abrupt. How
if
it
so
The irvevfia is not the human spirit, animi studiorumque consensus is meant (Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Erasmus, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, "Wolf, Koppe, and many, including Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Elickert, according to whom Paul did not write rod voo'?, because he derives the unity of the spirit from the Divine Spirit), but, as is shown from ver. 4, and is in itself clear from the exhortation to the Christian life (ver. 1), the Holy Spirit, instead of which we have not, v.-ith de Wette and Schenkel, to imderstand the Christian spi7'it of the community ; the N. T. knows not this modern notion, but knows only the Holy Spirit of God, as that which rules in the church (ii. 22), and upholds and developes its specific life, so that the latter has precisely
evorrjTa tov irvevâro'i]
that
in
general
in the Koivcovca tov irvevfiaro'i (Phil.
ii.
2 Cor.
xiii.
13)
its
common
and
source and
support.
Eightly
already Chrysostom
(to TTvevfia Tov<i <yevtt koI Tp6iToi,<i Sia(j)opot<; Sieo-TTjKOTa^ ivoi)
his successors, Beza, Calovius, Bengel,
and
others, includ-
ing Harless, Winzer,
Bleek, and Ch. F. Eritzsche, JVovtc opp.

the
amd.
p.
244
the
unity, ivhich
Spirit produces.
.Comp.
CHAP.
IV.
3.
197
21.
riiil.
i.
27; 1
Cor.
xii.
13
John
xvii.
And
this unity is
etc.,
the identity of faith, of love, of sentiment, of hope,

different
subjects
tt}?
who
are
is
avvBeafim
follows,
etp'tjvrj^']
moved by the Spirit. attached by Lachmann
in the
ev
rm
to
what
clause
Zka[i(p
is
whereby the parallelism with the preceding participial And after the definition by iv T<p <tvvdestroyed.
elp.
TTj'i
being prefixed, several of the following elements
would not be appropriate, since even witliout the bond of peace there is one Lord, one baptism, one God and
of unity
Father.
ev is ordinarily taken as instrumental:

to
through the
iv
In opposition bond of peace. ayuTrrj and through the unity

;
the
parallelism with
of
the Spirit the
bond of
peace
peace,
is
preserved, not the converse.^

is
Hence
in the bond of
by which
denoted the ethical
relation, in
which they
are to preserve
tlie
unity of the Spirit, namely, while peace

is to
one toivards another mnst he the hond, ichich

t/}?
elp7]vr]<;,
envelope them.
accordingly,
"
is
genitive
of apposition.
;
Comp.
;
(TvvBea/jboi; evvoia<i
Iviii. 6.
Koi î\La<;, Plut.
Others
Num. 6 Acts viii. 2 3 vinculum, quo pax rethuMir " (Bengel

is
Isa.
;
so
Theophylact, Calovius, and others, including Eiickert, Meier,

Harless, Winzer), and this
to Col.
Col.
iii.
held to be
love.
Appeal
arâtrri.
is
made
14, and to the parallel with ev

is
But, in
I.e.,
love in fact
rr]<i
expressly named, and designated as

;
crvuSea/j,o<;
rXeioTrjTo<;
dya-Trrj
while
justice
is
done
also,
to
the
it
parallel
with ev
by our interpretation
and
was at any rate most natural for the reader to understand under the bond of peace peace itself, co7iceived of as a hond. Expositors would not have sought for another explanation, liad they not taken iv as instrumental, in which case the
difficulty
obtruded
itself,
that the unity of the Spirit
is
not
preserved
by means
Spirit.
unity of the
of peace, but peace
by means
of the
That, moreover, no inference

"
may
be
drawn from
ver. 3
as to divisions prevailing in the church,
Bengel has already rightly observed:

'
etiam ubi nulla fissura
AVhat de Wette observes in opposition to this view that the peacefulness, to which the readers are exhorted, is to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the fact that it holds all enveloped with the bond of peace since is not sufficient this peacefulness, which encircles all with the bond of peace, at any rate presupposes the unity of the Spirit. Where there is dispeace, this unity is already wanting.
;
198
est,

monitis opus
est."
And
particularly
was
sucli exhortation
natural for the apostle, even in the absence of special occasion,
considering the
many
saddening experiences which he had met

Objective relations of unity, to which
with elsewhere on this point

Ver. 4, on to ver.
6.
the non-compliance with what
be
contradictory,^
is demanded in ver. 3 would and which are consequently meant to
incite towards compliance,
but without
<yp (comp. Dissen,
ad Find. Exc. II. p. 277), which gives greater animation to the discourse. The simple eVrt is to be supplied (comp. 1 Cor.
X.
to
17); for the discourse is not hortatory, as it is taken be by Pelagius, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Calvin, CameMorus, Koppe, and others, including
2, p.
;
rarius, Estius, Zachariae,
Hofmann, Schriftbciv. II. would not be in accord
128, with which vv. 5 and 6
for the
same reason
also the
words
are not to be attached appositionally to o-7rovBaôvT<i (Bleek),
but they are independent and purely assertive

hody and one Spirit.
there is one
by which the totality of Christians as corpits (Christi) mysticum is meant, comp. ii. 16; Eom. xii. 5 1 Cor. x. 1 7, xii. 13; on ev irvev/xa, which is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of that corjms mysticum, ii. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 1 3. The explanation " one hody and one soul " (" quasi diceret, nos penitus corpore et anima, non ex parte
ev
o-co/na,
;
:
On
duntaxat, debere esse unitos," Calvin),
is excluded, as at variance with the context, by the specifically Christian character of the other elements, and rendered impossible by the correct supplying of icrri (not esse debetis). Ka6o)<; Koi k\7]6. /c.t.X]
with which unity (ev
a:
k.
ev irv) the relation also of your

iii.
which took place by on Gal. i. 6) one hope (namely, that of the eternal Messianic bliss) was communicated to you for all in fact were called by God to this very
calling is in keeping (comp. Col.
15),
the fact that (eV instrumental, see
Messianic
as at
i.
a-coT7)pia (Phil.
iii.
14).
t^9 kXijo:
v/xcov']
genitive,
18.
Bengel,
we may
add, aptly remarks: "Spiritus est
^ These set forth (1) the church itself constituted on the footing of unity one body, one Spirit, one blessed consummation, ver. 4 (2) means, hy which the constitution of it as an unity is produced and preserved one Lord, one faith, one
;
bajjtism, ver. 5
unity
one
(3)
the
supreme
rider,
ver.
disposer,
6.
and
sustainer of this entire
God and
Father,
etc.,
Observe the threefold tripartite
arvangemeat.
CHAP.
IV.
5.
199
arrhaho, atque ideo

ditatis."
cum
ejus mentione conjungitiir spes haereI.
Comp,
5.
is
also
Clem. Cor.
all
46.
Ver.
One,
Coutinuation.
There are not several Lords, but

believers,
who
Lord of
even Christ; not several
kinds oi faith, but one faith, inasmuch as all place their confidence upon the atoning death of Christ, on account of which not they are justified and obtain salvation (Eom. iii. 23 ff.)
;
several kinds of haptism, but
07ie
baptism, namely, into Christ

x.
(Rom.
the
vi.
Gal.
;
iii.
27
/mi
Acts
48, xix.
5).
eh
Kvpio<i
and the ev irriafxa at accomplished in the case of those who have become believers To make of ttlo-ti,'? the docare consequentia of 19 Kvpio<i. trine of the faith (Grotius, Zachariae, and others), is at variance The with linguistic usage; comp, on Gal. i. 23 Eom. i. 5.
head
because
Tr/o-rt?
evT7}<i
T^<?
TTLa-rec';
is
here
represented as present, but in

justice
;
ver. 1 3 as future.
Both with
the
all
Christian
salvica,
faith
in
narrower sense
Christians
inasmuch as here the is intended, the des

essentially the
which in
was
same,
while at ver. 13
it is
the Christian faith in the loider sense,
within the compass of which there was diversity of convictions (as respects the validity of the law, the resurrection,
veneration of angels, asceticism, partaking of flesh offered to

idols,
Of the lord's Supper, the unity of and other matters). which might likewise appear as a suitable element in the connection (1 Cor. X. 17), Paul does not make mention: according to Calovius, because it was comprehended " uno hajytismatis
Sacramento ex paritatis ratione ; " according to Harless, because Paul was mentioning only the fundamental conditions of the Christian fellowship, as they exist from the outset, at the
first
entrance upon
act
it
according to Olshausen, because the
specific
of the
X.
Supper, the partaking (rather, the comis
munion, 1 Cor.
TTLarci
;
16) of Christ,
included in eh
it
Kvpio<i, [lia
according to de Wette, because
was
less a
some-
thing conditioning the unity, than something representing this
unity
itself/
But, in opposition to Calovius and Olshausen,
^ Most mistakenly of all, Schenkel holds that Paul did not regard a uniform observance of the Supper as necessary, and would not stand in the way of the
varied development of a
rite.
In that
case, doubtless,
Paul would have done
well not to mention baptism either.
200
it

be urged that,
since
if
may
of
view in the
selection,
Paul had adopted the synecdochic point he would not have needed to mention
faith
;
TTio-Tt?,
baptism presupposes
in of
opposition
to
Harless,
that the fundamental conditions
the
Christian
communion which Paul mentions

the beginning of
it,
are such, not specially for

;
whole duration in opposition to de Wette, finally, that the Lord's Supper is, precisely as a representation of the unity, at the same time a powerful ethical incitement thereto, and hence would have been admirably appropriate in the series of points adduced. The ground of its not being mentioned is rather to be sought in the fact that the adducing of the Lord's Supper would have disturbed the threefold triad of the elements adduced, and have broken through the whole rhythm of the passage. And the holy meal might the more easily remain unmentioned, because it was at that time not yet an observance suhsisting hj itself, but was combined with the common meals hence, doubtless, in a context lherc the Lord's Supper is spoken of, the eh apro^ (1 Cor. X. 17) is brought forward as a symbol of the unity of Christians, but in another context the thought ev helirvov Kvpi'ov or fiia Tpdireâ Kvplov because the Supper was not something subsisting alone like baptism, which as the constituent element of Christian standing could not remain unmentioned did not so necessarily suggest itself.
but for
its
;
Ver.
6.
Observe the climactic advance in vv. 46
the
ChiLrch, Christ,
God
and at the same time the climax in the

Only the dominion
is
ff.,
divine Triad
Spirit, Lord, Father.
of the
Father
is
the absolute one, that of the Son

ii.
the derived,
iii.
conferred, obtained (Phil.
1 Cor. xv.
24
iii.
23,
in
al.
comp. Ernesti,
Ursprung
d.
Snde,
(2
Lp. 194
Cor.
ff.
ff.),
which
of all
;
Ke
also
disposes of the Spirit

p.
(Jess,
von der Person Christi,

those
iv.
158
(i.
18).
See also
i.e.
ttvtcov]
helievers, as
who have
5),
the viodeala
Gal.
iii.
26,
so
that
God
all
is
their
Eom. viii. 15 God and Father.

;
llolzhausen erroneously (seeing that the context treats of the

Christian,
ei'OTrj'i)
thinks that
wxn
are
intended.
Not
even the spiritually dead members of the church are included (in opposition to Mnchmeyer), as results from the sequel indicated by Bl and iv, since they have not the Spirit and
CHAP.
IV.
6.
201
belong not to Chiist (Eom. viii. 9), but are aloof from connecJohn tion with Him and stand outside of grace (Gal. v. 4 f
.
XV. 2, 6),
(i.
consequently have no share in the body of Christ
Trdvrcv k.tX.]
6 eVt 23) and in the living temple of God (ii. 22 f.). The relation of the eo? koL Trarrjp Trdvrcciv to
ircTt
the
in
threefold manner.
Comp. Rom.
xi.
36, where,
however, the prepositions define the subject, not, as here, the

object.
TrdvTwv, jtuvtcov,
as masculine, because the preceding irdvTcov
and Traaiv are equally to be taken was masculine,
and because the discourse continues in ver. 7 with evl Be e/ccTT) TjfjLcov, wherein the irdvre'i are individualized. Wrongly, therefore, many (including Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, Eiickert, Baumgarten-Crusius) have taken the first two as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zachariae, Koppe, et ed., give the second point alone as neuter, and Matthies, on the other hand, explains all three elements of the relation of God to the world and mankind, consequently as neuter.
eVl Trdvrcov] iirdvco ttSvtwv,
Chrysostom
rrjv
Sea-Troreiav
acl
crrjfiaivei,,
Theodoret.
xiii.
Comp.
Eom.
Phryn.
ix.
5.
See Wessel,
p.
Diodor.
[E. T.
14
. .
Lobeck, ad
p.
474; Winer,
335
521].
.
After this relaircnv, that of
tion of transcendeTwe there follows, in hia
immanence.
Blo,
irdvTcov] cannot, since
the irdvTe'i are the

is
Christians and the relation of
God
to
what
Christian
is
characterized, apply either to the creation (Estius, Wolf,

others), so that
and
we should have
to think of the all-penetrating
creative
power of God, or
")
to ^providence
successors; Beza, Grotius: "per
omnes
diffundit
(Chrysostom and his providam suam
gubernationem
of meant.
the
but
the charismatic j^resence of
God by means
Christians,
6.
is
Holy
Spirit, p)crvading
ver. 7,
and ending
all
xii.
See also
and comp. 1 Cor.
The
of
dis-
tinction from the following eV iraaiv lies not in the thing
itself,
since both elements denote the
immanent ruling
God by
virtue of His Spirit, but in the foj^n of conception, since witli iv the relation is conceived of as operative indioclling, and
with hid as operative movement throughout
all
Christian hearts
("Deus enim Spiritu sanctificationis diffusus est per omnia ecclesiae membra," Calvin). According to Harless, the thought
expressed in hva irdvroiv
the
is,
that
God
as head
woj'Jcs
through
members.
But
of the
conception of the head and the
"
202
members
there

is
absolutely nothing in the context
further,
though mention is made of God as Father, it is not the Father, but Christ, that is Head of the members lastly, in place of the simple mv, which is to be mentally supplied, there would be insensibly introduced a wholly different supplement, namely, ivepycov, or a similar verb.^ At the bottom of this
;
explanation there
relation of the
lies,
indeed, the
is
presupposition, that the
Trinity
expressed in the three prepositions,
as Jerome,
Thomas, and many of the older expositors would

Against this altogether arbitrary supposition, howSee also
have
ever,
it.
Theophylact already rightly declared himself.
Hofmann, Schriftlew. I. p. 201. Olshausen, too, finds here, as at Eom. xi. 36, the Trinity; holding that God is described in His various relations to the creature [rather to the Christians] as Lord over all things, as instrument hy which they are (this being held to apply to the Son), and as the element in which
they
K.rX.
are.
Thus, moreover, the prepositional relation of the last

is
two clauses
is
exactly reversed, inasmuch as not hia iravTcov
explained, but hi
d.
ov irdvTe'; k.t.X.
p.
According to
250, there is expressed, at least in the form of hint, the threefold mode of existence of God
Beyschlag, Christol.
(" self-preservation, self-disclosure,
N. T.
self-communication
").
But
apart from the fact that such a threefold /o?'??i of existence is not the expression of the New Testament triad, the self-communication, in fact, is implied not only in ev traa-iv,
but necessarily
already in Zia TrdvTcov.

site
way
"
wrong in an oppoSententia videtur una, tantum varus formulis

Lastly,
is
Koppe
synouymis
(!)
expressa haec
cui vos omnes debetis omnia."
Observe, further, that the great fundamental elements of unity,

vv. 4-6, are matters of fact, historically given with Christianity
and as such are not affected by differences of doctrine ; hence without reason there have been found here traces of upon the basis of the Pauline thought the later age, wlien
itself,
'''
a Catholic church was built," of which the centralization in

" qui per omnes operatur, quasi unoquo' This also in opposition to Winzer que utitur ad declarandam suam majestateiu, ad consilia sua exsequenda. " So, in the main, do "Wette (comp. Bengel) it applies to the operation brought about " omnibus utitur quasi instrumentis, quibus by means of all ; and Reiche
: : :
res Christiana stabilitar, augetur, consumraatur.
CHAP.
doctrine and constitution
IV. 7, 8.
203
of Paul, but was a Petrine thought (Schwegler).
was not derived from the adherents The Catholic

the Pauline
idea in our passage
is
just
one (1 Cor.
f.).
xii.),
cherished by Christ Himself (John xvii. 20

Ver.
7/
ê]
forms
'kclctiv,
the
transition
from
the
TravTcov, nrcLvronv,
ver. 6, to each individual
summary among the
Christians.
No
single one, however,
in order
to
adduce this
was
17
also as motive to the preservation of the ivoTjj'i rod irveij/xaro^,
overlooked in the endowing with grace

it
on every indi-
vidual was
conferred, the grace, accordinff to the measure of
the gift of Christ,
so that each individual
on his part can
and ought
%/3i9]
to
contribute to the preservation of that unity.
i.e.
according to the context, the grace of God at work

Christians, the
among
the
fested in
the
diverse
'xâplo-fiara
communication of which is manihence our passage is in

;
harmony
\
witli the representation given,
by
Christ.
Eom.
xii. 6.
iBoOr)']
kuto,
xii.
to fierpov
3,
K.r.\.]
iv.
rr}?
Bcopea^;
is
genitive
subjecti
(Eom.
Eph.
13).
is
portion in which the gift of Christ
Hence: in the prometed out, according
as Christ apportions to the one a larger, to the other a smaller
measure of His gift {i.e. the gift of the divine ^pt?). The Bcopea Tov Xpiarov is the gift which Christ gives (2 Cor. ix. 15), not which Christ has received (Oeder, in Wolf see in oppo:
;
sition
to this
view, already Calvin), in opposition to which
ver. 8, ehcoKe
Sopara r. dv6p., is decisive. it had just been said that hg Christ the endowment of grace was distributed in varied measure to each individual, this is now conformed hy a testimony of the Scrvpture. Nothing is to be treated as a parenthesis, inasmuch
Ver.
8.
If
as neither course of thought nor construction
is
interrupted.
Zlo Xe7et] wherefore, because the case stands, as has
been
said, ver. 7,
He
;
saith.
Who
;
says
it
(comp.
v. 14), is
obvious
is. See on 16 Gal. iii. 16 the supplying rj ypacf))] or to irvevfia must have been suggested by the context (Pion). XV. 10). The manner of citation with the simple Xijei, obviously meant of God, has as its necessary presupposition, in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theopneustia of the
of
itself,
namely, God, whose word the Scripture
1 Cor.
vi.
See on vv. 7-9, Hoelemann, Bibelstudien,
II. p.
93
flF.
204
0. T.
The
citation that follows is not " ex carmine,

sciret/'
Ephesiis cantitari
and
in
wliich Ps.
Ixviii.
quod ab 18 had
;
which
and
partly furnished the words (Storr, Opusc. III. p. 309 Flatt), is quite an arbitrary way of avoiding the difficulty,
at variance with the divine Xe7ei,
Ixviii.
but
is
the passage of
Scripture Ps.
alteration.
18
itself
according to the
its
LXX.
with free
This
psalm,
in
historical
triumph upon the solemn entry of God

understood according to
standing,
its
a song of into Zion,^ is here

sense
Messianic significance
an under-
which has its warrant, not indeed in the much too general and vague proposition, that one and the same God is the Pievealer of the Old and of the New Covenant (Harless),
but in the circumstance that the triumphal procession of Jehovah, celebrated in the psalm, represents the victory of the Theocracy ; and that, as every victory of the Theocracy is of a
typical
and in
so far prophetic Messianic character, the return
of Christ into heaven appears as the Messianic actual consum-
mation of the divine triumph,

original text
The//'ce deviation from the
and
the
LXX.
consists partly in the immaterial
circumstance that Paul transfers into the third person that which is said in the second, and adds to avOpcoTTOi'; the article wanting in the LXX. partly in the essential point, that
;
instead of the original sense

gifts
^
"
Thou
"
receivedst gifts (namely,
of
homage)
among
men
(Q"J^?
niino rinp?^
LXX.
On what
particular historic occasion this liighly poetic song
was composed,
it
is for
our passage a matter of indifference.
According to the traditional view,
was composed by David on the occasion of the removal of the ark of the covenant from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem (2 Sam. vi. 12 ff. 1 Chron.
;
XV.
according to Ewald, for the consecration of the new temple after the captivity ; according to Hupfeld, upon the return from the captivity and the
f. )
;
;
kingdom according to Hitzig, in celebration of the victory war of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat against the Moabites (2 Kings iii. ). Others explain it otherwise. See the different views and exidanations in euss, d. acht u. sechzigste Psalm, ein Denkmal exeget. Nolh u. Kunst, 1851, who, however, himself very inappropriately (without " exegetical exigency and. art
restoration of the
after the
")
places the Psalm in the late period between Alexander
and the Maccabees, when
the wish for the reunion of the scattered Israelites in Palestine is supposed to be expressed in it while Justus Olshausen even interprets it of the victories of the Maccabees under Jonathan or Simon, See Ewald, Jahrb. IV. p. 55 t.
;
Certainly the psalm

^
is
neither Davidic nor of the Maccabaean age, but belongs
to the restoration of the Theocracy after the captivity.
Yet 0*7X3 might

it,
takes
I.e.
also denote that men tliemselves are the gifts. So Ewald (and comp, his AtisfJirl. Lehrb. der Ilebr. Sprache, 287 h),
CHAP.
IV. ?.
205
eXae'i Sofiara ev vOpcirw, or according to another reading:

cv avOpcoTTo !,<;),
D'K'jN^ ni^ri 103,
he expresses the sense:
He
gave gifts
to
men,
while in other respects reproducing the tranopjyosite to
sition of the
eBcoKe,
LXX.
given a sense
Consequently Paul has, as regards the the original one a degree of
variation such as, with all freedom in the
employment
of
Old
Testament passages, is nowhere else met with in the writings of the apostle, on wliich account the hook ChissuJc Emuna accused him of falsifying the words of the psalm, while Whiston looked upon the Hebrew text and the LXX. in
Ps.
Ixviii.
18
as
corrupt.
This
difference
:
is
not to
be
explained, with Kckert,
by
lightly asserting
"
Paul did not

;
for even perhaps know exactly how the words ran," etc. in this way he would be chargeable with a shallow caprice, moreover, the agreement, for which there is no warrant in other respects, of the citation witTTthe original text and
;
the LXX. leads us to infer too exact an acquaintance with the passage adduced, to allow us to assume that Paul adduced the words in the full belief that [n: was read in the Piather must he have in Hebrew, and eBioKe in the LXX.
reality understood the passage of the psalm, as to its
main
/-/
substance, just as he gives
it.
Inasmuch, namely, as he had
recognised the words in their bearing upon the antitypical
Messianic fulfilment, and that as a confirmation of what had
been said of Christ in ver. 7, this latter special application must either have been suggested to him by another reading, which with the freedom he followed (nn3 instead of r\r\ph), or else of a Messianic interpretation of the words by an exposition
of the
Hebrew
words, which yielded essentially the sense exIf the latter is the case (for in favour of tlie
pressed by him.
referring it specially to the
humbler servants of the temple,
whom David and
Solomon,
e.g.,
gathered from
among the subjugated
peoples and settled around
whom thus God, as if in a triumphal procession from Sinai to Zioii, Himself brought in as captives, and then caused to be devoted by men to Him as offerings, in order that they, who were once so turbulent, might dwell peacefully in His service ("even rebellious ones must dwell with Jah God," as EwaM renders the closing words of the passage). The sense: " throiujh men," which Hoelemann, on account of ver. 11, finds as a "secondary" meaning in DTSZi is not to be thought of, not even according to the apostle, who has expressed his view with such simple defiuiteness by 'tûK- roi; itipuorn;.
the temple,
206
former
tliere is
:

no trace of
critical support),
he took nnp^,
to
etc.,
in the sense
thou didst take
away
gifts,
distribute
them
among men (on the 3, see Ewald, usfhrl. Lchrh. der Heb. Spr. 217 f. 1), and translated this in an explanatory way : eha>K
Bofiara
Tofc?
avdpctroL'i
in connection with
is to
which the transnamely, has often

i.e.
posing into the third person

tional variation in citing
be regarded as an unintenn\h,
from memory.
it
the proleptic sense
to
fetch [Germ, holcnl,

to
to take
any-
thing for a person and to give

xxvii. 13, xlii. 16, xlviii.
loc); 2
him.
See Gen.
xviii. 5,
-^
9; Job xx xviii. 20 (and Hirzel in and Hoelemann, p. 9 7 f. Comp. Bengel: "accepit dona, quae statim daret." The utterance, however, as thus understood,^ Paul has reproduced, interpreting it as he has done, in order to place beyond doiibt the sense which he attached to it, for the reader who might have otherwise understood the words of the LXX. The Chaldee Paraphrast likewise understood npb in such wise, that,
Sam.
iv. 6, al.;
see Gesen. Thes. II. p. 760,
while interpreting the passage of Moses, he could expound

NE'J "'J3p Ijno
|i
np^ dedisti
from
hominum)
Targum
this, since
there
is
dona filiis homimim. It is evident good reason for presupposing in the

in our passage the Peshito agrees
Ixviii.
I.e.,
the
more
so, as
therewith (which likewise, Ps.
has dedisti dona filiis
older exegetical traditions, that Paul himself
may
have followed
actually did so,
such
is
tradition
(Holzhausen, Baumgarten-
121 f). To assume that he and in reference to the previous Pabbinical training of the apostle, free from objection, and has sufficient warrant in that old and peculiar agreement, even though we should explain the agreement between the same citation in Justin, c. Tryph. 39, 87, and the quotation of the apostle, by a dependence upon the latter (Credner, Beitr. On the other hand, it is not to be said, with II. p. 120). Beza, Calovius, and most older expositors,^ that the explanation V given by Paul really corresponds with the historic sense of the
Crusius, Credner, Beitrge, II. p.
in itself,
^
The phrase formerly

is
so
often
compared,
-T
ij^f'
ntJ'K npf
(Ex. xxi.
10,
xxxiv. 16),
else
'
not in place here, since np?> i^ that phrase, signifies nothing
than the simple take. Chrysostom, without, however, entering into any particulars, says merely: the prophet says tliou hast received, but Paul he has given; and the two are
:
CHAP.
IV.
8.
207
passage in the Psalm (see especially, Geier, ad Ps. I.e. p. 1181; comp, also Hoelemann, p. 98 f.), which, judging by the context, is
decidedly incorrect.
Even Calvin
:
says
;
" nonnihil a
genuino sensu hoc testimonium detorsit Paulus " and already viraWdâ^; Be to Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly remarks
eXae hfiara
elire,
rfj
/j-eu
ovt(o<;
iv
tw
yôKjJLU) Keifjêvov, eSco/ce
Bofjuara
vTraWayfj
irepl rr]v
oiKecav '^prjaafMevo^ aKoXovOcav
jap (in the psalm) 7rpo<i ttjv viroOeaiv to eXaev ivravda Se (in our passage) tw TrpoKeifjbivM to The deviation from the historic sense eScoKv cLKoXovdov rjp. cannot be set aside with fairness and without arbitrary preThis holds not only of the opinions of Jerome suppositions. and Erasmus (that in the psalm np'? is used, because the giving has not yet taken place, but is promised as future) and of Calvin (" quum de Christi exaltatione pauca verba Psalmi
cKel
ijpHOTTev,
citasset, de suo adjecit,
eum
dedisse
dona, ut
sit
minoris et
majoris comparatio, qua ostendere vult Paulus, quauto praestantior sit ista
Dei ascensio
in
Christi persona,
quam
fuerit
in veteribus ecclesiae triumphis

to
"),
but also of the expedients
which Harless and Olshausen have recourse.
According to
Harless, namely, Paul wishes to express the identity of God,
whose deeds at that time the word of Scripture represents in identical with the form of Christ's action, a. form which, as makes us recognise the word of the 0. T. as pointing forward to what was to come, and the Christ of the N. T. as the God who already revealed Himself under the 0. T. in the words of the psalm the captives themselves are described as sacrificial gifts, which the victor as God takes to Himself among men
;
the apostle changes merely the the context makes

it
form
of the words, so far as
necessary, inasmuch as he wishes to
make out
that those vanquished ones

are,
who have
not
themselves what they

are those, of
but have been made so of
made God
whom
he had said that on every one according to
the measure of the gift of Christ the grace had been bestowed
which was already pointed
" There is no to in the psalm. other there," says the apostle, " than He who had descended
one and the same.
(the takinf]J
Theodoret more precisely explains himself

ytyiytivat'
afx-fonpa.
St
and giving)
Xa/^civa yap
<r?jv
<7riiTTiv
.To'îluirt
rhv X^P'*'
Comp. Oecumenius.
208
THE
EPI.STLK
TO THE EPHESIANS.
to earth, to gain for Himself His own not that they would have presented themselves to Him, but He takes them as it pleases Him, and makes them what it pleases Him." But (1) Paul does not wish to express the identitrj of God, etc., but
;
to
prophesied Ps.
was also already was a question of the identity of the thing, as to which it was self-evident that the triumph celebrated in Ps. Ixviii. is in the N". T. fulfdment celebrated by Christ, who had come in the name of the Lord. (2) In the Ps. I.e., niiriD T\n\h applies to the gifts of homage which the triumphing Jehovah has received among (from) men. Certainly, according to another explanation (see above, Ewald's view, and
that
is
show
what
said of Christ in ver. 7
Ixviii. 1
it
comp, also Bleek), the
men
themselves, namely, the vanquished,

gifts
may
be regarded as the
or
offerings
which God has
received; but
could withal read between the lines in the apostle's citation what, according to Harless, one ought to read between them, in order in the end to find only the form of
?
who
the words changed
Olshausen, wlio,
9,
we may mention,
rot?
quite
erroneously (see vv.
10)
specifies
v6pco7roL<; as
the
is
point of the citation,^ agrees with Harless in so far as he
of
opinion that the thought of the psalmist

to Thyself gifts
among men,"
affirms
Thou hast taken nothing else than " Thou

: : ;
"
hast chosen to Thyself the redeemed as offerings
"
but further
offerinfj
adds
"
But the man whom God chooses

i.e.
as
an
for
Himself,
^
as
an instrument
for
His aims.
He
furnishes with
" Paul
(Iocs
penser of the
gifts,
not wish by the quotation primarily to represent Christ as the disbut to prove from the 0. T. itself the utiiversaUti/ of the gifts
;
of Christ, consequently the equal title of the Gentiles He has by His redemption conferred gifts not merely on this one or that one, not upon the Jews alone, but
pore
men
as such, upon mankind."

article is
What
Olshausen has further advanced

tlie
respecting the dative expression with the article (instead of which

text has
Hebrew
:
used in the LXX.) to wit, that by I'S. Vo/jt.. Tois aiofuvoii, which applies to all men, it is not intended to say all men m.ust be redeemed, and as redeemed receive gifts but all men nnay be redeemed, and as redeemed obtain gifts of grace and in so far this deviation from the original was altogether immaterial is pure invention. The difference certainly does not lie in the fact that DTS3 points only to some, and the
;
:
among men, while no
expression of Paul to all men, as Olshausen supposes, but solely in the DPIpP
i'Sa-.j of Paul. As well 01X3 as to'h aM^pai-ron men according to the category ; but according to the original text it whereas, is men who are the givers, so that the Triumpliator takes them according to Paul, the men are the recipients, to whom He gives.
of the original text and the
designates
CHAP.
IV. 8.
209
;
the gifts necessary to the attainment of the same

side
(?)
and
this
the
apostle,
in
accordance with his tendency, here

Similarly
also
brings into special

Schrifthcw. II. 1, p.
prominence."
Hofmann,
one and
484
f.,
who
is
of opinion that here, in the

it is
N. T. application of the passage from the psalm,

the same thing whether one
say: that Christ has, for the
accomplishment of the work of His honour, caused to be given Himself by His vanquished that which they possessed, " for He takes that He has given them gifts to this end or
to
:
that which
is
theirs into
His
service, wlien
He
gives to
them
what
is
His, to
make them capable

I.e.
of service."
Essentially so
also Delitzsch
on the Psalm,
Such
subtleties,
which any
fulfilment
qv.id i^ro
quo at pleasure
may
easily
by means of enough be got
out of the alleged light and signiticance of the " history of the
" (Delitzsch), may be conveniently foisted upon the vaa<i et? words of the apostle, but with what right ? ;i/ro?] Whether we understand the Diiep Tpv in the original text of the ascending of the victorious God into heaven (Hengstenberg, Lengerke, Hitzig, Harless, Hoelemann, and others) or to Zion (Ewald, Bleek), or leave it without more precise
(Hofmann) according to the Messianic accomplishment of the divine triumphal procession, which takes place through Christ, the words apply to Christ ascended
definition of place
;
(comp.
xiii.
vylroiOett,
Acts
ii.
33)
to
heaven (Ps.
cii.
20,
al.; Ecclus.
8;
Luke
i.
78),
who has
Irought in as captives enemies that
have been vanquished by Him upon this triumphal march. al)(jxaXwala, namely, is the abstract collective for al-^fiaXcoToi
(Judith
ii.
Ezr.
vi.
Hex.
xiii.
10
Diod.
ii.
Sic. xvii.
70),
like ^v/jb/LLa)(la for ^vfi/xaôc, etc.
See on
2,
On
the con-
nection with the kindred verb (to take captive, to lead, to

1 Mace. ix. 72 and see, in general, Winer, p. 201 [E. T. 282]; Lobeck, Faral. The character of al-x^fiaXcorevco as Greek is even p. 501. worse than that of alxfâX(OTL^(o. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. But lhat sidy'ccts are meant by al')(jjbaXa)aia ? Not p. 442. the redeemed, as already Justin, c. Triji^h. 3 6 further, Theo-
bring in as such), comp, 2 Chron, xxviii. 5
doret {pv fyap iXevipovi ovra^
'r}/M<i
T]XH'0'X(oTev(Tev,
aXX'
vtto
rov SiaoXov
plav
rj/juv
jeyevTj/u.ivou'i
vTtj-âXiTevare, Kai ttjv iXevde(" capti-
ehwprjcrajo),
Oecumenius, Tliomas, Erasmus
Meyeu Eph.
210
vorum gregem

e peccati diabolique tyrannide liberatum
"),
and
others, including Meier, Harless,
Olshausen
("
men upon
earth,
by sin and in the ultimate ground by the prince of this world, and among these, in particular, the Grentile world "), Baumgarten-Crusius (" those gained for the kingdom of Christ"), have interpreted it; seeing that the captives, both according to the original text and according to our citation, are diffei-ent from the dvOpooiroi who are subsequently mentioned, namely, sucJi vanquished
so far as they are held captive
ones as are visited by the victor with the hard penal fate of
captives in war.
Hence
also
it
cannot be the souls delivered
hy Christ from Hades (Lyra, Estius, and

tors;
p.
many
Catholic exposi-
Knig, von Christi Hllenfahrt,
p; 2'6;
of.
Delitzsch, Psychol.
It is the enemies of
414; and Baur)
that are spoken
and His kingdom, the a7ichristian powers, including their power is broken by those of hell (but not these alone) By His resurrecthe completed redeeming work of the Lord. tion and exaltation they have been rendered powerless, and subjected to His victorious might consequently they appear, in accordance with the poetical mould of our passage, as those whom He has vanquished and carries with Him on His procession from Hades into heaven (see ver. 9), so that He, having gone up on high, hrings them in as pinsojiej's of war. Not as if He has really brought them in captivity to heaven, but under the figure of the triicmphator, as which the
Christ
; ;
y,
'
ascended Christ appears in accordance with the prophetic view given in Ps. Ixviii., the matter thus presents itself, namely, the overcoming of His foes displaying itself through
His ascension.
execution
still
This vanquishing,
we may
add, in its actual
continues even after the entering upon the

iravra^; tov? i'Ôpov'i
kingly
Bel <yp
virb
office
which took place with the exaltation of Christ

drj
avrov aatXeveiv ^pis ov

'TToBas
Tov<i
avrov,
1 Cor. xv. 25.
Not the
final over-
coming of the
al'x/iaXwTeveiv
foes of Christ is thus meant, but

al'x^fiaX.
the actual
final
ofttimes recurs until the
con-
summation, until at length eaâTO<i e-x,6p6<; KaTapyelrai o 6vaTo<i, 1 Cor. xv, 26, namely, at the resurrection on the last day. In this case, however, there is the more reason for
leaving
the
matter without more precise definition of the
"
CHAP.
IV. 9.
211
vanquished (Satanic and human), as the nothing more special, and as, speaking generally, the Tpx/âXwr. alxfâ^- does not form for the aim and connection of our passage the essential point of the psalmist's saying, but the latter would have been quite as fully in its place here, even though that y'âXoor. al')(jjb. had
hostile
powers
context
suggests
not been inserted, since the element confirmatory of ver. 7

lies
simply in the vaa<i el'i v^lro<; eSoj/ce Bofiara rot? avOpcoYet we have not, with Morus (comp. Flatt), to " removit omnia, rationalize the conception of the apostle
TTot?.^
:
quae religionis suae propagation! et felicitati hominum obstarent impedimenta," by which the sense is altered, and vanBofiara] quished foes become obstacles taken out of the way.
according to Paul, gifts in which eBodr]

equivalent to âpLo-fiara.
r)
'yapL'i, ver.
7,
thus
33.
of
An
appropriate
commentary on
is
the sense in which Paul has taken the citation,
Acts
ii.
But
to look
I.e.,
upon the interpretation of the eXae Bofiara

in the sense of gifts of the Spirit as current
the Ps.
among
the diseiples of the apostles (de Wette), is the more arbitrary, inasmuch as de Wette himself finds it probable that some
apostle has allegorized the passage of the psalm.
Ver. 9
is
not a (Eabbinical) argument to show that the

is
subject of the passage in the psalm

in so far as of
no other than Christ,
Him
alone could be predicated that descending
which, in speaking of ascending, must be presumed to have
gone before
(Michaelis,
Koppe
83
Glider,
;
von
der
Erschein.
Christi unter den
Todtcn, p.
also
my own
earlier view).
argument would have been aimless, since the subject of the passage of the psalm in its Messianic fulfilment was self-evident it would, moreover, not have even logical
Such
an
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Calovius, and many others understood specially the devil and those things connected with him, death, condemnation, and sin. Comp. Luther's gloss " that is sin,, death, and conscience, that they may not seize or keep us." Grotius rationalizes "per apostolorum doctrinam vicit et velut captivam egit idololatriam et vitia alia." Most comprehensively, but with an admixture of heterogeneous elements, Calvin says " Neque enim
*
:
:
peccatum et mortem totosque inferos prostravit, sed ex rebellibus quotidie facit sibi obsequentem populum, quum verbo suo carnis nostrae
et
Satanam modo
lasciviam
domat
rursus hostes suos,
i.
e.
impios omnes
qiiasi ferreis catenis
continet constrictos,
dum
illorum furorem cohibet
svia virtute,
ne plus
valeaiit,
quam
illis
concedit.
; ;
212
correctness, since, in fact,
God
Himself, as often in the 0.

verj.
T.,
might be thought of as the /caraâ? who

jphctically
Paul
rather brings out in ver. 9 ivhat the ascension of Christ promeant in Ps. Ixviii, contains as its presupposition
and this for the end of showing^ how the matter affirmed and supported by the passage of the psalm in ver. 7, namely,
Christ's bestowal of grace on all individuals respectively, stands in necessary connection ivith His general 2Josition of filing the whole universe ; a function wpon which He must have entered
"by
His very descending

"
into the depths of the earth
ascending above all heavens (ver. 10).
and His
show you
tlie
Se]
carrying forward
to
the argument
but the dveij, in order
what
is thcrciith said," etc.
now
to uveTJ] not: the word ver},
for this does not occur in the
passage of the psalm, but

vad<;.
predicate verj, which
was contained in
rt iartv]
what of an extraordinary nature (Hoelemann), but what is said thercvnth, ivhat is implied in it Comp. Matt. ix. 13 John xvi. 17 f., x. 6, al. on Kal KaTerf] that He also (not merely ascended, but also) descended. The having ascended presupposes the having descended. The correctness of this conclusion rests upon the admitted fact that the risen Christ had His original dwelling not upon earth, as Elijah had, but in the heaven, whither He went up
not
:
simply
.?
consequently
He
could not but have descended from
He
into
has ascended.
Comp. John
which
He
descended
iii.
1.3.
The
this, if
dcjjth,
however,
not to
whether, namely, merely to the
earth, or deeper still into the subterranean world
is
be inferred from the virj
itself,
but was fixed with historic

;
certainty in the believing consciousness of the readers hence Paul could with good reason write not merely on kuI Karer], but OTL Kal KUT. et<? ra Kardrepa tt}? 7^s% i.e. into that which is deeper doivn than the earth, into Hades {Kajerjv
BfMov "AiSo'i
e'iaco,
Horn. Od.
II.
xxiii.
Kevdeai
ryalr]';
ep')(eat,
xxii.
252 ÂtSao Sofiov^ viro 482; comp. Od. xxiv. 204;

;
and up by Olshauseu (comp, also Hofniann, I.e. 343), that Paul v,-ould by the example of Christ exhort to humility, is quite at variance with the context. And Riickert also is wrong in holding that ver. 9 contains only an incidental remark, which might equally well have been wanting.
'
The view
of Chrj'sostoni, Tlieojjhylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide,
others, again taken
c:iAP. IV.
9.
213
miglit also have desig-
Soph. Ant. 810, Tixich. 1088). nated Hades by ra KUTcorara

earth
He
tj}?
(H^n
nrrinri,
LXX.
Ps. Ixiii.
7%, the lowest depth of the 10; Prayer of Azar. 13;

is
not Ps. cxxxix.
15, where "in the depths of the earth"

" in secret ")
only a sensuous form of the conception

genitive
2nLrposely chosen that comparative expression

is
hut has
in
which the
that of comparison, not the partitive genitive
in
order to impart as strong a colouring as possible to the depth

of Hades, in contradiction to that heaven from
which Christ
is
descended
He
descended deeper tlmn
the earth
(the earth
being conceived of as a plane), in that

into the szt^^terranean
descended even region beyond, into Hades. The goal

it
He
of the humiliation Paul here designates locally, whereas at

Phil.
fîXP''
ii.
8 he specifies
as respects the degree, namely,
by
^^v'^'ôv
K.rX., whichj
however,
is
as
to
substance in
its
agreement with our passage, since the death of Christ had as immediate consequence His descent into Hades (Luke xxiii. 43; Matt. xii. 40; Acts ii. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 19), as,
indeed, also at Phil iL 10 {KaTa')(6ovLwv) this descent
is
pre-
supposed as having taken place in death.

Solesmense,
The explanation
of the so-called descent into hell (Irenaeus in Pitra, Spicileg.

I. p. 7 Tertullian, Jerome, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, and many others, including
;
Olshausen, Delitzsch, Lechler, Ewald, Hoelemann, Baur scenting Gnosticism) is therefore the right one,^ because the object was to present Christ as the One who fills the whole universe, so that, with a view to His entering upon this His all-filling activity. He has previously with His victorious presence passed through the whole world, having descended from heaven into the utmost depth, and ascended from this depth to the utmost height a view, which of necessity had to extend not merely to the earth, but even into the nether world, just because Christ, as was historically certain for every believer, had been in the nether world, and consequently, by virtue of His exaltation to the right hand of God, really had the two utmost limits of the universe, from below upwards, as the terminos a quo and ad quem of His
Ptiickert,
Bleek
'
Thomasius,
it
II. p.
262,
is
still
doubtful on the question
Kalmis,
I. p.
508,
regards
as preponderantly probable.
Calvin called
it
inepta,
and Eeicheyafea.
214
triumplial

progress.
Further, had Paul intended only

Beza, Calvin, Grotius,
iV.
the
descent
to
earth (Thomas,
Hammond,
Michaelis, Fischer, de mtiis Lex.
T.,
and many, including
Winer,
p.
470
p.
[E.
T.
66],
ff,,
Holzhausen, Meier, Matthies,
Harless, Eaebiger, p.
68
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette,
Bibl.
Hofmann,
p.
345, Bisping, Schenkel, Schmid,

crit.
Theol. II.
Christol. d.
291, Eeiche, Comm.
p.
174
f..
Bey schlag,
N. T. p. 228), it would not be easy to see why he should not have written merely Karer), or at any rate simply Karet] et?
rrjv fyrjv or Karer]
et?
ttjv yrjv
/caret)
(Acts
ii.
19), instead
and affected, but yet only feebly paraphrasing expression mto the loiver regions, which are the earth (for so we should have to explain et? rd Karcorepa T^9 7^9, understood only of the earth see Winer, I.e. [E. T. This expression is only accounted for, sharp and 666]).
: ;
of employing the circumstantial
telling,
when
it
points the reader to a region lower than the
earth, to that
Hades, whither every reader
knew
that Christ
had descended.
simply
et<?
Doubtless the apostle might have written
also et9 rr]v avacrov

;
ii. 27) or (o<i ahov (Matt. xi. 23), or (Rom. x. 7) or et9 rrjv KupSiav t^9 Y}? but the whole pathos of the passage, with its (Matt. xii. 40) contrast of the extremes of depth and height, very naturally
aSov (Acts
suggested the purposely chosen designation

rrj<i 'yrj<i.
et9 to.
Karcorepa
The ordinary
objection, that, in fact, Christ did not

is
ascend from Hades, but from earth to heaven,

because
of
no
effect,
He
has in reality returned, arisen and ascended from
Hades, consequently Hades was the deepest terminus a quo

of His ascension, as it had previously been the deepest terminus ad quern of His descent, and on this deepest turningpoint all here depended, even apart from the fact that the long interval of forty days between resurrection and ascension
is
historically
very problematic
(see
Eemark
subjoined
to
come Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Bullinger, Drusius, Zachariae, and others, who, however, refer the passage only to the death and the burial (comp, also Erlang. Zeitschr. 1856, p. 284); whereas Calomesius, Witsius, Calixtus, and others (already Beza, by way of suggestion), appealing to Ps. cxxxix. 15, strangely enough
xxiv.
Luke
51).
Nearest
to
our view
interpret
it
of the descent into the womh.
CHAP.
IV. 10.
215
Ver.
10.
Eesult from ver.
9,
without ovv, but thereby"alio

"
coming
in the
more vividly and with a certain triumph;
gravi dicto antecedentia complectitur aut absolvit
ad Pind. Exc. II, p. 278). The prefixed o Karad<i has the emphasis, which is further augmented by avro^; ^ The one who
:
(Dissen,
descended, just He,

the one
He
precisely (identity of the person), is also
who ascended on high above all heavens. 6 vaa<i twv ovpav.'] points back to that ava'i et? vyp-a, ver. 8, more precisely defining this et? xjylro'i as the region highest of all. The expression " above all heavens " has its basis in the conception of seven heavens, which number is not to be diminished to three (Harless a-^p, aW-qp, rpira ovpav6<i comp. Grotius, Meier, and others). See on 2 Cor. xii. 2. The virepdvw (in the IST. T. only here and i. 21 Heb. ix. 5) describes the exaltation of Christ clearly to be mainvTrepvco irvToov
:
tained as local
ii.
9), in
as the highest of all (comp. vTrepir^wa-e, Phil, such wise that He, having ascended through all
heavens (ieXijXvOoTa
rov'i ovpavov<i. Heb. iv. 14), has seated Himself above in the highest heaven, as the crvi/6povo<; of the Father, at the right hand of God. Comp. Heb. vii, 26
v-y^nfK.orepo'i
rcov
ovpavtov
<yevop,vo<i.
The
spiritualistic
imis
poverishing of this concrete conception to a mere denial of

all
"enclosure within the world" (Hofmann,

21,
II. 1, p.
535)
vii.
nothing but a rationalistic invention.

iii.
i.
9-11.
tm
Comp. Acts
56,
TrXrjpcoa-rj
bestowal of grace expressed in ver.

firmed in ver.
into
ra iravra] points back to the 7, and prophetically con-
8, and that as expressing the universal relation which Christ has entered towards the whole world by His exaltation from the lowest depth to the loftiest height in which universal relation is also of necessity contained, as a
;
special point, that bestowal of grace on all individuals.
As
intended aim, however (Jva),
this TrXrjpovu
rd iravTa stands
related to the previous ascension of Christ from the utter-
most depth, into which He had descended, to the uttermost height of heaven because He had first, like a triumphing conqueror (see ver. 8), to take possession of His whole domain, i.e. the whole world from Hades to the highest heaven, in order now to wield His kingly sway over this domain, by virtue of
; '
ob
yap akXo; KuriXnûh xxi ciXXo; civtXriXuhv, Theodoret.
2L6
wliicli
THE EPISTLE TO IHE EPHESIANS.
H& was to fill the universe toith His activity of sustaining and governing, and especially of loroviding all bestowal of grace. This was to be the all-embracing task of His kingly
office,
until the
consummation indicated
i.
at 1 Cor. xv. 28,
It
is
according to this view, and from
23, self-evident tbat
we
have to explain TrXrjp. ra iravra, neither with Koppe (following Anselm and others), de vaticiniorum complemento, nor with Eiickerb and Matthies, of the completion of the redeeming loorh;
nor yet possibly to limit ra iravra to the whole Christian
community (Beza, Grotius, Morus, Flatt, Schenkel, and others). Comp, rather on i. 23, and observe that in our passage that
evl
he eicaaTW
to,
rjfitov
iSoOr)
k.t.X. of ver.
7 stands to this iva
TfKr^pxrrj
irdvra in the same relation of the species to

i.
the genus, as in
23 to
TrXyjpco/xa
(XpicrTov) does to rev ra

the
irdvra iv iraac
'TrXTipovpiivov.
The ubiquity of
;
body of
Christ (Faber Stapulensis, Hunnius,
tended for by Calovius)

or elsewhere,
;
is
and others specially connot here, any more than at i, 23
spoken of ^ although, with Philippi, Hoelemann has still found it here, holding the conception of the purely dynamic irXrjpovv ra iravra as unrealizable, because Christ is in a glorified body. If this reason were valid, an absolute bodily omnipresence would result it proves too much, and
:
leads to a contixidictio in adjecto,
which could" only receive a

general irXrjpovv
into
to,
Docetic solution,
Ver. 11.^
iravra,
ver.
And
he has, etc.
is
10, there
From the now brought
prominence in
reference to the church, with a retrospective glance at ver, 7,
the special point yvith which the apostle was here concerned,
in order to give the clinching argument to his exhortation as
to the
keeping of the unity of the
Spirit.
Christ,
who has
Oecumenius and Theophylact adduced as favouring this They, forsooth, very correctly refer the filling to the dominion and operation of Christ (comp, also Chrysostom), and observe with equal justice that Christ, after He had already before His incarnation filled all things by His
^
WroBgly
are
explanation.
purely divine nature, now, after having, as the Incarnate One, descended and ascended, does the filling of the universe fura rapxos (Oecumenius), i.e. so that
in doing so
He
is
in a different state than before, namely, clothed loith
aôdy,
consequently as God-man. ^ See Schott, Progr. quo locus Pauli Ephes.

IS 30.
iv.
11 seq., Irev'der explic, Jen,
CHAP.
IV.
11.
217
ascended from
to
fill
tlie
lowest depth to the loftiest height, iu order
all
things, precisely He, has
His church
faith,
etc.
church, until
we "We
such
is
His autonomy in
the unity of the
given the different teachers and leaders of the

all
shall
have attained
to
are
not to treat as a parenthesis either

9,
vv.
8-10
(Griesbach and others) or vv,
10 (Koppe), since
the continuation of the discourse with at avT6<i emphatically

eScoKe] is not, any more than at i. 22, equivalent to eOero (Theophylact and many, including Meier, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius), seeing that, in fact, the giving in the proper sense, to which Paul here looks back, has preceded, and Christ has in reality given
attaches itself to the preceding avToî.
the apostles,
etc.,
to the church,^ namely, through the specific
and, respectively also, by His own immediate calling (aTroa-roXov;) of the parsons in question. " quia nisi excitet, nuUi Calvin rightly remarks on eScoKe This raising up and granting of the appropriate erunt." persons for the perfecting of the church as His body, not the institution of a spiritual office in itself, which as such has exclusively to administer His means of grace, is here ascribed to Christ. Comp, (in opposition to Miinchmeyer) Hofmann, Schriftbeio. II. 2, p. 283 ff. Mller in the Deutsche Zeitschr. The appointing to the service of the indi1852, No. 21.
charismatic endowment
vidual congregations (as 7roi/jiiva<i koI 8iSacrK.) of such persons given by Christ lay in the choice of the congregations themselves,
which
choice, conducted
by apostles
or apostolic
men,
Acts
xiv.
23, took place under the influence of

to
the
Holy
Spirit,
Acts xx. 28.
munity gave
eBcoKe, it is to
Thus Christ gave the persons, and the comthem the service. As regards the time of the be observed that this was indeed a potiori the
' Observe the importance, for the continued appointment of the ministers in the church, of the conception of the matter implied in i'Sa/xs. Christ gives the ministers of the church the church takes those given, and places them in the service of the church. Thus the church (or whoever has to represent the rights and duties of the church) has not in any way arbitrarily to choose the subjects,
;
but to discern those endowed by Christ as those thereby given to it by Him, to acknowledge and to induct them into the ministry hence the highest idea of
;
the ecclesiastical scrutiny is, to test whether the persons in question have been given by Christ, without prejudice, we may add, to the other existing require-
ments of
ecclesiastical law.
218
time after the ascension (among the apostles in the narrower

sense, also as respects Matthias
and Paul), but
that, as
was
obvious for the readers, the earlier appointment of the original

apostles
was not thereby excluded.
The
latter,
namely, are
not alone meant by aTroo-roXoi;?, but (comp, on 1 Cor. xv. 7) also men like Barnabas and James the Lord's brother must
be reckoned among them.
The
order in which
they are
brought up
precede
is
such, that those not assigned to a single church
(aTroo-r., tt/jo^., evayy.),
and these are arranged in the

because belonging to
it is
order of rank.
particular
Hence the churches, had to
Troi/xeVe?,
follow,
and
without reason
is
that a Montanistic depreciation of the bishops (Baur)

here.
found
rovii jxev aTroa-rokovi]
some as
apostles.
Their charac-
teristics are their
nation for
all natious.
As
to these
through the
yet without
the apostles,
immediate calling by Christ, and their destiTr/jo^T^Va?] Comp, on 1 Cor. xii. 28. speakers, who, on the receipt of revelation and Holy Spirit, wrought with highly beneficial effect, ecstasy, who likewise in iii. 5 are mentioned after evayye\i<Tr<f\ see on 1 Cor. xii. 10; Acts xi. 27.
who
p.
Trepovref; eKrjpvTTov,
;
Theodoret (see Nsselt, ad Theodoret. See on Acts

the
at variance with the context (for
424)
is
missionary assistants to the apostles.
xxi. 8.
Oecumenius would,
Paul
speaking only of the
exercise
of teaching in
church), and probably also at variance with history (at least

as regards our canonical gospels), understand the authore of
the Gospels,
which
is
adduced as possible also by Chrysostom.

Kal BiBaaK.] denotes not the presbyters
exorcists
TOL"?
he
TTOifjiiua'i
and deacons (Theophylact), nor the presbyters and (Ambrosiaster), nor yet the presbyters and teachers
as
separate offices (Beza, Calvin, -Zanchius, Grotius, Calixtus,
two and
others, including de Wette), the latter in the sense of 1 Cor.

xii.
28
but, as the non-repetition of roi"? 8e shows, the pres-
byters and teachers as the same persons, so that the presbyters

are designated
(1 Pet.
V.
by
Troifjueva'i in
;
stated figurative appellation

xxi.
Acts xx. 28
John
15
ff.)
with reference to
life,
their function of guiding oversight over doctrine,
and order and by
in the church, consequently as eViV/coTroi (see on Acts xx. 28,
and Ch.
P. Pritzsche, in Fritzschior. Opusc. p.
42
ff.)
Siao-/caXo9, with reference to their function of teaching.
CHAP.
IV. 12.
219
We may
add, that the SiSdaKoXot were not, as such, at the

presbyters, for the
BcBa-x^^ was imparted by a which even ordinary members of the church special ^dpio-fia, might possess (1 Cor. xiv. 26); but every presbyter was at the same time SiBdaKoXo^, and had to be endowed with this '^dptafia hence Paul here puts together iroifiivwi koL hiBaaKd-
same time
Xovi, and, 1 Tim.
iii.
2, it
is
laid
down
as the requirement of
an
eiriaKOTTO'i that
he should be
JEj).
See also Augustine,

toris sibi
lix.
Comp. Comp. Jerome: "Nemo

ScBaKTiKo^;.
Tit.
. . .
i.
9.
pas-
nomen assumere
17
is
debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit."

loc).
1 Tim.
V.
not opposed to this (see Huther in
Ver. 12. Behoof, for which Christ has given, etc.

potuit honorificentius verbi ministerium commendare,
"
dum hunc
hausen,
illi
effectum tribuit," Calvin.
The
iii.
Non quam
three clauses
are not co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Wolf, Bengel, Semler, Holz-
and
others).
Against
the
co-ordination
may
be
decisively urged not the varying of the prepositions, for Paul

is
fond of interchangiDg them (comp. Eom.

iii.
30,
v.
10, xv. 2
2 Cor.
in
its
11), but the circumstance that
et?
epyov BiaKovia'i
unsuitable.^
a-(t)/j,.
first and third points would be Pather are el<; epy. Scukov. and eh oIkoB. tov TOV Xp. two definitions to ehwKe, not parallel to tt/jo? tov
position between the
KUTapT. Toiv
thus, with
'yio3v,
but parallel to each other; so that
we have
Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf, Bleek, to delete the comma after atjlfav. irpo'i tov KUTapT. twv dylojv contains, namely, the aim for which Christ has given those designated in ver. 11 et? epyov BiaKovla^, el<i OLKoBofirjv tov o-co/iaTO^ tov Xp. He has, on hehalf of the full furivishing of the saints,
given those teachers for the ivorh of the ministry, for the edification of the 'body of Christ. The objection that the oIkoB. tov
aim than that of the KUTapT. twv dyiwv on the contrary, the KaTapT. r. ay. is the higher point, which is to be attained by the edification of the body of Clirist, and consequently might be conceived of as aimed at therein. Comp, also Hofmann, Sehr ifthe weis,
(Tcofi. is
a yet higher
is
(de Wette)
incorrect; since,
II. 2, p.
'
128.
Observe, withal, the expression of perfection:

Paul must logically have thus arranged
si;
If the three elements were parallel,

:
them
(1)
ipyov dixxotias, (2) vpo; Tcv JiaTapTKTf/.v rut yitov, (3)
olKoôfAn* Tou
<rci/.a.roi
roZ Xpia-Tov,
advancing from the
less definite to the
more
definite.
"
220

:
Karapr., and the expression of development

others, including de Wette,
et9
otKoBo-^.
Many
have made the two clauses with dependent on KaTapna-fiov, so that the sense would be
the qualifying of believers that they
" for
may
in each
and
every
way themselves
the church,"
labour for the advancement and edifica-
tion of
Meier;
comp. Flatt, Schott, Eiickert,
Schenkel, and others, as already Erasmus.
But
(a) SiaKovla,
tlie
where the context

2 Cor.
iv. 1, vi.
is
speaking of those engaged in

official
service
xi.
of the church, always denotes the

3; comp. Acts
vi.
service
iii.
(Eom.
ff.,
13
4; 2 Cor.
ix.
12,
ed.),
and hence may not here be transmuted into the general notion
of renderiifig service
to,
furthering (see especially 1 Pet.

official
iv.
1 0).
And
if
we
should in that connection retain the

;
notion
of ScaKovia (Flatt, Schott
comp, also Zachariae),
the training
which would be inappropriate, because I'aul regarded the Parousia as so near, and conceived of the 'âpia/xaTa as continuing till then (see 1 Cor. xiii. 8), and therefore the thought that teachers {b) But if he had to be trained was remote from his mind, had merely meant to say " to make the individual Christians jointly and severally meet for co-operating to the furtherance of the church" (Rckert), then Trdvrcov would have been to rSiv ayiwv an esse7itial element, which could not have been Olshausen regards the two clauses introduced by left out. eU as a partition of the Ka/rapTi(T/^b<; rv ayloov " for the perfecting of the saints, and that, on the one hand, of those
of the aytot to he teachers
would be the thought
resulting;
furnished
with
;
gifts
of teaching
for
the
fulfilment
of the
teacher's office
on the other hand, as regards the hearers, for

Incorrectly, seeing that ol ajioi
the edifying of the church."
are the objects of the teaching labours mentioned in ver.
11 and consequently cannot include the teachers themselves, and seeing, moreover, that the ocKoSofirj rov crcofi. tov Xp. most appropriately describes the working of the teacher, so that no
reader could, especially after
oIkoB. k.t.\.
el^
epy. Biuk., conjecture that et?
inasmuch as no one and the " on the other between the lines. Lastly, in quite an arbitrary and erroneous way, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe have even assumed a trajec-
was
to apply to the Jtearers,

"
could read the " on the one hand
tion for els epy. Bluk.
7rpo<i
tov Karapr. rcov ay. et?
oIk.
tov
"
CHAP.
IV. 13.
221
crc/i.
various explanations/
Tov Xp., in connection with which there have been very Karapria-fiot, not elsewhere found iu
the
Galen used of the adjustment of a dislocated limb), means, like Kardpri(rL<i, 2 Cor. xiii. 9, the jmtting of a person or thing into its ^perfect state, so that it is as it should be (apTtos;). Comp. Morus, and see KarapVulgate ad consummationem.
(in
:
K T,
TL^co,
Luke
vi.
40;
1 Cor.
i.
10; 2 Cor.
xiii.
11; Heb.
xiii.
21;
1 Pet. V. 10.
Translations like ad coogmentationem (Beza) and
ad instaurationem (Erasmus) would need

the context.^
to be suggested
by
f.
'ip'yov hiaKov[a-i\
does not stand for the simple
BiaKovia (Koppe; see, on the other hand, Winer, p. 541

[E. T.
768]; Fritzsche,
BiaKovi'a,
i.e.
f?
Bom.
1.
p.
IIV), but means the

is
work of the
the labour which
ministerial office of the church.
ei<?
oiKoSofirjv
performed in the tov aoop,. tov
Xp.'\for the tipbuilding
(= eh
to oiKoSofielv to awp,. tov Xp.,
This 12; Eph. iv. 29) of the body of Christ. is that epyov; and so an appositional more precise definition of But on that account to take epyov as a that which precedes.
comp. 1 Cor.
xiv.
building (Schellhorn in Wolf, Holzhausen)

pation.
is an undue anticiThe expression oIkoSo/jlt} tov adip,aTo<i is a blending of two figures, both of which were, from what precedes, present the in the conception of the apostle (i. 23, ii. 20 ff., iii. 6), church as the bodij of Christ and as an edifice. Comp. ver. 16. Ver. 13. 6^0./, up to the contemplated attainment of ivliich
Christ has bestowed the different teachers, ver. 11, for the
purpose specified in
ver. 12.
P'^XP'' ^^ P^^^ loithout
av (comp.
Mark
30) because the thought of conditioning circumSee Lobeck, ad. stances is remote from the apostle's mind. KaTavPhryn. p. 14 ff. Hrtung, Partikcllehre, II. p. 291 ff.
xiii.
;
Trja-wfxev]
shall have attained to unity,
i.e.
shall have rcaclicd
'
Grotius
eum modum
aliis."
" ut Sanctis ministrent eos perfieiendo magis et magis ut ad illi quoque sancti apti iiant aedificandae ecclesiae, i. e. docendis " that they should be able ministers of His church, in order Michaelis
:
that the saints might become more perfect, and His church, which
is
His body,
(s's
might attain
'SietJiovtTv
its
due magnitude."
Koppe: "TSaxt
ils
'ipyov
hax-ovias
to
Tois kylais) Tpos
to araprll^tiv uvtovs,"
and ih
;
o'iko^.
k.t.X., is
supposed
to belong again to 'Hum.

2
With
strange inappropriateness, Pelagius and Vatablas have referred the

to
xarot.pTisiJ,s
the number of the
Christians
"ad coniplendum numerum
elcctorum.
222
it
vi.
Comp. Acts xxvi. 7 Phil. iii. 11 2 Mace. 34 Diod. Sic. i. 79, cd. Some have found therein the coming together from different places (Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others), or from different ji:)a<As of
as the goal.
; ;
14
Polyb.
iv,
error (Michaelis)
the whole, in
hut this
totality,
is
purely imported.
ol irdvre'i]
our
i.e.
the collective body of Christians,
not
all men (Jerome, Morus, and others), Jews and Gentiles (Hammond), which is at variance with the use of the first
person and with the preceding context (Trpo? rov KarapTia-fibv

TOiV d<ylo)v).
et?
rrjv
eporrjra t^9
Trtcrr.
Kal
tj}?
iiriyv.
rou
vlov Tov &eov] does not stand for iv
ttj
kvoTrjTV k.t.X. (Grotius),
but
is
that
is
which
is
to be attained with the KaravT.
The
is
article
put with
ivor.,
because not any kind of unity
meant, but the
definite unity,
the future realization of which
was the task of the teachers' activity, the definite ideal which rov vlov tov ov is the oly'ect was to be realized by it.
accordant with their specific confession
not only of the

;
on Eom. iii. 22 Gal. ii. 16). The goal then in question, to which the whole body of believers are to attain, is, that the vrio-Ti? in the Son of God and the full knowledge (more than r^pâLq see Valckenaer i7i Luc. p. 14 f., and comp, on i. 17) of the Son of God may be as before the attainment in all one and the same no longer
iiri'yvojaL'i,
but also of the
7ria-Ti<i
(see
of this goal
varying
in the individuals in proportion to the
influences of different teaching (ver. 14).
Kal
Trj<;
eiriyv.,
however,
Gal.
is
not to be taken as epexegesis of

is
t?}9 ttlo-t.
(Calvin,
Calovius, and others), which

vi.
precluded not by Kai (see on
16), but by the circumstance that there
at all for the epexegetic view,
are different
is no ground and that Tr/o-xi? and iwi'yvfoat'i notions, although the two are mutually related,
iii,
the former as the necessary condition of the latter (Phil,

9,
10
John
iv.
16).
Peculiar, but erroneous,
is
the view
of Olshausen
hctivcen faith
(whom Bisping has
followed), that the unity
and knowledge is to be understood, and that the development, of which Paul speaks, consists in faith and knoioledge becoming one, i.e. in the faith, with which the Christian
1 The sum of the confession, in which all are to become one in faith and knowledge, not merely, as Bleek turns it, are to /eel themselves one in the communion of faith and of the knowledge of Christ.
CHAP.
IV. 13.
223
At variance
;
life
begins,
becoming truly raised
to knowledge.
with the context, since the connection speaks of the unity
combine the different individuals (ver. 3 ff.) and also opposed to the whole tenor of the apostle's teaching elsewhere, inasmuch as faith itself after the Parousia is not to cease as such (be merged in knowledge), but is to ahide (1 Cor, xiii. 13). et9 avSpa reXetov] concrete figurative apposition to what precedes tmto a fidl-grovjn man, sc. shall have attained, i.e. shall have at length grovm up, become ultimately developed into such an one.^ The state of the unity of the faith, to which etc., is thought of as the full maturity of manhood
which
is
to
the more imperfect state, wherein the

(ver. 14), is
evrr}'; is
not yet attained
1 Cor.
xiii.
opposed as a yet immature age of childhood. Comp. 11. Paul does not say et? avhpa^ reXe/oi;?, because
tlie 7rdvT<i
he looks upon
comp. ii. 1 5 f. manhood, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6, On maturity of xiv. 2 0' Plato, Lcgg. xi. Heb. v. 1 4 (and Bleek thereon) 929 C, i. p. 643 D; Xen. Cijr. i. 2. 4 Polyb. iv. 8. 1, p. V. 29. 2. Comp, also, for the figurative sense, Philo, de agric. I. p. 301, Leg. ad Caium, init. et? fxirpov k.t.X.] second apposition, for the more precise definition of the former. The measure of the age of the fidness of Christ is the measure, which one has attained with the entrance upon that age to which
as one ethical person
;
Te\eto9, of the
;
the reception of the fulness
of Christ
is
attached (see the
further explanation below), or, without a figure: the degree of
the progressive Christian development which conditions the

reception of that fulness.
The
rjkLKia in question,
namely,
is
conceived of as the section of a dimension in space, beginning

at a definite place, so that the rjXvKta is attained only after one
has traversed the measured extent, whose terminal point

entrance into the ^XiKi'a.
'
is
the
Comp. Hom.
//. xi.
225
eVt p
rirj'i
is to
The most involved way, in wliich the whole following passage can be taken, be found in Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 129 tf. He begins, in spite of the absence of a particle {oZv or Vi), with us Hvlpa TtXuov a new sentence, of which the
verb
/inx'iTi
15 the latter is a self-encouragement to growth but Vva dependent on ahl,ri(rcoiJi.%v. In this way, in place of the simple evolution of the discourse, such as is so specially characteristic of this Epistle, there is forced upon it an artificially-involved period, and there is introduced an
is ai^jjVw^sv, ver.
; ;
x.r.x. is
exhortation as yet entirely foreign to the connection (only with ver. 17 docs Paul
return to the hortatory addi'ess).
224
ipiKvBeo'i
xviii.

iKGTO fjiirpov, Od. xi.
317
is
et
i]r)<i
fierpov Xkoito,
as
is
not slatura (Luke xix. 3), supposed by Erasmus, Beza, Horaberg, Grotius, Calixtus,
217.
rfKLKia, however,
Erasmus Schmid, Wolf, Bengel, Zacliariae, Ellckert, and others, which would be suitable only if the avr]p reXeio^ always had a
definite
(Matt.
measure of hodily size ; but it is equivalent to aetas 27), and that not, as it might in itself imply (Dem. 1352. 11 Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 3), specially aetas virilis 17. 11 (so Morus, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, Holzhausen, Harless,
vi.
;
and
others), since,
on the contrary, the more precise definition
of the aetas in itself indefinite is only given
by rov
238])
irXrjp. r.
;
Xp., which belongs to

rjXiKia
it
(Winer, tov
p.
172
[E. T.
so that
Tov
TrXrjp.
t.
Xp. taken
age of the Christians.
together characterizes the adult
irXrjpco/jLaro^; t.
Xp.] defines the

is
age which
peculiar,
is
meant, as that to which the fulness of Christ
in which one receives the fidness of Christ. Before the attainment thereof, i.e. before one has attained to this
i.e.
degree
of
Christian
partial
perfection,
one
has
received,
indeed,
Christ,
gifts
individual and
charismatic
endowment from
but not yet the fulness, the whole largas copias of

grace,
at
iii.
of
which Christ communicates.
TrXijpoo/xa is here, just as
Baumgarten-Crusius), which in
terized,
p.
19, not the church of Christ (Storr, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, i. 23 is doubtless so charac-
but not so named. This also in opposition to Baur, 438, according to whom to irX'^p. r. Xp. means " Christ's being filled, or the contents with which Christ fills Himself, thus the church." All explanations, moreover, which resolve ttXi;'pwfMa into an adjectival notion {irXr^pwdels:) are arbitrary changes
:
meaning of the word and of its expressive representation, whether this adjectival notion be connected with rjkLKia^ ^ or with TOV Xptarov.'^ Grotius, doubtless, leaves ifkrjp. as a
of the
So Luther: "of the perfect age of Christ." Comp. Castalio, Calvin ("plena and others; in which case roZ Jipiffrov has by some been taken sensu mystico of the church, by others (see ]\Iorus and Roseumiiller) ad quam Chr. nos duc'd, or the like, has been inserted.
'
aetas"), Estius, Michaelis,
It is explained stature of So most expositors, who take riXixia as stature. which Beza says, "Dicitur. Christus non in sese, "Christus ... in exemsed in nobis adolescere ;" Wolf, on the other hand ut, quemadmodum ipse qua homo se plum proponitur corpori suo mystico,
^
:
the full-groivn Christ, as to
osteudit sapientia crescentem,
prout annis et statura auctus
fuit,
ita fideles
CHAP.
IV. 13.
225
makes
of
substantive
it
but, at variance with linguistic usage,

t.
the heing full, and of

("
X/j. (so already Oecurnenius), the
knowledge of Christ
Christi,
i.
ad
eum
staturae
").
modum, qui
est plenus
TrXTjpco/jia
e.
cognitionis de Christo
Eckert takes
"
as 2^crfectio7i,
and tov Xptarov as genitive of the possessor.

of the
The meaning
the ideal of
word he takes
as Christ
is."
to be
We
are to
become
just as perfect a
man
Christ stands before us as
manly greatness and beauty, the church not yet grown to maturity, but destined to be like Him, as perfect as He is, which is a figure of spiritual perfection and completion. But 7r\)]pco/xa nowhere signifies ijerfcction (reX-etcT/;?), and nowhere is Christ set forth, even in a merely figurative way, He stands there as an ideal of manly greatness and beauty. (vv. 12, 15, 16). As little, finally, as as Head of His body at iii. 19, does Tfki^pco/Ma tov Xp. here signify the full gracious
presence
of
:
Christ
"
(Harless
comp.
Holzhausen).
So also
Matthies
the fulness of the Divinity manifest in Christ
and through
Him
also
is
irkrjpwâ TOV Xp.
presence of Christ
iii.
is
Where the embodied in the church." communicated, there the full gracious Gal. in man's heart (Rom. viii. 10
;
20), but to
ifkrjp.
tov
Xp. does not mean
this.
EemarkH. The question whether the goal to be attained, indicated by Paul in ver. 13, is thought of by him as occurring in the te7np)oral life, or only in the aluv sXXuv, is answered in the former sense by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecurnenius, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Thomas, Luther, Cameron, Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Flatt (who thinks of the last times of the church on earth), lUickert, Meier, de Wette, Schenkel in the latter sense,' by Theodoret (rJjg hi rf/.iiTnrng sv t'Tj {AWmri jSiuj Tivô/Mida), Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, and others, including Holzhausen; while Harless judges that Paul sets forth the goal as the.goal of the life of Christian fellow;
quoque scnsim incrementa capiant in

pert'ectum vii-um Christo
'
.
. .
fide
et
cognitione, tandemijue juuctiiii
similem sistunt."
In
fact,
Fathers of the church (Augustine, de Civ.
Jerome, Epit. P. 12) and scholastic our passage to the resurrection of the dead, of \\ hom it is held to be here said, Several (already that they would all be raised in full manlj^ age like Christ.
Origeu, as is asserted by Jerome, ad Pammach. Ep. 61, and afterwards Scotus) have even inferred that all women (with the excejition of Mary) would arise of the male sex
!
Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. and see also ii. 15 writers (Anselm, Themas) have referred
;
Meyei;. Eph,
226-
ship here upon earth, but says nothing on the question as to whether it is to be attained here or in the life to come as also Olshausen is of opinion that Paul had not even thought of the contrast between here helow and there. But vv. 14, 15 show most distinctly that Paul thought of the goal in ver. 13 as setting in even lefore theParousia; and to this points also the comparison of iii. 19, where, in substance, the same thing as is said at our passage by ug /îrpov ^7.i%ia; x.r.x., is expressed by ha crXjj/JwJjrs /g 'jToiv TO '7rX^pu,u,a rou Qio\J. The development of the whole Christian community to the goal here described Paul has thus thought of as near at hand, beyond doubt setting in (ver. 14) after the working of the antichristian principle preceding the Parousia (see on vi. 11 Usteri, Lehrhegr. p. 348 f.), as a consequence of this purifying process, and then the Parousia itself. We have consequently here a pointing to the state of unity of faith and knowledge,^ which sets in after the last storms rcj sviTUTog aiuivog Tovrif-o (Gal. i. 4), and then is at once followed by the consummation of the kingdom of Christ by the Parousia.^ With this view 1 Cor. xiii. 11 is not at variance, where the time after is compared with the age of manhood the same figure is rather employed by Paul to describe different future conditions, according a& the course of the discussion demanded. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 20,, iii. 1. On the other hand, the reason adduced for the reference to an earthly goal (Calovius and Estius), namely, that after the Parousia there is not faith, but sight, is
;
;
;
invalid
for see on 1 Cor.

2.Mi'/^pi
xiii. 13.
x.r.x. is
Remark
-/.aTavTT^GuiJLiv
not to be interpreted
to the effect, that with the setting in of the unity, etc., the
fvmctions thought of in ver. 11 would cease, which rather will be the case only at the Parousia (1 Cor. xiii. 8-10, iii. 13 ff.), but the time of the unity, etc., is itself ineluded in the (last) period of the duration of those churchly ministrations, so that only the Parousia is their terminus. The distinction made by Titmann, Synon. p. 33 f., between '/^pt and [j^'fXP' which in fact receive merely from the connection the determination of the point, whether the " until" is to be taken inclusively or exclusively
This
iTtyvia'Tis
is
consei|uently not yet the 'perfect one, which occurs after
the Parousia, as
^
it is
described 1 Cor.
xiii. 12.
According to Schwegler, I.e. p. 381, our passage betrays the later author, who, taking a retrospective view from the Montanistic standpoint, could conceive the thought of such a division into epochs. As though Paul Idmself, looking forward from his view, as he expresses it, e.g., I Cor. xii. 4ff., could not also have hoped for a speedy development unto unity of the faith, etc. The hypothesis of a "certain time-interest" (Baui) was not needed for this
!
purpose.
CHAP.
IV.
14.
227
See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 308 f. The dislies not in the signification, but in the original sensnous mode of conception which was associated with the until : " quum altera particula spatium illud, quoad aliquid pertinere diceretur, metiretur ex altitudine, altera vero ex longitudine," Klotz, ad Dcvar. p. 225.
is
invented.
tinction of the
two words
Ver, 14. "Iva] cannot, at
all events,
introduce the design of
the attained goal in ver. 13, in opposition to which av^'âuifiev,

ver. 15,
clearly testifies
since, in the case
of
him who has

longer has
already become the avrjp reXeio?, the av^dvecv no

place.
But it is also arbitrary to refer the affirmation of aim comp. Michaelis and Zanchius), to vv. 11, 12 (Koppe, Flatt as Harless would do (comp. Bleek), who holds ver. 13 and ver. 14 ff. as co-ordinate, so that ver. 13 describes the final goal up to which the arrangement endures, and ver. 14 ff. the design of this same. That ver. 14 stands in a suhordinate relation to ver. 13, is shown by the retaining of the same figure, as by ha itself, which is not preceded by another Xva, or something similar, to which it would be parallel. If Paul had referred Xva to vv. 11, 12, it would have been logically the most natural course to arrange the verses thus vv. 11, 12, 14, 15, 13, 16, The relation of our sentence expressive of aim to the preceding is rather as follows while in ver. 13 there was expressed the terminus ad quem, which
;
;
is
appointed to the labour-task, contained in ver. 12, of the
teachers given according to ver. 11
by
Christ, there is
now
a view to the ultimate attainment of that terminus ad quem, namely, the change, which meanwhile, in accordance with that final aim, is to take place in the till then still current condition of
xohicli
adduced that
is
aimed
at in the case icith
the church.
ver.
This change, divinely aimed
at, is
characterized
ver.
14
in its negative nature (firjKeri k.t.\.),
its ijositive
nature (aXr)6evovTe<i 8e
k.t.X.).
and
15 in
/n]KeTt] no longer,
as this is stiU at present the case.
It points to the influence,
which had
Ephesus
in
at that time not yet ceased, of false teachers in the
Christian church at large (see ver. 13).

itself
Of
false teachers in
trace, although Acts XX. 29 f. Paul had already expressed their future vrjirioi] for, in order to attain to full maturity, emergence.
there
is
in our Epistle
still
no
: ;
228
one must
THE EPISTLE TO THE ^PIIESIANS.
Tfliat first emerge out of the state of childhood. Paul here represents as v7]7n6Tr]<;, namely, the dependence on false teachers, in connection with which the vcTr]<i described in ver. 13 cannot set in, he himself expresses by
KXvhoivi^fxevoL, hecoming
driven
to
tossed hy nvaves (Isa. Ivii,
20) and
and fro
(as
a ship abandoned to the breakers), on

of restless passive subjection
which
to
figurative representation
influences,
comp. Heb.
ix.
xiii.
;
Jas.
i.
Josephus, Antt.
Orat. 32.
11.
Aristaenet.
BiSacTKok.^
i.
27
Jude 12 f. Dio Chrys.
iravrl dvefia
Ta<i
tt}?
rrj rpoirf)
Be ififievcov
Kal avefxovi eKoKeae
Biaôpov^ hthaaKa\ia<i, Theophylact.
Comp.
axxTrep
Plut. de and, poet. p.
28 D:
yu.^;
irvevfxaTi, irapaBLBov'i
eavTov.
rn-avrl Xoyw TrXdyiov, The use of the article
In the fact with BiBao-KaX. denotes the doctrine in abstracto. that now this, now that, is taught according to varying
now this, now that, wind of doctrine. That Paul has false teachers before his mind, is evident from
tendencies, there blows
the
context.
iv
rfj
Kvela
to
becoming tossed and driven

trine in
is to
twv dvOpcoTr.] instrumental and fro by every wind of doc-
After BlBuo-k. no comma virt'iie of the deceit of men. Kveia, be placed (comp. Lachmann and Tischendorf).
(cuhns),
from Kvo^
Fhaedr.
p.
274
a die, means properly dice-play (Plato, Xen. Mem. i. 3. 2 Athen, x. p. 445 A)

;
then in a derived signification fraudulentia (Arrian. Epict.

19,
iii.
ii.
21, and see Oecumenius).
Comp, the German
Spiel.
In
this signification the of
word has also passed over to the language Eabbins ^<^3ip. See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 775 Others have explained it as Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1984. levitas, temeritas (Beza, Salmasius, Morus, Flatt, and others),
the
;
:
which
at stake)
notion (like the
German
auf's Spiel setzen

p.
to
2mt
;
Kveveiv really expresses in Plat. Prot.

p.
314 A
Meleag. 73 (see Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI.
89),
but
this is
opposed to the context, which represents the false teachers as roov avOpeoircov] Instead of being under the gracious deceivers.
influence of
Christ (ver.
13),
and firm (comp.

play of raen
!
iii.
16
ff.),
one
and thereby becoming strong is given up to the deceptive

hj means of
iv TravovpjLa irpo^ rrjv ixedoBelav t^? ifKavq^;^

:
more
precisely defining parallel to the preceding
cunning, luhich is cffcctiial for the machination of error.
On
CHAP.
IV. 15.
229
Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3; Plat.
liere
;
iravovpyLa,
comp.
Cor.
iii.
19; 2
Mace.
Mcncx.
Pint.
p.
247 A.
fieOoheia
is
preserved only
xiii.
and
vi.
11,
;
but from the use of

3Ior. p.
fiedoho<i (2
18
Esth. xvi. 13
fxedohevoi
vii.
(2
176 A; Artem. iii. 25; Aristaen. i. 17) and Sam. xix. 27; Aquila, Ex.. xxi. 13; Diod. Sic.
vii.
16
Charit,
6)
is
not doubtful as to
at
its
;
signification.
irXdvq
2 Pet.
means
iii.
error, also
ii.
Matt, xxvii.
17,
18
Jas. v. 20.
64 Whether
Piom.
i.
27
this has
been
brought about through the fault f lying and

(Harless)
immorality
must be decided by the context, as this must in reality be assumed to be the thought of the apostle in the present case, both from the connection and from the view which Paul had formed on the basis of experience (not, as Kckert pronounces, from a certain dogmatical defiance, which had remained with him as his weak side comp, on the
;
other hand, on 2 Cor.

of his time
ii.
xi.
12) with regard to the false teachers

xi.
(2 Cor.
ii.
17,
13
f.
Gal.
ii.
4, vi.
12
Phil,
To 21), although it is not involved in the word in itself. take wkvrf as seduction (Luther, Beza, and others, including
Ptckert, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette)
is
not to
be justified by linguistic usage, since it always (also 2 Thess. ii. 11) means error, delusion, going astray; as with the Greek
writers also
it
never has that active meaning.

;
likavq'i is
genitivus suhjecti
the irXdvr], which fieOoBevet,

it
is j^^^'i'sonied,
in which, case, however,
with Bengel
would be quite arbitrary to say, Compare rather the frequent personifications of fiapria, hiKaLocrvvr) (Eom. vi. 16 ff., al.), and the like. The article is not necessary before tt/jo? t.
:
erroris,
i.e.
Saianae.
fiedoS. (in
opposition to Eckert), since Travovpy. has no article
hence no reason whatever exists for attaching ttô? ic.tX., with Eckert, to the participle ("driven about
.
t. /xeOoB.
.
.
accord-
ing to the several arts of seduction

singularly isolated.
We may add
fact, is
is
"),
by which
iv Travovpy. is
it
that,
when
is
said that
the fluctuation between different doctrinal opinions, here pre-
supposed as a matter of
age (Baur,
p.
not suitable to the apostolic
448), too
much
asserted.
:
Paul had experienced

Epistles testify of
it.
enough
of this sort of
wavering
the
all his
Ver. 15. Still connected with tW, ver. 14.
8e] after the
negative
protasis
o?i
other
hand,
yet
doubtless.
See
230

I.
. .
Hrtung, Partikell.
p.
171
f.
Klotz,
ad Devar.
p.
86
f.
In order
that
we
on the other hand., confessing

aXrjdeveiv
the truth,
may
Gal.
groi in love, etc.

iv.
i.
means nothing
15
else
than in
6,
7.
verum
18,
dicere, opposite
of ylrevSeaOai (comp. Xen.

;
Anah.
iv. 4.
15
p.
3fem.
i.
Plat. JDemod. p.
383 0;
which
BiSacr-
Phil. Leg. Alleg. II.

liere, as
84 A;
de resip. Noe, p.
280
E),
rrj'i
contrast to the irep^pepeadai iravrl ave/x)
Ka\la<i, is the
confession of the evangelic dX^deta.
iv aydirr}
belongs
to
av^rja:
(comp,
already Lucifer
"
crescamus
;
in
which it denotes for love (to the brethren) is the sphere, apart from which the growth of the mystic body, whose members are held together by love (comp. Chrysostom), does not take place, iii. 18 1 Cor. xii. 12 ff., comp. xiii. 1, With how great weight is this element here placed at the beginning and ver. IG at the end; and
caritate "), the ethical element of
;
liow definitely
dyaTTT) together
ver.
is
the hint already thereby given to take iv

avîja:, in
with
keeping with
connect
it
its
connection in
dXrjOevovTe'i,
IG
Others, nevertheless,
with
in doing
which some explain, yet not without
diversities in
specifying the sense,^ veritatem sectantes
cum
?
caritate (Valla,
Erasmus, Calvin, BulUnger, Calovius,Wolf, Michaelis, Zachariae,
Koppe,
Stolz, Elatt, Eckert, Bleek,
de Wette
et
al), others
et al.;
sincere diligentes (Luther, Bucer, Grotius, Loesner,
Morus,
comp, also Beza and Matthies).

pretations
is to
But neither of these

justified, since aKr)6evetv
inter-
be linguistically
never
means
the
also
to strive
after truth, or to hold fast the truth, to possess
trutli,
or the like, but always to speak the truth (comp,

xxi.
Prov.
Ecclus. xxxi. 4), to which,
likewise,
the
sense of
vii.
to verify, to
prove as true, found
e.g.
in Xen.
Anah.
also in
7.
25, Isa. xliv. 26,
may
be traced back.
etc.)
Against the
is
second of these interpretations (Luther,

particular the
context, seeing
there
love
that
sincere
would be a
If,
quite unsuitable
contrast to the spiritual immaturity given

teachers,
up
to
the false
which
is
described ver. 14.
however,
'
we should
seek to connect dXrjdeveiv in the correct
Calvin and most expositors: "veritatis studio adjungere etiam mutuae com-
ut placide simul proficiant." Castalio, Bullinger, "to holdfast to the truth received and investigated ... so that our firmness may be tempered by a friendly consideration for the weaker."
municationis stadium,
Eckert
" :
CHAP.
IV. 15.
231
sense of verum dicere with iv ajdirr] (confessing the truth in

love),
in
opposition
then only the love not towards others in general (this to Hofmann), but towards those of another
be meant
;
confession, could
and
this too,
would
here,
where
the latter are

iv aydirrj with
evangelical
described as deceptive teachers of error, be at

Harless,
it is true,
variance with the context.

av^rja-.,
rightly connects
:
but explains dXrjdevovre^
being true in
disposition,
and then brings iv
dyairrj
eh avrov
together.
Against this
p.
may
be urged, not indeed the hyper]I. p.
baton (Bernhardy,
fact
460; Khner,
taken
in
627
that
"
akrjO.
is
not
accordance
f.), but the with correct
linguistic usage,
and that the
definition " in evangelical dis-
msition
is imported at variance with the context (since we have here a contrast not to the Travovp'yia of the false teachers, but to the childish trepKpepecrdai Travrl dvefio) k.tX.) as also that the corresponding eV aydirrj of ver. 16 shows that eV dydTTTj in ver. 15 does not mean love to Christ. "Wrongly also Baumgarten-Crusius, although connecting with av^., renders
;
possessing the truth.

is
avîjacofiev]
dependent on
classic
iva, ver. 14,
not to
iii.
be taken, according
6 f
.
to
usage,
transitively
(1 Cor.
Cor. ix. 10), as
Valla,
ii.
Moldenhauer, and
others held, but intransitively (comp.

I. p.
21, and see Wetstein,
335),
to
grow ;
it
for,
in keeping with the figure
ha
firjKiri
Mfiev
vt'iTTiot,,
Christian
" haec
life.
.
represents the progressive development of the Comp. ver. 16. Bengel aptly observes:
.
av^r](n<;
media
est inter
infantes et virum."
is
eh
avTov] in reference
constant relation
relation to
to
Him.
Christ,
Christ
indeed the
of
Head
of the
body, the growth of the

to
members
which thus stands in

it,
can never take place apart from
Him
as determining
and regulating
to
whom
the course of the development must harmoniously correspond.
The commentary
e^ ov
irdv to
is
to
eh avrov
;
is
furnished by the following
o-w/xa k.t.X.
the relation of the growth to the
head, which
avTov,
is
expressed in an ascending direction by

ov.^
expressed in a descending direction by e|
eh The
' This treating of lU arov and (ver. 16) il, oS as parallel is not " paradoxical (de Wette), but represents the relation as it is. Christ the goal and source ot
the development of
life
in the church,
i.e.
to Christ withal
is
directed the whole

all
aim which determines
this development,
and from Christ proceeds
endow-
: :
232
sense
:
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

and
others), is
;
into the rcsemhlance of Christ (Zancliius

is
opposed to the context (since Christ

as also the explanation of
:
thought of as head)
Koppe and Holzhausen (comp, de
Wette and Bleek) " to grow up in Him" is inappropriate, since the body as little grows iip to the head, or reaches forth to the
head (Hofraann), as it grows into the head (in opposition to Matthies " to groiu into Him, i.e. ever more deeply to become absorbed into His infinitely true and holy nature "). Others have taken ei? for iv,^ but this was a mistaken makeshift, whether it was explained with Cornelius a Lapide " Christi capitis virtute et influxu" or even with Grotius
:
" ipsius cognitione."
ra
irdvra]
is
rightly explained
ix.
in all
2,
points, in every respect
(comp. 1 Cor.
in
25,
x.
33,
xi.
and
see
on Acts xx.
not
generally
35),
which
attended
it
case,
however, the article

(so
still
has
been
refers
to
Matthies).
v6Tr]<i
Harless
to
the
previously
Meier and mentioned

70^
in its contrast to the wavering of unsettled knowledge.

ev6T7}<i
But
since the
of ver.
12
appears as the
to be
attained
by the growth, and

this
since, moreover, not several things
(a plurality) are
thereby denoted, to which the plural tu iravra
might
itself is
relate,
view cannot appear in keeping
witli
the
context.
:
The explanation which most naturally suggests

in all the points of our growtli, wherein the emphasis
remains upon
in
avrv. Our growth shall, in all points ela\r) X/atcrro?] significant more precise definition and very emphatic naming of the sul^ject intended by et? Paul did not avrv, although this subject was self-evident. write TOP Xpiarov (as apposition to avrv), but in accordance with the usual Greek construction he drew the apposition into See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 41 A the accessory clause. evprjo-ei rov<i w^ aKrj6(o<; SiKacrrdf;, oiwep Koi Xeyovrat eet
it
of all the members.
Travref
must have
been written.
iiient,
by which
it is
rendered possible and takes place.

the conjunction of
Iv
Analogous, and just as

Col.
i.
little
paradoxical,
is
Qid)
and
:
it;,
16
f.
Luther, in the original editions, has not

ist."
"an dem
das
Haupt
ist,"
but
" an den, der das Haupt

CHAP.
'
IV. 16,
233
Pflugk, ad
BiKclêiv M'(o<;
Eiir.
re Kai
Pahd/iavdo'i Kai Al'aKO<i.

Cor. x.
II.
p.
Hec. 771.
;
Comp. 2
Lex.
13
Winer,
p.
469
"[E. T.
669]
Ellendt,
6
Soph.
368.
According to de
to
Wette,
Xp.
is
merely to serve
ov,
for facilitating the construc-
tion with the following e^
and thus
formal significance.
But
of
of such a facilitating there
have merely a was no
need whatever.
Ver. 16.
Harmony
what
is
said, ver. 15, for all indivi-
duals, with the objective relation of Christ to the
whole as
the organism growng by

Col.
ii.
hecoming fitly together and eompaeted (heeomcs compacted and), hy framed means of each sensation of the supply (of Christ), according to
19.
vjJiom
the
loJwle
From
way
of unity out of Christ.

body,
Comp.
an operation
love.
p)'''op)ortionate to
the
measure of each several part,

et9
hringeth about the groivth of the body, to the edifying of itself in
i^ ov]
is
equivalent neither to
Flatt,,
ov (Koppe), nor to
per quern (Morus,
Holzhausen), but denotes the causal

;
going forth, as Col.
I.e.;. 1 2 Cor. v. 1, xiii. 4; Cor. viii. 6 irav rb aw/xa] and frequently. See Bernhardy, p. 225. the whole body, thus no member being irv has the emphasis avvap/xo\. excepted; it glances back to ol irdvTe<i, ver. 13. K. (TVfii,a^.] Present participle, expressing what was continuously in actu. As to avvap/xo\., comp, on ii. 21 av/uid^) is employed by classical writers of men or of single parts of things, which one brings together into an
alliance, to reconciliation,
to a unity
(Herod,
Col.
ii.
i.
74
2),
Time.
ii.
29. 5
Plato, Rep. p.
504 A; comp.
collective
and might
Trap
be employed here the more aptly, inasmuch as the single

parts
a-wfia
of
which the
are
mass designated by two words, such

the fitting
rb
consists,
the different Christian individuals.
A
and
distinction in the notion of the
as is asserted
by
Bengel
{avvapfioX
denotes
together,
aufxi. the fastening together)
and Grotius
is
(the latter denotes
a closer union than the former),
arbitrarily assumed.
The
distinction consists only in this, that avvap/xoX corresponds to
the figure, and avc. to the thing figuratively represented.
With
regard to the former, observe that dp/xovla also, with the Greeks often denotes the harmonious relation of unity between the body and its parts. See Jacobs, Delect. ep)igr. vii. 39.
234
The
THE EPISTLE TO THE

verh to e^ ov irav ro
aoj/xa
EPHESIA.XS.
avvapfi.
k.
trvfii.
is
Trjv
av^7](Ttv
<T(t)fiaTo<i
Tov
(Grotius),
which the repetition of rov (TO)fi. is neither negligence (Eiickert) nor a Hebraism but is introduced /or the sake of pcrspicKAty on
TroieiraL,
in
account of the intervening definitions, as

classical
is
often the case with
writers
p.
(see
Krger, nah.
hiCL
27
t}?
Bornemann, chol. in Luc. p. xxxv. Ellendt, ad Arrian. Exp. Al. i. 55).
trdar}^
d(f)r]<i
i7rrôpr]j.'\
belongs not to av/Mia^. (so
ordinarily), to
which connection the erroneous interpretation

It is not
of
a^^
as hoAid (see below) led, but to Tr]v av^Tja-tv Troielrai
(Zanchius, Bengel, and others).
the union that
is
brought about by the
d(f)al
t^<?
iTnôprjy.,
but the growth,

usually ex-
inasmuch as
bestows the
Christ,
from
whom
as
Head
the union proceeds,

dcjiTj
eirfxôpTjyia for
the growth.
is
plained jundura (Vulgate), commissura, means of connection, joint, and the like. But without any support from linguistic
usage.
It
may
signify, as in Lucian, dc hictu 9,
and often in
Plutarch, contact, also holding fast, adhesion, and the like' (comp.
Augustine, de
civ.
Dei, xxii.
:
18:
"
tactum stcbministrationis,"
and see Oecumenius rj diro tov Xpio-Tov Kariovaa irvevfxaTiKr) hvva[XL<; evo^ eKaarov ju,\ov<; avrov aTTTOfiepr)), but it never means vincidum {awa^rj). liightly Chrysostom and Tlieodoret have already explained it by aca-drjai^, feeling, perception. See Plato, Locr. p. 100 D, E Pol. vii. p. 523 E and the passages in Wetstein. So also Col. ii. 19. Hofmann, Schriftbeiv. II. 2, p. 132, prefers the signification: contact, and
;
;
understands the connection of the several parts of the body,
whereby the one supplies to the other that which is necessary to growth, which supply in the case of the recipient takes place by means of contact with it. In this way Trao- d<^r) rij^ eTTi'xôprj'y. would be every contact which serves for siqyplying, and the eTn-ôprj'yla would be tlie communication of the requisites But the former for growth by one part of the body to the other. Paul would have very indistinctly expressed by the mere
^ In virtue of this signification tliere was denoted by a(pri also the fine sand with which the oihnl athletes sprinkled each other, in order to be able to take a firm grasp (see Ste[)h. Thesaur. s.v.). Thence Bengel derives the interpretation ansae nd muluum avxilium. An arbitrary abstraction from a conception entirely
:
foreign to
tlie
context.
CHAP.
genitive
7r/3o<f
lY. 16.
235
might have written
i'7n)(ôpr]'yia
(instead
of t^? eTriôp.
lie
tj)?
rr]v
iiriôpTj'yiav),
and the
latter is imported, since the
reader after e^ o5 could only understand the
pro-
ceeding
//o??i
Christ.
If
we were
to take
a^?/ in the sense
of contact, the above explanation of
Oecumenius would be the
simplest (every contact, which the body experiences through

the
eTTi'ôpTj'yia
of Christ)
but there
may
l)e
urged against
it,
that the expression instead of the mere 8ia
7rdo-7)<; 'TrLôpr]'yia<i
would be only
diffuse
and circumstantial without special
reason, while the expression: "sensation of the iirixopvy^f^"
very appropriately points to the growth through the influence

of Christ /ro??i within outward.
t%
evi'XppTjy.']
Genit. ohjccti
every feeling in which the supply
is
perceived, experienced.
What supply is meant by the iiriôpTj'yta with the article becomes certain from the context, namely, that which is
afforded hy Christ (through the
of Christ,
life
its
Holy Spirit), i.e. the influence by which He supplies to His body the powers of
to a
and development necessary

destiny {ein'xoprj'yd, 2 Cor.
ix.
growth in keeping with

;
10
Gal.
i.
iii.
5, cxhihct ;
the
substantive occurs only further at Phil.

writers).
eVt;;^ 0/3777.,
19, not in Greek

hond,
Those who
understand
a^rj
as
take
r^?
partly correctly in this
same sense
(Riickert, Harless,
Olshausen), save that they explain the genitive as a genitive of

apposition, partly
(so
Luther and most expositors, including
Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette) of the

cal service-rendering of the members,
an
recipi-o-
explanation which,^
(f>i],
originating in the erroneous interpretation of

into the context something heterogeneous.
introduces
Beza transmutes
:
an unmeaning participle suppeditatas commissuras." Kar ivepy. iv fierpo)

T^?
i'rri'ôprjy.
into
"
per omncs
e/c.
v6<;
p-ip.^
belongs neither to t^9
iiri'ôpTjy.
(Koppe, Meier, de Wette,
and many), in which case, it is true, the non-repetition of the article might be justified on the ground of a blending of r; eVtôprjyia kut ivepyeiai' k.t.X. into 07ie conception, but on the other hand may be urged the fact that iv peTprp k.t.\., as a
specification of measure, points of itself to the groiuth, not to
In which case the genitive tTis Wi^. would have to be taken, with Grotius, de "Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, as genitive of definition {on behalf
'
of).
But
see above, in opposition to Hofniaiiii.

236
the eVt%o/3777/a
THE EPISTLE TO THE ETHESIANS.

;
nor to (TVjxia^. (Harless), to

:
wliicli
even
what precedes did not belong, but after Paul has stated wherchy the body grows {Zia irdcr. a^rj^ r^? eTTfôpriy.), he
now
also adds the relation in lohich

to
it
brings about
its
growth,
namely, according
of each several part,
follows
an
efficacy
in Tceepiny loith the measure
i.e. so that the growing body in its growth an activity of development in keeping with the
measure
peculiar to each
several part of the
body,
con-
sequently no disproportioned monstrous growth results, but one
which
is
inirsuant
to
proportion, adapted to the varied measure

e.g.,
of the several parts (so that,
the hand does- not grow disetc.).
proportionately larger than the foot,
Without figure
not equal in
all
From
Christ the church accomplishes

to
its
progressive developis
ment according
individuals,
an
efficacy,
wliich
but appropriate to the degree of development

liiickert
:
appointed for each several individual.

schneider take kut
ivepjeiav adverbially
itself
after
and Breta poioerful

would need
19,
iii.
manner.
But ivepjeia in
efficacy, activity
does
not denote poioerful

it
working, but
Phil.
in general, so that
a more precise definition for the sense supposed

iii.
(i.
eV 12; 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11). fierpw] according to measure, p"i\o mensura ; see Bernhardy, yêpov^l is held by p. 211; Winer, p: 345 [E. T. 4831 Harless to denote the several parts, which again in their turn appear as having the control of the other members (pastors,
Col.
i.
21;
20,
ii.
etc.,
ver.
11).
Against this
is
e'yo?
eKaaTov.
It
denotes,
according to the context, in contradistinction to the whole of

the body each part of the hody, whether this part may be a whole member or in turn only a portion of a member (comp.
Luke
Greek
xi.
36),
and
is
hence of wider meaning than

only further at Col.
2 Mace. v. 16.
;
/xeXov;.
av^Tio-Lv] in the
N.
T.
writers,^ also
itself (sibi),
iavTou.
hence the middle

Tlie sense
:
for
the
TroieiTac] p>roduces for comp, subsequently eU oIkoSo/jl. iierfeeting of itself (aim of rrjv
ii.
19, often with
au^rja: TToceiTai), is
expressed, as at ver. 12, in another, dis-
similar, but likewise very familiar figure,
by eh oUoS.
olkoS. eavrov
Plat. Hep.
vi. p.
kavrov.
ev dj'TTrj] Love of all one to another

Troieiadai, et9
See Stallbaum,
is
the ethical sphere,
within which the av^rjaiv

More
classic,
on the
509 B.
however,
is alilti.
ad
CHAP.
IV. 17.
237
this
part of the whole body proceeds
outside of which
On
account of
canuot
take place.
Comp.
rrjv
ver.
15.
ver.
15, the
is
connection with
av^rjaiv TroLelrai
eh
oIkoB.
eavrov
more
in keeping with the context than the usual one with the mere
et?
oUoS. iavTov.
We may
add, that the

is
the church in
our passage
mode of regarding not " genuinely Gnostic," as

Comp,
especially
Baur pronounces, but genuinely Pauline. 1 Cor. xii. 14-27.

(Hrtung, Far tilcdl.
;
Ver. 1 7. That ovv, like the Latin ergo, liere resumes ver. 1
II. p. 22 f. Klotz, ad Dcvar. p. 718), is assumed since the exhortation begun vv. 1-3 is really interrupted by the digression, vv. 4-16-, and the duty now
;
rightly
following
/jbTjKeTi,
irepiiraretv
k.tX., is but the
negative side
of the a^m<i irepLirairjcrai k.t.X. of ver. 1.
Theodoret aptly
irpooi/xtov.
observes
ttciXlv
dveXae
./
ri}'?
:
irapaiveaewi to
Wliatfolloivs then
asseverate, etc.
i.e.
toOto] to be referred forwards

to
my
exhortations)
say
and
(now
to return
fiaprupo/jâi]
does not signify
ohsecro,
but 1
testify,
asseverate, aver.
See
on Gal.
V. 3.
Since, however, there lies in this expression
in Xe7&) the notion of exhortation sind lorecept,
of supplying helv to the following infinitive.
and there as no need See Khner, ad

[E. T. .273]
;
Xen. Mem.
also
ii.
2.
Buttmann,
p.
neut. Gr. p.
Heind. ad Flat. Frot.

(Theodoret
:
346
B.
235
iv
Kvpiw] not
jpn*
Dominum
Xejco, so
utto pbprupi <ydp
(f)r]cn
tw Kvpcw tuvtu
already Chrysostom and most expositors, including

Flatt,
Koppe,
Holzhausen),
ix. 1),
(comp, on Iiom.
and
-with fiapTvpo/iat,
denoted by rov Kvpiov

p.
(I call
;
which would be Trpos; Kvpi'ov would have to be the Lord to witness, Plat. Fhil.
Col.
12 B; Eur. Fhoen. 629

1
Soph. Ocd.
iv.
817); but
rather,
as at Ptom. ix. 1,
Thess.
in the Lord, so that Paul
expresses
tluit not in respect of his own individuality does he speak and aver, but that Christ withal is the element, in which his thinking and willing moves, through which, therefore, the
Xe7&) and /xapTvp. has

fi')]KeTi]
its
distinctively Christian character.
tians.
after that ye,
from being Gentiles, have become ChrisTO,
KaOo)^
KoX
Xocira
edvj]
t.t.X.]
The
/cat
has its
reference in the former walk of the readers.
These are no
ii.
longer to have such a walk, as was, like their previous walk,

that also of the other,
i.e.
the
still
unconverted (comp.
238
1

iv.
Thess.
13)
Gentiles,
ra
walk
Xoiira]
for
the
readers,
although Christians, belonged nationally to the category of

Gentiles.
iv fiaraioTrjrt, rov yoo9
avTwv] (not avTwv)
is
the
subjective sphere, in which the

place,
of the other Gentiles takes
and
willing
namely, in nothingness (trutlilessness) of their thinhinrj (vov<i). which, however, neither denotes, after the
p^\j,
i.
Hebrew
ad Rom.
idol-worship (see, in opposition to this, Fritzsche,

is it
21), nor
to
be referred, with Grotius, espe1 Cor.

iii.
cially to the philosophers (comp.
20), but is to be
understood of the %ohoU intellectual and moral character (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18) of heathenism, in which the rational and moral
and practically estranged and subject to error and the service of sin (ver. 19). We may add, that the /xaraiorr]^ is not an inborn one (Zanchius, Calovius, and others comp. Calvin), but (om. vii. 7 ff.) one that has come to pto-ss, although it has come Comp. Eom. i. 21, ii. 15. to pass ^yo-et (ii. 3). Ver. 18 exhibits the ground of the fact, that the Gentiles walk iv fxaTairijTL tov voo^ avrwv, which ground is twofold according to the twofold power belonging to the vov<i, the intelligent and the practiced. To the former ia-Korwîhoi
principle
(the vov<;) is theoretically
(ver. 18),
from the truth
relates (see the critical remarks), to tlie latter airriXK.

T.
r.
ô)i]<;
Oeov
since they cere

:
darkened (comp. Joseph. Antt.

rrjv
ix. 4.
the opposite
(jicoTLêiv
Bidvocav,
viii.
5. 3)
in respect of
i.
their exercise of thinking cnid willing {^lavoia, Col.

life
i.
comp. Luke
51
21
of God.
Pet.
i.
13
. .
John
iaKor.
6vre<i is
;
20) estranged from the to be taken together (Clem.

v.
;
Theodoret, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, Harless, de Wette), since, if ovre'? airriWorp. are joined (Beza and many, including ckert, Meier, Matthies, Scholz), the logical and formal parallelism is disturbed, inasmuch as then eaKOT. ry Biavoia would be merely predicate and ovre'^
Al. Piotrep.
ix. p.
69, Potter
ainjWoTp. specifying the reason (subordinate to the former), and the emphatic prefixing of the two perfect participles, as brought into prominence by our punctuation, would go for
nothing.
reason,
And that the second clause does not specify why the darkening has come over the minds of
,
the
the
Gentiles (in opposition to Etickert), is clear

Bia Ttjv ayvotav k.t.X
from the following

is
wherein, conversely, the ignorance
CHAP.
IV. 18.
239
Pickert,
oi^re?
indicated as the cause of the estrangement from God.
moreover, thinks that, according to
our punctuation,
is
would stand
ov Ka9apo<i
cov.
'before
rrj
htavoia
but this
groundless, since
i.
icTKOT. rfi Biavoia is
conceived of together.
icov,
Comp. Herod,
:
35
aTnjWorp.^ See on ii. 12, and, concerning the construetio Kara avveaiv, Buttmann, neut. Gram. pp. 114, 242 [E. T. 28 1]. T?}<? ^(?}<? Tou Qeov\fwm the life of God, does not admit of any explanation, according to which ô; would be life-walk, which Hence it never means in the N. T., not even in 2 Pet. i. 3.^ not the life 2ylasing to God (Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, and others comp. Theodore, Theophylact, Grotius, and " the life, v:hich is from Flatt), but, as Luther aptly renders God.'' The genitive is genitive originis (comp. hiKaioavvr) 0eov, Ptom. i. 17, and see Winer, p. 167 f. [E. T. 233]), and
')(elpal\oi<;
^wrj
is
the counterpart of 6dvaTo<i, so that

:
stood as
" tota vita spiritualis,
it is to be underquae in hoc seculo per fidem et
justitiam iuchoatur et in futura beatitudine perficitur, quae
Dei est, quatenus a Deo per gratiam Comp. Calvin and Cajetanus, It is at all events the life of Christian regeneration, which is wrought by God in believers through the Spirit (Kom. viii. 2) ^ while the Gentiles are by their heathen nature alien to this divine
tota peculiariter vita
datur," Estius.
life.
This in opposition to Harless,

life
who understands
it
as the
estrangement from the
and
light
of the \6<yo<; in the ivorld
(John
i.
3).
time (not of those
Paul in fact is speaking of the Gentiles of that who have lived in the time hefore Christ), in
life
(vei-. 17) as persons who were through the iraXiyyeveata (comp. ii. 5
their contrast to the Christians
partakers of divine
Kom.
"
vi.
4).
Various
elements
vivit
:
are
mixed up by Beza
vitam illam, qua Dens

Jms,
in suis
quamque
praecipit
et
approlat ;" and Olshausen
"
the
life,
which God Himself

Sia
7i]v
is
it
. .
and
and which
2^crtains to
the creature so long as
remains in fellowship with God."

'
ayvotav
Especially instructive for the distinction of the notion â^ from that of
is
liie-
walk,
'
Gal. v. 25.
is
the ac/tts judinaUs of

:
viii.
This divine making alive docs not coincide with justification, but the latter God that precedes the former. Comii. tsi)ecially Kom. 10 ûh Oia oiKoiioaCny,
240
Kaphia<;
THE EPISTLE TO THE

avTwv] on account
of, etc.
EP1IE3IANS.
the cmisc of this estrangelife is
ment
of the Gentiles from the divine
the ignorance
which is in them through hardening of heart, consequently due to their own fault. Bia r. irwp. r. k. attaches itself to Tr]v ovxxav iv auroh, and is consequently subordinated to the preceding 8m T.yvoiav r. ova. iv avr. Usually hia hiu
.
. .
are regarded as co-ordinate elements
and indeed, according to Harless and Olshausen, ^who are followed by de Wette, this twofold specification of reason has reference not merely to
;
injXkoTp.
T.
^.
T.
&.,
but
:also
to
iaKar.
rfj
Biavoia
6vTe<i,
in
which case Olshausen, Baumgarten- Crusius, de Wette, Schenkel (comp. Grotius and Bengel) assume that Bta ttjv ayvoiav k.t.\. corresponds to iaKor. k.t.X., and then Bia rrjv ircopcoaiv jc.t.X. to irriWorp. 't. ^. r. . The jvoia, however, cannot he the
caiise,
but only the conscqitence of iaKor.
-rrj
Biavoia,
since
af/voia (used
is
by Paul only
here, but ayvoeiu occurs frequently)
not dulness of the higher faculty of cognition (Eiickert), but

14).
iii. 17, xvii. 30 The Gentiles 'were not darkened on account
;
.nothing else than ignorance (Acts

;i.
Pet.
of their
ignorance, seeing that in fact ignorance

rthe light, as the
is
not inaccessible to
;
example of
all converted
life
Gentiles shows
but
of God was occasioned by their ignorance, and, indeed, by their ignorance for which they
their being estranged
from
the
were to blame on account of hardening of heart. Accordingly, the commas after @eov and avTols are to be deleted.
quite wrong in holding that the ignorant are the and the hardened the Jews. Paul speaks onhj of the Gentiles. rjp ovaav iv avToh] not quae iis innata est, nor yet said in contrast to external occasions (Harless), which is not at -all implied in the context, but: because Paul wished to annex the cause of the ar^vota, he has not put Bia rrjv yyvoiav avrcov, but, in order to procure the means of annexation, has employed the participial expression paraphrasing the 'avroiv: rrjv ovaav iv avroh. This expression confirms the view that the second Bid is subordinate to the first, Ver, 1 9. The estrangement of the Gentiles from the divine life, indicated in ver. 18, is now more precisely proved in
.Meier
.is
Gentiles,
conformity with experience

such
as,
olrtve'i,
quipiK qui,
etc.
being
void of feeling, have given themselves over to lascivious-
CHAP.
IV. 19.
241
The
ness.
a7rrj\'yr]K0T<;']
avaiadrjToi 'yevojxevot, ITesycliius.

"
"
is
verbum significantissimum
(Bengel), from akyelv and utt,
equivalent to dedolere, to cease to feel pain, then to be void
of feeling, whether there be meant by it the apathy of intelligence, or the state of despair, or, as here, the moral indolence,
in which one has ceased to feel reproaches of conscience,^
consequently the securitas carncdis

Matthaei, ed. min. in
loc.
:
; see Wetstein, and also The explanation having despaired

eX-irla-C)
(comp. Polyb.
ix.
40. 4
airaXyovvre'; rai^
imports a
meaning without warrant from the context, but is found already in Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Ambrosiaster, and from it has arisen tlie reading TnjXirLKOTe^ (D E F G liave d(f)r]\7rtK.), which probably already those vss. followed. eavTovsi] with deterrent emphasis. To bring into prominence what was done on the jx^ri of their oum freedom, was
special definition of the
here in accordance with the jjaracnctic aim.
It is
otherwise
put at Rom.
go side
i.
24
irapeScoKev avrov'i 6 0eo9.
The two modes

to the
of regarding the matter are not contrary to one another, but

1)2/
side
(see
on Eom.
i.
24)
and according
respective aims and connection of the discourse, both have

their warrant
and their
Cor.
full truth.
rf}
aaeXryela] personified.
It is to be understood of
sensual
lasciviousness
v.
(comp, on
Eom.
xii.
xiii.
13; 2
xii.
21; Gal.
19), as, subsequently,

i.
aKadapaia<; of sensucd filthiness

21
;
(comp. Eom.
24
2 Cor.
wantonness and impurity generally (Harless, Matthies, Meier, and others), since tlie irXeove^la connected with it is likewise a special vice, as indeed, on the other hand (Eom. i. 24; comp. ver. 29 and
Gal. v. 1 9), not of ethical
Col.
iii.
5),
unchastity appears as the
the Gentiles.
eU
first
kp'âaiav aKa6apaia<;
TracrT/?] vi.
and chief vice of aim of this

19): for the
self-surrender to the aaeXjeta (comp.
Eom.
prosecution of every uncleanncss, in order to practise every sort of uncleanness. On ipyacrla, comp. LXX. Ex. xxvi. 1
Chron. xv. 7; Isa. i. 31, al ; Plat. Prot. p. rjSovrj^ ipyacTLav, Eryx. p. 403 E ip<yaaia<i
2
:
353 D: t^9
7rpayfj,dT(ov
fioxOvp^v^
Koppe
a
takes
it
as trade (Acts xvi. 16, xix. 19,

extincto divini judicii timore,
"Homines
Deo
relicti sopita conscientia,
amisso denique sensu tanquam attoniti, belluino inipetu se ad
omnem
turpitu-
dinem
projiciunt," Calvin,
Meyer Eph.

242
xxiv. 29).
But could the trade

thereon Dissen,
of prostitution
15, Eeiske, and
de
Cor.
p.
(Dem. 270. 301) be thus

?
generally predicated with truth of the Gentiles
This at the
same time
tells in
opposition to the explanation followed
by
Grotius, Bengel, Stolz, Koppe, Flatt, and Meier, of the ev
irXeoveîa that follows as quaestus ex wijnidicitia (on the thing

itself,
see Aristaen.
i.
14).
In
fact, iv ifXeove^Lci
adds to the
vice of sensuality the other chief vice of the heathen,

signifies
:
and
with covetousness.
The explanations
with unsatiahlequasi
ncss
(Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin,

("
Estius,
and
others, including Matthies), or certatim
agatur de lucro, ita ut alius alium superare contendat," Beza),

or loith haughtiness
are all of
(Holzhausen), or in gluttony (Harless^),
them
at variance
with linguistic usage, partly in

covetousness.
which TrXeoveîa Sensuality and covetousness are the two cardinal vices of the heathen, which are to be avoided by the Christians. 1 Cor. v. See v. 3 10 f Col. iii. 5. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 2, i. 14.
general, partly of the N. T. in particular, in
never means anything else than
Ver. 20. 'Tfieh 3e] opposed to the unconverted Gentiles.

oy;^
oTO)?
iiiddere
tov Xpiarv] but ye have not in such
manner
the
(so that this instruction

life,
would have directed you

ff.)
to
that Gentile conduct of

litotes
ver. 1 7
learned Christ.
Observe
in
ov')(^
ovt)<; (quite otherivise,

:
comp. Deut,
xviii. 14).
The proposal
adscribas
?
of Beza
"
Quid
si
post ovtw'^ distinctionem
" is,
although adopted by Gataker and Colomesius,
quite mistaken, since ver. 21 contains the confirmation not of
the mere fact i/xdOere tov Xpiarov, but of the mode in which
the readers have learned Christ, hence ov^ ovtco^ must necessarily belong to e/ji,d6ere tov
XpiaTov.
o XpiaT6<; does not
mean
the doctrine of Christ or concerning Christ (so most

before
expositors
Eckert; but see Bengel and
Elatt),
one,
nor
it
does fMavOveiv Tivd
mean
to
learn
to
know any
(by
as
has usually in recent
times
been
explained
1
Eckert,
Holzhausen,
Meier,
to
Matthies,
Harless),
ii.
wherefore
(Jva
Eaphel
dW7]\ov<i
wrongly appeals
Xen.
Hellen,
1.
' He is followed by Olshausen, who explains vrXiaviîa of repletion with meat and drink, and terms this j^hysical greed ! According to classical usage, rXionl'ia. might mean superabundaiice, but not gluttony.
CHAP.
IV. 21.
243
vii.
fidOoiev oTToaoi et-qaav, comp. Herod,

to
ijerceivc)
;
208, where
it
means
of the
;
but Christ
is
the
great
collective
object
instruction
1 Cor.
i.
which the readers have received (Gal. i. 16 2 Cor. i. 19 Phil. i. 15, al.), so that they have This special notion is required by the followlearned Christ.
23
.
.
ing etye
iSiSd'x^6.
si, as to which, however, there is Paul himself had preached to them Christ, and
Ver. 21. Etye] tuvi eerie
no doubt
instructed
delicate
(for
them
in
Christ),
introduces,
as
in
iii.
2,
in a
way
:
the confirmation of the ov^

least,
ovto)<;
ifidOere rov
Xpiarov
assuming, at
that ye have heard

it
him and have
received instruction in him, as

aside, etc., that is
:
is
truth in Jesus, that ye lay
if,
namely, the preaching, in %vhich ye became
aware of Christ, and the instruction, which was imparted to you as Christians, have been in accordance with the fact that true fellowship) luith Christ consists in your laying aside, etc. avrov rjKovcrare] to be explained after the analogy of the e/xdOere but avTov, like iv avrai subsequently, Tov Xpiarov, ver. 20 is prefixed with emphasis. eV avTa>] is neither ab eo
(Castalio, Gataker, Flatt), nor de eo (Piscator), nor per
cum
;
(Beza), nor
" illius
nomine, quod ad ilium attinet
"
(Bengel)
but
elvai
it
:
is
iî
to
be explained from the conception iv Xpiaru)

in the fellowship of Christ, that
is,
Him,
as Christians.
Observe the progress of the discourse, which passes over from the first proclamation of the gospel (avrbv r^Koixrare) to the
further
instruction
to
already converted
Christ {ev avra eBiSwÔ.)
which they have thereupon received as two elements,
which were previously comprehended in ifiddere rov Xptcrrov. Ka6c<;] in the manner how, introduces the mode of the having heard and having been instructed, so that this rJKovaare xal
iBiSd-x^drjTe
ovT(o<i
oi/TO)?
Kadi^;
k.t.X.
corresponds
to
the
previous
ovx
oy;^
ifiddere rov Xpiarv,
affirmatively
had indicated negatively. iariv dXijdeia tm iv 'lT]aov] Truth it is in Jesus, that ye lay aside, etc., in so far as without this laying aside of your old man there would be no true, but only an aptparcnt fellowship with Jesus. iv toj 'Irjaov] Paul passes from the official name Xpca-T6<i to the personal name 'Itô-oj}?, because he, after having previously recalled the preaching made to the Ephesians and instruction
stating
what
244
concerning the Messiah,
now
brings into prominence the moral

life
character of this preaching and instruction, and the moral
of true Christianity is contained in believing fellowship with
the historical
iv.
iiersoii
ff.
for
of the Messiah, with Jesus (comp. 2 Cor, " Christi ideara perfectissime et fulgidissime
explevit Jesus" Bengel), whose death has procured for believers

their justification,
the
new
life
and by virtue of their fellowship with Him (om. vi. 2, 3), so that to be iv rw Îrjaov with a
retention of the old man, would be a contradictio in adjccto
would be untruth, and not aXijOeia iv tw Îrjaov. We may add that this transition, unforced also at i. 15, from XpiaT6<i to ''Ir}aov<i was not necessary ; for, had Paul again written iv Tw XpiaTM, there would therewith, as before, have lêen presented to the moral consciousness just the historical Christ
Jcsics.
Comp.
Gal.
v.
24;
Col.
iii.
10
f.
The accusative
with the
infinitive airoOeaOai vfx<;
depends on ianv akt^deia

to iv
iv TOi Îrjaov, so that it appears as subject of the sentence
Usually airodea-Oai v/x<i is made (Khner, II. p. 347 f.). depend on i^L^'xÔrjre, in which case Ka6(o<; iaitv aKrjeia
Tft)
Îrjaov is
very differently explained.
Either
it is
regarded
Eiickert,
:
as a parenthesis (Beza, Er, Schmid, Michaelis), as
by
is
who
are
takes Kaddoq augmeutatively, so that the sense

rightly instructed
" If
ye
so
concerning
Christ,
;
ye
have
not
learned Him, for that would be false

Christ
is,
with
Him
(there
where
is
lives
and
rules) there
is,
in fact, only truth (moral,
religious truth) to be
met
with."
Or
Ka6(ii<i
iariv k.t.X.
is
attached to iSiSd-^drjTe, and then airoOecrdat,

epexegesis
of KaOoo^
vix<i
taken as
turn
which case Xijdeta in Or the connection is so conceived of, that a ovT)<i is supplied before dirodiadat, in which So also Harless (followed by case Jesus appears as model? Olshausen), who, taking akrjOeia as morcd truth (holiness),
k.tX., in
is differently
ianv
explained.^
" edocti estis . . . quae sit vera disciplina Camerarius, Eapliel, Wolf nimirum lit deponatis." Comp. Piscator "qiiaenam sit vera ratio "si ita nerape deponere." Grotius . vivendi in Jesu tanquam in capite edocti estis evangelium, quomodo illud revera se habet ; " so also Calixtus,
1
:
Christi,
Koppe, Kosenmiiller, Morus, and others. ^ Jerome led the way with this explanation quomodo est Veritas in Jesu, Subsequently it was followed by sic erit et in vobis qui didicistis Christum."
' : '
Erasmus, Estius ("sicut in Christo Jesu nulla
est ignorantia, nullus
error,
CHAP.
IV. 21.
245
justifies vixa<i
(" as
truth
is
from the comparison of Jesus with the readers in Jesus, so to lay aside on your part "), in
not Xpiaro),
set
is
which case
the
'Irjaov,
is
held to be used, because
man
Jesus
forth as pattern.
e'StSa^^^jyre,
Matthies likewise
makes
diroOecrai
depend on
is
but annexes
:
Ka6(t)<;
K.T.\. as
more precise
definition to iv avru>
" in
Him,
all
as or
in as far as the truth

Castalio
in Jesus, as
He
is
it.
the truth."
So
these
if
appears already to have
taken
But
v/x<i,
explanations break
down
in presence of the
to
iBiSd-^drjTe,
it
which,
aTToOeaOai vjica
inappropriate.
(a) in opposition
belonged
would be
further
quite
In
particular,
may
be
urged
Îrjaov
;
to Eiickert, that according to his

Ka6u)<i
its
explana-
tion
the
parenthesis
eariv
d\7]0eia
iv
tm
must
(h)
logically
have had
place already after tov Xpia-Tov
in opposition to Harless, that the alleged comparison of

is
Jesus with the readers
at variance with the order of the

:
words, since Paul must have written

dX7]0eid iariv, u/ia? dtzodkaQai
;
Ka6cb<;
iv
tw
Îrjaov
(c)
in opposition to Matthies,
that
Ka6oi<i
k.tX. does
not stand beside iv avrw, and that

article.
is
d\7]0eia
this
must have had the

In Jesus there
De Wette
inherent
explains
it
to
effect:
viii.
(as
quality,
comp.
John
sequently there thus
44) truth (especially in a practical respect), conis implied in the instructions concerning Him
the principle and the necessity of moral change.
But even
merely the
v/xd<;
we may
expect,
instead
of
diroO.
v/x'?,
simple dTTodeaOat.
Others have attached dirodeaOac

v/i<i
;
to
ver. 17, as continuation of the fMTjKirc
irepiiraTeiv
k.t.X.
(Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Zachariae

ver.
not Wetstein,
who
at
22 merely says But

Be
" respicit
comma
17"), in which case

underof the discourse
Ka6(o 'Irjaov is likewise differently
stood.^
v/x,et<i
after the
new commencement
forced.
ov^ outx?, ver. 21, this is simply arbitrary and Credner takes a peculiar view (Einl. II. p. 398 f.)
:
nihil injustum, sed
pura Veritas et justitia, sic et vos," etc.), and others, including Storr, Flatt ("as He Himself is holy "), Holzhaiisen, Meier {Uhiit is Christian virtue, "that ye, as truth in Jesus is, should lay aside "). " ita uti Veritas (vera agnitio Dei veri) reapse est in Jesu qui 1 Bengel credunt in Jesum, veraut." Zachariae "For in what Jesus teaches to us is
:
it,
alone to be found the truth by the heathen as if aXrJ. had the article.
despised."
Both thus explain
246
"

not thus learned to
Ye have
know
the Messiah, provided

it
is
that ye (as I
am
warranted in presupposing, for
only to
and have been instructed in Him, as He as truth (truly, really) is in Jes7is." Thus Paul is held to distinguish his readers from such Gentiles as, won
such that I write) have heard
over to
faith
Him
in the near advent of the world's
Eedeemer,
had reckoned themselves
as Christians, but without believing
But of such Gentiles there is not found any trace in the N. T. (the disciples of John, Acts xix. 1 ff., are as such to be reckoned among the Jeivs) besides, there would lack any attachment for the following airoOeadai, v/ji<i, and in using aXrjdeia (instead of iv Xij. or dXr]6a)<i) Paul would have expressed himself as enigmatically as possible.
in Jesus as that' Eedeemer.
;
Lastly,
Hofmann
;
{Schriflbeto.
Ta> Îrjcrov
II.
2, p.
291), without reason,

general
KaOax;
wishes to attach ev
to
not to KaOco^ iariv a\r)9., but

quite
what follows
the
in
itself
iariv
aXrjOeia
stood in need
of being
characterized definitely as
Christian, not the aTrodeaOai k.t.X, as to
which
on
it
was already
Ka6co^
is
implied in the nature of the case and was self-evident.

Ver,
22.
ÂiroOeaOai
u/ia?]
dependent
{to
ia-riv
aXrjdeia iv ra> 'Irjaov.
See on ver. 21.

the readers;
What
that
truth in
Jesus, Paul states, not in general
lay aside,
etc.),
but indi-
vidualizingly in relation
to
ye
lay aside}
Michaelis and Flatt give the strangely erroneous rendering

to lay aside yourselves
!
In that case there would be wanting

;
the main matter, the reflexive eavroik
and how
!
alien to the
N.
T.
such a form of conceiving self-denial

:
others are also incorrect in rendering

till ver.
lay aside.
in,
Luther and It is not
25 that the
p.
direct
summons comes
and that in the

u/za? in
usual form of the imperative, instead of which the infinitive (Winer,
282
f.
[E. T. 397]),
p.
and with the accusative
The 1267), would be inappropriate. figurative expression of laying aside is borrowed from the
addition (Matthiae,
that ye have laid aside, as Hofmann wishes to take it, who explains uvavteivalai tZ 'TtiiVfJt.a.Ti syeiH Tehfîviiv; ifiia; Paul had written Starting from the aorist infinitive thiis taken at variance with ffafiivous x.T.x. 2 Cor. vi. 1), Hofmann has incorrectly linguistic usage (comp, on Rom. xv. 9 xmderstood the whole passage. According to his interpretation, the -pei-ftct The Vulgate already has correctly not deposuinfinitive must have been used.
1
Not
as
it
isse,
but deponere.
CHAP.
IV. 22.
247
^putting off dotliing (comp. ivSva-aaOat, ver. 24),

use, as
and in current with Paul (Eom. xiii. 12, 14; Col. iii. 8 ff. Gal. iii. 27), so also with Greek writers (see Wetstein in loc.) hence there was the less reason for forcing on the context any more special reference, such as to the custom (at any rate, certainly later) of changing clothes at baptism (so Grotius).
; ;
Kara
the
rrjv
irpoTepav ava(TTpo(f)rjv]
:
is
not to be explained, as
rov
if
words stood
(Jerome,
top ttoX.
avdp.
Kara
rrjv
irporepav
Oecumenius, Vorstius, Grotius, Eaphel, Koppe, Eosenmller, and others), but that ye lay aside in respect of your former life-walk the old man, so that it expresses, in ivhat respect, in reference to what the " Declarat vim laying aside of the old man is spoken of.
avaarp.
Estius, Semler,
:
verbi relationem habentis deponere,"

jraX.
Bengel.
The Pauline
avdp., ideally conceived of, is not injuriously affected, as
pre-Christian
its internal truth by this recalling of the walk (as if the author had conceived of it empirically). The irporepa avaarp., in fact, concerns the whole moral nature of man before his conversion, and the
de "Wette thinks, in
airodkdQai rov iraX. avOp. affirms that the converted

as concerns the pre-Christian conduct of
man
is
to retain nothing of his pre-Christian moral personality, but,

life, is
utterly to do
away with the old new man. Such a

(comp. Anselm)
ethical individuality
and
to
become the
contrast, however, as Cornelius a Lapide found " non quoad naturam et substantiam,"
:
would be in
to
itself singular
and foreign
i.
dvaa-rpocpT], see
on Gal.
^
13.
to the context.
As
k.tX.
tov nraXacov avOp.]
The
See
pre-Christian moral frame
on Eom.
old
vi.
6.
is
represented as a person.
/c.t.X]
rov (pOeipo/xevov
an attribute of the
diro6ea6aL
lusts
:
man
is
serving as
being
a motive
for
that
to
which
destroyed
according
the
of deception.
4>6e('p6/j'vov is
not to be explained of putrefaction (Michaelis),

is
seeing that 6 irakaiof avdp.
not equivalent to to awfia, nor
yet of inward moral corruption Meier,

Harless,
(Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen,

or
self - corruption
and
older
expositors),
(Schenkel), seeing that the moral corruption of the old

^
man
Not original sin (as Calovius and others would have it), which, in fact, cannot be laid aside, but the moral habitus, such as it is in the unregenerate man under the dominion of the sin -principle. Comp. Rom. vii. 7 fi. Eph. ii. 1
;
ti".
248
is

is
obvious of itself and

{^present
already present, not merely coming
which is not to be taken, with Bengel, as imperfect), but of eternal destruction (Gal,
into existence
participle,
vi. 8),
in which case the present participle

i.
which goes
to
ruin
(comp, on 1 Cor.
18), is to be taken either of the certain

"
future realized as present, or of the destruction in the course

of development (so Grotius
latter
:
qui tendit ad exitium
").
The
appears more appropriate to the contrast of top Kara

ver. 24.
Qeov KTLtjdtvra,
T^?
d7rdT7]<;
is
Kara
ra?
iTTiOvfiia'i
rrj'i
avrarT;?]
and y dirdrrj is personified (comp. Hesiod. Theog. 224). Hence: in accordance with the lusts of deception, with which it has had designs on the corruption of the old man. What d-rrdrr} is meant, cannot be doubtful according to the context, and according to the doctrine of the apostle as to the principle of sin in man, namely, the p)ower of sin deceiving man (Eom. vii. 1 1). Comp. Heb. iii. 13, also 2 Cor. xi. 3. The adjectival resolution into cupiditates seducentes (Grotius), followed by many, is in itself arbitrary and
genitive
siihjecti,
not in keeping with the contrast in ver.

Ver. 23. Positive side of that which
ye,
24
is
(tt}? d\7]6ela<i).
truth in Jesus: that
V.
on the other hand, become renewed in the spirit of your reason. dvaveoixrOai] passive, not middle {renew yourselves, Luther),
;
Mace. xii. 1 Thuc. and often). The renewal is God's work through the Holy Spirit (Eom. viii. 1 f. Tit. iii. 5), and without it one is no true Christian (Eom. viii. 9 Gal. v. 1 5), consequently there can be no mention of dXrjOeia iv tm Îtjctov. Eespecting the distinction between dvaveoco (only here in the IsT. T.) and dvaKaivoo), recentare and renovare, as also respecting dva, which does not refer to the restitution of human nature, as it was before the fall, but denotes the recentare in reference to the p)'^^^vious (corrupt) state, see on
18,
since the middle has an active sense (1
43
Polyb.
vii. 3.
1,
Col.
iii.
1 0.
ruj wvevâTi,
tov
;
vob<; v/jmv]
The genitive
is
at
any
rate that of the subject
for instead of
simply saying tm
irvevfiaTL vfiSiv}
Paul makes use of the more precise designation

Ta> TrvevixaTi
in the text.
^
But the
may
be either instrumental
rf
v<'
He might have
)>ovs,
written, as in
Rom.
xii. 2,
merely
vfj,Zv
but his eon-
ceptioQ here penetrates deeper, namely, to the fountainhead of the vital activity
of the
to the inner agent
and mover in that
activity.
CHAP.
IV. 23.
249
slioukl,
or dative of reference.
In
tlie
former case, however, we
with
Oecumenius,
Castalio,
and
others,
f.,
including
Ch.
F.
Fritzsche in his Nov. Opusc. p.
and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 28, have to understand the Holy Spirit, who has His seat in the vov'i of the man on whom He is bestowed, and
throiujli
244
wliom (dative)
that
tlie
dvaKaivuxri^ rov
/jbaraiTrj'i
vo6<i,
Eom.
xii. 2,
17) no longer occurs, and the Katv6rrj<i, which, on the other hand, has set in (Eom. vi. 4), is a kulvott]^ tov irvevfiaTOf. Comp.
(iv.
is effected, so
now
the old
of the vov<;
Tit.
iii.
5.
But, in opposition to this view,

Spirit
we may
urge,
first,
that the
Holy
bestowed on
man
v[iSiv
is
never in the N. T.
designated in such a here
way
:
that
man
;
appears as the subject of
the Spirit (thus never

:
and the like, or as and secondly, that it was the object of the apostle to put forward the aspect of the moral self-activity of the Christian life, and hence he had no occasion expressly to introduce the point, which, moreover, was obvious of itself through the Holy Sjnrit. Accordingly, there
to irvevjxa
v/j,cov)
to 7rvet/xa tov voo^
remains as the right explanation only the usual one (dative of

reference), according to whicli the Trvevfia is the
different
respect
human
spirit,
from the divine (Rom. viii. 16). Consequently: in, of the spirit of your voi),^, that is, of the spirit by which
governed.
your
vov<i is
The
mrvevfia,
namely,
is
the higher
man, the moral potvcr ahin to God in him, the seat of moral self-consciousness and of moral self-determination. This irvev/xa, which forms the moral personality of man, the Ego of his higher ^wtj turned towards God, has as the organ of its vital exercise as the faculty of its moral operation the vov'^, that is, the reason in its ethical quality and activity (comp, on Eom. vii. 23), and puts the vov<;^ at the service of the divine will (Eom. vii. 25), in an assent to the moral practice of this divine will revealed in the law and a hatred of the contrary (Eom. vii. 14 if.). But, since this Ego of the higher life, the substratum of the inward man the TTvetfia, in which the vov<i has its support and its determining agent is under the preponderant strength of the power of sin
life-principle in
'
Bengel excellently puts it: " Spirihi mentis:
Cor. xiv. 14, Spiritus est
intimum mentis." Delitzsch consequently errs {Psychol, p. 184) in thinking that expositors have here neglected to seek instruction from 1 Cor. xiv. 14.
250

and weak,
so that
in the flesh non-free, bound,

fleshly -psychical influence
man under
the
of the natural character drawing
him
to sin
TTvevfia
Tov
becomes liable to the slavery of immoral habit, the vo6<i needed renewal unto moral freedom and might,
Avhich consecration of
power
it
receives in regeneration
case,
by
means of the Holy
Spirit, in
which
however, even the

still
regenerate has always to contend against the adp^
remain-
ing in him, but contends victoriously under the guidance of

the divine irvevfia (Gal.
Ver. 24. Observe the
the old
v.
16-18).
cliawje,
man
is
is
the negative
The laying aside of of tenses. commencement of the change, and

;
hence
is
represented as a momentary act
the hecoming reneived
an enduring process, the finishing act of which is the putting on of the ncio man, correlative to the diroOeadat,. Hence
aTToOecrdaL, aorist
;
dvaveovaOai, present ; ivBvaao-Oat, aorist.
is objectivized,
As previously the old immoral state and objectivized indeed as a person, so is it also here with the new Christian moral state. Thus this new hahitns appears as the new man, which God has created
TOV Kaivov avdpwTTov]
(KTiadevra), but
man
appropriates for himself (ivSvaaadai),

is
so that thus moral freedom
creative action.
not annulled by God's ethical
Kria-Oevra']
not
2^'>'csc'jit,
but the new moral

first
hahitics of the Christian is set forth as
the person created by
God, which in the individual cases

growth, but
is received,
is
not
constituted hy
and then exhibits
itself
experimentally
in the case of those
who, according to the figurative expression have put it on. Kara Qeov] Comp. Col. iii. 1 not merely divinely, and that in contrast to human propagation (Hofmann, Schrifthcw. I. p. 289), but: according to God, i.e. ad exemplum Dei (Gal. iv. 28). Thereby the creation of the new man is placed upon a parallel with that of our first parents (Gen. i. 27), who were created after God's image (/car' eiKova TOV Kri'aavro'?, Col. iii. 10); they, too, until through Adam sin came into existence, were as sinless iv BiKaiocrvvr}
of the passage,
Kol ocnoTTjri
t?}? aXrjdela'i}
iv SiKatoa-uvr/ k.t.\.] belongs to
TOV Kara Qeov KTiadivra, expressing the constitidion of the

1
CoBip. Ernesti, Ursprung der Snde, IL p. 135
ff.,
in opposition to Julius
Mller, IL p. 487, who calls in question the identity of contents between the Kara, hey and the original divine imaf]re.
CHAP.
IV. 25.
251
rectitude
new man
and
truth
is
created after
God; furnished, provided with

of the irdTr], ver. 22,
holiness of the truth (on iv, see Matthiae, p.
1340).
The
work,
the opposite
and
like this
its
personified.
so in the
As in new man
the old
man
the 'TraTTj pursues

i.e.
the *A\r}6eia,
the Truth Kar
iô'îjv,
effects
the divine evangelical truth, bears sway, and the moral

of the truth, righteousness
where the truth is personified, as its attributes, which now show themselves in the new man who has been created. The resolving it into an adjective : true, not merely apparent, righteousness and holiness (Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and most expositors), is arbitrary and
holiness, appear here,
and
tame.
And
for
to
take
iv
instrumcntallij
(Morus,
Flatt)
is
and holiness form the ethical result of the creation of the new man hence Beza, Koppe, and others thought that eV must be taken for BiKatoa-vvr} and 6(Ti6rr}<i (comp. Luke i. 75 i9. 1 Thess. ii. 10 Tit. i. 8) are distinguished so, that the latter places rectitude in itself {hiKaioavvrf), in relation to God (sanctitas) to fiev
erroneous,
the
reason
that
righteousness
Tot? ^6049 TrpoacptXe'i oaiov, Plat. Euth. p. 6 E.
See Tittmann,
Synon.
p.
25, and the passages in Wetstein.
With
special
frequency the two notions are associated in Plato.

Ver. 25.
as
On
the ground of what was previously said

of
icrriv
(Sto),
application
aXtjeta
iv
tu>
Îrjaov
aTroOeadaL
vfiî
k.tX. on to ver.
24, there
now
follow various special
That
(not systematically arranged)
exhortations as far as ver. 32.

lay aside lying
the encouragement
to
and
to
speak
tJie
truth stands at the head, appears to be occasioned simply
the last uttered
t%
\r]6eia<;
is
precept {aTrode/xevot)
by and the figurative form of the an echo from what precedes. It is

;
possible also, however, that the prohibitions of lying, wrath,

stealing, as
with
says
they are here given, had their concrete occasion which we are not acquainted. The reasons which
e.g.,
Zanchius,
has discovered, are

:
arbitrary.
And
qui,
Grotius
incorrectly
"
Hoc
adversus
eos
dicit,
ut gratias
captarent aut Judaeorum aut gentium, alia dicebant,

sentirent."
fact, that
quam
The subsequent on
ia-fiev
dWijX.
fieXij
shows, in
ship
of
Christians
Paul has thought merely of the relation of fellowone ivith aîother, and has meant /Ltera
252
Tov
"jrXricriov

aurov of the fdloio-Christian, not of the
(Jerome,
. ,
felloiv-
man
viii.
others).
vv.
and from Zech. 16. ort ia/xev k.t.X.] Motive (reminding them of 12-16). Mcmljcrs one of another, and to lie one to
generally
Estius,
is
Grotius,
Michaelis,
XaXeire
avrov
a reminiscence
another,
fact,
how
contradictory
Reciprocal membership
vital,
is,
in
a connection so intimate and
subsisting in constant
!
mutual furtherance and rendering of service " est enim monstrum, si membra inter se non consentiant, imo si fraudulenter inter se agant," Calvin. Chrysostom shows at great length how the several members of the real body do not deceive one another, and Michaelis repeats it but Paul says nothing of this. Wrjk. fxe\'q'\ mcmlcrs of each other, mutually the one of the other. The same conception is met with Eom. xii. 5, and is not inaccurate (Rckert), since, indeed, in the body of Christ, even as in the physical body, no member exists for itself, but each belonging to each, in mutual union with the other members, 1 Cor. xii. 15 ff. Vv. 26, 27. See Zyro in the Stud. ic. Krit. 1841, p. 681 ff.
opyiêaOe Koi
fir)
afxapTavere'] a precept expressed literally
which it must be left undetermined whether Paul understood the original text^ as the
after the
LXX.
Ps. iv. 5, as to
LXX.
LXX.,
by
did,
or chose
this
form only in recollection of the

the original text.
loithout attending to
To the
right
understanding of the sense (which Paul would have expressed

jx-t] a/jiaprdveTe, or something similar, if that form of expression in the LXX. had not presented " Saepe itself to him) the observation of Bengel guides us vis modi cadit super partem duntaxat sermonis, Jer. x. 24"
opyi^fievoc
definite
(comp, also Isa.

Qiciit.
xii.
f.
Matt.
xi.
25
and see Buttmann,

like
Gr. p.
249
:
[E. T. 290]).
Here, namely, the vis modi
lies
i.
upon the second imperative (comp, passages

vii.
John
47,
52)
be angry a7ul sin not,

so that
i.e.
in anger do not fall
into
1
transgression;
Paul forbids the combination of

1f3"1
The words
of the original,
INOnn'PXI
mean
trrmhle,
and
err not
(Ewald), with which David calls upon his enemies to tremble on account of their iniquities towards him, the favourite of God, and not further to sin. Comp, also Hupfeld in loc. Yet other recent scholars, including Hitzig, have translated, in harmony with the LXX. Be angry, hut offend not.
:
; :
CHAP.
IV. 26, 27.
253
Comp. Matthies " Harless " Be
:
the a/Maprdveiv with the opyiêaBat.

"
In the being angry
let it
not come to sin
angry in the right way, without your sinning."

fore,
Paul, there-
does not forbid the opyllêa-Oai in

it,
itself,
forbid
JioIt/
because there
is
(see
Wuttke,
Sittenl. II.
and could not 243) a

iii.
anger,^
is
which
is
is
is
" calcar virtutis " (Seneca, de ira,
3),
as there
veiv,
also a divine anger; the
opylêaOai kuI afxaprd-
howêver,
not to take place, but, on the contrary,
the opjtêaOac
to be without sin, consequently
an opylêadac
Kul fir) cifMaprdveiv. As regards the substantial sense, the same result is brought out with the usual explanation, but it
is
ii.
usually believed
53.
2,
(and already in
the
is
Constitutt.
Apost.
the passage of the Psalm
so taken)
that the
imperative
may
:
be resolved conditionalitcr in accordance with

if ye
Hebrew usage
are
angry, do
not sin (Isa.
viii.
f.
Amos
So also Koppe, Flatt, Paickert, Holzhausen, Meier, Olshausen, Zyro, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek. But the combination of two imperatives connected by and, like do this,
V. 4, 6, al.).
:
p.
and
live,
Gen.
xlii.
18, comp. Isa.
viii. 9,
a combination, moreover, which
is
and similar passages, not a Hebraism, but a

et
general idiom of language (comp, divide

at all in point here, because
it
impcrd),
is
not
would lead
to the in this case

sin."
absurd analysis: "if ye are angry, ye shall not
Winer,
279
2L
[E. T.
391
f.],
allows the taking of the
first
imperative
in
permissive sense; comp. Krger,

:
54,
(I
4. 2.
In this way
it),
we
should obtain as result
" Ic
angry
cannot hinder
hut only do not sin''
So also de Wette.
No
firj
doubt a perdfiapr. follows,

all
mission of anger, because subsequently kcu
would not be
hostile
in
conflict
;
with
ver.
31, wdiere manifestly

is
anger
is
forbidden
but the mere Kau

permitting
only logically
correct
sense,
when both imperatives

not
the
are thought of in the same
enjoining, in
("
and the latter as which case the combination becomes exceptive only, however "), wdiich would be expressed by aWd, irXrjv,
former
as
^ When, however, Harless would assign to our passage a place "not under the head of anger, but under that of placability," he overlooks the fact that in anger one may commit sin otherwise than by implacability ; and that the following Hxios x.r.x. brings into prominence only a single precept faUiufj under the /*>i LiîtfT. ^
That
this,
however,
is
not meant in ver. 31, see on that verse.
254
or fiovov}

Beza,
:
Piscator,
Grotius,
et
and others take

Against
opyl^.
inUrrogativclij
" irascimini ?
ne feccaUr
tliis
we
cannot urge
Wolf
the Kal, which often in rapid emotion strikes in with some summons (Hrtung, Parlikell. I, p. 148) but we may urge the fact that Paul reproduces a passage of the LXX. (which, it is true, is quite arbitrarily denied by Beza and Koppe) in which opyl^. is imperative, and that such an abrupt and impassioned question and answer would not be in keeping with the whole calm and sober tone of the discourse. fit] dfiapravere] forbids every kind of sinning, to which anger may lead. Zyro, after ISTeander, would limit it to the hostile
;
the
objection usually taken since the time of
relation towards others, which, however, is purely a supplied
thought
in what
(et9
TOP ir\T]aiov, or the

the given precept
like).
6 rfkto'i
BiaoXq)]
not included as belonging to the words of the Psalm, states
way
is to
be carried out
namely,
(1) the irritation must be laid aside on the same day, and 6 ^Xto? fxr) (2) no scope may therein be given to the devil.
iiriBveTco
k.t.X.]
Comp. Deut.
xxiv.
13,
15;
Jer.
xv,
9;
Philo, de Legg. Spec. II, p.
324.
On
the citation of these
words in Polyc. Pltil. 12, see Introd. 3. The iTriBverco is go doivn over your irritation. to be taken Comp, also Hom. II. ii. 413, and Faesi in loc. (Ngelsbach in loc. takes another That the night is here conceived of as the nnrse of view). wrath (Fathers in Suicer, I. p. 1323 Bengel, and others), or
: ;
that the eventide

arbitrarily
of j^royc?'
is
thought of (Baumgarten),
is
Jerome and Augustine interpreted it even of Christ, the Sun of Eighteousness, and Lombard of the The meaning of these words, to be taken sun of reason ! eliroTe quite literally (comp, the custom of the Pythagoreans nrpoa'Ôelev el<i XotSopia^ vir opyrj'i, irplv rj rov rjXtov Bvvat ra^ Beîa^ ifidWovTe^ W7]\oi<i Kai da-iraadfjuevoi BteXvovro,
assumed.
:
Plut. de am. frat. p.

let
1
488
B), is
no other than
before evening
your irritation
This
is
is
he over,
by which the very

is
speedy, undelaycd
no "philological theorizing," but
based on logical necessity.
No
instance can be adduced in which, of two imperatives coupled by xal, the
former
to be taken as concessive
and the second
as preceptive, in contrast to
is
the former.
different
To
refer to Jer. x.
24 as a parallel, as Winer does,
erroneous,
is
for the very reason that in that passage
which,
however, in general
very
from ours
-rXriv,
not
xa't,
is
used.
CHAP.
IV. 26, 27.
255
a"bandoning of anger
is
is
concretely represented.
Trapopytcr/jbo'i
the arousing of wrath, cxacerbatio, from which opyij, as a Comp. LXX. 1 Kings xv. 30, al. lasting mood, is different.
In the Greek writers the word does not occur.
We
9.
may add
See,
that Zanchius and Holzhansen are mistaken in holding the
Trapa in the word to indicate itnrigliteous irritation. the other hand,

e.g.
on
Eom.
x.
19
the excitement hrought upon

tion
us.
Ezek. xxxii.
yu.7?Se]
It denotes
nor
yet, for
the annexa-
of a
new
clause
falling
to
be
added.
See Hrtung,
The Eeccpta fju/jre would so place the I. p. 210. two prohibitions side by side, that they ought properly to be îriTe), but that Paul nor (/xrjre connected by neither had not yet thought of this in the first clause, but had written the simple fxr), and had only at the second clause clianged the conception into such a form as if he had
PartikcU.
.
previously
written
/ijjre
(comp,
our:
not
nor).
This
usage
is
met with
(in opposition to
Elmsley) also in classical

;
writers, although
more rarely (see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 709 Bornemann, ad Xen. Anal. iv. 8. 3, p. 303, Lips.; Maetzu. ad Antiph. p. 195 f.), but not elsewhere in Paul, and hence is
not pi'obable here.
hihore roirov]
i.e.
give scope, opportunity

19.
for being
the devil
;
active.
See on Eom.
xii.
tw
all
iii.
hLao\(p\
to
for he is
it is
denoted by Bi,do\o<i in
6
passages of the
N.
iii.
T.,
where
Tit.
ii.
not an adjective (1 Tim.
11, 12; 2 Tim.
John vi. 70. Hence Erasmus (not in the Paraphr.), Luther, Erasmus Schmid, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Stolz, Elatt, and others (Koppe
3
;
3),
even in 1 Tim.
iii.
is
undecided) are in error in holding that hido\o<i

;
is
here
equivalent to calumniator
view Erasmus thought of the heathen slandering the Christians, to whom they were to furnish no material; and most expositors thought of the tale - hearers nursing disputes, to whom they were not to lend an ear. In an irritated frame of mind passion easily gains the ascendancy over sobriety and watchfulness, and that
in wliich
physical condition
1 Pet. 8
is
favourable to the devil for his

is
work
of
seducing into everything that

V.
;
2 Cor.
ii.
Comp. opposed to God. 11; Eph. vi. 1 1 ff. Harless refers

Paraphr.),
the danger on the part of the devil to the corruption of the

church
- life
(comp.
Erasmus,
the
fellowship
of
256
which, in the absence of placability,
is rent by the devil. But this, as not implied in the context, must have been said by an addition (eV rfj eKKXijcri'a, or the like, after roirov). The name ^LdoXo<; does not occur elsewhere in the undoubtedly
genuine Epistles of the apostle
but
this,
considering the
equally general currency of the two names devil and Satan,
may
be accidental.
Comp,
also
Acts
xiii.
10.
We may
:
add
Sore
that the citation of the Clementines {Horn. xix. 2)

'7rp6(pacnv
fi-q
rw
iTovrjpw,
has nothing to do with our passage (in

I.e.
opposition to Schwegler,
p.
394
f.).
Ver. 28. The stealer
is
no more
to steal.
The
present parti-
ciple does not stand ])ro praetci-ito (Luther,
Erasmus, Grotius,
he
and most of the older expositors, following the Vulgate), but who occujjies himself with stealing. The right view is already As taken by Zanchius; see also Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 444]. there were in the apostolic church foimicators (1 Cor. v. 1), so were there also stealers} and the attempts to tone down the notion are just as arbitrary as they are superfluous.^ The quesEx. tion why Paul does not mention restitution (Luke xix. 8
;
xxii.
p.
Lev.
vi.
Isa. Iviii. 6
Ezek. xxxiii. 1 5
Kke-meTOi
^
Plato, Legg. ix.

effect,
864
it
D
is
f.)
is
not,
with Estius, to be answered to the

/xT/zcert
;
that
contained in
but to the
effect,
that Paul's design
was not
to give
any complete instruction on
the point of stealing, but only to inculcate the prohibition of

the same and the obligation of the opposite (which, moreover,
has
restitution
for
its
self-evident moral presupposition).
The whole exhortation
in this form has, indeed, been regarded
as inappropriate, because not in keeping with the apostolic

strictness (see de Wette), but
1
we have
to observe,
on the other
In connection witli which the appeal to the permission of stealing among
various heathen nations, as among the Egyptians and Lacedaemonians (see Wolf, Ciir.; Mller, Dorier, II. p. 310 f.), is entirely unsuitable in an apostolic epistle with its high moral earnestness. Against such a prejudice Paul would have
written otherwise.
2
See, e.g.,
Jerome: "furtum nominans omne, qtiod

it
alterivs
damno
quaeri-
tur. "
He
approves, moreover, the interpreting
of the furtum spirituale of the
false prophets.
here, etc."
is
Estius: " generaliter positum videtur i^xo fraudare, subtraComp. Calvin and many, as also still Holzhausen. 3 "Nam qui non restituit cum posslt, is adhuc in/urto perseverat." This in itself true, but no reader could light upon such a pregnant meaning of the
. . .
; ;
CHAP.
IV. 29.
257
hand, that Paul elsewhere too contents himself with simple

prohibitions and
commands
(see
e.g.
Eom.
xiii.
13
f.),
the apostolic strictness follows in the sequel

SeJ rather
(v. 5).
fxaXkov
iv. 9.
and that
on
the other
hand, imo
vera,
enhancing in a corrective
See on Gal.
sense the merely negative /xTjKen

KOTTiarco /c.tA.] let
acXcttt.
hands that u'hich is good; in that, by the activity of his hands (instead of his thievish practices), he brings about that whicli belongs to the category of the morally good. Bengel well says " to djaOov antitheton ad furtum prius manu piceata male commissum." iva e^p k.t.X.] The view of Schoettgen, that this applies to the Jewish opinion of the allowableness of theft serving for the support of the poor (Jalk. Ralcni, f. 1 1 0, 4
lahour, in that he worhs ivith his
:
him
147, 1), is indeed repeated by Koppe (comp. Stolz) and Holzhausen, but is considering the general nature
Vajikra
Qrthha,
f.
of the o KkeiTT.
/jLTjKeTL XeTTT.,
addressed, moreover, to readers
mostly Gentile-Christian
according to duty.
not
John
expressed in the words, which

one having need,
rather quite simply oppose to the forbidden taldng the giving
ra>
%peiay eôyTi]
to the
namely, that there

xii.
may
;
be imparted to him.
iii.
24
xii. p.
Mark 965 B.
;
ii.
25
17
Plat. Legg. vi. p.
Comp. 1 Cor. 783 C,
now
Ver. 29. After the three definite exhortations, vv. 25, 26, 28, follow more general and comprehensive ones. Ua?
X0709
that 2
fiT]
iKTTop.']
The negation
is
not to be separated from
the verb.
it
With regard
24
ff.
to every evil discourse, it is enjoined
shall not go forth, etc.
Co7\ p.
See Fritzsche, Diss. II. in

in
aa7rp6<;]
corrupt;
the ethical sense:
worthless (0
firj
rrjv iStav '^petav TrXrjpol,
Chrysostom), pravits
See, in general,
opposite
ayaOb';
7rpb<; olKoSop,7]v t?}? '^(^peia'i.
Lobeck, ad Fhryn.
rt<i
p.
377
t.
f.;
Kypke,
II. p.
297
f.
aXk!
el
ayaOb'i
tt/jo?
oIk.
-^p.]
hut if there is
any
(discourse)
good for the edification of the need, sc, let it proceed from your mouth. On dryado'i with ek, 7rp6<; (Plat. Hep. vii. p. 522 A,
and Stallbaum
olKoSofM7]v
Tr]<i
loe.),
or
infinitive,
denoting a^Dtitude or
serviceableness for anything, see

%/oeia9
Kypke, II. p. 298. does not stand by hypallage

is
rrpb^
for
ek
'^peiav
Trj<i
olKo8ofirj<;
(Beza), but t?}? p^pe/a?
genitive ohjecti
it is the
need just
i^resent,
upon which the edifying (Christianly
Meyer Eph.
258
helpful)

influence of the discourse
r]
is
to
act.
Rckerfc and
Arbitrarily
Olshausen take
%/3et'a for ol
XP^^^v
xovTe<i.
and
to the disturbance of the sense, since in fact everi/ one has
need of
7r/909
edification,
all
consequently
t?)?
%peia9 would
definition of
convey
d<ya6o<i
nothing at
K7rop.
oiKohoix.
e'/c
ar.
characteristic,
'iva
vfx.,
no modal
rot<i
Sw
'^dpiv
aKovovai] aim of the

supplied
i.e.
:
T.
previously conceived as
in
order that
it
(this
discourse)
may
Icstoiu grace,
benefit,
on
the hearers,
may
bring blessing for them.

ii.
Opposite of such
<âvfi
discourses:
UK.),
2 Tim.
14.
Theodoret (iW
heKTo^ roh
Luther, Calovius, Raphel, Kypke, Zachariae, Michaelis,
Koppe, EosenmUer, and others, including Eiickert, Meier, in order that it may afford Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius Comp, also Chrysostom, agreeable, to the hearers. jpleasure, he
:
who compares
%/3eia9,
the discourse to a fragrant ointment.

irpo'i
But, apart
oiKoSo/xrjv
from the fact that discourses, which are good
cannot always be agreeable (1 Cor. vii. 8 ff.), this T^9 interpretation is opposed to linguistic usage, according to which
â/jti' BiSwfii
always
signifies gratificari, to confer
a Mndncss,
to
;
show a service of love, or the Ps. Ixxxiv. 12 [11] Ex. iii. 21

;
like (Jas. iv. 6

;
1 Pet. v. 5
Tob.
i.
13
Soph. Aj.
Plat. Zcgg.
iii.
p.
also in
the passages
1333 adduced by
Wetstein and Kypke). Ver. 30. Connected by /cat with what precedes; hence not, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be separated by a full stop from ver. 29, by which there would result an exhortation And grieve not (which too indefinite in the connection, would take place by means of \6yoi a-airpoC) the Holy Spirit
of God.
that
ii.
Evil discourses are so opposed to the holy nature

Spirit,
and aim of the Divine
who
dwells in the Christians,
He
cannot
fail
ii.
to be grieved thereat.
:
Comp. Hermas,
<jov.
10. 3, as also
jxt]
OXle to
Tvveviia yiov ro iv aol
KaroLKOvv,
fii^TroTe
ivTev^rjraL
tm
Qeco Kat aTroarf} airo

of
An
anthropopathic
Spirit of
conception
the
consciousness,
with
which the
God
is
holily affected, of the incongruity of

;
human
sway
in
action with His holiness
but
how
truly and touch-
ingly in keeping with the idea of the love of God, which bears
His Spirit (Ptom.

of the
v. 5)
The man becomes conscious

Trvev/xa,
of this grieving
divine
when
he,
who has

CHAP.
IV. 31, 32.
259
"become through the atonement and sanctification the dwellingplace of the Spirit, no longer receives from this Spirit the
testimony that he
is
chosen
expression,
The the child of God (Kom. viii, 16). "the Holy Spirit of God" renders the
An allusion, we may enormity of such action most palpable. add, to Isa. Ixiii. 10 is not to be assumed, since in that
passage the irapo^vvetv of the Spirit
<5
is characteristic.
iv
icr(f)pa>y.
:
et?
rjfxepav
aTroXvrp.]
furnishes
motive for the

tlirougli
exhortation
for if
ye have received so great a benefit
the
Holy
Spirit,
!
how wrong
(ungrateful)
is
it
when you
to this
Ixiii.
/x?)
grieve
Him
Harless, following older expositors, finds the

seal here hinted at.
yu,^
possibility of losing the
But
Xu7re4T6 points less naturally than
ek VH'^Piacppay.'] quite as at i. 13. day of redemption; when at the Parousia for the certainty of the deliverance unto salvation, indicated by As to aTroXvTpcoai^;, comp, on i(T(f)pay., becomes reality.
would point
d'jrdX.vTp.']
to
it.
irapo^vvere (Isa.
1 0)
the
i.
Luke xxi. 28 also Eom. viii. 23. Vv. 31, 32. TIiKpia] Bitterness, i.e. fretting spitefulness, Acts See Wetstein, ad Rom. iii. 14 Loesner, viii. 23 Jas. iii. 14. As to Olss. p. 344 f.; Wyttenbach, ad Plut. Mor. VI. p. 1033. the distinction between u/ao? {eltdlition of anger) and op'yrj, see The context shows, we may add, on Eom. ii. 8 Gal. v. 20. hence there is that here loveless and hostile anger is meant which Kpavyrj] clamour, no inconsistency with ver. 26.
14
hostile passion breaks out, Acts xxiii. 9.^

" verba,
\aa(j)7]/iia] not:
;
quae Dei honorem
laedunt," Grotius
but,
in
accordance with the context, evil-speaking against the brethren,
comp. Col.
KaKia]
is
iii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 4; Matt. xii. 31, xv. 19. here not badness in general, vitiositas (Cic. Tusc.
iv.
15. 34), but, in

spite,
malice,
harmony with the connection, the special Eom. i. 29 Col. iii. 8. This is the leaven of
the iTiKpia K.T.X
jiveaOe] not
See the pdr}T(o d<f v/x(ov. '^prjaroC] kind. Col. iii. 12. Tittmann, Synon. pp. 140, 195. The conjecture that the word contains an allusion to the name Christians (Olshausen), is an
arbitrary fancy.
be,
but become, in keeping with
evam'Xay'xyoi] compassionate.
and the passages from the
Comp. Manass.
Test.
1 Pet.
iii.
'
8,
All. Pair.
Chrysostom
calls the xpavyn the steed of anger.
2G0
in
Kypke, 'xâpi^fievoc] forgiving, 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xii. 13. The explanation donantcs (Vulgate), largicntcs (Erasmus), is not
in keeping with the context.
See on Col.
iii.
12.
kayTohl equivalent to
/c.r.X.]
oXkrjkoi'^.
/caow? koX 6 &v<;
Motive
to
the
Ya/?t^. eavT.,
from their own experience of the archetypal conMatt.

vi.
duct of God.
Christ, in
1 4,
xviii.
2 1 ff
iv Xpiaroi]
in
whose self-surrender to the death of atonement the 2 Cor. act of the divine forgiveness was accomplished, i. 6 f.
;
V. 19.
CHAP.
V.
261
CHAPTEE
Ver.
2. i'xas
.
Y.
v/xuv.
9J//.SJv]
Tisch.
viâg
But the witnesses
unequal value and not strong enough, specially as the pronoun of the second person naturally presented itself Ver. 4. x/ alsxP- "'] A D* E* F G, min. from the context. Sahid. Vulg. It. and Fathers of some importance v aiayj. n. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Eck., and rightly so the Recejpta appears to be an old alteration in accordance with ver. 3, where also it is only at the third vice that n comes ra oux av/izovra] A B N, S* has y.ai alcyj. ri, as also Syr. p. in. So Lachm. ov-/. avT^xiv. 31, 67, 73, Clem. Antioch. Ephr. Cyr. commended also by Griesb. An interpretation, and Pdich. probably occasioned by the fact that the following XXd i.l3X>.ov
for this are of
Ver. 5. as the contrast to rd o-j-a. dvyj-Mnra. in opposition to far preponderant evidence. Defended, it is true, by Matth. (" pluribus Graecis in mentem venire poterat '/'an "), but evidently a mechanical mis writing or
royap.
was regarded
:
/We] Elz.
lar's,
alteration; rejected also bylieiche.
os
hnv
/'6wXo>.a7-p>]?]
Lachm.,
following only B N, 67** lect. 40, Cyr. Jer., has iarm ilduXoF G, Vulg. It. Xarpris, which Mill and Griesb. recommended. Goth. Victorinus, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster have o knv iidoj}.oJ.arpiia. By the latter the original o; senv ilduXoXdrpj^g, which seemed to require an explanation, that it might not be mis-
understood, was explained, and subsequently eIdu7ô}.dTpi^c was Ver. 9. (purg] restored, whereby the reading of Lachm. arose. Gloss Elz. Matth. mi-Jfj.aToc, in opposition to decisive witnesses. min. Chrys. ms. from Gal. v. 25. Ver. 17. svmvrsg] Damasc. Jer. ffvvhn. So Lachm. and Pick. Harless, however, has vvivTig, after D* F G. The latter, though doubtless to be accented cwiovreg (see on Eom. iii. 11), is as the less common form to be preferred the imperative is a gloss from the context, supported by no version. Ver. 19. Tviv/ji,aTr/.aTg] is wanting only It in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., and is bracketed by Lachm. might have been introduced from Col. iii. 16 ; but the evidence for its omission is too weak, and the omission might easily be occasioned by the homoeoteleuton. h r^ xapBia] Lachm. and Rck. iv raTg zapdlaig, after important witnesses (not B). But the plural would in itself very naturally occur to the copyists,
AB,
262
and
still
more from the comparison

:
Xpt0Tov]
Avldcli
Elz.
&SOV, in
Ver. 21. of Col. iii. 16, opposition to decisive witnesses, among
G, codd. of It. add 'irieoZ, some before, some after Mill already rightly judges that (poog loD was the more cwTew^ conception, whereby 0so(lv: x-jp/oy) was brought in; ipcog Ver. 22. After vdpdaiv, Elz. xpt(fTov does not occur elsev/here. Scholz have WoTdaids, and Lachm. u'Troraaa'sedumv. The latter in N, min. Copt. Vulg. Goth. Clem, (once) Basil, accordance with lect. 19, It. Syr. have Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag. These diversities only conthe Rccepta, but Icfore roTg Id/oig. firm the probability that the verb was originally wanting, as The also B, codd. Gr. in Jer. Clem, (once) have no verb. verb, deleted by Tisch, and rejected by Eeiche, is an expedient Ver. 23. d\/7jp (Elz. 6 dvr^p) and aOro; to help the construction. although xoci a-jTog tan) rest on decisive critical evidence (Elz. Eeiche again defends the Rece].)ta, which is a smoothing of the Ver. 24. Ihkig] is, following B D* E* E G N, min. codd. text. It., with Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted as an addition from ver. 22. B N, min. Clem. Orig. Cyr., Ver. 25. savrciv] is wanting in But if anything Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch, and Ptiick. were added to yumTxag, it would be most natural to add Ibiag from ver. 22. The v/xuv read in E G (Vulg. It. etc. vestras) is an explanation of kavruv, and tells in favorer of this, the dropping out of which is to be explained from its superfiuousness. Ver. 27. a\jT(>g'] Elz. aWnv, in opposition to far preponderating testimony altered from a failure to understand the emphatic a-org. Ver. 28. Lachm. has rightly adopted, on decisive authoavbp9.g o^siXovSiv. B has the order ovTug of. xai rity, ouTug xai u avdpog. Ver. 29. Instead o^ Xpiarog, Elz. has xvpwg, in opposiVer. 30. s'x r^g capxog ahrov xat Jx rciv tion to decisive evidence. T. auTou] is wanting in B s* 17, 67** al., Copt. Aeth. Method. and perhaps Ambrosiast. Deleted by Lachm., suspected also by Mill and Griesb., defended by Pteiche. The omission has arisen either from mere accident, by passing in the process of copying from the first ahroZ innnediately to the third, or more probably through design, from want of perceiving the suitableness of the words in the context, and judging their meaning inappropriate. If they had been added from the LXX. Gen. ii. 23, we should have found written X tmv darsuv avrou -/.al sx rr^g capxog avTOu. Ver. 31. Tov <Kar. auroU x. r. /ajjt.] Lachm. and Tisch, on preponderant testimony have merely iraTipa xa/ ij^^rspa. Eightly the t^; rriv yw^ Lachm. and Eiick. Bccepta is from the LXX. rri yvmtxi, in accordance doubtless with many and considerable witnesses (not B), but an alteration in conformity with the LXX. (according to A, Aid.) and Matt. xix. 5.
the Xp.
DEF
D EEG,
o't
CHAP.
V.
1, 2.
263
Contents.
Exliortation to the imitation of God, to love,
as Christ through
His
sacrificial
death has loved us (vv.
1, 2).
Warning
against unchastity, avarice, and other vices, inasmuch
as they exclude from the Messianic
kingdom
(vv. 35).
readers are not to let themselves be deceived by
The empty words,

for,
and not
to
hold fellowship with the vicious
as those
who from
being dark have become Christianly enlightened,
they are under obligation to walk accordingly, and to have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but rather to rebuke
them, which
is
a course as necessary as
it is
salutary (vv. 6-14).
They are therefore to be careful in their walk as wise (vv. 1 5-1 7), and not to become drunken, but to become full of the Holy Spirit, which fulness must express itself by alternate utterance in psalms and hymns, by singing praise in the silence of the heart, and by continual Christian thanksgiving towards God
(vv.
1820).
Subject the one to the other in the fear of
husbands true Chris2124), and the men to their wives true Christian love (vv. 2533), in connection with which, however, the wife owes reverence to the husband (ver. 33). Vv. 1, 2. If Paul has just said KaO)<; kol 6 eo? i-âpla-aro vfiLv, he now, on the ground of these words (ovv), suras up under one head the duty of love expressed in detail, iv. 32, and that as imitation of God by a loving walk, such as stands in appropriate relation to the love shown to us by Christ, which serves
Christ, the wives are to render to their
tian subjection (vv.
as pattern for our conduct.
With
this is expressed the specific
character
and
degree of the love required as
an imitation of
God (John
xiii.
34, xv. 13).

6
Accordingly, ver. 1 corresponds
to the KaOco'i KoX

ver. 2 to the iv
Xpiarm
0609 iv Xp. i'âpiaaro as a whole, and in particular; ^îveade ovv at the
same time corresponds emphatically

iv.
32, introducing in another form

ver.
words of
fylveaOe Be.
32
o)?
to
the yivecrde Be
of
flowing from the last
the same
thing as was introduced by

children,
reKva <ya7r^ in accordance with your rela-
tion
to
God
as
His
Vater
beloved
yairijrd
denotes
is
neither amahiles (Zanchius), nor good, excellent children, nor

it
to be said with
;
" ut solent liberi, qui tu7ic diligun-
tur " but, what a love has

(1
John
iii.
Rom.
v. 8, 5, al.)
God shown to us by the vlodea-la Now, to be God's beloved

I
"
264
child,

and not
V.
to
become
!
like the loving Father,

vi.
how
iv.
is
con7
ff.
tradictory were this
See Eom.
ff.
John
Matt.
of in
45.
Yet the
consist,
with Paul only here.
exi^rcssion
/cat]
" imitators of
God"
found
annexes wherein this imitation

love is
God must
which
namely, therein, that

ns.
the element
Christ
their life-walk takes place
has displayed towards

proof of the
ii.
love, such as also

k.t.X.]
v.
koI irapeScoKev
ver.
Practical
'^jd'jTijaev.
Comp.
25; Eom.
8 f
Gal.
Paul might have written Trapia-TTjaev, but wrote TrapiScK., because he thought of the matter as a self-surrender. The notion of saci-ice does not lie in the verb, but in the attributes (in opposition to Hofmann's objection). We may add that with TrapeS. we have not to supply el<i Odvarov (Grotius, Hadess, and others), but tw ew (which Bengel,
20.
Hofmann, and others with

0v(Tiav) belongs to
it,
less simplicity attach to
irpoacf). k.
to the connecting of
which with
et? oafiijv
evcoSia^ (Luther,
is
Koppe, Meier, Harless) the order of the words
18
opposed (comp. Ex. xxix. 18; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, xxiii. 1.3, Gen. viii. 21), since the emphatic prefixing of tw @ea>,
;
belonged to ek oafi. evcoS., would be quite without reason, inasmuch as there is not any kind of contrast (for instance, to
if it
human
satisfaction) in the case.
N".
virep
rjp,o)v]
for our hehalf,
in order to reconcile us to God.

of a sacrifice, under
Christ,^
V. 6
;
The idea
lies
of substitution is
not expressed in the preposition,^ but
in the conception
which the
irpoaôpav
(n?);) is
T.
represents the death of
and
that, indeed, as co:piatory sacrifice.
Gal.
iii.
13.
See on Eom.
k.
Ovacav] as an offering and
a
as
sacrifice.
;
The
latter
a more precise definition of the
former
which is brought an offering, whether it be bloody or unbloody ("^C^P). Comp. Ecclus. xiv. 11. Of the sacrifice of Christ, also Heb. x. Harless explains the joining of the two substantives 10, 14.
for
irpoaôpd
is
everything in general
to the effect that

(dvcriav),
Christ, as
He
loas
a sacrifice for
others
also presented himself as
But, apart from the fact

'
an offering {irpaaôpav). that thus Paul must logically have
Rom. I. p. 459 f. In opposition to Hofmann, Schrifthew. II. 1, p. 383 f., who makes the apostle merely say, " that Christ has gone the way of death, in order as our well-pleasing representative to come to God.
See also van Hengel, ad
2
CHAP.
V.
1,
2.
2G5
;
written vaiav
k.
7rpoa(f)opdv (as in Ps. xl. 7
Heb.
x. 5), both
words, in
fact, state
in
loliat
character Christ presented Himself
to God, both express the objective relation, while the subjective
relation of Christ is
et9 6a/j,r}v eucoS/a?] so that it became for Comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. Him an odour of fragrance, figurative designation of its aeecptableness to God (Phil. iv. 18), after the Hebrew nn''J-n''i (Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, ii. 12, iii. 5), which was the original real, anthropo-
conveyed in TrapiScoKev eavrov
virep
rj/jicov.
pathic basis of the idea of the acceptableness of a sacrifice to
God.
course
See Gen.
viii.
21
Ewald,
^//6r?!7i. p.
31.
The underlying
notion of the burning of that which was offered did not of
come
into account in the case of

is
the IXaaTrjpLov of
in the sacrificial
its
Jesus, but the thought of the expression
designation of the atoning deed independent of
origin.^
Comp, on the expression itself the Homeric Kv[crcrri<i ^ySu? avrjjbri, Od. xii. 369. The question whether Christ is here in reality presented as an expiatory sacrifice, or merely as one who in His self-surrender well-pleasing to God has left us a pattern (so Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 113; Eiickert), has been raised by the Socinians (see Catech. Racov. 484, ed. Oeder, p. lOOG), who denied the former (see also Calovius, Bihl. ill. p. 716 f.), is decided not merely by vTrep rjfxwv, but by the view prevailing throughout the N. T., and specially with Paul, of the death of Jesus as the IXaarrjpLov, Eom. iii. 25 (comp, also Matt. XX. 28, xxvi. 28 1 Pet. i. 18 1 Tim. ii. 6), which also is contained here in Ovaiav (comp. Lechler, apost. und nachapost. Zeitalter, p. 77 Ebrard, Lehre von der stellvertret. Genugth. G8 ff. Philippi, Dogm. IV. 2, p. 294 ff.). Certainly the main p. point in the connection of our passage is the love displayed by
Christ,
but the practical proof of this love

it
is
represented as
that which
in
just really loas, namely, as expiatory sacrifice
opposition to which
the
iv.
addition et9 oap,.
evwZ.,
which
in the O. T., save in Lev.

sage,
31
(see,
with regard
to this pas-
Gehler in Herzog's Encyld. X.

is
expiatory sacrifices,
apart from Lev.
I.e.
Christ offered up Himself, consequently His

<r^
tluoia.;,
p. 648), is not used of not to be urged, inasmuch as even
expiatory sacrifice was at the same time a voluntary offering.

^ Without that which is symbolized iu would not have been propitiatory.
the sacrifice of Chiist
260
Ver,
tion.'
3.

Ae] leading over
of heathendom.
to another portion of the exhorta-
aKaOapala and
vices
ifKeove^La, quite as at iv. 19, the
two
main
The
latter
thus
is
here neither
insatiability in lust, as
Heinsiiis (controverted
Estius, Locke,
de foen. Trap. p.
121
ff.),
by Salmasius, Baumgarten, Michaelis,
Zachariae, and others would take

stibulis,
it, nor " imprimis de j'quae sunt vulgato corpore, ut quaestum lucrentur," ij] is not equivalent to /cat Koppe, Stolz, but avarice. (Salmasius, Schleusner), nor yet explicative (Heinsius), but disjunctive, separating another vice from the correlative iropvela Ka\ iraca ciKaOapaia (comp. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 275 f.);
:
neither fornication and every kind of unclean ness, nor avarice,
nor shanielessness
VTriBetê,
(ver. 4), etc.

;
ixrjZe
ovo/xaêaOo)
Toiv
iv v/xip]
elprj/nevcov
not once he na7ned, etc.
lKavoi<i
to /xvaapov
ri]^
Kol avra<; avTOiV 7rpoar)<yopia<i
fivijfir]^
eôplaai
KeXeuaa^, Theodoret.
Comp.
ver. 12,
Dio Chrys.
v/juv.
p.
ardcriv Se ovBe ovo/xdêiv aîou irap'
Herod,
360 B: i. 138
eêcrri.
aaa Be (t<^l iroLeew ovk Dem. 1259, 17: a, koI

irpeTrec
eêari,
ravTa ovSe Xejeiv

oKvyâaiiJb
civ.
ovop^dêiv
Ka6co<i
07/0^9] namely, that these vices should not once be

(Plat.
Eej).
So ala-^pa ovofiara mentioned among them. p. 344 B, and Stallbaum in loc.) are they
Gorg. p,
Ver. 4. Ala'x^poTqî] abomination, disgraceful conduct. Plat.
525
A.
Most
expositors, including Eckert, Meier,
Holzhausen, Olshausen (not Matthies and Harless), limit it to disgraceful utterances, but without warrant of linguistic usage
(this
V.
would be ala^poXoyia,
see Col.
iii.
Xen. de
rep. Lac.
6; Aristot. de rep. vii. 17; Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3); or in the context, in which it is only the following elements
that contain the unchristian speaking.
/xwpoXojla]
is
the
Antig. de Mirab. 126: carrying on of insi2nd, foolish talk. fjba)po\(ojla<i KOL dhoXea-'^la'i, Arist. H. A. i. 11; Plut. Mor.
504 A.
evrpaireKial signifies properly ready versatility (from
ev), urbanity ; then specially a witty, jesting manner; bad sense, as here, the witticism oi frivolity, scurrilitas. and in a See in general, Wetstein ad loc; Dissen, ad Find. p. 180; ra ovk v7]K0VTa] as that which Krger on Thuc. iL 41, 1, Comp. Winer, pp. 221, 338 f. [E. T. 610]. It is unseemly. refers only to fMcopoXoyia and evrpaireXia, since for ata^poT7]<i
Tpeirw and
CHAP.
V.
5.
267
and
such a characteristic description would be entirely superfluous, dWa jxaXkov evâpiaria points back merely to those
oris.
peccata
firjSe
dXka /xaWov evâptcrrla]

iv
vfMtp
is
From
tlie
preceding
ovo/jbaêadco
we have
here to supply eaTO) or
ycv(T6(
iu
vjjuv,
which
contained therein, in
accordance
e^%awith a well-known brachylogy, Khner, II. p. 604. pLaria is, according to standing usage (comp, also Loesner, Ohss. p. 345 f.), not gracefulness of speech, as Jerome, Calvin,^
Salmasius,
Cajetanus,
Hammond,
it,
Semler,
Michaelis,
"Wahl,
Meier, and others would take
which would be evâpi, but
giving of thanks, in which case there results a contrast far more in keeping with the Christian character and the pro-
foundly vivid piety of the apostle (comp. Col.

1 Thess. V. 18).
Christ),
ii.
7, i.
15,
17
Ghâtitude toivarcls
God
(for the salvation in

is
expressing itself in their discourse,
to supersede
among
sanctify
Christians the two faults before mentioned, and to

their
oral
intercourse.
"Linguae abusui opponitur
sanctus et tamen laetus usus," Bengel.

refers it
Morus erroneously
" the
to
thanksgiving towards
othei^s ;
language of
ver.
courtesy"
Ver.
5.
Paul returns to the vices mentioned
assigns the reason for their prohibition.
3,
and
iVre îvuxTKovTe^']
indicative; Paul appeals to the consciousness of the readers,
which, considering their familiarity with the principle laid
down, was at
all
events more natural to him, and more in keepCastalio, Vatablus,
ing with the destination as a motive (yap), than the imperative

sense (Vulgate, Valla,
Estius,
Erasmus Schmid,
Ptckert,
Grotius,
Wolf,
Bengel,
Koppe,
Matthies,
is
Olshausen, Bleek, and others).
The
participle,
however,
not
here to be explained from the well-known
Hebrew and Greek
mode of connecting the finite verb with its participle (Winer, 317 f. [E. T. 446]), inasmuch as <îv<ii(JK. is another verb; but it denotes the way and manner of the knowing.^ Tra? ovic %t] See on iv. 29, and Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 209].
p.
' " Sermones nostros vera suavitate et gratia perfusos esse debere, quod fiet, miscebimus utile dulci." ^ This you are aware of frovi your own knov)leclge, so that I need not firct to instruct you with regard to it, that, etc. Comp, the classic opv xa.) kxaviu^, tila., Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 14. Tout thus applies to the following on, not to ver. 3 f., as "Winer maintains. See Khner, II. 631. 2.
si
2G8
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPIIESIAIsS.
09 eariv elZcoXokdrprjî] applies to tlie covetous man, whom Paul declares in a metaphorical sense to be an idolater, inasmuch as such an one has made money and property his god, and has fallen away from the service of the true God
(comp. Matt.
vi.
24).
Comp.
Phil.
iii.
19
Col.
iii.
and the
passages from Philo and the Eabbins, which express the same
mode
find
of regarding covetousness
and other
vices, in
Wetstein,
Schttgen,
Horae,
p.
779.
;
Doubtless
bring
iropvela
and
ciKaOapaia are also subtle idolatry

avarice does Paul, here and at Col.
relief, in
but only with regard to

5,
it
iii.
into special
this felt
order with thoroughly deterrent force to
make
Kar
eô'^7]v as antichristian
(comp. 1 Tim.
vi. 1 0).
For Paul, in
27)
particular,
whose
all-sacrificing self-denial (2 Cor. vi. 10, xi.
stood so sharply contrasted with that self-seeking passion, such
a peculiar branding of wXeoveîa was very natural.
Zachariae,
Koppe,^
]\Ieier,
Harless, as also Fritzsche {dc conformat. N. T.
I. 1841, p. 46), refer 09 eariv elScoX. to cdl three Unnecessary deviation from that which after the singidar of the relative must most naturally suggest itself to the reader, and opposed to the parallel Col. iii. 5, where rjTi<i iarlv elSooXoXarpeia has its reference merely to the ifkeoveîa assured by the use of the article Tr]v TrXeove^tav, and it is only afterwards that the comprehension of the before-named vices by means of the neuter plural St' comes in, ovk ejêt Kkrjpovopbiav] Comp, on i. 11. By means of the present tense the certain future relation is realized at present. See Bernhardy, p. 371, iv rfj acriX. rov Xpiarov k. 0eov\ for the Messianic kingdom belongs to Christ ami God, since Christ and God shall have the government of this kingdom, Christ opens it at His Parousia, and rules it under the supreme dominion of God (1 Cor. XV, 27) until the final consummation, where-
critica Laclmi.
sulrjccts.
upon He
24, 28),
yields
it
up
to
God
as
the sole ruler (1 Cor, xv.
But, after Beza,
Zanchius, Glass, Bengel

" of
(comp,
it,
also Calovius), Eiickert
and Harless have explained

:
on
the ground of the non-repetition of the article

ivho is
^
Him,
Christ
and God,"
so that Christ is here spoken of as
literal
Koppe, we may add, allows a choice between two arbitrary alterations of the meaning. The sense in his view is either " quae quidem flagitia regnant " as little as an idolater." inter gentiles idololatras," or
: :
CHAP.
V.
6.
269
God.^
Incorrectly, since 0eo9 liad no need of an article (see

p.
Winer,
9,
110
;
f.
[E. T.
10, XV. 50
Gal. v. 21),
151]; comp. aaCkeia Oeov, 1 Cor. vi. and Christ, in accordance with the
monotheism of the apostle (comp. iv. 6), could not he by him 0eo9 in the absolute sense, and never has See on Eom. ix. 5 Col. at all heai called by him 0eo9. Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. p. 203 f. The ii. 2. designation of the kingdom as aacXeia of Christ and oj God is climactic (comp, on Gal. i. 1), and renders the warning element more solemn and more powerful to deter, through the contrast with the supreme holiness of the kingdom.^ On the
strict
called
proposition
Ver.
against
6.
comp. GaL v. 21. Let no one deceive you with empty vjords
itself,
In those
whom
the warning
is
here given, Grotius sees partly
heathen philosojjhcrs, partly Jews, which last " omnibus Judaizantibus,
quomodocunque
;
vixissent,
partem fore dicebant in
seculo altero
Olshausen (comp. Bleek) thinks of frivolous Christians of antinomian sentiments, who would in future emerge; j\Ieier, oi teachers of Gentile tendencies. In accordance with the context (eVt tou? VLOv<i Tr]<i aireiOeia^, <Tv/j,fxero'ôc
"
jdp irore a-K6ro<i) we have to nnderstand Gentiles remained unhelicving, who in their intercourse with the Christians sought to palliate those Gentile vices, to give
avTOiv, TjTe
2vho have
them out
as matters
of indifference, to represent abstaining
from the same as groundless rigour, and thereby to entice back the Christians to the Gentile life. Their discourses were K6V0L, inasmuch as the corresponding contents, i.e. the truth, was wanting to them. Comp. Col. ii. 8 LXX. Ex. v. 9, al.;
;
Plat.
Hom. Od. xxii. 249, and the passages in Ivypke, II. p. 2 9 9 f. also KevoXoyia, empty talk, Plut. Mor. p. 1069 C KevoXojetv, Isa. viii. 19. Bia Tavra yap k.t.X.] for certainly very serious consequences follow these vices on account of these vices {8ia ravra emphatically prefixed) comes (down) the wrath of God upon the disobedient, for this vicious conduct piles up the load of
Lach. p.
196 B; Dem. 821, 11

;
^ Yet Eiickert is of opinion, inconsistently enough, that the qiiestion whether Paul in reality here meant it so cannot be decided, because he is not here speaking of Christ in general, but only incidentally making mention of His kingdom. ^
Comp,
also Ernesti, Urspr. d.
Snde,
I. p.
207
f.
270
guilt one

day
to receive
punishment (Eom.
ii.
5),
from which
they could be liberated only by means of faith in Christ, the despising of whom leaves them to abide under the wrath of
God and
to
encounter the judicial execution of
it.
To
refer
Tuvra to the deceiving with empty words (Chrysostom places comp. Theophylact and both explanations side by side since Oecumenius), has against it not so much the plural ravra often also in classical writers denotes (see Winer,
;
p.
146
[E. T,
aggregate of
its
201]) one notion or thought (according to the several marks) as ratlier the unsuitability of
iii.
the sense in itself and to the following

as well as to the parallel Col.
6.
firj
ovv 'ylveaOe k.tX.
r]
opjrj tov
Oeov] Not
the punishment of the present life is meant (Calvin, Meier, and others Matthies combines present and future), since the
;
opjT}
TOV &ov
is
the opposite of the aaiXeia, ver. 5

the
but the
wrath of God in
ver. 5, is
viol
Trj<i
day of judgment, which Comp. 1 Thess. realized as present.

God.
It
is
future, as in
i.
10.
The
Comp.
uTretO. are
here those refusing faith to the gospel, and

otherwise
ii.
thereby disobedient to
2.
Eom.
xi.
30, xv. 31.
Ovv] since on account of these sins, etc. avfjLfii' Toxot avTMv] avroiv can, in keeping with the context, only be referred to the vlov'i t^9 aireiO., whose co-partners the Christians become, if they p)ractise the same sins, whereby they fall 2 Pet. iii. 17) from the state of reconciliation (Eom. xi. 22 interpretation and incur the divine op'yri (ver. 5). Koppe's " ejusdem cum \\q fortmiae compotem fieri," is an importation As to crv/xfjiiat variance with the context (see vv. 8-11). on iii. 6. T0')(p^, see Ver. 8. Eeason assigned for the exhortation just given For your former state of darkness (with which those vices were in keeping) is past ; now, on the other hand, ye are Christianly enlightened as befits such, let your walk be. r)re\ prefixed with significant stress, has the force of a ground assigned as praeterite, just as at Eom. vi. 17. Eckert incorrectly holds that Paul has omitted fîv, which is at variance
Ver.
7.
;
:
with good composition.

ground, and that in the
relation to that
The non-use
fact,
of /xiv has its logical

is
that the clause

it
not conceived in
which thereupon confronts
by Se
Just so in

CHAP.
V.
9.
271
classical writers,
Anah.
Klotz,
iii.
4.
41
where fiiv seems to be wanting. See Krger, Bornemann, ad Cyrop. iii. 2. 12, Goth.
;
;
ad Devar. p. 356 f. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 388. 0-/C0T09] Abstractum pro concreto, to make the designation the stronger (Khner, 11. p. 25 f.) dark, by wiiich the opposite vvv Ze k.tX^ of the possession of divine truth is denoted.
:
now on
be
!
the other hand, since your conversion,
how
entirely
different is it with you,
how
entirely different
must your walk
Light in the Jjord are ye, i.e. furnished with divine truth your fellowship with Christ, in whom, as the source and giver of light (ver. 14), ye live and move. Comp. i. 18.
in
609
TeKva
(j)o)T6<i]
as
children
v.
of
light,
i.e.
;
as enlightened
ones.
Comp.
Thess,
As such they
Without ovv
energy.
are
now
to
Luke xvi. 8 show themselves

5
;
John
in
xii.
36.
their
walk.
greater
the
exhortation
comes
Plat.
in
with
the
;
Comp. Stallbaum, ad
II. p.
Gorg. p.
510 C
Dissen,
ad Find. Exc.
Ver.
9.
276.
incitement
to
Parenthetic
the
observance of the
preceding summons, by holding forth the glorious fruit which

the
(ver.
Christian
illumination
bears
BoKc/u,dôvTe<;
is
then
accompanying definition to irepnrarelre, and the îT] crv<yKocvo)vlr, ver. 11, continues the imperative form of address. For taking the participle of ver. 10 as grammati10)
cally incorrect in the sense of the imperative (Bleek, following
is absolutely no ground. yap] for, not the merely explanatory numelg, which introduces into the whole
Koppe) there
paraenetic chain of the discourse something feeble and alien.
iii.
d Kapiro'i
rov
(f)coT6<i]
indicates in a figurative
manner the
aggregate of the moral effects {Kapir6<i collective, as in Matt.
8; Phil.
so
;
its result.
i(TTL,
XV.
14
fruit is
^
i. 11) which the Christian enlightenment has as Comp, on Gal. v. 22.^ iv irdcrrj ayadcoavvr]] sc. that every kind of probity (ayadooa:, see on Eom. Gal. v. 22), etc., is thought of as that, in which the contained (consists). Comp. Matthiae, p. 1342.
Where what
as
is
here termed
xap'r. toZ (fiuros is called xap'r. roZ
'^rviuf/.a.To;.
Not
though
-jttivfia,
and
(fi
were one and the same thing (Delitzsch, Blhl.
Psychol, p. 390), but the Spirit, through whom God and Christ dwell in the heart, Eom. viii. 9, pr-odwces the (p; in the heart (2 Cor. iv. 6 ; Eph. i. 17 f.), so that the fruit of the Spirit is also the fruit of the light, and vice versa. Nor is
the fruit of the word sown upon the good ground anything dilferent.
272
BiKaioavvrj]
Phil.
i.

moral
1
rectitude,
11/
akrjela]
Cor.
Horn.
vi.
13, xiv. 17.
See on
moral
v.
truth, oifposed
to hypocrisy as
John iii. 21. which together embrace the vjJiolc of Christian morality, and that under the three different points of view "good, right, true," forbids the assumption of more special contrasts, as e.r/. in Chrysostom ayaOooa. is opposed to wrath, BtKaioa: to seduction and deceit,
ethical
-x/reOSo?,
Phil.
i.
18,
iv.
The general nature
of
these
three words,
a\.7}9.
to
lying.
Others present the matter otherwise
see
Theophylact, Erasmus, Grotius.

Yer. 10. AoKLîdôvre^'] after the
parenthesis in ver. 9, a
modal
definition of the
walk
called for in ver. 8,
which
is
is to
be prosecuted under a searching consideration of what

pleasing to
well-
Christ (tc5 Kvptui), as to which subjectively the
Christian conscience (Eom. xiv. 23) and objectively the gospel

of Christ
(iv.
20
;
Comp.
ver.
15
Eom. i. 16 Eom. xii. 2

;
Phil.
i.
27) give the decision.
1 Thess. v. 21.
Ver. 11. ^vyKoivoiveiTe] have not fellowship with (the disobedient) in the vjorhs of darJcness (comp. ver. 7
;
and
as regards
the dative, see on Phil.

are wrought
iv.
14),
i.e.
in those works,
in
consequence
of spiritual darkness
to divine truth.
i.
which
of
the
ethical frame of
xiii.
mind opposed
21), the
1 5).
Comp. Eom.
rfj'i
12.
They
(Gal.
v.
are the pya irovrjpd (Col.
21), the 'ipya

vi.
(TapKo<i
daeela'i (Jude
roh
22,
5).
veKpa epya (Heb.

a/capTTot?]
]io
1),
the epya
the non-fruitful ones,
inasmuch, namely, as they draw

perdition which they have as
Gal.
vi.
blessing after them.
result
is
(Eom,
vi.
21,
viii.
The 13
;
Eph.
iv.
al.)
conceived as negation of
Comp, epya veKpd, Heb. vi. 1, imo adeo. See on Gal. iv. 9 Eom. ix. 34. Bengel well remarks " non satis i\ey')(ere\ reprove them (these works), which abstinere est." are not passed over in silence and is done when they indulgently excused, but are held up with censure to the doer, and have their immorality discovered and brought This chastening home, in order to produce amendment.
blessedness (comp. ver.
ix.
14.
/xXXov Se
;
/cat]
hut rather even,
reproof
^
is
an oral one, since the context does not intimate

i.
According to Phil.
11, the Christian
moral rectitude has again

life.
its Kxpvs
in the several Christian virtues, which are the expressions of its
CHAP.
V.
12.
273
anything else
vita,"
ct
not one de facto
("
sancta nimiriim et honesta
Beza
factis "
comp. Erasmus, Cameron, Zanchius), not " dictis comp. Theophyhact, Photius, Caloviiis, (Bengel
;
Holzhausen, Olshausen, and others).

xvi. 8
;
Comp, on John
iii.
20,
1 Cor. xiv. 24.
Ver.
e\e7;êTe,
12 assigns the reason for the demand just expressed, by pointing to what quite specially needed the
iXejx^cv,
by
pointing to the
secret
vicious acts of the un-
which are so horrible, that one must feel ashamed Thus, consequently, the iXeyx^"^^ even but to mention them. has its ground assigned as concerns its great necessity/. Kpv(})'^] not elsewhere in the N. T. (but see Deut. xxviii. 57 Xen. Sijnvp. v. 8 Find. 01. 3 Mace. iv. 12 Wisd. xviii. 9 to be written with Iota Soph. Track. 686, Antig. 85 i. 75
believers,
subscriptum, EUendt, Lex. Soph.

Unters, p. 6
I. p.
992
Lipsius,
prefixed,
and
f.),
in the protasis has the emphasis,
hence
secret,
Gramm.
it is
denotes that which takes place in
in the
darkness of seclusion.
horrible
More
special references, such as to the
excesses
in
connection with
the
heathen mysteries
(Eisner, Wolf, Michaelis, Holzhausen), or even to the " fami-
liam Simonis Magi, quae erat infandarurn libidinum magistra" (Estius), have just as little warrant in the context as the
weakening of the meaning of the word by Morus, who understands thereby the mores domesticos of the Gentiles.
to
Koppe
{flagitia guaevis), Meier, Harless,
According and Olshausen, the
of vice, but the p<ya
meant to be specially the secixt deeds tov aKOTov; in genercd, which are so designated in accordance with the view conditioned by aKOTO'i But against this may be urged, first, the fact (see Harless). that aK6T0fj are quite
Kpv^f) yivcfieva are not
different notions,
inasmuch
as manifest vice also is
an
ep'yov
TOV
aKOTovi,
;
whereas
only the peccata occidta take place
secondly, the emphasis, which the prefixing of Kpvcpfj demands for this word, and which, if Kpvcfif} denoted nothing special, would be entirely lost, so that Paul might have written merely to, yap yivofieva vtt avTwv; thirdly, the contrast of the following âvepovrai,, which presupposes in the
Kpv^fj
iXeyêiV
something
viii. p.
which
6
had
r?}<i
been
BIkt}^
done
secretly
(comp.
Heliodorus,
397:
6(j)6aX/JLo^
iXtJx.'^v kuI
Meyeu Eph.
274
T dfj,7]vvra Kpvîa koI aOefxna (fxoTi^cov) and lastly, that it would in fact be quite an exaggerated assertion to say of the sins of the Gentiles generally, that it is a shame even to mention them. vir avrfav] by the viol rr)<; aTreideia^. koI Xeyetv] even only (see Hrtung, Partikell. I. p. 136) to say, what they in secret do, one must be ashamed. Comp. Plat. a iroWrjv Rep. p. 465 C: okv koX Xijetv, Dem. 1262, 11 alo-'^vvrjv e%et koI XeyeLv, and the passages in Wetstein. The tacit contrast is the iroLelv of the doers. Compare the fi'qhk
;
of ver. 3.
Eemark. The relation, by way of ground, of ver. 12 to what precedes has been very variously apprehended, and with
various definitions of the sense itself. Calvin, anticipating, holds that the intention is to state what is accomplished by the 'iXiyîc, thereby light is lirought into their secret things, " ut sua turpitudine pudefiant," comparing 1 Cor. xiv. 24. Of tliis there is mention only in the sequel. Entirely at variance with the words is the view of Grotius (comp. Calovius) " nam nisi id fiat, audehunt etiam clam turpiora." Bengel (comp, already in Oecumenius) finds in ver. 12 the cause adduced, " cur indefinite loquatur ver. 11 de operibus tenebrarum, cum fructum
;
:
lucis ver. 9 definite
descripserit."
Im])rted,
and opposed
translates yap
to
the emphatic
zpu(pri.
Wliile, moreover,
Koppe
by
doubtless [su'?-], Rlickert wishes at least to supply a doubtless.

" Doubtless their secret sins are not of such kind that they can be mentioned with honour, yet it belongs to you, as children of the light, to convince them of the wickedness of their actings." But the supplying of /^sv is pure invention. See on ver. 8. Quite mistaken also is the explanation of Meier " Yes, reprove them severely and openly to the face for the merely unconcerned speaking and telling of such deeds of shame secretly committed is likewise disgraceful, unworthy, and mean." This Paul would at least have expressed thus to
;
:
yap
X'systv
fjLovov
(antithesis to TO iAsyîiv)
tcc xpu<pf,
v'z
avr^jv yivo-
/xiva ala'y^p. hri.
Impossible, likewise, is Holzhausen's interprecommitted in the darkness of the heathen mysteries the Christians are not to disclose they are not even Apart to utter the names thereof, they are too abominable." from the consideration how singular such a precept must appear face to face with the decidedly moral character of the apostle, apart also from the fact that the mysteries are purely imported (see above), such a view should liave l)eeu precluded as well by the yap in itself (since, in fact, no counterpart of /pvpri precedes),
tation
'
:
The
sins
CHAP.
as
V. 13.
275
by the succeeding rd ds rrdvra, which, according to Holzis meant to signify the vices, " which can endure your light." Following Anselm, Piscator, Vorstius, Zanchius, Flatt,
hausen,
Harless finally discovers in ver. 12 the assigning of a reason not for the iXsyyiTs, which is held to follow only with ver. 13, but for 1X71 svyxoivuiiTrs ro7g spyoig roTg dx.dp'r. rou axoro-jg " for even but to mention their secret deeds is a shame, to say nothing of doing themr But against this the right apprehension of the emphatic /.p\j(pn (see above) is decisive moreover, the exhortation /MYi 6--/%otvmi7-i Ti.r.x., has already, in what precedes, such repeated and such specifically Christian grounds assigned for it (vv. 3, 4, 5, 8, as also further 7-0/5 d-Kdprroig, ver. 11), that the reader, after a new thought has been introduced with /j,XXov, could not at all expect a second ground to be assigned for the previous one, least of all such a general one containing no essentially Christian ground as would be afforded by ver. 12, but rather would expect a ground to be assigned for the newthought ,aa?.Xoi/ hi xa/ ihsy/in which had just been introduced.
:
Ver. 13.
The assigning
Se,
of grounds for that precept,
hk Kal iXiy-^êTe, is continued,
contradistinguishing
inasmuch
fmXkov
out
being attached by means of the

as there
is
pointed
is
the salutary action of the Christian light which
brought to
eke'yxêLv upon all those secret But everything (all those secret sins), ivhen it is reproved, when you carry that iXlyx^"^^ into effect upon it, is by the light (yirb rov (fxoro'i has the emphasis) onade manifest, is laid bare in its real moral character, unveiled and brought into distinctness before the moral consciousness by the light of Christian truth which is at work in your eXe'yjdcLv
bear by means of the required
deeds of shame
hy
the
light,
say,
it
is
made
manifest, for
in order to
prove by a general proposition that this cannot come otherwise than from the light all that which is made manifest,
which
its
is
brought forth from concealment and

is light,
is laid
open in
true nature,
has ceased thereby to have the nature This demonof the essence of light. based upon the inference " Quod est
:
of darkness,
and
is
now
is
strative proposition
in effectu (^0)9 eVxi), id debet esse in causa [viro rov

If thus there is
io-Ti,
(f)o}T<;)."
warrant for the general irap to <f)avpov/jb. ^w? so must there also be warrant for what was previously said
in the Christian sense, viro

this
rov
(fxoro'i
it
(âvepomat.
From
simple explanation of the words
becomes
at once clear
: :
276
that
THE
El'ISTLE
TO THE EPIIESIANS.
we have
not,
with most expositors (including Baumgarten<^,
Crusius and de Wette), to attach vtto rov

Estius, Bengel, Meier,
to
to eke'yîieva,
but to (pavepovrai, (Castalio, Zanchius, Zeger, Erasmus Schmid,

Harless,
Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek),

;
which
it
is
emplmtically prefixed
and
further, that âve-
povfjuevov
is
not to be taken as middle, in which case again

:
various explanations have been brought out, namely, either
"Lux cnim
quod omnia facit manifcsta'" (Beza; so Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and others, as also Bleek, who in
illud
est,
:
place of (pavepovfjuevov conjectures
(pavepovv to), or
"
Omne
:
enim illud, qttod manifcsta facit alia, lux est " (Erasmus Schmid so also Cajetanus, Estius, Michaelis, and others), or " Quililjet autem \jydp alios docet, est lux, eo ipso !], qui declarat, se esse verum Christianum," Kuinoel in Velthusen,
;
, . .
etc.,
Commcntatt. III.
p.
173
ff.,
or:
"he who does not
refuse
to be
made
manifest, becomes an enlightened one," Bengel,
against which interpretations not only the immediately pre-
ceding passive (pavepovrat
is
decisive, but also linguistic usage,

is
in accordance with which (pavepovixai,

if
ahvays passive}
as passive,
we adhere
to the
view of
is
(f)avepov/x.
And we must
is
exclude every ex])lanation, in which a quid pro quo

trated or something
perpe(1) the
imported, or yap
is
either neglected or
set aside
incorrectly taken.
We
have therefore
to
explanation
"
given
by Eisner and Wolf, that Paul
says
Iwminum
scclcra
in tenchris patrata, a delihits, qui lux sunt,
improhata, nan modo protraJii in luccm, verum etiam homines,

Ulis scelerihus inqninatos, ruhore suffundi increpitos convictosque,
et
ipsos
quoque
<^ws" fieri
hac
ratioiie,
emendatis
vitiis tenchrisque
:
in novae vitac luccm conversis;" (2) that of Zachariae "Everything which is sharply tested accordinrj to the light of the
doctrine
to
hcc'p
of
Christ
.
. .
and
all,
holds
its
grottncl,
one
has
no need
strikes
secret;
however, lohich one can perform openly

eyes
. .
.
and
^
before
every
ones
is
itself
"
light,
and
every one as
good
and
might
idraiscworthy
(this
(3)
that of
Storr
The
article before <p;
we remark
in opposition to Olshausen) be
<pc;
dispensed with even in Beza's explanation, so that

translated
:
Ian would have to be
is llijht-essence,
has the nature of light.
If,
however,
which
it
is
not
the case,
ipxvtpovfi.
were really to be translated as active, the simplest rendering,

in
and the one most
keeping with the context, would be
fur
is
the light
niakinij everi/thinr/ manifest.
CHAP.
" Qiiisquis ca, quae monihts e tenebris
est
;
V.
li.
27*7
est
luce, audit, is patefit,

est, is
:
emergit
quisquis
autem
'patefaetus
luee
collustratus
enlifjhtenecl,
of Koppe (comp. Cramer) "for what is itself mvst he also a Ivjht for others;" (5) that of Eckert, who would refer <ydp to a conclusion tacitly drawn from what precedes {"ye are light, consequently it is also
"
(4) that
your business iXljêiv ra eKelvwv epya"): "for
all
that is
made
manifest, that
is,
or
hij
that very fact becomes, light,"

is
from
which again the suppressed conclusion quently it may be hoped that those
to be
also
drawn consewill become light,

:
when they
are convinced of the reprobate character of their
action; (6) that of Meier

enlightened hy the light,
and Olshausen
"
"for
all
that is
-
is itself light "

:
(Olshausen), which ac-
cording to Meier
is
equivalent to
and pure
as light," according to
becomes itself transparent Olshausen " becomes changed

:
into the nature of light."
(7) Nearest to our interpretation
comes that of Harless, followed in part by Schenkel. Harless, however, finds expressed from to. Be iravra onward the necessity of the eXeyx^''^} which is rather implied in ver. 12, to which in ver. 13 the salutariness of the ek^'yêLv attaches itself; he explains (âvepovfi., moreover, as if it were praeterite, and does not retain irav yap to tfyavepovp,. k.t.X. in its generality as locus communis, inasmuch as he takes ^w? iariv is no longer a secret work of darkness, but is liglit. According to Baur, p. 435, the proposition -Trav rb (pavep. (fico<i ecrTV belongs to the Gnostic theory of light (" all development takes place only through that which in itself already exists becoming manifest for the consciousness "), and has been introduced into
:
its
present connection out of this quite different sphere of
ideas.
But the
state of the case is exactly the converse
the
Valentinians
laid
hold
of this
utterance of the
it
apostle as
supporting their doctrine, and expressly cited

IIav\o<i Xeyet k.t.X., in Iren.
i.
(jovto Be 6
ib
8.
5),
and consequently took

it
away from the connection

their owii theory.
in
which he used
so as to favour
Ver.
14.
This necessity and salutariness of the

set
e\yî<i,
which Paul has just
forth in vv. 12,

k.t.X.),
subsidiary thought, ttuv yap
mere he now further confirms
13 (not
of the
by a word of God out
of the
Scripture.
Sto]
wherefore,

278
is
because the iXeyêre

ver. 12,
so liiglily necessary as I have

effect as is seen
shown
in
and of such sahitary

:
from
ver. 13,
wherefore he saith
thou sleeiêr, and arise from the dead, upon thee. This call of God to the viol Trj<i '7reideia<i to awake out of the sleep and death of sin confirms the necessity of the eXey^c^;, and this promise " Christ shall shine upon thee," confirms the salutary influence of the light, under which they are placed by the iXey^^tv. Beza refers back Bio to ver. 8, which is erroneous for this reason, if there were no other, that the citation addresses the as yet unconverted.
Uii,
and
Christ shall shine
According to Eiickert (comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), the design is to give support to the hope expressed in ver. 13, namely,
that the sinner, earnestly reproved and convicted,
may
on
possibly
ver. 13,
be brought over from darkness into
light.
But
k.t.X.,
:
see
AVith the correct interpretation of irav yap

are untenable, which are given by Meier
the expositions
"
on that account,
because only what
is
enlightened by the light of truth can be

:
improved
;" and by Olshausen upon the darkness cannot fail
"
because the action of the light

Harless indicates
of its effect."
the connection only with the words of Plutarch (tom. xiv.

p.
364,
ed. Hutt.)
'âipetv
^(^pri
rot? iXeyôvcriv'
yap
Xu7roi)fT69 Sieyeipovatv.
Inexact, and
inasmuch
iv.
rjfi'i
as with
Plutarch xaipetv and \v7rovvTe<i stand in emphatic correlation,
and XvTTovvTe^ thus

Scripture, of
is
essential
inappropriate.
\eyei]
:
in-
troduces, with the supplying of 6 0eo9 (as
8),
a passage of
which the Hebrew words would run \^\ ^y^V D^nn-ip nv^fpni. But ivhai passage is that ? Already Jerome says " Nunquam hoc scriptum reperi." Most expositors answer: Isa. Ix. 1. So Thomas, Cajetanus, Calvin,
n^^b ^^ n^KHi
:
Piscator, Estius, Calovius, Surenhusius, Wolf, Wetstein, Bengel,^
and
tlie
and Olshausen while others at 19 (Beza, Calixtus, Clericus, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), as also Isa. lii. 1 (Schenkel) and Isa. ix. 1 (Baumgarten, Holzhausen). But all
others, including Harless
;
same time bring
in Isa. xxvi.
Who, however,
in festo
at the
same time following older expositors in "Wolf (comp.

p. 142), called to his aid
Eosenmller, Morgenland, VI.
a reminiscence of the
buccinarum adhiheri solita." See, in opposition to the error as to the existence of such a formula, based upon a passage of Mainionides, Wolf,
"formula
C'urae.
CHAP.
V.
14.
279
tliese
passages are so essentially different from ours, that we cannot with unbiassed judgment discover the latter in any of
them, and should have to hold our citation if it is assumed to contain Old Testament words as a mingling of Old Testa-
ment
reminiscences, nothing similar to which

of unity and originality
is
met
with,
even apart from

living impress
the fact that this citation bears in itself the

;
hence the
less
is
there room
expedient
to get out of the difficulty by means of Bengel's " apostolus expressius loquitur ex luce N. T."
Doubtless Harless says .that the apostle was here concerned not about the tvord, but about tlie matter in general, and that
lie cites
the word of pre-announcement with the modification
which it has itself undergorie through fulfilment, and adduces by way of analogy Eom. x. 6 ff. But in opposition to this may
be urged,
first
generally, that sitch a modification of Isa. Ix. 1
..would have been not a mere modification, but
would have
;
secondly, quite done away with the identity of the passage Isa. Ix. 1, specially according to in particular, that the passage
the
<j)0)<;,
LXX.
Koi
rj
{(fxoTiôv, (f)(OTiôv 'Irjpova-aXrjn,
rjKet
,
<ydp
<tov
to
hoâ Kvpiov
eirl (re
avareraXKev) needed no change

passages from
w-hatever in order to serve for the intended Scriptural confirmation, for which, moreover, various other
the 0; T. would have stood at the command of the apostle, without needing any change and lastly, that Eom. x. 6 is not analogous, because there the identity with Deut. xxx. 12-14 is unmistakeably evident in the vjords themselves, and
;
the additions concerning Christ are not there given as constituent parts of the Scripture utterance, but expressly indicated as elucidations of the apostle (by
means
of tovt
<jtC).
Quite
quoting,
baseless
is
the view of de Wette, that the author

is
is
as at
iv.
8 (where, indeed, the citation
quite undoubted), an
O. T. passage in
an application which,
by frequency
is
of use,
has become so familiar to him that he
no longer precisely conscious of the distinction between text and application. Others, including Morus, have discovered here a quotation from an apocryphal hooh, under which character Epij^hanius names the prophecy of Elias, Georgius Syncellus an apocryphal authority of Jeremiah, and Codex G on the margin, the book
('
Secretum
")
of
Enoch.
See,
in
general,
Fabricius,
Cod.
"
280
Pseudcpirjr.

F. r. pp.
1074, 1105
Aiiocr.
N. T.
is
I.
p.
524.
is
That, however, Paul ivittingly cited an apocryphal book,^

to
be decisively rejected, inasmuch as this

passages.
never done by
citation
him, but, on the
contrary, the formula of
always
means canonical
Hence,
the
also,
we have
not,
with
Heumann
to
(Poicile, II. p.
390), Michaelis, Storr, Stolz, Flatt,
guess
at
an earh/ hymn of
Church as the source.^
Others have found
therein a saying of Christ, like Oeder in
Syntagm.
Diss. sacr. p.
697
ff.,
in opposition to
which may be
urged, not indeed the following o X/sto-ro?, which Jesus might

doubtless have said of Himself, but rather the fact that the
subject XpLcrr6<; to \ejet could not be at all divined, as indeed
Paul has never adduced sayings of Christ in his Epistles. This also in opposition to the opinion mentioned in Jerome (comp, also Bugeuhageii and Calixtus), that Paul here, after the
manner
of the prophets (comp, the prophetic: thus saith the Grotius Lord), " TTpoatoTTO'jrouav Spiritus sancti figuraverit."
(comp. Koppe) regards even to
(fxio^
as subject
"
Lux
ilia, i.e.
homo
hice perfusus, dicit cdteri."
As
if
previously the
ôls'
were homo hice iKrfusus ! and as if every reader could not but have recognised a citation as well in Sib Xeyei as in the Erroneously Bornemann also, character of the saying itself! Schol. in Luc. p. xlviii. f., holds that Xiyei is to be taken impcrsonaliter ; in this respect it is said, one may say, so that no
passage of Scripture
is
cited,
but perhaps allusion

is
is
made
p.
to
Mark
v.
41.
This impersonal use
found only with
(prjaL
See the instances cited by Bornemann, and Bernhardy,
419.
ii.
In view
is
of all these opinions,

effect
:
my
conclusion, as at 1 Cor.
it
9,
to
this
From
hio
Xeyec
is
evident that Paul
desired to
passage
adduce a passage of canonical Scripture, but as the not canonical in virtue of a lapsus memoriae he adduces an apocryphal saying, which, citing from memory, he
is
According to Jerome,
lie is
held rot to have done
probaret, sed
ea,
-
quod
et Arati et Epinienidis et
it, " qnod apocrypha comMenandri veisibus sit abusus ad
quae voluerat, in tempore comprobanda. This opinion is already mentioned by Theodoret

]
t/vss
l\
tum
ipf/.r,viurZy
ifaffccv Triivf/.ariKYis p^fiTo;
dîudvra; Titas ^'aXfiovi (ruyyfâ.i, in Connection with

Cor. xiv. 26.
it
which they had appealed to

the Sttid.
u. Krit.
Bleek, too,
ad
loc,
and already in
is
1853, p. 331, finds
probable that the saying
taken from
a writing composed by a Christian poet of that early age.
CHAP.
V. 15.
281
held as canonical.
is
From
lohat
eyetpe] up ! Comp, ye, erreiye. drawn, we do not know. See, in opposition to the form of the Ricepta eyeipat (so also
Apocryphal writing the passage
then
6 KaOevScov] Lachmann), Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 55 f. veKpcov form a climactic twofold description of e'/c state of man under the dominion of sin, in which state true spiritual life, the moral vital activity, is suppressed
and
the
the
and
xiii.
gone, as
is
the physical
life
in the sleeping (comp.
Eom.
11) and in the dead respectively. often with the classical writers,
Comp.
too, the
Isa. lix. 10.
How
is
expression dead
employed
Matt.
viii.
for
the expression of moral insensibility, see on
mann, in Luc.
f.
22; Luke xv. 14; Musgrave, ad Ocd. R. 45; BorneOn 6 KudevBcov, comp. Sohar. Levit. p. 97.
:
33,
c.
130
"
Quoticsc2mqne lex occurrit,
totics
omnia honmium
in
j^cccatis,
(jcnera
excitat,
verum omnes somno
nihil
intelligunt neque attendunt."
avdara]
sepulti jacent
On
the form,
eVtcâi/o-et] p. 73 [E. T. 94]; Matthiae, p. 484. from iirKpavaKco, see Winer, p. 82 [E. T. 110]; Job xxv. 5, The readings iTri^lravaei aot 6 Xp. and iiriâvcreL'i xxxi. 26. rod Xp. are ancient (see Chrysostom and Jerome ad loc), and
see Winer,
are not to be explained merely from an accidental interchange

in copying, but are connected with the preposterous fiction that
the words were addressed to

Christ,
Adam
buried under the cross of
whom
Christ would toiich with His
thereby causing
him
to
become
alive
body and blood, See and to rise.
Jerome.
the
The words themselves: Christ

:
shall shine upo7i thee,
signify not
He
will he gracious to thee (so, at variance with
context,
Bretschueider),
but
He
will
by the gracious
operation of His Spirit aimul in thee the ethical darkness
{\vwv Trjv yvKTa Tr]<; afxapria^;, Gregory of Nazianzus), and impart to thee the divine a\i]6eia, of which He is the possessor and bearer (Christ, the light of the world). Observe, moreover, that the arising is not an act of one's own, independent of God and anticipating His gracious operation, but that it takes place just through God's effectual awakening call.
On
Se
this effectual calling then ensues the Christian enlightening.
Ver. 15.
Ovv]
is,
after the digression
Kal e\ey)(6Te of ver. 11, resumptive, as at
ilwii to it
now
begun with fiaWov Look iv. 17.
to return to
my
exhortations with regard ta

282
the Christian walk, vv.
8-10
the
hoiu yc, etc.

:
Calvin,
''
whom
minus
o?)v,
Harless
follows,
states
connection thus
Si
alionini
discutere tenebras fideles debent fulgure suo, quanto caecutire debent

correct, if
7r)<i
in proprio vitae instituto."
This would be
take heed to
Paul had written Xeirere ovv avroi, or Keirere
avTol.
/SX-eVere]
;
is
the simple
;
look
to,
(1 Cor. xvi.
10
Phil.
iii.
Col. iv. 17), not: " utimini luce

is
vestra ad videndum," Estius (comp. Erasmus), which
bidden by TTw?. 7r(w<? aKpiw'i TreptTraretTe] ttw? not equivalent to Xva (Koppe), and TrepiiraTelre not for the subjunctive
(Grotius), but
:
for-
look to
it,
in lohat
strict
manner
ye carry out the ohserv-
ance of an exact walk in

in Fritzschior. Opusc. p.
accord ivith duty (comp. aKpi-
ohiKaLO'i, Arist. Eth. Nie. v. 10. 8).
Comp.
C. F. A. Fritzsche,
208
/IT]
ft)9
ao(f)ot, /c.T.X..]
Winer, p. 269 [E. T. 376]. Epexegesis of the aKpiaxi just menf.

; :
tioned,
negative and positive
vmlk not as imwise, hut as

neither TrepLTrarovvTe'i
o.Kpi(o<i, its
your have thus to supply (Harless) nor anything else but, like
presentinrj yourselves in
vnse.
We
more
precise
definition
firj
co?
ao<ôi k.t.\.
is
dependent on TrepnraTeiTe. With regard to fir], referring to Xeirere, see Winer, p. 421 [E. T. 595] and for the emphatic lyarallelismus antitheticus, comp. Ngelsbach, nm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 80 f. Bremi, ad Devi, de Chcrs. p. 108, 73 Winer,
; ; ;
p.
537
f.
[E. T. 762].
Ver. 16.
0)9
a-6(f>ot
:
Accompanying modal
definition to the preceding

i.e.
ementes vohis (middle) opportunitatem,

the right point of time
in that
you make your oum

not
let it
pass by unused.
for such ivalk, do In this figurative conception the

is
doing of that for which the point of time

of as the purchase -price,
fitted, is
thought
Kep-
by which the
ii.
KaLpd<i becomes ours.

vi.
Comp.
Col.
iv.
LXX. Dan.
Antonin.
27.
26
vi.
Bavriov to irapov, Plut. Philop. 15

opposite
is
Kaipbv piraêtv.
iv.
Kaipov irapLevai, Thucyd.
Gal.
The 10 is
parallel as to substance.
Classical writers say Katp. TrpiaaOat,
Dem. 120. 26, 187. 22, but in the proper sense of buying
for
money.
Others have thought of the sacrifice of all earthly
things and of all lusts as the purchase - price
(Chrysostom,
Flacius,
Theophylact,
Oecumenius
comp,
also
;
Augustine,
Zanchius, Estius, Puckert, and others)
but this
is
imported.
CHAP.
V. 16.
283
since the context yields nothing else than the fulfilment of duty
meant by the aKpim

Harless, to interpret
it
irepLiraTeZv
of the right
hence we have not, with moment " for letting the
light of correction break in
upon the darkness of sin " (comp. Michaelis and Eosenmller), wliich would be to revert, at
ended.
variance with the context, to the topic of the \eyî<} already
Luther
incorrectly renders
"
Suit yourfselves to the

Kaipu,,
:
time."
That would be SovXeveiv
Ta>
Eom.
xii.
11.
Similarly also Grotius (comp.
Hammond)
"
quovis labore ac
verborum honestis obsequiis vitate pericula et diem de die ducite." Comp. Bengel, who compares Amos v. 13, and understands the prudent letting the evil day pass over " quiescendo vel certe modice agendo," whereby the better time is iûrchased, In opposition to in order to make the more use thereof. and Bengel, it may be urged that this alleged mode Grotius of the iâyopdêiv rov Kuipov is not mentioned by Paul, but imported by the expositor, and that the counsel of such a trimming behaviour is hardly compatible with the moral decision of the apostle, and with liis expectation of the approaching end of the alonv ovTo<i. We may add that the compound iâyop. is not here to be understood as redeem (Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), as e.g. Bengel would take it {from the 2)oiuer of evil men), and Calvin (from the devil), seeing that the
context does not suggest such reference
;
but the
e'/c
in the
composition
is
intensive,
;
also in Plut. Crass. 2

fjfjiepat
and denotes what is entire, Polyb. iii. 42. 2 Dan. ii. 8.

;
on
r.
utter, as
al
irovrjpai etVt] supplies a
motive for the eây.
Kuip.,
for
is
the days, the present times, are evil, for
moral corruption
it
now
in
vogue.
So
much
(for
the
more must
exalted
is
ii.
intimately
concern you as Christians

Kaipov iâyopdêadat.
Itosenmliller,
how
their task above
the wickedness of the present time! Phik

Beza,
Placius,
15,
iii.
20) tov
Grotius,
Hammond,
and others
xlvii.
refer irovTjpal to the misfortune of

;
the time
(Gen.
Ps. xlix.
[5])
but the context
opposes the moral bearing of the Christian to the immoral condition of the time. According to de Wette's here very
unfounded scepticism, the writer is indistinct and hesitating, because he is bringing Col. iv. 5 into another connection.
^
Who
in earlier editions
had rightly
release the time.
284

is
Ver. 17. Alo. tovto] Eecaiise ye ought so to walk as

said in vv. 15, 16, of
fact,
cannot be wise)
which ye as aj>pove^ (whose walk, in would be incapable. Others because the

:
times are evil (Menochius, Zanchius, Estius,

Elickert, Matthies,
elcri
T.
and de Wette). But the rj/x. was only a subsidiary thought subservient to the ayopd^. Kaip., and affords no suitable reason for the following exhor-
d al., including on al irov.
tations.
fi7}
yiiea-de] not
he not,
but become not.

i.e.
(f)poves:]
devoid of intelligence, imjjrudentes,
" qui
mente non
the
recte
utuntur" (Tittmann,
teaches.
is
Sijnon. p.
143), namely, for the moral

Christ,
8.
understanding of the will
of
i.
as
here
contrast
Comp, on
2^'>'('^ciiccd
^povqa-i^;,
a higher notion than a(f)pov6<;, of
The aao(f>ot of ver. 15 which latter denotes the

the
opposite of
1
;
to((nt
understanding,
;
<f)p6vifio<;
ii.
(Plat. Gorg. p.
1
Cor. XV.
498 B 36 Luke
;
Xen. 3Jem.
xi.
ii.
3.
comp. Eom.
a(f)pcov
20
40,
xii.
20).
P>ery
is
also
ao<po<i, but the ao(f}o<i may yet be (f)p6vt/uL0'i (Luke xvi, 8), namely, for immoral ends and means, which here the context
excludes.
See
also
the
following
contrast.
o-vviovre'i]
undcrstcindiiig ,
more than
yivco-Kovre'i.
see
xxi.
on
Col.
;
i.
9.
to
de\.
tov Kup.^ of
]jarticnlar,
Comp. Grotius, and Christ. Comp. Acts

to
14
1 Cor. iv, 19.
18. Kat] and in which would belong hecome not drunken through
Ver.
vice,
to a^poavvrj.
loine,
mention
fxr)
a single
otv(p\
fxedvo-K.
which stands opposed to the alloicalle use of wine, without our having on that account to seek here a reference to Montanism (Schwegler). To conclude, however, from ver. 19 that excess at the Agapae is meant (1 Cor. xi. 21), as Koppe and Holzhausen maintain (comp, also de Wette), is quite arbitrary inasmuch as neither in the preceding nor following context is there any mention made of the Agapae, and this special abuse, the traces of which in the N. T. are, moreover, only to be found in Corinth, would ev w icniv ao-cor/a] have called for a special censure.
;
deterring remark,
iv
a>
does
"
not
apply to
passages
est
ocvo) alone,
as
Schoettgen holds
(wliose
f.
Eabbinical
:
therefore,
ihi
as
est
Bammidh.
cTKeaOai
rahha,
206, 3
is
uhicunque
here),
vinum,
iramunditia" are not to the point

oivo)
:
but to the ixedvdissolute
wherein
contained
debauchery,

CHAI'. V.
19.
285
tlie
Leliaviour.
vivid
description
of
grosser
and more
ii.
refined acirla
may
(in
p.
be seen in Cicero, de Fin.

its
8.
On
see
the
word
itself
literal
sense
unsaveaUeness),
I.
Tittmann, Synon.
152; Lobeck,
of the
also
Faralijy.
p.
559.
more precise
chanalia)
ii>
limitation
sense
(Jerome understands
lascivious excess, as
is
Hammond, who
text.
without warrant in the
uXKa
thinks of the BacirXrjpovaOe
TTvev/xari] hit become full hy the Spirit.

its
The imperative
;
2Mssive finds
explanation in the possibility of resistance to
and of the opposite fleshly endeavour and iv Phil, iv, 19. The contrast lies is instrumental, as at i. 23 (Grotius, Harless, Olshausen, and not in olvo<i and irvevfia others), because otherwise the text must have run fxr] oXvw /xeOvaK., aXK" iv irvevfiari ir\r]p., but in the two states that This opposition is only intoxication and that of inspiration. of (in opposition to de Wette), and has its 171 ajjpearancc strange in the excitement of the person inspired and sufficient ground
the
Spirit
;
Holy
its
utterances (comp. Acts
ii.
13).
definition
to
Ver.
"
19.
filled
\a\eiv kavToh âX/jLol'i k.t.X. is to be simultaneously combined as so that ye S2)eak to one another thiôuyh its immediate expression and hymns and spiritucd songs. What a contrast with psalms the preceding ev w iartv aaoiTLal Comp. Col. iii. 16.
this
:
being
Accompanying by the Spirit,"
the just
required
as that with
which
\a\ovvTe<i 6avTol<i] not meditantes vohiscum (Morus, Michaelis),
but
it
denotes the reeip)roc(d spealcing {eavroi^, in the sense of

as iv, 32,
to
uXX7]Xoi<i,
each other),
the oral interchange of
thoughts and feelings, which
just because the condition is
that of being filled by the Spirit
does not
life,
make use
of the
conversational language of ordinary
drunken passion, but of psalms, etc, as the means of mutual communication (dativus instrumentcdis ; Luther incorrectly renders
or even of
ahoid psalms
^).
That, however, the apostle
is
here speaking
of actual ivorship in the narrower sense (Olshausen), is in opposition to the

oivtp,
assumed
context, since the contrast /i^ /xedvaK.

irv.
dWa
Ep.
irXrjp.
iv
does not characterize
the \d\elv
eavToU as taking place in worship, although

^
itself it is
not
Plinj',
X.
" Canneii Christo
(jua.si
Deo dicuut secuw
incictiu"
{iauTaU).
286
denied that in worsliip too the inspired antiphonal singing
See 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26; Mceph. Call. xiii. 8: avTL^mvwv avvtjOetav avwdev airocTToKav rj eKKXrjaia irapekae} The distinction between \\ra\ix6<i and vfivo<i consists in this, that by yfraX/jb. Paul denotes a religious song general hearing the cliaracter of the 0. T. psalms, but by vfiv.
took place.
rr]v TOiV
specially a sooig of praise (Plat. Legg.

6privo<i),
iii.
p.
700
B, opposed to
and
that, in
accordance with the context, addressed to
Christ (ver. 19) and

originally
God
(ver. 20).
Properly
^fraX/xo'i
is
(which
means the making the
cithara sound)
a song in
and that indeed as sung to a stringed instrument (see Spanheim, ad Callim. p. 55); but in the N. T. the character of the psalm is determined by the psalms of the 0. T., so called
general,
KUT
iô'^rjv (1
Cor.
xiv. 15,
26
Jas. v. 13).
According to
Harless, the two words are not different as regards their contents,
but -yâXixoh
is
the expression of the spiritual song for
the Jewish-Christians, vfxvofi for the Gentile-Christians.
An
is
external distinction in itself improbable, and very arbitrary,

since
the special
signification
of
v/xvo<i,
song of ^^j-awe,
thoroughly established, and

current in Greek, which
yfrX/j,<;
also
as well in itself
was a word very as more especially

Christian usage
in
with regard to
its
sense
established in
accordance with the conception of the 0. T. psalms

Jewish-Christians.
Theol.
could not
f.
but be equally intelligible for the Gentile-Christians as for the See also Eudelb. in the Zeitschr.
Luth.
1855,
4, p.
634
f.
According to Olshausen,
ylraX/xoL
are here the psalms of the 0. T., which had passed over from the synagogue into the use of the church. But worship is not
spoken of here
improvised psalms,
and that the Christians, filled by the Spirit, Such is clear from 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26. Christian psalms and hynms are meant, as the Spirit gave them to be uttered (Acts ii. 4, x. 46, xix. 6), phenomena
;
doubtless, which, like the operations of the Spirit generally in the

first
cognizance.
age of the church, are wîthdrawn from our special

kuI olBaU
Triêuyu,.]
Inasmuch
as
wSr;
may
be
any song, even

^
secular, 7rvev/jLaTiKal<; is here added, so that

cluirch-hymns
it is is
by
collection of
of course not even remotely to be thouglit of
in our passage
and
to go in quest of a reason for suspecting our Epistle,

k.t.x. is designated as surpri.siiig.
when, with Schwegler, the mention of âXftoi
CHAP.
V. 20.
287
yp-ak/xot
a>Bat<i vvv/M. is
denoted the wliole genus, of which the

sjKcies.
and
18
vjjLvoi
were
7rvVfjbaTiKal<i defines the songs as

Spirit, as deoirvevaTovi.
iir
proceeding
:
from
the
Holy
Find.
It is
01.
iii.
devfiopot,
viacrovT
avdpcoTTov^;
aocSaL
to
be
observed, moreover, that Paul does

\a\.eiv iavTolf
y}ra\fjLoi<i
not require
a constant
k.t.X.
on the part of his readers, but,
in contradistinction to. the heathen
dawria
in drunkenness, as
that which
is to
take place
its
among
the Christians instead of

doings.
drunken- revehy with

tion ylraXfi.
k. .vfiv.
dissolute
ttv.
The
60
f.
ciimula-
k.
cJS.
belongs to
the
animated and
Schol.
urgent
style
f.
of discourse.
See
Bornemann,
I. p.
p. xxviii.
Comp,
also Lobeck, Paralip.
in Lac.
ahovre^;
KoX \^dWovTe<i iv
Trj
Kaph.
k.t.X.,
v/jl.
tco Kvpio)]
co-ordinate with the
preceding XaXoui/re?
containing another singing of praise,

the silence
namely, that which goes on in

point of difference lies in
iv
of the heart.
The
second
ral<i
KapB.
vfx,.,
as contradistin-
guished from the preceding eavroh.

participial clause is regarded
Usually this
as siibordinate to the previous
one
it is
held to affirm that that reciprocal singing of praise

also in the
must take place not merely with the mouth, but

heart (t^ KapSia -yp-dWei 6
/jui]
fiovov rrjv <y\(OTTav klvwv, Karavorjcrtv
dXka
Kol 70V vovv

Theodoret).
ei?
TT]v
T(bv
Xeyofxcvoiv
it
Sieyeipcov,
But how could
have occurred to Paul here to
enter such a protest against mere lip-praise,

represents the psalm-singing,
filled
etc.,
when
he, in fact,
as the utterance of the being
by the
Spirit,
and makes express mention of vrvevfiaitself
TtKal<i (phah, in which case, at any rate, the thought of a
mere singing with the mouth was of

less,
excluded.
The
right view is found substantially in Eiickert (who, neverthe-
already here imports an " ahuays "), Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel. tj Kvpiui] to Christ, ver. 20.
Ver.
20.
third
modal
definition to
the irXrjpovcrde
iv
TrvevfxaTv, likewise
co-ordinate with the
bringing into prominence

etc.,
two preceding ones,
after the general singing of praise,
which is to take place as well audibly as in the heart further, and in particular, the thanksgiving, which the readers have always for all things to render to God.
of ver. 19,
4
;
irdvTore] This alv-ays
is
not to be pressed
iii.
see on 1 Cor.
i.
iu accordance with Col.
17, at all action in word
and
v:ork.
38

is
Observe, however, that Travrore

point
;
only introduced at this

divine
in
for
not the aBeiv and -^frdWeLv, but certainly, amidst

consciousness
also,
the
constant
of the
manifestations of
general,
grace,
thanksgiving
like
prayer
may and
life.
ought to belong to the constant activity of the Christian
Comp. vi. 18; Eom. xii. 12; Col. iv. 2; 1 Tliess. v. 17. For the emphatic juxtaposition irdvTOTe virep irdvrwv, comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8, and see Lobeck, Farali]). I. p. 56. This irdvTcov is not masculine (Theodore t), but neuter, and relates, in accordance with the context, to all Christian hlessinys. To understand
it
of all that hapj^cns to us, even including sufferings, as
is
done
by Chrysostom,^ Jerome, Erasmus, arid many, including Meier, Olshausen, Baumgarten - Crusius, and de Wette, is foreign
to
the connection, yet doubtless the Christian

in
and joy
K.T.\.]
suffering belong thereto.
irapdKKrjCTL^
ev
:
ov/x.
rov Kvplov
not ad honorem Christi (Flatt), but

("
so that
what
is
embraced in the name Jesus Christ

obtingunt," Bengel)
is
per
quem omnia
nobis
the element, in which your grateful
consciousness moves in the act of thanksgiving.

iii.
17
(iii.
Comp. Col. John xiv. 13. As regards subject matter, iv Xpia-TU) 21) would be different, and Bid Xpta-Tou (liom. vii. 25)
;
similar.
to)
ew
kxI Trar/?/] See on
i.
2 Cor.
i.
1 Cor.
XV. 24.
Estius,
Son (Erasmus, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), is more in
The
referring of Trarpt to Christ, the
keeping with the connection

ing
:
{ev 6v6/jiaTi k.t.X.)
than the render-
our Father (Zanchius,
liiickert,
Matthies, and others).
Ver. 21 f.^ The words vTrorao-a. dWriX. iv ^w Xp. still belong to ver. 20 (so Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bleek), parallel to the vxcipiaTovTe<i k.t.X., adding to this relation towards
God
the mittual relation towards one another.
Then begins with

which we
ai <yvvalKq a
new
section, into the first precept of
have to take over the verb from the vTroraacr/xevoi, just used, namely, vir or da a ecr de (Elzevir) or virorao-crecrOwaav (Lachmann). Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, and
Chrysostom, in fact, includes even he.ll therein, the contemplation of which a check of fear and thus veiy salutary. ^ A more sublime, more ideal regulation of the married state is not conceivable than that which is here set forth by the apostle, vv. 21-33, and yet it is one
^
is for lis
which hns flowed from

hence
is
tlie
living depth of the Christian consciousness,
and
practically applicable to all concrete relations.
CHAP. V.
21, 22.
289
others (comp, also Eeiche, Comm. crit. p. 183), incorrectly hold that the participle is to be taken imperatively ; in that case an eVre to be supplied in thought must, as in Eom.
xii.
9,
arbitrarily
lievers."
Olshausen quite have been suggested by the context. " are all beproposes that we supply mentally
:
was to begin with viroracrcr., then vTTOTaaa: aXK. iv <p. Xp. would have to be regarded as an absolutely prefixed general attribute, to which the special one afterwards to be adduced would be subordinate (" inasmuch
If the
new
section
as ye subject yourselves in the fear of Christ, the wives ought,"

etc.).
It
would not militate against

and
servants, in
this view, that in the
sequel only the viroraî^ of the luives follows, while the viraKorj
of the children
chap,
vi.,
can no longer be
brought into connection with our viroTacraofievoL.
For often
the whole
with the
absolute
classical
writers also,
after
the prefixing of such

to
nominatives,
which have reference

z.
collectively, the
discourse passes only over to one part (not

Ilias,
to
several)
f.
see particularly Ngelsbach,
ed.
3,
p.
But against it may be urged the consideration that at yvvacKe'i has no special verb such a verb, and one correla-
385
tive as to notion with vTroraaa., could not but be associated
with
1
it.
On the thought vTrorda-creaOac Wi]Xoc<;, comp,
iv (fiw Xpiarov] is the 5; Clem. Cor. i. 38. fundamental disposition, in which the viroTdaaecrOai, aXXi]\oi<; And Christ is to be feared as the judge. is to take place. TOL<i ISioa avSpdaiv] to Comp. 2 Cor. v. 11 1 Cor. x. 22. Without being misunderstood, Paul their own husbands. might have written merely roh avSpda-iv, but tStot9 serves to make the obligation of the vTrordaaeaBai rot? dvSpdcriv palpPet. v.
;
able in
its
natural necessity
to
for
!
etrj
what a wife
rywaiKC, to
T. tSto9
is she,
who
refuses
obedience
. . .
her
own
husba7id
So also Stobaeus, S.22: Oeaveo
epatTrjdetaa, tL irptarov
tw
Ihlm, e^rj, dpi-
aKetv dvhpi.
of the
Throughout the N.
never stands in place

also
mere possessive pronoun, but has always, as
with
the Greeks, an emphasis to be derived from the connection,
even at Matt. xxii. 5, xxv. 1 4 (see in loo.) 1 Pet. iii. 1 and This in Tit. ii. 5 (where the relation is as in our passage). opposition to Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 192], and at the same time in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who (comp, also
;
;
Meyer Eph.
290
Dorville,
ad Charit, p. 452) see in o tSto? avrjp nothing more than a designation which has become usual for the husband.
is
From the very context, in itself o avrjp That which, on xix. 294 Matt. 16).
;
husband (Horn. Od.

con-
i.
the other hand, Bengel

this is not
finds in tStot?
eilia," is
" etiamsi alibi meliora viderentur habere
imported.
tw?
tw
Kvpl(p\
By
meant the
of
husbands (Thomas Aquinas, Seniler), which must have been
Toh Kvpioi<;, but which the wives

husband
(see
Christ,
and
to?
expresses the
mode
view in For the
are to regard their obedience towards the husto the
bands, namely, as rendered
Lord
comp.
vi. 6, 7.
what
is
follows) stands in relation to the wife not

;
otherwise than as Christ to the church

the husband the one
is
in the conjugal relation
who
represents Christ to the wife,

is
in so far as he
head of the wife, as Christ
the
Head
of
To find in w? the mere relation of resemblance (" uxoris erga maritum officia similia quodammodo sunt ociis Christianorum erga Christum',' Koppe) is erroneous on account the passage must have run in the form co? of what follows eKKkrjala rw Kvpiw, which Erasmus has imported into his ri " non aliter, quam ecclesia subdita est Domino paraphrase
the church.
; :
add that the view of Michaelis that here 18 the teachings as to marriage are directed is the more against errors of the Essenes (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3) to be regarded as a fiction, inasmuch as Paul is speaking not of
Jesu."
We may
iii.
and
Col.
the propriety of marriage, but of the duties of the married
life.
Vv. 23, 24.
"On
dvrjp
iKKkrâlas:']
for the o)? to) Kvplw just
demanded.
Reason assigned For the husband is in

is
the marriage relation the same as Christ
in relation to the
vijp'] a and jvvaiKoii
church
the former, like the latter,

is
is
the head,
husband
with the
being
6
head of his wife
article.
hence
avrjp is ivithout,
to?
Kal] as also with Christ the relation of
Head
exists,
namely, in regard to the church.

is
avrb'i
(Tcorrjp
Tov
<Tcofji,aTo<i]
usualhj taken as apposition to
Xptaro'i} according to which auro? would take up the subject

again with special emphasis (Schaefer, Melet.
hardy,
^
p.
84
Bern-
p.
283)
" He, the Saviour of the body','
He who makes
Holzhausen (comp, already Chrysostora) has again referred ahris to the huswho is called aurhp roZ fffiHTos in comparison with Christ, inasmuch as Incorrectly, since no the being of the wife is conditioned by the husband.
band,
CHAP.
V. 23, 24.
291
is
His body,
of the
i.e.
the church, of which

("
He
the Head, partaker

efficacia,"
Messianic awrrjpia
is
merito et
Calovius).
But while there
not here apparent from the connection any
purpose, bearing on the matter in hand, for sucli an emphatic

description,^ there
may
be urged against
it
the following
aWd,
true,
which,
T.
if it is
not placed in combination with avrbî 6 acoT.

Usually,
it is
(Tcofji.,
admits of no logical explanation.

is
this
aXkd
taken
syllogistically (so Beza, Grotius,
and
others,
including Matthies, Olshausen, de Wette).
But the
syllogistic
is
aWd, and
that in the Greek writers combined with ^rjv,
em-
ployed for the introduction of the propositio minor (Apollon.

Alex, in Beck, Anecd.
II.
p. p.
II. p.
518, 839
v.
Hrtung, Partikell.
14; Klotz, ad Devar. 63); whereas here we should have the conclusio, and we
Fritzsche,
384;
ad Rom.
should thus have to take

as breaking off ("
dWd,
in accordance with
its
usage
argumentorum enarrationem aut aliam cogitationem abrumpit et ad rem ipsam, quae sit agenda, vocat," Klotz, I.e. p. 5; comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 78), fo7' ware, against which, however, militates the fact that the sentence assigning a reason,
K.r.X.,
it
ori,
dv/jp
has already fulfilled
its
destined object (ver. 22), so that
could not occur to any reader to seek in the adversative

this reason-assigning clause.
to
dWd
had
an inference from
reader could refer
ceding,
Xpifri;,
etvros
If Paul
and
since it
any other subject than to the one immediately prewas intelligible to describe the church doubtless,
is truTrip
but not the wife, as to irfix (without further addition). Nor employed in the N". T. otherwise than of Christ or God. ' For the view, that hereby a reminder is given to husbands of the
often forgotten
ever
fact,
which is
by them, that they

;
(see ver. 29)
ought to make their wives truly

II. 2, p.
happy (Erasm., Beza,

is
Grotius, Estius, and others, including Eiickert, Meier,
Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius
less
comp, also Hofmann, Schriftheiu.
134
f.),
inadmissible, since the instructions for husbands begin only with ver. 25.
Har-
remarks
" Inasmuch
as the apostle finds the obedience of marriage, realized
in
church to Christ, he shows inmieground of this peculiar relation in the manifestation of the gracious power of the Lord by redemption." But in this way the question as to the reason determining this addition is not answered, and the gracious power of the Lord is, in fact, not denoted by the simple <ra)T;}p. Olshausen (so already Piscator) thought that tos o ffwrhp raZ (Tu/jt.. had merely the design of setting forth Christ more distinctly in the character of x.i(â.>.n, inasmuch as it designates the church as the ffcf/., which He rules. But it is not roZ aiMaTm that has the emphasis and xsipaX tSs \kx.x., spoken of Christ, needed no elucidation, least of all ia
it
by the
wife, also in the relation of the
diately the
this Epistle.
292
this verse,
infer, from ver. 23, that wliich is proved by he would have written ovv or the metabatic he. Besides this, however, ver. 24, as an inference from ver. 23, would contain a very superfluous prolixity of the discourse, inasmuch as the contents of ver. 24 was already so fully given
wished again to
by the thought of ver. 23 attached to what precedes by means of otl, that we could not but see here a real logical
pleonasm, such as
we
are not accustomed to
meet with in the

According to
writings of the concise and sententious Paul.
Winer,
meant to continue and p. conclude the argument, so that ver. 23 proves the co? tw Kvpiw from the position of Christ and the husband, while ver. 24 proves it from the demand implied in this position, " hut and hence uXkd amounts ultimately to the sense But even in this way only a then, which is the main thing." continuing he, autem, and not the adversative aWd, at, would
400
[E. T. 565], ver.
24
is
When, moreover, it be quite in accordance with the thought. is assumed, with Eckert, Harless, Bleek, that aXKa, after the
intermediate thought auT09 o godt.
t.
<r.,
is
used as hreaking
I.e.
off
and leading back

it
is
to the
theme
(see
Hrtung,
II. p. 37),
t.
<t.
self-evident that the brief clause auro? 6 awr.
introduced, moreover, only as apposition
has not at
all in-
terrupted the development, and consequently has not given

occasion for such a leading back to the theme.^
finally takes
effect:
Hofmann
aXKa
as repelling a possible objection,

the
"But even where
makes happy,
as like Christ
husband is not this he ought to be)

etc.
is
and to this (namely, one who

to his
wife, that
subordination nevertheless remains,"
But in
this
way
is
the
very thought, upon which everything

read into the passage.
held to turn,
purely
In view of
all
that has been said, I (and

t.
Schenkel agrees with

0-.
me
in this) cannot take avTO'i 6 acoT.
as apposition, but only as
I understand
aWd
in its
an independent proposition, and ordinary adversative sense, namely,
thus
"
He
for
His person.
He and no
other, is the Saviour of
the body ;
self,
'
which belongs exclusively to Himdoes not take away the obligation of obedience on the part
hut this relation,
liave returned to his
And how would Paul
again, in another form, in ver. 24, that
After so short a clause as avTos
o <ruT.
r.
<r.,
theme ? He would have said which he had just said in ver. 23 what an un- Pauline diffuseness
CHAP.
V. 25, 2G.
293
cf
tlie
obeys Christ, so
respect."
wives towards their husbands, nay, rather, as the church must also the wives obey their husbands in every
The right view was already perceived by Calvin, when on account of the adversative aWd he proposed the explanation ^ " Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est servator
:
ecclesiae,
nihilominus
sciant mulieres, sibi maritos praeesse,
Christi exemplo, utcunque pari gratia
non poUeant."
Comp,
also
Bengel,
who
is
aptly remarks
;
"
Vir autem non est servator uxoris

. .
.
in eo Christus excellit
objects
hinc sed sequitur."
What Hofmann
is
quite irrelevant; for the thought, that Christ
Saviour
of the body, is not superfluous, but has its significant bearing in
the contrast which follows; and Paul had not to write rjîwv
instead of tov
o-cofiaTo<i
with a view to clearness, since Christ

;
was, in fact, just designated as Ke(âXri
consequently nothing
was now more natural and clear than the designation of believers by TOV o-(o/jiaTo<;, the correlative of KeâXij. The objection of Eeiche, that auroq comes in asyndetically, can have no weight in the case of Paul especially, and of his brief and terse moral precepts (see immediately ver. 28, and comp, in particular Eom.
xii.
ff.).
at
'yvvalK6<i\
sc.
vTroTacrcreaOcoaav.
See ver. 22.
v iravTi] in
which case
it is
presupposed that the commandis
ing on the part of the husbands
in keeping with their posi'/29
tion as representing Christ towards the wife.

vofjioOeTou TrpoariOeiKe ro iv iravri, Theodoret.
evaeeai
i.
duty of the wives was vir or da a ea 6 a Kvpiw, that of the husband is d<yairre Ta.
wife.
" Si
omnia rhetorum argumenta

Bugenhagen.
in
unum
irapeB.
conjicias,
non
hie
tarn persuaseris
conjugibus dilectionem mutuam,
Paulus,"
quam
Kai
eavTov
t.t.X.]
practical proof of the '^yd'mjcre.
Comp.
ver. 2.
WJiat giving
up
is meant (namely, that unto death) is obvious of itself here, where no definition is added to TrapeB. Gal. ii. 20 Eom. iv. 25. Ver. 26. Ai7n, which Christ had in view in giving up Himself for the church, and therewith continued statement of the
;
;
'
He
did not, however, himself give
it
<r.
the preference, but erroneously took
ikXa. as ceterum,
and in
aurs
aar.
t.
found the thought
"ita nihil esse
mulieri utilius nee magis salubre,
quam
ut marito subsit."
294
pattern of love given hy Him.

to
"va avr.
it
<y.
ac.t.X.]
" in order
sanctify
it,
after having cleansed
hy means
Christ's
of the ivord."
In His
regard
to
through the hath of water, sacrificial death, namely,
intention
with
His
future
church had
for
this aim, that, after having

its
by baptism brought about
members the forgiveness of their pre-Christian sins. He would make it partaker of Christian-moral holiness by means
of the gospel. That cleansing is the negative side of that, which Christ contemplated with regard to His church in His death, and this sanctification by means of the gospel constantly
influencing the baptized

antecedens,
is
the positive side

;
the former the
the latter the consequens

death,
and both are caused
by the atoning
the
contents
which
is
the causa meritoria of the
forgiveness of sins brought about by

of the gospel as the
is
sanctifying influence of the latter

Spirit,
means of baptism, and word of the cross. The the efficacy of the Holy
(vi.
iii.
who works by means

Spirit is subject to
of the gospel
Cor.
1 7)
but the
Holy
also
Christ (2
18),
and Christ
communicates Himself in the Spirit to men's hearts (Eom. viii. 9 f.) hence it is said with justice that Chorist sanctifies the church through the word (comp, also ii. 21), in which case it is self-evident to the Christian consciousness
;
that the operative principle therein
is
the Spirit operating
by
means
of the word.
The Vulgate
"
translates KaOap.
mnndans,
and Zanchius says:

So, too, Harless,
modnm
exjmmit, quo earn sanctificet."
who
holds aytdcrr} and Kadaplaa^ not to be
different notions, but the latter to be a
more precise
to
definition
of the former,
which
signifies
purum
is
reddere a cidpa peecati.

this
The
aorist
it
participle
would not be opposed

on
i.
view,
because
that eV
could express that which

a'îda-i^ (see
coincident in point of
time with
9)
but
it is
opposed by the fact
pj]fiaTi,
cannot be joined to Ka6api(Ta<i (see below), but
sanctification
other than the cleansing by baptism, as also at 1
by the word must of necessity be something Cor. vi. 11 (comp. Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16), the cleansing by means of
(aTreXovaaade)
baptism
drjTe)}
'
precedes the
sanctification
II. 2, p.
(-qyiao--
Comp.
Tit.
iii.
5-7.
Hofmann,
135, would,
t
In Act, Thorn, p. 40
ffu
f.
xxTd/îôv alrovs ih rhv
rri raifiytiv
xaâpifxi aurehs
T*
Xovrpu
. T.X., tlie
act of the xar/îlov x.r.x.,
is (in
opposition to Harless)
CHAP.
V, 26.
295-
in opposition to the simple and clear course of the representation,
combine
Kadapicra<i
k.t.\.
with
the
following
iva
TrapacTTrjcrrj,
iKK\r]a-Lav is
but for the invalid reason that afterwards rrjv As if repeated, and not the mere avrrjv used.
Paul might not have used the mere avTTjv even with this And how often do all writers repeat the noun combination with emphasis (so here), or for the sake of perspicuity, instead tcS \ovrpu> rov Comp, on iv. 16, of using the pronoun!
!
{/SaT09]
(genitive
matcriae) denotes
the
well-hnoimi bath of
We water Kar iô^^v, which is administered by baptism. have thus here not simply an allusion to baptism (Grotius, Romberg), but a designation of the same (comp. Tit. iii. 5 1 Cor. vi. 11), and an allusion to the bath of the bride before iv prjfiaTi] belongs to the wedding day see on ver. 27. uyidari (comp. John xvii. 1 7), but is not placed immediately aycdarj and after it, because the two verbal definitions
; ;
Kadapl(Ta<i,
and again the two instrumental

prjjxaTL,
definitions
to
tcS
\ovrpat
together,
rov vharo'i and ev
are
intended
stand
of set purpose conformably to

distinctness,
X. prjfia is
whereby the structure of the discourse is arranged tlie sense and with emphatic
the gospel, to
pi]p,a
t^9
Trio-reo)?,
Eom.
comp. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, and here stands without an article, because it, denoting the word KaT iô^^jv,
8,
could be treated like a proper noun, such as

the like.
also
p.
v6fio<;, %/ot9,
and
The connecting
of ev
prjfi.
with dyida-y
is
followed
by Jerome, Castalio, Calovius, Morus, Eosenmiiller, Winer, 125 [E. T. 172], Eiickert, Bisping, Bleek.^ Others, how" by the waterever, join it to Tftj Xovrpo) rov vSaro^ (Luther bath in the word "), in which case they understand by prj/xa
:
conceived of as immediately subsequent to the act of

receives baptism.
p. 189.
tlie
Kuâplfas
. r. x.
The
Fathers, too, separate the cleansing and the sanctifying of the person
who
II.
So
e.g.
Justin Martyr, de resurrect, in Grabe, Spicil.

;
TertuU. de resurrect. 8 ungitur, ut anima consecretur."

se
genitalis
" Caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur ; caro Cypr. ad Donat. de gratia, p. 3: "Undae auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa in expiatum pectus serenum desuper
infudit," etc.
lumen
^
Against de Wette's objections is to be observed, (1) that, according to Rom. X. 8, 17, prifix can certainly be taken as the gospel (2) that sanctification is wrought indeed through the Spirit, but the Spirit is mediated through the gospel, Gal. iii. 5 ; (3) that the order of the words is not forced, but purposely
;
chosen.
296
either the

haiMsmal formula (Chrysostom
:
eV p^fiari irolw
iv ovofiaTi, rov 7rarpb<i koI rod vlov koL rov dyiov 7rvevfiaTo<;
Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ambrosiaster, Menochius, Calovius, Flatt, de Wette, and others), or the nitentem divino mandato," divine ^precept ("lavationem
comp.
Storr), or the
divine promise ("qua vis et usus signi expli-
catur," Calvin;
comp. Michaelis, Knapp, Tychsen), or "lavacro

the gospel
or
Flatt,
effi^cacy
invocatione divini nominis efficaci " (Erasmus), or
(Augustine,
Estius,
Holzhausen, and others),

in
the
the
divine poiver
prjfiaTL is
and
word of
(!
truth,
so that iv
equivalent to eV irvev/xaTi
Olshausen).
But
all
these explanations break
down
in presence of the fact, that
we
should need to read tw Xovrpw rov vSaro<; tm, or rov iv p^/J^., since neither rb Xovrpov nor to vBcop admits of being joined
into
unity of idea with

ii.
iv p^^fiari
(such
as al ivroXal iv
Boyfiaai,
15, or
?}
rriariq iv Xp., or the like); as well as

prJM'Ci,
of the fact, that the special interpretations of
except that
p^/x.
pijfju.
;
of gospel, are purely invented.
Others have combined iv

inserts
with
Ka9api(ja<i
(Syriac,
which
Kai before
iv
Bengel, Baumgarten, Matthies, Harless, Baumgarten- Crusius, Hofmann perhaps also Beza and Calvin Meier is quite
;
;
which case likewise iv prjjjb. has been explained by some of the words of the institution and their promise (Baum garten), by others of the gospel (Syriac, Bengel " in
indistinct), in
:
verbo est vis mundifica, et
haec
exseritur
per lavacrum,"
comp. Matthies and Baumgarten -Crusius, as also Schenkel), " hy way of utterance, ly way of while Harless translates which can refer only to the promise given with the promise" with a ivord, which is alleged to institution ; and Hofmann
:
mean:
clean.
so that
He
uttered
His
effective loill,
that
it
should become
But it is altogether arbitrary, since Ka6apLaa<i already has a modal definition, to attach iv prip,ari thereto in addition, and on the other hand to leave dyidaj] isolated, although iv
prjiJL.
further,
can very suitably as regards sense be attached to dyidarj that which cleanses, i.e. that which not merely symbolically represents the cleansing (Schenkel), but does
the pre-Christian guilt of sin,
is
away with
'
baptism,^ comp.
:
is a sort of correction of
This also in opposition to Theile in Winer's Exeget. Stud. p. 187 tw kovrpf toZ Uâras.
Iv pni/.a.Ti
CHAP.
V. 27.
297
1 Pet. iii. 21, Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16, and not the prjixa, whether we understand thereby the gospel or the words of the institution lastly, the sense by " way of promise " Paul would have known how to express otherwise than in so indefinite and enigmatic a manner, such as, possibly, by as, indeed, also the sense Kar eTrayyekiav, Gal. iii. 29 understood by Hofmann could not have been more indisGrotius comtinctly conveyed than by the bare iv prjfiaTi}
also
; ;
bines iv prjixan with Kadap., but supplies 9 before eV
tm
\ovTpu>
" verho
<o9
!
suo quasi halneo."

Lastly,
As
quite
if
one could simply

in holding that
it:'
thus supply
v
prjfjbaTL
Koppe
is
wrong
Xva is in accordance with the

Iva.
Hebrew
nai hv
nothing more than the bare

translated thus barbarously
!
Not even the LXX. have

and so final aim
is
Ver. 27.
of the
Ahn
of the aîaari iv pruxan,

avTrj<i,
kavTov TrapeBcoKev virep
to be realized at the
irapaaTrja-r}
Parousia,
Comp, on 2
Cor.
xi. 2.
already
rightly referred to the time of the consummatio saccuH
by
Augustine, Jerome, Primasius, Thomas, Beza, Estius, Calovius,
and others, including Flatt, Eiickert, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek while the Greek Fathers, Lyra, Cajetanus, Bucer, Wolf, Bengel, and others, including Harless and Hofmann, p. 136, think of an act of Christ in the amv ovro<i, and many others do not at all declare their views with regard to the time. But if iva irapaar. k.t.X. is not to apply to the time of the Parousia, it must either be taken as the design of the
;
Ka6api<Ta<i (Bengel),
or
as
is
a parallel to
'iva
avTrjv
djida-r]
pi]fiaTi,
(Harless).
The former
not admissible, because ev
which itself belongs to ayido-Tj (see on ver. 26), stands between nor yet is the latter, because dyiaar) does not denote the same thing with Ka6aplaa<i (see on ver. 26), but the making holy through the word and this making holy cannot from its nature be parallel to the momentary act of presenting of the church as a glorious and spotless one, but can only be ante; ;
^ What Hofmann, II. 2, p. 191, oddly enough adduces by way of elucidation As the husband by the word, which expresses his will to make a woman his wife, takes away from her the reproach of her virgin state (comp. Isa. iv. 1
* '
done for the church," drags in something entirely foreign to the matter, and, indeed, something very unsuitable, as though the church were thought of as vapiivoi v-ripaxfio;
1 Cor. vii. 36), so has Christ
1
298
cedent, so that this presentation
must be the
final result of the
as
sanctifying which has already taken place through the word.
TrapaaTrjarj] might set forth, present, coram sisteret, namely, His bride. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2. The view of Harless, that the church is conceived of not as bride, but as spotless offering (on rrrapaa-T. comp. Kom. xii, 1), is opposed to the context, and incorrect also on account of eavroj, by which, in fact, there would result the conception that Christ presents the
offering to Himself.
No, the union of Christ with His church
at the Parousia, in order to confer

ness, is conceived of
by Paul
(as also
ft'.
;
XXV. 1
ff.,
comp. Eev. xix. 7

bringing
upon it Messianic blessedby Christ Himself, Matt. see also John iii. 29) under
of a bride, wherein
sets
the figure of the
home
Christ
i.e.
appears as the bridegroom and
forth the bride,

is
His
church, as a spotless virgin (the bodily purity

of the ethical) before Himself, after
aloiv ovTo<i cleansed it
a representa-
He
has already in the
by the bath of baptism (i.e. blotted out the pre-Christian guilt of the church) and sanctified it through His word. To deny the reference of Ka6apL<Ta<i k.t.X. and of ver. 27 to the circumstances of a wedding, and particularly the allusion to the bath to be taken by the bride before the wedding-day (Harless, Baumgarten - Crusius, Hofmann, and
others), is
presentation in our passage was referred by Kahnis {Abcndm. p. 144) to the LorcVs Supper, an application which is warranted neither by the context nor by the analogy of 2 Cor. xi. 2 and Matt. xxv. ayro? eavTO)] so that what
context.^
The
is
an over-refinement of taste at variance with the
takes place
not therefore as in the case of the bringing
home
gave
of actual brides
by
otliers,
but Christ Himself as
He
* It is certainly obvious that this bathing in the case of an actual bride was not the business of the bridegroom (as Hofmann objects) ; but in the case of the church conceived as the bi'ide the cleansing by the bath of baptism is the act of
the bridegroom (who in fact does not cause the bride, cleansed and sanctified by him, to be presented by others, but presents her to himself), and thus Paul has drawn the figure itself in accordance with the state of matters in the reality delineated, as indeed frequently figures are modified in accordance with the thing to be represented (comp, on Matt. xxv. 1; Gal. iv. 19). If we press the figures beyond the tertium comparationis, no one is any longer appropriate. On the XovTpov vufiipixiv (at which xaâp. TU XouTpu rov vêcros here glances), comp, Hermann, Privatalter th. 31, 6 j Becker, specially Bos, Exercitt. p. 185 f. Charides, ii. p. 460 ff. as also Buxtorf, Synag. p. 626.
CHAP.
V. 28.
299
Himself to sanctify it, etc., presents the church as bride to Himself at His Parousia, and indeed as evhoôv, in glorious beauty (Luke vii. 25 Isa. xxii. 18, al.), which is with emphasis placed before ttjv eKKkrjaiav, and subsequently receives by means of îrj e-xpvaav k.t.X a detached, more precise negative definition specially to be brought into prominence. With regard to Xen. Ifcin. iii. 5.11; Thucyd. avTb<; eavTo), comp. 2 Cor. i. 9 (tttiXov] maculam, com-p. 2 Pet. vi. 40. 3; Krger, 51. 2. 12.
;
ii.
13, a word of the later age of Greek, instead of the Attic
ACT^Xi'?.
See Lobeck,
is
acl
Phryn.
p.
28.
In the f/ure
is
meant
corporeal blemish, but
in the reality a moral defilement.
The same
the
the case with pvrlSa, rugam, which occurs only

T.,
here in the N.
but often in the classical writers, not in

Special distinctions as to
LXX.
or Apocrypha.
what
is
intended by the two figures are arbitrary.

(after
So
e.g.
Estius
Augustine)
airlX.
;
signifies
:
dcformitas the
ojieris,
and pvT.
duplicitas
carere
intentionis
Grotius
former applies to the
vitiis,
the latter to the vegetos semper
(because wrinkles are characteristic of age).
T(i)v] which belongs to the category of such things, of that iva y /c.t.X] which disfigures, like spots and wrinkles. change of the construction, instead of aXX,' ovaav k.t.X., as if Versatility of the Greek Lva /XT) e)(rf k.t.X. had been said before. mode of thought and expression. See, in general, Matthiae, p. 1527 f.; Winer, p. 509 [E. T. 722]; Buttmann, neutest.
aXV
esse
^ tl
for good rwv roiov-
Gr. p.
208
(2
[E. T. 241].
of the figure, which would be

ayvT]
Cor. xi.
Grotius, at
more congruously expressed by i. Comp. Cant. iv. 7. 4. variance with the context, holds that Paul had in
2).
fi(jofio<f\
ayta] the thing signified in place
the
case of both
expressions thought of
"
quales mctimae
esse debebant in V. T."
Ver. 28. Oi/rw?]

Crusius, as also de
o)?
(Estius
To refer this, with Meier and BaumgartenWette is disposed to do, to the following likewise would have it so understood, unless outo)?
;
Kol ol vhpe<i 6(f)el\ovaiv be read

to be
read,
which, however,
is
really
see
the
critical
remarks), might, doubtless, be

iv. 1),
admissible in itself (see on 1 Cor.

of place
;
but
is
here quite out
because ovTwq would then have an undue emphasis,
and the declaration would stand without any inner connection
"
300

It
with that which precedes.

/cafo?
relates
to
what
is
said from
Kol 6 Xpiaro'i, ver.

:
25 onwards
to ver. 27,
and
is
equivalent to
in accordance with this relation, in keeping of Christ for the church.

Viger. p.
with this holy
love
Comp.
Fritzsche,
ad Rom.
error in
I.
p,
39; Herrn, ad
793.
We may
add
is
that Zanchius,
who
is
followed by Estius and Harless/
in
non nihil ad mysterium, nunc ad institutum redit." There was no digression in what precedes, but a delineation of the love of Christ serving as an example
for the husbands.
saying, " digressus
o)? to,
eavrcov acofiara] not

bodies.
like their
own
bodies,^ but
For Christ loved the church not like His body, but as His body, which the church is and He its head, ver. 23. So is also the husband head of the wife, and he is to love the wife as his body which conception,
:
as their
own
however, does not present the Gnostic notion of the

(Baur), but, on the contrary, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 3.
irXrjpcofia
Schoettgen,
to?
;
Eosenmiiller,
aay/xara
Flatt,
Meier, and
:
others
make
to.
eavr.
is
mean nothing more than
like themselves
but this
in itself quite arbitrary and without support from linguistic usage,

since
and
also utterly inappropriate to the
example of
Christ,
we
certainly cannot say of
Christ that
He
loved the
In the Rabbinical passages, too, as uxorem amat iit corpus suum" etc., this ut corpus suum is to be taken literally, and that in accordance with the mode of regarding man and wife as one flesh. We may add that Paul does not by means of to? t. eavT. aco/jb. pass over into another figure, or even to another view of the subject (Eckert), but already, in the preceding
church
like
f,
Himself !
:
Sanhedr.
76, 2
" qui
description of the love of Christ to the church, his conception
has been that Christ loves the church. His bride, as His hody,
indicates,
which conception he now first, in the application, definitely and in vv. 29-31 more particularly elucidates. a'âirSiv rr)v eavrou yuvaiKa eavrov dyuTra] From the duty
^ Who thinks that Paul is only resuming the simple injunction of ver. 25, with the exjiansion ^s tcc sauTv trefâTa. Certainly the main point of the precept, ver. 28, lies in those words ; but this whole precept is by means of ortus (jrounded on what is said from Kaiii; . Xp., ver. 25, onward. * Meier comp, also Grotius, who here brings in the entirely heterogeneous comparison: "Sicuti corpus est instrumentum animi, ita uxor est instrumentum viri ad res domesticas, ad quaerendos liberos.
;

CHAP.
V. 29.
:;
301
a-aojiara, results
of loving their
own wives
&>?
ra eavrcov
inasmuch
as in fact according to this the wife belongs essen-
tially to the
proper self of the husband as such
the prois
position of conjugal ethics, that the love of one's

love
own vAfe
of
oneself.
This proposition Paul lays down, in order to
treat
it more in detail, vv. 29-32, and finally repeat it in the form of a direct precept in ver. 3 3. Ver, 29. Fap] assigns the reason ofiohat immediately ^precedes,
and that
im-pcl to
so,
that this statement of the reason
is
intended to
the exercise of the self-love involved in the love to
the wife.
"
The connection
loves his
of the thoughts, namely, is this
He who
own
wife, loves himself; for, if

is
he did not
love her, he would hate his oion flesh, which

to nature that
so repugnant
no one has ever yet done
one does the opposite, as also Christ
natural relation the highest consecration
and
take
it,
but rather every

that gives to this
acts
with regard to
144):
sup-
the church, because this constitutes the members of His body."
TTore] ever, not, as
May erhoff would
it {Koloss. p.
formerly, in the heathen state, the contrast to which
is
posed to be
but possibly now, under the influence of an
asceticism directed against marriage

tenses that follow
a view, which the present
ought to have precluded.

is
rr^v
iavrov adpKo]
o-dp^
is
here indifferent (comp. Hahn, Theol.

sinful.^
d. iV. T'. I. p.
without the conception of what

written a-w/Ma instead (Curtius,
425) Paul might have

nostris,
vii.
" corporibus
quae utique non odimus

the idea of the
state, is
fiia
"
Seneca,^. 14: "fateor insitam

cra/iAra,
nobis esse corporis nostri caritatem"), but chose adp^, which

is
because
realized in the married
eKaara.
already (see ver. 21) present to his mind. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 3 6 6
aXX]
;
sc.
p. 1 9 2 E.
ad
Syvip.
inrpeêi] enutrit.
is
The compound form denotes
the development that
brought about by the nourishing
comp.
it
vi. 4.
See the passages in Wetstein.

(Vulgate)
its
;
ddXiret]
It
is
makes
thus
xxi.
warm,
fovet
Goth
" var^neith."
to
be taken in
proper signification.
Hom.
;
Odyss.
179, 184, 246; Xen. Cyr. v. 1. 11; Soph. PM. 38; also Theocr. xiv. 38 Deut. xxii. 6 Job xxxix. 14 1 Thess. ii. 8. Bengel aptly says " id spectat amictum." The usual inter;
;
:
See also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Snde,
I. p.
54.
302
pretation
is
:

" he fosters
linguistic usage.
. . .
it,"
Luther.
Without support from
It
is,
we may
add, self-evident that ovBeU
avTrjv expresses a proposition of experience, the correctis
ness of which holds as a general rule, and
not set aside
by exceptional
6
cases.
The
crucifying of the flesh, however,
in Gal. v. 24, has regard to the sinful adp^.
Ka6o)rospcrity
salvation of His church,
whose
collective
He
carefully promotes.
To bring out by
:
interpreta-
tion specially two elements (Grotius

Spiritu, veslit virtutibus
") is
" nutrit earn
verbo et
arbitrary.
According to Kahnis
{Ahendm.
p.
143
f.),
Christ nourishes the church as His body
hy the communication of His hody in the Sujpper. But apart from the fact that OaXirei does not suit this, there is no
mention at all of the Lord's Supper in the whole connection. Comp, on irapacn., ver. 27, and see on ver. 30 ff. The Ka6(b<i Kal 6 Xp. rrjv eKK\. is the sacred refrain of the whole Christian ethics of marriage; comp. vv. 23, 25. Ver. 30. Eeason why Christ e/crpeêt koI daXTret the church hecausc we are mcmhers of His hody. fiiXi] is prefixed with emphasis for we are not an accidens, but integral parts of His body. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 2 7. eV t^? aapKo<; avrov k. e rwv oarewv avrov] More precise definition of the êkr] rov crw/u-aro? avTov just said, in order to express this relation as strongly
:
as possible
(proceeding)
is
from His
flesh
and from His

ii.
hones.
This form of expression
a reminiscence of Gen.
23,^
where
Adam
expresses the origin of
his flesh,^
to
Eve out of his bones and out of which origin the derivative relation of Christians
sense,
to Christ is analogous, of course not physically, but in the

spiritual, mystical
as such
inasmuch as
the
Christian existence
the speciflc heing
and
spiritual nature of Christians
proceeds
^
from
Christ, has in Christ its 'principle of origination,

itself to
This reminiscence the more readily suggested

12
'.),
the apostle, not only
in general, because he
V.
but also
was wont to think of Christ as the second Adam (Rom. specially because he was just treating of the subject of
as in Gen.
29.
ii.
marriage.
^ That Paul should not prefix \k tv iffriuv, was quite naturally suggested to him by ver. arbitrary and far-fetched.
23,
but
I* rns irapKs,
The explanation
of Bengel
is
CHAP.
V. SO.
303
The at any rate non -literal expressions are not intended to bear They do not affirm that believers are minuter interpretation. and taken out of Christ's glorified body (Gess, Person produced comp. Bisping), which is already forbidden Christi, p. 274 f. Eather is the same expression " flesh and bones." by the
as in a physical
;
manner Eve proceeded from Adam.
thing intended
only brought, in accordance with the connec-
tion, into the definite sensuously genetic form of presentation
suggested by Gen.
KTia-i<;
iyci), ^rj
I.e.
which
elsewhere
is
denoted by Kaivy
(2 Cor. v. Se
17
Gal. vi. 15), as well as

ii.
ev efiol XpKTTO'i (Gal.

iii.
by ^(o Be ovKen by Xpiarbv kveBu20),
aaaOe
Christ
(Gal.
(1
Cor. vi.
setting forth
by the relation of the eu Trvevfia elvat to 17), and in general by the expressions the Christian TraXiyyevea-ia} Comp, the kolvcovov
27),
<f)va-(o<;,
ryiveaaL 6eLa<i
it
2 Pet.
i.
4.
With
various modifications
has been explained of the spiritual origination from Christ
already by Chrysostom (who understood the regeneration

baptism), Ambrosiaster, Theodoret, Oecumeriiis (e^ avrov
by
Se,
Kado irap^r]
(" spirituali
rj/xoov
eart t^? BevTepa<i irXdaeo)^, ooairep e rov
'ABafi Bia rrjv irpmrrjv), Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Vorstius
tantum ratione ex ipso Christo quasi procreates
esse "), Calvin (" qui spiritus sui virtute nos in corpus
inserit,
suum
ut vitam ex eo hauriamus
"),
Calovius, Bengel, Matthies,
de Wette (who, however, in the second edition, regards the words

as
spurious),
(so
Hofmann, Eeiche, and others
while, withal,
Koppe
also
Meier) thought only arctissimam quamlihet

is
conjunctionem to be denoted, whereby justice

the genetic signification of the
e/c.
not done to
it
:
Others explained
in so
far as we have
same human nature as He. So Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas, Michaelis comp, also Stolz and EosenmUer. Decidedly erroneous, partly because Paul could not in this sense say " we are of Christ's flesh and bone," but only the converse " Christ is of our flesh and bone " (Eom. i. 3, ix. 5 John i. 14) partly because the element of having like nature with Christ would apply not merely to Christians,
the
;
: : ; ;
Philo also, p. 1094, applies
tlie
words of Gen.
I.e.
to a sjnritual relation
to the relation of the soul to God.
If the soul were better
and more
like God, it
would be able to make use aiiToVj XXa (r^'oopa olxiTa.
of those words, because, namely, it ox
iffriv
axxorfl
304
but
to
men
:
as sucli generally.
Others refer
it
to the crucifixion
i.
of Christ
"
ex carne ejus et ossibus
crucifixis,
e.
ex passione
ejus predicata et credita
ortum
f.,
liabuit ecclesia," Grotius,
Comp,
already Cajetanus, as also Zanchius, Zachariae, Schenkel, having

reference to
John
vi.
51
xiv.
18
ff.
But the
crucifixis is
purely imported, and could the less be guessed here, inasmuch

as from the
came
to be recalled
words the history of Adam and Eve inevitably and there is nothing to remind us (in
;
opposition to Schenkel) of the "martyr-stake of the cross,"
upon which Christ "gave up" His flesh and bones "and suffered them to he broken" (? see John xix. 33, 36). Others, finally, have explained it of the real communion with the tody of Christ in the Lord's Supper. So recently,^ in addition to Kahnis and Thomasius, III. 2, p. 73, also Harless and Olshausen, the " it is the self-communication of His latter of whom says divine-human nature, by which Christ makes us to be His flesh and bone He gives His people His flesh to eat and His blood to drink." But not even the semblance of a plea for
:
explaining
it
of the Supper lies in the words

aL/xaTO'; avrov,
not written koI ck tov

specific
since Paul has which would have been

;
in the case of the Supper, but koX e/c xtSv oa-ricov avrov Eckert has renounced any attempt at explanation, and doubts whether Paul himself thought of anything definite in the words. A very needless desp)air of exegesis Yer. 31. Not a citation from Gen. ii. 24, but (comp. vi. 2) Paul makes these words of Scripture, which as such were well known to the readers, his own, while the deviations from
I !
the
are unimportant and make no difference to the What, however, is spoken, Gen. I.e., of the union of husband and wife, Paul applies by typical interpretation to the coming {future : KaraXei-êi k.t.X.) union of Christ with the church (see ver. 32), a union which shall take place at the Parousia, up to which time the church is the bride of Christ, and at which it is then nuptially joined with Him (see on
sense.
^ Manj' of the older expositors, following Theodoret and Theopliylact, at least mixed up the Supper in various ways in their interpretation. So Beza and Calvin say that it is obsignatio et symholum of the mystic fellowship with Christ here meant. Grotius found an allusion to the Supper while, on the other hand, Calovius maintained that we were ex Christo not only by regeneration, but also by the communication of His body and blood in the Lord's Supper.
;
LXX.
CHAP.
V.
31.
305
ver. 27),
and
we
so the apostle expresses this antitype of the
conjugal union in the hallowed words of Scripture, in which
the type, the marriage union in the proper sense,
is
expressed.
reason,
We
have accordingly
to
explain
it
thus:
For
this
because
are Christ's members, of His flesh and of His
bone, shall a
leave father
man
(i.e.
antitypically, Christ, at the Parousia)

{i.e.,
and mother
:
according to the mystic interwill leave
His seat at the right hand of God) and he united with his wife (with the church), and (and then) the two (the man and the wife, i.e. Christ who has descended and the church) shall he one flesh (form one ethical person, as married persons by virtue of bodily union become a physical unity). Those expositors who, in keeping
pretation of the apostle
He
with the original sense of Gen.

marriage
(so
I.e.,
take the words of actual

Matthias,
most
expositors,
including
Meier,
Schenkel, Bleek, Eiickert^), have against them as well the
avrl rovTov, which cannot be referred without arbitrariness to
future expression, which
anything else than what immediately precedes, as also the (as also in Gen. l.c) must denote
something yet to come

himself, ver.
and not
rrjv
less the
statement of Paul
the
church, not
32, according to which v9po)7ro<; must he inChrist,
terpreted
of
and
jvvalKa
of
Hofmann merely ;perhaps (Eeiche) is to be so interpreted. likewise, II. 2, p. 139, understands it of real marriage, and
sees all difficulties vanish if
we more
closely connect ver.
with
ver. 31, so that
ro fivaT-^piov tovto sums
32 up the Old
and then
Testament passage
the sense
is
;
itself
and makes
all
this the subject,
" That, as the passage affirms, the marriage com-
munion
is the
most intimate of
communions for
hecause the wife proceeds
from
the
husband
this reason,
this mystery,
which
was foreign
to
the Gentiles, is great.
It is
mystery of the order laid down hy the revelation of the divine counsel in this domain, ivhich the apostle
interprets as applying to Christ
a highly significant creation, a most important
and
the church, hecause
marriage
for the
in this respect has

redemption, hut
^
its
higher counterpart in the domain of

excluding
its
without
validity
also
Who, however,
here too despairs of more precise explanation, as the passage

as a hint
stands forth in an abrupt form merely

initiated.
thrown out
for the
more
Meter Eph.
306
married as regards their relation regulated hy the creation!' is incorrect, for the very reason that to make to jjLvar^piov be said in reference to the Gentiles is quite foreign to, and remote from, the connection because, further, Paul
This view
;
must have written
eyco Be
vvv Xeyo) say
because Xijco does not

;
I interpret it because uvtI tovtov would remain entirely out of connection with that which precedes, and thus the passage of Scripture would make
it,"
it," i.e.
mean
" I say of
but
" I
its
appearance quite abruptly
because,
if
the reader was to

subject,
understand the whole
passage of Scripture as the
summed up
in to fxva-T^p. tovto, of
this, in
what
follows, the apostle
must have indicated

and because,
marriage,
order to be intelligible,
k.t.\., fivcTT-^piov
by some;
thing like TO Be clvtI
tovtov
fieya iaTiv
finally, the
validity of the fundamental

is
law
of
ver.
31, for married persons

unsuitable
so
entirely
self-
evident, that a quite
thought
("
but without ex-
cluding," etc.)
is
attributed to the Tfkrjv of ver. 33.
Those,
further, ivho explain it of Christ
and
the church,
as Hunnius,
Balduin, Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, are mistaken

in believing the connection with Christ already existing in
the present aloiv as that which

KaTokeiylrei tov iraT.
("
k. t.
/jl7]t.
is
meant
inasmuch
as in the
they think of the incarnation
etiam Christus patrem quasi reliquit," Bengel), or generally of the fact that " Christus nihil tam carum habuit, quod non
nostri causa abdicaverit " (Grotius), or even of the separation
of Christ from His nation (Michaelis) or from the synagogue
(Bisping)
while Harless and Olshausen pass over KaToXeiyêt

K.T.X.
TOV TTUTepa
without more precise explanation, as unconnection and aim, and regard only kuI
essential to the
eaovTav ol
B. el<i
a.
Lord's Supper}
as the main point, explaining it of the But the whole reference to the already present
//..
connection with
Christ
is
incorrect, because this connection
^ What in marriage tlie fleshly union is, that in the connection of the church with Christ the substantial union by means of the Supper is alleged to be " As man and wife are indeed always one in love, but in the elements of conjugal union, in which the specific naiure of marriage consists, become in a special sense one flesh ; so is also the church as a whole, and each congregation, like each soul in it, always one spirit with Christ, the Head of the body ; but in the elements of the sacred Simper the believing soul celebrates in a very special sense the union with
!
its
Saviour, in that
it
takes
up
into itself
His flesh and
blood,
and
therewith the
CH.P. V. 31.
307
was just before expressed in the present form by yiêkt) ia-fiev k.tX, but now upon this present relation is based the setting
in of a
future one
{Karakel-^êi
k.tX.
observe the future

as in Gen,
ii.
forms),
and that by avrl tovtov, quite

of
24 by
is
means
eveKev
tovtov
the future relation of marriage
deduced from the then existing relation of Adam and Eve. These expositors, besides, overlook the fact that in the amv ovTo<i Christ is not yet Jmshand, but until the Parousia still hridcgroom of the church (ver. 27), which He only at the Parousia presents to Himself as a purified and sanctified
bride for nuptial union.
Moreover, the setting aside of the

avOpwiro^ tov iraT. k.tX., on the
is
whole portion
ing.
KaToXel-^lret
part of Harless and Olshausen,
It is Winer, p. 326 [E. T. 456]. distinguished from the eveKev tovtov in the LXX. only by its placing the cause and the fact thereby conditioned in
a^rt
a purely arbitrary proceed-
tovtov'] See
comparison with each other according to the conception of

requital
p.
{for
this).
Comp,
Lex. Soph.
dvd'
I.
oiv,
1327; EUendt,
p.
170.
and see Matthiae, The reference of

are entirely silent,
avTL tovtov, with regard to which
many
can be found only in ver. 30

is
this.
because our relation to Christ

those of Estius
See above.
" because the
Other references, as
" quia mulier formata est ex ossibus et carne viri,"
and Holz"
hausen
man, in loving
its
his wife, loves liimself
(comp. Meier and Matthies), are forced just because of their taking ver. 31 not according to
germ of
mystic reference, but of
and
the immortal body." This fanciful view of Olshausen is without any warrant in the context, and at variance with the future xaraXiiypti, which must
that indeed according to Gen.

all suit
ii.
express
something not yet accometc.,
plished, but only to be expected in the future.
Moreover, the "leaving,"
does not at
the conception of the
communion
of Christ with believers in
the Supper, and least of aU the orthodox Lutheran conception of ubiquity. Nevertheless Kahnis {Abendm. p. 144) has entirely acceded to the view of Olshausen. He objects to the explanation of the union of Christ with the
church at the Parousia, that sacrificial renunciation, on the matter is neither so thouglit xaruXiiû, the coming again
this
union cannot possibly be thought of as " a
part of Christ, of His heavenly glory. "

of nor so represented.
But the That which is meant by of Christ from heaven, will and this was well
known
to the believing consciousness of every reader glory, but with that glory
;
take place
the
not without
is
His heavenly
and by the union, which

x.t.x.,
iii.
expressed
of the
in the typical representation
"TtftxTKoXXninfiTcti
(rvSa?a<r<')na!(
believers will then be accomplished.
Comp.
Col.
4.
308
real

marriage.
avOpcoTro^']
a human
heing,
i.e.
according to
the context, a
man
see
(without on that account avpwiro'i standFritzsche,

to
ing
for
avTjp,
ad Matt.
mystical
p.
593), by which,
however,
according
the
interpretation
apostle, Christ is
antitypically to be understood.
of the
/cat
Tr]v
fiTjTepa] is doubtless
taken up along with the rest as a constituent part of the words of Adam, but is not destined for a
exposition
special
in the
typical reference of the passage to

can, in
Christ, since KaraXeLyfret rov irarkpa avrov
accord-
ance with that typical reference, only apply to the descending

of Christ from the right hand of God, which will ensue at the Parousia. Then the avv6povo<i of the Father comes down to
earth, to
wed Himself
(Matt. xxv. 1) to the church, the bride,
2 Cor.
xi. 2.
Ver. 32. For the understanding of ver.
31
in the sense of
is
the apostle an exegetical gloss was necessary, which
here
its
given
This mystery
is great, is
it,
important and exalted in

it
contents, hut
say
adduce
(namely, this mystery, by
which
meant just the declaration of Gen. ii. 24), in referand the church. to fivarijpLov toOto] So Paul terms those Old Testament words just employed by him, in so far as they have a hidden meaning not recognised without
is
ence to Christ
divine enlightenment.
With
the Eabbins, too, the formula

:
mysterium
f. 59, 4 common. See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 783 f.
magnum
{Jalkut. Rut.
N"i''p"'
NH
Nl) is very
e7(w te] iyco,
which
:
Holzhausen even declares
to
be superfluous, has emphasis
/,
however {Be metabatic), opposed to the possible interpretations
which might be given to the mysterious utterance.'^ eh Xpiarov Kot eh Tr)v eKKXrja-iav] so that we have thus under avOpwira to understand Christ, and under rj rywr) avrov the church. This has been rightly discerned already by the Fathers
(see Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome), only they
should not have thought of the coming of Christ in the flesh (in
connection with which Jerome interpreted
tî/ firjTepa of
the
heavenly Jerusalem
ver. 3 1.
^
comp. Estius), but of the Parousia.
See on
Lastly,
-
it is
worthy of notice simply under a

of
historical
Later Rabbinico
mystical interpretations
marriage
Schoettgen, Hor. p. 784.

to reason,
Philo, p. 1096, allegorizes those

senses.
may be seen in words in reference
which forsakes wisdom and follows the
CHAP.
V. 33.
309
point of view, that
Eoman
Catholics (but not Erasmus, Caje-
tanus, or Estius), on the ground of the Vulgate, which translates

fivtjTripiov
by sacramcntum, proved from our passage

a sacrament.
It is not this that is
that
conveyed in marriage is the passage, as indeed in general marriage " non habet a Christo institutionein sacramentalem, non /o?'??iam, non materiam, non finem sacramentalem " (Calovius, and see the Aiool. Conf. Aug. p. 202), but it is rather the sacredly ideal and deeply
moral character, which
that
is
for ever
assured to marriage
this typical significance in the Christian view.
We may
by add
monogamy
is 'prcsn'p'poscd
as self-evident, but does not
form the
set 'purpose,
of the passage,
which would be purely

effect,
importccL (in opposition to Schwegler, p. 387).
Ver. 33. IVkr]v\
is
usually explained to the
that
it
leads back to the proper theme after the digression of vv.
30-32, or merely
tate
revertitur,"
ver.
32 (Olshausen).
oblitus
"Paulus prae
nobili-
digressionis quasi
propositae rei nunc ad
rem
the
Bengel.
digression,
however, has
certainly
to
not taken place, but vv. 30, 31
essentially belong
description of the love of Christ to the church, and ver.
32 was a brief gloss pertaining to the right understanding of ver. And ifKriv is used by way doubt31, and not a digression.
of hreaking off
:
less
So also here
this fxvarijpLov
Yet
(Luke
xix. 2 7, al.),
but not of resuming.
not further to enter
upon
the
subject
of
ye also ought (as Christ the church), each one
individually, in such
manner
{ovrw^,
i.e.
in keeping with the
ideal of Christ contained in this fivan^piov) to love his
own wife
oi/tc?
as himself.
With kul
01
the persons appealed
to,
and with
the mode of what they are to do, are placed in a parallel with
Christ.
KaB* eva] ye one hy one, vos singuli,
man
hy man.
See Matthiae,
taken
i7/x.et9,
its
p. 1357. regimen from
The following
KaaTo<i, not
verb,
however, has
as often also in classical writers.

p.
from the proper subject See Matthiae, p. 765

;
The twofold
Stallbaum, ad Gorg.
503 E; Bornemann, ad
Cyrop.
iii.
1. 8.
designation ol kuO^ eva Ka(Tro?
eavrov]
determined by,
<yvvalKa
the point of view

^
dyaTrcov
rrjv
eavrov
8.
eavrov
See also Catech.
Rom.
ii.
16
il
310
ayaTTa, ver. 28.
<yvvri is
?;
Be
<yvvr)
Xva ôrirai tov vBpa\

p.
17
Ze
with emphasis absolutely (Winer,

viii.
506
[E. T. 722])
prefixed, not yet
dependent on the notion of volo (see on
2 Cor.
7) to be supplied in thought before "va.
hut the wife
Hence
slie
ought
to
fear her husband.
In this brief stern
closing utterance, the apostle, while stating the obligation of
the husband to love the wife 9 eavTov, yet secures as concerns the wife the relation of subordination, namely, the duty
of reverence for the husband
a duty, which
is
not done away

"
with by
that obligation on the part of the husband.

si
Optime
cohaerebit concordia,
ntrimque constabunt ofcia," Erasmus,

add, in accordance with the con0)9 Trpeiret
Paraphr.
text
Eightly,
we may
fxrj
Oecumenius
defines the notion of (f)orJTat:

BovXoirpeTTOj'i.
<yvvalKa (padadat,
See vv. 22-2-i.
CHAP. VL
311
CHAPTEE VL
Ver.
1.
After
u/awv Elz.
Scholz, Tisch, have
Iv
%-jpiu},
in opposi-
G, It. Marcion, Cyril, Cypr. Ambrosiast. Rejected by Mill, suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Elick., but defended (on the ground of Col. iii. 20) by Harless and Eeiche. The latter with justice since the witnesses who omit do not preponderate, and since for the purpose of a gloss not h xvpiw but g TU) jcKf/w (v. 22) would have suggested itself. If, however, h xuplu had been added from Col. I.e., it would have Ver. 5. toTq xuploig Ttara <rapxa] been brought in after hixaiov. B N, Lachm. and Elick. toTs xara cdpxa -/.vpioig, following Ver. 6. The min. Clem. Dam. Theophyl. From Col. iii. 22. article before Xpiaroy is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance Ver. 7. ug, with preponderating testimony, to be deleted. Ver. 8. which is wanting with Elz., is decidedly attested.
tion to
;
B D* F

lav,
cl
sav Ti 'ixaffrog]
also
Lachm. and Elick. have 'Uaarog recommended by Griesb., following A D

It.
which was
G, min.
E F
Vulg.
scv
Bas.
Dam.
Other variations
s'av ri iroi.
'i'/..
are, exaoro; sdv

o
(B),
'Trotrja.
ixaoTog (K*),
(S**),
lav tic
'izaorog (1, 27,
/.), lav TI ixaar. (46, 115, CiL, Theoph. ms.), lav r/g 'Uaer. (62, 197, al), lav Tig (or ti) vdpwTTOi (Chrys. in Comment.). The best But if this had attested reading is accordingly 'ixacTog lav. been the original one, it would not be at all easy to see how it could have given rise to variations, and specially to the introducing of the Ti. The Recepta, on the other hand (again adopted by Tisch.), became very easily the source of the other readings, if the copyist passed over from OTI at once to the subsequent TI. Thus arose the corruption or; 'Uacrog iroino'/i X.T.X., and thence, by means of different ways of restoring what had been omitted, were formed the variations, in which case vpuTog came in instead of 'IxaaTog as a gloss, designed to indii<* cate the general sense of 'IxaoTog. xo/j,isTra/] B D* F
32,
Petr.
iii.
In Col. So Lachm. Tisch. Elick. 25, likewise, these two forms are found side by side in the
alex.
:
xofj^lasrai.^
critical
more strongly
may
'
Nevertheless here, as there, xo/xicsTai is and hence to be preferred. xo/Misirai Ver. 9. have originated in a reminiscence of 1 Pet. v. 4.
witnesses.
attested,
A reads
K0MI2ETE, and thus
testifies indirectly
in favour of
o/ii'<nTcci,
312
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,
auToiv] many variations, among which avruv x. vfiSiv (so ifji.uiv Lachm. Tisch. Eiick. and Harless recommended also by Griesb.) is that most strongly attested, namely, by A B D* min. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Copt. Clem. Pet. Chrys. (aUcubi) Damasc. Rightly. Jer. Aug. Pel. The mention of the slaves (auruv) appeared here partly in itself, partly from a comparison with Col. iv. 1, not relevant; hence the Eecepta (anew defended by Eeiche) vimojv alrZv, in which case avrojv applies to tlie onasters, just as avTuv hiMU}v in E F G, and merely Uju-Si/ in 17. Others,leaving
;
the xai standing, at least prefixed ^wv (L, min. Syr. p. Fathers N* testifies in favour of Lachmann's reading vfjjUiv xai aurui). by kauTciJv xai C/MoJv, whereas N**, like the others, has regarded the prefixing of u^jloov (thus v/u,. x. saur.) as necessary. Ver. 10. TO 7.oit6v] Lachm. and Elick. read rou Xoi-rou, following B S* Thus at least not prepon17, 73, 118, Cyril, Procop. Dam. derantly supported. In favour, however, of rh XoitSv, testifies also the reading dum/MoZs9i, which is found in B 17, instead of the following hdvm/zoads, and probably has arisen from the confounding on the part of the copyist of the N in Xoiirov with the N in ENui/a/ioDffs. Since, moreover, rh XomSv better accords with the sense than roZ Xomou (see on Gal. vi. 17), I hold the latter to be a mechanical repetition from Gal. I.e. The following hiX<poi [lOM is wanting in B E N* Aeth. Arm. Clar. Germ. Goth. Cyril, Damasc. Lucifer, Ambrosiast. Jerome ; while in A^ F G, codd. Ital. Syr. p. Vulg. Theodoret, only (lou is wanting. adsXipoi fjjou, which Griesb. also holds suspected, and Lachm. Tisch. Rck, have deleted, is an addition from Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8 2 Thess. iii. 1 2 Cor. xiii. 11. And this addition, too, tells in favour of the originality of rh Xomov. Ver. 1 2. ri[iT\i] B D* F G, 52, 115, Syr. Ar. pol. Slav. ant. It. Goth. Lucif. Am:
brosiast.
and
Riick.
copyists,
rou axoroug rovrou] Elz. has rou ax. rou aluivog rourov, iu opposition to decisive witnesses. Expansion by way of gloss. Ver. 16. T/ 'Traatv] Lachm. reads sv iraciv, for which more current expression, however, only B K, min. Vulg. It. and some r before iri<7:up, Fathers testify, and several vss. are doubtful. is wanting, indeed, in B D* F G, and is deleted by Lachm., but was easily regarded as superfluous and thus passed over. Ver. 17. diâads] is wanting in D* F G, codd. It. and various Fathers, while D*** L and min. read hiâcQai (so Matth.), and Arm. places diâadi before rrjv 'xspixup. Suspected by Griesb. But if no verb had stood, and a gloss had been supplied, we
!
person
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But how naturally would suggest itself to the inasmuch as the whole context speaks in the second
vi^Tv.
u//.7'c
A lias
uSiXipii
only after
iv^vtceftoZrh.
CHAP.
VI.
1.
313
In con-
should most naturally expect vaXdin to be added.

sideration, however, of the seeming redundancy, it is
much more
The infinitive has come in likely that the omission was made. Ver. 18. avro touto] B N, min. after the preceding ckai. Basil, Chrys. (in commentary) Damasc. have only avro ; D* F
have
a-jTov,
and Latins in ilium or in
illo
s.
ipso,
which readings
likewise tell in favour of the simple avro. With reason (in opposition to Eeiche) roZro is disapproved by Griesb., and rejected by Lachm. Tisch. Eck. An exegetical, more precise definition in accordance with Paul's practice elsewhere. Ver. 19. ho&ri] Elz. has Miiri, in opposition to decisive testimony. Perhaps occasioned by a mere repetition of the H in copying. Ver. 21. i'ibr,Ti xat -oiMiTg] Lachm. and Eck. read -/.ai uiMiT; sidy^Ts. So E P N, min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Lat. Fathers. In what follows Lachm. and Eck. place yvupiau before vfiTy, following B E P K, min. It. Goth. Ambrosiast. The latter from Col. iv. 7. And the former is to be explained from the circumstance that Kai v/xu; was, through inattention to the reference of the Tcai, omitted as superfluous (so still in cod. 17), and was thereupon reintroduced according to the order of the words which primarily suggested itseK, by which means it came hefore udr^Ti.
AD D
Contents.
themselves.
How
the children (vv. 1-3), the fathers (ver. 4),
the slaves (w. 5-8), and the masters (ver. 9) are to

tian strength, for
demean
Concluding exhortation to the acquiring of Chris-
which purpose the readers are to put on the whole armour of God, and thus armed to stand forth, in order victoriously to sustain the conflict with the diabolic powers (vv. 1 01 7) in connection with which they are ever to apply themselves to prayer, and to make intercession for all Christians, and, in particular, for the apostle (vv. 18-20). Sending of Tychicus (vv. 21, 22). Concluding wishes (vv. 23, 24). Ver. 1. 'Ev Kvpio)] characterizes the obedience as Christian, the activity of which moves in Christ, with whom the Christian withal stands in communion of life. The reference to God ("praeter naturae legem Dei quoque auctoritate sancitum docent," Calvin comp. Wolf) is already refuted by the very iv <^(p XpLarov, iv. 21, placed at the head of all
;
.
. .
these precepts, as also

Col.
iii.
2 0).
Theodoret.
Luke
xii.
57.
BUaiov] Comp. In
by the standing formula

right,
;
itself
(comp.
v6/xov,
i.
i.e.
Kara top tov &eov

i.
Col. iv. 1
Phil.
7, iv.
2 Thess.
favour of infant haiotism,
i.e.
in favour of
314
the view that the children of Christians were as early as that
time baptized,
Schriftlew.
nothing at
192),
all
follows
(in
from the exhortation

of
of the apostle to the children
opposition to Hofmann,
Christians were,
IL
2, p.
The children
through their fellowship of life with their Christian parents, even without baptism arytoc (see on 1 Cor. vii. 14; Acts
xvi.
15),
and had
to
render
to
their
parents
obedience
iv Kvpiw.
Ver.
2.
the viraKoveiv just
the
rifxav.
The frame of mind towards the parents, from which demanded of the children must proceed, is Hence Paul continues, and that in the express
of
liallowed
words
the
fourth
commandment
v.
riixa
rov
he had before subjoined the general motive of morality tovto

16).
as
r/dp ia-Tt BiKaiov, so
nraTepa aov k.t.X. (Ex. xx.
12; Deut.
And
he
now
subjoins the particular incitement

iv iirayyeX.,
so that
^T49 icTTiv ivToXr]

as well of the
Trpcorr]
the relation
two precepts themselves, as of their motives, vv. 1, 2, is climactic, and i]Tc<; eTrayyeXla can by no means be a,;parentlicsis (Griesbach, Eckert, and others). 77x49] titpote quae, specifies a reason. evrokrj irpayrrj iv See on iii. 13. iirayjeX,.'] The article is not necessary with the irpcoTi], which is in itself defining, or with the ordinal numbers generally (Khner, ad Xcn. Anah. vii. 7. 35). Comp. Acts xvi. 12 Phil,
. . .
i.
12, aL
And
the statement that the
commandment ^7's^
is
as to
number in the Decalogue has a promise,

the
facts, since
not inconsistent with

v.
the promise, Ex. xx. 6, Deut.
10,
is
a general
one, having reference to the as little is

it
to be objected
commandments as a whole. Just that no further commandment with

also the entire
a -promise folloivs in the Decalogue; for Paul says Trpwrrj, having

before his
series
mind not only the Decalogue, but
of all the divine precepts, which begins with the Decalogue. Among the commandments, which God has given at the time
of the Mosaic legislation
and in
all
the subsequent period, the
and mother," is the first which is given with a promise. The apparent objection is thus removed in a simple manner by our taking ivToXrj as divine commandment in general, and not restricting it to the sense " commandment in the Decalogue." If Paul had had merely the Decalogue in mind, he must have written the only
father
:
commandment:
"Honour
CHAP.
VI.
2.
315
" it is
Commandmeiit.-'^
For the assumption that
the
first,
not
with regard to those which follow, but to those which have preceded" (Harless), would not even be necessarily resorted
which, however, is assumed Paul had taken into account merely the ten commandments, seeing that he and every one of his readers hneio that no other commandment of the ten had a promise. From the arbitrary presupposition, that merely the Decalogue was taken into account, it followed
to, if it
were really established

proof
entirely without
that
of necessity in the case of other expositors, either that they

restricted ivrdXij simply to the
tcible^
commandments
before
of the second
(Ambrosiaster, Zachariae, Michaelis, the latter miscon-
struing
the absence of the article
ivroXr)
Trpcorrj
as
favouring his view), in connection with which Holzhausen
even maintained that ivrokrj never denotes a commandment in

reference to
else that
God
it
(see Matt. xxii. 36,
38
Mark
xii.
28); or
they tampered with the numerical sense of

of
Trpcorr),
and
made out
Morus,
a very important, a chief commandment (Koppe,
Flatt, Matthies, Meier).

!
What
fact
a feeble motive would
thus result
and
9,
TrpcoTT)
would in
v.
which, however, the
fifth
mean the most important, commandment is not (Matt. xxii. 3 8

14).
Eom.
xiii.
10
Gal.
Further,
the
proposal of
Erasmus, that irp^rrj kv eira'yyeX. should be held to apply to the definite promise of ver. 3, mention of which first occurs in
the fifth
commandment,
;
is
not worthy of attention (Harless),
but erroneous
commandment
because the same promise occurs after the fifth only with a general reference to the command-
ments as a whole (Deut. v. 33, vi. 2), as it has also occurred even lefore the fifth commandment in such a general form (Deut. iv. 40) and because, besides, eirayy. could not but
;
According to Bleek, Paul had not at the moment the form of the following of the Decalogue definitely before his mind. But with such inadvertence no one is less to be charged than Paul. ^ In opposition to this, Erasmus aptly remarks " Haec distinctio non est
'
commandments
fundata in
it is
In general and Josephus, each of the two tables contained ve commandments, not, as Augustine (whom Luther followed) supposed, the first three, and the second seven, and thus two sacred numbers, in which case, moreover, there was found in the first table a reference to the
s.
Uteris, sed est
commentum
recentiorum theologorum. "
to be observed that, according to Philo
Trinity.
316
have the
to
irpoiTT],
first,

article.
iv iira-yyeK^
is
to
be closely attached
as expressing that, wherein this
commandment
to
is
it.
the
the point in which

xiiL
:
the predicate pertains
Comp. Diodor.
Soph. 0. B. 33
is
37:
iv he evyepeia koI ttXovtw Trpwro^,
irpcoTO'i iv
avfKpopal^.
In point of promise
" the first
it
the
first (ov jfj rdêi,
Chrysostom).
:
Ver.
ivith
3.
After Paul has just said
commandment
promise" he now adduces the definite promise, ou account of which this predicate pertains to that commandment, and that according to the LXX. of Ex. xx. 12,
variation (LXX. Koi iva and with omission of the more precise designation of Palestine, which in the LXX. follows after 7%. This omission, however, was not occasioned by the circumstance that the promise was to bear upon long life in general (Calvin, Koppe, Eckert, Matthies, Schenkel, and many), in which case, indeed, eVt t?}? 7)7? might also have been left out but Paul could so fully presuppose acquaintance with the complete words of the promise, that with the mere iirl t^? 7^9 enough was said to preclude any misunderstanding which should depart from the original
Deut.
V.
16,
with
iirl
immaterial
7.),
fiaKpo'^p.
rêvrj
r.
sense in the land, i.e. Palestine. So, namely, in accordance with the sense of the original text well known to the readers, " is iirl Trj<; 7^9 to be understood, not as " upon earth for the promise is here adduced historically. Hence its
:
original
sense
is
not at
all
to
or to be taken conditionally, as
if
e.g.
be altered or spiritualized, was done by Zanchius

it is
the promise
is
not fulfilled simpliciter, yet
fulfilled
commutatione in majus; or by Calovius: "Promissiones temporales

ilia
cum
conditione intelligendae,
quantum
;
sc.
temporalia
nobis salutaria fore
Deus
censuerit
"
comp, also Estius,
at the same time remarks (so again typically Olshausen, comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that the land of Canaan prefigures the kingdom of heaven (comp. Matt. v. 5), and the long life
who
everlasting blessedness.
Nor
is
it
to
be said, with Bengel,
Morus,
Stolz,
Eosenmller, Flatt, and Harless, that the earthly
blessing is promised not to the individual, but to the people. For in the summons " thoio shall " in the Decalogue, although the latter on the whole (as a whole) is directed to the people,
CHAP.
VI. 4.
317
is
the individual
is
withal addressed, as
in
evident from the very

is
commandments
which the neighbour
mentioned, and
as is the view underlying all the N. T. citations from the
Decalogue-law, Matt. xv. 4,

ev (70b
i.
jivTjTac]
13.
v. 21, 27; Eom. vii, 7, xiii. 9. Comp. Gen. xii. 13 Deut. iv. 40 Ecclus. Greek would employ ev 'Trda-êLv, ev irpaTTeiv, or
;
the like, or even râdd
ctol
<yev7]Tac.
koI
ear)
/c.t.X.]
is
and de Wette (comp, already Erasmus), not as dependent upon Xva, but as a direct continuation of the discourse. But this expedient is unnecessary, inasmuch as ha with the future actually occurs in the case of Paul (see on 1 Cor. ix. 18 Gal. ii. 4) and is, moreover, here out of place, since there is not any direct conregarded by Winer,
p.
258
[E. T. 361],
tinuation of the discourse
in
those passages of the O.
T.,
the sense of which Paul reproduces.

the
future
also in classical writers the
At Eev.
xxii.
14
also
and subjunctive are interchanged after ha, as same variation after ottw? is well known (see on the erroneous canon Dawesianus, Bremi, in Schaef. Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 277; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 335 f.; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm, p. 184 [E. T. 213]). And how aptly do the two modes of construction here suit the sense, so that >yevr]Tac expresses the pure hecoming realized, and earj /xuKpo'^pov. the certain emergence and contimced subsistence (Khner, II. p. 491). The change is a logical climax. Ver. 4. TJie duty of fathers, negative and positive. Kal ol TTarepe?] and ye fathers, so that Kai quickly subjoins. Comp. ver. 9. Paul does not address the mothers, not because he is
thinking of the training of groivn-up children (so quite arbitrarily

Olshausen), nor on account of an Oriental depreciation of the mothers (Eiickert), in opposition to which view even apart from passages like Pro v. xiv. 1, xxxi 10 ff. the whole
teaching of the apostle concerning the relation of husband and

wife in marriage (v. 25 ff) is decisive; but because the husband, as the head of the wife, has, even in the bringing
up
and the wives join in prosecuting vTroraaaofMevac rot? tSiot? dvSpdaiv (v. Trapopylêre] by injustice, harshness, hastifjLT} ness of temper, undue severity, and the like, whereby the
of children the rule,
of training
the
work 22 ff.).
children
are
irritated
against the
fathers
at
Col.
iil
318
tliere
is

subjoined as motive Xva
v.
firj
Ouficoaiv.
e/crpeêre]
its
not as at
29, but of the bringing up, and that on
moral
side.
Gorg. p.
de educ.
Mace. vi. 15, 55; Plato, 471 C; Polyb. vi. 6. 2. See Wyttenbach, ad Plut Lennep. ad Phalar. p. 3500. iv iraiBeia koI p. 66
xxiii.
Pro v.
24;
vovOea-Lo,
Kvpiov] iv denotes the regulative clement, in which

is
k.
the training
iv
"TTacSelai'i
:
to take place.
vofiot^
k.
Comp. Polyb.
edecriv
i.
65. 7:
twv
7ro\i,TiKoi<i
eKredpafju/Mevcov.
Hence
in the Lord's training and correction.
iraiZeia is the
general term, the training of children as a whole, and vovdea-La is the special one, the reproof aiming at amendment, whether
this
admonition take place by means of words {vovOerLKol
Xoyoi, Xen.
Mem.
i.
2.
21) or of actual punishments

Plut.
Quaest.
(pi fxev
pdSoi vovderovaL
Gellius, vi.
k.t.X.,
Bom.
p.
283).
See
ad 1 Thess. v. 14. With regard to the form, in place of which the better Greek has vov6eT7]aL'i, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. Kvpiov means neither to the Lord (Luther), nor according to the doctrine of Christ (Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Menochius, Estius, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Eosenmiiller, Bisping, and others, including Holz;
14
Kypke,
Ohss.
hausen, who, however, takes Kvp. of God), nor worthily of the Lord (Matthies), or the like but it is the genitive subjecti, so
;
that the Lord Himself
is
conceived as exercising the training
and reproof, in so and governs the

(xavTri<i \e7ei?.
far,
namely, as Christ by His Spirit impels
fathers therein.
Comp. Soph.
Kelvr]';
Electr.
335
airavra rydp aoi Tafia vovdeTij/xara

Eiickert
is
ScSuKra, KovBev
e'/c
unable to come to a decision, and
doubts whether Paul himself had a distinct idea before his
mind.
Ver. 5.
there
is
On
vv. 5-9, comp. Col.
iii.
22-iv.
1.
Here, too,
doubtless no approval, but at the same time no dis-
approval of the existing slavery in itself, which in accordance with the apostolic view of a Christian's position (Gal. iii. 28
1 Cor.
vii.
22
comp.
Tit.
ii.
9 f
1 Pet.
ii.
18)
like every
other outward relation of life, ought not to affect spiritual freedom and Christian unity; hence at 1 Cor. vii. 21 it is expressly prescribed that the slave is to remain in his position
(comp.
viii,
Ignat.
f.),
ad
as,
Polyc.
4;
Constitt.
Apost.
iv.
12,
vii.
13;
32, 2
indeed, Paul even sent back Onesimus after
CHAP.
VI.
5.
319
his conversion to his master, without requiring of the latter his
manumission.^
Tol<i
Kuploi^
Kara adpKo]
i.e.
to those,
merely human
relation are your rulers,
your
who in a human masters,
whose slaves you life, by way of

;
outward temporal position in from the higher divine master, Christ hence also Tot9 Kvp. k. cr. stands without repetition of As the article, combined into one idea; comp, on ii. 11. Paul immediately after makes mention of the higher master Christ (&)9 To) XpLo-TU)), it was very natural for him, in view of the twofold and very diverse relation of masters which was now present to his mind, to add Kara adpKa, in the use of which any special set purpose cannot be made good. This in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact,
are as regards
distinction
who
find in
;
it
a consolatory allusion to the Secnroreia irpcr-
KaLpo9
in opposition to Calvin,
who
supposes a softening of
the relation to be conveyed in this expression, as being one that
leaves the spiritual freedom untouched (comp. Beza, Zanchius,

Grotius, riatt, and others)
;
and in opposition
to Harless,
who
finds in the predicate the thought that, although in another
ii.
domain they are

fxera
free,
k.
yet in earthly relations they had masters.

i.e.
<p6ov
rpo/i.]
with that
12.
zeal, wliich
is
ever
KapS.
keenly apprehensive of not doing enough.

3
;
2 Cor.
vii.
15;
Phil.
ii.
Comp, on
Trj<i
1 Cor.
iv irXr'qTL
vfi."]
State of heart, in which the obedience with fear

is
and
trembling
to take place
it is to
be no hypocritical one, in
which we are otherwise minded than we outwardly seem, but an upright, inwardly true one, without duplicity of disposition
^
The reforming
efficacy of the gospel addresses itself to

life
knowledge and
feeling,
out of which, and so out of the inner
of faith, the alterations of the outward
forms and relations of life giadually take shape with moral necessity by way of consequence as history, too, has shown, which, when it has developed itself in a revolutionaiy manner, has either violently precipitated, or forsaken, or
;
its necessary development has encountered such hindrances as disowned the influence of this necessary development, and yet could not arrest it. Civitates malis studiis malisc^Q doctrinis repente ever-
inverted that course, or else in

'
'
tuntur," Cic. Leg.

apostle's
by the and slavery which he found existing, the slavery introduced by Christians, the enslaving of free men, the slave trade, etc., are by no means justified rather are these things impossible, where the knowledge and feeling, that spring from evangelical faith, are the principles which shajpe the life and the forms assumed by it.
ii.
15. 39.
It is not, however, to be overlooked that
mode
of regarding the relation of freedom
320
and
i.

act.
Comp. Eom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11; Jas. In Philo joined with aKada. See Loesner, Ohss. p. 262. Oecumenius well observes eVt 70/3 koX ixera <p6ov k. Tpofiov
5.
:
BovXevetv,
aXX
ovk i^
vvoia<;
dWd
KaKovp<y(o<;,
to?
tS
Xpiarb)] as
to Christ, so
that you regard your obedience to

v. 22).
your masters as rendered to Christ (comp.
See
ver. 6.
An
allusion to reioard (Theodoret)

6, 7.
is
.
imported.
Vv.
after
The
ev irXorrjrt
now more precisely described.

an
eye-serving
fjLoBovXeia occurs
its
fir]
Xpiaro) just spoken of is Kar 6(f)6aX/j,. eo? v6p.'] not
meaning
is,
manner as men-pleasers. The word 6(f>daXnowhere else than here and Col. iii. 3, but from its composition, clear. Comp. 6j>6a\It is the service
fi6Sov\o'i in the Constitt. Apost. iv. 12. 2.
which is rendered to the eyes of the master, but in which the aim is merely to acquire the semblance of fidelity, inasmuch as one makes himself thus noticeable when seen by the master, but is in reality not such, acting, on the contrary, otherwise
when
fjbivrjv.
his
back
is
turned.
Theodoret
rr]v
ovk i^ elXiKptvov'i
Ke^pcoa-Sal.
iv.
KapBla<i 7rpo<T(f}pofivr]V Oepaireiav,
oXka tm cyfuiari
Ps.
liii.
;
dvOpcoirdpeo-Koi]
Comp.
i.
Psalt.
8.
10, in Fabric. Cod. Pseud,

p.
p.
929
and see Lobeck, ad

slaves endeavour to
Fhryn.
lies in
621.
The men whom such

is
please are just their masters, and the fault of this behaviour
the fact that such endeavour
not conditioned by the
higher point of view of serving Christ and doing the will of
aim simply human approbation. Even of dXiC oxj holds good. Comp. Gal. i. 10. SovXot XpiaTov, iTOiovvTe'i to OeKrjfia rov Oeov eK "^f^^?] hut as slaves of Christ, in that ye do the will of God from the heart. The contrast lies in SovXoi Xptcnov (comp. ver. 7), and iroiovvret k.t.X. is a modal definition of this their service, whereupon there follows in ver. 7 yet a second modal definition. Now to be a slave of Christ and not to do the will of God, and that indeed ex animo (from a genuine impulse of the soul), would be a contradiction, seeing that God is the Father of Christ, has sent Christ, and is the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3, iii. 23). According to Eiickert, w? 8ov\ol Xpicrrov is subordinate, and iroiovvTe^ t. 6eX. t. @eov e >|ri;^^9 forms the contrast " but doing as Christ's servants the will of God from
God, but has as
slaves Matt. vi.
its
24

CHAP.
VI. 8, 9.
321
comp, with
ver. 5, this
tlie
heart."
But
after avOpcorrdpeaKoi,
co?
suhordination of
SovXot Xp.
is
altogether
arbitrary
and
eV xlrv^rjî is no doubt attached to opposed to the context, what follows by Syriac, Chrysostom, Jerome, Bengel, Koppe,
Knapp, Lachmann, Harless, de Wette

Xen.
Occ. xii. 5. 7),
but
fi6T
evvoLa<;
(comp.
clis-
since
it
expresses the well-meaning

itself
posifion,
i|ri;^/'}9
already in fact includes in

(ex
the
sense of
xii.
ck
aniyni scntcntia, Col.

;
iii.
23; Mark
;
30, 33;
;
Luke
X.
27
Joseph. Antt. xvii.
6.
iii.
Nicarch. cpigr. 2; Theocr. Idyll,

to assume, with Harless, that
6/c
Xen. Anah. vii. 7. 43 35); and it is arbitrary
i/r.
expresses the relation of

his relation to
the true servant to his service, and

his master.
yuer' evvoLa?
rw Kvpiw]
sc.
SovXevovre'i, as to the Lord, the
true
mode of regarding his service ouK avdp.] Comp, on Gal. i. 1.

Ver.
8.
as rendered to Christ.
kuI
EtSoTe9]
Incitement to the mode of service de-
manded,
vv.
5-7
since ye
know
that whatever good thing each
one shcdl have done, he shcdl hear off this (the good done) from idv ri e/cao-To?] edv the Lord, lohether he he slave or free.
in
the relative
clause
with the subjunctive instead of av

p.
(Buttmann, neut. Gramm,
63
[E. T.
72]),
from
0?,
as in Plato, I^^gg.
ix. p.
864
Lys. p.
sion of
160:
o? av rt? vfx<i ev
iroifj.
rjv
and rt separated av riva KaTaXdylrrj, tovto KOfx.'] Expres-
entirely adequate recompense.
See on 2 Cor.
irapa KvpLov\
from
Christ, at the
judgment.
v.
10.
elre hov\o<i, eure
eKev6.'\ eBecê tc5 irapovri ico TreTrcoptcrijievrjv rrjv
SovXeiav Kal
SeaTTorelav, /merd Se ye ri]v ivrevdev eKSrjfiiav ovk
en
Bov\eLa<i
Kal
Be(J7roTeLa<i,
aXX"
dperrj^;
Kal KaKla<i iaofievrjv Stacpopdv,

add, from our passage that
Theodoret.
It is evident,
we may
Paul did not think of a ceasing of slavery among Christians before the Parousia, a view which was very naturally connected with the conception of the nearness of the latter, which did not admit of his looking forth upon the development of
centuries.
Ver. 9.
Kal
ol
Kvpioi] like
koI
ol
jrarepe'?,
ver. 4.
rd
The master, namely, who treats his servants fxer^ evvolai;, does essentially (measured by the disposition as the inner essence of the act) the same thing towards the slaves
aura] the same.
as the
slave serving p,er
vvoia<i
does towards his master.
MeyerEph.

322-
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPIIESIAXS.

Negative modal definition of
tlie
vtevT<i Tr]v airetk.]

irocelre
Trpo?
r avr
cir-
avrov<;, especially to
be laid to heart in the

avLevre'i
off,
cumstances by the masters.

threatening.
By
may
giving
be denoted
7ip,
either the cibating, or the entire leaving
of the
In the former sense (Wisd. xvi, 24) it has been taken by Erasmus (" minus feroces minusque minabundi "), Vatablus, Zeger but certainly the latter sense alone (comp. Thucyd. iii. 10. 2: eypav vievrasi) is appropriate to the ra
;
avr
"
TToielre;
especially as ttjv a'rreiXi^v (with the article)
denotes not threatening in general, but the threatening, namely,
quemadmodum
el^re<f\
;
vulgus domiuorum solet" (Erasmus, Parcqylir).

8.
specifying a motive, as in ver.

Constitt. ap. vii. 13.
is
Comp.
Col. iv. 1
Barnah. 19
Inasmuch, namely, as they

th(j
know
that He, wlio
Lord as well of the slaves as of

v/xcov,
masters {koX avrcov koI
see the critical remarks), is in
heaven
so that
(the
exalted Christ), and with
Him
is
no
partiality,
He
gives to the master as such no preference over
how should they not cease to comport themselves with their threatening, as though Christ were not
the slave as such:
in heaven, whence at the judgment the Lord of hoth in heaven will, without ^:)a?'^4a^tY?/, alike sustain the injured rights He of the slaves, and punish the unchristian threatening of the
masters, which, instead of operating

terrifies
by rude
authority.
by moral means, only Comp. Seneca, Thyest. 607:
" Vos,
c|uibus rector maris atque terrae Jus dedit magiiiim necis atque vitae Ponite inflates tumidosque vultus. Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit, Major hoc vobis dominus minatur
;
Omue
sub regno graviore regnum est."
As
to the notion of TrpoacoTroXTj-^lrla, see
on Gal.
ii.
6.
Ver.
down down
After this special table of domestic duties laid since v, 21, now follows, in a full energetic effusion to ver. 20, a general ncd exhortation, winding up the
10.-^
to \oi,it6v\ whole paraenetic portion of the Epistle (iv. 1 ff.). as concerns the rest, namely, what you have still to do in Comp. 2 Cor. addition to what has been hitherto mentioned.
xiii.
11
Phil.
iii.
1, iv. 8
1 Thess.
iv.
2 Thess.
iii.
1.
On
vv. 10-17, see "Winzer, Leijoz. Pfingstprogravim, 1840.

CHAP.
VI. 11.
323
evSvvafiQvade iv Kupioi] denotes the Christian strengthening,
which cannot
subsist outside of Christ, but only in

iv.
Him
as
the life-element of the Christian (Phil.
13).
As, to
ivBv-
vaixova-dac, to hecomc strong, gain strength, which is not a middle ("corroborate vos," Piscator), see on Ptom. iv. 20. Kol iv To) Kparet t?}9 layyo^ avTov\ and by means of the might of His strength, which might, namely, must produce the As to the respective notions, see on strengthening in you.
i.
19.
The Kal
the
is
not explicative, but annexes to the element,

is
in lhich
Bengel.
Ver. 11.
strengthening
to
"
take
place,
the
effective
'princijph of it (2 Cor, xii. 9).
Domini
virtus nostra
est,"
What
they are to do in order to become thus strong,

\
<
in connection with which the figurative discourse represents
the readers as warriors (comp. 2 Cor.

;
x.
1
;
The^s. v. 8
Kom. vi. 13, 23, xiii. J. 2 1 Tim. i. 18, vi J. 2 2 Tim. iv. 7). The more familiar, however, this figure was to the apostle, the more freely and independently is it here carried out, although (comp, on rov acoTrjpLou, ver. 17) a reminiscence of Isa. lix. 17 (comp. Wisd. v. 17 ff., and thereon Grimm, Handb. p. 119 f.)
underlies
emphasis.
ti]v iravoirXiav rov @eov\ rrjv TravoTfX. has the In the very fact that not merely single pieces of the armour (Luther harness), but the ivhole armour of God is put on (" ne quid nobis desit," Calvin), resides the capacity of resistance If rov QeoO had the emphasis (Haiiess), there to the devil. must have been a contrast to other spiritual weapons (for that no
it.^
:
material, actual
therefore,
weapons were meant, was self-evident). Eightly, have most expositors kept by the literal meaning
Herod,
Ottii
i.
of TTavoirXla, complete suit of

soldier, ottXIttj^; (see
Bos, Exercitt. p.
tion (recently
to
^
192;
armour of the heavy-armed 60; Plato, JOegg. vii. p. 796 B; Spicileg. p. 409); and the asser-
by Harless) that it here is equivalent generally armatura (Vulgate, which was justly censured by Beza), is
According to de Wette, we have here
"a
^j??//mZ
imitation in detail
of 1 Thess. V. 8, in wliich use is

V.
made
of Isa. lix. 17 (perhaps also of AVisd.
-^^ unwarranted judgment, inasmuch as Paul himself could here more comprehensively his figure elsewhere thrown out in only a few An outlines, and this he has done worthily and without attempt at play. imitator, on the other hand, would here have assigned no othe)' signification to the pieces of armour mentioned 1 Thess. v. 8 than they bear iu that place.
17
if.)'"
carry out
324
arbitrary
xiv. 3, 2
is

and contrary to
Mace.
iii.
linguistic
usage
even in Judith
vi.
25, the notion of the complete equipment

to.^
to be
adhered
According to Polybius,
23. 2
ft'.,
there belong to the
Roman
iravoTrXia shield, sword, greaves,
But the circumstance that in the 13 ff., not all these parts are mentioned (the sjjcar is wanting), and withal some portions are brought in (girdle, military sandals) which did not belong exclusively to tlie equipment of the heavy-armed
spear, breastplate, helmet.
detailed carrying out of the figure, ver.
soldier,
but to military equipment in general, can, least of

surprise or
all
in the case of Paul, occasion

set purpose.
betray a special
Whether, we may add, the apostle thought of a
Jeioish or a
Roman
warrior
is,
doubtless, substantially in itself
a matter of indifference, since the kinds of armour in the

cases were in general the
two same (see Keil, Arch. 158): but the latter supposition is the most natural, inasmuch as the Roman soldiery wielded the power in all the provinces, Paul himself was surrounded by Roman soldiery, and for most Gentile readers in a non-Jewish province the term iravoTikla could not but call up the thought of the Roman soldier. Even though Paul had, as we must suppose, the recollection of Isa. lix. 1 7 when he was employing such figurative language,
this did not
prevent his transferring the prophetic reminiscence
to the conception of a
Toi)
Roman
warrior (in opposition to Harless).

:
Qeov] genitivus auctoris

furnishes.
the iravoTrXia, which comes
from God, which God

which God
Icstoivs,
Sense without the figure
" appropriate to yourselves all the
mccms of defence and

to
offence
in order
machinations of the devil." crrijvac 7rp6<;] stand ones ground against ; a military expression in keeping with the figure. See
to he
in a loosition
withstand the
301. Comp. Thucyd. v. 104, and Poppo's note The same thing is impKed by ar7]vai with the dative, Horn. //. xxi. 600. Comp. vTLarijre ru> SiaoXm, ra? /xedoS.^ See on iv. 1 4. Jas. iv. 7. The plural denotes the concrete manifestations. Khner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 11.
II. p.
Kypke,
thereon.
Of the manner in Avhicli Paul himseJf wove and wielded the 'âvo'rXia to his whole labours and each one of his Epistles afford the most brilliant evidence the latter especially in such outbursts as Rom. viii. 31 ff. ; 2 Cor. Comp, also 2 Cor. x. 4 f. v-i. 4 ff., 11, 23 ff.
'
StoiJ,
"
CHAP.
VI. 12.
325
Luther aptly renders

" principis
the
wily
assaults.
rov SiaoXov] t?
tov
hostium, qui ver. 1 2 ostenduntur/' Bengel.
Ver. 12. I
am
warranted in saying
tt/jo?
/jieOoS.
BiaoXov
for
we have not
the wrestling with feeble mc7i, but
This contrast to contend with the diabolic poivers. Paul expresses descriptively, and with what rhetorical power Observe, moreover, that the conflict to and swelling fulness which Paul here refers is, according to ver. 13, still future; oXXa] The ovk but it is by eanv realized as present. negation is not no7i tarn, or nooi tantum (Cajetanus, Vatablus, Grotius, and others), but absolute (Winer, p. 439 ff. [E. T. 622]) since the conflict on the part of our opponents is one excited and waged 7iot by men, but by the devilish powers
!
we have
(though these
to the
rically the
make
use of
The article denotes genewhich does not take place in the case of the Christians (rjfiiv) they have not the wrestling loith blood and jlesli. Nothing else, namely, than lucta, a ivrestling, is the meaning of the irdXr] (Horn. //. xxiii. 635, 700 ff. Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 27; Plat. Legg. vii. 795 D; and Ast, adLcgg. p. 378), a word occurring only here in the N. T., and evidently one specially chosen by the apostle (who elsewhere employs jcv or fiaxv) with the view of bringing out the more strongly in connection with tt/jo? alfia Kal aapK. the contrast between this less perilous form of contest and that which follows. Now, as the notion of the TraXr} is not
of God).-^
>7
kingdom
men
too as organs of their hostility
TrdXr}]
kind of
conflict,
appropriate to the actual conflict of the Christians

dpxd<i
K.r.X,
7r/309
ra^
because
it
is
not in keeping either with the
iravoifkia in general or with its several constituent parts after-
wards mentioned
supply again
signification
ver.
is
14
but
ff.,
but serves only to express what
the Christian conflict

77 rj
not; after
ratlier
aXkd we have not mentally
to
TrdXr), fjid^v,
the general notion of kindred
or ixaêreov'^ as frequently with
Greek
ii.
writers (see Doderlein,

p.
de brachyl.
in his
-p.
Reden
u.
Aufs.
269
ff.
Krger, Rcgist. zu Thuc?jd.,
318), and
in the
^ Comp, already Augustine, De verho Dorn. 8: " Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, i. e. adversus homines, quos videtis saevire in
nos.
^
Vasa sunt, alius utitur organa sunt, alius tangit. Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 249 C -irfn; y% rovrov cravri koyui
;
:
fiaxiTiof.
326

T.
have
p. 336 [E. T. 392]) we from a preceding special notion an analogous more general one. What we have to sustain, Paul would say, is not the (less perilous) wrestling contest with blood and flesh, hut we have to contend with the powers and authorities, etc. We have accordingly neither to say tha,t with
(Buttmann, Nmtcst. Gramm,
to derive
iraXrj
Paul only lighted in passing on another metaphor (my view), nor to suppose (the usual opinion) that he employed irakr] in the general sense of ccrtamen, which, how-
own former
ever, is
only done in isolated poetic passages (Lycophr. 124,
1358), and hence we have the less reason to overlook the designed clioice of the expression in our passage, or to depart from its proper signification. irpo'i al/xa Kai aapKo] i.e.
against fccbh
ii.
oiicn,
just as Gal.
i,
16.
Only here and Heb.

aliia stand
first,
14 (Lachmann, Tischendorf) does

is
which,
however,
desires
.
to be regarded as accidental.
IMatthies (so already

the
lusts
Prudentius, Jerome,
Cajetanus)
understands
and
having
tlieir root
in ones
own
sensuous individuality
ttjv
but this idea must have been expressed by irpo^

alone without
alyu,a
crdpKa
(Gal. v. 17,
24, ah), and
is,
moreover, at
is
variance
with
the context,
since
the
contrast
not with
enemies outside of us, but with sujycrhuman and sii2:)erterrcstrial tt/jo? ra? p-)(â^~\ Tiiis, as well as the following enemies.
irpo'i ra<i iôva-la^,
and that according to which the ap'xal seem to be of higher rank than the iôvcriai (see on i. 21), in which designation there is at the same time given the token of their ijoivcr, and this their power is then in the
designates the demons, their classes (analogous to the classes of angels),"^ of
tMô following clauses (ttô? tov^
witih regard to its sphere
. .
iTrovpavioi^) characterized
and to its ethical quality^ The exploded views, according to which hiiman potentates of different kinds were supposed to be denoted by a/3%., eôva. k.t.X., may
^
" As every kingdom

Observe
as sucli is inwardlj' organised, so also
is
the
kingdom of
the evil spirits," Halm, Theol. d.

^
N.
T.
I.
p. 347.
attempts to
how make
in our passage every of the devil a
'
and the like. Beyschlag too, however, at the time entering into a detailed argi^ment, the personality of Satan, as of the world of angels and spirits in general, and regards him as the vital
principle of matter, the self-seeking of nature, etc.
word rises up as a witness against all mere abstraction, a personified cosmic principle, Christol. d. N. T. p. 244 f., contests, Mithout,
CHAP.
VI.
12.
327
tov aKor. tovtov]
is the
be sc ^11 in Wolf.
i.e.
is
tt/jo?
tov<;
Koa/jLOKpar.
against the rulers of

Tlie aKoro^;
tlic
ivorlcl,
whose domain
present
darkness.
rovro
is tlie existing,
present darkness,
which, namely,
characteristic of the aloov ovtos,
which only become ^w?
believers are
delivered,
and from inasmuch as they have

(iv,
eV Kvplw, reKva tov ôjto?
8, 9),
being trans-
lated out of the
domain opposed to divine truth into the possession of the same, and thus becoming themselves o)? ^warripe<i The reading rov crKorovi tov alwvo^ iv Koa-fjucp (Phil. ii. 15).
TOVTOV
is
a correct gloss.
This pre-Messianic darkness
is
the
element adverse to God, in which the svjay of the world-ruling
demons has its essence and operation, and without which their dominion would not take place. The devils are called koo-ôKpcLTope^ (comp. Orph. H. viii. 11, xi. 11), because their dominion extends over the whole world, inasmuch as all men
(the believers
is
alone
excepted,
6el<i
ii.
2)
are
subject to them.
iv. 4,
Thus Satan
xiv. 30),
called o
tov alcovo^ tovtov, 2 Cor.
o ap-)(wv TOV KocTfjiov tovtov,
John
xii.
31,xvi. 11 (comp. John
and of the world
it is
said that o /cocr/io? oXo'i iv

too,
tw
Uovrjpo) KeLTat, 1
word
TiLDiplorp,
John v. 19. The Eabbins, and employed it sometimes

p.
adopted the
of kings, while
they also say of the angel of death that

KoapôKpuTcop.
See Schoettgen, Horae,
God 790
i.
has
;
made
also
Mm
the
Buxtorf, Lex.
Talmud,
j).
20061;
Wetstein,
p.
259,
(Iren.
Later
1),
Gnostics called the devil
by
this
name
demons say
Tcstamentum Salomonis (Fabricius, Pseiidcpigr. i. p. i^/xet? ecrev to, Xeyo/xeva aTOi'êia, to Solomon
:
and in the 1047) the

ol
Koap.oKpaTope'i
tov Koapôv tovtov.

not susceptible of
The opinion that the
compound has been weakened

Q'ulers
into the general signification
]proof, and not to be supported by such Eabbinical passages as Bresh. rahha, sect.
(Harless)
is
58 f., 57. 1 "Abrahamus persecutus quatuor Koo-p.oKpdTopa<i," where KoapôKpaT. denotes the category of the kings, and this chosen designation has the aim of glorifying. See also, in oppo:
sition to this alleged weakening. Shir. B. 3,

Koap.oKpoLTope'i
:
4 " Tres reges dominantes ab extremitate mundi ad extremi:
tatcm
ejus,
ISTebucadnezar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar."

Ti]<i
tt/do? to,
TTvevpâTLKa
The
against the spirit-hosts of loichedness. adjective neuter, singular or plural, is collective, compreTrovT]pia<i\
328
liending the "beings in question according to their qualitative
category as a corporate body, like to ttoXitlkov, the burgess-
body (Herod,
TO, Xvo'Tpifcd,
vii.
103); to
Ittttckov,
the cavalry (Ee v.

v. p.
ix.
16)
the robbers (Polyaen.
14, 141), ra SovXa, ra
al'x/JidXcoTa
K.rX
[E. T. 299], correctly
See Bernhardy, compares ra
326.
Winer,
p.
213
its
original adjectival nature.

clw.ractcriziiKj
Bai/j.6via
according to
t?}? irovr^pla^']
genitivus qualitatis,
the spirit-hosts
meant
t?}?
iireLhi-j
^dp
etat
koL
01 ayyeXot
Trvevâra, irpocreOriKe
is
irovqpla'i, Theodoret.
;
Moral wickedness
pre-eminently
their essential quality
hence the devil
is
6 irovqp'i.
The explanation
sinritvxdes ncquitias
(Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Clarius, Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide,
Wolf, and others)
is
impossible, since, if
to.
irvev/jLariKd ex-
pressed the quality substantively and raised

of subject (see Mattliiae, p.
it to
the position
994 Khner, II.

;
p.
122),
we should
have to analyse
it
as
the spiritual natiire,
or the spiritital
part, the spiritual side of wickedness, all of which are unsuitable to the context.
ev
rot? eirovpavioL^'\ Chrysostom,
Theo-
doret, Photius, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Castalio, Camerarius,
Heinsius, Clarius, Calovius, Glass, Witsius, Wolf, Morus, Flatt,
and others incorrectly render for the heavenly possessions, so that it would indicate the object of the conflict, and eV would Against this view we may ^^rge not stand for hirkp or hid. the order of the words, since in fact this element pushed on to the end would be brought out with emphasis (Khner, II. p. 625), but certainly the eV, which does not mean on aceount of} and ra iirovpdvLa, which in our Epistle is always meant The view of Matthies is also in a local sense (see on i. 3).
:
incorrect, that it denotes the ylace where of the conflict
" in
the kingdom of heaven, in which the Christians, as received

into that
kingdom,
of of
are
also
to,
constantly
contending against
signify the
the heavenly
the enemies
God."
iirovpdvia
does not
kingdom
heaven in the sense of Matthies, but
Eckert, too, is incorrect, who likewise regions, heaven. understands the place lohere of the conflict, holding that the contest is to be sustained, as not with flesh and blood, so also
^
Where
ix. 4.
it
is
rendered so according to the approximate sense, the analysis

See on Matt.
vi.
follows another course.
John
xvi.
30
Acts
vii.
29
2 Cor.
CHAP.
VI. 12.
329
is
not ^qjon the same solid ground, but aivay in the air, and
thus
Apart from the oddness of this thought, according to it the contrast would in fact be one not of terrestrial and superterrestrial locality, but 0/ solid ground, and baseless air, so that Paul in employing eV toU eirovpav. would have selected a quite inappropriate designation, and must have said iv ra> aepi. Baumgarten-Crusius gives us the choice between two incorrect interpretations the kingdom of spirits, to which the kingdom of Christ too belongs, or the
most
strictly
mars iniquus.
affairs of that
kingdom.
The
correct
it
connection
is
with ra
TrvevfxariKa t^? 7rovr,pLa<;, so that

evil spirits.
expresses the seat of the
Vatablus, Estius, Grotius, Erasmus
So Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Schmid, Bengel, Koppe,

Usteri,
and many,
is
including
Meier,
Holzhausen,
Ilarless,
"
Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek.

not, however, in accordance
This
"
in the lieavenly regions
with the context, to be under(iii.
stood of the abode of God, of Christ, and of the angels
10);^
in virtue of the flexible character of the conception 26) "heaven," which embraces very different degrees of height (compare the conception of the seven heavens, 2 Cor. xii. 2)
but,
according to
the popular view (comp. Matt.
vi.
of the
as
is
svpcrterrestrial regions, which, although still pertaining

earth's atmosphere, yet relatively aiiiicar
to the
domain of the
ar/p,
as heaven, so that in suhstcmcc ra eirovpavia here denotes the
same
by which at
ii.
2 the domain of the Satanic king-
dom
1
accurately and properly designated.^
This passage serves
as a guide to the import of ours,

In opposition to Halin, Theol.
d.
which
I. p.
f.
is
wrongly denied by
Hamar-
N.
T.
345.
Comp,
:
riiilippi, Glauhensl. III. p.

ff.,
309
Prudentius has already,
t'djenia,
513
in a poetic paraphrase of our passage, correctly apprehended the
meaning
" Sed cum spiritibus tenebrosis nocte dicque Congredimur, quorum dominatibus huraidus iste Et pigris densus nebulis obtemperat aer. Scilicet hoc medium coelura inter et infima terrae, Quod patet ac vacuo nubes suspendit hiatu, Frena potestatum variarum sustinet ac sub
Principe Belial rectoribus horret iniquis.
His conluctamur praedonibus, ut sacra nobis

Oris apostolici testis sententia prodit."
Comp. Photius,
Quae.st.
rmamentum,
in
Amphil. which the devil
144.
According
to Ascens.
ha.
10, it is the
dwells.
TUE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

(Thcol. d.
Hahn
N.
I'.
I. p.
ii.
336
f.)
on the basis of an erroneous
According to the Eabbins, too, the lower of the seven heavens still fall within the region
interpretation of aiqp,
2.
of the
atmosphere.
See Wetstein, ad 2
does not here say iv
Cor. xii. 2,
And
the reason
why Paul
tw
aepc
is,
that he
wishes to bring out as strongly as possible the superhuman and

superterrestrial nature of the hostile spirits, for to
which purpose
name
the
air as the place of their dwelling might be less
appropriate than to speak of the Jieavenly regions, an expression which entirely accords with the lively colouring of his picture.'^ Semler and Storr, ignoring this significant bearing and suitableness of the expression, have arbitrarily imported a formerly, as though the 2Jrevious abode of the demons had any connection with the matter
!
Schenkel has even imported the
iro7iy
of a iDaradox, which has the design of making the assumption of divine power and glory on the part of the demons ridiculous,
as though anything of the sort
were
at all in keeping
with
the whole profound seriousness of our passage, or could have
been recognised by any reader whatever

(Schriflheiveis,
I.
Hofmann
finally
p.
455)
has,
after
a rationalizing fashion,
transformed the simple direct statement of place into the
thought
" not limited to this or that locality of the earthly
world, but overruling the same, as the heavens encircle the

earth." The thought of this turn so easily made Paul would have known how to express even though he had but said to. ovra ft)9 iv Tot<i iiTovpavloL'i, or more clearly ra ovra iravra'ôv
vTTo Tov
ovpavov.
The absence
of a connective article is not
at all
TTovrjpLa'i iv rot? i7rovpav[ot<;
opposed to our interpretation, since ra TrvevixariKa 7779 might the more be combined into
it
one idea, as
was the
counterj)art of such spirits

vi,
upon
earth.
Comp.
on
^
Toi<;
iii.
irkovaloL^ iv tc5 vvv alcove, 1 Tim.
ii.
11,
10.
The
1 7, and see
TTpaf;,
four times occurring after aXXd,

less in
Entirely uncalled
for, tlierefore,
and
keeping with the colouring of the
passage,
would be the
alteration already discussed in Photius, Quaest. Anipldloch.
jecture approved
namely, t/hj had changed the Wovpavioi; into v-rovpa.v'iois a conby Erasmus, Beza, and Grndling (in Wolf). Luther, who translates "under the heaven," jirobably did so, not as taking h for i^r, like Alting subsequently (in Wolf), but hy ivay of explanation. Already in Homer apatio; is, as is Well known, employed of the higher region of air {under the lirniament). See Nagelsbacli, Horn. Thcol. p. 19.
94, wherehy,
.'"'
CHAP.
VI. 13.
331
.but
has rhetorical emphasis, as
it
needed to be used
once,
Comp. Dem. 842, 7

mutest.
'n-p6<;
iralhoov,
p.
Trpo^ yvvaLKcov, 7rp6<; twji

[E. T.
ovrwv vfuv yacv, Winer,
374
Gramm,
p.
341
[E. T. 398].
As
i.
524]; Buttmann,
at
ii.
2, so
here
found by Baur in expression and conception, because, forsooth, Marcion and the Valentinians designated the devil as the Koa-fxoKpdrwp, and the demoniac powers as ra
also, Gnosticism is
TrvevfiariKa t?}? irovT]pia<^ (Iren,
i,
5. 4,
28.
2).
This
is
the
method of critical procedure. Ver. 13. Ata roOro] because we have to fight against tlicsc vaXdeTe] the usual word for the taking up of powers. armour. See Kypke and Wetstein. The opposite: rarariT^/it.
inverting
vTLCTTrivai,']
rfj
namely, the assaults of the demons.
ev
tTj
rj/j-epa
irovrjpa^
The
evil clay
means
here, according to the
context,
neither
the loresent
life
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
same time believed pa-^vv rov tov TrdXeôv Kaipov to be hinted at), nor the day of death (Erasmus Schmid), nor the day of judgment (Jerome); nor yet, as most expositors suppose, in general the day of conflict and of peril, ivhich the
at the
devil pi^^cpares for
who
us
(so
also
Eiickert,
Harless,
Matthies,
Meier, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek), for every

as a peculiar
day was such, whereas the evil day here manifestly appears and still future day, for the conflict of which the readers were to arm themselves. Hence also not every
:
day, on vjhich the devil has
sjjecicd
iôwer (Bengel, Zachariae,

rj
Olshausen)
but the emphatic designation

to him,
rjixepa
?;
Tvovrjpd
could suggest to the reader only a single, Kar

evil,
iô-îjv
morally
day well known
Satanic poivcr (6 JJovqp^) piuts forth

Irealc,
which
last
day in vjhich the and greatest outoutbreak of the anti- Christian kingdom Paul
is the its last
and that
expected
griff, p.
i.
shortly
ff.).
before
the
Parousia
(see
Usteri,
LehrheGal.
Comp, also the and the remark thereon. 4,
348
evearoy^ aloiv
/cat
7rov'qp<i,
diravra Karepjacrd/xevoc
a-rrjvaL]
This
a-rrjvai,
corresponds to the preceding dvTia-Trjvai,
which it is the residt ; and in the midst, between dvrLcnrjvai, and (Tirjvai, lies airavra Karepyacr. "to withstand in the evil day, and, after you slicdl have accomplished cdl things, to stand." The latter expression is the designation of the victor, who,
of
:
after the fight is finished, is not laid prostrate, or put to flight.
" ;
:
332
but stands.
Comp. Xen. Anah.

necessarily yielded
i,
airavra,
is
Wliat is meant by 10. 1. by the connection, namely,

parts
everything which belongs to the conflict in question, the whole
work of the combat in Kurepydêa-oac retains

r.onficere,
all
its
its
and
actions.
The
ordinary signification peragere,
and
consummare (comp, van Hengel, ad Bom. I. p. 205), with Oecumenius, Theophylact, Camerarius, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Kypke, Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, and others, to be taken in the sense of dehellare, overpoioer, in which sense it is, like the German ahthun and niedermachen and the Latin confijccre, usual enough (see Kypke, II. p. 301), but is never so employed by Paul frequently as the word occurs with him or elsewhere in the N. T., and here would only be required by the text, if aiTavTa<i were the reading.^ De Wette objects
is
not,
to our interpretation as being tame.
This, however,
it is
not,
and the less so, because KaTepydêadac is the characteristic word for a great and difficult work (Herod, v. 24; Plato, Zcgg. iii. p. 686 E, al. ; and see Pritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 1 7), and diravTa also is purposely chosen (all without exception see Valckenaer, Schol. 1. p. 339). To be rejected also is the construction of Erasmus, Beza (who proposes this explanation alongside of the rendering prostratis, and is inclined to regard it as the better one), Calixtus, Morus, Ptosenmiiller, and others: "omnibus rebus probe eomparatis ad pugnam'' (Bengel). This would be irapaaKevaadiJievot, (1 Cor. xiv. 8), and what a redundant thought would thus result, especially since aTrjvat Lastly, woid then be not at all different from dvTiaTrjvaL the translation of the Vulgate, which is best attested critically
!
in omnibus perfecti (comp. Lucifer, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius),
is
not to be regarded, with Estius, as the sense of our reading,
but expresses the reading KareipyacrfievoL, which

to be found in a vitiated
is,
moreover,
form {Karepyaa-fMevoi) in codex A.

tlie
Erasmus conjectured a corruption of

*
Lectin codices.
hence he viewed aâvra as masculine, in accordance with Even in those passages which Kypke adduces for KanpyiiZiir6ai rravTa, instead of Kanpy. -ravras, viTa is to be left in the neuter sense, and xccTipy. is to comiilete, to execute. Freely, hut correctly in accordance with
felt this,
!
Koppe
Kypke's proposal
the sense, Luther renders
"that ye may perform
all well,
and keep the
field.

CHAP.
VI. 14.
333
Ver. 14. In what manner they accordinrjhj, clad conform-
ably to the preceding requirement in the iravoTrXla rod eov,

arc to stand forth.
crrijre]
is
not again, like the preceding
arrival, the standing of the victor,
the
V.
ready for the combat. 17 ff., see also Rabbinical

of particular
in
man
Besides
the
but the standi7ig forth of Isa. lix. 17, Wisd.

for
passages
to
p.
the figurative
of spiritual
reference
conflict,
Tr]v
weapons
Horac,
means
f.
Schoettgen,
791
Trepc^coa-dfievoi
Comp. Isa. xi. o. Tor the singular r. ocr^., comp. Eur. Elcctr. 454 ra-^viropo'? The girdle or iroha, and see Elmsley, ad Eur. Med. 1077. helt (^(0(TTi]p, covering the loins and the part of the body below the breastplate, also called ôov7], Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 177, not to be confounded with fw/za, the lower part of the coat of mail) is first mentioned Ity the apostle, because to have put on this was the first and most essential requirement of the warrior standing armed ready for the fight to
oa^vv] having your loins girt ahout.
: ;
speak of a well-equipped warrior without a girdle

tradietio in ad^jccto, for it
is
a con-
was just the
girdle
which produced
the free bearing and the warrior.

that
movement and
the necessary attitude of
Hence it is not to be assumed, with Harless, Paul thought of the girdle as an ornament. Comp.
i.
1 Pet.
13.
ev aXTjOela]
i.e.
instrumental.
is to
With
whole
tridh they
are to be girt about,

Isa. xi. 5.
truth
he their girdle.
Comp.
As
for the actual warrior the
a2Jtus hahitus
combat (this is the tertium eovijjarationis) would be wanting in the absence of the girdle so also for the spiritual warrior, if he is not furnished with truth. Prom this it is at once clear that aXi]6eoa is not to be taken objectively, of the gospel, which, on the contrary, is only designated later, ver. 17, by prjfia eou hwt subjectively, of truth as inward
for the
;
harmony of knowledge unth the objective truth given in the gospel. The explanation sincerity (Calvin, Boyd, Estius, Olshausen, Bisping, and others) is, as expressive only
property,
i.e.
of
single
virtue,
according
to
the
context
too
(compare
notion,
the
following
SiKaioa-uvr],
Trto-Ti?
k.t.X.),
narrow and the
moreover, would merge
into
that
of
the
following
BiKaiocrvvT},
an
objection which applies likewise to the ex-
planation Christian iiitegrity (Morus, Winzer).
rr]v
OwpaKa
334
T?}9

BiKaioa.']
V.
Genitivus appositionis
0.
comp. 1
TliesS.
v.
Wisd.
19; Soph.
B.
170:
iii.
(ppovTLSo<;
e7%09.
As
the
actual warrior has protected the breast,

arrjOea-aiv eSvvev" (Horn. II.
is
when he
" dcoprjKa irepl
332), so with
you
BcKacoavvr}
to
be that, which renders your breast (heart and will)

here Christian moral rcditucU (Eom.
inaccessible to the hostile influences of the demons.
Slkuioinasmuch 13), faith, we are dead to sin and live, as, justified through Harless and Winzer ev KaLvoTTjTt ^corjq (Kom. vi. 4). understand the righteousness hy faith, by which, however, inasmuch as this righteousness is given with faith, the Qvpeo^
avvq
is
vi.
TTfi
iriarecti'i,
subsequently
singled
out
quite
specially,
is
anticipated.
As
previously the intellectual rectitude
of the
Christian was denoted
by
okrjdeLa, so here his
moral rectitude
vTroB-^fiara,
by
ScKatoavvTj.
Ver.
7nilitctry
1.
15.
And
the
service
iv.
which the
5.
li^^p,
the
sandals, Xen. Anah.
8] (ccdigae, compare the Heb.
14 [Josephus, B. J. vi. Isa. ix. 4 see Gesenius,

;
Thes. II.
932; Bynaeus, de
enabling
agile
calc.
Hehr.
p.
83
to
f.),
render to the
against
actual warrior,
him,
namely,
sure
step,
advance
the
enemy with
Ti}<?
and
it
the
kroifxaaia
rov
vay<y6\iov
eiprjvq'i is
to render to
inasmuch as by virtue of
against the Satanic powers.
feet icnderhound with
you spiritual warriors, you march briskly and firmly

/c.t.A,.]
vTroBrjcrd/jLevoc
having your
the prepiarcdncss of the gospel of peace.
iv does
others),
is
not stand for eU (Vulgate, Erasmus, Vatablus, and
but
is
instrumental, as in ver. 14, so that the eroifiaa-ta

:
"
Beza well remarks itself. ngn enim vult nos docere dumtaxat, oportere nos esse calconceived of as the foot-elothing
sed calceos etiam, ut ita loquar, nobis
praebet."
ceatos,
eTot/Maaia (with classical writers erot/ioxT^?, Dem. 1268, 7, but see also Hippocr. p. 24, 47) is preparedness} whether it be an outvKird standing ready (Josephus, Antt. x. 1. 2 BiayCKiovi
:
e'/c
Tr}?
ipôi
elfit),
irapovarj'i
lttttov;
eh
eroifMaalav vjuv Trapi'êLV
an inward being ready, promptitudo animi. So LXX. Ps. X. 17, comp, irol/xr] rj KapBla, Ps. Ivii. 7, cxii. 7, where the LXX. indicate the notion of a prepared mind,
eroifio^
or
In Wisd.
xiii.
12
it
means mah'mg ready
(food).
ii.
The Vulg.
translates
it
in
our passage in praeparationt (comp. Artemid.
57).

CHAP.
VI. 15.
/^
/
stem
all
335
;^3,
;:
whicli
is
expressed in
Hebrew by forms
k'Toi/jio<i,
of the
by
the use of eTOLfxaaia
and
following the signification of

ji3
making
tions of
xliii.
ready,
it
adjusting,
wliicli
has in
6
;
the conjuga-
which occur (Deut. Prov. xix. 29; Neh. 16;

is
xxxii,
viii.
Ps. viii.
Gen.
10;
Ps. lix. o), along-
side
of
the signification of laying down, establishing, from

derived.
which the former one

late
r^^ too {foundation, as Ps. Ixxxix.
Hence the LXX. trans15) by eroLfiaala;
not as though in their usage eroLfiaala signified foundation, which it never does, but because they understood |i20 in the
sense of eTocfxaaia.
is
So Ezra
rr]v
ii.
68, where the house of Clod
to
be erected upon
i.e.
paratioji thereof,
pared.
So also Wrongly, therefore, have Wolf (after the older expositors), Bengel, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, Eosenmller, Platt, Bleek, and others, explained eroifiaala by fundamentum or firmitas so that Paul is supposed to indicate "vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem adeo ipsam, certam illam quidem et fundamento, cui insistere possis, similem," Koppe.
;
;
avTov, upon the j^rcupon the foundation already lying preEzra iii. 3 Ps. Ixxxix. 15 Dan. xi. 20, 21.
eroifjiaa-iav
This
is
not only contrary to linguistic usage (see above), but
also opposed to the context, since the notion does not suit the
figurative conception of putting
on shoes
(viroSrjadfx.).
It is
the readiness, the ready mind; not, however, for the 'procla-
mation of
to
Isa.
Iii.
the gospel
7,
(so,
in
some instances with a reference

Oecumenius, Pelagius, Erasmus,
Cornelius
a
Chrysostom,
Clarius,
Luther,
Vatablus,
Lapide,
Erasmus
Schmid, Estius, Grotius, Calovius,

others, including
since,
Ptiickert,
CaKxtus, Michaelis, and
Meier,
Baumgarten
Crusius),
in
fact,
Paul
to
iQ)lo\\ -teachers,
is
speaking
to iQ)loy7- Christians, not
but the pjromptititdo

ivhich
it.
and
that for the

is
conflict in question
the
gospel
lestows,
which
pro-
duced by means of
pretation
So Oecumenius (who
Calvin,
has this interCastalio,
alongside
the former one),
and
others, including Matthies,
Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen,
Winzer, de Wette, Schenkel.

" instar
The explanation
is
of Sclileusner
.
pedum armaturae
sit
vobis doetrina salviaris

to
quae
vohis semjper
in promptu sit"
be rejected on account
is
of ver. 1 7, according to
which the gospel
the sword.
r?}?
336
eip/^vrji^
THE EPISTLE TO THE

Suhjed
-
EPIIESIANS.
matter of the
gospel,
and
that
purposely
designated in harmony with
the
i.e.
proclaims loeace kut

Phil.
i.
eô^vv,
For the gospel peace with God, Eom. v. 1,

context.
20, and produces precisely thereby the inner consecra-
tion of courageous readiness for the conflict in question

viii.
(Eom.
31, 38, 39).
Fnrccphr.,
makes
it
At variance with the context, Erasmus, " evangelium, quod non tumultu, sed
;
tolerantia tranquillitateque clcfcnditur
"
is
and Michaelis holds

meant.
If,
the peace between Jews and Gentiles

it is
however,
taken, with
Koppe and Morus,

of Qi'^ (comp.
in accordance with the
more extended sense

tion-hringing
(rather:
Eom.
x.
15), the salvai.
the salvation-proclaiming, comp.

justification
13)
text,
gospel, this is
done without any

finally,
from the
of
and
to
the injury of
the special colouring
the
several
of the
particulars.
Winzer,
contrary
to the unity
sense,
combines peace with God and everlasting salvation.

:
Ver. 16. ÊttI iraiv] not Michaelis, and others), but

iii.
:
hefore all things (Luther, Castalio,
in addition
to all.
Comp. Luke
20
Polyb.
vi.
23. 12
eVl he iraai rovToa irpocreinKoa;
crT(j)dvo). See Wetstein, ad Luc. xvi. 26 By the three pieces previously men1371. tioned, vv. 14, 15 (which were all made fast to the body), the body is clothed upon for warlike purposes what is still wanting, and must be added to all that has preceded, is shield, helmet, sword, vv. 16, 17. tov 6vpe6v\ Ovpeo^, which I'olybius mentions and more fully describes as the first part of the Eoman iravoirXla (vi. 23. 2 ff.), is, with Homer, that which is placed in front of the doorway and blocks the entrance {Od. ix. 240,313); and only with later writers (Plutarch, Strabo, etc.) is the sliield (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 336, and Wetstein, ad loc), and that the scutum, the large shield, 4 feet in length and 2-^ feet in width, as distinguished See Lipsius, from the small round buckler, clypeus, aanri'^. Alberti and de milit. Rom. iii. 2, ed. Plant. 1614, p. 106 ff. Kypke in loc. ; Ottii S^ncileg. p. 409 f. Comp, the Homeric craKo^ and the Hebrew nsv. Paul does not say dairi^;, because
fjLovvrat
TTTeplvfp
p.
Matthiae,
he
is
representing the Christian warrior as heavy-armed.
t^?
Tricrreo)?]
Genitivus appositionis, as
rrj^ hiKaLoavvq'i, ver. 14.
The
faithj
however,
is
not the faith of miracles (Chrysostom),
CHAP.
VI. IG.
337
by which the Christian is assured on account of the sacrificial death of Christ, and at the same time is assured of the Messianic blessedness (i. 7, ii. 5 ff., iii. 12), has the Holy Spirit as the earnest of everlasting life (i. 13, 14), and consequently has Christ in the heart (ii. 17; Gal. ii. 20), and as child of God (i. 5 Eoni, viii. 15 f.; Gal. iv. 5 ff.) under the government of grace (Kom. viii. 14) belongs so wholly to God (Eom. vi. 11 comp. 1 John iii. 7 ff.), that he cannot be separated by anything from the love of God towards him (Eom. viii. 38) and on his part is consecrated only to the service of God (i. 4; Eom. vii. 4, 6, vi. 22), and hence through God carries off the victory over the power of Satan opposed to God (Eom. xvi. 20; 2 Thess. iii. 3). Only wavering faith is
but the fides salvifica
(ii.
8),
of the forgiveness of his sins
vv.
accessible to the devil (2 Cor. xi. 3
comp. 1 Pet.
it is
v.
8, 9).
iv w] hj
means of
for
lhich,
i.e.
by holding
question
in front.
hvvqcreaOe]
12,
13.
i.e.
the
conflict
TTovrjpov^j
;
in
future.
See on
Tov
of the
iii.
morally evil one

Matt.
kut
xiii.
iô^Tjv,
the devil
2 Thess.
ra^ TreTrvpcj/xeva] 15; 1 John v. 19. those set on fire, the turning ones. Comp. Apollod. Bibl. ii. 5. 2 Leo, Tact. xv. 2 7, ed. Heyn. also irvpôpoc oCa-Toi in Thucyd. ii. 75. 4 ekif] irvpcjiopa, Diod. xx. 96 Zosim. Hist. p. 256, 2. The malleoli are meant, i.e. arrows tipped with inflammable material (tow, pitch) and shot off after being kindled, whicli, known also to the Hebrews (see expositors on Ps. vii. 14), were in use among the Greeks and Eomans, and are to be distinguished from the javelins of the same kind {falaricae, see Vegetius, iv. 8). For the description of the malleoli, see. Ammian. Marcell. xxiii. 4 and see, in general, Lydius, Agonist, p. 45, de re mil. p. 119, 315 Spanheim, ad Jidian^
19, 38; John xvii.
;
; ; ; ;
v.
37,
vi.
13,
Orat. p.
193.
Poisoned arrows {Od.
i.
260
f.;
Virg. Aen.
ix..
4; and see Lyd. de re miL p. 118) are not meant (as supposed by Boyd, Hammondj, Bochart), since these aix not on fire (TreTrvpcofMeva), but excite
773;
Ps.
xxxviii.
3; Job
vi.
fire
(inflannnation).
The
aiin
of the
predicate,
we may
add,
'
is to
present in strong colours the hostile and destructive

Satan discharges other arrows besides burning ones.
iv. 6. 1.
The
article implies that
See Khner, ad Xen. Anab.
Meyeu Em.
338

;
character of the Satanic assaults

tions
but more special explana-
of its import, such as of the hiirninij desires excited

;
by
Satan (Chrysostom, Theophylact comp. Oecumenius), or of doubts and of the anguish of despair (Boyd), are inappropriate
;
and the
apostle
is
more
so,
inasmuch as in the whole context the
speaking of diabolic assaults in general, not of par-
aeaat,'] The shields of the Greeks and Romans were as a rule of wood, with a thick coating of leather (Horn. //. v. 452; Herod, vii. 91; Polyb. I.e.; Plin. viii. 39 and see, in general, Lipsius, de milit. Bom. iii. 2, So Paul conceives of faith under the figure of p. 109 ff.). such a shield, which not only prevents the missiles from injuring the warrior, but also by reason of its coating brings it about that these do not set on fire the wood of the shield, l3ut must needs be themselves extinguished, so that thus the warrior, by holding the shield in front of him, ccai qiiench
ticular kinds thereof.
the fiery arrows.
We have to prefix not a full sto-p, as is done by and Tischendorf, seeing that ver. 18 has reference Lachmann to the whole from crr-fjre onward, vv. 14-17 (see on ver. 18), Paul, namely, passes over from the partibut only a comma. construction into that of the verlum finitum^, as at i. 20, cipial a change to which he was drawn by the increasing vivacity
Ver. 17.
of his figurative conception, which, moreover, induced

to prefix the ohjeet
him now
ver.
In
(jrepcKecfjoXaiav
and ^djâipav,
because the
17).
natural sequence he brings forward first the taking of

tlicn
the helmet, and
that of the sword
left
hand
already grasps the shield (ver. 16), and thus after the taking tov acoTrjpLov] again of the sword there is no hand free.
genitive of aijposition.
The
salvation,
i.e.
the salvation /car
iô-)(fiv, the salvation of the Messia7iic
Idngdom, of which the
Christian
sion,
is
partaker (Icforc the Parousia, as an ideal posses-
Eom.
viii.
24
^),
serves, appropriated in his consciousness,
to protect
him
against the assaults of the devil aimed at his

like the helmet,
says
everlasting
^
life,
which defends the warrior

IxvUa
trumpia.-;,
Hence Paul in
1 Tliess. v. 8
TipiiaipaXaiav
which, how-
ever, does not justify in our passage the explanation hojie of salvation, given to
it
Pioseuinller, Meier, "Winzer,
by Cajetanus, Calvin, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, Grotius, Calixtus, Michaelis, and others.
; ;
CHAP.
VI. 17.
339
from deadly wounds on the head.

see Lipsius, dc milit.
Rom.
iii.
aoyrrjpiov as a substantive, frequently met with iu the classics and the LXX. xxviii. 28 Neither Christ Himself (Theosee Schleusner, Thcs. suh voce.
; ;
As to the Eoman helmets, 122 ff. For the use of comp. Luke ii. 20, iii. 6 Acts
5, p.
doret, Bengel)
nor the
(jos]jel
(Holzhausen)
is
meant.
It is
true that the word crcor/jpiov is not elsewhere used by Paul but here it is explained as a reminiscence from the LXX. SiâaOe] receive, namely, from God (ver. 13), Isa. lix. 17.
who
offers
you
this helmet.
rrjv
fid-^^âipav
rod 7rveufiaTo<i]
opposition to
since
it
The genitive cannot here be appositional Harless, Olshausen, Schenkel, and older
there follows the explanation o
is
(in
expositors),
ian
pfj/xa
eov, from which
clear that the sword of the Spirit is not the Spirit but something distinct therefrom, namely, the word of God Comp, also Bleek. If Paul had wished (comp. Heb. iv. 12).
itself,
to designate the Spirit itself as sword, the explanation o eVrt
Geov would have been inappropriate, inasmuch as the word of God and the Holy Spirit are different things;^ in Eomans, too, irvevpia means nothing else than the Holy Spirit. The fid-âipa rod rrvevp.. is the sword, which the Holy Spirit furnislics (comp, rrjv rravoTrXlav rov eov, vv. 11, 13), and
prjfxa
this
sword
is
the wôrd of God, the gospel (comp, on v. 26),

in order that
the contents of Avhich the Spirit brings vividly to the consciousness

of the
Christian,
he
may
i.
defend
himself by the divine power of the gospel (liom.

the assaults of the diabolic powers, and
as the warrior
may
16) against vanquisli them,
sword.
and vanquishes the enemy with the Limitations of the py/xa eov, either to the commandwards
off
ments of
God
(Flatt), or to the divine
threatenings against the
enemies of the Christicms (Koppe), are as arbitrary and inappropriate as is the explaining rov Trvev/xaro'i of the hitman
spirit
(Morns,
Eosenmiiller),
or
liy
TrvevixariKJjv
(Grotius,
]\Iichaelis,
and others; comp, already Chrysostom and Erasmus),

the
It is true Olsliaiisen observes tliat
Word
as to
its
inner essence
is
But that is a quid pro quo; for the word would not here he termed Spirit (as John vi. 63), but the Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit Himself. A like quid pro quo is made by Schenkel, namelj', that the word of God is the most adequate expression of the absolute Spirit (John iv. 24).
Spirit, as the efflux of
God the
Spirit.
"
340

is
which, according to Grotius,
to
serve " molliendis iranda-
tionihis" but yet would have again to be explained by too

TTvevfjuiTo^
in the sense of the
Holy
Spirit.
o eVrt] applyfj,d'âipav.
ing,
according to the ordinary attraction, to

the latter.
tjjv
Olshausen, in accordance with his erroneous conception of
Tov
irvev/jbaTo^;, refers it to
Eunom. 11, who proves from our passage

Son, but also the Spirit
is
So already Basil, contr. that not only the
the
Word
Eemakk on vv, 14-17. In the exposition of these several portions of the armour of the spiritual warrior, it is just as unwarrantable to press the comparisons, l)y pursuing iho, ijohiis of comparison into such ixirtindar details as it may please us to select from the various uses of the pieces of armour in question (an error wliich several of the older expositors committed), whereby free room is given for the play of subjectivity, and the vivid objective delineation of the apostle's figure is arbitrarily broken up, as it is, on the other hand, arbitrary to disregard the differences in the figures derived from military equipment,
and
to
say
"
p.
universa
(AVinzer,
I.e.
14
'jjotius armorum notio tenenda est comp. Morus, Rosenmiiller, and otliers).
the specific main point whereby essential characteristic the pieces named are distinguished from each other in respect of that for which they serve, must be furnished by the nature of the comparison with the respective means of spiritual conflict; so that Paul must have been conscious why he here designated, e.g., dr/.ocioc-jvr, as the breastplate, faith as the shield, etc., namely, inasmuch as he looked at the former really from the point of view of the essential destination of the breastplate, the latter from that of the essential destination of the shield, etc. Otherwise his representation would be a play of figures, of which the separate images, so different in themselves, would have no basis in the conception of what is represented. To this there is nothing opposed in the fact that here hizaioGuvri appears as the breastplate, while at 1 Thess. v. 8 it is faith and love which so appear; for the figurative mode of regarding the
The
subject can
by no means, with a mind
so many-sided, rich,
and
versatile as that of St. Paul, be so stereotyped tliat the very same thing which he has here viewed under the figure of the protect-
ing breastplate, must have presented itself another time under Thus, e.g., there appears to him, as an this very same figure. offering well-pleasing to God, at one time Christ (Eph. v. 2), at another the gifts of love received (Phil. iv. 18), at another time the bodies of Christians (Ptom. xii. 1) under the figure of the
;
CHAP.
VI.
18.
341
seeJ-corn, at one time the body becoming buried (1 Cor. xv. 36 f.), at another time the moral conduct (Gal. vi. 7) under the figure of the leaven, once moral corruption (1 Cor. v. 6), another time doctrinal corruption (Gal. v. 9) under the figure of cloth; ;
ing which is put on, once the new man (iv. 24), another time Christ (Gal. iii. 27), at another time the body (2 Cor. v. 3), and otlier similar instances.
14-17, placed before his shows yet further how this standing ready for the combat must he comhincd ivith jrraT/er : " with prayer and entreaty of every kind,
Ver.
18.
After Paul has, vv.
readers in
what armour they
are to stand forth, he
praying at each
moment
in virtue of the
Spirit."
These are
two and
parallel specifications of
first,
precisely defines the

logical connection
mode, whereof the second more and which stand in grammatical

ovv, ver.
with aTrjre
14; not with the

subordinate
intervening SeâcrOe, ver. 1 7, which rather

to the orrjTe,
is itself
and only by a deviation from the construction

remains the precejDt ruling the
has come to be expressed in the imperative instead of the

participle, wherefore o-Trjre ovv
whole
descrijjtion,
vv.
14-17.
act; for
Sj)irit
Should we join
them
to
SeâaOe, neither
priate to this
iraa-r]^
nor iv iravrl Kaipw would be appro-
momentary
" the
we would,
in fact, be told
;
not
how
the sword of the

:
should be liandlcd (Olshausen

to loicld
comp. Harless
temper in which they are

should be taken
!
such
weapons
"),
but
how
it
fication (Bleek)
K. 8ej;o-.] is to
the participle has not.

itself,
Zia
An
im2)erativc signiirdcrrj'i
Trpoaev^.
be taken by
(so
not to be joined to the followalso
ing
Trpoaevxfji'.
usucdly,
as
by Eiickert, Matthies,
Harless,
Bleek
not Meier and Baumgarten -Crusius), since
otherwise a tautological redundancy of expression would arise

(not to be confounded with the
'Trpoa-eu-êadat, Jas. v. 17),
mode
of expression 7rpoaev)(j}
arbitrarily conjectured by de Wette

Phil. iv. G,
to
have been occasioned by
and
138
because
it is
an
impossibility to pray Sia Trdcrr]'; irpocrev^r}'; iv iravrl Kaipu)} Sid here denotes " conditionem, in qua locatus aliquid vel facias
vel patiaris," Fritzsche, ad Horn.

[E. T. 453],
^
I.
p.
Winer,
p.
339
i.e.
while
ye
em'ploy every kind

this impossibility
-X.
of 'prayer and.
exist, if it
The
case
:
would be otherwise, and
would not
were said
Jâ
rrm
Tfof.vy^ri; x. luiir. Ka,\ \i
xaifif.
342
entreaty,

omit no sort of prayer and entreaty.
of.
Those who
see above.
join with irpoaevypyb. take Sta as ly means
But
The expression
stances
of the
irda-rj'i
Trpoaev^. receives
its
elucidation from
the following eV iravrl Kaipai, inasmuch as to different circum-
time different kinds of prayer, as respects

irpoa-evx,^ and
Berja-c'i
contents and form, are appropriate,

are
distinguished
not
so,
that
the
former
applies
to
the
obtaining of a blessing, the latter to the averting of an evil
(Grotius and many)
a meaning which, quite without proof
from the linguistic usage of the single words, is derived merely from the combination of the two but rather as prayer and entreaty, of which only the former has the sacred character and
;
may
be of any tenor
the latter, on the other hand,
may
be
addressed not merely

plicatory in tenor.
God, as here, but also to men, and is supSee Harless on the passage, and Fritzsche,
t(j
f.
ad Bum.
II. p.
372
i.
iv ttuvtI Kaipu)]
at every season, not
merely under special circumstances and on particular occasions.
Comp. Luke
1 Thess.
V.
xxi. 36.
ii.
It is the
uBia\ei7rra)<i
i.
17,
13,
Eom.
(Eom,
9.
Trpocrev'êa-dai,
iv irvev/xari] xmder-
10), would denote the mere utterance of the lips (Castalio, Zanchius, Erasmus Schmid, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Eosenmller, and others). But this contrast was so obvious of itself, that such a description of prayer would be quite out of
stood of the
human
spirit
viii.
luartfelt prayer in
contrast to the
place in the flow of the passage before us, accumulating, as

does, simply elements that are spec-ifically Christian.
it
The ILohj
is
Spirit is
to pray.
meant (ver. See Eom.
1 7),
viii.
by virtue
of
whom
iv.
the Christian
15, 26; Gal.
6.
koX
eU avro
rrr.
ypvTTv. K.T.X'] attaches to the general Trpoaevxpp.evoi ev

iv
TTv.
k.
something
speeial,
namely,
intercession,
and that
:
for
all Christians,
and in particular
for the apostle himself
and
in that ye on this hchalf arc tvatcJifid in every hind of persec ei-According to ance and entrecdy for all saints and for me, etc.
de Wette, eU avro dyp.
is to
be held as
still
ir.
belonging to the
general exhortation to prayer, and iv
irpoaKapr. k.t.X. to
be the addition of a special element, like iv evâp., Col. iv. 2. But how idly would k. et9 avro dyp. then be used, seeing that
the contimicd praying
is
Moreover, Kai betrays
the
already before so urgently expressed I T,ransition to a new element of
CHAP. VI
19.
343
on
helialf
prayer.
et 9
avT] in refcraicc
thereto,
of
this,
namely,
of the
irpocrv-)(ea-6ai,
ev ttuvtI Katpu) iv TrvevfMari, just required.
By
and
avTo, namely,
it is
is
denoted
theit
ivhich is just heing spoken ofy
distinguished,
from
av-ro tovto (the Becepta) only in
this respect, that the latter (comp,
on Eom.
ix.
17) designates
the subject in question at the same time

; ;
demonstratively,
and so still more definitely see on ver, 2 2 Khner, ad Xcn. Mem. iii. 10. 14; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. ii. p. 362 D. According to Holzhausen (comp. Koppe), it has reference to ha fj,ot But in that case eh tovto must have been written So6f]. and, moreover, irepl irdvTwv tcov ayiwu would be from a logical eu irdarj irpoaKapT. k. Serjaet. point of view opposed to it.
irepl
TT.
T.
ay.] denotes the domain, wherein, etc.
On
behalf of
the required irpoaevxêa-Oac they are to be watchful in every
kind of ijerseverance and entreaty for

KapTeprjcri'i is,
all saints.
The
irpocriv. 2),
according to the context (and comp. Col.

tt.
the perseverance in prayer, so that Iv

to the Zia
irda-.
irpocrK.
corresponds
Trpocrevy^yiq at the beginning of the verse,
and
then with koI

itself,
(iv Trda-rj) Seijaei, as there, the entreaty attaches

:
but
now with
Toiv dyloav,
Se^crei, as,
the more precise definition Trepl rrdvTcov which hence belongs not to TrpoaKapT., but only to
indeed, accordingly the latter

irpocTKapT. into
may
Svolv.
not be amalga-
mated with
able
to
a ev
dy.
et?
hid
According
case
irepl
?
to
Hiickert, ev Trdarj 'rrpocrKapT.
k. Beijaec is
r.
added, in order to be
in
annex
irepl
irdvT.
But
that
could
irdvT.
not Paul have written merely

T.
d<y.,
avTo dypvirv.
and that without risk of being misunderstood

k. Seijcr.,
No,
the ev irday TrpoaK.
in itself not essential, gives to his
discourse the emphasis of earnestness and solemnity.
Bornemann,
Ver. 19.
Fritzsche,
Schol. in Luc. p. xxxviii.
f.
Comp.
irdarj] as previously
Kal
virep
p.
ifiov]
kui: and in partieular.
Seo
ad Marc.
11, 713.
The
special point which, in

all Christians,
connection with the intercession embracing
he
would have to be made matter of supplication for himself, is stated in what follows, virep expresses, as previously the
irepi in
current use, the sense in

;
commodum
(see
Schaefer,
Apjx ad Dem. I. p. 190 Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188); and only the form of sensuous perception, which underlies the
344

different, as in the case of the
two prepositions, is and itvi ; comp. 1

Harless that
care for,
encircling
Germ,
iiher
Pet.
iii.
18.
It
is
^\Tongly assumed
itself
by
only virep expresses in

ire pi.
the relation of
embodies such care ; hence with classical writers too, especially with Demosthenes, irepl and virep are interchanged without any difference of sense, c.fj.
in
fact
and not
The notion
of the latter
that of
sensuously
Phil.
ii.
p.
74,
35
/x^ Trepl rcov hiKaicov firjh^
virep rv eô)
ev
tj}
irpayfxdTwv elvai
10. 16: ov irepl
T'r]v
ovXrjV,
aXk virep
rcov
X^P^'
Bo^7]<;
:
owS' virep fiepov^
^wpa?
,
iroKe/xovfTi,
Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17 virep tovtcov irepl avrov irapayvcovai, virep <ye t^? e/x% Kivhweveiv ev9vix-q6i}T(o Thucyd. vi. 78. 1 tva /jloi Zo6f] /c.t.A,.] Aim of the ov irepl Trj<i ifxrj'i fiaWov. Kal virep ifiov, and consequently contents of the intercession for the apostle (comp, on iii. 16): in order that utterance may
:
he
given
to
me on
the opening of
not be withheld from

conferred, that
me by
God, but
which
I ought to
i.e. that there may may on the contrary lie speak when I open my mouth.
my
mouth,
That Paul means the speaking with a view to the proclamation of the gospel, is from the context (see ev irapp't]a. <yva)p. k.t.X.) clear. The emphasis, however, is upon BoOfi, to which, in the sequel, ev irapprjaia significantly corresponds for this freedom
;
of speech
bestowal.
is
the consequence wished for by Paul from that

xxi. 15.
Comp. Luke
itself
As
v.
to
voL-yeiv to aro/xa,
2 Cor.
which in
represents nothing else than the opening of the
mouth
to speak,
comp, on Matt.
vi.
11; on the
substantive votî<i, comp. Thuc.

is grap)hic,
iv.
67. 3.
The expression
and has here something of a pathetic nature, without,
however, containing a
rpiialitaiive feature of the discourse itself, not even the character of unpjremeditatccl utterance (Oecu-
menius ev avru) raJ avolât, 6 X0709 irporjei), which would have been expressed by eV avrfj ry avoiêt rov ar., or in a This at the same time in opposition similar significant way. to Calvin, Boyd, Zanchius, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others, including Koppe, Paickert, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten:
Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, Schenkel,

franl'ly,
who explain
unreservedly,
which would have

r^vcop.
to be attached not to
what follows
(see below),
irapprjcla
but closely to X0709, and thereby, again, the ev would be unwarrantably anticipated. Follow-
ciiAr. VI.
19.
345
a
ing Bullinger,
as the act of
Ps.
li.
Calovius,
Cornelius
Lapide,
avoiî'i
and
rou
others/
Harless and Olshausen understand the
o-To/xaro'i
;
God (comp. Ezek.

it
iii.
:
27, xxix. 31, xxxii. 22

the
hcstoived
17), holding speahing in contrast
to
denote
capacity
of
to an earlier hound state of the tongue. Paul would thus have said " in order that utterance may be But what given imto me through my mouth being opened." needless diffuseness of expression, since Zo6^ X0709 and uotî<; Ivypke and Tov <Tr6fu.aTo<; would be just the same thing ! Koppe attach iv uvolêi tov ctt. fi. to what follows in which
:
case
(TT.
Kypke
regards ev Trapp-qala as epexegesis of avolêt
r.
and Koppe, following Grotius,^ refers ev irapp. to the " non vinculis constrictus in carcere latens." outu'arcl freedom
fj,.,
:
The
latter explanation is logically erroneous, since, thus under-
stood, iv Trapprjcr.
i/oiî<i
would be something quite

kul
other than the
TOV aTo/jbaTd, and thus could not be added by

;
way
of
and linguistically erroneous, since Trappijaia never denotes outward freedom, and here especially its signification of holdness is rendered clear by the irappr)apposition, without
a-tuacofiat
p.
of ver. 20.
Comp.
Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor.

it
99
f.
In opposition to Kypke,
t.
may
be urged that an
would would not be in keeping with the elevated style of the discourse, which is not couched in anything like a didactic tone. Kster (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854,
addition of so purely exegetical a character, as iv Trapp,
be to ev dvol^.
aTOfi.
/a.,
p.
avoi^.
317), with whom, in the main, Bleek agrees, attaches ev T. aTOjx. fi. to what follows, and takes 8odfj \6yo<; in the
classical sense
:
well-known
let
to
allow one
to
come
to speech, to
him speak (Dem. 26, 18; 27, 9; 508, 16; 1220, 20;
Tvxêiv,
:
229, 13); so that Paul is supposed to may be given to me, namely, at the opening of my mouth (that is, when I wish to speak)
comp. X0701
say
" that opportunity to speak
Grotius also regards the
avoilis
tov iTTOfiaros as the act of Goel

sibi gratias agendi,
"sic Dens
Ps.
li.
labia aperire dicitur, iibi
materiam suppeditat
15,"
yet
makes out
of
it,
after the Eabbinical
nS priDD
(see Capell. Spicileg. p.
112;
Tahn. p. 1872), occasione (loiûendi) data. But the sense, "opportunity to speah," could only so be brought out in the event of the words running thus 7va %o6rt a.yot%is tov ffTO/âr; fjiov. ^ " t ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbeni perferre possem
Buxtorf, Lex.
:
l^t-oi
sermonem evang.,"
etc.
346
fraiikl}^ to

proclaim," etc.
GTfx. jxov.
the
But even in this way iv avoiêc tov would be only a needless and cumbrous addition. Iv irappriaLa yvooptaaL /c.r.X.] ivith frankness to make Icnoion mystery of the gospel, i.e. the mystery (see on i. 9) which
forms the contents of the gospel.
The opportunity of preaching was not taken from the apostle in his captivity at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), nor yet afterwards at Eome (Acts xxviii, 30 f.). Should we attach iv irapp. to what precedes (Vatablus " ut detur mihi aperto ore loqui libere, ut notum faciam," etc.), ryvcopicrat would be without a necessary modal definition.
:
Eemark. If the Recepta hokin were genuine, the statement of aim, introduced by ha, would be adduced from the mind of
the 2Jersons praying, thus in the character of the oratio ohliq^ta.
See on
i.
17.
Ver. 20. For which (to conduct its cause)

office
discharge the
is
Comp, on 2 Cor. v. 20. It of amhassador in a chain. to be explained neither as though vTrep ov irpeaevwv iv
elfxl
akvaei,
as
(Zachariae, Kckert, Matthies) were written, nor
though
:
VTrep ov kol iv dXvcrec irpeaevco

"
(Grotius
is
nunc quoque non desino legationem,"

is
ov to be referred, as
were the reading etc.) nor usncdly the case, merely to rov
;
evayyeX., Imt to to fivcTTi^pLov rov evayy., seeing that this
was the object

significantly
/iivcrr7]pt,ov
of yvooplaai,
and
to this yvoyplaai the irpea-eiKo
corresponds.
Si
Comp.
Col.
iv.
rov Xptarov,
o Kal SeSefxat.
XaXijaac to
Trpecrevco] ivhose
ambassador he is, was at once understood by the reader, namely, Christ's; and equally so to whom his embassy was addressed,
namely, to
xxii.
all
peoples, specially the Gentiles

i.
(Acts
ix.
15,
15
Eom.
court,
14,
xi.
13
Gal.
ii.
9).
The opinion of
Michaelis, that Paul designates himself as delegate of Christ to

the
Roman
the
would, even
if
he had written the Epistle
in
Eome, be imported,
cqjostle
since no reader could find anything else
than
definition.
denoted by irpea-evco without more precise
ev aXvcrei,]
On
iv,
comp, phrases like

3.
et?
rrjv
oKvaiv
l)iles,
i/jLTTLTrreLv,
:
Polyb. xxi.
3.
Wetstein,
we may
add,
aptly observes
"alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviola-
in vincnlis haberi
non poterant."
To
infer,
however, from
xxviii.
the use of the singular (Baumgarten, Paley, Piatt, Steiger) the

custodia militaris, in
which Paul was at Rome (Acts
20;
CHAP.
VI. 20.
347
2 Tim.
i.
IG),
is
too hasty
partly for the general reason that
the singular must by no means be urged, but

collectively (Bernhardy, p.
may
be taken
special
58
f.),
and partly
for the
reason that
we have
to
think of Paul at Caesarea too, and
that from the very beginning of his captivity there (see on Acts xxiv. 23), as in the custodia militaris; Acts xxiv. 27,
xxvi. 29.^
The
significant hearing of the addition ev aXvcrec is to
make
palpable the so
much
ev
.
.
greater need of the irapprjaia, and so
the more fully to justify the longing for the intercessory prayer
of the readers.
to the
'iva
'iva
avrw
.
irapprjcr. co? Sec [xe
\aX.] Parallel
fiot,
Bo6f}
evayyeXtov, ver. 19, and indeed not
tautological
(in
opposition to Harless), but, by
means
of eo?
Bel fie XaXrjaac,
more
])recisehj
defining the thought already
expressed.
As
vii.
similar parallels
by means of a second
1 Cor. xii.
iVa,
comp. Rom.
Harless
13
Gal.
iii.
14
20
2 Cor.
ix. 3.
first.
regards
this
second
'Iva
as
sitbordinede to the
Thus the words would express not the aim on account of ichich Faul summons his readers to 'pra.yer, as stated by Harless, but But this would 1)6 inapprothe aim of the BoQrj X0709 k.tX. priate, since BoQri \0709 k.tX. lieis already tlie definition of aim
appropriate to
it, namely, in eV 'Kapp. yvwp. k.t.X. Bengel and Meier make iva dependent on Trpeaevco iv uXixret (in which case Meier imports the sense, as if the words were iva Kal iv avrfi Trapp.) but the clause expressive of the aim " in order that I may therein speak as boldly as I am hound to
;
:
spectJc,"
does
not
logically
correspond
to
the
irpeaevco
ev
ttXvcret,
because without any reference to ev dXvaei.

:
Had
Paul merely written

o)? Bel fie
iva Trappr^cndawpLaL ev
Trapprja:
avju)
(without
\a\rjaai),
:
emphatic," or
relation
iva
by which the ttoWoj pbdWov
would have become
would be
satisfied.
Trapprja. iv avTu>, the logical
ev avr(p] namely, in the mystery
of the gosyel, i.e. occupied therewith, in the proclamation thereof (Matthiae, p. 1342). Comp. Acts ix. 27. Harless imderstands
ev of the source or
ground of the
irapprjaia,
which has
its basis
"
In the latter passage the plural tv
lurfi.
toutuv is not at variance with
this view, as it is rather the categoric plural,
and leaves the question entirely undecided, whether Paul was bound with one or more chains. ^ This seems also to have been felt by Bengel, who connected s ^tT un XaX. with yvuptrai, which certainly could not occur to any reader.
348
THE EPISTLE TO THE
EriIESIANS.
in the message itself [rather
in the mystery of the gospel
see
on
vTrep
ov].
But the context represents the

ohJf:ct
iivaTrjpiov rov
evayy. as the
of the bold discourse (ver. 19);
source of the Trapprjaia is in
God
is
(see 1 Thess.
ii.
2),
and the which is

it is
not indeed here expressed, but

to
implied in the fact that

'prayer
be oUaincd for the apostle
readers.
iv.
hij
on the part of the
&>? Set /xe
\aXriaai] to be taken together (comp. Col.

is
4)
and
after p-e there
not to be put any comma, by
which \akri(TaL would be connected with irapprja. (Koppe), a course, which is impossible just because irappr^cr. already expresses the bold spcahing ; and thus XaXiia-ai,, if it were to be more precisely defining, could not but of necessity have with See Fritzsche, it a modal definition (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2).
Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p.
100
f.
Ver. 21. Je] Serving to

subject.
iv.
make
the
transition to
another
Kal
vp,ei<i]
ye also, not merely the Colossians, Col.
8, 9.
See Introd.
2.
While most
:
of the older exposi-
tors pass over this
kul in silence (rightly, however, explained

\\t
by Bengel " perinde and Matthies strangely enough think that

in a general sense
distinction to the apostle himself.
alii "),
Elickert
it
stands in contra-
From
this there
woidd
I,
in fact
result the absurd thought
" in order that not only
ye
may know how
it
fares
with me."
i.
but also
/car
7.
epe\
my
cir-
cumstances,
II. p.
:
definition of ra kut TL irpda-o-o)] 119. what I experience, i.e. hoio it fares loith me, how I find So often also in classical writers, " de statu et rebus, myself} in quibus quis constitutus est et versatur," Ellendt, Lex. Sojyh. IL G29. Comp. AeL V. H. ii. 35, where the sick Gorgias is
fjt,e
my 2wsition,
Phil.
22; Col. more precise
iv.
See Khner,
asked ri Trpdrroi, Plato, Theaet.
and see AVetstein and Kypke.

Col. iv. 7
'
2 Tim.
iv.
12.
See Acts xx. 4 Beyond these passages unknown.

Tv')(^lko<;'\
p.
174 B
Soph. Oed.
74
o dyaTT'tjTo^ d8e\(f)6<i Kal TTicn. SiaK. ev Kvp.^ So.
racterizes Tychicus ly vxiy of commendation'^
Paul chaand that () as
But tliat the reader knew. He was Others, like Wolf: what I am doing. doing the one thing, which always occupied him. See vv. 19, 20. ^ The assumption of a more special design as regards -rtffros, namely, that it is meant to rejiresent Tychicus as a trustworthy reporter (Grotius), is inadmissible, It was because Tychicus without doubt was known to the readers (Acts xx. 4). See on Col. iv. 7. otherwise in relation to the Colossians.
CHAP,
VI. 22.
349
as his
faithful
official
his
beloved fellow-Christian, and
(h)
he was employed by Paul for just Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 12. Mark such journeys as the present. likewise, according to 2 Tim. iv. 11, receives from the apostle
servant.
As the
latter,
the testimony that he

Others, like
is
for
him
ev-^pr^crro^
et?
hiaKoviav.
Grotius (comp. Calvin), do not refer BidKovo<; to

it
:
the relation to the apostle, but explain

[minister evangelii], while Estius and
cially
servant of
tJic
gospel
many
understand spe-
the ecclesiastical
BidKovo<i
where
But Col. iv. 7, office of the deacon. koI cruvSovXo'i are united (the latter word
softening the relation of service towards the apostle expressed
by
SuiKovo<;),
speaks in favour of our view.
eV Kvpioi] belongs
only to SidKovo<i, not to dSeXô? as well (in opposition to Meier
and Harless), since only the former had need of a specific definition (comp, on Phil. i. 14), in order to be brought out
in
its
true relation (and not to bear the semblance of harsh-
was Tychiwas carried on, Christ was the sphere of the same, inasmuch as Tychicus was official ZiKovo<i of the apostle, iv Kvpico is attached without an article, because combined with Blclkovo^ so as to form one idea.
ness).
Not beyond the

of
pale of Christian relations
cus
servant
the
apostle,
but in
Christ
his
service
Ver. 22. "Eire/xylra
Trpo? vfMa^]
namely, that he should travel

See Introd.
ver. 18,
2.
from Colossae to you.
Col. iv.
7-9.
See on
et?
avro
and Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 12. 2 Pflugk, ad Eur. Androm. 41. 'Iva <yvcT6 rd irepl riixMv~\ must on account of et? avro tovto necessarily convey the same thing as was said by Iva elSijre id Kar hence the conjecture of Eiickert, ifie, ri irpdaaw, ver. 21 Xva yvoi re rd Trepl vficov, is entirely baseless and at Col. iv. 8
TovTo] in this very design.
;
also
we
have, in accordance with preponderant evidence, to
read cva Yi/wxe rd
irepl tj/muv. By r/fioov Paul means himself and those that arc ivith him (see Col. iv. 10 ff Philem. 10 f., 23 ff.), concerning whom information was likewise reserved
;
for
the report of Tychicus. TrapaKaXearf] might comfort. For Tychicus had to tell of sufferings and afflictions which Paul must needs endure (comp. ver. 20), and on account of them the readers were called yJr] eKKaKelv, iii. 13. Amplifica" to elevate by address to them tions of the notion (Eiickert
:
350

to
of every kind;" Baumgarten-Crusius
strengthen;
comp.
Estius, M-ho proposes cxhortctur) are arbitrary.
Ver. 23 f. Twofold wish of blessing at the close, in -which, however, Paul does not, as in the closing formulae of the
other Epistles, directly address the readers

TrdpTcov
to
v/jLO)v,
(/ue^'
vfxSiv,
fiera
is
êra rov
Trvevfiaro'i
v/mmv).
This variation
so,
be regarded as merely accidental, and the more

vixdv or the like
seeing
that he has in fact been just addressing his readers directly,
and seeing that a

leaving,
itself
fied'
would simply address

itself,
the I'eaders, as has so often been done in the Epistle
we may
add, the question, %ho these readers are, in
wholly undetermined. For what is asserted by Grotius on ver. 24: " Non Ei^hcsios tantum saluted, seel ct omnes in Asia Christianos," is not implied in roU aSe\ô2<; which, on
the contrary, rcp-cscnts quite the simple v^lv, inasmuch as
2Jerson.
Paul conceives of the recipients of the Epistle in the third According to Wieseler, p. 444 f., the apostle in
and in ver. 24 Improbable in itself, more particularly in this Epistle, which so carefully brings into prominence the unity of the two and the alleged distinguishing reference would neither be recognisable, nor in keeping with the apostolic wisdom. elpiprf] not concordia, " as reconnnended by Calvin (" quia mox fit dilectionis mentio comp, also Theodoret and Oecumenius), but, as Calvin himself explains vxlfa.re, Uessing, di-'t:', without more precise definition, because it takes the place of the vcdctc {eppwade. Acts xv. 29) at the close of our Epistle,^ and because that special sense is not at all suggested from the contents of the Epistle (comp, on the
ver.
23
salutes the Jewish Christians (aSeX,^.),
the Gentile Christians (irdvTcov) in Ephesus.
other hand, 2
Cor.
xiii.
11).
^d-Krj jxera Tricrrew?]
i?,
one
object of the wish for blessing, not two.
After the general
fare
namely, Paul singles out further the highest morcd which he wishes for his readers. He does not, howelement, ever, write Kal dyTTT) Kai Tr/crri?, because with good reason he l^resupposes faith (in the atonement achieved by Christ) as already present, but has doubtless to wish for them that which,
ivell !
1
Hence
also not to
be explained of the peace of reconciliation (Bengel,

takes the place of the epistolary sahttem, iZ TfccmiK
Matthies, Schenkel, and others), any more here than in the opening salutations
of the Epistle, where
it
CHAP,
VI. 24.
351
combined with
it
as the constant life of faith, is to be

xiii.
;
(1 Cor.
6), Christian brotherly love, consequently love Comp. with faith {a'âiTT] has the emphasis, not [Juera iriar.).
Gal. v.
Plato,
Phaed. p. 253 E: kWo^ fieTct vyieia^ 'KaficiveLV. Bengel and Meier understand the difinc love, to which, however, fiera iriar. is unsuitable, although Meier explains it: in conformity ivith their oimi faith, partly at variance with
linguistic
usage/ partly
importing
a
is
thought
{their
own).
The reading
love,
eXeo? (instead of a'^dinf}
to be regarded simply
it
as a glossematic consequence of the explaining
of the divine
it is
and
yet,
though found onhj in codex A,

vi.
held by
16); Paul, he says, wishes to the readers elprjvr] k. eXeo'^ for the reward (?) of aTTo ov irarpo'^ k. Kvp. 'I. X.] See on Ptom. i. 7. faith.
lliickert to
be the true one (comp. Gal.
Grotius,
principem
the part
we may add, rightly observes " conj ungit causam cum causa secunda." " For Christ is exalted on of God to the government of the world, and particu:
church (i. 22; Phil. ii. 9); and His dominion has in God, the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), not merely its ground (comp, also Eph. i. 17), but also its
larly to the Lordship of the
goal (1 Cor. Ver. 24.

blessing for
iii.
23, xv. 28).

in ver.
While Paul has

the
readers
23 expressed
he
his
wish of
(roh
ahe\j)ol<i),
now annexes
into
thereto a further such general wish, namely, for all %ho love
Christ iriqKrishaUy, just as at 1 Cor. xvi.
22 he takes up
the closing wish an avddeixa upon

Christ,
all
those
i.e.
who do
;
not love
7]
%a/3i9] the grace /car' eô^vv,

;
the grace of
God
;
2 Tim. iv. 22 1 Tim. vi. 21 Comp. Col. iv. 18 Tit. iii. 15. In the conclusion of other Epistles: the grace of Christ, Eom. xvi. 20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 13; Gal. vi. 18; Phil iv. 23; 1 Thess. v. 28; 2 Thess. iii. 18; I*liil. 25. eV dcjiOapaLa] belongs neither to Îrjaovp Xpcarov
in Christ.
1 fiira may, it is true, sometimes Ido approximately as to sense rendered by conformahly to, but the analysis in those cases is such as does not suit our passage. See e.(j. Dem. Lept. p. 490; Plato, Phaed. p. 66 B, where f/.ira. <rv vofiuv and
TcZ koyou is to be explained, in connection with the laws, etc., aid of the same. Comp, also Thucyd. iii. 82. 5, and Kriigcr in general, Bernhardy, p. 255.
(ttsra
-
i.e. luith
the
loc.
See iu
The order in the combination

x-oCi
of the
two causes
is
inverted iu Gal.
I.e.
Ite.
Xr.roi) 'Up.
QioZ varfos.
O0'2

:
(Wetstein
lem,"
etc.
"
Christum imiiiortalem
also
et gloriosum,
non liuminor to
see
("
Eeiners in
Wolf and
Castalio,
Semler),
Driisius
;
%a/3t9
favor
inimortalis,"
comp.
o-vv,
Piscator
and Michaelis, who take eV

nor yet to the
sit
as
equivalent to
while the latter supposes a reference to deniers of the resurrection

is
!),
to be supplied after
77
%a/9t9,
as
Beza (who, however, took eV for et<?) and Bengel, recently by Matthies (" that grace with all mcaj be in eternity " comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), Harless (according to whom ev denotes the element in which the %a/3i9 manifests itself, and d(ji9apa. is all imperishable being, whether appearheld, after
.
.
ing in this
last
life
or in eternity), Bleek,
supposes a hrcviloqitentia for

^)r]v
iW
^w-qv e-ôyacv ev
and Olshausen, which a^dapit
(Tia, i.e.
l)e
alwvLov.
But, in opposition to Matthies,
may
urged that the purely temporal notion eternity (eh top alwva) is foisted upon the word imperishaUencss ; and in
opposition to Harless, that the abstract notion im^jcrishahleness
is
transmuted into the concrete notion of ivipcrishahlo

is
heiny,
i. 10 and that eu d(f)6apcrta., instead of adding, in accordance with its emphatic position, a very weighty and important element, would express something which is self-evident, namely, that according to the wish of the apostle the grace might display itself not ev (f>6aprol6apa., even in 2 Tim.
(but imperishableness
abstracto),
(1
Pet.
i.
18), but tv d(J30dpTOL<i

is,
the
breviloqucntia, lastly,
itself
assumed by Olshausen
equivalent to
although dÔapa-. in
(see
might be
a pure
ô)?) aloovLo<i
Grimm, Handh.
connection
is
p. 60),
invention, the sense of which Paul would have expressed
by
eh
d<ji6apaiav.
The
:
riyJit
the
usual
one,
Lord in imperishableness, i.e. so that their love does not pass away, in which case ev expresses the manner. Comp, the concluding wish Tit. iii. 15, where ev TTLcnei is in like manner to be combined with <f)c\ovvTa<i. Others, following the same connection, have understood the sinceritas either of the love itself (Pelagius, Anselm, Calvin, Calovius, and others) or of the disposition and the life in general (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Placius,
the
namely, with dyaTrcovrcov. have to explain it who love
And
in accordance with this,
we
Estius,
Zeger, Grotius
" siguificatur
is,
qui nulla
vi, nullis
CHAP.
VI. 24.
353
i.e.
precibiis,
nilis
illecebris
se
corrunipi,
redo
ctbduci,
patitur,"
and
others, including Wieseler),
but against this

linguistic
Beza has
already with reason urged the
usage
vi.
for uncorrujptedness is
not <f>6apcria (not even in Wisd.

(Tit.
ii.
18, 19), but d^dopia

II. p.
7)
and
dSiacjiOopla
(Wetstein,
1 Cor. xv.
373).
it is
On dÔapala,
imperishahleness (at
42, 52,
1 Tim.
ix.
in accordance with the context specially incor;
ruptibility),
i.
comp. Plut. Arist. 6

;
Eom.
ii.
ii.
7; 1 Cor.
vi.
17
2 Tim.
i.
10
Wisd.
23,
18
f.
ix. 25 4 Mace,
22, xvii. 12.
Îetek
Eph.
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
INTEODUCTIOK
had been converted to Christianity by Paul himself perhaps during his sojourn at Ephesus (ver. 19), was a member of the Christian community, not at Laodicea (Wieseler, Laurent), like Archippus, ver. 2 (see on Col. iv. 17) but at Colossae (CoL iv. 9), wherein, by his zealous Christian activity, and more especially by the holding of an iK/cXrjo-La in his house (vv. 1-7), he had gained deserved esteem, being described by Chrysostom as ri? tmv daufMaa-riov icai <yevvai(ov. Nothing is known as to his more definite vocation,
HILEMON, who
although tradition has

apost.
vii.
made him bishop
in
Colossae {Constit.
it
46. 2) or in Gaza (Pseudo-Dorotheus), as
has
him among the martyrs (under Nero). It is possible, however, that he was one of the presbyters of the church (o-vvepyS, ver. 1). Of the house where he dwelt
likewise placed
Theodoret relates
{vTrodeaisi)
fie^^^pt
tov 7rap6vTo<;
/jiefievTjKe.
His slave Onesimus ^ had, on account of a misdemeanour (vv. 11, 18), fled from him through fear of punishment (ver. 15), and had come, certainly of set purpose^ and not by
^ Tradition in one form of it makes him subsequently bishop of Beroea in Macedonia {Constit. ajjost. vii. 46. 2), and in another identifies him with the Bishop Onesimus in Ephesus (Ignat. ad Ejph. 1 and 6), and makes him die as a martyr in Rome.
natural explanation.
sui occasione
In this way the circumstances of the case find their simplest and most Comp. Bengel on ver. 11 Onesimus etiam antequam
:
ad frugem veram pervenisset, tamen bene de Paulo existimarat,
et ijx4us flarjitU,
And this serves to dispose of the curious ques" What should induce Onesimus to fiee to Caesarea tion of Hofmann (p. 217) in particular? " "We answer He fled to the place, where Patil was. And the reason of this may be the more readily understood, if he had been possibly already in Philemon's service, when the latter was converted by the apostle.
ad ilium
confuyit.
:
"
356
mere
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMOX.

accident, to the apostle, then a captive at Caesarea,
who
converted
him
to
Christ
(ver.
cordial affection for

fore,
him
(vv.
and conceived a most When, there12, 13, 16 f.).

10),
Paul was despatching Tychicus to Colossae (Col. iv. 7), whom he made use of this opportunity to send Onesimus he at the same time commended to the church there (Col. back to his master, and to procure for him at the iv. 9) hands of the latter forgiveness, welcome, and love by means an aim, which is pursued in it with so much of this letter Christian love ^ and wisdom, with so great psychological tact, and, without sacrifice of the apostolic authority, in a manner
so thoughtfully condescending, adroit, delicate,
that the brief letter
which
and
irresistible,
is
in the finest sense a X670?
aXuTL
rjpTVfikvo'i (Col. iv. 6), as
istic relic of
the great apostle
a most precious and characterbelongs, even as regards its
Attic refinement and gracefulness, to the epistolary masterpieces of antiquity.^
The Epistle bears

(jcnuincness, that
so
directly
and vividly the stamp of

II.
p.
the doubts of Baur [Paulus,
88
ff.)
would appear a whim hardly meant

have any
captivity.
in earnest, were they not
in strict consistency with the assumption that

letters of the apostle at all
we should not
Baur, who,
we may
from the period of his add, acknowledges the author
as
profoundly pervaded
by Christian consciousness, places

it
the contents of the Epistle upon a parallel with those of the
Clementine Homilies, and finds in

tian fiction,"
the " embryo of a Christo be brought
by which the idea was
home
to
men's minds, that what we lose temporally in the world,

regain eternally in Christianity (according to ver. 15).
we With
equal caprice
Baur propounds the view, that even should

is
the writing be Pauline, what actually took place

^
set forth
Comp. Luther's
preface
' : '
example of Christian love,"
etc.
This Epistle presents a masterly and charming Ewald: "Nowhere can the sensibility and
warmth
of tender friendship blend
more beautifully with the higher

brief
feeling of a
superior mind, nay, of a teacher and apostle, than in this
and yet
so
9, 21, and 24) have often been compared with but how greatly it excels them in point of thoughtfulness, delicacy of " Quid festivius etiam dici poterat vel ab ipso plan, and depth of afiection Tullio in hujusmodi argumento ? " Erasmus.
eminently significant letter. ^ The letters of Pliny {Epp.

ours
;
INTRODUCTION.
357
and the bringing
that the
under the point of view of that of this latter into prominence
definite idea,
is
its
proper aim and import.
The genuineness is externally adequately, when we consider

personal, not directly didactic,
attested
and
its
more
that from
brevity and the
was little occasion for citations by the Canon Muratorianus, Marcion (see TertuUian, c. Marc. v. 42 Epiph. Raer. xlii. 9), Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, etc., though the passages of Ignatius, ad Epli. 2, ad Magnes. 12, ad Polyca. 6, do not serve to prove a reference to ver. 20. Nevertheless, Jerome had already to controvert those, who wished to infer from the non-dogmatic character of the contents " aut epistolam non esse Pauli aut etiam, si Pauli sit, nihil habere, quod
; .
. .
nature of
its
contents there
aedificare nos possit."
Place and time are the same as with the Epistles written from the captivity in Caesarea (not, as is usually supposed, at Eome) to the Ephesians and Colossians, and with the lost
Epistle to the Laodiceans, which, however,
in the one
is
not to be found
Whether Paul wrote our Epistle before that to the Colossians (Otto), or the converse, remains an undetermined question.
before us
;
now
see
on
Col. iv. 16.
Ver.
2.
Instead of
bi7-.<pri,
Elz. Scholz, Tisch,
have
yaTTrirrt.
But the former, which is approved by Griesb. and Eeiche, is attested by A D* E* F G N, and some min. vss. Hesych. Jerome, and was easily supplanted by the ayacr. written on the margin in conformity with ver. 1 (vss. Ambrosiast. and Pelag. have ho.(py\ yair). Ver. 5. 'irpog] Lachm. f/c, following A C D* E, 17, 137. An alteration, occasioned by KisTiv. Ver. 6. Instead of hi-^'i'v, Elz. has in opposition to A C D E K L, min. vss. and Fathers. The latter reading is to be traced to the mechanical copyists, who, as in the opening of the Epistle, had in view Philemon and those around him (ver. 3). The preceding roZ is deleted by Lachm. on too weak counter-evidence (A C, 17)
lj[jbTv,
how
be passed over after the final syllable of Instead of âpdv, Elz. Tisch, have p/a^/K, in opposition to decisive evidence the latter found its way into the text through reference to ihyapicrZi, ver. 4. Comp. Eeiche. 'iyjiixiv\ Lachm. has Uxp^, which was also recommended by
easily
ya&oi)\
Ver.
might
it
7.
358
The C F , rain. vss. Fathers. other witnesses are divided between s%o,,i/ and h-xoiuy, but remain The plural too weak to warrant either of these two readings. appears an inappropriate following up of h ti/mTh in ver. 6, and The position 'ioôfj^sv also tells indirectly in favour of Lachm. ajftcr ToXTi. is decidedly attested (Lachm.). Ver. 10. Before ;yiv\/7i<!a Lachm. ed. min. had h/w, following A, min. Syr. p. Slav. ms. Chrys. Eightly the emphasis resting upon syw, in accordance with the context, was overlooked and it is more likely to have been dropped out on occasion of the following EFE, than to After dss/ji,. have been introduced by the writing of Er twice. Elz. Scholz have /mou, in opposition to decisive testimony. Ver. 11. After dviTn/M-â we have, with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A C D* E X* 57), to take in aoi, the omission of which is to be explained from the following av. Ver. 12. gj di] is wanting in C N* 17. Lachm., who, like Tisch., has deleted also '^rpoeXaoZ after s'j'hAy/jia. This 'xpoaXa.uv is wanting X* 17, wliile some min. place it immediately after au in A F di Arm. Boern. Theodoret, on the other hand, after avrov. It is, though afresh defended by Eeiche, to be looked upon as a supplement from ver. 17 the absence of the verb, however, involved, by way of redressing the construction, the omission of Gu di, so that auTov was regarded as governed by /'zs//,-â (comp,
Griesb., in accordance with
Lachm.
ov
veî/M-^d
goi,
uvtov,
tout'iStiv
to,
I/a
G'TrXdy^va).
Ver. 13. The position of /xoi Icfore 8iax. (Elz. in reverse order) Ver. 18. The form sXXoya, is to be is decisively attested. adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in conformity with C D* (ivX.) F sXXysi was imported from the familiar S, 17, 31 Ver. 20. Instead of xpiarw, Elz. has passage, Eom. v. 13. x-jpiu). Eepetition from what precedes, in opposition to decisive
xfTtip ci, in accordance 21. uVsf) 6'] Lachm. have no means of deciding the point. Copt. Ver. 23. Instead of ff-ra^sra/, Elz. has dG'rdlosiTai, which has An emendation. decisive witnesses against it.
evidence.
Ver.
X,
with
We
Contents.
After
a
the
address
and
apostolic
greeting
(vv. 1-3), there follows a glorious
testimony to the Christian

(vv.
character of Philemon (vv. 4-7)

Epistle, intercession for
then the proper object of the
Onesimus
bespeaking
(ver. 22).
of
lodging, in
the
8-21) and finally, the hope of being liberated

;
Salutations and concluding wish, vv.

AiajjLLo^
23-25.
in
(not utto-
Ver.
bonds.
1.
Xp.
iii.
'I.]
i.e.
whom
Christ has placed
See on Eph.
1.
This
self- designation
-ToXo9, or the
like) at the
head of the
letter is
in keeping
VER.
2.
350
purpose of moving and
with
its
confidential
tone and
its
winning the
Chrysostom.
avuepyo}]
dicate
is
heart,
k.
vTrep
TifioO.']
rov
rrjv
yaptv eroLjiorepov Xaeiu,

i.
See on Phil.
to
Col.
i.
1.
t?)
The
particular historic relations, on
which
this pre:
based, are
(tov
rj/jLcov]
unknown
;
us
yet comp. ver. 2
Kar
oIkSv
church.
ckkXijct.
perhaps he was an elder of the

It
namely, of Paul and Timothy.

Although,
belongs
is,
to djair.
and
a-vvepyai.
we may
add, the Epistle
and contents, a private letter, yet the associating of Timothy with it, and especially the addressing it to more than one (ver. 2), are suitably calculated with a view to the greater certainty of a successful result (comp, already Chrysosas to its design
tom).
Hofmann
incorrectly holds that in the directing of the
letter also to the relatives
and to the church in the house the
design
was, that they should, by the communication of the
them, become atvare of ivhat had induced Philemon to do that which was ashed of him. This they would in fact have learned otherwise from Philemon, and would have believed
letter to
his account of the matter.
Appia was the laife of Philemon (Chrysostom, many) does not indeed admit of proof, but is the more probable, in proportion as the intercession for the slave was a matter of household concern, in which case the mistress of the house came into view. On the form of the name with 7r<^ instead of tttt (Acts xxviii. 1 5), comp.
Ver. 2. That
Theodoret, Theophylact, and
A'7r(f)Lav6<i
in Mionnet, Description des mMailles, III. 179, IV.
65, 67, and the forms aTr^v^ and Fared, p. 33.
a'jrcf)d.
See also Lobeck,

too
(see
rfj
dBek^f]] in the sense of Christian sisterver.

1.
hood, like
iv.
d8\.<f)6<i,
Archipjious,
on
Col.
must have belonged to the family circle of Philemon. But whether he was precisely son of Philemon (Michaelis, Eichhorn, EosenmUer, Olshausen, Hofmann, and already Theodore of Mopsuestia) we cannot determine. Chrysostom and Theophylact take him to be a friend of the household Theodoret, to be the teacher to the household. tm avarpar. As in Phil. ii. 25. The relation cannot be more precisely rjfi.'] ascertained. He may have been deacon (according to Ambrosiaster and Jerome, he was even hishop), but must have eodured conflict and trouble for the gospel. Comp, likewise
17),
360
2 Tim.
stood
ii.

3.
koI
t.
of
the family
of
kut oIk. a-, eV/cX.] not to be underPhilemon (Chrysostom, Theodoret,

rfj
Theophylact
iravra^ rov<; iv
oIkIo,
incrrov'i
Xiyet,
crvfjb-
irapaXacov koI BovKovf, comp. Calvin and

section of the Christians at Colossae,
Stori'),
but of the
which met in his house} on ver. 1) does Paul although otherwise in vv. 4-24 he only speaks to Philemon enlist the interest not merely of Appia and Archippus, but also of the church in the house, and therewith embrace the whole circle, in which there was to be prepared for the
See on Col.
iv.
15.
Wisely
(see
converted fugitive a sanctuary of pardon and affection.

farther than this he does not go
house, since the matter, as
;
But
tlie
not heyond the limits of
was not one suited to be laid before the Christian community collectively. To the latter, however, he at the same time (Col. iv. 9) commended his protSgd, though without touching upon the particular circumstances of his case. Correct tact on the part
a
household-affair,
of the apostle.
Ver. 4
f.
Eph.
i.
16.
iravTOTe] belongs not

k.t.X.
Comp. Ptom.
i.
1 Cor.
i.
Phil.
i.
Col.
i.
to fiveiav k.t.X. (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, and
many
others),
i.
but to ev'xapicnoi
the
(comp, on Col.
i.
1 Thess.
2), as
main element, for the completeness and emphasis of which The participial definition /xveiav k.t.X. specifies it serves. whereupon Paul sees himself always moved to give thanks to God, namely, when he makes mention of Philemon in his
prayers;
and the following aicovwv k.t.X. is likewise an accompanying definition to V'x,apiaTM k.t.X., stating whereby he finds himself induced to such thanksgiving, namely, because It is not the intercession that has its motive he hears, etc. explained by clkovcov (de Wette, Koch), otherwise the logically necessary statement, for what Paul gives thanks to God, would be entirely wanting, whereas the mention of Philemon in the prayer had no need of a motive assigned for it, and would have taken place even without the ukovuv k.t.X.
^
Perhaps
it
is
to this part of the address,
wliich directed the letter to a
congregational
circle,
that
we
are indebted for the preservation of the

letters, Avhicli
document
the apostle
numerous private wrote in the prosecution of his many-sided labours.

certainly very
the only one of the
VERS.
4, 5.
3G1
Moreover, Paul does not by fivelav k.tX express the intercession, but in general the mention in -prayer, which is a much
wider notion and also

opposition
to
may
Hofmann).
be other than intercessory (in

a.Kovwv\
continually,
though
to the
Onesimus in
i.
particular.
It is otherwise with aKov(javre<i, Col.
4.
Tr]v dyd7rr]v]
the standing notion of Christian love

14.
brethren, as in Col.
iii.
k. Trjv
. .
irlariv] is
.
defined by the following
r)v
e'êa
7/0^9,
more precisely and hence is not

It is
;
specially to be understood of faith in the dogmatic sense, to
which eh
'rrdvTa<i
rov'i
dylov; would not be suitable.
faithfulness; comp. Gal. v.
3; 1 Thess. i. 8 Matt, xxiii. 23; Tit. ii. 10; often in the LXX., Apocrypha, So Michaelis and Hagenbach (Flatt and Greek authors.
iii.
22; Eom.
iisually (see already
But Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 511 f.]. Theodore t, and especially Grotius) expositors assume a chiasmus, so that tt/do? t. Kvp. 'I. is to be
with
hesitation),
also
referred to
t.
ttIo-tlv,
and eU
p.
tt.
t,
dylov<i to
rr]v d'ydir. (de
Wette, Wilke, Ehetor.

Ewald), to which also
372; Demme, Koch, Wiesinger, Bleek and Hofmann come in the end.
fjv
Against
T.
tliis
.
. .
may
be decisively urged
is
eêi^,
whereby
rr]v
Trpo?
Kvptov
dyiovi
attached as one whole to

rjv
ttlo-tlv.
;
With T^y
by means
aydirr^v the
e'êi^
has nothing whatever to do

its
the former has, on the contrary,

of <tov,
own
definition of subject
tion with rr}v irlaTiv.
which again does not stand in any connecComp. Col. i. 4. The usual objection
the stated one
to the interpretation faithfulness, namely, that the dogmatic
sense of
dydirrj,
iricnt'i
is
when
it
goes
along with
stands rst
does not hold good, inasmuch as

v.
dydirr}
(comp, also Gal.
22)
in the stated combination of faith
and
love the faith precedes (in accordance with the inner genetic
relation.
Gal. v. 6), as 1 Cor.

i.
xiii.
i.
13
;
Eph.
i.
i.
15
13,
Col.
al. ;
1 Thess.
3,
iii.
1 Tim.
14
2 Tim.
i. 4; hence
the transposition
t. Triartv k. t. dydirrjv is found here too in and Ambrosiaster. The interchange of tt/so? and et 9 can occasion no surprise, inasmuch as Paul is fond of varying the prepositions (see on Eom. iii. 20 Gal. ii. 16 Eph. i. 7), as this is also of frequent occurrence witli
E, min. vss.
classical relation.
writers,
without the design of expressing a different
On
7rpo9,
comp.
Thess.
i.
8; 4 Mace. xv. 21,
362
xvi.
22; Dem. Q5, 19;

withal,
Liician,
Tox.
:
41.
It
is
to
be
is
observed
that
the stated notion
faith in Christ,
never indicated by
7rp6<i,
a fact which likewise
tells against
the ordinary interpretation,

Ver. 6. "Oirwi k.t.X.'] cannot, as is usualli/ held (also by Winer, de Wette, Demme, Koch, Ellicott, Bleek, and Hofmann), introduce the aim of the intercession, ver. 4, since fiveiav aov TTOLovfi. K.T.X. was Only an accompanying definition, and clkovcv
K.T.X.
already pointed back to evâpLaToi)
k.t.X. (see
on
ver. 5).
It attaches itself (so rightly, Grotius, Bengel, Wiesinger,
Ewald)
in its
telic
sense (not in the sense of so that, as Flatt and older
would have it taken) to ver. 5, specifying the tende^jêt?. For the sake of making this attachment Paul has put the r)v e^î'i, which would be otherwise superfluous. T] KOivwvia T?}? 7riaT6(o<i aov] is by no means to be explained as if rj KOLvawla aov Trj<i 7rlaTa)<i (or aov et9 ttjv iriaTiv) stood in the text, which would have to be the case, if we take the
expositors
ency oi
^v
rendering of
right
Hofmann
("
the
fellowship of faith, in lohich
Philemon stands with

interpretation
his fellow-believers").
In order to the
observe further, on the one hand, that
Kotvcovla is with Paul, as mostly also with classical writers,

it is
when
not accompanied by the genitive of the personal pronoun

i.
(Phil.
5),
always so employed, that the genitive therewith

9, x.
connected denotes that with which the fellowship, or in tohich

the participation, takes place (1 Cor.
xiii.
i.
16
2 Cor.
viii.
4,
13;
Phil.
ii.
1,
iii.
10; Eph.
but
is
iii.
9,
;
Elz.),
consequently
other
is
the genitive not
subjecti,
ohjecti
and, on the
hand, that Koivcovia signifies not communicatio, but communio,

consortium.
Accordingly there
" fides tua,
at once set aside
(1) the
traditional interpretation since
the time of Chrysostom and
Theophylact
Bengel, comp. Luther, Wetstein, and
quam communem nobiscum habes," many in which case the

;
genitive has been taken subjectively, as

faith-fellowship ivith all
saints
;
by Wiesinger: thy and by Ewald " that thou

:
believest in Christ not merely for thyself."

also
(2)
all
And
there fall
Koivcovia
which transform the notion of into communicatio, such as that of Beza (comp. Castalio,
interpretations,
Cornelius
Lapide, Estius,
Hammond,
Heinrichs)
" oflcicc
hcnignitatis in sanctos
promanantia ex
fide efficaci."
Similarly
VER.
6.
363
appellat, ([uum intus
also Calvin
" fidei
communicationem
se
non
fwfcrt ad homines ; " he is " the commufollowed substantially by de Wette (and Koch)
latet otiosa, seel
per veros cffcctus
nion of thy faith (genitivus suhjecti), as well in the display of lore towards individuals as in the advaneement of the gospel" which
latter
element cannot be brought hither from avvepy.,

out of place (comp. ver.
7).
ver. 1,
and
is
As the
correct interpretaTrto-rt?
tion there
remains only
this,
:
keeping the notion of
in
consistency with ver. 5

Christian fidelity.
all
the felloioship entered into ivith
thy
So
faithful a Christian as
Philemon draws
other saints (ver. 5),
who come
into relations of experience
with him, sympathetically to himself, so that they form with him the bond of association unto like effort, and therewith ivepyrj'i yevrjrat .r.X.] This become kolvoovoI of his 7ri(TTi<i.
fellowship with his fidelity

to heeome
effective,^
is
not to be an idle sympathy, but
to express itself in vigorous action at
what Philemon wishes and aims
and
this is
that hy virtue of the
knowledge of every Christian saving -blessing,^ a knowledge which, in such pious fellowship, unfolds itself ever more fully
and vividly, and which must be the means of powerfully prompting all Christian activity (Eph. i. 17 f; Col, ii. 2,
iii.
10).
And
the final
aim
i.e.
of this activity
Toivard Christ
Jesus
it is to
take place,
et 9
Calvin, Estius, and others, to
Xp. 'I., which is neither, with be annexed to rov iv rjfiiv, nor,
with Hofmann, to ayadov, nor even, with Grotius, to Trto-reo)?, but to ivepy. yevrjTat, in which case alone it has the significance
:
Christ Jesus' will, work, kingdom, honour,
and so
forth,
are to be their holy destination
and
relative
aim.
Consequently
the whole passage might be
paraphrased something in this
way
Aiid with
this thy
Christian fidelity thou hast the sacred

this partakifig
goal of felloioship in view, that whoever enters into the participation of the same,
may make
every Christian blessing effective for Christ Jesus.
through knowledge of An appeal to
the profound Christian consciousness of Philemon, by

'
way
of
The
translation of the Vulgate, evident,
is
based upon the reading ivapy/it

:
Germ. manifesto). by which Christ has enriched us (comp, on 2 Cor. viii. 9), are faith, hope, love, patience, peace, joy in the Holy Spirit, etc. In devout fellowship these become ever more fully, vividly, and experimentally known as regards their nature and value.
so codd. Lat. in Jerome, Pelagius (Clar.
^
Such
blessings,
364
preparation for the designed intercession on behalf of Onesimus,
wliom Paul
Kotvcovia
in fact
was now on the point of introducing

!
to that
Tr]<i
iricneaxi of his friend
Eespecting the manifold

it is to
other explanations of eVe/37^9 fyivrjTac k.t.X.,
be observed,
on the one hand, that we have not, with many (including Wiesinger and Hofmann), arbitrarily to restrict the notion of eVep7?j9 to the exercise of love, but to extend it to the collective activity of the Christian life ; and, on the other hand, that as the subject of the Koivcovla is not Philemon, but otheos (comp. also Bleek), the latter, namely the koivcovoI t?}? Tr/o-Teco? aov, must also be the subject of iiruyvcoaL'i by which all expositions, according to which Philemon is held to be this knowing subject, are set aside, whether iravro'i dyaOov be taken in the moral sense, of every virtue (Chrysostom), of good works and
;
the
like,
or
(although in
itself
correctly)
of the Christian
blessings of salvation,
which are to be known. Hence we have Bia tov eTriyvcovai to reject the interpretation of Oecumenius ere Kal irpaTretv irv dyaOv, in which case the doing is arbitrarily imported, as is also done by Theophylact, according to
:
whom
iTnytvcoa-Keiv is held to be
equivalent to dyairav Kal
So likewise in substance de Wette, who mixes up moral action as keeping equal pace with moral knowledge, and takes to ev rjixlv as the good which is as to jmncijyle a7id spirit in us Christians; he is followed by Demme We have further to reject the explanation of and Koch. " thy riatt (so in substance also Osiander, Calovius, Bengel) faith shows itself active through love, hy means of a grateful recognition of all the lenefits," etc., or (as Wiesinger puts it) "inasmuch as it (namely, thy fellowship of faith) recognises which is possible only for love in the other the good which is
fieTa-xêipiêaOai.
: :
in him."
We
vjjuv,
have to
after the
set aside, lastly, the explanation
of
Hofmann, who,
reading ev
in
ev
example of Michaelis,^ retaining the and taking nravro^ ayaOov as masculine, finds
k.t.X.
eirvyvonaeL
the
meaning, that every one in the
Christian sense good, every true Christian
among
the Colossians,^
Philemon should know as

'
heiiig
that
which he is; only by

know a good man among
the
Who
interprets
"
!
"as
v/jv
often as thou earnest to
Colossians
^
If the reading
were genuine,
it
could only, in accordance with the
VEE.
7-
365
fellowship of faith
virtue of such
knowing would
his
show
itself effectively operative
love
through the exercise of Christian which would not be the case with those "luhose Christian
virtiiousness he failed to hioio."
Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin,
and others, have done rightly in not referring the eTTL^vaxTL^ to Philemon as the knowing subject, but wrongly in understanding liri^v. of 'becoming 'known, as e.g. Erasmus, Paraphr. : " adeo ut nullum
Grotius, Pricaeus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide,
sit
officium Christianae caritatis, in
iprohatus."
Beza
"
ut hac ratione
antur,
quam
Ecclus.
divites sitis
Ptom. xiv. 16;

X.
GaL
xii. 1,
vi.
6;
quo non sis et notiis et omnes agnoscant et experiin Christo," etc. d<ya9ov\ Comp. Luke 53, xii. 18, 19; Heb. ix, 11,
i.
xiv. 25, al.
irav
is
dyadov to eV
rjfilv
i.
really
expresses quite the same thing as

'jraaa
evXoyta
irvevfiarLKrj.
rov iv
expressed at Eph.
i)iuv]^
by
applies to the Chris-
tians generally, these being regarded as a whole.
The
bless-
ings are in the Christian community.
Ver.
(de
7. Not the assigning of a reason for the intercession Wette and others see in opposition thereto, on ver. 6),
;
but a statement of the subjective ground (the objective one
was contained in
already aptly
dixerit
:
ver. 5
f.)
:
of the thanksgiving, ver. 4.

" plenius
Jerome
quare
remarks
ago,"
gratias
etc.
inculcat et edocet,
'xapdv]
emphatically prefixed.
The
place.
aorist
ea-'xôv
(see the
critical
remarks) relates to the

5,
point of time, at which the aKoveiv, ver.
had hitherto taken
iroWtjv]
for
applies
is
to
both
vv. 1,
substantives.
9.
irapd-
Kkrjaiv]
Col. iv. 11.
Paul
oTi
etr/îo?,
Comp.
the
i.
irapT^'yopLa,
ra
airX.
:
K.r.X.]
More
namely,
precise explanation
hearts
8,
al.)
to
eVt
rf]
ydirrj
(tov
because,
(comp,
ver. 20, as also 2 Cor. vi. 12, vii.
15;
Phil.
is
of the
no more particular information as to the work of love referred to and it is quite arbitrary to refer rwv dy. specially to the poor Christians (Grotius, Eosenmiiller, and others), or even still more specially to " the mother -church of Christendom " (Hofmann), which is not to be made good either by 1 Cor. xvi. 1 or by Eom.
saints arc
refreshed
by
thee.
There
Philemon himself and to those adduced along with him The Colonsian church is brought in after a purely arbitrary way by Michaelis and Hofmann,
context, be referred to
in ver. 2.
366
xii.

13.
aZeXê]
Comp.
not emphatic ("brother in truth," de "Wette,

;
whom Koch
affection.
follows
comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), but touching

vi.
Gal.
18.
r.
Ver. 8. Ai6'\ explains the ground for the following Bia

juTT.
:
fiWov irapaKaX) Wherefore (because I have so much joy and solace from thee), although I am by no means wanting in great boldness (1 Tim. iii. 13; 2 Cor. Phil i. 20) to enjoin upon thee what is becoming, iii. 12
;
will rather for love's sake exhort, will
make
exhortation take
the place of injunction.
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact

Michaelis, Zachariae, and
(comp, also Theodoret), Erasmus,

psychological
others attach Bio to the participial assertion.

;
This
is
un-
what Paul has said in ver. 5 [7] accords not with commanding, but with entreaty. iv Xpiaro)] In Christ, as the element of his inner life, Paul knows that his great confidence has its basis. But this fellowship of his with Christ is not merely the general Christian, but the apostolic,
fellowship.
TO avrjKov]
;
that which is fitting,

:
that
is,
the
ethically suitable
Suidas
to irpeirov
not used in this sense

v.
by Greek
that,
writers.
1 Mace. X. 40, 42, xi.
Comp, however, Eph. 35 2 Mace. xiv. 8.

;
4 Col. iii. 1 8 Thus Paul makes

;
which he desires
felt as his duty.
to obtain
from Philemon, already

is
to
be
hia irjv njuTrrjv]
understood by some of
the love of Philemon (Calvin and others, Cornelius a Lapide

" ut
scilicet solitam tuam caritatem in servum tuum poenitentem ostendas ") by others, of the love of the apostle to Philemon (Estius and others) by others again, rjv Kayon eô) 'TTpo'i ere, Kal av irpb^ e/xe (Theophylact; comp. Oecumenius and
;
;
others
Grotius
"
per necessitatem amicitiae nostrae

account of
").
But
;
all these limitations

is to
not expressed in the text are arbitrary

:
it
be
left
general
ooi
love,
in order not to check

is
the influence of the same (which, experience shows,

also over thee), but to allow
it
so great
free course.
It is the Christian
xiii.
;
brotherly love in ahstracfo, conceived of as a power; 1 Cor.

Ver. 9 t Before towOto?
we have
to place a full stop
the
participial predication roiovTO'i
was expressed in ver. and lastly, w? IIav\o<i

K.T.X. of ver. 1 0,
wv sums up the quality which 8 by TroWrjv fiaWov irapaKoko) XpiaTov supports the TrapaKaXw ae
.
. .
from a consideration of the personal position
VERS.
9, 10.
367
of the apostle in such a way, that the granting of the request
could not but appear to

affection.
Philemon as a matter of dutiful
Consequently: Seeing that
I am
so constituted,^ since
such
is
my
place of
manner of thinking and dealing, that, namely, in commanding thee, I rather for love's sake betake
A myself to the irapaicaXelv, I exhort thee as Paul, etc. very mistaken objection to this view of Toiovro<i wv is that Paul would not have said at all that he was so constituted,
but only that he did so in
Wiesinger).
itself
the given
case
(Hofmann, following
He, in fact, says even noio loith TOiovTo<i a)v Observe, moreover, that the that such is his nature.
(w?
supporting elements,
the
lies
UavXa
k.t.X.,
are prefixed with all
urgency to the irapaKoXS), since in them the progress of the representation, namely, that which
emphasis
of
comes in as additional to the irapaKoXoi, already said before.
Vsucdly TOLovra
K.T.X.
is
is
taken as preparative, so that 9 Hav\o<i

it;
the more precise explanation of
in
which case
de Wette,
some
(as Luther, Calvin,
and
others, including Piatt,
Wiesinger, Ewald)
7rpeavTr]<; together
find
;
only two
elements,
taking
11.
others (most expositors since the time
on
"
of Chrysostom, including Bleek
ITaOA-o?, TrpeavTTj'i, Secr/ito?.
and Hofmann), three elements Expositors have differed in

in their hearing
defining the significance of the particulars

the
matter in hand^ while recognising on the whole the
(Estius). pondus ad movendum Philemonis animum " According to de Wette (comp. Wetstein), TOLovTo<i wv k.t.X.
is
to be
held parallel to the participial clause of ver.
8, in
accordance
with which
the
be resolved by although.
*
would thus have to But the whole mode of interpretaparticiple

Philemon:
The Vulgate erroneously

So
e.g.
referred v to
"cum
?
sis talis,"
which
Cornelius a Lapide unsuccessfully defends.

^
Erasmus, Parcqihr.
dico
"Quid enim neges

tibi
roganti
;
primum Paulo:
cum Paulum
deinde seni : nonnihil tribui solet et vincto: in precibus nonnihil ponderis habet et calamitas obtestantis postremo vincto Jesu Christi : sie vincto favere debent, qui profitentur Christi doctrinam." Similarly Grotius and others; while, according to Heinrichs, by naZxo; there was to be awakened gratitude ;
significo
.
non paulum rerum aetati nunc etiam

. . ;
by
all
Tpitr.
compassion.
that
the readiness to oblige, natural towards the aged and by î(r/iio$ 'I. Xp. Hofmann holds that " the name Paid puts Philemon in mind of
;
makes
it
a historical one,"
and that the impression
of this
becomes
thereupon confirmed by the other two elements.
368
tion,
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON'.

which takes toiovto^
as preparative,
is
untenable.
It
must
ver. 8
of necessity point hack,
personal quality
;
summing up under the notion what was said by iToXKrjv irapaKakca

. . .
of
in
for if toiovto<; is not already
defined (as
is
here the
by reference to ver. 8), it may, doubtless, hecome defined either by an adjective immediately following, or by a following oto9 (Plato, Conv. p. 199 D; Dem. 41, 3), or o? (Xen. Anah. Plat. Phacd. p. 92 B; Heb. viii. 1), or oao^ (Isocr. iv. 4. 2 Paneg. 21), or by wcrre with the infinitive (Plato, Conv. p. 175 D, al,), but never by a;9, which neither actually occurs (the usually cited passage from Andocides in Wetstein, de Wette has rightly described as not here relevant ^) nor can take place logically, since w?, that is, as (not like, which it means after Tocovhe in Aesch. Pers. 180), already presupposes This more precise definiteness is the definiteness of toiouto^;. relegated to the mere conception or mode not, however, to be
case
;
of view of the writer (Wiesinger " I, in my circumstances "), according to which w? is then held to introduce an appositional
:
definition, to
which
also
Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come;
but
it
is
it
to
be taken from what Paul has previously said,
from that quite simply and suitably. Comp, which always in classical writers also where it is not followed by a corresponding oto'i, 09, ocro9, or ware summarily denotes the quality, disposition, demeanour, or the like, more precisely indicated before; Plato, Pep. p. 493 C; Xen. Anah. iii. 1. 30 Hellen, iv. 1. 38 Cyrop. i. 5, 8 Soph. Aj. 1277 (1298); Lucian, Cont. 20, and many other places.
because
results
on
ToiovTo<; wv,
It
is
further
to
be noted, (1)
that
the true
explanation
of TotovTo<i oiv K.rX. of itself imperatively requires that v/e
connect
these
words
Lachmann, who, however, parenthesises

'
with the following irapaKoKSt (Flatt, 59 UavXa, de Wette,

liTTi,
The passage runs
Se
ravrav ^tnorarov
rotouTo; av as tvvtivi too

tuvov?
^'^fiat
Tov; x'oyovs Troirai.

roioZro; uv,
Here, precisely as in our passage, s
belongs not to
but to what foUows, and rotovro; v sums up what had been said comparison of toioo-Ii, Horn. Od. xvi. 205 (Hofmann), where besides no a; follows, is unsuitable, partly on the general ground of the well-known diversity of meaning of the two words (comp. Khner, ad Xen.
before.
The
Mem. 1. 7. 5), which is not to be abandoned without special reason, partly because in that passage ly^ Toio/r'Si stands absolutely and ûktixs (hkce ego talis), so that the following ^xûv .r.x. belongs to Hxviov.
VE.
11.
369
Wiesinger, Ewald, Bleek,

precedes (as formerly was
Hofraann), not with that which

iisual), in
which case the second
TrapaKoX)
is
understood as resumptive, an ovv (Theophylact),
inquam, or the like, being supplied in thought (so Castalio, Beza, Hagenbach, and many). (2) The elements expressed XpiaTov stand seeing that irpeavTq'i by j? navXo<i has not the article in sicch relation to is a suhstcmtive and
. .
.
each other, that
jrpeavrrj'i
and
vvvl Be koL heafito^ k.tX. are
two
attributive
:
statements attaching themselves to ITauXo?;

as Paul, wlio is
an old man, and now also a The (flexible) notion of 7rpeavT7]<; must by 2)risoner, etc. (3) no means have its meaning altered, as is done e.r/. by Calvin, who makes it denote " non aetatem, sed officium ; " but, at the same time, may not be rigidly pressed in so confidential a private writing, in which " lepos mixtus gravitate " (Bengel) prevails, especially if Philemon was much younger than Paul. Observe, withal, that the apostle does not use some such expression as yipcov, but the more relative term irpea. comp.
consequently
;
Tit.
ii.
2 with the contrast tou? veu>Tepov<i in ver.
6.
He
sets
himself
friend,
down as a veteran in contradistinction to the younger who was once his disciple. At the stoning of Stephen,
;
and so some twenty-six or twenty-seven years earlier, Paul was still veavta<i (Acts vii. 58) he might thus be now somewhere about fifty years of age. Secr/ito? 'I. X.] as in ver. 1.
Te/cvov] tenderly affectionate designation of his convert (comp.
1 Cor.
iv.
14
f.;
Gal, iv. 19; 1 Pet. v. 13), in connection with
which the conception of his oum child is brought more vividly into prominence by the prefixed ifiov and by iydo (see the critical remarks), and iv rol^ Beafiolî^ makes the recommendation yet more affecting and urgent. 'Ovijcri/xov] Accusative, in accordance with a well-known attraction see Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 205] Buttmann, p. 68 [E. T. 78].
Ver. 11. Ingenious allusion to
the literal signification of

'OvT^Vtûo?, useful.
the
name
(current also
among the Greeks)
The
^
objection of Estius, that Paul expresses himself in words

:
was suitable only to Eome and not to See on p. 420, from Acts xxiv. 23. that passage. It was likewise incorrect to assign the Epistle, on account of x-piffvrni, to the alleged second imprisonment at Rome (Calovius).
in the bonds,
That the expression

is
Caesarea,
incorrectly inferred
by Wieseler,
Meyek Philemon.
370

ovivrjixi),
is
derived from another stem (not from
presupposes a
mechanical procedure, with which Paul

charged.
least of all to be
We may
vovr](TLfJt.o<i
forms as
he wished to avovTjTO'i and
add that, while there were not such and evovrjCTifjbO'^, doubtless he might, had retain the stem of the name, have employed
(Suidas), or ovrjTwp
ovqro'^
(Pindar), or ovrjau-
^po<i (Plutarch, Lucian).
An
allusion, however, at the
same
arbi-
time to the name of Christian, as sometimes in the Fathers

XpiaTiav6<i
trarily
is
brought into relation with

so,
^^prjaro';,
is
assumed and the more

occasion in the
(TOL
by Cornelius a Lapide, Koch, and

as
others,
the
expressions
have
already
their
name
Onesimus, and, moreover, by means of
and
ifxoi
an individually definite reference.
a-^prjarov]
nnserviccctblc,
d;^/oeto9.
only here in the N. T. (comp, however, 8ov\oav\o';
3 Mace.
29
Ecclus. xxxvii. 19.
definition,
ivJicrein
the uselessncss of Onesimus in his service

:
view from the time of Chrysostom that he had rohhcd his master) does not appear more precisely than vvvl Se in the hint ver. 18 f. ev^pv'^'ôv] Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11; Plato, Fol. iii. p. 411 B: ')(^pr)(Tiixov i^ ay^prjajov eTToirjaev. The usefulness, which now belongs to Onesimus, is based simply on his conversion which had taken place, ver. 10, and consequently consists for Philemon in the fact, that his slave now will render his service in a far other way than
consisted (the usual
before, namely, in
distinctively Christian
activity (consequently
frame of mind and without eye-service and man-pleasing,
w<i Tft) Kvpiw K.rX., as it is expressed at Col. iii. 29 ft'.), and for Paid himself in the fact that, because the conversion of Onesimus is his work (ver. 1 0), in that transformation of the previously
useless slave there has accrued to the apostle, as the latter's

spiritual father, gain
and recompense of his labour
(Phil.
i.
22),
16).
the joy and honour of not having striven in vain (Phil.
ii.
which Philemon and Paul have respectively to enjoy from Onesimus as noio constituted, are brought into Comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia aol Kara contact and union. What TTjv viTt] peer lav, ifiol kutu rrjv eXTiccxnv rov rpoirov. a weighty and persuasive appeal was urged in the ingenious Kul e[ioi (comp. Eom. xvi. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 8) is at once felt.
Thus the
benefits,
VEE.
12.
371
av
YeY. 12.
avTov,
The
rectified
text' is: ov aveireix-^ aoi'
TovTecTTL
TO ifi aTT^dy^^vu (without Trpoakaov).
On
ifji
veire^yâ, remisi, comp.
Luke
heart,
xxiii.
11.
TovTeart
affection.
to,
Se
airXdy^va] that
as
is,
my
by which Onesimus
is
designated
an
object
of the
most cordial
So
Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many, e/â has an ingeniouslyAccording to othci's, turned emphasis, in contrast to avrov.
the thought would be:
vrjrac
<7'7r\d'y')(ycov,
e/xo?
eariv
vlo<;, i/c
Theodoret
(comp, also
rwv ifioov jeyevChrysostom) so

;
too Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, and others, following
the Syriac.
comp, the Latin
See instances in Pricaeus and Wetstein, and viscera. But in this way the relation already
sijiritiial
fo^'
expressed in ver. 10 would be only repeated, and that in

a form, which would be less in keeping with that
fatherhood.
Paul, moreover, statedly uses aifkd^x^"'

vii.
the
i.
seat of the affection of love (2 Cor. vi. 12,

ii.
15
Phil.
i.
8,
;
1; Col.
iii.
John
iii.
12; Philem. 17), and so also
7,
20
comp, also Luke

to
78
here,
where the person
whom
one
feels himself attached
to ver. 1 0, is certainly felt as 'paternal
with tender love (which, according ; comp. Wisd. x. 5 ;
4 Mace.
object.
xvi.
20, 26)
is
designated by the lover as his very
heart, because its feelings
and inclinations are

14),
filled
by
2.
this
Comp, on
corculum
set
this
expression of feeling, the
Plautine
meum
(Ccts.
iv. 4.
meum
as
cor {Poen.
i.
154).
the
is
When we
anacoluthic
aside
irpoaXaov
verb
is
is
not genuine
(see
critical remarks), the

;
wantiny, so that the passage

involuntarily withheld
by the following relative clause presenting itself, and by what he, in the lively flow of his thoughts, further subjoins (ver. 13 ff.) from adding the governing verb thought of with av he avrov,
the
apostle
until at length, after beginning a
new
sentence with ver. 1
7,
he introduces
unclosed.
it
in another independent connection, leaving

<rv he
ii.
the sentence which he had begun with
avrov in ver.
p. 2 1
Comp, on Piom.
ff.
v,
12
;
ff.
Gal.
16.
See generally,
7
f.
Winer, p. 5 2 8
[E. T. 7
ff.]
Wilke, Rhetor,
With
off
classic writers, too,

^
such anacoluthic sentences broken
by
ToZr
to or
See the critical remarks.

TO,
Ifâ,
'iffriM
(ttX., is
followed
The text of Lachmaun, v vscr. (roi, avrov, by Hofmann, so that avrov is in apposition
p.
(see,
on the other hand, Winer,
140 [E. T. 184]).
372
the influence of intervening thoughts are not rare, specially in

excited or pathetic discourse, e.g. Plat, Symi3. p. 2 1 8 A Xen. Anab. ii. 5. 13 and Krger in loc. ; Aescliin. adv. Ctcsiph. 256, and Wunderlich in loc; Bremi, ad Lys. p. 442 f., 222, who " Hoc anacoluthiae genus inter scriptores rightly observes sacros nuUi frequentius excidit quam Paulo ap., epistolas suas
; ;
dictanti."
Ver. 1 3
the
f.
'E7(y] I for
my
part.
mind.
Comp,
on Matt.
rjeKrjaa, ver. 14,

:
iov\6fi7]v] I was of and observe not merely
the diversity of notion (ovXo/xai

tion, see
i.
deliberate self-determina-
The
apostle
19), but also the distinction of the tenses. formerly cherished the design and the wish
(imperfect iovX.) of retaining Onesimus with himself, instead

of sending liim back to Philemon, but has
become of the
rjOek,
mind
(historical
aorist
rjOeXnâa),
etc.
Thus
denotes
that which suiKvvencd on the previous occurrence of the eovK.,
and hindered the

crov\
realization of the latter.

;
Observe that Paul

vellem.
has not used eovX/xrjv v

for
thee, i.e.
that
would be
vnep
in gratiam tuam, that thou mightest not
need thyself to serve me. virep accordingly is not here, any more than in any other passage of the N. T., used as a precise
equivalent to uvrl, although the aetual relation of rejDresentation lies at
tlie
bottom of the conception in gratiam

the slave belonged.
for
Paul
would have taken the

master, to
service of the slave as rendered
by the
Comp. Hofmann. This and representing the matter has nothing harsh about it, nor does it convey any obligation, which Philemon, had he been on the spot, would have fulfilled (Bleek), but simply the trustful presupjJositio?!, that Philemon himself would, if Paul had desired it, have ministered to him in the prison. Of this, however, Philemon was relieved by the service of the slave, which in this way stood him in good stead. Schweizer, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 430, explains like-
whom
mode
of regarding
wise coiTectly
" so that it
for thy
benefit,
but takes this in the sense
would be a service rendered to thee, imputed to thee, so that I would be under obligation to thee." But this would only have the delicacy and tenderness which are found " in order that he might serve me, with in it, if the thought a view to place me under obligation to thee," contained the
:
VEES.
13,
u.
373
design of Oncsimus
if,
accordingly, Paul had written some7r/oo9 i/jiavTov fieveiv,
thing after this manner: 09 iovXero

K.T.X.,
tva
which, however, would have asserted a self-determination

;
incompetent to the position of a slave. No as the passage is written, there is delicately and tenderly implied in the virep (70V the same thought, which, in accordance with Phil. ii. 30,
he might have expressed by

comp.
1 Cor. xvi. 17.
'iva
avaTrXrjpwar] to crov vareprj/jia
Thus ingeniously does Paul know how
to justify his eovXo/xrjv k.t.X.
seeing that he would, in fact,
otherwise have had no claim at
all
by the
specification of design Iva virep
upon another's bondsman aov k.t.X. Siaicovf}]
by the subjunctive, " ita quidem, ut praeteriti temporis cogitatio tanquam praesens efferatur," Khner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2. iv To2<i Secr/ioi? tov ^77.] in the bonds, into which the gospel has brought me in a position therefore (comp, ver, 9) which makes me as needful as deserving
direct representation
of such loving service.

sent, that is,
x^wpi? 8e k.t.X.] hut ivifJiout thy conit,
independent of
have ivished
to
do nothing, and
so
have
left
that wish unexecuted, in order that thy good

constraint, hut
:
may
from free ivill. The thought of the apostle accordingly is But as I knew not thine own opinion, and thus must have acted without it, I was disposed
he not as
from
from the retention of thy slave, which I had in which thou showest, is not to he as if forced, for hut voluntary. If I had retained Onesimus for my service, without having thy consent to that effect, the good, wdiicli I should have had to derive from thee through the service rendered to me by thy servant vTrep aov, would have been shown
to abstain
:
view
the good,
not
from
free will,
determination,
that but as if
is,
not in virtue of thine
own
self-
compidsorily, just because indepen-
yvcofiT] (" non enim potuisset refragari Philemon," Observe at the same time that to ayaOov aov, thy good, that is, the good which thou shovxst to others, is to be left
dently of thy
Bengel^).
quite in
its generality, so
that not the serviceable
employment
of the slave sjjeeially
and in
concreto is meant, but rather the
category in general, under which, in the intended application,

there falls that
'
special arâOv,
ii.
:
which
is
is
indicated in ver. 13.

effice
Seneca, De, Benef.
"Si
vis scire
an velim,
ut possim nolle."
Luther aptly remarks
a constrained will
not voluntas, but noluntas.
374
The restriction to tlie given case is impracticable on account of aXKa Kara eKovaiov, since Paul in fact did not at all intend to procure the consent of Philemon and to retain Onesimus.
This in opposition to the usual interpretation
:
"
ro arâv,
i.e.
beneficium tuuni hocce, quo

concedis,"
afficior
te, si
it
Heinrichs
comp. Bleek.
But
hunc mihi servuin is an error also,

it
with de Wette, following to understand under to slave, or to understand it of which even in ver. 1 6
Estius (who describes
as probable),
^
dyu6. aov the manumission
of the
at least as " also included " (Bleek),
there
is
no mention, and
for suggest-
ing which in so covert and enigmatic a fashion there would
not have been any reason, if he had desired it at all (but see on 1 Cor. vii. 21). According to Hofmann (comp, his Schrift2, p. 412), to ayadov aov is, like to '^prjaTov rov eov at Eom. ii. 4, thy goodness, and that the goodness, which Philemon ivill show to Onesimus ivhen he had returned into his 2)osition as a slave; this only then becomes an undoubtedly spontaneous goodness, when the apostle refrains from any injunction of his own, whereas Philemon coidd not have done othcnvise than refrain from punishing the slave for his escape, if Paul had retained him to himself, in which case, therefore, Philemon might have seemed to be kind comindsorily. This explanation, brought out by the insertion of thoughts between
heiucis, II.
the lines,
there
is
is
to
be set aside as at variance with the context, since
nothing in the connection to point to the definition of
the notion of to ayadov aov as goodness towards Onesimus, but
on the contrary this expression can only acquire its import through the delicately thoughtful iva virep aov fxoc BiaKovfj dvdyKrjv] emphatically prefixed, and (u? to? Kara k.tX.
expresses the idea

Pritzsche,
" so that it ajp2Jears as eonstrained."

II. p.
Comp.
dvdyK., hy ivay of constraint (in the passive sense), hy comjmlsion, comp. Thucyd. on the contrast, 2 Mace. xv. 2 Polyb. iii. 67. 5 vi. 10. 1
ad Bom.
360,
On Kara
comp. 1 Pet.
27. 3
:
V. 2
/xr/
dvayKaarw^, dX)C
i)
eKovaio)<i
Thucyd.
viii.
Kad' cKovaiav
irdvv ye dvdyKtj, Plat. Prot. p.

siqrports
place,
346
B.
Ver. 15.
^
Paul now
his
course
of
procedure in
That the manumission did take

It
has been inferred from the tradition

place, but it is not
that Onesimus became a bishop.

here.
may have taken
meant
VER.
15.
375
having given up his previous plan of retaining Onesimus with

him, and in sending the latter back, by the consideration that the brief separation of the slave from his master may perhaps
have had the Providential destined aim, etc. This destined aim would have been in fact counteracted by the ulterior keeping Ta;â] easily, 'perhafs, apart of the slave from Philemon. Eom. V. 7. So also in classical writers, but more frequently
conjoined with av.

XX. 13,
Comp,
for
a similar use of
tVo)?,
Luke
and Buttmann, acl Soph. Phil. p. 180. Chrysostom aptly remarks KaXo}<i to rd-â, iva el^r] 6 Seairorr/'i' eVetSr/
:
<yap
aTTo
av6aheia<i
'ye'yovev
t)
^vyr]
Kol
hiecnpaixixevT]^
hiavoLa<^, Kol
ovk airo
7rpoaLpeaeo)<i, Xiyet
rdâ.
categoric
assertion, although
appropriate
to
the expression of a firm
confidence,
would have been
less sparing of the feelings in the
relation of the injured master to the fugitive slave, than the
problematic
Kul rrjv
mode
of expression
it
may readily
etc.
of the fiolpa
0ov has been such,

'x^copicr/jiov
he,
that the
way
i'^^copiaOr]]
ey^r^/iw?
(f)vy7]v
KoXel, Xva
/xr;
irapo^vvr] rov heairorrju, Theophylact.
t ovoixan Trj<i (f)vyf]<i The aim of soothing

expression, as Chry. . .
underlies also the choice of the
p)cissive
sostom says: ovk elirev

KaraaKevacTfxa to
eirl
i')(copiaev
iavrov
ou yap avrou to
tovtw dva'^coprjaai k.tX.

Gal.
ii.
Trpo?
&pav\
Comp. 2
Cor.
vii.
1 Thess.
ii.
17.
This relative
statement of time leaves

brief stay of
it
entirely undefined, hovj long the
Onesimus with Paul lasted. tW] divine destined aim therein. Chrysostom and Jerome already refer to Gen. xlv. 5. aliVLov\ not adverb, which is alwvico'i, but accusative, so that the adverbial notion is expressed by way of predicate. Winer, p. 433 [E. T. 582] Khner, IL 1, p. 234 f. " ipsum jam 7ion temporarium Erasmus aptly observes ministrum, sed perpctuo tecum victurum." The notion itself,
however,
Grotius,
is
not to be taken as the indefinite perpetuo (Calvin,
and many), or more precisely ijer omnem tuam vitam (Drusius, Heinrichs, Flatt, Demme, and others), in connection with which Beza and Michaelis point to the ordinances of the law with regard to the perpetiia mancipia (Ex. xxi. 6 Deut.
;
XV. 17)
but
as
is
alone consonant with the
N".
T. use of the
word concerning the
future, and the Pauline doctrine of the approaching establishment of the kingdom in the definite
376
sense
:

for
ever,
embracing the expiring

thereto,
ala)v fMeWcov attaching itself
aloiv ovto<; and the and presupposing the
Parousia, which
both parties
so in the
is still to be expected within the lifetime of but not, that the Christian brotherly union
;
reaches into eternity (Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and others)
main
also
Hofmann
" as
;
one
who remains
for
ever,
not merely for lifetime
"
comp. Bleek.
to
him
ire^rjf;]
The comjjo^tnd expression 18; Matt. vi. 2. (mayest have away) denotes the definitive final possession. Ver. 16. Altered relation which with the almvLov avrov airkyeiv was to take effect, and thenceforth to subsist, between Philemon and Onesimus. ovKert &>? hovXov] in this is
Phil. iv.
Comp.
implied not a hint of manumission, but the fact that, while the external relation of slavery remains in itself unchanged,
the
ctJiieal
relation has
hrotherly
become
another, a higher one (virep
SovXov),
of affection {hek^. ya-Tr.). Christianity does not abolish the distinctions of rank and
relation
station,
iv.
1 Tim.
but morally equalizes them (comp, on la-SrrjTa, Col. vi. 2), inasmuch as it pervades them with the
life
unifying consecration of the

xii.
in Christ,^ 1 Cor.
vii.
21
f.,
13; Gal.
is
iii.
28
:
Col.
iii.
11.
To the
&>? the
following
slave,
vTrep
correlative
not further in the qiudify of a

as a slave;
but
in a higher
manner than
d8e\(f)ov d<yair., as a
heloved hvther, is then
the epexegesis of virep SovXov.

:
And
the latter
is
conceived of thus
so that he is hcyoncl
a So OX
viii.
p.
Comp. Plato, Ilejx p. 9, is more than such. 839 D: ovk ea-riv virep avOpwrrov; 2 Mace.
its
and above 488 A; Zcgg.

ix.
8.
ficiXiara ifiol k.t.X.] belongs to aSeX. ayair.
In that view
to his
fidXiaTa has
connection;
all
reference in the relation of
Onesimus
felloio- Christians,
with luhoni he has hitherto been brought into

these
it
he stood most any other in the iroato he fiaWov crof] since he relation of a beloved brother. is thy property, and does not enter into merely temporary connection with thee, such as that in which he stood with Kal iv o-apKi koX iv Kvp.^ specifies the two me; see ver. 15.
of
among
is,
was Pa^d,
to
whom
that
in higher degree than to
absolute, Flatt)
;
In accordance with this Christian-ideal mode of view we have to leave ovxirt and not to weaken it by fionov to be mentally supplied (Grotius, Storr,
comp, on
Col.
iii.
23.
VEE.
17.
v?77
domains, in luhich Onesinms will be to
him yet
far
more a
beloved brother than to the apostle, namely, in the flesh, i.e. in the sphere pertaining to the material nature of man, in things
consequently that concern the bodily
the Lord,
i.e.
life
and needs, and in
in the higher spiritual life-sphere of fellowship
Accordingly, ev capKi Philemon has the brother and eV Kvplw the slave as a brother how greatly, therefore, must he, in view of the mutual connection and interpenetration of the two relations, have him, as loell iv aapKi as ITow much more still (yroacp Se v Kvpiw, as a beloved brother fiaXXov) must Onesimus thus be such an one to Philemon, The two domains of life designated by iv than to the apostle Kal, exclude crapKi and iv Kvplw which, connected by koX
with Christ.
as a slave,
the conception of ethical contrast^
are to be left in all their
comprehensiveness.
Influenced by the erroneous presupposition
Wette thinks in iv aapKi which the manumitted one enters. of Ver. 17. Ovv'\ resigning ; see on ver. 12, where the request, to which utterance is only now finally given after the moving digressions vv. 1316, was already to be expressed. The emphasis, and that in the way of furnishing a motive, lies upon
of manumission (see on ver. 15), de
the family-relation into
Koivwvov:
if
thou hast
relation to me,
me
as a 2yartner, if thou standest in this
according to which consequently the refusal
would appear as proof of the contrary. As to comp, on Matt. xiv. 4. The notion of the KOivcovia is not to be restricted more narrowly than is implied in the idea of Christian fellowship, and so of common believing, loving, hoping, disposition, working, and so forth while Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others bring out only the partnership of the ^povelv and the striving whereas others,
of the request
this use of eêtv,
;
;
as Estius, Ptosen miiller, Heinrichs, Flatt, as friend,

jgroigerty
:
et al.,
explain kolvwvv
and Beza and Bengel

" Si
refer it to the
community
:
of
mecum
habere te putas communia bona, ut inter

;
socios esse soleat" (Beza) comp. Grotius. The W9 is so as if thou receivedst me, as if / now came to thee; for see ver. 12. Theophylact Tiva ovk av KaTehvaoiTrrjcre ; t/? <yap ovk av " recipias oportet iOeKrjae TlavKov TrpoaSeâadai,, Erasmus
:
:
velut altcrum me."

1
On
<r^|
irpoaXaov, comp. Eom. xiv.

vocabulum ap. Paid., Lund 1872,
p.
1, xv. 7.
47
f.
Comp. Eklund,
378
Ver. 18.
And
herein the offence against thee, with which

is
Onesimus
is
chargeable,
not to present an obstacle.
i]
indication in a hypothetic form, so as to spare the
feelings
;
Attic politeness, see Herbst, ad Xen. 3fem.

;
i. 5. 1 Bornem. ad Conviv. iv. 3 Winer, p. 418 [E. T. 562]. rt ^St/cTô-e ae] Comp. Col. iii. 25; Gal. iv. 12 Acts xxv. 10. In what the wrong done to Philemon by Onesimus, and without doubt confessed to the apostle by the latter, actually consisted, is hinted in what follows. more precisely to 6(f>et\.i] or ?)
describe this rjhUrjae
owdh
(anything).
This applies to a
money-debt (see ver. 19). Accordingly the slave had probably been guilty, not merely in general of a fault in service which
injured his master (Hofmann), but in reality (comp, already
Chrysostom) of purloining or of embezzlement, which Paul

here knows
how
to indicate euphemistically.
The
referring
it
merely to the running away itself, and the neglect of service therewith connected, would not be (in opposition to Bleek) in keeping with the hypothetical form of expression. tovto] the Ti, which he i^SUrjcre ere rj oêtXei hence we have not, with Grotius, Piatt, and others, to explain these two verbs of different offences (the former as referring to theft at his running away,
the latter to defalcation).

account
;
e'/iol
iWoya]
set
it
down
to
my
t>)?
"
me
debitorem habe," Bengel.
Priendly pleasantry,
(/xera
which
"kiyco
if
in ver.
19 becomes even jocular

is
^dpiro'i
7rvev/jiaTtKi)<i,
Chrysostom), with which the subsequent iva
fxy
act k.t.X.
very compatible (in opposition to Hofmann),
it is
correctly apprehended.
On
the form
iXkoyaco
we
have
not,
with Pritzsche, ad Bom.
against it:
v. 13, at once to pronounce "nulla est" (comp. Matthies "stultum est"), since
:
eWoyiu) likewise is only with certainty preserved in Eom. I.e., and in Boeckh, Inser. I. p. 850. It is true Xoydw, in Lucian,
means to he fond of speaking ; but this single which the simple form is preserved, does not suf&ce to negative the use of the word in the sense of reckoning. Ver. 19. Promissory note under his own hand, in which by the elsewhere so weighty eycb navXo<i (GaL v. 2 2 Cor. x. 1, al.) the friendly humour of the connection is rendered the more
Zcxiph.
15,
passage, in
palpable through force of contrast.

whole Epistle with his
Whether Paul wrote the

view
;
own hand
(the usual
see already

VER.
IP.
379
Jerome, Clirysostom, and Theodoret), or only from this jyoint In the latter case the raillery onward, cannot be determined.
iva /xr} Xejco aoi comes out the more prominently. Comp. 2 Cor, ii. 5, and the Latin ne dicam : " est
7rapa(TL(07r)]aeci)^
at.t.X.]
crxvH'C
sive
reticentiae,
cum dicimus
. . .
omittere nos
velle,
The cva denotes the quod maxime dicimus," Grotius. airoTia-a) he will, so design which Paul has in the eypa^lra he represents the matter, by this his note of hand avoid saying what he withal might in strictness have to say to Philemon that he was yet far more indebted to the apostle. to him Without sufficient reason, Wiesinger after a harsh and involved
;
fashion attaches ha, notwithstanding the intervening clause, to
TovTo
ifiol
eWoya, and then takes the

;
crol,
whieli according to
the usual view belongs without emphasis to Xeyoo, as emphatic

(sc.
iW6<ya)
" that
reckon to me, not to say

to
too
Hofmann, according
eyco the
it
So to thee" whose arbitrary discovery in the

:
repetition of the
emphatic
e/iot is
held "to continue

croi its
sounding" until
finds in the
emphatic
antithesis,
which cancels it. Why should not Paul, instead of this alleged " making it sound on," have put the words Xva firj Xeyoi crol, on k.tX. (beccmse, according to Hofmann) immediately
after rovro
i/xol
eWoya,
in order thereupon to conclude this

k.t.X.
?
passage with the weighty iyoj Ilad'Ko'i
Besides, there
would be implied in that emphasizing and antithetic reference of the aol a pungent turn so directly and incisively putting him to shame, that it would not be in keeping with the whole friendly humorous tone of this part of the letter, which does
not warrant us in presupposing a displeasure on Philemon' s part
meriting so deeply earnest a 'putting
him to shame (Hofmann). The very shaming hint, which the passage gives, is affectionately veiled in an apparent reticence by tva fir) Xe7ct) act k.t.X. Chrysostom already says aptly: ivrpeinLKw^ ajxa Kal 'âpievTco';.
The
(f)r]al,
crot
added
to Xeyco is in
tone of the Epistle.

of his debt.
Kal
keeping with the confidential Paul would not willingly remind his friend
creavTov] also thine
own
self, 8l
ifiov
yap,
T^9 acoTTjpia^ a'm]\avaa<i' Kal ivrevdev BrjXov,

7]^Loiidrj
co9
t^? aTTo-
aToXiKT]^
SihacrKaXLa<i 6
î,Xi]fjL)v,
Theodoret.
Through
his conversion he
was indebted
to the apostle for his
own
is
self,
namely, as subject of the
^corj alcovio'i.
The same view
found
380
at

ix.
Luke
25.
vi.
iii.
See on that passage.

2.
7rpo(ro(f)el\6Lq\ insiiper
dcJjcs,
Herod,
Cyro^J.
59; Dem. 650, 23;

16, Occ.
20.
Thucycl.
v.
vii.
48. 6;
viii.
Xen.
to
1; Polyb.
88. 4. 8,
is:
25. 4; Lucian. /Sacrz/. 4.
The conception, namely,
"not
thee a
say
to thee, that
thou (namely, because I have
made
Christian) oivcst to
me
not merely that, lohich

hut also
(Kai)
I have just
declared
my
%ish to
yay
to thee,
thine oivn self besides."
With due
force
attention to the correlation of Kal and Trpo?, the
of the
compound would not have been overlooked
(Vulgate, Luther, Flatt, and others).
Ver. 20.
the Lord.
Yea, brother,
tuould fain have jjrofit of thee in
vaC] not heseechiny (Grotius
and many), but
C07i-
firmatory (comp, on Matt. xv. 27), as always: verily, certainly. It confirms, however, not the preceding k. a-eavr. fiot irpoao(peiXea (de Wette and Hofmann, following Eisner), which may be urged the emphatically prefixed iyco crov iyo) ovac/u,.), in that case logically have run
:
must but
against
(it
the
vjhole intercession for
Onesimus, in wliich Paul has made the

He, he himself, would fain have
cause of the latter his own}

this request; himself (not, it
joy at the hands of his friend Philemon in the granting of
might be, merely Onesimus) is ovaL/jbrjv] Philemon to make happy by this compliance.
Expression of the wish, that
this raight
tahe 'place (Khner,
hence the counter-remark of Hofmann that it " / looidd fain" but " may /," is unmeaning. Comp. is not ijKiar^ ovalfMrjv rov irapvrc^, Ignat. Eph. 2 Eur. Hec. 997
IL
1, p. 1-93)
ovalfirju
vjjicov
Bt 7ravro<i,
Rom. 5
ovaifMTjv
roiv
Orjpi'cov
evôfiai K.T.\.
On
the expression very current from Homer's

ii.
time {Odyss. xix. 68,
33), ovivapuai
Tcvo<i, to
have advantage
;
from a thing or person,

;
to profit thereby,
comp. Wetstein
on
the different verbal forms of the word, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. In the N. T. it is aira^ \ey6fi. 12 f. Khner, L p. 879 f.
but the very choice of the peculiar word supports the usual hypothesis (although not recognised by de Wette, Bleek, and
*
With
tliis val, a-hxipi
inserts the
the humorous tone has died away, and, when Paul now need of his own heart and his hearty confidence as to the compliance
of his friend, the intercession receives the seal of its trustful assurance of success,
and therewith
its close.
Chrysostom already aptly observes that the

raJv
rrp'oTipuv
va/,
SsXips
applies generally to the -rpBirXaou requested, so that the apostle
"f eJj rh
pâpiivTi^fiOV VaXiv iîrai
tcHv ffv ovoaiuv.
VER.
21.
381
name Oncsimns}
Hofmann)
There
is
that Paul intended an allusion to the
the additional circumstance that the emphatic ijco
ingeniously gives point to the antithetic glance back at him,
for whom he has made request comp, also Wiesinger, Ellicott, iv KvpL(f[ gives to the notion of the ovaifirjv its Winer. pea to.. Just so the following iv definite Christian character.
Neither means: for the sake o/(Beza, Grotius, Tlatt, and others). Ko profit of any other kind whatever does Paul wish for himself from Philemon, but that, the enjoyment of which has its
ground in Christ as the ethical element. avdiravaov k.t.X.] Kvpia, and the like.
of
Comp,
let
'xalpeiv
iv
me
not wish in
vain this iyco
aov
6vai/x.
iv
Kup.
Bcfresh (by a forgiving

heart
;
and loving reception

ver. 7
Onesimus)
my
ra aTrXdy^va,
seat of loving emotion, of the love concerned for Onesimus, comp,

;
not an expression of love to Philemon (Oecumenius,
Theophylact), nor yet a designation of Onesimus (ver. 12), as

is
maintained by Jerome, Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, Elatt, and

Ver. 2
others.
1.
Conclusion of the wliole matter of request, and that
" as if for a last precaution" (Ewald),
with the expression of
the confidence, to which his apostolic dignity entitled

{viraKofi),
him
although in accordance with ver. 8 he has abstained
by way
from enjoining. This, as well as the etSb? on k.tX., appended of climax as an accompanying definition to the irenTOidoi'i ore k.t.X., could not but entirely remove any possible hesitation on the part of Philemon and complete the effect of the letter. koI Comp, already Chrysostom and Jerome.
virep
b Xeyco] tvhat,
i.e.
luhat further deeds of kindness over

for,
and above the receiving back which was asked
the apostle
leaves absolutely to his friend, without, however, wishing to
hint in particular at the manumission of Onesimus (Bleek and
Hofmann, following older
expositors)
comp, on ver. 1 3
f.
certainty, however, that his friend will
do
is
still
more,
The makes
him
the less doubt that at the least what
requested will be
k.tX. a thought-
done.
'
Thus there
allusion
;
is
contained in this
etSoj?
The
would have been more

aliXfi,
ifô)
(rh vrio-ifio;
easily seized, if
e'/jjs.
Paul had written in some

it,
such way as
va/,
But, as he has expressed
it is
more delicate and yet palpable enough, makes the request.
especially for the friend of
whom
he
382
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMOHT.
fully contrived incitement.
Xejco] namely, in that
have written. that which I

Ver. 22.
Observe the dierent tenses.

say,
a/] not merely
which I
hut
also.
what a welcome, and wisely closing, indirect support to the intercession for iroWt] <yap r} %apt9 kuI t) Tifxi] TIavXov ivhr]Onesimus and so the apostle, in fact, wished soon fxovvro<;, Chrysostom ajia he himself to see what effect his intercession had had. Kaf] that is, simultaneously with that, which thou wilt do in
This further commission too
!
the case of Onesimus.
This
is
the sense of the adverbial fia 3

;
in all passages,^ even Col.

V. 1
iv.
Acts xxiv. 2 6
and 1 Tim.
3 (in opposition to Hofmann), and

it
among
the Greek writers,
so that
by no means expresses merely the conception of

is
Icing joined, that the one
to associate itself
wîtli
the other
(Hofmann), but the contemporary connection of the one action with the other Suidas eVt toO Kara rov avrov Katpov. Bleek
;
:
erroneously renders
too,
at the
same time
also
entreat thee ; so,
were in Paul hoped at that time for a speedy liberation liis ulterior goal was Eome the journey thither, liowever, he thought of making through Asia Minor, where he also desired to come to Colossae and to take up his Comp. quarters (Acts xxviii. 23) as a guest with Philemon.
de Wette, as
the text.
if
fia 8e kol TrapaKoXSi or the like

fiot,
eroifiaê
;
êviav]
Introd. to Colossians,
2.
Observe, moreover, that afxa Se

tallies
Kal presupposes so near a use of the êvta, as doubtless
with the shorter distance between Caesarea and Phrygia, but not with the distance from Bome to Phrygia, specially since,
i. 25 f, ii. 24, Paul thought of journeying Macedonia ; hence it would have been inappropriate and strange on his part, if, starting from Rome, he had already bespoken a lodging in Colossae, and that, too, one to be vjxwv and vfilv apply to the made ready so without delay.
according to Phil.
from
Eome
to
persons already named, vv,

further,
1,
2.
To extend the
reference
namely,
lives"
to
" the
lody
is
Fhilemon
is
^
(Hofmann),
of Christians amidst which unwarranted. The expression
individualizing.
On
^dpiaO.,
may
he granted,
i.e.
liberated
activity,
"Where, namely, there is mention of the combination of two expressions of which takes place or ought to take place (as here). What ô is as
TOTiKoy, fia is as xP'"'"^^'
(Ammonius,
p. 13).
VERS. 2325.
in favour of you, comp,
Trpoaevx^.
vfi.,
383
;
24 on Bia. r. hope was not fulfilled. Calvin leaves this doubtful, but aptly adds " Nihil tamen est absurdi, si spes, qualem de temporal i Dei beneficio conceperit,
on Acts
19.
iii.
14, xxvii.
Phil.
i.
This
eum
frustrata fuerit."
Ver.
10-14.
it
23
f.
Salutations
from the
same persons,
iv.
Col.
iv.
6 avvai'^fiaXiTO'i fiov]
See on Col.
10.
Here
further has expressly the specifically Christian character.^

Sea-fiLo^ iv
iv.
Comp.
tioned at Col.
KvptM, Eph. iv. 1. The Jesus Justus men11 does not here join in the greeting. The
It is possible that this
reason for this cannot be ascertained.
man was
letter to
absent just at the
moment
of Paul's writing the brief

p.
Philemon.
According to Wieseler,
417, he was
not
(in
among
Eome).
those in the abode of the apostle under surveillance
Ver. 25. See on Gal.

^
vi.
18.
with a-tra^sT-a* There is, how-
Yet
Iv
XpiiTTu
'I'/io-od
might
21
;
also be conceived as connected
(Bleek).
ever,
Comp.
Phil. iv.
Rom.
xvi.
22
1 Cor.
xvi. 19.
no reason for separating it from the nearest word, with which even Chrysostom in his day expressly connected it.
THE END.
MORRISON AND CIEB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTV'S STATIUNERV OFFICE.
Date Due
IgDj;,^,,^^"'*"'""***-**
,.f.,;",;^(...:j,M..

Critical and Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament by Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Epistle To The Ephesians and The Epistle To Phiiemon.

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Critical and Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament by Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Epistle To The Ephesians and The Epistle To Phiiemon.

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

r

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

THE NEW TESTAMENT

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER,

THE TEANSLATION EEVISED AND EDITED BY

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS AND THE EPISTLE TO PHIIEMON.

EDINBURGH: CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

SCRIBNER AND WELFORP

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

HEINPJCH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE,

TKANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

EDIKBURGH: CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

at length the pleasure of issuing the last

of the English translation of Dr. Meyer's

part in the great

work which bears

have expended no small amount of time and labour

at intervals for the last eight years.

aware that I have

taxed considerably the patience of the

subscribers and of the

due to them, as well as

with the charge of seeing his work

faithfully reproduced, that the

work should be done with

rather than with haste.

The present volume has been translated with

the last form, in which this portion of the

mentary had the advantage of Meyer's own

1878), imder the charge of

have followed such a course, for he himself states that he

has never been able to approve the custom of allowing other

hands to remodel the works of the departed."

Luke, the grounds on which I take exception to the plan so

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

equally applicable in principle to the less important changes

made by Dr. Schmidt.

I find a striking corroboration of

work manipulated by Dr. Weiss

another author, and from a

standpoint in various respects different," in the judgment pro-

nounced by Dr. Schrer, in a recent review

9th October 1880), on the same

Commentary on the Gospel

of John, when, after mentioning

various features of " complete independence " and " thorough

Schrer indicates apjDroval of

the course pursued

alike unfair to the

of Meyer, and uncalled for under the circumstances.

open to an editor to write a book of his own on

the subject, or to append as

by way of addition and correction

to recast an epoch-making work of

to retain for its altered shape the sanction of

the author's name.

reader is concerned, to present, according

promise, the work of Meyer, without addition or sub-

traction, in its latest