€692 12820 19/1 ¢ INU OUI AUVUEBI 393 T1059 3ddITIOAM Gheological Collection. of the JOHN WO. GRAHAM Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2006 with funding from Microsoft Corporation https ://archive.org/details/acommentaryontheOOeadiuoft A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE EPHESIANS. BY THE LATE JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS TO THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Third Lvition. EpITeD BY Rev. W. YOUNG, M.A., GLascow. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 1883, TIATAOS—6 ehy cixovutyny cradiedous, xu co wee) xlertms decum rey ROTMov mixesy a@oPrves.—BAXIA, ZEAEYTK, Oar. II. ‘Tynrov cPoden vives rav vonudrwr xal vaieoyxwy. 2 yee pndapov oxsdovigbiylare, raira ivraid« dnro1,—TOY XPYXOZTOMOT ; ‘TIO@EXIz tis civ wens "EQecious tmiororny, Quantis difficultatibus et quam profundis questionibus involuta sit.—H1ERonyMus, Proem. in Comment. in Epist. ad Ephesios. Hoc ago, ut membrorum ordinem ostendam, et moneam, ne abjiciatur nativa significatio verborum, et jubeo ab ipso Paulo sententiam peti ; ‘on gigno aliud genus doctrine.—MELANcHTHON, Epistole ad Rom. Enarratio, Prefat. PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. Tue following pages are an attempt to give a concise but full Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. My object has been to exhibit the mind and meaning of the apostle, not only by a scientific analysis of his language, but also by a careful delinea- tion of the logical connection and sequence of his thoughts. Mere verbal criticism or detached annota- tion upon the various words by themselves and in succession is a defective course, inasmuch as it may leave the process of mental operation on the part of the inspired writer wholly untraced in its links and involutions. On the other hand, the sense is not to be lazily or abruptly grasped at, but to be patiently detected in its most delicate shades and aspects, by the precise investigation of every vocable. As the smaller lines of the countenance give to its larger features their special and distinctive expression, so the minuter particles and prepositions give an individuality of shape and complexion to the more prominent terms of a sentence or paragraph. In this spirit philology has been kept in subordination to exegesis, and gram- matical inquiry has been made subservient to the development of idea and argument. a vi PREFACE. At the same time, and so far as I am aware, I have neglected no available help from any quarter or in any language. The Greek Fathers have been often referred to, the Syriac, Coptic, and Gothic versions are occasionally quoted, and the most recent German commentators have been examined without partiality or prejudice. Though agreeing in so many views with Olshausen, Meyer, Harless, Stier, and Tischendorf, yet there are many points in connection with the text, literature, exegesis, and theology of the epistle, on which I am forced to differ from one or all of them, and in such cases I have always endeavoured to ‘render a reason.” Perhaps some may think that too many authorities are now and then adduced, but the method has at least this advantage, that if names be of any value at all, they receive their full complement in such an enumeration; and should the opinion of any of them be adopted, it is seen at once that I do not claim the paternity, but avoid equally the charge of plagiarism, and disavow the awkward honour of origin- ality for a borrowed or repeated interpretation. On many an important and doubtful clause the various opinions are arranged under distinct and separate heads, showing at once what had been done already for its elucidation, and what is attempted in the present volume. Not that I have merely com- piled a synopsis, for it is humbly hoped that the reader will find everywhere the living fruits of, personal and independent thought and _ research. Sometimes when the truth, which I suppose to have been delivered by the apostle, is one which has been either misunderstood or rejected, a few paragraphs PREFACE. vii have been added, more for illustration than defence. Perhaps, indeed, I may not be wholly free from the same weakness which I have found in others; yet I fondly trust that my own theological system has not led me to seek polemical assistance by any inordinate strain or pressure on peculiar idioms or expressions. It is error and impiety too, to seek to take more out of Scripture than the Holy Spirit has put into it. As the commentator neither creates nor invents the grammar of the language which he is expounding, I have invari- ably quoted the best authorities, when any special usage is concerned, so that no linguistic canon or principle is left to the support of mere assertion. The lamps which have guided me I[ have thus left burning, for the benefit of those who may come after me in the hope of finding additional ore in the same precious and unexhausted mine. Will it bespeak any indulgence simply to hint that the work has been composed amidst the continuous and absorbing duties of a numerous city charge, and will it be thought out of place to add, that the Christian ministry has a relation to all the churches, as well as to an individual congregation? In the hope, in fine, that it may contribute in some degree to the study and enjoyment of one of the great apostle’s richest letters, the book is humbly commended to the Divine blessing. CAMBRIDGE Street, GLAsGow, October 1853. i en lll PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. In preparing this second Edition, the entire matter of the first has been very thoroughly revised, in many parts curtailed, and in many sections altered and enlarged. Some opinions have been modified, a few revoked, and others defended. Grammatical investi- gations have been more accurately, because more formally stated, and that with uniform care and pre- cision. While the main features of the work remain the same, the minor improvements and changes may be found on almost every page. No pains have been spared and no time has been grudged in remedying the unavoidable defects of a first edition, which was also a first attempt in exegetical authorship. I have refused no light from any quarter, and have always cheerfully yielded to superior argument. For I have no desire but, with all the helps in my power, and ever in dependence on Him who guides into all truth, to gain a clear insight into the apostle’s mind, and to give an honest and full exposition of it. Whether, or to what extent, my desires have been realized, others must judge. My best thanks are due to Robert Black, M.A., student of Theology, for his care in reading the sheets, and his labour in compiling the index. 13 LANSDOWNE CreEscENT, GLAsGow, February 1861. -~ - . Ss eS = TRUSTEES’ NOTE. eee Tue Trustees on Dr. Eadie’s Estate have resolved to issue a new edition of his Commentaries on the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, three of which are out of print. They believe the republication to be called for, as the dis- tinctive place which these Commentaries hold has not yet been filled by other expository works. They also feel it to be due to the memory of the distinguished author, who, by his rare ability, extensive learning, and remarkable acquirements, all of which, through Divine grace, were consecrated to the study and interpretation of sacred Scripture, was enabled to bequeath a legacy so valuable to the Church of Christ. Few exegetical works will be found to equal these Commentaries in exact scholarship, while there are none, it may be truly said, that excel them in spiritual insight, in clear and masterly exhibition of the mind of the Divine Spirit, and in thorough sympathy with evangelical truth. The use of them will prove especially helpful in the study of the Divine word. The Rev. William Young, M.A., of Parkhead Church, Glasgow, at the request of the Trustees, has kindly engaged to edit the volumes. In his qualifications for Xil TRUSTEES’ NOTE. this work, which requires both scholarship and ability, they have the fullest confidence. While he has applied a careful scrutiny to all the references, and suggested such corrections and additions as he felt to be necessary, he has made no alteration on the text, which is wholly as it came from the hand of the author. The Trustees are gratified to add, that the repub- lication of the Commentaries has been undertaken by the Firm of Messrs. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, to whose enterprise in the publication of valuable theo- logical works, the Christian Church is so much indebted. The issue commences with the Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, which was the first of the author’s exegetical works. GEORGE JEFFREY. DENNISTOUN, GLASGOW, October 1st, 1883. ee ES ee el rm lhl Ee ” ad fp es THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. I.—EPHESUS, AND THE PLANTING OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN. IT. Epuesus, constituted the capital of proconsular Asia’ in B.C. 129, had been the scene of successful labour on the part of the apostle. On his first and hurried visit to it, during his second missionary tour, his earnest efforts among his country- men made such an impression and created such a spirit of inquiry, that they besought him to prolong his sojourn. Acts xviii. 19-21. But the pressing obligation of a religious vow compelled his departure, and he “ sailed from Ephesus” under the promise of a speedy return, but left behind him Priscilla and Aquila, with whom the Alexandrian Apollos was soon associated. On his second visit, during his third missionary circuit, he stayed for at least two years and three months, or three years, as he himself names the term in his parting address at Miletus. Acts xx. 31. The apostle felt that Ephesus was a centre of vast influence—a key to the western provinces of Asia Minor. In writing from this city to the church at Corinth, when he speaks of his resolution to remain in it, he gives as his reason—‘ for a great door and effectual is opened unto me.” 1 Cor xvi. 9. The gospel seems to have spread with rapidity, not only among the native citizens of Ephesus, but among the numerous strangers who landed on the quays of the Panormus and crowded its streets. It was the highway into Asia from Rome; its ships traded with the ports of Greece, Egypt, and the Levant;? and the Ionian cities poured their inquisitive population into it at its great annual festival in honour of Diana. Ephesus had been visited 1 Linquantur Phrygii—ad claras Asia volemus urbes. Catullus, Zpig. xlvi. ? Strabo, xiv. vol. iii. ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1848 ; Cellarius, Notitia, ii. 80. xiv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. by many illustrious men, and on very different errands. It had passed through many vicissitudes in earlier times, and — had through its own capricious vacillations been pillaged by the armies of rival conquerors in succession ; but it was now to experience a greater revolution, for no blood was spilt, and at the hands of a mightier hero, for truth was his only weapon. Cicero is profuse in his compliments to the Ephesians for the welcome which they gave him as he landed at their harbour on his progress to his government of Cilicia (Zp. ad Att. v. 13); but the Christian herald met with no such ovation when he entered their city. So truculent and unscrupulous was the opposition which he at last encountered, that he tersely styles it “fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus,” and a tumultuous and violent outrage which endangered his life hastened his ultimate departure. Scipio, on the eve of the battle of Phar- salia, had threatened to take possession of the vast sums hoarded up in the temple of Diana, and Mark Antony had exacted a nine years’ tax in a two years’ payment ;* but Paul and his colleagues were declared on high authority “not to be robbers of churches:” for their object was to give and not to extort, yea, as he affirms, to circulate among the Gentiles “the unsearchable riches of Christ.” The Ephesians had prided themselves in Alexander, a philosopher and mathematician, and they fondly surnamed him the “ Light;” but his teaching had left the city in such spiritual gloom, that the apostle was obliged to say to them——“‘ ye were sometimes darkness ;” and himself was the first unshaded luminary that rose on the benighted province. The poet Hipponax was born at Ephesus, but his caustic style led men to call him o quxpos, “ the bitter,” and one of his envenomed sayings was, “ There are two happy days in a man’s life, the one when he gets his wife, and the other when he buries her.” How unlike the genial soul of him of Tarsus, whose spirit so often dissolved in tears, and who has in “the well-couched words” of this epistle honoured, hallowed, and blessed the nuptial bond! The famed painter Parrhasius, another boast of the Ionian capital, has indeed 1 Article ‘‘ Ephesus,” Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography ; Perry, De Rebus Ephesiorum, Gottingen, 1837 ; or the full and interesting work of Guhl—£phesiaca ; Scripsit Ernestus Guhl, Phil. Dr. Berolini, 1843 ; Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Art. ‘* Ephesus,” 4 THE APOSTLE’S SUCCESS. xv received the high praises of Pliny (Hist. Nat. 35, 9) and Quintilian, for his works suggested “certain canons of proportion,” and he has been hailed as a lawgiver in his art; but his voluptuous and self-indulgent habits were only equalled by his proverbial arrogance and conceit, for he claimed to be the recipient of Divine communications. Institut. xii. 10. On the other hand, the apostle possessed a genuine revelation from on high—no dim and dreary impressions, but lofty, glorious, and distinct intuitions; nay, his writings contain the germs of ethics and legislation for the world: but all the while he rated himself so low, that his self-denial was on a level with his humility, for he styles himself, in his letter to the townsmen of Parrhasius, “less than the least of all saints.” During his abode at Ephesus, the apostle prosecuted his work with peculiar skill and tact. The heathen forms of worship were not vulgarly attacked and abused, but the truth in Jesus was earnestly and successfully demonstrated and carried to many hearts; so that when the triumph of the gospel was so soon felt in the diminished sale of silver shrines, the preachers of a spiritual creed were formally absolved from the political crime of being “blasphemers of the goddess.” The toil of the preacher was incessant. He taught “ publicly and from house to house.” Acts xx. 20. He went forth “bearing precious seed, weeping;” for “day and night” he warned them “with tears.” Acts xx. 31. What ardour, earnestness, and intense aspiration; what a profound agitation of regrets and longings stirred him when “ with many tears” he testified “ both to the Jews and also to the Greeks repent- ance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”! By his assiduous labours the apostle founded and built up a large and prosperous church. ‘The fierce and prolonged oppo- sition which he encountered from “ many adversaries ” (1 Cor. xvi. 9), and the trials which befell him through “the lying in wait of the Jews” (Acts xx. 19), grieved, but did not alarm, his dauntless heart. The school of Tyrannus! became the scene of daily instruction and argument, and amidst the bitter railing and maledictions of the Jews, the masses of the heathen 1 For various opinions about Tyrannus, see Witsius, AMfeletemeta Leidensia, § viii. 8 ; Suidas, sub voce ; Neander, Pflanzung, i. 359; Vitringa, de Vet. Synag. p- 137. xvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. population were reached, excited, and brought within the circle of evangelical influence. During this interval the new religion was also carried through the province, the outlying hamlets were visited, and the Ionian towns along the banks of the Cayster, over the defiles of Mount Tmolus, and up the valley of the Meander, felt the power of the gospel; the rest of the “seven churches” were planted or watered, and “all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus.” Demetrius excited the alarm of his guild by the constrained admission—* Moreover, ye see and hear that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia—oyeddv raons Tis "Acias—this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people.” Acts xix. 26. The eloquence of the apostle was powerfully aided at this crisis by his miracles—duvdpers ov tas Tuyovoas. Surprising results sprang from the slightest contact with the wonder- worker; diseases fled at the approach of light articles of dress as the symbols or conductors of Divine power; and the evil spirits, formally acknowledging his supremacy, quailed before him, and were ejected from the possessed. These miracles, as has been well remarked, were of a kind cal- culated to suppress and bring into contempt the magical pretensions for which Ephesus was so famous. None of the Ephesian arts were employed. No charm was needed; no mystic scroll or engraven hieroglyph ; there was no repetition of uncouth syllables, no elaborate initiation into any occult and intricate science by means of expensive books; but shawls and aprons—oovddpia 1 o1txivOca—were the easy and expe- ditious vehicles of healing agency. The superstitious “ cha- racters "—’Edéova ypdupata, so famous as popular amulets in the Eastern world, and which the Megalobyzi (Hesychius, sub voce) and Melissz, the priests and priestesses of Artemis, had so carefully patronized—were shown by the contrast to be the most useless and stupid empiricism. Some wandering Jewish exorcists—a class which was common among the “dispersion ’—attempted an imitation of one of the miracles, and used the name of Jesus as acharm. But the demoniac regarded such arrogant quackery as an insult, and took immediate vengeance on the impostors. This sudden and signal defeat of the seven sons of Sceva produced a deep and ——— CUCU THE GOSPEL IN CONFLICT WITH SUPERSTITION. xvii general sensation among the Jews and Greeks, and “the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” Nay more, the followers of magic felt themselves so utterly exposed and out- done, that they “confessed and showed their deeds.” They were forced to bow to a higher power, and acknowledge that their “curious arts ”—7ra wep/epya—were mere pretence and delusion. Books containing the description of the secret power and application of such a talisman, must have been eagerly sought and highly prized. Those who possessed them now felt their entire worthlessness, and, convinced of the inutility and sin of studying them or even keeping them, gathered them and burnt them “ before all men ”—an open act of homage to the new and mighty power which Christianity had established among them. The smoke and flame of those rolls were a sacrificial desecration to Artemis—worse and more alarming than the previous burning of her temple by the madman Herostratus. The numerous and costly books were then reck- oned up in price, and their aggregate value was found to be above two thousand pounds sterling—dpyupiouv pupiddas trévte. The sacred historian, after recording so decided a triumph, adds with hearty emphasis—‘“ so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.” Acts xix. 20. But “no small stir ”—tapayos ov« odyos—was made by the progress of Christianity and its victorious hostility to magic and idolatry. The temple of Diana or the oriental Artemis had long been regarded as one of the wonders of the world. The city claimed the title of vewxopos, a title which, meaning originally “ temple-sweeper,” was regarded at length as the highest honour, and often engraved on the current coinage. Guhl, p. 124; Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. 76. The town-clerk artfully introduced the mention of this dignity into the commencement of his speech, for though all the Tonic Hellenes claimed an interest in the temple, and it was often named o tis ’Aclas vaos, yet Ephesus enjoyed the special function of being the guardian or sacristan of the edifice. The Ephesians were quite fanatical in their admira- tion and wardenship of the magnificent Ionic colonnades." The quarries of Mount Prion had supplied the marble; the 1 The asylum afforded by the temple—impunitas asyla statuendi—led to great abuses—interfering with the regular course of justice; and in the reign of XVili THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. art and wealth of Ephesian citizens and the jewellery of Ephesian ladies had been plentifully contributed for its adornment; its hundred and twenty-seven graceful columns, some of them richly carved and coloured, were each the gift of a king; its doors, ceiling, and staircase were formed respectively of cypress, cedar, and vine-wood; it had an altar by Praxiteles and a picture by Apelles; and in its coffers reposed no little of the opulence of Western Asia. Thus Xenophon deposited in it the tithe—rjv dexatnv—which had been set apart at Athens from the sale of slaves at Cerasus. Anab. v. 34. A many-breasted idol of wood,’ rude as an African fetich, was worshipped in its shrine, in some portion of which a meteoric stone may have been inserted, the token of its being “ the image that fell from Jupiter ’—rod dcozrerods.” Still further, a flourishing trade was carried on in the manu- facture of silver shrines—vaoi—or models of a portion of the temple. These are often referred to by ancient writers, and as few strangers seem to have left Ephesus without such a memorial of their visit, this artistic “ business brought no small gain to the craftsmen.” But the spread of Christianity was fast destroying such gross and material superstition and idolatry, for one of its first lessons was, as Demetrius rightly declared—‘“ they be no gods which are made with hands.” The shrewd craftsman summoned together his brethren of the same occupation—teyvirat, épyatai—laid the matter before them, represented the certain ruin of their manufacture, and the speedy extinction of the worship of Diana of Ephesus. The trade was seized with a panic, and raised the uproarious shout—* Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” “The whole city was filled with confusion.” A mob was gathered and seemed on the eve of effecting what Demetrius contemplated, the expulsion or assassination of the apostle and his coadjutors by lawless violence, so that no one could be singled out or punished for the outrage. It would seem, too, that this tumult took place at that season of the year—the month of May, Tiberius that city was heard by its delegates—legati—before the Roman senate in defence of the sacredness of the edifice. —Tacitus, Anna. iii. 60. 1 Torvuarror—multimammiam, Jerome, Prom. in Ep. ad Ephes. 2 Creuz-r, Symbolik, ii. 113; Euripides, Jphig. in Taur. 977; Ovid, Fasti, iii. 72; Dionys. Halicar. ii. 71. CIVIC UPROAR. xix sacred to Diana, the period of the Pan-Ionic games—when a vast concourse of strangers had crowded into Ephesus, so that the masses were the more easily alarmed and collected. The émeute was so sudden, that “the most part knew not wherefore they had come together.” As usual on such occa- sions in the Greek cities, the rush was to the theatre, to re- ceive information of the cause and character of the outbreak. (Theatrum ubi consultare mos est. Tacitus, Hist, ii. 80.) Two of Paul’s companions were seized by the crowd, and the apostle, who had escaped, would himself have very willingly gone in—eis Tov 5j40ov—and faced the angry and clamorous rabble, if the disciples, seconded by some of the Asiarchs or presidents of the games, who befriended him, had not prevented him. A Jew named Alexander, probably the “coppersmith,” and, as a Jew, well known to be an opponent of idolatry, strove to address the meeting—dodoyeicOat tH Syuq~—probably to vindicate his own race, who had been long settled in Ephesus, from being the cause of the disturbance, and to cast all the blame upon the Christians. But his appearance was the signal for renewed clamour, and for two hours the theatre resounded with the fanatical yell—“ Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” The town-clerk or recorder—ypappatevs—a magistrate of high standing and multifarious and responsible functions in these cities, had the dexterity to pacify and dismiss the rioters, first, by an ingenious admixture of flattery, and then by sound legal advice, telling them that the law was open, that the great Ephesian assize was going on—ayopaios dyovrar—and that all charges might be formally determined before the sitting tri- bunal—“ and there are deputies—xal av@vatoi eiow; while other matters might be determined—év 7@ évvou éxxAno’a— in the lawful assembly.” Such a scene could not fail to excite more inquiry into the principles of the new religion, and bring more converts within its pale. The Divine traveller imme- diately afterwards left the city. After visiting Greece, he sailed for Jerusalem, and touching at Miletus, he sent for the presby- ters of the Ephesian church, and delivered to them the solemn parting charge recorded in Acts xx. 18-35. 1 Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii, pp. 80, 81. xx THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Il.—TITLE AND DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE. It can surely be no matter of wonder that the apostle should afterwards correspond with a community which had such an origin and history as the church of Christ in Ephesus." We cannot sympathize with Conybeare in his remark, that it “is a mysterious dispensation of Providence” that Paul’s epistle to the metropolitan church at Ephesus “should not have been preserved to us.”” For we believe that it has been preserved, and that we have it rightly named in the present canon of the New Testament. And such is the general testi- mony of the early church. Great stress cannot be laid on the evidence of Ignatius. In the twelfth chapter of his own epistle to the Ephesians, according to the longer reading, there is no distinct reference to the Pauline epistle, though there is a high probability of it; but there is an allusion to the apostle, and an intimation that €v Tdon eTtaToAH—“ in the whole epistle,’ he makes mention of them. JBut in the briefer form of the Ignatian composition —that found in a Syriac version—the entire chapter, with the one before and after it, is left out, and, according to the high authority of Bunsen * and Cureton,’ they are all three decidedly spurious. Yet even in the Syriac version the diction is taken, to a great extent, from the canonical book. It abounds in such resemblances, that one cannot help thinking that Igna- tius, writing to Ephesus, thought it an appropriate beauty to enrich his letter with numerous forms of thought, style, and imagery, from that epistle which an inspired correspondent had once sent to the church in the same city. According to one recension, we have allusions to Eph. i. 1 in cap. ix., and to iv. 4 in cap. vi. Irenzeus, in the second century, has numerous references to the epistle, and prefaces a quotation from Eph. v. 30 by these words—xaOws o waxdpios Iladdos pynow, év tH pos “Edecious émicToAn—‘“as the blessed Paul says in his epistle to the 1 Gude, Comment. de Eccles. Ephes. Statu, Leips. 1732. 2 Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. 404, note. 3 Ignatius von Antiochien und Seine Zeit, p. 23, Hamburg, 1847. * Corpus Ignatianum, etc., by William Cureton, M.A., F.R.S., London, 1849. EEE ie ee AUTHORITIES, xxi Ephesians.” Again, quoting Eph. i. 7, ii. 13-15, he begins by affirming—gquomodo apostolus Ephesiis dicit ; and similarly does he characterize Eph. i. 13—in epistola que ad Ephesios est, dicens. Again, referring to v. 13, he says, rodro 8& Kal 6 TTabnos reyer. Adversus Herres., lib. v. pp. 104, 718, 734, 756. Nor is the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, later in the same century, less decisive; for, in the fourth book of his Stromata, quoting Eph. v. 21, he says—&0 «al év tH pds ’"Edeaious ypader; and in his Padagogue he introduces a cita- tion from Eph. iv. 13, 14, by a similar formula—’Edeoias ypapwv. Opera, pp. 499, 88, Colon. 1688. His numerous other allusions refer it plainly to the Apostle Paul. In the next century we find Origen, in his book against Celsus, referring to the Epistle to the Ephesians, as first in order, and then to the Epistles to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Philippians, and Romans, and speaking of all these composi- tions as the words of Paul—rovs TavAov doyous. Contra Celsum, lib. iii. p. 122, ed. Spencer, Cantabrigiw, 1677. Again, in his tract On Prayer, he expressly refers to a state- ment—éev TH mpos 'Edecious. The witness of Tertullian is in perfect agreement. For example, in his book De Monogamia, cap. v., he says—Dicit apostolus, ad Ephesios scribens, quoting Eph. 1.10. Again, in the thirty-sixth chapter of his De Prascriptionibus, his appeal is in the following terms—Age jam, qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tua, percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud guas tps adhuc cathedra apostolorum suis locis president, apud quas ipse authentica: litter@ eorum recitantur . . . st potes tn Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Lastly, in lib. iv. cap. 5 of his work against Marcion, we find him saying—Videamus, quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii. Opera, vol. i. p. 767, vol. ii. pp. 33, 165, ed. Oehler, 1854. Cyprian, in the next age, is no less lucid; for, in the seventh chapter of the third book of his Testimonies, he uses this language—Paulus apostolus ad Ephesios ; quoting iv. 30, 31, and in his seventy-fifth epistle he records his opinion thus —sed et Paulus apostolus hoc idem adhuc apertius et clarius manifestans ad Ephesios scribit et dicit, Christus dilexit eccle- siam ; v. 25. Opera, pp. 280 and 133, ed. Paris, 1836. Such is the verdict of the ancient church. But though its b Xxil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. testimony is so decisive, it is not unanimous. Still, this diversity of opinion only confirms the evidence of the vast majority. In consequence, however, of this exception, the question whether the common title to this epistle be the correct one, has been matter of prolonged controversy, and a variety of opinion still exists among expositors and critics. Apart from the evidence already adduced, the settlement of the question depends, to a great extent, on the idea formed of the genuineness of the words év "Edéow in the first verse. The old versions are unanimous in their favour, and among existing MSS. only three throw any doubt upon them. “But what are these among so many?” In Codex 67, they have been deleted by some later correctionist. In Codex B they stand on the margin, as an apparent supplement of the discovered omission by the original copyist, according to Hug ;? but according to Tischendorf, on whose critical acumen and experience we place a higher confidence, they are an evident emendation from a second and subsequent hand.? In the Codex Sinaiticus yet unpublished, they are absent, but supplied in like manner by a later hand.’ Origen, as quoted in Cramer’s Catena, says—éri povev "Edeciwv etipomey Kelwevov, To “Tois ayiows Tois ovau” Kal Enrovmev eb pn TapéAKer TpocKelpevov TO “ Tos aylols ToIS ovat,” TL Svvatat onpatvery. 6pa odv eb pn W@oTep év TH EE0So évona dnow éavtod o xpnyatif~ov Macei 70 wv, oTws of HETEXOVTES TOU SvTOS, yivovTaL dvTES, KANOUMEVOL OlovEl eK TOU _1 “Juxta tantum in margine a prima manu, pari elegantia et assiduitate ac reliqua pars operis . . . sed charactere paullo exiliori.”—De Antig. Cod. Vat. Commentatio, 1810. 2 “Manu altera posteriore in margine ista suppleta sunt.” —Novum Test. in loc. seventh ed. Also more fully in Studien und Kritiken, 1846, p. 133. 3 Tischendorf says—‘‘ Multi sunt qui codicem post ipsum scriptorem attigerunt. Alii certos tantum libros, alii totum codicem vel certe pleraque recensuerunt, rursus alii non tam recensendo textui quam supplementis quibusdam studuerunt, ut Ammonii Eusebiique numeris addendis. Qua de re accuratiora in Prolegomenis dabimus. Is quih. 1. sv s?sew supplevit, item ad finem evang. Luce xa: avegeg, sis cov oveavov, totum N. T. recensuit. Seculo vixisse videtur sexto exeunte vel septimo atque in numero correctorum eorum qui imprimis in censum veniunt quartum locum occupat. In brevi adnotatione critica textui paginarum duodeviginti addita nobis dicitur corr. Ex re enim esse visum est ut correctores et etate et scriptura et indole cognati uno eodemque numero comprehendantur, nec nisi ubi certo distingui possunt singulatim indicentur.” Notitia Hditionis Codicis Bibliorwm Sinaitici, page 19, Lipsiz, 1860. , | | | 3 | ORIGEN AND BASIL. xxiii pa elvas eis TO elvar “ eeXeEato yap 0 eds Ta ph byra,” dnaolv 6 abtos IladXos, “ iva ta bvta Katapyijon.”—* We found the phrase ‘to the saints that are,’ occurring only in the case of the Ephesians, and we inquire what its meaning may be. Observe then whether, as He who revealed His name to Moses in Exodus calls His name I aM, so they who are partakers of the I am, are those who be, being called out of non-existence into existence—for God, as Paul himself says, chose the things that are not that He might destroy the things that are.” This, however, must be compared with the references in Origen previously given by us. The declaration of Basil of Cappadocia, not unlike that of Origen, has often been quoted and discussed. The object of Basil is to show that the Son of God cannot be said to be €E ov dvtwr, because He is évtws oy ; for while the Gentiles who know Him not are called ov« évta, His own people are expressly named ot édvres. The following is his proof from Scripture, and he must have been sadly in lack of argument when he could resort to it:’ "Adda Kal tois "Edeciou eTLCTEAXRWY OS YVNTiws HYwpEevolsS TO OvTL Ot EeTrvyVMCEDS, ivtas avTovs idcalovtTws wvopacer, eitTwv' Tois aylois Tots ovat Kal miotois €v Xpist@ ‘Inood' ottw yap Kai of mpo nov mapabedwxact, Kai nels (v TOs TadaLlois TaY ayTLypadwy evpnxayev. “ But also writing to the Ephesians, as being truly united by knowledge to Him wuo Is; he called them in a special sense THOSE WHO ARE, saying, To the saints Tots ovoL, WHO ARE, and the faithful in Christ Jesus. For thus those before us have transmitted it, and we have found it in the ancient copies.” No little refinement and subtlety have been employed in the analysis of these words. It does not much concern the critical fact which Basil states, whether, with L’Enfant, Wolf, and Lardner, we understand him as basing his argument on the article tots; or whether, with Wiggers, we regard him as discovering his mystical exegesis in the participle odow; or whether, with Michaelis and Koppe, we hold that tots odo« is the phrase on which the absurd emphasis is placed. The fact is plain, that in ancient MSS. handed down from previous centuries, he had found the first verse without the words év ’Edéow, and thus—rois obc« 4 Contra Funomium, lib. ii. cap. 19 ; Opera, ed. Garnier, tom. i. pp. 254, 255. XXiv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. kat miotois. Had the phrase év "Edéow occurred in the clause, Basil’s ingenuity could have found neither impulse nor pabulum; and there is no proof that it ever stood in the verse in any other position than that occupied by it in the majority of Codices. Saints, says the father, are there called oi évres—they who are—that is, persons in actual posses- sion of spiritual existence ; and they receive this appellation after Him wHO IsS—o #v—the Being of pure and underived essence. The omission of the words év "Edéow could only warrant such a phantasy, for otherwise the statement might have been founded as well on the initial verses of the Epistles to Rome or Philippi The sum of Basil’s statement is, that in the early copies which he had consulted, év ’Edeow was wanting; but the inference is, that the words existed in the copies then in common circulation, nay, that the father him- self looked upon the epistle as inscribed to the church in Ephesus. At the same time, Basil does not state how many old copies he saw, nor in what countries they originated, nor what was their general character for accuracy. The corrobora- tive assertion that he himself had seen them, would seem to indicate that they were neither numerous nor of easy access. He does not appeal to the received and ordinary reading of the verse, but prides himself on a various reading which he had dis- covered in ancient copies, and which does not seem to have been commonly known, and he finally interposes his own personal inspection and veracity as the only vouchers of his declaration. The statement of Jerome is not dissimilar. In his Com- mentary on Eph. i. 1, he says— Quidam curiosius quam necesse est, putant ex e0, quod Moysi dictum sit: Hac dices filiis Israel, qui est misit me, etiam eos, qui Ephesi sunt, sancte et fideles essentie vocabulo nuncupatos, ut ab eo qui est, hi qui sunt appellentur. Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos qui sunt, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sunt, seriptum arbitrantur.. Opera, ed. Vallarsius, tom. vil. p. 543. “Some, with an excessive refinement, think from what was said to Moses— ‘These words shalt thou say to the children of Israel, HE WHO 1s, has sent me ’—that the saints and faithful at Ephesus are addressed by a term descriptive of essence, as if from him WHO Is, they had been named THEY WHO ARE. Others, indeed, suppose that the epistle was written not simply to those WHO ee SS eee ree rl errr JEROME. xxv ARE, but to those WHO ARE AT EPHESUS, saints and faithful.” The language of Jerome does not warrant, so explicitly as that of Basil, the supposition that he found any copies wanting the words, in Ephesus. At the same time, it is a strange mis- apprehension of Bottger (Bettrdge, etc. iii. p. 37) and Olshausen to imagine, that Jerome did not himself adopt the common reading, when he expressly delivers his opinion in the very quotation. One would almost think, with Meyer, that Jerome speaks of persons who gave ovo« a pregnant sense, though it stood in connection with é€v 'Edéow; but the origination of such an exegesis in this verse only, and in none others of identical phraseology, surpasses our comprehension for its absurdity and caprice. Probably Jerome records the mere fact or existence of such an interpretation, though he might not have seen, and certainly does not mention, any MSS. on whose peculiar omission it might have been founded. He would, in all likelihood, have pointed out the origin of the quaint exegesis from the absence of the local designation, if he had known it; and the apparent curiositas of the explanation lay in the fact, that rots ovow had an evident and natural connection with év ’Edeow. Such a hypothesis appears to be warranted by the order in which he arranges the words in his Latin version—qui Ephest sunt sancti et fideles—as if in order to give countenance to the alleged interpretation, the words év 'Edéow had, in construing the sentence, been dislodged from their proper position. The probability is, however, that Jerome refers to the passage from Origen already quoted; for in his preface he says—Jllud quoque in prefatione commonco ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hane epistolam conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti swmus. The general unanimity of the ancient church is also seen in the peculiar and offensive prominence which was given to Marcion’s fabrication. This heresiarch, among his other inter- polations, altered the title of the epistle, and addressed it to the Laodiceans—zpds Aaodixéas. One of the most acute and vigorous of the ancient fathers thus describes and brands the forgery —Pratereo hic et de alid epistola quam nos ad Ephesios prescriptam habemus, heretici vero ad Laodicenos. Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando XXvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scrip- serit, dwm ad quosdam—*“I pass by in this place another epistle in our possession addressed to the Ephesians, but the heretics have inscribed it to the Laodiceans. . . . According to the true testimony of the church, we hold this epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians. But Marcion sometimes had a strong itching to change the title, as if in that matter he had been a very diligent inquirer. The question about titles is of no great moment, since the apostle wrote to all when he wrote to some.” Advers. Marcion, lib. v. cap. 11, 17 ; Opera, ed. Oehler, vol. i. pp. 309, 323. We think ita strained inference on the part of Meyer, that Tertullian did not read év "Edéocw in his copies, since in such a case he would have appealed not to the testimony of the church, but to the words of the sacred text. But the testimony of the church and the testimony of the text were really identical, for it was only on the text as preserved by the church that her testimony could be intelligently based. By “title” in the preceding extract we understand, in accordance with Tertullian’s wsus loquendt, the superscription prefixed to the epistle, not the address con- tained in ver. 1. But if Marcion changed the extra-textual title, consistency must soon have obliged him also to alter the reading of the salutation, and change év ’E¢éo@ into év Aaoéixeig. Tertullian, then, means to say, that Marcion in his critical tamperings had interfered with the constant and universal title of this epistle, and that he did this as the avowed result of minute inquiry and antiquarian research (quasi diligentissimus explorator). We know not on what his judgment was founded. He may have found the epistle in circulation at Laodicea, or, as Pamelius conjectures in his notes on Tertullian, it was the interpretation he attached to Col. iv. 16—“ And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” Mar- cion’s view was not only in contradiction of the whole church, but his other literary misdemeanours throw a suspicion at once on the motives of his procedure, and on the sobriety and trustworthiness of his judgment. . The result of the whole inquiry is, that in some ancient th el tl el i le i EPHESUS OR LAODICEA. ~ Xxvii copies the words év "E¢éow did not exist, and that some theologians built a doctrine upon the words of the clause as read with the omission ; that the omission was not justified by the current MSS. in the third and fourth centuries; that the judgment of the ancient church, with such slight exceptions, regarded the epistle as inscribed to the Ephesians; and that one noted heretic imagined that the current title should be changed, and the inspired letter inscribed to the Laodiceans. It seems strange indeed that this last opinion should have been adopted by any succeeding writers. Yet we find that several critics hold the view that the epistle was meant for the church at Laodicea, among whom are Grotius, Mill, du Pin, Wall, Archbishop Wake, the younger Vitringa,’ Venema, Crellius, Wetstein, Pierce, Benson, Whiston, Paley,? Gres- well,> Huth,* Holzhausen, Ribiger,? and Constable.® The only plausible argument for the theory is, that there are no personal references or salutations in the epistle—a circumstance supposed to be scarcely compatible with the idea of its being sent to Ephesus, a city in which Paul had lived and laboured, but quite in harmony with the notion of an epistle to the church in Laodicea, in which the apostle is supposed to have been a stranger. But such a hypothesis cannot set aside the all but unanimous voice of Christian antiquity. And how came it that out of all copies Laodicea has dropt, and that it is found in no early MS. or version, and that no ancient critic but Marcion ever dreamed of exchanging the local terms ? Again, if Col. iv. 16 be appealed to in the phrase “the Epistle from Laodicea,” then if that is to be identified with the present Ephesian letter, it must have been written long prior to the epistle to Colosse—a conjecture at variance with many internal proofs and allusions; for the so-called epistle to Ephesus and that to Colosse were composed about the same period, and despatched by the same trusty messenger, Tychicus. And how should the apostle command the Colossian church to 1 Dissertatio de genuino titulo epistole D. P. que vulgo inseribitur ad Ephesios, pp. 247-379. Franequere, 1731. * Hore Pauline, c. vi. 3 Dissertations upon a Harmony of the Gospels, vol. iv. pp. 208, 217, sec. ‘ Epistola ex Laodicea in encyclica ad Ephesios asservata, Erlang. 1751. * De Christologia Paulina, p. 47. Vratislavie, 1852. Essays Critical and Theological, p. 77. London, 1852. XXVIili THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. salute in his name the brethren of Laodicea, if the Laodiceans had received such a communication by the very same mes- senger who carried the letter to Colosse, and who was charged to give them all minute particulars as to the apostle’s welfare and thus comfort their hearts ? It is also to be borne in mind, that Marcion does not fully bear out this theory usually traced to him; for according to Epiphanius, while he had some parts, népy, of an epistle to the Laodiceans, he put into his canon as the seventh of Paul’s epistles that to the Ephesians—é@dopun mpos’Edectous. Heres., xlii. cap. 9, p. 310, ed. Petavius; Paris, 1662. Whatever may be meant, in Col. iv. 16, by the epistle from Laodicea, it is plain that it cannot, as Stier supposes, be the epistle before us; and plainer still, that it cannot be the brief and tasteless forgery which now passes under the name of an Epistle to the Laodiceans. ‘Another hypothesis which has received a very large support is, that the epistle is an encyclical letter—a species of inspired circular not meant for any special church, but for a variety of connected communities. The idea was originated by Usher, in his Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, under the year 64 A.D.—Ulhi notandum, in antiquis nonnullis codicibus (ut ex Basilia libro i. adversts EHunomium, et Hieronymi in hune Apostolt locum commentario, apparet) generatim inscriptam Suisse hane epistolam tois ayiou, tois ovat, Kal TioTots év Xpiot@ Incod, vel (ut in litterarwm encyclicarum descriptione fiert solebat) sanctis qui sunt ... . et fidelibus in Christo Jesu, ac si Ephesum primo, ut precipuam Asie metropolim, missa ea fursset; transmittenda inde ad reliquas (intersertis singularum nominibus) ejusdem provincie ecclesias: ad quarum aliquas, quas Paulus ipse nunquam viderat, illa ipsius verba potissimum spectaverint. His idea has been followed by a whole host of scholars and critics, by Garnier in his note to the place cited in Basil,’ by Ziegler,? Hinlein,? Justi,* and Schmid, by such writers of “Introductions” as Michaelis, 1 The treatises by the most of these authors are well known: some of them may be noted. ? In Henke’s Magazin, iv. 2, p. 225. 3 Commentat. de lectoribus, quibus epistola Pauli que ad Ephesios missa traditur, vere scripta esse videatur. Erlang. 1797. * Vermischte Behandlungen, vol. ii. p. 81. ——_ se ————S Oo hl ell eel. <<; . THEORY OF USHER. xxix Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Credner, Schneckenburger, Hug, Feilmoser, Cellerier, Guerike, Horne, Bottger, Schott, and Neudecker, also by Neander, Hemsen, Schrader, Liinemann, Anger,’ Wiggers, ’ Conybeare, and Burton, and by the commentators Bengel, Harless, Boehmer, Zachariae, Ruckert, Matthies, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Meier, Macknight, Stier, and Bisping. These authors agree generally that Ephesus was not the exclusive recipient of the epistle, and the majority of them incline, in the face of all evidence, to hold the words év 'Edéow as a spurious interpolation. Others, such as Beza, Turner, Harless, Boehmer, Schott, Liinemann,? Wiggers,’ Schrader, Ellicott, Schaff* and Hodge, reject this line of proof, and build their argument on another foundation—believing that Ephesus received the epistle, but that some daughter-churches in the immediate vicinity were associated with it. To such an opinion there is less objection, though, while it seems to solve some difficulties, it suggests others. The advocates of the encyclical character of the epistle are not agreed among themselves. Many suppose that the apostle left a blank space—tols ovow . . . Kai miorois, and that the name of the intended place was filled in either by Paul himself in the several copies ere they were despatched, or by Tychicus as opportunity prompted, or that copies were transcribed in Ephesus with the proper address inserted in each. Each of these hypotheses is shaped to serve an end—to explain why so many Codices have év ’Edéow, and none év Aaodixeca. There are some who believe that no blank room was originally left at all, but that the sentence is in itself complete. With such an extraordinary view, the meaning differs according as ovauy is joined to the preceding ayiocs or the following tea tots. Meier and Credner join ovow to meotois, and render den Heiligen, die auch getreu sind—* the saints who are also faith- ful,” an interpretation which cannot be sustained. See under i. 1, pp. 3,4. Credner propounds a worse view, and regards marois as signifying genuine Pauline Christians. Schnecken- 1 Uber den Laodicenerbrief, Leipz. 1843, replied to in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrbuch for 1844, p. 199. ade 2 De epistole quam Paulus ad Ephesios dedisse perhibetur authentia, primis lectoribus, argumento summo ac consilio, Gotting. 1842. 3 Studien und Kritiken, 1841-42, p. 423. * History of the Apostolic Church, vol. ii. p, 880. Edinburgh, 1854. XXX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. burger and Matthies connect odow with drylois, the latter giving a sense—welche da sind—which Bengel had already advanced — gut presto sunt—that is, as he explains it, in the places which Tychicus was under commission to visit. Schneckenburger renders to the saints who are really so— den Heiligen die es in der That sind. Gresswell holds a similar view; but the numerous so-called similar Greek formule which he adduces are not in point. Now the usual -exordiums of the apostle are fatal to these hypotheses, for in them not only is the place of destination named, even though, as in the case of Galatia, it include a province or circuit of churches, but the participle is simply used along with the local name and without pregnant emphasis. How the words év "E¢éow came to be dropt out of the text, as Basil affirms, we know not. Perhaps some early copyist, seeing the general nature of the epistle, left out the formula, to give it the aspect of universal applicability. Or, the churches “in Asia” claiming an interest in the apostle and his letters might have copies without the special local designation; or, as Wieseler suggests, the tendency of the second century to take away personal reference out of the New Testament, may have led to the omission, just as the words év ‘Pawn are left out in several MSS. of the Epistle to the Romans, i. 7. External evidence is thus wholly against the notion that either Laodicea by itself, or Ephesus with a noted cluster of sister communities, was the designed and formal recipient of this epistle. Nor is the result of internal proof more in favour of such hypotheses. It is argued that the apostle sends no greetings to Ephesus—a very strange omission, as he had laboured there three years, and must have known personally the majority of the members of the church. But the argument is two-edged, for Paul’s long years of labour at Ephesus must have made him acquainted with so many Christian people there, that their very number may have prevented him from sending any salutation. A roll far longer than the epistle itself might have been filled, and yet the list would have by no means been exhausted. Omissions might have given offence, and Tychicus, who was from the same province, seems to have been charged with all such private business. In churches ELL Ce ee NOT AN ENCYCLICAL LETTER. Xxxi where the apostles knew only a few prominent individuals, they are greeted, as in Philippi, Colosse, Rome, and Corinth. It is also objected that an air of distance pervades the epistle, and that it indicates nothing of that familiarity which the previous three years’ residence must certainly have induced. This idea is no novelty. Theodoret, in the preface to his Exposition, refers to some who were led to suppose from such language that Paul wrote this letter before he had visited the Ephesians at all. Euthalius’ and the author of the Synopsis of sacred Scripture found in the works of Athanasius,’ express a similar opinion. To such statements, either in their simple or more exaggerated form, we certainly demur, as the proofs adduced in their behalf do by no means sustain them. The expression in i. 15 has been usually fixed on—* Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints.” But this statement is no proof that Paul was a stranger. It rather indicates the reverse, as may be seen by consulting our comment on the place. Dr. Davidson and others instance the similar use of dxovcas in the letter to Philemon, so that the inference based on the use of the term in Ephesians cannot be justified. The same remarks apply to other passages commonly adduced to prove the encyclical nature of the Ephesian epistle. In iii. 2 the apostle says— elye nxovoate, rendered by some—“if ye have heard of the dispensation of grace committed to me for you.” But the phraseology does not express doubt. Constable maintains that eye everywhere has the idea of doubt attached to it. Essays, p. 90. But the statement is unguarded, as the particle _ puts the matter in a hypothetical shape, and by its use and position takes for granted the truth of what is stated or assumed. Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 308. Constable also refers to the commendation given to Tychicus, vi. 21, as if that implied that he was a stranger. But Tychicus might be of Asia, and yet not of Ephesus—while the eulogy pronounced upon him is a species of warrant, that whatever he said about the apostle and his private affairs to them might be absolutely credited ; for he was intimate with the apostle—‘“beloved”—and he was trusty. On the other hand, there are not a few distinct 1 Zacagnii, Collectanea Monumentorum Vet. Eccles. etc. p. 524. Paris, 1698. - * Athanasius, Opera, tom. iii. p. 191, ed. Benedict. Paris, 1698. Xxxil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. intimations of the writer’s personal knowledge of those whom he addressed. He writes to them as persons whom he knew as sealed with the Spirit, as exhibiting the possession of faith and love—the Gentile portion of them as one with the believing Jews—as so well acquainted with him that they were prone to faint at his sufferings, as having enjoyed distinet and plenary instruction, and as taking such a deep interest in his personal affairs, that they would be comforted by the appearance of Tychicus. And these statements are also direct language, pointedly addressed to one community, and not vaguely to an assemblage of churches, unless they were regarded as one with it. In short, the letter is intended for advanced Christians ; and such surely were those, so many of whom had for so long a period enjoyed instruction from the apostle’s own lips. Some years had elapsed since he had been at Ephesus, and perhaps on that account personal reminiscences were not inserted into the communication. “ Nothing,” as Dr. Davidson says, “is more unjust than to restrict the apostle of the Gentiles, in his writings, to one unvarying method.” The opinion of Wetstein, Liinemann, and de Wette, that this epistle is written to Gentile converts, while the church at Ephesus was composed principally of Jews, is not according to the facts of the history, nor according to the language of the epistle. It is true that the first members of that church were Jews, and that the twelve converted disciples of John seem to have formed its nucleus. But was not Paul forced to leave the synagogue? and what raised the ferment about the falling off in the sale of shrines? Still we cannot accede to some commentators and Dr. Davidson, that when Paul, in the first chapter, uses ets he means himself and the Jewish converts; but when he employs vets, the Gentile disciples are alone intended. There is no hint that such is the case; and is it solely for the Gentile Christians that the magnificent prayer in the first chapter is presented? There is nothing so distinctive about “ we” as to confine it to Jews, or about “ye” as to restrict it to heathens, save where, as in ii. 11, the apostle marks the limitation himself. Timothy indeed is mentioned in the salutation to the Colos- sians, but not in that to the Ephesians. But this fact affords no argument against us; for no matter in what form the DESIGNED FOR EPHESUS. xxxili solution is offered, whether Timothy be supposed to have been absent from Rome, or to have been in Ephesus, or to have been a stranger at the time to the Ephesian church—no matter which hypothesis is adopted, the absence of the name does not prove the encyclical character of the epistle. There may be many reasons unknown to us why Timothy’s name was left out. If Timothy came to Ephesus soon after the arrival of the epistle, Tychicus might have private information to communicate about him, or have a letter from himself. So that as his personal teaching was so soon to be enjoyed, this epistle emanates solely from the great apostle. We are therefore brought to the conclusion that the epistle was really meant for and originally entituled to the church at Ephesus. The strong external evidence is not weakened by internal proof or statement ; the seal and the superscription are not contradicted by the contents. Such was the opinion of the ancient church as a body, as seen in its MSS., quotations, commentaries, and all its versions; of the medieval church ; and in more modern times of the commentators Calvin, Bucer, Wolf, Estius, Crocius, Piscator, Cocceius, Witsius, Zanchius, Bodius, Rollock, Aretius, Van Til, Roell, Quandt, Fergusson, Dickson, Chandler, Whitby, Lardner, and more recently of Cramer, Morus, Meyer, Davidson, Stuart,) Alexander,’ Rinck,’ Wurm,’ Wieseler,? Alford, Newland, and Wordsworth. I1I.—GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. The proofs that the Apostle Paul wrote this letter are stronger still than those which vouch for the correctness of its present title. It may be doubted, with Meyer, whether at least the first of the two citations usually adduced from the twelfth chapter of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians be one ‘Notes to Fosdick’s English Translation of Hug’s Introduction, p. 757, Andover, 1836. 2In Kitto’s dia, art. Epistle to the Ephesians. ; 3 Studien ing pra 1849, 946—under tha title Kann der Epheserbrif an die Gemeinde zu Ephesus gerichtet seyn? von W. Fr. Rinck, Pfarrer Zu Grenzbach in Badischen Oberlande. * Tiibin. Streitschriften, 1833, p. 97. * Chronologie des Apost. Zeitalt. p. 442, etc. XXXiV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. from this epistle, since it may be regarded as taken from the Old Testament; and perhaps the formula introducing both is more usually employed in reference to the Old Testament than the New. Patres Apostolici, ed. Jacobson, vol. ii. p. 487. In the first chapter of the same letter there is a quotation from Eph. ii. 8, 9—6rte yapuiti éore cecwopévor, ovx €& Epywv. Tad. vol. i. p. 466. Besides the authorities already given, we might refer to Origen, who, in his Commentary on John, says —IT@s 6 Iladdos dyci ov, cai pucOa téexva hice opyns. Again, in his Commentary on Matthew, he refers to Eph. v. 32, under the same heading—as IIavxos gyciv. Commentaria, ed. Huet. vol. i. p. 497, ii. p.315. From Polycarp downwards, through the succession of patristic correspondents, apologists, and commentators, the evidence is unanimous, and even Mar- cion did not secede from this catholic unity, nor apparently did the Valentinians. Irenzus, Adv. Heres. § i. 8,5. The heretics, as well as the orthodox, agreed in acknowledging the Pauline authorship. The quotations already adduced in reference to the title, are, at the same time, a sample of the overwhelming evidence. But de Wette, Usteri, Baur, and Schwegler, have risen up against this confronting host of authorities, and cast suspicion on the Pauline origin. Ewald, too, in his die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, etc., omits the Epistle to the Ephesians, and regards the salutations in the last chapter of Romans as a fragment of an epistle sent to Ephesus. Not that there is any external fact in their favour ; nor that any ancient writer falters in his belief, or hints that any of his predecessors or contemporaries had the least hesita- tion. Nay, the evidence may be traced back to the first link: for the Apostle John lived long at Ephesus, and there Polycarp must have learned from him that Paul was the author; while Trenzus, who is so decided in his testimony, enjoyed the tuition of Polycarp. And what shall we say of the additional witness of Ignatius and Origen, of Clement and Tertullian, Basil and Cyprian? But these German critics have a test of their own, and they apply it at once, not to the external history or chain of proof, but to the contents of the epistle. So thoroughly do they believe themselves imbued with the spirit and idiom of the inspired writer, that they can feel at once, and by an infallible sense, whether any composition ascribed to him be —— ee ee * OBJECTIONS OF DE WETTE. XXXV genuine or spurious. They may not be able to detail the reasons of their critical feeling, but they rely with calm self- possession on their esthetical instincts. De Wette adduces against the genuineness of this epistle, its dependency (Abhdngigkeit) on that to the Colossians—a thing, he says, without example, except in the case of the First Epistle to Timothy, which is also spurious. This epistle is only a mere “ verbose expansion "—wortreiche Erweiterung —of that to the Colossians, and besides there are against it the employment of unusual words, phrases, parentheses, digres- sions, and pleonasms, and an indefinite un-Pauline colour and complexion, both in doctrine and diction. § 146. chapters of both epistles :— EPHESIANS. bad -~ , L 4.—elvae jas dylous kai dpw- pous KaTevwmov avTov. 1. 7.—’Ev © éxopev tiv drodv- tpwow dua TOU alparos avrou, TV ddecw Tov TapartTwpatuv. i 10. — Eis oixovopiay rod mANpwpaTos TOV Kalpov, dvaKxeda- Aawoar ba Ta ravra ev THXpiote, Ta év TOS OVpavois Kal Ta éxi y7Ns, év avo. i. 21.—‘Yxepavw zaons dpyxis kal éfovotas kal duvdpews Kal Kupto- THTOS Kal TavTos dvoparos dvopalo- pévov ov povov ev TO aioe TovTw GANG Kai év TO péAXovTe. Einleit. in N. T. Take a sample of the resemblances from the first COLOSSIANS. 1. 22.—Tlapaorioat ipas d&ylous Kal duwpous Kal dveyxAyrous kare- VwrLoV avToU. i. 14.—Ev © €yopev rH drroAv- Tpwo, THY ade TOV dpapTiov. i. 20.—Kai di atirod droxarad- Aagat ta wavta cis adbrov, eipynvo- Tomoas Sua TOU aiparos ToOUTTavpou avrov, 5: atrov, cire ra éxi rs ys eire Ta ev TOLS Ovpavois. i. 16-18 —Ore &v ato éxrioby Ta TavTa Ta ev TOS Olpavois Kai TA eri THS ys, TA dpara Kai Ta ddpara, cite Opovor cite KupLoryTes cite dpyxai cire e£ovaola Ta ravra be abrov Kai els abtov Exrirrat. \7 Kai atros corey 7po jwavTwy Kal Ta wavTa éy avT@ ouvéeotynxev. 18Kai avros €or 7) Ke adi TOU guHparos, THS éxxAnTLas’ os éorw dpxy, TpwTOTOKOS éx Tov vexpov, iva yévyntae €v Taw avTos Tpwrevwv. These resemblances are not so strong as to warrant the idea of imitation. The thought and connection are different in both epistles. Thus in Eph. i. 4 perfection is presented as the end or ideal of the eternal choice; but in Col. i. 22 it is held out as the result of Christ’s death. The forgiveness of XXXxvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. sins in Eph. i. 7 is introduced differently from Col. i. 14, though in both places it is in natural connection with Christ ; in the first as a sequence of predestination, but in the second as an element of redemption, and as introductory to a de- scription of the Redeemer’s person. The references to the final effects of Christ’s death, in the two epistles, are also different, both in introduction and aspect; it is recapitulation in Eph. i. 10, and reconciliation in Col. i. 20. In Eph. i. 21 the apostle pictures Christ’s official exaltation over all the heavenly hosts, but in Col. i. 16,18 he represents Christ as Creator, and therefore Head or Governor by essential and personal right. In both epistles Christ is xedady, and the church is copa; but the accompanying illustration is different. Other similar terms are selected by de Wette—Arnpana, Eph. i. 23, Col. i. 19, ii. 9; puotypiov, Eph. i. 9, Col. i. 26; Kal tas ovtas, Eph. ii. 1, Col. i: 13. Then come such phrases as qepitouy xetpotrointos, Eph. ii. 11 — repetoun ayetpotrointos, Col. ii. 11; amnddotpiwpévos, Eph. ii. 12 and Col. i. 21; év Soypacow, Eph. ii. 15, and in Col. ii 14; atoxatavdAd£a, Eph. ii. 16 and Col. i. 20. These resemblances, like the previous ones, are however in connections so different that they are proofs of originality, and not of imitation. De Wette finds many other parallels, both in the thoughts of the general sections, and also in particular phrases; those in Ephesians being moulded from those in Colossians. Thus the paragraph, ui. 1-21, is said to be from Col. i. 24—29, and the practical section, Eph. iv. 17-vi. 20, is alleged to be from Col. ui. 5-iv. 4. Still these and many other similari- ties adduced by the objector are by no means close; some of them are not even striking parallels, and they have no tame or servile air about them. The passages in Ephesians are as bold, free, and natural, as they are in Colossians. There is nothing about them betraying imitation; nothing like a cautious or artistic selection of Pauline phrases, and setting them anew, as if to disguise the theft and trick out a spurious letter. Even Baur, who denies the Pauline authority of both epistles, admits that both may have had the same author. Paulus, p. 455—Dass der Epheserbrief in einem secunddren Verhdltniss zum Colosserbrief steht, geht aus allem klar hervor, ob er aber viel spiter geschreiben ist und einen andern zum Verfasser hat OBJECTIONS OF DE WETTE, XXxvii kann bezweifelt werden. Sollten nicht beide Briefe zusammen als Briiderpaar in die Welt ausgegangen seyn? Besides, as Meyer has remarked, so far from Ephesians being a verbose expan- sion of Colossians, as de Wette asserts, it shows in several places a brevity of allusion where there is fuller statement in Colossians. Compare Eph. i. 15, 17—Col. i. 3-6; Eph. iv. 32—Col. ili. 12-14. The apostle’s use of the quotation from the 68th Psalm, in iv. 8, is brought against him by de Wette, and, if so, what then shall we say of Rom. x. 6 and x. 18? The quotation in v. 14 is said by de Wette to be from an unbiblical writing, and therefore unapostolic in manner ; but it is rather a free quotation from Isa. lx. 1, and is not without parallel even in the Gospels. Matt. ii. 15, 23. Objections are also taken to the demonology, ii. 2, vi. 12, that it is exceptional ; and to the characteristic epithets or clauses connected with the name of God, that they are singular, as in i. 17, ii 9, 15, etc. Other peculiarities, as the prohibition of stealing and the comparison of Christ to a bridegroom, are brought forward for the same end. We may reply that not only are such representations apostolic, but that they are also Pauline, for in other Pauline writings, in some form or other, they find a place. The Epistle to the Ephesians has certainly no system of dogmas or circle of allusions peculiar to itself. It does in some points resemble that to the Colossians—but surely if two letters are written by the same person, about the same period, and upon kindred subjects, similarity of diction will inevitably occur. It would be the merest affectation to seek to avoid it, nor do the strictest notions of inspiration forbid it. The mind insensibly vibrates under the influence of former themes, and the earlier language unconsciously intrudes itself. And if the topics, though generally similar, are specifically different, we expect in the style generic resemblances, but specific variations. De Wette edited the correspondence of Luther, but he has not rejected any letter, which, written in the same month with a previous one upon some similar themes, is not unlike it in spirit and phrase. Such a phenomenon occurs in this epistle, for many of its verses contain diction somewhat similar to correspondent passages in Colossians. It is like that to the Colossians, and yet unlike it—not with the c XXXVI1il THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. tawdry and dull similarity of imitation, disguised by the artful sprinkling of a few discrepancies; but it has that like- ness which springs from unity of contemporaneous origin and theme, and that difference which results, at the same time, from living independent thought. And if it do contain un- Pauline thoughts and diction, how came it to be received? — how was the forgery not detected? The reasoning against its genuineness seems to be on this wise.—It is so like Colossians that it cannot be an original document; but it is also so unlike other Pauline letters, that it cannot be ascribed to Paul. The statement neutralizes itself. If usual words prove it an imitation, what do the unusual words prove? Does not rather the natural combination of the so-called usual and unusual phrases mark it as a document akin to the other production, and having a purpose, at the same time, peculiar to itself ? Every original composition on a distinct topic pre- sents those very characteristics and affinities. But the whole is Pauline in spirit and form. As in the other acknowledged writings of Paul, so you have here the same easy connection of thought, by means of a series of participles—the same delight in compound terms, especially formed with d7ép, and in words that border on pleonasm—the same tendency to go off at a word, and strike into a parenthesis—the same recurrence of ydp and 67v introducing a reason, and of wa pointing to a high and final cause—the same culmination of an argument, in the triumphant insertion of od povoy and parrov 5é—the same favourite formula of a conclusion or deduction in dpa ody—the same fondness for abstract terms, with the accumulation of exhaustive epithets—the same familiar appeal to the Old Testament, and striking illustrations drawn from it—the same occasional recurrence to personal authority and inspired warrant, in a mighty and irresistible éyé or dnt —the same irregular and inconsequent syntax, as if thought jostled thought—the same rich and distinctive terminology that calls the gospel vorypiov, and prefixes wdovdTos to so many of its blessings; that includes dccacocvvn, riotis, KAHoLS, Katadrayn, and fw among its distinctive doctrines; that places viobecia, oixoSoun, avaxalvwors, and tpocaywyy amont its choicest privileges ; that gives Jesus the undivided honour of owtyp, Kepary, KUpios, and xpiTys; and in its ethics ITS PAULINE SPIRIT AND STYLE. Xxxix opposes mvedpa to cap, finds its standard in voyos, its power in aya7n, and its reward in éA7is with its rich and eternal «Anpovopla. The style and theology of Paul are the same here as elsewhere; and we are struck with the same lofty genius and .fervid eloquence; the same elevated and self- - denying temperament; the same throbbings of a noble and yearning heart; the same masses of thought, luminous and many-tinted, like the cloud which glows under the reflected splendours of the setting sun; the same vigorous mental grasp which, amidst numerous digressions, is ever easily connecting truths with first principles—all these, the results of a master mind into which nature and grace had poured in royal pro- fusion their rarest and richest endowments. If, therefore, there be generic sameness in the two epistles to Ephesus and Colosse, it is only in keeping; but if there be specific difference, it is only additional resemblance. If there should be thirty-eight Graf Xeydpeva in this epistle, there are forty in the first two chapters of Colossians, above a hundred in Romans, and no less than two hundred and thirty in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. (See our Introduction to Colossians.) The writer does use some peculiar terms, but why not? Might there not be many reasons in the modes of - thought and speech peculiar to Ephesus, and perfectly familiar to the apostle, that led him to use in this epistle such words and phrases as év Tois érrovpavioss, i. 3, 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, vi. 12 ; Ta Tvevpatixa, Vi. 12; diadBonros, iv. 27, vi. 11; Koopoxpdtwp, vi. 12; cwrnproy, vi. 16 ; oixovopla, i. 10, iii. 2,9; puornpror, v.32; mrnpwpa, i. 23; evroyia, i. 3; alwy, ii. 2; meperroinacs, i. 14; apOapoia, vi. 24; pavOdver, iv. 20; dwrlSer, iii. 9 ; mdnpovabar ev, v. 18; and es, iii, 19; Baoireia tod Oeod Kal Xpiotod, v.5; 7o OéAnpa tod Kuplov, v.17. The forms of construction excepted against are without any difficulty, such as fa with the optative, i. 17, iii. 16; tore ryiv@a KOVTES, _v. 5; and ta goBfra, v. 33. Nor is there any stronger proof of spuriousness in the want of the article in the instances adduced by the objector. Any forger who had studied the apostle’s style, could easily have avoided such little singu- latities. In fine, what de Wette calls pleonasms (Breite und Pleonasmus), as in i. 19, vi. 10, are clauses where each word has its distinctive meaning ; various relations and aspects of xl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. one great idea being set out in their connection or develop- ment. And if the epistle be a forgery, it is a base one, for the author of it distinctly and frequently personates the apostle —“TI Paul”—“TI Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ,” ete. Indeed, the imitation is so good, that de Wette ascribes it to the first century, and to a pupil of the apostle’s. We can scarcely suppose that an imposition so gross could be associated with a genius so lofty as that which has composed such a letter. Nor can we imagine that the Ephesian church would not detect the plagiarism. This “discerning of spirits” was one of their special gifts, for the keen and honest exercise of which the Saviour eulogizes them when he says: “Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, but hast found them liars.” Rev. ii. 2. There is, as we have said, that natural difference of style which arises from difference of subject and situation, in itself a proof of Pauline authorship. But we deny that there is any inferiority, such as de Wette complains of, or any of that verbosity, tedious and imperfect illustration, or superfluity of terms which are adduced by him as objections. The style betokens fulness of thought and a rich mind. There is order without system, reasoning without technical argument, pro- gress without syllogistic landmarks, the connection free and pliant as in a familiar letter—all converging on one great end, and yet with a definite aim in the several parts. The imme- diate terms are clear and precise, and yet the thoughts are superposed— ‘* With many a winding bout In linked sweetness long-drawn out.” Each surge may be gauged, but the advancing tide is beyond measurement. Therefore the attack of de Wette, faintly responded to by Usteri in his preface to his Pawlin. Lehrbegriff, is wholly unwarranted. It is based upon critical caprice, and upon a restless subjectivity which gives its mere tastes the authority of argument. Though so often self-deceived and exposed, it still deludes itself with a consciousness of immense superi- ority, as if in possession of a second and subtle inspiration. We place in opposition to de Wette’s opinion the following testimonies :— J a i li i! a o ANSWER TO DE WETTE. . xii Chrysostom, no mean judge of a Greek style, says in his preface to his Commentary, that as Ephesus was a place of intellectual eminence—rtadra 6é jyiv oy ads elpntas, ddr’ @orte SeiEat, bts trordHs eer TH Tlavrw orrovdijs pos éxelvous ypadhovts. Aéyerar 5é cal ta Babvtepa tev vonuatwv avTois eurristedaar ate On KaTnynpévos. “Eats 5€ vonuatwy peor n émiatorAn iynrav cal Soypdtwov .. . Kai invnrav ododpa yénet TOV vonudTwv Kal brepoyxwov. “A yap undapod cyedov ébbeyEato taita évtavOa Syrot. “Paul would necessarily take great pains and trouble in writing to the Christians there. He is said to have intrusted them with his profoundest conceptions, as they had been already so highly instructed, and the epistle is full of lofty conceptions and doctrines,” ete. Jerome says in his preface—Nune ad Ephesios transeundum est, mediam apostoli epistolam, ut ordine ita et sensibus. Mediam autem dico, non quo primas sequens, extremis major sit, sed quomodo cor animalis in medio est, ut ex hoc intelligatis quantis difficultatibus, et quam profundis quastionibus involuta sit. Erasmus testifies—Jdem in hac epistola Pauli fervor, eadem profunditas, idem omnino spiritus ac pectus. Passing Luther and others, we refer to Witsius, who adds in his Meletemata Leidensia (p. 192), in higher phraseology—Ita vero universam religionis Christiane summam divina hac epistola expontt, ut exuberantem quandam non sermonis tantum LEvangelici mappnaiay, sed et Spiritus Sancti vim et sensum, et charitatis Christiane flammam quandam ex electo illo pectore emicantem, et lucis divine fulgorem quendam admirabilem inde elucentem, et fontem aque vive inde scaturientem, aut ebullientem potius, animadvertere liceat: idque tantd copia, ut superabundans ila cordis plenitudo, ipsa animi sensa intimosque conceptus, con- ceptus autem verba prolata, verba denique priora quaque subsequentia, premant, urgeant, obruant. Grotius, too, no enthu- siast, thus describes it—Rerum sublimitatem adaquans verbis sublimioribus quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana, “In this,” says Coleridge, “the divinest composition of man, is every doctrine of Christianity, first, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and secondly, those precepts common to it with natural religion.” able Talk, p. 82: London, 1851. Similar testimonies might be taken from Eichhorn’s Einleitung, and from the prefaces of several of the commentators. xlil. THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. The attack upon the genuineness of this epistle (or rather both epistles, for Colossians is set aside as well as Ephesians) by the Tiibingen school of criticism is of a different nature. Their idea is, that the epistle is a composition of the second cen- tury, and that it had its origin in the Valentinian Gnosticism. Baur,’ the Corypheus of the party, has openly maintained the extraordinary hypothesis. Schwegler,? Zeller, and Schneckenburger have gone beyond their master in extrava- gance; while Bruno Bauer® has surpassed them all in anti- Pauline bitterness and absurdity. This hypothesis has its origin in the leading error of the Tiibingen school, viz., that the original type of Christianity was nothing more than Ebionitism, and that its expansion by the apostle of the Gentiles was in direct antagonism to Peter, James, and the rest of the apostolical college. In proof, it is maintained that John, in speaking of only twelve apostles, in the Apocalypse, xxi. 14, excludes Paul from the sacred number, and that he praises these very Ephesians for having sifted and rejected his claims, when he says: “Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, but hast found them liars.” It is surely needless to dwell on the refutation of such an uncritical statement. An excellent reply to the whole delusion will be found in a recent work of Lechler, Das Apostolische und Nachapostolische Zeitalter, etc., 2nd ed. Stuttgart, 1857. In fact, the entire theory is a huge anachronism. The Gnosticism of the second century was not wholly unchristian either in idea or nomenclature, but it took from Scripture whatever in thought or expression suited its specious theosophy, and borrowed such materials toa large extent from the epistles of the New Testament.* Such a procedure may be plainly proved. The same process has been repeated in various forms, and in more recent times in Germany itself. The inference is not, as the critics hold, that the Epistles to Colosse and 1 Der Apostel Paulus, sein Leben und Wirken, etc., p. 420, etc., Stuttgart, 1845; or his Kritische Miscellen zum Epheserbrief, in Zeller’s Theolog. Jahrb. 1844, p. 378. Baur died in December 1860. * Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, etc. ii, 325, 326. Tiibingen, 1846, passim. ® Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, iii. p. 101. Berlin, 1852. * De Origine Ep. ad Coloss, et Eph. acriticis Tubingensibus e Gnosi Valentiniana deducta. Scripsit Albertus Kloepper, Theol. Lic. Gryphie, 1853. ev ft ~~ = OBJECTIONS OF BAUR. xiiii Ephesus are the product of Gnosticism in array against Ebionitism, but only that the Gnostic sophists gilded their speculations with biblical phraseology. As well, were it not for the long interval of centuries, might we infer that the pantheism of Strauss originated no little of the language of the Apostle John, rather than was copied from it ; or that the Book of Mormon was the source of the original Scripture, and not, as it is, a clumsy and recent caricature. We may well ask—How could a document so distinctly Gnostic be accepted by the church, which was ever in conflict with Gnosticism ? Baur and his followers hold that this epistle is a Gnostic effusion, because of its exalted views of the person and reign of Christ, its allusions to various ranks in the heavenly hierarchy, its repeated employment of the term 7Anpwpa and its allied verb, and its doctrine of the re-capitulation of all things in Christ, as if such teaching and even diction were not common in Paul’s acknowledged epistles addressed to European churches." Thus the Christology is offensive to Baur, Eph. i, 20, though the idea is found in 1 Cor. xv. 24. Why should not the apostle develop his ideas more fully on some points, in addressing churches in a region where errors on the same point might soon intrude? What connection have Gnostic zons—shadowy and impalpable emanations from the Bythos or from one another—with those thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, over which Christ Jesus presides as Governor. Nay, the Gnostics distinguished Christ and Jesus as wons; the former having, in fact, sent the latter as Saviour. The theosophic speculations of the Valentinians are applied by Baur to the term mArpwpya, in a way that is wholly unwarranted by its occurrence in both epistles. In this epistle the term is applied to time, as marked out by God, and so fulfilled or filled up; to the church as filled by Christ, and to God as denoting His spiritually perfect nature; and to Christ in the phrase, “the stature of the fulness of Christ.” But in such phrases there is no allusion to any metaphysical notion of the Absolute, either to what contains it or what is contained in it. Most certainly in the nuptial illustrations, v. 25, ete. there is no reference to male and female #ons, or to the Suzygies of the Valentinian system—such as that of 1 Rabiger, De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium. Vratislavim, 1852. xliv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, the Aoyos with fw7 from whom were generated advOpw7ros and exxAnola, as if the relation of Christ to His church were a similar relation—absolute essence realizing and developing itself in a concrete Being, as the wife is the complement of the man—x«ara ovfvylav. One may indeed wonder how Baur could dream that in iii. 10——“ that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God ”—was contained the Gnostic idea of the won codia struggling to be united with Bu@os, and her final return to the 7Ajpwpa through the cvfvyia between Christ and His éxxAnoia. Or who besides Baur could imagine that in the phrases—xarta tov aid@va Tov KOGMLOU TOUTOU ; Eis TaTAaS TAS YEvEasS TOD aidvos TAY al@vwn ; mpoleots THY aiwvwv—there is a reference to the relation which the Gnostic eons sustained to God, as the primal extra- temporal unity of time individualizing Himself in them as periods, or to their relation to another in sexual union and development? Nay more, in the phrases—“ as is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets—ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets”—the quick eye of Baur discovers traces of Montanism—because in it prophets had a high and honoured place as the organs of divine com- munication. So that in his opinion the man who wrote those phrases must have lived at a period when so-called prophets enjoyed apostolic honour, and thus unconsciously betrays himself and the lateness of his time. As if in Acts, Romans, and 1st Corinthians there were no allusion to this class of men, or as if all those documents too had a post-apostolic origin ! And then Baur would require to tell us how two systems so opposed as Montanism and Gnosticism could thus coalesce in the same epistle. The epithet dyios applied to the apostles and prophets, betrays, according to de Wette also, a late origin, and the writer manifests his lateness by his anxiety to identify himself and exalt himself—as an apostle, a prisoner for the Gentiles—a minister, less than the least of all saints —and ambassador in chains. What is this objection but dictating to the apostle how he shall write when an old man in a prison, what amount of personal reference shall go into his letters, or how large or small shall be the subjective elements in his communication to any particular community, ———EE——— REFUTATION OF BAUR. xlv and through it to all churches and for all time? The expression—“ less than the least of all saints "—is in no way inconsistent with such an exalted assertion as—* by revelation he made known unto me the mystery;” for this refers to official function, and that only to personal emotion. A more decided contrast is found in 1 Cor. xv. 9—“the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle;” and 2 Cor. xi. 5—“I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” Surely, then, the resemblance which the subsequent Gnosticism bears to these doctrines in its theosophy and angelology, isa proof that it borrowed the shadowy likeness, but no proof that out of it were manufactured the apostolic documents. In fine, the whole scheme has been overwhelmed with confusion; for it has been proved by citations from Hippolytus,’ that some books of the New Testament are quoted by him more than half a century before these Tiibingen critics dated or allowed of their existence. I1V.—RELATIONSHIP OF THE EPISTLES TO EPHESUS AND COLOSSE., The letters of the apostle are the fervent outburst of pastoral zeal and attachment, written without reserve and in unaffected simplicity. Sentiments come warm from the heart without the shaping out, pruning, and punctilious arrangement of a formal discourse. There is such a fresh and familiar transcription of feeling, and so much of con- versational frankness and vivacity, that the reader associates the image of the writer with every paragraph, and his ear seems to catch and recognize the very tones of oral address, These impressions must have been deepened by the thought that the letter came from “such an one as Paul the aged,” often a sufferer, and now a prisoner. If he could not speak, he wrote ; if he could not see them in person, he despatched to them those silent messengers of love. Is it then any matter of amazement that one letter should resemble another, or that two written about the same time should have so much in common, and each at the same time so much that is 1 Bunsen’s Hippolytus, vol. i. Pref. London, 1852. xlvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. peculiar? The close relationship between the epistles to. Colosse and Ephesus must strike every reader, and the question has been raised, which of them is the earlier pro- duction. The answer is one very much of critical taste, and therefore different decisions have been given. A great host of names, which the reader will find in Davidson’s Introdue- tion, are in favour of the letter to Ephesus; but others, and these including Meyer, Harless, Wieseler, and Olshausen, declare for that to Colosse. Neander says—Und daraus erhellt auch, dass er den Brief an die Colosser zuerst unter diesen beiden geschreiben hat ; denn in demselben zeigen sich uns diese Gedanken in threr urspriing- lichen Entstehung und Beziehung, wie sie durch den Gegensatz gegen gene in diesem Briefe von thm bekiimpfte Sekte hervor- gerufen wurden. Creschichte der Pflanzung, etc., vol. i. p. 524, 4th ed. That is—*In the epistle to the Colossians the apostle’s thoughts exhibit themselves in their original form and connection, as they were called forth by his opposition to the sect (of Judaizing Gnostics) whose sentiments and prac- | tices he combats in that epistle.” Little stress can be laid on such an argument, for whenever the mind assumes an agonistic attitude, its thoughts have always more vigour and specialty, more pith and keenness, than when in calm- ness and peace it discusses any ordinary and impersonal topic. Harless and Wiggers have fixed upon Eph. vi. 21, com- pared with Col. iv. 8. In Colossians the apostle says of Tychicus, “Whom I have sent unto you that he might know your estate.” But in Ephesians he adds—xai, “that ye also may know my affairs, and what I am doing, Tychicus, a beloved brother, shall make known to you all things.” In using the word “ also,” the apostle seems to refer to what he had said to the Colossians. Naturally he first says to the Colossians, “that ye may know,” but in a second letter to the Ephesians, “ that ye also may know.” This hypothesis takes for granted that the Ephesians would know what was con- tained in the letter to Colosse, or at least that Tychicus would inform them of its existence, and of its reference to himself as the bearer of personal and private tidings of the apostle. The kat, however, may refer not to the Colossians, but to the apostle himself—as Alford puts it—*“I have been going at QUESTION OF PRIORITY. xlvii length into the matters concerning you, so if you also on your part wish to know my matters,” etc. The argument from «ai, therefore, cannot be conclusively relied on. On the other hand, it is contended by Hug and others, that the absence of Timothy’s name in the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians is a strong proof in favour of its priority. Various solutions have been given; one probability is, that Timothy was absent on some important embassy. These critics suppose that he had not by this time come to Rome, but did arrive ere Paul composed the Epistle to Colosse. This circum- stance is too precarious for an argument to be founded upon it. Efforts have been also made to demonstrate the priority of _ the Epistle to the Ephesians, from its containing no expression of any hopes of deliverance, and no reference to the success of the gospel, whereas these occur in the Epistle to the Philip- pians, written about the same time. But neither in Colossians are there any such intimations, and in the letter to Philemon, which Onesimus carried to him, as both he and Tychicus carried theirs to the Colossians, he says, generally—‘“I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.” The question can scarce be solved on such data. It may be tried by another criterion. Supposing Paul to be in imprisonment, which of these two churches would he most probably write to, which of them stood most in need of an epistle, which of them was in circumstances most likely to attract the immediate attention of the prisoner—that of Ephesus or that of Colosse? Lardner has virtually laid down such a test. There might be many considerations inducing the apostle to write to the Ephesians soon after his arrival at Rome. Ephesus was a place of great importance and traffic, and in it Paul had stayed longer than in any other city, except Antioch. Here also he had wrought many and special miracles, and had enjoyed great success in his preaching. He had on a previous occasion determined to sail by Ephesus, and when he came to Miletus “he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church.” These things may have induced him to write first to Ephesus on his coming to Rome, and having liberty of correspondence. But we might thus reply to these state- ments. The Ephesian church had preserved its faith unsullied, for no reproof or warning is contained in the xlviii THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. epistle. They stood in no immediate need of apostolic correspondence. No difficulty pressed them, for none is solved. No heresy had crept in among them, for none is refuted. But Colosse was threatened by a false system, which would corrupt the simplicity of the gospel, which had in it the elements of discord and ruin, but which had a peculiar charm for the contemplative inhabitants of Phrygia, so prone to mysticism, and therefore would be the more seductive to the church of Colosse, and the more calculated to work havoc among its members. This being known to the apostle, such a jeopardy being set before him, would he not at once write to Colosse, expose the false system, warn against it, and exhort the adherents of Christianity to a stedfast profession? Would he not feel an immediate necessity for his interference, would not the case appear to his mind more urgent, and having more claim on his labour than the church of Ephesus, where truth was yet kept pure, and the fire on the altar ascended with a steady brilliancy? Thus, of such an argument as that of Lardner no advantage can be taken. Still, balancing probabilities in a matter where facts cannot be fully ascertained, we may incline to the opinion that the earlier epistle is that to the Colossians. The following table will point out the similarities between the two epistles :— Eph. i. 1, with Col. i. 1. Eph. iv. 15, with Col. ii. 19. a S ie sean So wive tory | 5 it, 1 — i. 3, — —i.3. — iv.22, — — iii. 8. eee te er ots ah tS Saye 2b, Pe — 1.10, — — i. 20. — iv. 29, — — iii.8;iv.6. — 115-17, — — i. 3, 4. — iv.31, — — iii. 8. oe a | a ee op Save ats) ae en — i. 21, — — i. 16. — v.3, — — iii. — i, 22, — — i 18. —- v. 4, — — iil. 8. — it 1,12, — — i. 21. — v.5, — — iii. 5, —- ii. 5, — — ii 13 — v. 6, — — iii. 6. — i. 15, — — ii. 14, — v.15, — — iv. 5. — ii. 16, — — i. 20. — v.19, — — iii. 16. ee | ae ee eee ee cod Seed = ces een AS — iii. 2, — — iL 25. — v. 25, — — iii. 19, — iii. 3, — — i, 26. — vil, — — iii. 20. — iii. 7, — — i, 23, 25. — vi. 4, — — iii, 21. — iii. 8, — — i, 27. — vi. 5, — — iii. 22. — iv.l, — — i. 10. — vi. 9, — — iv. 1, — iv. 2, — — iii. 12. — vi.l8, — — iv. 2 — iv. 3, — — iii. 14. — vii21— — iv. 7. | PLACE AND DATE. xlix Not a few of these similarities are but accidental, and those which really deserve the name are corroborative proofs of genuineness. V.—PLACE AND DATE OF ITS COMPOSITION. The usual opinion has been that the epistle was written in Rome. Some of the later German critics, however, have concluded that Ceesarea was the place of composition. Schulz in the Studien und Kritiken, 1829, p. 612, first broached this hypothesis, and he has been followed by Schneckenburger, Bottger, Reuss,’ Wiggers, and even by Schott, Thiersch,? and Meyer. We find that Paul when in Cesarea was subjected to very rigorous confinement. His own countrymen were bigoted and violent, and only his friends might come and minister unto him. Intercourse with other churches seems to have been entirely prohibited. On the other hand, in Rome the watch and ward, unstimulated by Jewish malice, were not so strict. The apostle might preach, and labour to some extent in his spiritual vocation. Again, Onesimus was with the apostle, a fugitive slave who would rather run and hide himself in the crowds of Rome, than flee to Csarea where he might be more easily detected. Aristarchus and Luke were at Rome too, but there is no proof of their being with Paul at Caesarea. Besides, we have mention of the palace and “ Czesar’s house- hold.” We cannot be brought to believe by all Bottger's reasoning, that such an expression might apply to Herod's royal dwelling in Caesarea. Surely Herod’s house could never receive the lofty appellation of Cesar’s. Antiquity, with the probability of fact, supports the notion that Rome was the place where the epistle was composed. Those who contend for Cesarea lay stress on the distance of Asia Minor from Rome, and on the omission of the name of Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephesians, as if, setting out from Casarea, the bearer of the letter would arrive at Colosse first, and Onesimus delivering himself up to his master, would not proceed with Tychicus onward to Ephesus. But there were peculiar " Geschichte d. Heil. Schrift. Novi Testamenti, § 114. 2 Die Kirche in der Apostolischen Zeitalter, etc., p. 17. Frankfart, 1852. ] THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. reasons for commending Onesimus to the Colossian church. His flight and conversion would make him notorious and suspected. Besides, as Paul says, he was one of themselves, and if he touched at Ephesus first, he needed no formal introduction, being in the society of Tychicus. Emphasis is laid on the phrase pos #pav, “for a season,” as if it signified “soon,” and referred to the period elapsing between the flight of the slave and his reaching Paul, as if such brevity would be realized more likely at Cesarea than Rome. But, as has been answered, the phrase qualifies éywpic@n, and denotes that his separation from his master was only temporary. On the whole, the argument preponderates in favour of Rome as the place whence this epistle was despatched, and probably about the year 62.’ From the metropolis of the world, where luxury was added to ambition, and licentiousness bathed in blood, an obscure and imprisoned foreigner composes this sublime treatise, on a subject beyond the mental range of the wisest of Western sages, and dictates a brief system of ethics, which in purity, fulness, and symmetry eclipses the boasted “Morals” of Seneca, and the more laboured and rhetorical disquisitions of Cicero. VI.—OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. The design of the apostle in writing to the Ephesian church was not polemical. In Colossians, theosophic error is pointedly and firmly refuted; but in Ephesians, principles are laid down which might prove a barrier to its introduction. The apostle indeed, in his farewell address at Miletus, had a sad presentiment of coming danger. Acts xx. 29, 30—“For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” But the epistle has no distinct allusion to such spiritual mischief and disturbance. In 2nd Timothy, too, the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus is referred to, while Phygellus and Hermogenes are said to have deserted the 1Graul, De Sententia scripsisse Paulum suas ad Ephes. Coloss. Philem. Epistolas, in Cesareensi Captivitate. Lipsie, 1836. OBJECT AND CONTENTS. li apostle at Rome. In the apocalyptic missive addressed to Ephesus as the first of the seven churches, no error is specified ; but the grave and general charge is one of spiritual declension. The epistle before us may therefore be regarded as prophylactic more than corrective in its nature. What the immediate occasion was, we know not; possibly it was gratifying intelligence from Ephesus. It seems as if the heart of the apostle, fatigued aud dispirited with the polemical argument and warning to the Colossians, enjoyed a cordial relief and satisfaction in pouring out its inmost thoughts on the higher relations and transcendental doctrines of the gospel. The epistle may be thus divided :— I. The salutation, i 1, 2. II. A general description of Divine blessing enjoyed by the church in its source, means, purpose, and final result; wound up with a prayer for further spiritual gifts, and a richer and more penetrating Christian experience, and concluding with an expanded view of the original condition and present honours and privileges of the Ephesian church, i. 3—23, and ii. 1-11. III. A record of that marked change in spiritual position which the Gentile believers now possessed, ending with an account of the writer's selection to and qualification for the apostolate of heathendom, a fact so considered as to keep them from being dispirited, and to lead him to pray for enlarged spiritual benefactions on his absent sympathizers, ii. 12-22, and iii. 1-21. IV. A chapter on the unity of the church in its foundation and doctrine, a unity undisturbed by diversity of gifts, iv. 1-17. V. Special injunctions variously enjoined, and bearing upon ordinary life, iv. 17-32, v. 1-33, vi. 1-10. VI. The image of a spiritual warfare, mission of Tychicus, and valedictory bless- ing, vi 11-24. The paragraphs of this epistle could be sent to no church partially enlightened, and but recently emerged from heathendom. The church at Ephesus was, however, able to appreciate its exalted views. And therefore are those rich primary truths presented to it, tracing back all to the Father's eternal and benignant will as the one origin; to the Son's mediation and blood as the one channel, union with Him being the one sphere; and to the Spirit’s abiding work and influence as the one inner power; while the grand end of the provision of salvation and the organization and blessing of the lii THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. church is His own glory in all the elements of its fulness, The purpose of the apostle seems to be—to refresh the con- sciousness of the church by the retrospect which he gives of their past state and God’s past sovereign mercy, and by the prospect which he sets out of spiritual development crowned with perfection in Him in whom all things are re-gathered— as well as by the vivid and continual appeal to present grace and blessing which edges all the paragraphs. Whatever emotions the church of Ephesus felt on receiving such a communication, the effects produced were not perma- nent. Though warned by its Lord, it did not return to its “first love,” but gradually languished and died. The candle- stick was at length removed out of his place, and Mahometan gloom overspread the city. The spot has also become one of external desolation. The sea has retired from the harbour, and left behind it a pestilential morass. Fragments of columns, arches, and porticos are strewn about, and the wreck and rubbish of the great temple can scarcely be distinguished. The brood of the partridge nestles on the site of the theatre, the streets are ploughed by the Ottoman serf, and the heights of Coressus are only visited by wandering flocks of goats. The best of the ruins—columns of green jasper—were trans- planted by Justinian to Constantinople, to adorn the dome of the great church of Sancta Sophia, and some are said to have been carried into Italy. A straggling village of the name of Ayasaluk, or Asalook, is the wretched representative of the great commercial metropolis of Ionia. While thousands in every portion of Christendom read this epistle with delight, there is no one now to read it in the place to which it was originally addressed. Truly the threatened blight has fallen on Ephesus.’ VII.—WORKS ON THE EPISTLE. The principal writers on the literature of the epistle have already been mentioned in the course of the previous pages. Several ancient expositions of the epistle have been lost; for Jerome makes mention of one by Origen, of another by Apol- 1 On the present state of Ephesus, the travels of Ainsworth and Fellowes, and the work of Arundel On the Seven Churches, may be read with advantage. ee —_s + — Ss - - -— COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE. liii linaris of Laodicea, and of a third by Didymus of Alexandria. Among the Fathers we have the twenty-four homilies of Chry- sostom, and the commentaries of his followers Theodoret, (Ecumenius, and Theophylact. We have often referred to these, and to others in Cramer’s Catena, as presenting the earliest specimens of Greek commentary. The commentaries of Jerome, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster’ belong to the Latin church. Exposition was not the work of medieval times, though we have found some good notes in Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Peter Lombard, and in the Postills of Nicolas de Lyra of the fourteenth century. The expositors of the Reformation period follow: Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Bucer, and Bullinger; somewhat later among the Catholics, Kstius and a-Lapide; and among the Protestants, Zanchius, Calovius, Calixtus, Crocius, Cocceius, Piscator, Hunnius, Tar- novius, Aretius, Jaspis, Hyperius, Schmid, Roell, and Wolf— all of whom have written more or less fully on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Wetstein and Grotius follow, in another era, with several of the writers in the Critici Sacri. In England there appeared “An Entire Commentary upon the whole Epistle to the Ephesians, wherein the text is learnedly and powerfully opened, etc.—preached by Paul Bayne, sometime preacher of God’s Word at St. Andrew’s, Cambridge;” London, 1643: and “An Exposition of the First and part of the Second Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, by Thomas Goodwin, D.D., sometime President of Magdalen College in Oxford,” was published in London in 1681. In Scotland we have the Latin folio of Principal Boyd (Bodius), published at London in 1652; the Latin duodecimo of Principal Rollock, reprinted at Geneva, 1593; the Expositio Analytica of Dick- son (Professor of Theology in the University of Glasgow) on this and the other Epistles, published at Glasgow, 1645, and dedicated to the Marquis of Argyle, because his Grace had urged that the Professor should devote some portion of his course to biblical exegesis. Fergusson of Kilwinning also sent out a Brief Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, at Edinburgh, 1659. The Com- An unknown writer, so called to distinguish him from Ambrose, to whom his Commentaries were long ascribed, and with whose works they are still bound up. Many suppose him to have been Hilary the deacon. d liv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. mentaries of the Socinian Crellius and Slichtingius are con- tained in the Fratres Polont. We have also the eloquent French work of Du Bosc on a portion of the epistle, and a similar and smaller Méditation by Gauthey, published in 1852. Lardner mentions an exposition by a Dutch minister of Rotterdam, Peter Dinant, of which a flattering review appeared in the Bibliotheca Bremensis, 1721. He opposed both the theory of Grotius and Usher. We pass over the various editors of the New Testament, such as Slade, Burton, Trollope, Valpy, Grinfield, and Bloomfield ; and the numerous annotators and collectors of illustrations, such as Elsner, Kypke, Krebs, Knatchbull, Loesner, Kiittner, Raphelius, Palairet, Bos, Heinsius, Alberti, Keuchenius, Dougtzeus, and Cameron, pronounced by Bishop Hall, the most learned man that Scotland ever produced. We have not space to charac- terize Hammond, Chandler, Whitby, Callander, Locke, Dod- dridge, A. Clarke, Macknight, Peile, and Barnes, and the more popular works on this epistle by Lathrop, M‘Ghee, Evans, Eastbourne, and Pridham. We hasten to specify the recent German commentaries. From that prolific nation of scholars and critics we have not only such works as those of Morus, Flatt, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, von Gerlach, Kiihler, and others, but we have the following formal and specific exposi- tions on this epistle. Simply mentioning the comments of Spener (1730), of Baumgarten (Halle, 1767), of Schutz (Leipzig, 1778), of Miiller (Heidelberg, 1793), and of Krause (Leipzig, 1789), we refer especially to the following: Cramer, neue Uebersetzung des Briefes an die Epheser nebst einer Ausle- gung desselben. Kiel, 1782. MHolzhausen, der Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Epheser tibersett und erklirt. Han- nover, 1833. Riickert, der Brief Pauli an die Epheser erléutert und vertheidigt. Leipzig, 1834.. Matthies, Lrkldrung des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. Greifsvald, 1834. Meier, Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. Berlin, 1834. Harless, Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. Erlangen, 2nd ed. 1860. Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar, vol.iv. Konigsberg, 1840. Meyer, Kritisch exegetischer Com- mentar tiber das N. T.; Achte Abtheilung Kritisch Ezxegetisches Handbuch iiber den Brief an die Epheser. Gottingen, 1859, De Wette, Exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. vol. ii, Leipzig, COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE. lv 1843. Passavant, Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. Basel, 1836. Catena in Sancti Pauli Epist. in Gal. Ephesios, ete., ed. Cramer. Oxon. 1842. Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser, von 1. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius, ed. Kimmel and Schauer. Jena, 1847. Stier, Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. Berlin, 1848.1 Bisping, Erkldrung der Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper, ete. Miinster, 1855. To these must be added the following recent English and American writers :— Turner, The Epistle to the Ephesians in Greek and English. New York, 1856. Alford, Greek Testament, vol. iii. London, 1856. Hodge, A Com- mentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. New York, 1856. Ellicott, A Criticul and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 2d ed. London, 1859. Words- worth, Greek Testament, part iii. London, 1859. Newland, A New Catena on St. Paul’s Epistles—a Practical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians, Oxford and London, 1860. NOTE. In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthia, Kiihner, Madvig, Kriiger, Bernhardy, Schmalfeld, Scheuerlein, Donald- son, Jelf, Winer, Rost, Alt, Stuart, Green, and Trollope are simply quoted, the reference is to their respective Greek grammars; and when Suidas, Hesychius, Passow (ed. Rost Palm, etc.), Robinson, Pape, Wilke, Wahl, Bretschneider, Liddell and Scott, are named, the reference is to their respec- tive lexicons. If Hartung be found without any addition, we mean his Lehre von den Partikeln der Griechischen Sprache, 2 vols. Erlangen, 1832. The majority of the other names are those of the commentators or philologists enumerated in the previous chapter, or authors whose works are specified. The references to Tischendorf’s New Testament are to the seventh edition. 1 In Tholuck’s Anzeiger for 1838 occurs a series of reviews of the commentaries of Matthies, Meier, Riickert, Holzhausen, and Harless, written, we believe, by Prof. Baumgarten, late of Rostock. COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS. CHAPTER I. THE first paragraph of the epistle introduces, according to ancient usage, the name and title or office of the writer, and concludes with a salutation to the persons addressed, and for whom the communication is intended.! (Ver. 1.) IIabndos, arroctoros Xpictod 'Inood,—* Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus.” The signification of the term ade- todos will be found under chap. iv. 11. While the genitive Xpictod ’Incod is that of possession, and not of ablation, yet naturally, and from its historical significance, it indicates the source, dignity, and functions of the apostolical commission, Acts xxvii. 23. Though, as Harless suggests, the idea of - authorization often depends on some following clause, yet the genitive apparently includes it—the idea of authority being involved in such possession, This formal mention of his official relation to Jesus Christ is designed to certify the truth and claims of the following chapters. On similar occasions he sometimes designates himself by a term which has in it an allusion to the special labours which his apostleship involved, for he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ,’ Rom. i. 1; Phil. i. 1; Tit. i 1. See under Col. i. 1; and especially under Phil. i. 1 :— Sia Oernpatos Ocodv—“ by the will of God.” The prepo- _ sition cd points out the efficient cause. The apostle is fond of recurring to the truth expressed in this clause, 1 and 2 Cor. i.1; CoLi.1; 2 Tim. i. 1. Sometimes the idea is varied, as kat’ éritayiv Qeov, in 1 Tim. i. 1; and to give it intensity other adjuncts are occasionally employed, such as «Antdés in l"Apy ator ibog ed imiororais weorritivas vd xaigur,—Suidas, A 2 EPHESIANS I. 1. tom. 1. 1; 1 Cor.i.1. The notion of Alford, hinted at by Bengel in his reference to vers. 5, 9, 11, that the phrase may have been suggested “by the great subject of which he is about to treat,” is not sustained by analogous instances. It is added by the apostle generally, as the source and the seal of his office, and not inserted as an anticipative thought, prompted by the truth on which his mind was revolving. For his was no daring or impious arrogation of the name and honours of the apostolate; and that “will” according to which Paul became an apostle, had signally and suddenly evinced its origin and power. The great and extraordinary fact of his conversion involved in it both a qualification for the apostle- ship and a consecration to it—ets ods éyo oe atmooTédAw, Acts xxvi. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8. It was by no deferred or cir- cuitous process that he came at length to learn and believe that God had ordained him as an apostle; but his convictions upon this point were based from the first on his own startled and instructive experience, which, among other elements of self-assurance, included in it the memory of that blinding splendour which enveloped him as he approached Damascus on an errand of cruelty and blood; of the tenderness and majesty of that voice which at once reached and subdued his heart ; of the surprising agony which seized and held him till Ananias brought him spiritual relief; and of the subsequent theological tuition which he enjoyed in no earthly school. Gal. i. 11, 12; 1 Tim. i 11-13. So that writing to the churches of Galatia, where his apostleship had been under- rated if not denied, he says, with peculiar edge and precision, “ Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Christ Jesus and God the Father.” Gal. i, 1. This epistle is addressed — Tos aylous Tois ovow év "Edéow—“ to the saints that are in Ephesus.” “Aros, as a characteristic appellation of the Christian church, occurs first in Acts ix. 13. The word, rarely used by the Attic writers, who employ the kindred adjective dyvos, is allied to dfouat and dyapar, and signifies one devoted or set apart to God. Porson, Adversaria, p. 139 ; Buttmann, Levilogus, sub voce. This radical meaning is clearly seen in the related ayudfw, in such passages as Matt. xxiii, 17; John x. 36, xvii. 17. It is not, however, to classic EPHESIANS I. 1. 3 usage that we are to trace the special meaning of &y:os in the New Testament, but to its employment in the Septuagint as the Greek representative of the Hebrew wp, Deut. xxxiii. 3. This notion of consecration is not, as Robinson seems to intimate, founded on holiness; for persons or things became holy in being set apart to God, and, from this association of ideas, holiness was ascribed to the tabernacle, with its furniture, its worshippers, and its periods of service. The idea of inner sanctity contained in the expressive epithet originates, therefore, in the primary sense of unreserved and exclusive devotement to Jehovah. Nor, on the other hand, can we accede to the opinion of Locke and Harless, that the word has no reference in itself to internal character, for consecration to God not only implied that the best of its kind was both claimed by Him and given to Him, but it also demanded that the hal- lowed gift be kept free from sacrilegious stain and debasement. So that, by the natural operation of this conservative element, holiness, in the common theological sense of the term, springs from consecration, and the “saints” do acquire personal and internal holiness from their near relation to God; the con- sciousness of their consecration having an invincible tendency to deepen and sustain spiritual purity within them. When Harless says that the notion of holiness which cannot be disjoined from a Christian G@y.os, is not got from the word, but from our knowledge of the essence of that Christian com- munity to which such a @yvos belongs, he seems to confound source and result; for one may reply that it is the @y:oe who, as such, originate the character of the Christian community, and not it which gives a character to them. The appella- tion Gyo. thus exhibits the Christian church in its normal aspect—a community of men self-devoted to God and His service. Nor does it ever seem to lose this meaning, even when used as a general epithet or in a local sense, as in Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10; Rom. xv. 25. The words ois _ ovaw év ’Edéoe, which simply indicate locality, have been already analyzed in the Prolegomena. The saints are further _ characterized— kal muotois év Xpiote@ ’Inooo—“ and believers in Christ Jesus.” These words contain an additional element of description, and the two clauses mark out the same society 4 EPHESIANS I. 1, in two special characteristics. But the meaning of miotds in this connection must first be determined. There are two classes of interpreters:—1. Such as give the adjective the sense of /idelis, “faithful,” in the modern acceptation of the English term—that is, true to their profession. Such is the view of Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Meier, and Stier. But were such a sense adopted, we must suppose the apostle either to make a distinction between two classes of persons who were or had been members of the Ephesian church, or to affirm that all of them were trusty—-were, in his judgment, persons of genuine and of untainted integrity. Did he then suppose that all the professed dyvoc were faithful? Or among the aytot did he distinguish and compliment such of them as were blessed with fidelity? The word in itself is not very deter- minate, though generally in New Testament usage muoros in the sense of faithful—jidelits—is accompanied by an accusative with é7i, or a dative with év, in reference to things over which trust has been exercised, and by the dative when the person is referred to toward whom the faithfulness is cherished. The idea of “ faithful to Christ” would have required but the simple dative, as in Heb. iii, 2. We have indeed the phrase in 1 Cor. iv. 17—ayarntov Kai mictov év Kupi¢, but there the formula, “in the Lord,” qualifies both adjectives. 2. Some give the term its active sense of “ believers,” faithful, in its original and old English meaning, faith-full—full of faith— migtos being equivalent to muctedwy, save that the adjective points to condition rather than act. Many old interpreters, such as Roell, Cocceius, Vatablus, Crellius, and Calovius, with the majority of modern interpreters, take the word in this signification. For a like use of the word in classical writers —a use common to similar verbal adjectives—see Kiihner, § 409, 3. The term motos has often this meaning, and is so rendered in our version, John xx. 27; Acts x. 45, xvi. 1; 2 Cor, vi. 15; 1 Tim. iv. 3, 10, 12, v, 16, vi. 2. It should have been so translated in other places, as Gal. iii. 9; Acts xvi. 15; Tit. i 6. The Syriac version also renders it by the participle [:S8a,owwo—believing. Hesychius defines it by ev7revO7s. The phrase is thus a second and appropriate epithet, more distinctive than the preceding, while the article is not repeated. It is a weak supposition of Morus and | , ° ; EPHESIANS I. 1. 5 Macknight, that these words were added merely for the sake of distinction, because the epithet “saints” had but the simple force of a common title in the apostolical letters. Neither do we conceive that the full force and meaning are brought out, if with some, as Beza, Bodius, a-Lapide, Calovius, and Vorstius, we take the «ai as epexegetical, and reduce the clause into a mere explanation of the preceding title, as if it stood thus—*“ To the saints in Ephesus, to wit, the believers in Christ Jesus.” For the salient point of their profession was faith in Christ Jesus, belief in the man Jesus as the Messiah, the anointed Saviour, the commissioned and success- ful deliverer of the world from all the penal effects of the fall. It was its faith specifically and definitely in Christ Jesus that distinguished the church in Ephesus from the fane of Artemis and the synagogue of the sons of Abraham. JIicros' is here followed by év referring to the object in which faith terminates and reposes ; e/s is sometimes employed, but év is found with the noun in this chapter, ver. 15; Gal. iii. 26; Col i. 4; see also Mark i. 15. The same usage is found in the Septuagint, Ps. lxxviii. 22, Jer. xii. 6, based perhaps on the Hebrew for- mula “2 fox.” Though the verbal adjective be used here in its active sense, it may therefore be followed by this preposition. If, when eés is employed, faith is usually represented as going out and leaning on its object, and if éwé expresses the additional idea of the trustworthiness of him whom we credit, then éy in the formula before us gives prominence to the notion of placid exercise, especially as é€v is not so closely attached to the ad- jective as it would be to the verb or participle if it followed either of them. Fritzsche, Comment in Marc. p. 25. The faith of the Ephesian converts rested in Jesus, in calm and _ per- 1 The disputed signification of this word affords a peculiar and curious instance of the hazard of extreme opinions. H. Stephens had affirmed in his Thesaurus that wierés is never used in an active sense, and never seems to signify one qué Jidem habet, aut etiam qui credulus est. N. Fuller in his Miscellanea Sacra, lib. i. ch. 19, maintains, in opposition to the great lexicographer, that whenever the term is applied to a Christian man—pro homine Christiano seu pio usurpatur, it invariably denotes a believer, qui credit aut fidem adhibet Deo, The usage of the New Testament in at least nineteen places, shows that it has this latter or active sense ; still, in some clauses, even when applied to Christians, it seems to bear the sense of fidelis—1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Col. iv. 9; 1 Pet. v. 12; Rev. ii. 10. Among the Greek Fathers, the word is used in both senses, as the examples adduced by Suicer, sub voce, abundantly testify. 6 EPHESIANS I. 2. manent repose. It was nota mere extended dependence placed on Him, but it had convinced itself of His power and love, of His sympathy and merits; it not only knew the strength of His arm, it had also penetrated and felt the throbbing tenderness of His heart—it was therefore in Him. There might have been agitation, anxiety, and terrible perturbation of spirit when the claims of Christ were first presented and brought into sharp conflict with previous convictions and traditionary prepossessions ; but the turmoil had subsided into quiescent and immoveable confidence in the Son of God. But does év Xpicv@ “Incod simply qualify mucrots ? or does it not also qualify ay/ous? Storr renders it—Qui Christo sacra sunt et in eum credunt. (Opuscula, ii. 121.) The phrase “saints in Christ Jesus” occurs in Phil. i. 1, and the meaning is apparent—saints in spiritual fellowship with Christ. In Col. i. 2 we have “saints and believing brethren in Christ,” where the words in question may not only qualify “ saints,” but also describe the essence and circle of the spiritual brotherhood. But we are inclined, with Jerome, Meyer, de Wette, and Ellicott, in opposition to Harless, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to restrict the words év Xpict@ Incod to muatois. The previous epithet is complete without such an addition, but this second one is not so distinctive without the supplement. The intervention of the words Tots otvow év ’Edéow separates the two phrases, and seems to mark them as independent appellations. But though grammatically they may be separate names of the same Christian community, they are essentially and theologically connected. “Nemo fidelis,” says Calvin, “nisi qui sanctus; et nemo rursum sanctus, nisi qui fidelis.” The more powerful and pervading such faith is, the more the whole inner nature is brought under its controlling and assimilating influence; the more deeply and vividly it realizes Christ in authority, example, and proprietary interest in “ the church which He has purchased with His own blood,” then the more cordial, entire, and unreserved will be the consecration. (Ver. 2.) Xdpis tpiv cal eipnrn—“Grace to you and peace.” The apostolical salutation is cordial and comprehen- sive. “Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor, greet- ing”—Paul to the Ephesians, “grace and peace.” It is far é Ip EPHESIANS I. 2. 7 more expressive than the tyaive, yaipew, or ed wpdrtew _ of the ancient classic formula. The same or similar phrase- . ology occurs in the beginning of most of the epistles. Xadpis, allied to yaipew and the Latin gratia, signifies favour, and, especially in the New Testament, divine favour — that goodwill on God’s part which not only provides and applies salvation, but blesses, cheers, and assists believers. As a wish expressed for the Ephesian church, it does not denote mercy in its general aspect, but that many-sided favour that comes in the form of hope to saints in despondency, of joy to them in sorrow, of patience to them in suffering, of victory to them under assault, and of final triumph to them in the hour of death. And so the apostle calls it yapu ets evxatpov Bonfevav—grace in order to well-timed assistance. Heb. iv. 16. Eipnvn — Peace, is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew pibvi_a term of familiar and beautiful significance. It includes every blessing—being and wellbeing. It was the formula of ordinary courtesy at meeting and parting. “Peace I leave with you,” said our Lord; but the term was no symbol of cold and formal politeness—‘ not as the world giveth, give I unto you.” John xiv. 27. The word in this connection denotes that form of spiritual blessing which keeps the heart in a state of happy repose. It is therefore but another phase, or rather it is the result, of the previous ydpes. Stier distinguishes these two blessings, as if they corresponded to the previous epithets dyios Kal muotois, grace being appropriate to the “saints,” as the first basis of their sanctification; and peace to the “faithful,” as the last aim or effect of their confidence in God. But “grace and peace” are often employed in saluta- tions where the two epithets of saints and believers in Christ Jesus do not occur, so that it would be an excess of refinement either to introduce such a distinction in this place, or to say, with the same author, that the two expressions foreshadow the dualism of the epistle—first, the grace of God toward the church, and then its faith toward Him. Nor can we, as Jerome hints, ascribe grace to the Father and peace to the Son as their separate and respective sources, A conscious posses- sion of the divine favour can alone create and sustain mental tranquillity. To use an impressive figure of Scripture, the 8 EPHESIANS I. 2. unsanctified heart resembles “the troubled sea,” in constant uproar and agitation—dark, muddy, and tempestuous; but the storm subsides, for a voice of power has cried, “ Peace, be still,’ and there is “a great calm:” the lowering clouds are dispelled, and the azure sky smiles on its own reflection in the bosom of the quiet and glassy deep. The favour of God and the felt enjoyment of it, the apostle wishes to the members of the Ephesian church in this salutation ; yea, grace and peace— amo Ocod tatpos Hwav Kai Kupiov ’Incod Xpiotoov—* from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The source of these spiritual blessings is now stated. Erasmus, Morus, and some Socinian interpreters, would understand the connection as if xupiov were governed by matpos, and not by amo— “From God our Father, the Father, too, of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This interpretation would sever Jesus from the bestowment of these blessings, as, in such an exegesis, they are supposed to descend from God, who is our Father, and who is at the same time designated as Christ’s Father. This construction is wholly unwarranted. Father and Son are both specified as the sources of grace and peace. Grace and peace are not earth-born blessings ; they descend from heaven, from God on His glorious throne, whose high prerogative it is to send down those special influences; and from Christ at His right hand, who has provided these blessed gifts by His suffer- ings and death—who died to secure, and is exalted to bestow them, and whose constant living sympathy with His people enables Him to appreciate their wants, and prompts Him out of His own fulness to supply them. God is described as our Father—juov. Our sonship will be illustrated under ver. 5. The universal Governor being the parent of believers, who have a common fatherhood in Him, grace and peace are viewed as paternal gifts. The Saviour is characterized as Lord Jesus Christ ; “ Lord,” Master, or Proprietor. ‘O «vpios is often applied to Jesus in the Pauline writings. It corresponds to the theocratic intima- tions of a king—a great king—to preside over the spiritual Sion. Ps.cx.1. Gabler, in his New Theological Journal, iv. p- 11, has affirmed, that in the New Testament «vpuos, without the article, refers to God, and that o xvpsos is the uniform appellation of Christ—a distinction which cannot be main- EPHESIANS I. 2. 9 tained, as may be seen by a reference to Rom. xv. 11; 1 Cor. x. 26; Heb. viii. 2; for in all those passages the reference is to God, and yet the article is prefixed. Winer, § 19, 1. Like @eds in many places, it is often used without the article when it refers to Christ. In about two hundred and twenty instances in the writings of Paul, «vpsos denotes the Saviour, and in about a hundred instances it is joined to His other names, as in the phrase before us. Perhaps in not more than three places, which are not quotations or based on quotations, does Paul apply xvpsos to God.’ It was a familiar and favourite designation—the exalted Jesus is “Lord of all”—“He has made Him both Lord and Christ.” He has won this Lord- ship by His blood. Phil. ii. 8,11. “ He has been exalted,” that every tongue should salute Him as Lord. 1 Cor. xii. 3. While the title may belong to Him as Creator and Preserver, it is especially given Him as the enthroned God-man, for His sceptre controls the universe. The range of that Lordship has infinitude for its extent, and eternity for its duration. The term, as Suicer quaintly remarks, refers not to ovc/a, but to éfovcla, And as He is Head of the Church, and “ Head over all things to the Church ”—its Proprietor, Organizer, Governor, Guardian, Blesser, and Judge—whose law it obeys, whose ordinances it hallows, whose spirit it cherishes, whose truth it conserves, and whose welcome to glory it anticipates and pre- pares for; therefore may He, sustaining such a relation to His spiritual kingdom, be so often and so fondly named as Lord. The apostle invokes upon the Ephesians grace and peace from the Lord Jesus Christ, whose supreme administration was designed to secure, and does actually confer, those lordly gifts. The mention of spiritual blessing fills the susceptible mind of the apostle with ardent gratitude, and incites him to praise. In his writings argument often rises into doxology—logic swells into lyrics. The Divine Source of these glorious gifts, He who gives them so richly and so constantly, is worthy of rapturous homage. They who get all must surely adore Him who gives all. With the third verse begins a sentence which terminates only at the end of the 14th verse, a sentence which _ enumerates the various and multiplied grounds of praise. These are :—holiness as the result and purpose of God's eternal 1 Stuart's Essay, Biblical Repository, vol. iv. 10 EPHESIANS I. 3. choice—adoption with its fruits, springing from the good pleasure of His will with the profuse bestowment of grace—all tracing themselves to the Father: pardon of sin by the blood of Christ—the summation of all things in Him—the interest of believers in Him—these in special connection with the Son: and the united privilege of hearing, and trusting, and being sealed, with their possession of the Earnest of future felicity—a sphere of blessing specially belonging to the Holy Ghost. Such are the leading ideas of a magnificent anthem —not bound together in philosophical precision, but each suggesting the other by a law of powerful association. The one truth instinctively gives birth to the other, and the con- nection is indicated chiefly by a series of participles. (Ver. 3.) EvAoyntos 0 Oeds xal watnp tod Kupiov nuov *Inood: Xpictod— Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The verb is usually omitted. The adjective in the doxology is placed before the substantive, because being used as a predicate, and representing an abstract quality, the emphasis lies on it. Such is the invariable usage in the Old Testament—not God is blessed, but, from the position of the words—Blessed be God, 717 772. At least thirty times does the formula occur. Ps. lxviii. 19, in the Septuagint being a mistranslation or doubled version of the Hebrew, is only an apparent exception, and the phrase, Rom. ix. 5, we do not regard as a doxology. In all the passages quoted by Ellicott after Fritzsche—Rom. ix. 5, as if they were exceptions to this rule, it is evAoynuévos and not evdoyntcs which is employed, and there is a shade of difference between the participle and the adjective—for while in the Septuagint evAoynuévos is applied to God, edvAoynrés is never applied to man. Thus in 1 Kings x. 9,2 Chron. ix. 8, which are parallel passages—ryévorro being employed in the first instance, and éotw in the second; and in Job i. 21, Ps. exii. 2, in both of which dvoua xvpiov with ein occurs, the verbs, as might be expected, are followed immediately by their nomi- natives. Evdoyntds in the New Testament is applied only to God—His is perpetual and unchanging blessedness, per- petual and unchanging claim on the homage of His creatures. Evxroynpévos is used of such as are blessed of God, and on whom blessing is invoked from Him. Matt. xxi 9; Luke i 28. EPHESIANS I. 3. 11 But the blessedness we ascribe to God comes from no foreign source; it is already in Himself, an innate and joyous possession. Paul’s epistles usually begin with a similar ascription of praise (2 Cor. i. 3). But in many cases—the majority of cases—he does not utter a formal ascription: he expresses the fact in such phrases as “I thank,” “ We thank,” “We are bound to thank ”—*“ God.” One would think that there is little dubiety in a formula so plain; for Oeds and zarnp are in apposition, and both govern the following genitive—Blessed be the God of, and the Father of, our Lord Jesus Christ. The Divine Being is both God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet there are many who sever the two nouns—disjoining Oecs from «vpiov—and so render it, Blessed be God, who is the Father of our Lord _ Jesus Christ. Theodoret, the Peschito, Whitby, and Bodius, with Harless, Meyer, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and Ellicott, are in favour of this opinion. But Jerome, Theo- phylact, Koppe, Michaelis, Riickert, Stier, Olshausen, and Alford, adhere to the former view, which we are disposed to _ adopt. The words of themselves would bear either construction, though Olshausen remarks that, to bring out the first opinion, the Greek should run evAoyntds Oeos o watyp. Theodoret capriciously inserts the adjective av in his note upon Oeos. He represents the apostle as showing—énrar, @s nuav pév €ott Oeos, tod b€ xupiov nuav matnyp, as if Paul meant to describe the Divine Being as our God and Christ’s Father. To say with Meyer that only zarnp requires a genitive and not @ecos, is mere assertion. The statement of Harless, too, that re should have been inserted before «ai, if @eos governed xupiou, appears to us to be wholly groundless, nor do the investigations of Hartung, to which ,he refers, at all sustain him. Lehre von den Partikeln der Griech. Sprache, vol. i. 125. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 25. Had the article occurred before tratnp, this particle might have been necessary; but its omission shows that the relation of @eos and wartnp is one of peculiar unity. Distinct and independent prominence is not assigned to each term. ‘Winer, § 19,3, note. Nor is there any impropriety of thought in joining Oeds with xvpfov—the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. @eds uév, says Theophylact, ws capxwOévros, matip dé ws Geod Adyou. The diction of the Greek Father, 12 EPHESIANS I. 3. in the last clause, is not strictly correct, for the correlative terms are Father, Son, aatyp, vios: God, Word, Qeos, Adyos. “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ” is a phrase which occurs also in the 17th verse of this chapter. On the cross, in the depth of His agony, the mysterious complaint of Jesus expressed the same relationship, “My God, my God.” “I ascend,” said He to Mary, “to my God and your God.” Rev. iii.12. The phrase is therefore one of scriptural use. As man, Jesus owned Himself to be the servant of God. God’s commission He came to execute, God’s law He obeyed, and God’s will was His constant Guide. As a pious and perfect man He served God, prayed to God, and trusted in God. And God, as God, stands in no distant relation to Christ—He is also His Father. The two characters are blended—‘* God and Father.”—See under ver. 17. Sonship cannot indeed imply on Christ’s part posteriority of existence or derivation of essence, for such a notion is plainly inconsistent with His supreme Divinity. The name seems to mark identity of nature and prerogative, with infinite, eternal, unchanging, and reciprocal love. Since this God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ sent Him into the world, prescribed His service of suffering and death, and accepted it as a complete atonement, it is therefore His pre- rogative to dispense the blessings so secured— 0 evAoynaas 7)}4as—* who blessed us ”—“ us,” not the apostle simply, as Koppe supposes from the contrast of dmezs in ver. 14. The persons blessed are the apostle and the members of that church addressed by him—he and they were alike recipients of divine favour. The evAoyjoas stands in ideal contrast to the evrAoyntos—God blessed us, and we bless God; but His bless- ing of us is one of deed, our blessing of Him is only in word. He makes us blessed, we pronounce Him blessed. He confers on us wellbeing, we ascribe to Him wellbeing. Ours is benedicere, His is benefacere. The participle here, as in many places, has virtually a causal significance. Kiihner, § 667, a. We bless Him because He has blessed us. As the word expresses that divine beneficence which excites our gratitude, 1 For a spirited view of the doctrine of the @sdvépwaos in the hymnology of the early Church, the reader may consult Dorner, die Lehre von der Person Christi, second edition, vol. i: p. 294. See also Thomasius, Christi Persona, etc., § 41 (1857). | EPHESIANS I. 3. 13 it must in a doxology have its widest significance. The en- raptured mind selects in such a case the most powerful and _ intense term, to express its sense of the divine generosity. As Fergusson in his own Doric says, “The apostle does not propound the causes of salvation warshly, and in a cauldrife manner : ”— év Tacn evroyia Tvevpatix7— with all spiritual blessing.” ’Ev is used in an instrumental sense, and similar phraseology in reference to God occurs in Tob. viii. 15, Jas. iii 9. evAoyia is not verbal wish expressed, but actual blessing con- ferred. The reader will notice the peculiar collocation of the three allied terms, ev-AoynTos-Aoynoas-Aoyia, a repetition not uncommon in the Hebrew Scriptures, and found occasionally among the Greek classics. The blessings are designated as spiritual, but in what sense ? 1. Chrysostom, Grotius, Aretius, Holzhausen, and Macknight suppose that the apostle intends a special and marked contrast between the spiritual blessings of the new dispensation, and the material and temporal blessings of the old economy. Temporal blessings, indeed, were of frequent promise in the Mosaic dispensation—dew of heaven, fatness of the earth, abundance of corn, wine, and oil, peace, longevity, and a flourishing household. It is true that such gifts are not now bestowed as the immediate fruits of Christ’s mediation, though, at the same time, godliness has “the promise of the life that now is.’ But mere worldly blessings have sunk into their subordinate place. When the sun rises, the stars that sparkled during night are eclipsed by the flood of superior brilliance and disappear, though they still keep their places; so the blessings of this world may now be conferred, and may now be enjoyed by believers, but under the new dispensation their lustre is altogether dimmed and absorbed by those spiritual gifts which are its profuse and distinctive endowments. If there be any reference to the temporal blessings of the Jewish covenant, it can only, as Calvin says, be “ tacita antithesis.” 2. Others regard the adjective as referring to the mind or soul of man, such as Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, Wahl, and Wilke ; while Koppe, Riickert, and Baumgarten-Crusius express & doubtful acquiescence in this opinion. This interpretation yields a good meaning, inasmuch as these gifts are adapted to 14 EPHESIANS I. 3. our inner or higher nature, and it is upon our spi7i¢ that the Holy Ghost operates. But this is not the ruling sense of the epithet in the New Testament. It is, indeed, in a generic sense opposed to capxixos in 1 Cor. ix. 11, and in Rom. xv. 27; while in 1 Cor. xv. 44-46 it is employed in contrast with wWuyveos—the one term descriptive of an animal body, and the other of a body elevated above animal functions and organization, with which believers shall be clothed at the last day. Similar usage obtains in Eph. vi. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 5; 1 Cor. x. 3,4. 3. But in all other passages where, as in this clause, the word is used to qualify Christian men, or Christian blessings, its ruling reference is plainly to the Holy Spirit. Thus—spiritual gifts, Rom. i, 11; a special endowment of the Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 1, xiv. 1, etc.; spiritual men, that is, men enjoying in an eminent degree the Spirit, 1 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 37; and also in Gal. vi. 1; Rom. vii. 14; Eph. v.19; Col. iii. 16; and in 1 Cor. ii. 13, “spiritual” means produced by or belonging to the Holy Spirit. Therefore the prevailing usage of the New Testament warrants us in saying, that these blessings are termed spiritual from their connection with the Holy Spirit. In this opinion we have the authority of the old Syriac version, which reads wso5»—“ of the Spirit;” and the concurrence of Cocceius, Harless, de Wette, Olshausen, Meier, Meyer, and Stier. The Pauline wsus loqguendi is decidedly in its favour. IIaon—“ All.” The circle is complete. No needed blessing is wanted—nothing that God has promised, or Christ has secured, or that is indispensable to the symmetry and _ perfec- tion of the Christian character. And those blessings are all in the hand of the Spirit. Christianity is the dispensation of the Spirit, and as its graces are inwrought by Him, they are all named “ spiritual” after Him. It certainly narrows and weakens the doxology to confine those “blessings” wholly or chiefly to the charismata, or extraordinary gifts of the primitive Church, as Wells and Whitby do. Those gifts were brilliant manifestations of divine power, but they have long since passed away, and are therefore inferior to the permanent graces—faith, hope, and love. They were not given to all, like the ordinary donations of the Holy Ghost. Theodoret, with juster appreciation, long | | | EPHESIANS I. 3. 15 ago said, that in addition to such endowments, wxe riyy errida tis avactdcews, Tas Tis ad0avacias érayyeXias, Thy vrocxeow Tis Bacirelas Tov olpavar, Td Tis vioberias akiopa —*“the blessings referred to here are, the hope of the resur- rection, the promises of immortality, the kingdom of heaven in reversion, and the dignity of adoption.” The blessings are stated by the apostle in the subsequent verses, and neither gifts, tongues, nor prophecy occupy a place in the succinct and glowing enumeration :— év Tois émrovpaviots €v Xpiot@—“ in the heavenly places, in Christ ’””—a peculiar idiom, the meaning of which has been greatly disputed. What shall be supplied —mpdaypace or toro, things or places? The translation, “In heavenly things,” is supported by Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Holzhausen, Matthies, and Meier. This view makes the phrase a more definite characterization of the spiritual blessings. But the construction is against it, for the insertion of tots seems to show that it is neither a mere prolonged specification, nor, as in Homberg’s view, a mere parallel definition to é€v mdon evdXoyia. The sentence, with such an explanation, even though the article should be supposed to designate a class, appears confused and weakened with somewhat of tautology. Nor can we suppose, with Van Til, that there is simply a designed contrast to the terrestrial blessings of the Old Testament. The other supplement, to7rocs, appears preferable, and such is the opinion of the Syriac trans- lator—who renders it simply Laka, in heaven—of Jerome, Drusius, Beza, Bengel, Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Meyer, Stier, and Bisping. The phrase occurs four times besides—i. 20; ii. 6; iii. 10; vi. 12. In all these places in this one epistle, the idea of locality is expressly implied, and there is no reason why this clause should be an exception. Harless remarks that the adjective, as éwi would suggest, has in the Pauline writings a local signification. But among such as hold this view there are some differ- ences of opinion. Jerome, Beza, Bodius, and Riickert would connect the phrase directly with evAoyjcas ; but the position of the words forbids the exegesis, and the participle must in such a case be taken with a proleptic or future signification. Beza alternates between two interpretations. According to 16 EPHESIANS I. 3. his double view, men may be said to be blessed “in heaven,” either because God the Blesser is in heaven, or because the blessings received are those which are characteristic of heaven —such blessings as are enjoyed by its blessed inhabitants. Calvin, Grotius, and Koppe argue that the term points out the special designation of the spiritual blessings; that they are to be enjoyed in heaven. Grotius says these spiritual blessings place us in heaven—“spe et jure.” The sweeping view of Calovius comprehends all these interpretations; the spiritual blessings are év Tots €mrovpaviows—ratione et originis, qualitatis, et finis.. The opinion of Slichtingius, Zanchius, and Olshausen is almost identical. _The latter calls it “ the spiritual bless- ing which is in heaven, and so carries in it a heavenly nature.” ? We have seen that the idea of locality is distinctly implied in the phrase év rots évrovpavio.s. Olshausen is in error when he says that “heavenly places” in Paul’s writings signify heaven absolutely, for the phrase sometimes refers to a lower and nearer spiritual sphere of it; “ He hath raised us up, and made us sit together with Christ in the heavenly places.” Our session with Christ is surely a present elevation—an honour and happiness even now enjoyed. “We wrestle against prin- cipalities, against powers—against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places,” vi. 12. These dark spirits are not in heaven, for they are exiles from it, and our struggle with them is in the present life. There are, therefore, beyond a doubt, “heavenly places” on earth. Now the gospel, or the Media- torial reign, is “the kingdom of heaven.” That kingdom or reign of God is “in us,” or among us. Heaven is brought near to man through Christ Jesus. Those spiritual blessings conferred on us create heaven within us, and the scenes of Divine benefaction are “heavenly places ;” for wherever the 1 While we heartily admire the enterprise of M. Pacho and Archdeacon Tattam, and the critical erudition of Mr. Cureton in reference to the literary remains of Ignatius, we may be allowed to refer in a matter of philology to two of his so-called epistles. Mention is made of c& twoupavia xal 4 d0fn cay ayytrwy, the heavenly regions and the glory of the angels. Hp. ad Smyrn. vi. and also Ep. ad Trall.—r& iwovpavia nai ras romebscing ras ayytdinds—where rorebsola stands in apposition to ra iwoupavia, 2«* Der geistliche Segen welcher in Himmel ist, also auch himmlische Natur an sich triigt.” a EPHESIANS I. 3. 17 light and love of God’s presence are to be enjoyed, there is heaven. If such blessings are the one Spirit’s inworking— that Spirit who in God’s name “takes of the things that are Christ’s and shows them unto us,”—then His influence diffuses the atmosphere of heaven around us, “Our country is in heaven,” and we enjoy its immunities and prerogatives on earth. We would not vaguely say, with Ernesti, Teller, and Schutze, that the expression simply means the church. True, in the church men are blessed, but the scenes of blessing here depicted represent the church in a special and glorious aspect, as a spot so like heaven, and so replete with the Spirit in the possession and enjoyment of His gifts—so filled with Christ and united to Him—so much of His love pervading it, and so much of His glory resting upon it, that it may be called Ta é€moupaua, The phrase may have been suggested, as Stier observes, by the region of Old Testament blessing—Canaan being given to the chosen people of God as the God of Abraham. The words év Xpiot@ might be viewed as connected with Ta emoupaa, and their position at the end of the verse might warrant such an exegesis. Christ at once creates and includes heaven. But they are better connected with the preceding participle, and in that connection they do not signify, as Chrysostom and Luther suppose, “through Christ” as an external cause of blessing, but “in Him.” Castalio supposing év to be superfluous, affectedly renders—in rebus Christi cales- tibus, and Schoettgen erroneously takes the noun for the dativus commodi—in laudem Christi. The words are reserved to the last with special emphasis. The apostle writes of blessing— spiritual blessing—all spiritual blessing—all spiritual blessing in the heavenly places; but adds at length the one sphere in which they are enjoyed—in Christ—in living union with the personal Redeemer. God blesses us: if the question be, When? the aorist solves it; if it be, With what sort of gifts? the ready answer is, “ With all spiritual blessings ”"—éy; and if it be, Where? the response is, “ In the heavenly places "—év ; and if it be, How? the last words show it, “in Christ "—éy, the one preposition being used thrice, to point out varied but allied relations, If Christians are blessed, and so blessed with unsparing liberality and universal benefaction in Christ through the Spirit’s influence upon them; and if the scenes of such B 18 EPHESIANS I. 4. * transcendent enjoyment may be named without exaggeration “heavenly places ”—may they not deeply and loudly bless the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? And so the triune operation of the triune God is introduced: the Father who blesses—the Son, in whom those blessings are conferred—and the Spirit, by whose inner work they are enjoyed, and from whom they receive their distinctive epithet. (Ver. 4.) Kadas é€eréEato nuads év abt@—“ According as He chose us in Him.” The adverb xaOws defines the connection of this verse with the preceding. That connection is modal rather than causal; xaOds, like xaOors, may signify sometimes “ because,” but the cause specified involves the idea of manner. Kaus, in classic Greek xa@d, is the later form (Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 426), and denotes, as its composition indicates, “according as.” These spiritual blessings are conferred on us, not merely because God chose us, but they are given to us in perfect harmony with His eternal purpose. Their number, variety, adaptation, and fulness, with the shape and the mode of their bestowment, are all in exact unison with God’s pre- temporal and gracious resolution; they are given after the model of that pure and eternal archetype which was formed in the Divine mind— é&eréEato.—1 Cor. i. 27. The action belongs wholly to the past, as the aorist indicates. Kriiger, § 53, 5, 1; Scheuerlein, § 32, 2. The idea involved in this word lay at the basis of the old theocracy, and it also pervades the New Testament. The Greek term corresponds to the Hebrew 173 of the Old Testament, which is applied so often to God’s selection of Abraham’s seed to be His peculiar people. Deut. iv; 37; vit. 6, 7* Isa: xl. Ss Ps. xxxit 12, xlvii: 4, ete. Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 271. The verb before us, with its cognate forms, is used frequently to indicate the origin of that peculiar relation which believers sustain to God, and it also assigns the reason of that distinction which subsists between them aud the world around them. Whatever the precise nature of this choice may be, the general doctrine is, that the change of relation is not of man’s achievement, but of God’s, and the aorist points to it as past; that man does not unite himself to God, but that God unites man to Himself, for there is no attractive power in man’s heart to collect and EPHESIANS I. 4. 19 gather in upon it those spiritual blessings. But there is not merely this palpable right of initiation on the part of God; there is also the prerogative of sovereign bestowment, as is indicated by the composition of the verb and by the following pronoun, )uas—*us”—we have; others want. The apostle speaks of himself and his fellow-saints at Ephesus. If God had not chosen them, they would never have chosen God. Hofmann (Schriftb. p. 223, etc., 2nd ed. 1857) denies that the verb contains the idea of choice in its theological use. Admitting that it does mean to “choose,” as in Josh. viii. 3, and to prefer, as in Gen. xiii. 11, Luke x. 42, he abjures in this place all notion of selection—they are chosen not out of others, but chosen for a certain end—/iir etwas. The supposi- tion is ingenious, but it is contrary to the meaning of the compound verb, even in the passages selected by him, as Ex. xviii. 25, Acts vi. 5, in which there is formal selection expressed—judges out of the people by Moses; deacons out from the membership of the early church. The phrase oi éxdexTol ayyedXot in 1 Tim. v. 21, may, for aught we know, have a meaning quite in harmony with the literal significa- tion, or éxXexros may bear a secondary sense, based on its primary meaning, such as Hofmann finds in Luke xxiii. 35, and according to a certain reading, in Luke ix. 35. But while there is a high destiny set before us, there is a choice of those who are to enjoy it, and this choice in itself, and plainly implying a contrast, the apostle describes by é£eXéEaro., On the other hand, Ebrard—Christliche Doymatik, § 560, vol. ii. p. 65, 1851—<denies that the end of election, considered as individual eternal happiness, is contained in the verb; for election, according to him, signifies not the choice of individuals, but of a multitude out of the profane world into the church, so that é«dextds is synonymous with dyos. Election to external privilege is true, but it does not exhaust the purpose: for it would be stopping at the means without realizing the end. _ Besides, the choice of a multitude is simply the choice of each individual composing it. That multitude may be regarded as a unity by God, but to Him it is a unity of definite elements or members. On the divine side, the elect, whatever their number, are a unity, and are so described—av & débmxé por, John vi. 39; wav 6 Sé5wxas ai7@, John xvii. 2—a totality 20 EPHESIANS I, 4. viewed by Omniscience as one; but on the human side, the elect are the whole company of believers, but thus individualized— mas 0 Oewpav Tov viov Kal murtevov—John vi. 40 :— "Ev avtr@—“ in Him,” for such is the genuine reading, not €auT@, or in ipso, as the Vulgate has it and some commen- tators take it; nor “to Himself,’ as the Ethiopic renders it. The reference is to Christ, but the nature of that reference has been disputed. Chrysostom says, “He by whom He has blessed us, is the same as He by whom He has chosen us ;” but afterwards he interprets the words before us thus—é:a tis els avtov miotews, and he capriciously ascribes the elective act to Christ. Many, as a-Lapide, Estius, Bullinger, and Flatt, translate virtually, “on account of Christ.” But the apostolical idea is more definite and profound. "Ev aire seems to point out the position of the nuds. Believers were looked upon as being in Christ their federal Head, when they were elected. To the prescient eye of God the entire church was embodied in Jesus—was looked upon as “in Him.” The church that was to be appeared to the mind of Him who fills eternity, as already in being, and that ideal being was in Christ. It is true that God Himself is in Christ, and in Christ purposes and performs all that pertains to man’s redemption; but the thought here is not that God in Christ has chosen us, but that when He elected us, we were regarded as being in Christ our representative—like as the human race was in Adam, or the Jewish nation in Abraham. We were chosen— mpo KataBorhs Kxoopov,— before the foundation of the world.”—Similar phraseology occurs in Matt. xiii. 35; John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 20. The more usual Pauline expressions are——-7pd Tay aiwvwv, 1 Cor. ii. 7; po xpovov aiwviwv, 2 Tim. i. 9. KataBod is also used in the same sense in the classics, and by Philo. Leesner, Observat. p. 338; Passow, sub voce. Chrysostom, alluding to the composition of the noun xata-8ony, says fancifully,—* Beau- tiful is that word, as if he were pointing to the world cast down from a great height—yes, vast and indescribable is the height of God, so wide the distance between Creator and creature.”* The phrase itself declares that this election is no 1 Ka) xarws xaraBorny slaty, ws aro vives Urpous xarnGeBanutyoy Biyadrov abroy , ‘ ‘ , ,” .@ ~ ~ > ~ ~ » ‘ ~s , Besxvis, xo yee urya Xai adaroy To Upos Tou Oso, ov rw Tore, AAR TH KYEKEX WENKOTS ll EPHESIANS I. 4. 91 act of time, for time dates from the creation. Prior to the commencement of time were we chosen in Christ. The generic idea, therefore, is what Olshausen calls Zeitlosigkeit, Timelessness, implying of course absolute eternity. The choice is eternal, and it realizes itself or takes effect in that actual separation by which the elect, of é«Xexroi, are brought out of the world into the church, and so become «Anrol, G&y.ot, cal matot. Before that world which was to be lost in sin and misery was founded, its guilt and helplessness were present to the mind of God, and His gracious purposes toward it were formed. The prospect of its fall coexisted eternally with the design of its recovery by Christ— elvas nyuas wyiovs Kal dywpous Katevwriov avToo—“ in order that we should be holy, and without blame before Him.” Eilvas is the infinitive of design—*that we should be.” Winer, § 44, 1; Col. i 22. The two adjectives express the same idea, with a slight shade of variation. Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2. The first is inner consecration to God, or holy principle—the positive aspect ; the latter refers to its result, the life governed by such a power must be blameless and without reprehension—the negative aspect, as Alford and Ellicott term it. Tittmann, Synonym, p. 21. The pulsation of a holy heart leads to a stainless life, and that is the avowed purpose of our election. That the words describe a moral condition is affirmed rightly by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Matthies, Meier, Stier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de Wette. Some, however, _ such as Koppe, Meyer, von Gerlach, Bisping, and Harless, refer the phrase to that perfect justifying righteousness of believers to which the apostle alludes in Rom. iii. 21, 22, v. 1, etc., viii. 1, etc.; 1 Cor. vi. 11. But the terms found here are different from those used by the apostle in the places quoted, where men are said to be justified, or fully acquitted from guilt, by their interest in the righteousness of Christ. On the other hand, the eternal purpose not only pardons, but also sanctifies, absolves in order to renew, and purifies in order to bestow perfection. It is the uniform teaching of Paul, that vis Qiewws. It is marvellous that Adam Clarke should find any allusion in the phrase to ‘‘the commencement of the religious system of the Jews,” and that Rarrington should render it, ‘‘ Before the foundation of the Jewish state. 22 EPHESIANS I. 4. = holiness is the end of our election, our calling, our pardon and acceptance. The phrase, “holy and without blame,” is never once applied to our complete justification before God; and, indeed, men are not regarded by God as innocent or sinless, for the fact of their sin remains unaltered; but they are treated as righteous—they are absolved from the penal con- sequences of their apostasy. It is no objection to our inter- pretation, which gives the words a moral, and not a legal or forensic signification, that men are not perfect in the present state. We would not say apologetically, with Calixtus— Quantum fiert potest, per Dei ipsius gratiam et carnis nostra infirmitatem. We can admit no modification; for though the purpose begins to take effect here, it is not fully wrought out here, and we would not identify incipient operation with final perfection. The proper view, then, is that perfection is secured for us—that complete restoration to our first purity is provided for us—that He who chose us before time began, and when we were not, saw in us the full and final accom- plishment of His gracious purpose. When He elected us— He beheld realized in us His own ideal of restored and redeemed humanity—See under chap. v. 27. Men are chosen in Christ, in order to be holy and without blame. 1 Thess. iv. 7; Tit. ii 14. Jerome says, Hoc est, gut sancti et immaculati ante non fuimus, ut postea essemus. The father vindicates this view, and refutes such objections as Porphyry was wont to advance, by putting the plain question, “Why, if there be no sovereignty, have Britain and the Irish tribes not known Moses and the prophets?” These facts are as appalling as any doctrine, and the fact must be overturned ere the doctrine can be impugned. The last lesson deduced by Jerome is, Concede Deo potentiam sut. KatevaTiov avtov—* before Him,” IBD, No good end is gained by reading avrov, with Harless and Scholz, as the subject is remote. The meaning is, indeed, before Himself, that is, before God. Winer, § 22, 5; note from Bremi; Kiihner, § 628. As the middle form of é&ed\é£ato indicates, they were chosen by God for Himself, and they are to be holy and blameless before Him. The reference to God is undoubted, and the phrase denotes the reality or genuineness of the holy and blameless state. God accounts it so, The te te EPHESIANS I. 4, , 23 “elect” are not esteemed righteous “merely before men,” as Theophylact explains. Their piety is not a brilliant hypocrisy. It is regarded as genuine, “ before Him” whose glance at once detects and frowns upon the spurious, however plausible the disguise in which it may wrap itself. Such is another or second ground of praise. The reader may pardon a few digressive illustrations of the momentous doctrine of this verse. It would be a narrow and superficial view of these words to imagine that they are meant to level Jewish pride, and that they describe simply the choice of the Gentiles to religious privilege. The purpose of the election is, that its object should be holy, an end that cannot fail, for they are in Christ; in Him ideally when they were chosen, and also every man in his own order in Him actually, personally, and voluntarily, by faith. Yet the sovereign love of God is strikingly manifested, even in the bestowment of external advantage. Ephesus enjoyed what many a city in Asia Minor wanted. The motive that took Paul to Ephesus, and the wind that sped the bark which carried him, were alike of God’s creation. It was not because God chanced to look down from His high throne, and saw the Ephesians bowing so superstitiously before the shrine of Diana, that His heart was moved, and He resolved in His mercy to give them the gospel. Nor was it because its citizens had a deeper relish for virtue and peace than the masses of population around them, that He sent among them the grace of His Spirit. “He is of one mind, and who can turn Him?” Every purpose is eternal, and awaits an evolution in the fulness of the time which is neither antedated nor postponed. And the same difficulties are involved in this choice to external blessing, as are found in the election of men to personal salvation. The whole procedure lies in the domain of pure sovereignty, and there can therefore be no partiality where none have any claim. The choice of Abraham is the great fact which explains and gives name to the doctrine. Why then should the race of Shem be selected, to the exclusion of Ham and Japheth? Why of all the families in Shem should that of Terah be chosen? and why of all the members of Terah’s house should the individual Abraham be marked 24 EPHESIANS I. 4. out, and set apart by God to be the father of a new race ? As well impugn the fact as attempt to upset the doctrine. Providence presents similar views of the divine procedure. One is born in Europe with a fair face, and becomes enlightened and happy; another is born in Africa with a sable countenance, and is doomed to slavery and wretchedness. One has his birth from Christian parents, and is trained in virtue from his earlier years; another has but a heritage of shame from his father, and the shadow of the gallows looms over his cradle. One is an heir of genius; another, with some malformation of brain, is an idiot. Some, under the enjoyment of Christian privilege, live and die unimpressed ; others, with but scanty opportunities, believe, and grow eminent in piety. Does not more seem really to be done by God externally for the conversion of some who live and die in impenitence, than for many who believe and are saved ? And yet the divine prescience and predestination are not incompatible with human responsibility. Man is free, perfectly free, for his moral nature is never strained or violated. We protest, as warmly as Sir William Hamilton, against any form of Calvinism which affirms “ that man has no will, agency, or moral personality of his own.” Fore- knowledge, which is only another phase of electing love, no more changes the nature of a future incident, than after- knowledge can affect a historical fact. God’s grace fits men for heaven, but men by unbelief prepare themselves for hell. It is not man’s non-election, but his continued sin, that leads to His eternal ruin. Nor is action impeded by the certainty of the divine foreknowledge. He who believes that God has appointed the hour of his death, is not fettered by such a faith in the earnest use of every means to prolong his life. And God does not act arbitrarily or capriciously. He has the best of reasons for His procedure, though He does not choose to disclose them to us. Sovereignty is but another name for highest and benignest equity. As Hooker says, “ They err who think that of the will of God to do this or that, there is no reason but His will.” ccles. Pol., lib. i. chap. i. 3. The question of the number of the saved is no element of the doctrine we are illustrating. There have, alas! been 1 Discussions on Philosophy, Literature, etc., p. 600. Edin. 1852. —_— = EPHESIANS I. 4. 25 men, Calvino Calviniores, who have rashly, heartlessly, and unscripturally spoken of the éxXexrof as a few—a small minority. God forbid. There are many reasons and hints in Scripture leading us to the very opposite conclusion. But, in fine, this is the practical lesson; Christians have no grounds for self-felicitation in their possession of holiness and hope, as if with their own hand they had inscribed their names in the Book of Life. Their possession of “all spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” is not self-originated. Its one author is God, and He hath conferred it in harmony with His own eternal purpose regarding them. His is all the work, and His is all the glory. And therefore the apostle rejoices in this eternal election. It is cause of deep and prolonged thankfulness, not of gloom, distrust, or perplexity. The very eternity of design clothes the plan of salvation with a peculiar nobleness. It has its origin in an eternity behind us, The world was created to be the theatre of redemption. Kindness, the result of momentary impulse, has not and cannot have such claim to gratitude as a beneficence which is the fruit of a matured and predetermined arrangement. The grace which springs from eternal choice must command the deepest homage of our nature, as in this doxology —EvAoyntos 6 Ocis—xabas éFeréEaro. The eternity of the plan suggests another thought, which we may mention without assuming a polemical aspect, or entering into the intricacies of the supra- and sub-lapsarian controversies, It is this—salvation is an original thought and resolution. It is no novel expedient struck out in the fertility of divine ingenuity, after God’s first purpose in regard to man had failed through man’s apostasy. It is no afterthought, but the embodiment of a design which, foreseeing our ruin, had made preparation for it. Neander, indeed, says the object of the apostle in this place is to show that Chris- tianity was not inferior to Judaism as a new dispensation, but was in truth the more ancient and original, presupposed even by Judaism itself. The election in Christ preceded the election of the Jewish nation in their ancestors. eschichte der Pflanzung, etc., ii. 443. But to represent this as the main object of the apostle is to dethrone the principal idea, and to exalt a mere inferential lesson into its place. 26 _ EPHESIANS I. 4. Before proceeding to the words év adydmn, we may remark, that the theory which makes foreseen holiness the ground of our election, and not its design, is clearly contrary to the apostolical statement; chosen—in order that we should be holy. So Augustine says that God chose us not quia futurt eramus, sed ut essemus sancti et immaculatit. There is no room for the conditional interjection of Grotius, Si et homines faciant, quod debent. The dilemma of those who base pre- destination upon prescience is:* if God foresaw this faith and holiness, then those qualities were either self-created, or were to be bestowed by Himself; if the former, the grace of God is denied; and if the latter, the question turns upon itself —What prompted God to give them the faith and holiness which He foresaw they should possess? The doctrine so clearly taught in this verse was held in its leading element by the ancient church—by the Roman Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Ireneus, before Augustine worked it into a system, and Jerome armed himself on its behalf. It is foreign to our purpose to review the theory of Augustine, the revival of it by Gottschalk, or its reassertion by Calvin and Janssen; nor can we criticise the assault made upon it by Pelagius, or describe the keen antagonism of Calixtus and Julian, followed up in later times by Arminius, Episcopius, Limborch, and Tomline. Suffice it to say, that many who imagine that they have explained away a difficulty by deny- ing one phase of the doctrine, have only achieved the feat of shifting that difficulty into another position. The various modifications of what we reckon the truth contained in the apostolical statement, do not relieve us of the mystery, which belongs as well to simple Theism as to the evangelical system.” 1 The Chevalier Ramsay and Dr. Adam Clarke deny that God knows the free actions of moral agents before they take place. ? That prince of thinkers, the late Sir William Hamilton, says of the ‘Philosophy of the Conditioned ”—‘‘ It is here shown to be as irrational as irreligious, on the ground of human understanding, to deny, either, on the one hand, the foreknowledge, predestination, and free grace of God, or, on the other, the free will of man ; that we should believe both, and both in unison, though unable to comprehend even either apart. This philosophy proclaims with S¢ Augustine, and Augustine in his maturest writings: ‘If there be not free grace in God, how can He save the world? and if there be not free will in man, how can the world by God be judged?’ (Ad Valentinum, Epist. 214.) Or, as the same doctrine is perhaps expressed even better by St. Bernard: ‘Abolish free , ’ EPHESIANS I. 4. 27 Dr. Whately has, with characteristic candour, admitted that the difficulty which relates to the character and moral govern- ment of God, presses as hard on the Arminian as the Calvinist, and Sir James Mackintosh has shown, with his usual luminous and dispassionate power, how dangerous it is to reason as to the moral consequences which the opponents of this and similar doctrines may impute to them.’ In short, whether this doctrine be identified with Pagan stoicism or Mahometan fatalism, and be rudely set aside, and the world placed under the inspection of an inert omniscience; or whether it be modified as to its end, and that be declared to be privilege, and not holiness; or as to its foundation, and that be alleged to be not gratuitous and irrespective choice, but foreseen merit and goodness ; or as to its subjects, and they be affirmed to be not individuals, but communities; or as to its result, and it be reckoned contingent, and not absolute; or whether the idea of election be diluted into mere preferential choice: whichever of these theories be adopted,—and they have been advocated in some of these aspects not only by some of the early Fathers,? but by Archbishops Bramhall? Sancroft,‘ King,’ Lawrence,’ Sumner,’ and Whately,® and by Milton,’ Molina,’° will, and there is nothing to be saved ; abolish free grace, and there is nothing wherewithal to save.’ (De Gratid et Libero Arbitrio, c. i.— Discussions, etc., p. 598.) ” 1 Miscellaneous Works, p. 139. 2 Origen, Philoc. cap. xxv. ; Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. § 141; Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. See also Wiggers, Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus. Berlin, 1821. 3 Controversy with Hobbes on Liberty and Necessity. Works, tome iii. Dublin, 1677. ‘ Fiir Predestinatus, etc., a satire which Lord Macaulay justly styles ‘‘a hideous caricature.” —History of England, vol. ii. p. 389, 8th ed. 5 Sermon on Predestination, preached before the Irish House of Lords in 1719 —usually annexed to his well-known treatise, On the Origin of Evil, and reprinted with notes by Dr. Whately in 1821. * Bampton Lecture, On the Articles of the Church of England improperly considered Calvinistical. 1826. : 7 Archbishop of Canterbury, Apostolical Preaching Considered, 1826. * Essays on Some Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul, p. 91. In his treatise De Doctrind Christiand, printed first in 1825, by Dr. Sumner, now Bishop of Winchester. 10 A Spanish Jesuit of the University of Evora in Portugal, who, in his advocacy of semipelagian views, first gave currency to the term ecienfia media, _ in his treatise Liberi arbitrii concordia cum gratia donis, Divina praascientia, | providentia, predestinatione, et reprobatione. Lisbon, 1588. 28 EPHESIANS I. 4. Faber,’ Nitzsch,’ Hase,? Lange,‘ Copleston,’ Chandler, Locke, Watson,’ and many others,—such hypotheses leave the central difficulty still unsolved, and throw us back on the uncon- ditioned and undivided sovereignty of Him “of whom, to whom, and through whom are all things,’”—all whose plans and purposes wrought out in the church, and designed to promote His glory, have been conceived in the vast and incomprehensible solitudes of His own eternity. I can only say, in conclusion, with the martyr Ridley, when he wrote on this high theme to Bradford—“In these matters I am so fearful, that I dare not speak further; yea, almost none other- wise than the text does, as it were, lead me by the hand.” The position of the words év dydzrn will so far determine their meaning, but that position it is difficult to assign. Much may be said on either side. 1. If the words are kept, as in the Textus Receptus, at the end of the fourth verse, then some would join them to é£edé£aro, and others to the adjectives immediately preceding them. That év dydmn at the end of the verse should refer to é€eXé£aro at the beginning, is highly improbable. The construction would be so awkward, that we wonder how (Ecumenius, Flacius, Olearius, Bucer, and Flatt could have adopted it. The entire verse would intervene 1 On the Primitive Doctrine of Election. London, 1842. 2 System der Christl. Lehre, § 141, 5th Auflage. 1844. * Hutterus Redivivus, § 91, 6th Auflage. Leipzig, 1845. * Von der freien und Allgemeinen Gnade Gottes. Elberfeld, 1831. Written against Booth’s Reign of Grace. See Payne’s Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, p- 69. > An Inquiry into the Doctrine of Necessity and Predestination. 1821. § Institutes of Theology, vol. iii. See for opposing arguments the systems of Hill, Dick, Woods, Chalmers, Wardlaw, and Finney, and of Mastricht, Turretine, Stapfer, and Pictet. See Reuss, Histoire de la Théologie Chrét., etc., vol. ii. 132, Strasbourg 1852. Schmidt’s Dogmatik, part iii. § 30, Dritte Auflage, Frankfort 1853. Messner, die Lehre der Apostel, etc., p. 252. See also Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, by J. B. Mozley, B.D., Oxford. In this volume, with no little argument, he elaborates the theory that where our conceptions are indistinct, contradictory propositions may be accepted as equally true—such contradictory propositions as God’s predestination and man’s free will. But surely we cannot affirm them to be contradictory unless we fully comprehend them, and though they may appear contradictory when viewed under human aspects and conditions, we dare not transfer such contradictions to the domain of theology, for the whole question, as Mansel says, ‘‘ transcends the limits of human thought.” Bampton Lecture, p. 412, 2nd ed. EPHESIANS I. 4, 29 between a reference to the act of election and the motive which is supposed to prompt to it. 2. Others, such as the Vulgate and Coptic, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Alford, join the words to the adjectives dy.ot cai dympos, as if love were represented as the consummation of Christian virtue. The doctrine itself is a glorious truth—all the Christian graces at length disappear in love, as the flower is lost in the fruit. Those who refer the adjectives to justifying righteousness— Justitia imputata—object to this view that it is not Pauline, ~ but that év wicrec would be the words employed. 3. Though we are not hampered by such a false exegesis, we prefer to join é€v aya7n to the following verse, and for these reasons :— Where @yos is used along with duwpos, as in Eph. v. 27, and even in Col. i. 22, where a third epithet, avéy«AnTos, is also employed, there is no such supplementary phrase as év dya7n. Alford tries to get rid of this objection by saying that év ayamrn refers not to the epithets alone, but to the entire last clause. Yet the plea does not avail him, for his exegesis really makes éy ayatn a qualification of the two adjectives. Olshausen appeals to other passages, but the reference cannot be sustained ; for in Jude 24 the additional phrase év dya\X\ace qualifies not duwpos, but the entire preceding clause—the presentation of the saved to God. When synonymous epithets are used, a qualifying formula is sometimes added, as in dyéprrtous, 1 Thess. iii. 13, but blameless in what? the adjective is proleptic, and évy aywavvy is added. Koch, Comment. p. 272. The words év e¢pyvy occur also in 2 Pet. iii. 14,in the same clause With dpuwpntos, but they belong not, as Olshausen supposes, to the adjective; they rather qualify the verb evpe@jvai— “found in peace.” If év dydmn belonged to the preceding adjectives, we should expect it to follow them immediately ; but the words catevwrtoy avtod intervene. The construction is not against the Pauline style and usage, as may be seen, chap. iii. 18, vi. 18, in which places the emphasis is laid on the preceding phrase. Nor has Alford’s other argument more force in it—that the verbs and participles in this paragraph precede these qualifying clauses: for we demur to the correctness of the statement. 1. We interpret the 8th verse differently, and make év doy codia xal dpovnoe qualify the 30 EPHESIANS I. 5. following yvwpicas. 2. The other qualifying clauses following the verbs and participles in this paragraph are of a different nature from this, four of them being introduced by catd— referring to rule or measurement, and not to motive in itself or its elements. 3. It is more natural, besides, to join the words to the following verse, where adoption is spoken of; for the only source of it is the love of God, and it forms no objection to this view that ¢y aydmn precedes the participle. Love is implied in predestination. Di-lectio preesupponitur £-\ectioni, says Thomas Aquinas. And lastly, the spirit of the paragraph is God’s dealing towards man in its great and gracious features; and not precisely or definitely the features or elements of man’s perfection as secured by Him. The minuter specifications belong to God—His eternal purpose and His realization of it. The union of év dydrn with mpoopicas is sanctioned by the old Syriac version, by the fathers Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, and Jerome ; by Zanchius, Crocius, Bengel, Koppe, Storr, Riickert, Harless, de Wette, Olshausen, Holzhausen, Stier, Turner, and Ellicott; and by the editors Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. | (Ver. 5.) "Ev ayamrn mpoopicas tuas eis viobeclav ’Incod Xpictod eis avtov — “In love having predestinated us for the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself.” Still another or third ground of praise. ‘Ev aydrn, noi, mpoopicas, says Chrysostom, and Jerome renders in charitate predestinans. Saints enjoy the privilege and heritage of adoption. The source of this blessing is love, and that love, unrestrained and self-originated, has developed its power and attachment—“ according to the good pleasure of His will.” This verse is, to some extent, only a different phase of the truth contained in the preceding one. The idea of adoption was a favourite one with the apostle—Rom. viii. 14, 15, 19, 2a ik, wa 2. COP. Vi Le Gal, Au, 7, 26.iv, 5.6. 7: Heb: ii, 10, xii, 5-8, etc. In the Old Testament, piety is denominated by the filial relationship “sons of God.” Gen. vi. 2. The theocratic connection of Israel with God is also pictured by the same tender tie. Ex. iv. 22; Jer. iii. 19; Hos. i, 10. Ylobecia—Oerov viov movetcOai—conveys a similar idea, with this distinction, that the sonship is not a a | Se ee EPHESIANS I. 5. 31 natural but a constituted relationship, for the @erds was quite distinct from the yvyjovos. The idea here is not merely that of sonship, as Usteri imagines, but sonship acquired by adoption. Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 194. Whatever blessings were implied or shadowed out in the Israelitish adoption, belong now to Christians. For they possess a likeness to their Father in the lustrous lineaments of His moral character, and they have the enjoyment of His special love, the privilege of near and familiar access, the wholesome and necessary discipline withheld from the bastard or foundling—Heb. xii. 8 —and a rich provision at the same time out of His glorious fulness, for they have an inheritance, as is told in ver. 11. God and all that God is, God and all that God has, is their boundless and eternal possession—1 Cor. iii. 21-23—to be enjoyed in that home whose material glories are only surpassed by its spiritual splendours. Adoption is, therefore, a combined subjective view of the cardinal blessings of justification and sanctification. ITpoopicas—tThe signification of the verb is, “to mark out beforehand,” and it is the act of God. We were marked out for adoption—zrpo; not before others, but before time. The apo does not of itself express this, but the spirit of the con- text would lead to this conclusion. The general idea is the same as that involved in é€eAéEaro, though there is a specific distinction. The end preappointed—zpo, is implied in the one; the mass out of which choice is made—éx, is glanced at by the other. In the first case, the Divine mind is supposed to look forward to the glorious destiny to which believers are set apart; in the second case, it looks down upon the unde- _ serving stock out of which it chose them. IIpoopicas may indicate an action prior to é€edéfato—“ Having foreappointed us to the adoption of children, He chose us in Christ Jesus.” Donaldson, § 574; Winer, § 45, 1. Homberg—JVarerga, p. 286—thus paraphrases, Lostguam nos pradestinavit adoptan- dos, elegit etiam nos, ut simus sancti, But as the action both of verb and participle belongs to God, we would rather take the participle as synchronous with the verb. Bernhardy, p. 383. For though the order of the Divine decrees is « subject too high for us, as we can neither grasp infinitude nor span eternity, yet we may say that there is oneness and not 32 | EPHESIANS I. 5. succession of thought in God’s mind, simultaneous idea and not consecutive arrangement. See Martensen’s Christliche Dogmatik, §§ 207, 208, 209; Kiel, 1855. The doctrine taught is, that our reception of the blessings, prerogatives, and prospects implied in adoption, is not of our own merit, but is wholly of God. The returning prodigal does not win his way back into the paternal mansion. This purpose to accept us existed ere the fact of our apostasy had manifested itself, and being without epoch of origin, it comes not within the limits of chronology. It pre-existed time. It is strange to find the German psychology attempting to revive out of these words Origen’s dream of the pre-existence of souls. Surely it forgets that He whose mind comprises beginning and end, “calls things that are not, as though they were.” dia ’Incotd Xpictod—not simply for Christ’s sake, but by means of His mediation, since but for Him the family had never been constituted. God’s Son is the “ first-born” of the vast household, and fraternal relation to Him is filial relation to God. eis avtov-— “to Himself.” It matters not much whether the reading be avrov or attov. The former, coming so closely after dca I. X., is certainly preferable, while the latter reading has at least the merit of settling the reference. Griesbach, Knapp, and Scholz, following Beza, Stephens, and Mill, have avutrov. Other editors, such as Erasmus, Wetstein, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, prefer avdrov, and they are supported by Harless, Olshausen, and Meyer. The reference of the word, however, is plainly to God. To 6é eis avdrov, Tov Tatépa Aéyec—Theodoret. Some, indeed, refer the pronoun to Christ. The scholastic interpreters, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, did this, and they have been followed by Vorstius, Bullinger, a-Lapide, and Goodwin, who, however, as his manner is, com- bines both the views; “the Holy Ghost,” he adds, “intended both.” But these expositors are more or less paraphrastic and wide of the truth. Others, referring it to God, give it the signification of a dative, such as Calvin, Beza, and Calixtus, and join the words with mwpoopicas, and find in the formula this idea, that the cause of our adoption lies only in God, that predestination is not caused by any motive or power foreign to Himself—eztra seipsum. But this exegesis is a capricious i Oe il i et ee os a es Fd EPHESIANS I. 5, 33 and unwarranted construction of els with its accusative. Others, again, take it as a dativus commodi for éauTa, as Grotius, Koppe, Holzhausen, and Meier: “God has made us His own children,” a meaning which does not bring out the full force of the word. Not very different is the explanation of Riickert, who makes it equivalent to avrod in the genitive —‘“He has predestined us to His own adoption.” The apostle does not use the preposition where a simple dative or genitive would have sufficed. Others, retaining the undoubted meaning of the accusative, would render it in various ways. Piscator translates—Ad gloriam gratia sua. Theophylact, with (Ecumenius, explains, ryy eis aitov avd- yyoucav—adoption leading to Him. Olshausen’s notion is not dissimilar. De Wette renders simply fiir ihn; that is, for Him whose glory is the ultimate end of the great work of redemption. Theodore of Mopsuestia thus expounds it, iva avtov vioi NeyolueOd Te Kal ypnuartifwuev. Something of the truth lies in all those modes of explanation, with the excep- tion of the view of Calvin, and those who think with him. Eis occurs twice in the verse, first pointing out the nearer object of mpoopicas, and then the relation of the spiritual adoption to God. In such a case as the last, eis indicates a relation different from the simple dative, and one often found in the theology of the apostle. Winer, -§ 49, a, ¢ (8), § 31, 5. Adoption has its medium in Christ: but it has its ultimate enjoyment and blessing in God. MHimself is our Father— His household we enter—HIs welcome we are saluted with —His name and dignity we wear—HIs image we possess— His discipline we receive—and His home, secured and prepared for us, we hope for ever to dwell in. To HIMsELF we are adopted. The origin of this privilege and distinction is the Divine love. That love was not originated by us, nor is it an essential feeling on the part of God, for it has been exercised— Kata Thy edvdoxiav Tod OedrpaTos a’tod— according to the good pleasure of His will” Kard, as usual, denotes rule or measure. Winer, § 49, d (a). Evdoxia, according to Jerome a _ word coined by the Seventy, rebus novis nova verba fingentes, has two meanings; that of will—it seems good to me— voluntas liberrima—* mere good pleasure ;” and that of bene- c 34 EPHESIANS I. 5. volence or goodwill. The former meaning is held by Chrysostom (70 ogodpov Oédnua), by Grotius, Calvin, Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Ellicott, and Stier, with the Vulgate and Syriac. The notion of “goodwill,” or benignant purpose, is advocated by Drusius, Beza, Bodius, Réell, Harless, Olshausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius. Such is its prevailing accepta- tion in’ the Septuagint, as representing the Hebrew fix). The translators gave this rendering on purpose and with discrimination, for when /i8) signifies will or decree, as it sometimes does, they render it by @éAnua. Compare Ps. Six 10, ti 19, Ixxxix. 0S; cy, 4. with sth. 2-8 < Ps, xxix. 5, xl 8; Dan. viii. 4, xi. 3, 16, ete. The Seventy render the proper name 7377 (Delight), Cant. vi. 4, by evdoxda, Symmachus by evdoxnt7. In the New Testament the mean- ing is not different. Luke ii, 14; Rom. x. 1; Phil. i. 15 li. 13. Matt. xii 26, and the parallel passage, Luke x. 21, may admit of the other meaning, and yet, as Harless suggests, the context, with its verb nyaA\doaTo, seems to support the more common signification. Fritzsche, ad Rom. ii. 369, note. Ellicott virtually gives up his decision, by admitting that “goodness is necessarily involved ;” and the philological and contextual arguments of Hodge for the first view are utterly inconclusive. We agree with de Wette that the reference in evdoxia is to be sought, not in the mpowpicpeévor, but in tpoopicas; but it defines His will as being something more than a mere decree resting on sovereignty, and there is on this account all the more reason why praise is due, for the clause is still connected with evAoyntos. CEcumenius well defines it, » éx’ evepyecia BovdAnows. Theodoret says, that the Sacred Scripture understands by evdoxta—ro ayabov tod @. Oédnpa. The 0énua—not an Attic term (Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 7)—in itself simple purpose, has in it an element of evdoxia. Benignity characterizes His unbiassed will. And the proof of this statement is plain to a demonstration. For though adoption among men usually results from child- lessness, and because no son has a seat on their hearth, they bring home the orphaned wanderer, no motive of this kind has place with God. His heart rejoices over myriads of His unfallen progeny, and His glory would not have been unseen, nor His praises unsung, though this fallen world had sunk EPHESIANS I. 6. 35 into endless and hopeless perdition. Again, while men’ adopt a child not merely because they like it, but because they think it likeable in features or in temper, there was nothing in us to excite God’s love, nay there was everything to quench it in such a ruined and self-ruined creature. So plain is it, that if God love and adopt us, that love has no assignable reason save “the good pleasure of His will.” In endeavouring to show that the occurrence of xata tn evdoxiav after €v aydmy is no tautology, Olshausen says, that aya7n refers to the proper essence of God, and that evdoxia brings out the prominent benevolence of the individual act of His will. The opinion of Harless is similar, that dyd7n is the general emotion, and that its special expression as the result of will is contained in eddox/a. Perhaps the apostle’s meaning is, that while adoption is the correlative fruit of love, purpose, special and benign, has its peculiar and appropriate sphere of action in predestination—mpooplcas—xard. There is “will,” for if God love sinners so as to make them sons, it is not because His nature necessitates it, but because He wills ‘it. Yet this will clothes itself, not in bare decree, but “in good pleasure,” and such good pleasure is seen deepening into love in their actual inbringing. The idea of this clause is therefore quite different from that of the last clause of v. 11. (Ver. 6.) Eis érawvov S0&ns tis ydpitos abrov—*“To the praise of the glory of His grace.” Eis occurs thrice in the sentence—first pointing out the object of predestination— then, in immediate sequence, marking the connection of the adopted with God—and now designating the final end of the _ process—relations objective, personal, and teleological, different indeed, yet closely united. 46€ns has not the article, being defined by the following genitive, which with its pronoun is that of possession. Winer, § 19, 2, b;' Madvig, § 10, 2. This verse describes not the mere result, but the final purpose, ‘of God’s mpoopicpds. The proximate end is man’s salvation, but the ultimate purpose is God’s own glory, the manifestation of His moral excellence. 2 Cor. i. 20; Phil. i 11, ii 11. ‘It was natural in an ascription of praise to introduce this idea, ‘the apostle’s offering of praise—edAoyntos 6 Beos—being at at moment a realization of this very purpose, and therefore 1See Moulton’s Winer, p. 155, note 6. 36 EPHESIANS I. 6. acceptable to Him. Some critical editors read avdrov, but without valid reason. The reduction of the phrase to a Hebraism is a feeble exegesis. That reduction has been attempted in two ways. Some, like Grotius and Estius, resolve it into eis évrawvov évdo€ov —to the glorious praise of His grace. Others, as Beza, Koppe, Winer, Holzhausen, and Meier, construe it as yapis évdo£os. But it is not generally His glorious grace, but this one special element of that grace which is to be praised. Winer, § 30, 3,1; Bernhardy, p. 53. Xdpis is favour, Divine favour, proving that man has not only no merit, but that, in spite of demerit, he is saved and blessed by God. (See under chap. ii. 5-8.) Its glory is its fulness, freeness, and condescension. It shrinks from no sacrifice, averts itself from no species or amount of guilt, enriches its objects with the choicest favours, and con- fers upon them the noblest honours. It has effected what it purposed—stooping to the depths, it has raised us to the heights of filial dignity. Still further: this grace, with its characteristic glory, is a property in God’s nature which could never have been displayed but for the introduction of sin, and God’s design to save sinners. This, then, was His great and ultimate end, that the glory of His grace should be seen and praised, that this element of His character should be exhibited in its peculiar splendour, for without it all conceptions of the Divine nature must have been limited and unworthy. And as this grace lay in His heart, and as its exhibition springs from choice, and not from essential obliga- tion, it is praised by the church, which receives it, and by the universe, which admires it. Therefore to reveal Himself fully, to display His full-orbed glory, was an end worthy of God." The idea of Stier, that the words have a subjective reference, is far-fetched, as if the apostle had said that we are predestined to be ourselves the praise of His glory. All that is good in this interpretation is really comprised in the view already given. | év H, or ts éxapitacev jyas.—The former reading has in its favour D, E, F,G, K, L. The Vulgate and Syriac cannot be adduced as decided authorities, as they have often charac- 1 No one who has read, can forget, the magnificent tract of Jonathan Edwards— God’s Chief End in Creation. Works, i. p. 41; ed. 1806, London. | . teristic modes of translation in such places. For $s we have the two old MSS. A and B, and Chrysostom’s first quotation of the clause. Authorities are pretty nearly balanced, and editors and critics are therefore divided—Tischendorf and Ellicott being for the first, Lachmann and Alford for the second—but the meaning is not affected whichever reading be adopted. While év 9 is well supported, 45 would seem to be quite in harmony with Pauline usage, and is the more difficult of the two readings, tempting a copyist on that ‘account to alter it. It stands so by attraction, Bernhardy, p. 299; Winer, § 24, 1; Eph. iv. 1; 2 Cor. i. 4; see also under ver. 8. Two classes of meanings have been assigned to the verb :— 1. That of Chrysostom, and the Greek fathers, who usually follow him, Theodoret, Theophylact, and (cumenius; also of many of the Catholic interpreters, and of Beza, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Olshausen, Holzhausen, Passavant, and the English version. The verb is supposed by them to refer to the personal or subjective result of grace, which is to give men acceptance with God—gratos et acceptos reddidit. Men filled with gratia are gratiost in the eye of God. Luther renders angenehm gemacht, as in our version, “made _ accepted.” Chrysostom’s philological argument is, the apostle does not say js éyapicato add’ éexapitwoev jyas, that is, the apostle does not say, “which He has graciously given,” but “ with which He has made us gracious.” He further explains the term by Kal érepdotous érroujoev—* He has made us objects of His love;” and He employs this striking and beautiful figure—“It is as if one were to take a leper, wasted with malady and disease, with age, destitution, and hunger, and were to change him all at once into a lovely youth, sur- passing all men in beauty, shedding a bright lustre from his “cheeks, and eclipsing the solar beam with the glances of his eyes, and then were to set him in the flower of his age and clothe him in purple, and with a diadem, and all the vest- “ments of royalty. Thus has God arrayed and adorned our ‘soul, and made it an object of beauty, delight, and love.” But the notion conveyed in this figure appears to us to be foreign to the meaning of the term. The word occurs, indeed, with a similar meaning in the Septuagint, Sirach xviii. 17, EPHESIANS I. 6, 37 38 EPHESIANS I. 6. where avnp xeyapiTwpévos is a man full of grace and bland- ness; and the same book, ix. 8, according to Codex A and Clement’s quotation, has the same participle, as if it were synonymous with evpoppdos—comely, well-shaped. Opera, p. 257; Colonie, 1688. Such a sense, however, is not in har- mony with the formation of the verb or the usage of the New Testament. Yet Mohler, in his Symbolik, § 13, 14, uses the clause as an argument for the justitia inherens of the Romish Church. 2. The verb yapitow, a word of the later Greek, signifies, according to the analogy of its formation—to grace, to bestow grace upon. So some of the older commentators, as Cocceius, Roell, and most modern ones. Verbs in ow signify to give action or existence to the thing or quality specified by the correlate noun, have what Kiihner appropriately calls eine factitive Bedeutung, § 368. Thus, mupdo—TI set on fire, Oavatow—I put to death, that is, I give action to wip and @avatos. Buttmann, § 119. Xapitow will thus indicate the communication or bestowment of the ydpis. The grace spoken of is God’s, and that grace is liberally conferred upon us. To maintain the alliteration it may be rendered, The grace with which He graced us, or the favour with which He favoured us. The Vulgate has gratificavit, and the Syriac \a.9]3—Wwhich He has poured out. Xdpis has an objective meaning here, as it usually has in the Pauline writings, and Keyapitwpévn, applied to the Virgin (Luke i. 28, Valck- naer, ap. Luc. i. 28), signifies favoured of God, the selected recipient of His peculiar grace. Test. xii. Patr. p. 698. The use of a noun with its correlate verb is not uncommon. Eph. 13, 19, 20+ i. 4 iv; ; Donaldson, § 466 ; Winer, § 24, 1. _ The spirit of the deolaration is—To the praise of the glory of His grace, which He so liberally conferred upon us—the aorist referring to past indefinite time and not to present condition. The liberal bestowment of that grace is its crown and glory. It was with no stinted hand that God gave it, as the following . context abundantly shows. This glory of grace which is to be lauded is not its innate and inoperative greatness, but its communicated amount. The financial prosperity of a people is not in useless and treasured bullion, but the coined metal - in actual circulation. The value is not in the jewel as it— EPHESIANS I. 7. 39 lies in the depth of the mine, in the midst of unconscious darkness, but as it is cut, polished, and sparkling in the royal diadem. So it is not grace as a latent attribute, but grace in profuse donation, and effecting its high and holy purpose; it is not grace gazed at in God’s heart, but grace felt in ours, felt in rich variety and continuous reception—it is “the grace with which He graced us,” that is to be praised for its glory. And it is poured out— év T@ iyyarnuévw— in the Beloved.” Some MSS., such as D', E, F, G, add vid adrov, an evident gloss followed by the Vulgate and Latin fathers. The Syriac adds the pronoun, in his Beloved—.maosaoy. The reference is undoubtedly to Christ. Matt. iii 17, xvii. 5; John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 9, 10, 11; or Col. i. 13—o vids ris dyamns atrod. Jesus is the object of the Father’s love—eternal, boundless, and immut- able; and “in Him” as the one living sphere, not for His sake only, men are enriched with grace. But what suggested such an epithet here? 1. The apostle had said, “In love having predestinated us to the adoption of children.” We, as adopted children, are indeed loved, but there is another, the Son, the own beloved Son. It was not, therefore, affec- tion craving indulgence, or eager for an object on which to expend itself, that led to our adoption. There was no void in His bosom, the loved One lay in it. 2. The mediatorial representative of fallen humanity is the object of special affec- tion on the part of God, and in Him men are also loved by God. Bengel suggests that the ydpis we enjoy is different from this @ya7n. Still the apostle affirms that we share in love as well as grace. 3. The following verse tells us that redemption comes to us 5a tov alyatos—by His blood, for the Beloved One is the sacrifice. What love, therefore, on the Father's part to deliver Him up—what praise to the glory of His grace—and what claim has Jesus to be the loved One also of His church, when His self-sacrificing love for them has proved and sustained its fervour in the agonies of a violent and vicarious death! For the next thought is— i’ (Ver. 7.) "Ev & Eyopev tiv dmodvtpwow bia rob aiparor aitov—"In whom we have redemption by his His blood. _ The apostle now specifies some fruits of that grace—illustrates 40 a EPHESIANS I. 7. éyapitwoev. From a recital of past acts of God toward us, he comes now to our present blessing. Redemption stands out to his mind as the deliverance—so unique in its nature and so well known, that it has the article prefixed. It is enshrined in solitary eminence. The idea fills the Old Testament, for the blessing which the Levitical ritual embodied and sym- bolized was redemption—deliverance from evil by means of sacrifice. Lev.i. 4, 9; iv. 26; xvii.11. Blood was the medium of expiation and of exemption from penalty. Umbreit, Der Brief an die Rimer ausgelegt, p. 261: Gotha, 1856. ’Arro- AUTpwous, as its origin intimates, signifies deliverance by the payment of a price or ransom—Avtpov. It has been said that the idea of ransom is sometimes dropped, and that the word denotes merely rescue. We question this, at least in the New Testament ; certainly not in Rom. viii. 23, for the redemp- tion of the body is, equally with that of the soul, the result of Christ's ransom-work. Even in Heb. xi. 35, and in Luke xxl. 28, we might say that the notion of ransom is not alto- gether sunk, though it be of secondary moment; in the one case it is apostasy, in the other the destruction of the Jewish state, which is the ideal price. We have the simple noun in Luke i. 68, ii. 38, Heb. ix. 12; and Avtpody in Luke xxiv. 21, Tit. ii. 14. The human race need deliverance, and they cannot, either by price or by conquest, effect their own libera- tion, for the penal evil which sin has entailed upon them fetters and subdues them. But redemption is not an imme- diate act of sovereign prerogative; it is represented as the result of a process which involved and necessitated the death of Christ. The means of deliverance, or the price paid, was the blood of Christ—é1a tod aiwaros avtod; as in Acts xx. 28, where we have 7repievrounoato, and 1 Cor. vi. 20, where we have, under a different aspect, jryopdaOnre, and similarly in Gal. iii. 13. Blood is the material of expiation. The death of Jesus was one of blood, for it was a violent death; and that blood— the blood of a sinless man, on whom the Divine law had no claim, and could have none—was poured out as a vicarious offering. The atonement was indispensable to remission of 1 “*Quand donc vous entendez ici parler de son sang, ne vous représentez ni celui de la Circoncision, quand le couteau de la Loi lui en fit perdre quelques gouttes, huit jours aprés sa naissance ; ni celui de son agonie, quand |’excés du trouble EPHESIANS I. 7. 41 sin—it was To Avtpov—the price of infinite value. Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28; Mark x. 45; Heb. ix. 22. The law of God - must be maintained in its purity ere guilty man can be par- doned. The universal Governor glorifies His law, and by the same act enables Himself to forgive its transgressors. The nexus we may not be able to discover fully, but we believe, in opposition to the view of Schleiermacher, Coleridge, and others, that the death of Christ has governmental relations, has an influence on our salvation totally different in nature and sphere of operation, from its subjective power in subduing the heart by the love which it presents, and the thrilling motives which it brings to bear upon it. See Reuss, Hist. de la Théologie Chrétienne au Siecle Apostolique, tome ii. p. 182. é€v @—“in whom ;” not as Koppe, Flatt, and others would have it, “on account of whom.” The é&d points to the instru- mental connection which the death of Christ has with our redemption, but €v to the method in which that redemption becomes ours. Rom. iii. 24. 4a regards the means of pr0- vision, €v the mode of reception—in Christ the Beloved, in loving, confiding union with Him as the one sphere —a thought vitally pervading the paragraph and the entire epistle. For how can we have safety if we are out of the Saviour? Rom. viii. 1, 33. The apostle -places the forgiveness of sins in apposition with redemption, not as its only element, but as a blessing immediate, characteristic, and prominent— Thy adder TaY TapaTTwyatwy— the forgiveness of sins.” Col. i. 14. TWapdmrrwya—falling aside, offence, differs from dpapria, not exactly, as Jerome affirms, that the first term means the lapse toward sin, and the second the completed act in itself, for mapdwrwpya is expressly applied by Paul in Rom. x. 15, ete, to the first sin of the first man—that offence of which dyapria, or a sinful state, is the sad and universal result. The word, therefore, signifies here that series and succession of individual sinful acts with which every man is chargeable, or the actual and numerous results and manifesta- qu’il ressentoit en son esprit, lui en fit suér des grumeaux dans le jardin des Olives ; ni celui de sa flagellation, quand les verges des soldats lui en tirerent des ruisseaux dans le Prétoire. C'est celui de sa mort méme,"—Sermons our VEpttre de St. Paul aux Ephesiens, par feu M. Du Bose, tome i. p. 277. 1099. 42 EPHESIANS I. 7. tions of our sinful condition. “Adeovs—sometimes standing by itself, but generally with aduapt/wy—is release from some- thing which binds, from the chain which fetters—Luke iv. 19 —or the debt or tribute which oppresses. LEsth. ii, 18. It frees from the ode/Anua—tfrom debt, as at the year of jubilee. Ley. xxv. 31, xxvii. 24. It is, therefore, the remission of that which is due to us on account of offences, so that our liability to punishment is cancelled. It is surely wrong in Alford to make a&deouv coextensive with droAvtpwow. In the New Testament the noun. does not signify “all riddance from the practice and consequences of our transgression,” but de- finitely and specially remission of the penalty. Mark iii. 29; Acts ii. 38 (the gift of the Spirit there succeeding that of forgiveness) ; Acts xiii. 38, 39, xxvi. 18; Heb. x. 18. But atroAvTpwors is much wider, being not only man’s deliverance from all evil—from sin, Satan, and death—but his entrance into all the good which a redeeming God has provided—peace, joy, and life—a title to heaven and preparation for it. The adeois of this verse is not, therefore, “equipollent” with aToAutpwats, but the following paragraph is; for the azro- AUTpwors contains the series of blessings described in it, and among them forgiveness of sins has a first and prominent place. “Adeous differs from mdpeows (Rom. iii. 25), for the latter is preetermission, not remission; the suspension of the penalty, or the forbearing to inflict it, but not its entire abrogation. Fritzsche, Ad Rom., vol. 1. p. 199; Trench On Synon., § 33. But the blessing here is remission. And it is full, all past sin being blotted out, and provision being made that future guilt shall also be remitted. Permanent dwelling in Christ (é€y @) secures continued forgiveness. That forgiveness also is free, because it is the result of His sacrifice —6ia aiwatos; and it is irreversible, since it is God that justifies, and who shall impeach His equity? or shall He revoke His own sentence of absolution ? _ And the apostle says, éyowev—in the present time; not like evrAoynoas, é£eXéEato, mpoopicas, éyapitwaev—descriptive of past acts of God. The meaning is not—We have got it, and now possess it as a distinct and perfect blessing, but we are getting it—are in continuous possession of it. We are ever needing, and so are ever having it, for we are still “in Him,” EPHESIANS L. 8 43 and the merit of His blood is unexhausted. Forgiveness is not a blessing complete at any point of time in our human existence, and therefore we are still receiving it. See under Col. i. 14. But those rapartwpata are many and wanton—not only numerous, but provoking, so that forgiveness, to reach us, must be patient and ample, and the apostle characterizes its measure as being— KaTa TO TAovTOS THs Yapitos av’Tov—“ according to the riches of His grace.” With Riickert, Lachmann, and Tischen- dorf, on the authority of A, B, Dt, F, G, we prefer the neuter TO TovTOs, a form which occurs, according to the best MSS., in Eph. ii. 7, iii 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col i. 27, ii. 2; Winer, § 9, 2, 2. ITAodros is what Paley calls one of the “cant” words of the apostle, that is, one of the favourite terms which he often introduces—“ riches of goodness,” “riches of glory,” “riches of full assurance,” “riches of wisdom,” ete. It serves no purpose to resolve the formula into a Hebraism, so that it might be rendered “ His rich grace,” or “ His gracious riches,” for the genitive is that of possession connected with its pronoun. Winer, § 30, 3, 1. The classic Greeks use a similar construction of two substantives. The av’vod evidently refers to God, and some MSS. read atrod. Xdpis—see under ii. 8. The spirit of the clause may be thus illustrated :—The favour of man toward offenders is soon exhausted, and accord- ing to its penury, it soon wearies of forgiving. But God's grace has unbounded liberality. Much is expended; many sinners of all lands, ages, and crimes are pardoned, fully pardoned, often pardoned, and frankly pardoned, but infinite wealth of grace remains behind. It is also to be remarked, that yapes and alua are really not opposed. Atonement 1s not in antagonism with grace. For the opulence of His grace is seen not only in its innumerable forms and varieties of operation among men, but also in the unasked and upmerited provision of such an atonement, so perfect and glorious in its relation to God and man, as the blood of the “ Beloved One. (Ver. 8.) “Hs éaepiccevcey eis 7pas.— Which He has made to abound toward us.” ‘Hs is the result of attraction. If it stand for #v, then the verb will have a transitive signi- fication —“ Which He hath made, or caused to abound.” But 44 EPHESIANS I. 8. if 4s stand for the dative, as Calvin, Camerarius, and Schmid suppose, the meaning is that of our version—‘“In which He has abounded toward us.” Winer, § 24,1. But the New Testament affords no example of such an attraction, though this be the usual signification of the verb. The Vulgate, taking it for a nominative, falsely reads gue superabundavit in nobis; and Piscator’s exegesis is wholly arbitrary, copiose se effudit. It is, however, natural to suppose that there is no change in the ruling nominative. Attraction seldom takes place except when the relative should stand in the accusative (Kiihner, § 787, Anmerk 4; Jelf, § 822), so that, with the more modern interpreters, we take #js as the substitute of the accusative, and prefer the transitive sense of the verb. Such a Hiphil signification belongs to the word in 1 Thess. il. 12 ; 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8. The relative does not denote the mode of abundance, but the matter of it. It has been suggested— Ellicott, p. 164—\that, as verba faciendi, like mwepiocevw, may have an appended accusative elicited from the verb, “make an abundance of,” so the principle of attraction need not be applied to %s. Beza gives it, gua redundavit. The riches of His grace are not given us in pinched exactness, or limited and scanty measurement —where sin abounds, grace super- abounds, Rom. v. 20. God knows that He cannot exhaust the wealth of His grace, and therefore He lavishes it with unstinted generosity upon us. Theophylact explains the clause thus: af@ovws éEéyeev—“ He hath poured it upon us unsparingly.” And the apostle, having spoken of forgiveness as an immediate blessing, adds— év wdaon sodia cai dpovyce—“in all wisdom and pru- dence.” The preliminary question refers to the position of this clause. Should it be joined to the preceding é7repic- cevaev, or does it belong to the following verse, and qualify the participle ywpicas? If it stand in connection with the foregoing verb, it may be variously interpreted. Four forms of exegesis have been proposed :— 1. Calvin, Balduin, and Beza understand the phrase as a general name for the gospel, and their meaning is, that the vocation of men, by the perfectly wise plan of the gospel, is to be ascribed to grace as really as is their election. 2. Others understand it as referring to the gifts of wisdom we i EPHESIANS I. & 45 and prudence which accompany the reception of divine for- giveness. So Aretius, Calixtus, Wolf, Bengel, Morus, Flatt, Meyer, Meier, Matthies, Bisping, Baumgarten-Crusius, and virtually Harless—“ According to the riches of His grace, which He made to abound toward us, along with the gifts of wisdom and prudence.” Or as Ellicott says—“It may mark _ out the sphere and element in which the repiccevcey is evinced and realized.” But the clause so interpreted may be either logically connected with éweplocevcev or ywwpicas, and may mean either “He hath abounded toward us,” and one proof and result of such abundance is the bestowment of these graces; or He hath made us wise and prudent, because He hath made known to us the mystery of His will. Thus (cu- menius, who joins the words with the following verse—aodovs kal dpovipous troujoas obtws eyvwpicev TO pvotnpiov. If we preferred this exegesis, we should adopt the latter modifica- tion, which some of these critics also espouse, namely, that the wisdom and prudence are neither the proof nor the sphere of grace abounding toward us, but are the effects of God's disclosure of the mystery of His will. 3. Some, again, refer the words to God, as if they were descriptive of the manner in which He has caused His grace to abound toward us. God in all wisdom and prudence has made all grace to abound toward us. So Castalio, Riickert, de Wette, Grotius (in one of his explanations), Baumgarten- Crusius, and Alford—a connection which Ellicott stigmatizes “as in the highest degree unsatisfactory.” 4. The opinion of Olshausen, endorsed by Stier, is quite arbitrary and peculiar—‘that we should walk in all wisdom and prudence ;” a paraphrase which would indicate an un- wonted and fatal elasticity in the apostle’s diction. We propose to join the words with the participle, yvepicas —Having in all wisdom and prudence made known to us the mystery of His will.” The construction is similar to that vindicated in ver. 5, with regard to éy dya7p, and is not unusual in the Pauline writings. The idea is homogeneous, if the words are thus connected. Wisdom and prudence have no natural connection with the abounding of grace. Grace in its wealth or profusion does not suggest the notions of wisdom and prudence. The two circles of thought are not concentric 46 EPHESIANS I. 8, ‘in any of the hypotheses we have referred to. For if the words “in all wisdom and prudence” be referred to God, as descriptive of His mode of operation, they are scarcely in harmony with the leading idea of the verse; at least there would be a want of consecutive unity. For it is not so much His wisdom as His love, not so much His intelligence as His generosity, which marks and glorifies the method of His pro- cedure. The same remarks equally apply to the theory which looks upon the clause in dispute as a formal description of the scheme of the gospel. Nor, if the words be referred to gifts of “ wisdom and prudence,” conferred along with grace, or be regarded as the sphere of its operation, is the harmony any better preserved. Wisdom and prudence are not the ideas you would expect to find in such a connection. But, on the other hand, “ wisdom and prudence” are essentially connected with the disclosure of a mystery. A mystery is not to be flung abroad without due discrimination. The revealer of it wisely selects his audience, and prudently chooses the proper time, place, and method for his disclosure. To make it known to minds not prepared to receive it, to flash it upon his attendants in full force and without previous and gradual training, might defeat the very purpose which the initiator has in view. The quali- ties referred to are therefore indispensable requisites to the publication of a mystery. An objection, however, is stated against this exegesis by Harless, and the objection is also adopted by Meyer, Matthies, and Olshausen. Harless boldly affirms that ¢povnois cannot be predicted of God. It is true that this intellectual quality is not ascribed to God in the New Testament, the word occurring only in another place. But in the Septuagint, on which the linguistic usage of the New Testament is based, it is applied to God as Creator (Prov. iii. 19), and in a similar pas- sage, Jer. x. 12; and the Divine attribute of wisdom personified in Prov. viii. 14, exclaims, éu» povnous— intelligence is mine.” Why should ¢povyccs be less applicable than yvaous to God? Prudence, indeed, in its common acceptation, can scarcely be ascribed to the Omniscient. Still, if God in any action displays those qualities which in a man might be called prudence, then such a property may be ascribed to a EPHESIANS I. & 47 him in perfect analogy with the common anthropomorphism of Scripture. But ¢pdvnors may not signify prudence in its usual acceptation. It is the action of the ¢pyv or mind. Wisdom is often ascribed to God, and ¢povnacs is the action of His wise mind—its intuitive formation of purposes and resolutions in His infinite wisdom. To refer dpovnous always to practical discretion, as Estius, Bengel, and Krebs do, is unwarranted. Zo¢ia is not simply and always scientia theo- retica, nor povnars scientia practica. The words are so explained, indeed, by Cicero—d¢pédvnots, que est rerum expe- tendarum fugiendarumque scientia, De Offic.i. 43. In the pas- sages adduced by Krebs’ and Loesner? from Josephus and Philo, the word does not certainly bear out Cicero’s definition, but in some of them rather signifies insight, or perspicacity. In the classics it often denotes that practical wisdom which is indispensable to civil government. The term occurs only in another place in the New Testament, Luke i. 17, where it is rendered “the wisdom of the just,” and where it certainly does not refer to prudence. It stands in the Septuagint as the representative of no less than nine different Hebrew words. That it is referred to God in the Seventy, shows that it may be predicated of Him in the New Testament. Zodgia is the attribute of wisdom, and ¢povnacs is its special aspect, or the sphere of operation in which it developes itself. Thus, in Prov. x. 23, 9 6€ codia avSpt riktrec dpovnow. Com- pare also in Septuagint 1 Kings iv. 29; Dan. ii. 21; Joseph. Antig. ii. 5, 7, viii. 7,5. It is not so much the result of wisdom, as a peculiar phase of its action. Intellectual action under the guidance of codia is $povnows— intelligence. Beza's view is not very different from this. The word, therefore, may signify in this clause that sagacity which an initiator manifests in the disclosure of a mystery—a quality which, after the manner of men, is ascribed to God. It is objected, again, that the adjective mdcy, added to cod. xat dpov., forbids the application of the terms to God. Meyer admits that ¢pdvnors may be applied to God, but denies that aca dpovnots can be so applied. We can say of God, Harless remarks, “in Him is all wisdom, but not He has done 1 Observationes in Novum Test. ¢ Fl. Josepho, p. 325. 2 Observationes in Novum Test. ¢ Philone Alexandrino, p. 338. 48 EPHESIANS I. 8. this or that in all wisdom.” Olshausen homologates the statement, his argument being, that God possesses all attri- butes absolutely. De Wette, who, however, joins the words to the preceding clause, but applies them to God, answers, that the Divine wisdom, in reaching its end by every service- able means, appears not as absolute, but only as relative, and he explains the clause, in aller dazu dienlicher Weisheit und Hinsicht. But what hinders that the word should be ren- dered “in all,” which though it may be literally “every kind,” yet virtually signifies highest, or absolute wisdom and discretion? Harless again withstands this, and says, es bezeichnet nie die Intension sondern nur die Extension. Let the following examples suffice for our purpose :—Matt. xxviii. 18, maca é€ovcla—all power—absolute power; Acts v. 23, the prison was shut, év wdon dodadeia—“ with all safety,” in their opinion, with absolute security; 1 Tim. i. 15, wdons arodoyns a&cos—worthy of all or of absolute credit and welcome; and in many other places. Nor is this sense unknown to the classics: wdvr’ érustnuns—absolute know- ledge;* maca dvayxn—utmost or absolute necessity ;? és mav Kkaxov—into extreme distress ;° eis mavta xlydvvov—into extreme danger ;* eis macav amoplav—to the utmost embar- rassment.° So that in was the idea of intension is at least inferentially bound up with that of extension. Such appear to us sufficient reasons for connecting the words with yvepioas, and regarding them as qualifying it, or defining the method in which the mystery has been disclosed. But among those who connect the words with yvwplcas, there are some forms of interpretation adopted which may be noticed and set aside. The first is that of Chrysostom, who, in one of his expositions, refers the “wisdom and prudence” to the mystery, as if they were descriptive of its qualities: TOUTO yap €oTL TO puUaTnpLoY TO Taons codias TE yéuov Kal gpovnoews— for this mystery is. marked by its fulness of wisdom and prudence.” He is followed by Koppe, who, as is common with him, suggests this metaphrase: 7d wvortyprov copwratov kal ppovipwratov. These interpretations are not 1 Sophocles, Antig. 721. 2 Plato, Phadr. 235. 3 Herod. vii. 118; ix. 118. * Xenophon, (Cyr. vii. 2, 22. ® Polybius, iii. 77, 4. See also Pape and Passow in their respective Lexicons. EPHESIANS I. 9. 49 warranted by the syntax. Reverting, then, to the view we have already stated, we are of opinion that the words qualify yvwpicas. For this purpose there is no need that they be placed after it. The participle is at the same time intimately connected with the verb ézrepiccevoev. It contains one of the elements of the ydpis, which God has made to abound. His having made known of His goodwill this higher aspect of Christ’s work, is ascribed to that grace which, in this way and for this purpose, He hath caused to abound towards us. It is also one of the elements of admoAvrpwors, and one of the fruits of that death which secured it. This connection is approved by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Homberg, Baumgarten- Crusius, Koppe, Semler, and Holzhausen, by the editors Griesbach and Scholz, and by Conybeare. The verses are left undivided by Lachmann and Tischendorf. (Ver. 9.) Tvwpicas nuiv ro pvoripiov tod Oedrpatos avtod —“ Having in all wisdom and prudence made known to us the mystery of His will.” Ivwpicas stands to érepiccevcev much in the same way as mpoopicas did to é€edétaro. Bernhardy, p. 383. And so in iii. 10, when the apostle speaks of God unveiling a great mystery, he adds that by such a disclosure His “ manifold wisdom” is made known to the principalities and powers. The essential idea of puornpioyr, whatever may be the application, is, something into the know- ledge of which one must be initiated, ere he comprehend it. In such a passage as this, it is not something unknowable, but something unknown till fitting disclosure has been made of it; something long hid, but at length discovered to us by God, and therefore a matter of pure revelation. The mystery itself is unfolded in the following verse. It is not the gospel or salvation generally, but a special purpose of God in reference to His universe. And it is called the mystery of “ His will” —rod Oedrnpatos—the genitive being either subjective, because it has its origin in His own inscrutable purpose ; or rather, the genitive being that of object, because His will is its theme— xara Thy ebSoxiay atop —“ according to His good pleasure.” EvSox/a has been already explained under ver. 5. Though the mystery be His will, yet in His benevolent regards He has disclosed it. We preferred in the previous edition joining D 50 EPHESIANS I. 10. the phrase with the following clause and verse, but the similar use of «ard and its model clause in ver. 5 induces us, with Meyer, Riickert, and Olshausen, to connect it with yvwploas :— iw mpoéBero ev avt@—“ which He purposed in Himself.” The verb occurs only in two other places, Rom. i. 13, ii. 25—and there may be here a quasi-temporal sense in 7po. The meaning implied in the reflexive form ait, which Hahn rightly prints in opposition to Tischendorf and Lachmann, is correct. Luther and Bengel refer it to Christ, but the recur- rence of the proper name in the next clause forbids such a reference in the pronoun here. The purpose takes effect in Christ, but it is conceived in God’s own heart. “In Himself” He formed this design, for He is surrounded by no co-ordinate wisdom—‘“ With whom took He counsel?” This and the next verse are intimately connected. Some, such as Bengel, suppose the verb dvaxepadaiwcacba: to be connected with yvepicas, and others unite it with mpoéOero, but it stands out as the object to which the whole previous verse points, and of which it is an explanation. (Ver. 10.) Eis oixovouiay tod mAnpwpatos THY Kalpav— “In reference to the dispensation of the fulness of the times.” Winer, § 49, a,c (8). The article is absent before o/ovopiay, as the term is so well defined by the following genitives. Winer, § 19, 2, &. Eis does not signify “until,” as Bullinger, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Bucer, Zanchius, and Grotius have supposed; as if the sense were—that the mystery had been kept concealed until this dispensation was introduced. This gives an emphasis and intensity of meaning to mpoé@ero, which the word cannot well bear. Nor can eds be rightly taken for év, as is done by Jerome, Pelagius, Anselm, Beza, Piscator, and the Vulgate, for the meaning would be vague and diluted. Eis is “in reference to.” Ocxovoyia signifies house-arrangement, or dispensation, and is rendered by Theophylact, dioécnars, Kkataotaots. The word in the New Testament occurs in ‘Luke xvi. 2, 3, 4, in the general sense of stewardship, either the administration itself or the office, and the corresponding noun, ofcovouos, is found in the same chapter, and in Rom. xvi. 23. Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 403. Odxovoyia is also used with special reference to the gospel, and sometimes describes it as an arrangement or dispensation under charge EPHESIANS I. 10. 51 of the apostles as its “stewards.” 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, ix. 17; Eph. iii. 2; Col. i 25; Tit. i 7; 1 Pet. iv. 10. Luther, led away by this idea, and by the “dispensatio” of the Vulgate, refers the term to preaching, and to the disclosure of the mystery—dass es geprediget wiirde. The noun does not signify specifically and of itself, the dispensation of grace, though the context leaves us in no doubt that such is the allusion here; but it characterizes it as an arrangement organized and secured in all its parts. Eph. iii. 2, 9; 1 Tim. i. 4. It is not made up of a series of disconnected truths and events, but it is a compact and symmetrical system of perfect harmony in all its reciprocal bearings and adaptations. The adjustment is exact, so that each truth shines and is shone upon; each fact is a cause and a consequent, is like a link in a chain, which holds and is held. It is a plan of infinite wisdom, where nothing is out of place, or happens either within or beyond its time. And the scheme is characterized as being tod mAnpw@patos Tav Kaipmv—the genitive having its characterizing sense. Scheuerlein, § 16, 3. Into the sense of wArpwpya we shall inquire at some length under the last verse of this chapter. The phrase marks the period of the dispensation. It cannot be the genitive of object—administratio corum qua restant temporum, as Storr supposes, taking 7Anpwpa in an active sense; nor can we say with Koppe, that there is any reference to extrema tempora—the last day; nor with Baumgarten-Crusius, that the time specified is the remaining duration of the world. Harless gives, perhaps too narrowly, an exegetical sense to the words, as if they explained what was meant by the economy, to wit, a period when the mystery might be safely revealed—making the genitive that of identity. Nor can we suppose, with Stier, that these “times are parallel to the economy, and of equal duration,” that they comprehend die ganze Zeitdauer dieser Anstalt— for it developes and com- pletes itself through adjusted times and periods.” This view is adopted and eulogized by Alford. It seems to us, however, to be putting more into the words than of themselves they will bear. The genitive xacpav presents a temporal idea, and mAnpépatos may be that of characterization. Winer, § 30, 2; or as in Jude, xpiows peyadns jyépas. It is an economy charac- a sy 3 _ 52 | EPHESIANS I. 10. terized by the fulness of the times—that is, introduced at the fulness of the times. The passages adduced by Alford are not at all analogous, for they have different contextual rela- tions, and all of them want the element of thought contained in 7Anpwpa. True, there are under the gospel xaspol €Ovar, Luke xvi. 24; xaipol avavfews, Acts iii. 19; Kxarpois tdious, 1 Tim. it. 6—each of these phrases having a special and absolute reference. But mAnpwpa is relative, and implies a period which gradually, and in course of ages, has become filled up; and as the coming of Christ was preceded both by expectancy and preparation—so we have ta TéAn TOV aiwvav (1 Cor. x. 11), éx’ écxdrov tov jpepov (Heb. i. 1), in the New Testament; and again and again in the Old Testament, “the latter days”—“days to come:” therefore the phrase here may define the economy by its marked temporal charac- teristic, as being full-timed and right-timed. Our view may be thus expressed: The time prior to the dispensation is at length filled up, for we take wAnpwpya in its passive sense. The wAynpwpa is regarded as a vast receptacle into which centuries and millenniums had been falling, but it was now filled. Thus, Herodotus iii. 22, Sons mAnpwpa paxpotatov —the longest fulness of life—the sense of the clause being, The longest period for a person to live is eighty years. Schott, in Lp. ad Galatas, chap. iv. 4, p. 488; Winer, abid.; Mark 1.15; Luke xxi. 24; John vii. 8; Gal. iv. 4; also in Septua- gint, Gen. xxv. 24, xxix. 21; Dan. x. 3. It is not rod xpovov, as in Gal. iv. 4—in which past time is regarded as a unity—but tay xaipmv, time being imaged under successive periods." Theodoret has somewhat vaguely—rov opsoévta mapa tov Qcod xaipov. This is one aspect, and that of Calovius—dispensatio propria plenitudini temporis—is another aspect, both of which seem to be comprehended in the phrase. The economy commenced at a period which implies that the times destined to precede it were filled up. Two ideas seem ‘to be contained. 1. It marks God’s time—the time pre- arranged and set apart by Him; a time which can neither be anticipated nor delayed. 2. It specifies the best time in the world’s history for the occurrence to take place. Being God’s 1 The noun xaspés is allied to xs/pe, and is often a synonym of muérper.—Donald- son’s New Crutylus, § 191. EPHESIANS I. 10, 53 time, it must be the best time. The epoch is marked by God in His own calendar, and years roll on till their complement is numbered, while the opportuneness of the period in the world’s annals proves and ratifies divine wisdom and _fore- sight. That fulness of the time in which the economy was founded, is the precise period, for the Lord has appointed it; and the dest period, for the age was ripe for the event. We cannot, however, with Usteri, place the entire emphasis of the phrase on this latter idea. Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 81. The Grecian arms extended the Hellenic tongue, and prepared the nations for receiving the oracles of the New Testament in a language so rich and so exact, so powerful in description and delicate in shades of expression. Roman ambition had also welded the various states of the civilised world into one mighty kingdom, so that the heralds of the cross might not be impeded in their progress by the jealousy of rival states, but might move freely on their mission under the protection of one general sovereignty. Awakened longing had been created over the East, and in the West the old superstitions had lost their hold on thinking minds.’ The apostle utters this thought virtually in 1 Cor. i. 21. The world was allowed full time to discover by prolonged experiment the insuffi- ciency of its own wisdom to instruct and save it. It was sighing deeply for deliverance, and in the maturity of this crisis there suddenly appeared in Judea “the Desire of all nations.” The Hebrew seer who looked forward to it, re- garded it as the “latter day” or “last time;” the nations who were forewarned of it were in fevered anticipation of its advent, for it was to them, as Cappell says, complementum prophetarum, and, as Beza paraphrases, “tempus tam diu expectatum.” But we, “on whom the ends of the world have come,” look back upon it, and feel it to be a period which took its rise after the former cycles had fulfilled their course, and all preparations for it had been duly completed. We do not deny to Alford that what characterized the introduction of the economy characterizes all its epochs, and that this may be implied in the remarkable phrase. But in the third chapter 1 Der Kreislauf, in welchem sich die Bestimmung und Idee der Heidenthumsa, und Judenthums vollendete, musste erst sein Ziel erreicht haben. —Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 85. 54 EPHESIANS I. 10. the apostle unfolds a portion of the mystery, and as if in reference to this phrase, he says of it—“ Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men;” to wit, it was first - revealed in the fulness of the times. The mystery of this full-timed dispensation is now described— dvaxeparaocacba Ta TavTa ev TH Xpicot@— to gather together all things in Christ.” The infinitive does not need the article, being explanatory in its nature. Winer, § 44, 2; Madvig, § 144. The signification of the verb has been variously understood. 1. Some give it the sense of renew, as Suidas in his Lexicon. Theodoret explains it by wetaBudrev, and refers to this change—rtov avO@paTrav 4 dicts avictatat kal tv adpOapoiay évdverar. Tertullian renders it—ad initium reciprocare—(De Monogam. 5), and the Syriac and Vulgate correspond. And this was a general opinion in the ancient church. Augustine, Hnchiridion, 62; Op. vol. vi. p. 377, ed. 1837. The Gothic has aftra usfulljan, again to fill up. It would, however, be difficult to vindicate such an exposition on philological grounds. 2. It has been supposed to signify to collect again under one head—x«cedaratoy, or xepary. Such is the general critical opinion of Chrysostom, Gicumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, H. Stephens, Piscator, Calovius, Bengel, Matthies, Meier, de Wette, Olshausen, and Stier. “ What,” asks Chrysostom, “is the meaning of the word avaxed.? It is, to knit together, cvvdyyas. It has another signification—To set over one and all the same Head, Christ, according to the flesh —hplav kehparny érieivar.” Beza insists against this meaning, that the word comes from xefddasov, not from xepard. Besides, the Headship of Christ is not formally introduced till the 22nd verse. The meaning of ava in composition must not be overlooked. Though it have only a faint signification, as compound words abound in the later age of a language, it does not quite lose that significance. It signifies here, apparently, “again”—as if there now existed, under the God-man as Redeemer, that state of things which had, prior to the introduction of evil, originally existed under the Logos, the Creator and Governor. 3. The word is supposed to signify, as in our version, “to gather together in one ;” so Beza, Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Harless, and others. Rom. xiii. 9. The summing up of the data, rerum repetitio et congregatio, was EPHESIANS I. 10. 55. called, as Quintilian avers, dvaxefaXaiwots. De Instit. Orator. vi. 1. The simple verb is found with such a meaning in Thucydides, vi. 91, viii. 53; and compounded with ovy it occurs in Polybius iii. 3,1. Xen. Cyr. viii. 1,15. Sucha summation appears to Grotius and Hammond under the figure of the reunion of a dispersed army, but Jerome and Cameron view it as the addition of arithmetical sums. This third meaning is the most natural—there is a re-collection of all things in Christ as Centre, and the immediate relation of this re-gathering to God Himself is expressed by the middle voice. The objects of this re-union are— Ta év Tois ovpavois Kal ta éml ths yps—the things in heaven and the things on earth.” This is a mode of expres- sion designed to be general, as the employment of the neuter indicates. Some few MSS. supply the particle ré after the va of the first clause, and B, D, E, L, read emi for év in the same clause, a reading which cannot be sustained. Critical opinions on the meaning of the phrase are very varied. According to Morus, it denotes God and man; according to Schoettgen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ernesti, Macknight, Schleusner, and Koppe—Jews and Gentiles; according to Beza, Piscator, Bodius, Rollock, Moldenhauer, Flatt, and Peile—the spirits of good men, especially under the Old Testament and the present church ; and according to the great majority, the phrase signifies the union of spirits in heaven, angels or otherwise, with men on earth. So the Scholium preserved by Matthiae—dvaxefaratwow karei—rhyv els piav kehariy &vwow, ws Tov ayyéhov dia Xpiotod trois avOpwrrous ovvapbévrwv. With these interpretations we agree, so far as they contain truth. But they have the truth in fragments, like broken pieces of a mirror. We take the td wayra here to - be co-equal in extent of meaning with the phrase, Col. i. 16, “ By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by Him and for Him.” These td mdvra are said in ver. 20 to be reconciled to Him. See under Col. i. 20. The phrase “things in heaven” denotes the higher and more distant spheres of creation, and these, along with “ things on earth, may comprehend the universe—7a mavra including, according 56. EPHESIANS I, 10. to Meyer, all things and beings, while Harless gives the words the general sense of the universe. So do von Gerlach, Olshausen, and Stier. The neuter has a generalizing mean- ing. Winer, § 27, 5; Poppo, Thucydides, i. 104. It cannot be supposed to be used for the masculine, as no masculine is implied in the verse. Hodge limits ta mavta to the church in heaven and earth—hbecause, he says, the union effected is by the redemption of Christ. This “union,” as he names it, is indeed a result of redemption; but the gathering together described here is a consequence above and beyond human salvation—a consequence connected with it, but held out apart from it as a mystery disclosed according to His good pleasure. The sense is weakened altogether by the notion of Turner, that the infinitive may express a divine intention which may yet be thwarted. The idea seems then to be that heaven and earth are now united under one government. Christ as Creator was rightfully the Governor of all things, and till the introduction of sin, that government was one and undivided. But rebellion produced disorder, the unity of the kingdom was broken. arth was morally severed from heaven, and from the worlds whieh retained their pristine integrity. But Jesus has effected a blessed change, for an amnesty has been proclaimed to earth. Man is reconciled to God, and all who bear God’s image are reconciled to man. Angels are “ministering spirits” to him, and all holy intelli- gences delight in him. Not only has harmony been restored to the universe, and the rupture occasioned by sin repaired, but beings still in rebellion are placed under Christ’s control, as well as the unconscious elements and spheres of nature. This summation is seen in the form of government; Jesus is universal Regent. Not only do angels and the unfallen universe worship the same Governor with the redeemed, but all things and beings are under the same administration. The anthem to God and the Lamb begins with saints, is taken up by angels, and re-echoed by the wide creation. Rev. v. 9, 14. The death of Jesus is described in this paragraph both in its primary and ultimate results. First, by it “we have redemption—the forgiveness of sins.” And, secondly, by the same event, the universe is gathered together in Christ. The language, by its very terms, denotes far more than the EPHESIANS I. 10, 57 union of the church in Him. Now the revelation of this great truth, as to the ultimate effect of Christ’s. mediation, is called a “ mystery.” Man could not have discovered it—the knowledge of it was not essential to his salvation. But it has been disclosed with peculiar wisdom and delicacy. It was not revealed in former times, when it could not have been appreciated; nay, it was not published till the means of it were visibly realized, till Jesus died and rose again, and on the right hand of God assumed this harmonizing presidency. Since the days of Origen, the advocates of the doctrine of universal restoration have sought a proof-text in this passage. But restoration is not predicated—it is simply re-summation. Unredeemed humanity, though doomed to everlasting punish- ment, and fallen spirits for whom everlasting fire is prepared, may be comprised in this summation—subjugated even against their will. But the punishment of the impenitent affects not the unity of Christ’s government. Evil has lost its power of creating disorder, for it is punished, confined, and held as a very feeble thing in the grasp of the Almighty Avenger. In fine, it is going beyond the record to deduce from this passage a proof of the doctrine of the confirmation of angels by the death of Christ—ut perpetuwm statum retine- ant. Such are the words of Calvin. Were such a doctrine contained or clearly revealed in Scripture, we might imagine that the new relation of angels to Christ the Mediator might exercise such an influence over them as to preclude the ‘ possibility of their apostasy ; or that their pure and suscep- tible spirits were so deeply struck with the malignity of sin as exhibited in the blood of the Son of God, that the sensation and recoil produced by the awful spectacle for ever operate as an infallible preservative. And this re-capitulation of all things is declared a second time to be in Christ—év adr@—a solemn and emphatic re- assertion, Kiihner, § 632. His mediative work has secured it, and His mediatorial person is the one centre of the universe. As the stone dropped into the lake creates those widening and concentric circles, which ultimately reach the farthest shore, so the deed done on Calvary has sent its undulations _ through the distant spheres and realms of God's great empire. —_- =." 58 EPHESIANS I, 11. But év avt@ is the connecting link also with the following verse. Kiihner, § 632. See also Col. i. 19, 20. (Ver. 11.) "Ev 6 Kal éxrnpeOnpev. For éxAnp@Onyuev some read éxAnOnuev, supported by A, D, E, F, G, and the vetus Itala. Lachmann, following Griesbach, prefers the latter ; but Tischendorf rightly advocates the former reading, on what we reckon preponderant authority. Still is the con- nection marked as usual, “in Christ,” and by the ever-recurring formula év 6 ’ExdnpeOnpev has its foundation in the usage of the Old Testament, in the theocratic inheritance—7?M, as in Deut. iv. 20, and in numerous other places. The xA*pos, KAnpovopos, and KAnpovoula are also familiar epithets in the apostolical writings. The inheritance was the characteristic blessing of the theocratic charter, and it associated itself with all the popular religious feelings and hopes. The ideas which some attach to the term, but which refer not to this source and idiom, are therefore to be rejected. 1. The notion of Koppe, and of the lexicographers Wahl, Bretschneider, and Wilke, is peculiar. According to them, it denotes simply to obtain, and the object obtained is, or, “it has kindly happened to us,” that we should be to the praise of His glory. The passages selected by Elsner (Observ. Sacre, p. 204) out of fElian and Alciphron, are foreign to the purpose, for the verb is there regularly construed with the accusative of the object, and it is not from classic usage that the apostolic term has been taken. 2. Nor is another common interpretation much better supported, according to which the verb signifies to “obtain by lot”—the opinion of Chrysostom and his Greek imitators, and of the Vulgate, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Aquinas, Erasmus, Estius, and a-Lapide. Chrysostom explains the word thus—«xArjpou yevoyévou nas éFeréEaTo. Still this explanation does not come up to our idea of the Pauline «Ajpos, which refers not to the manner of our getting the possession, but to the possession itself—not to the lot, but to the allotment. 3. Bengel, Flatt, Holzhausen, Bisping, de Wette, and Stier take it, that we have become the xAjpos— the peculiar people of God. This, no doubt, yields a good sense. The Jews are also called by this name—the noun, however, being employed as the epithet, and not the verb as affirming the condition. Besides, the «Ajpos in Col. EPHESIANS IL. 11. 59 i. 12, and in ver. 18, is not our subjective condition, as this exegesis implies, but our objective possession in which we participate, and in the hope of which we now rejoice. 4. So that with Valla, with Luther, Calvin, and Beza among the reformers, and with Wolf, Rosenmiiller, Harless, Matthies, Meyer, Scholz, and Meier, we take the passive verb to signify “we have been brought into possession ””"—zum Erbtheil gekom- men—as Luther has it. In whom we have been enfeoffed, in whom we have had it allotted to us. Deut. iv. 20, ix. 29, xxxii. 9. The verb may certainly bear this meaning; «Anpow —‘“TI assign an inheritance to some one;” in the passive —“TI have an inheritance assigned to me,” as verbs which in the active govern the genitive or dative of a person have it as a nominative in the passive. Winer, § 39; Bernhardy, p. 341; Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii 7, iv. 20. We see no force in Stier’s objection that such a meaning should be followed by eis To éxew mas, whereas it is followed by eis 70 elvas %pas, for the inheritance is got that the inheritors may be, in the mode of their introduction to it and their enjoyment of it, to the praise of His glory. The «aé might, if connected with the unexpressed pronoun, signify “indeed ;” but it may be better to connect it with the verb—“in whom we have also obtained an inheritance.” Hartung, Kap. ii. 7; Devarius- Klotz, p. 636; Matthiae, § 620. That which is spiritual and imperishable is not, like money, the symbol of wealth, but it is something which one feels to be his own—an inheritance. It is not exhausted with the using, and it comes to us notas a hereditary possession. “Corruption runs in the blood, grace does not.” It is God’s gift to the believers in Christ, conferred on them in harmony with His own eternal purpose. The nomi- native to the verb, indicated by “we,” does not refer specially to Jewish Christians in this verse, as even Harless supposes ; far less does it denote the apostles, or ministers of religion, as Barnes imagines. The writer, under the term “ we,” simply speaks primarily of himself and the saints and faithful in the Ephesian church, as being— : mpoopiabevtes Kata mpobeow Tod Ta mdvTa tvepyouvTos «ata thy BovrAjy Tod OeXnpatos avrodD—“ being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will.” The general significance of these Ld ; 60 EPHESIANS I. 12. terms has been already given under previous verses. BovA7 and 6éXnua are here connected—*“the counsel of His will.” The correspondent verbs, BovAouar and €6€éXo, are distinguished by Buttmann thus: the latter is the more general expression, containing the idea that the purpose formed lies within the power of the person who formed it (Lexilogus, p. 35); while Tittmann adds, that @éAnua is an expression of will, but Sovr7 has in it the further idea of propension or inclination. De Synon. p. 124. But the distinction is vague. The words occur with marked distinction in 1 Sam. xviii.; for in ver. 22, Oeree év signifies “he has pleasure in;” while in ver. 25, Bovreras év denotes desire consequent upon a previous reso- lution. Compare also 2 Sam. xxiv. 3; 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. @érnua, therefore, is will, the result of desire—voluntas ; Sov is counsel, the result of a formal decision—ypropositum. Donaldson’s New Cratylus, §§ 463, 464. Here BovdAn is the ratified expression of will—the decision to which His will has come. The Divine mind is not in a state of in- difference, it has exercised #éAnua—will; and that will is not a lethargic vellecty, for it has formed a defined purpose, Sovr7, which it determines to carry out. His desire and His - decrees are not at variance, but every resolution embodies His unthwarted pleasure. This divine fore-resolve is universal in its sweep—* He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” The plan of the universe lies in the omniscient mind, and all events are in harmony with it. Power in unison with infinite wisdom and independent. and undeviating pur- pose, is seen alike whether He create a seraph or form a gnat —fashion a world or round a grain of sand—prescribe the orbit of a planet or the gyration of an atom. The extinction of a world and the fall of a sparrow are equally the result of a free pre-arrangement. Our “inheritance” in Christ springs not from merit, nor is it an accidental gift bestowed from casual motive or in fortuitous circumstances, but it comes from God’s fore-appointment, conceived in the same independence and sovereignty which guide and control the universe. (Ver. 12.) Eis 76 elvau tas els Exawvov S0&ns adtov, Tovs mponrmixotas év TH Xpiot@ — “That we should be to the praise of His glory—we who have before hoped in Christ.” The critical opinions on this verse, and on its connection with . EPHESIANS 1. 132. 61 the preceding one, are very contradictory. Meyer and Ellicott join it to é«AnpwOnuev —“we have been brought into the inheritanee, in order that we should be to the praise of His glory.” Others, as Calovius, Flatt, and Harless, take els ér. as the final cause of the predestination, and read thus, “ that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.” Harless would render—die wir vorher bestimmt waren u8.w., diejenigen zu seyn zum Ruhme seiner Herrlichkeit, die schon vorher auf Christus hofften—thus making this fore- hope the blessing to which they were predestinated. But the blessings to which men are predestinated are not pre-Messianic, but actual Christian blessings. Besides, such a construction is needlessly involved, and in verses 5 and 14 the blessings which believers enjoy are specified, and the phrase “to the praise of His glory” follows as a general conclusion. Eis - €rrawov tis S0Ens is therefore not the proximate purpose, but the ultimate result. The main struggle has been to determine who are meant by the uads tods mpondmxotas. Koppe, followed by Holzhausen, understands the apostle to use the style royal, and to mean himself. The majority of commentators suppose the words to denote the believing Jews, so called, in the opinion of Beza, Grotius, Estius, Bodius, Bengel, Flatt, Olshausen, and Stier, because their faith in Christ preceded in point of time that of the Gentiles. This exegesis admits of various modifications. The hope of the Jews in Christ pteceded that of the Gentiles, either, as Harless imagines, because they had heard of Him earlier; or, as Rosenmiiller, - Meyer, Olshausen, Chandler, and others affirm, because they possessed the Old Testament prophecies, and so had the hope of Him before He came into the world. But it may be _ replied, that this sudden change of meaning in Hers, 80 different from all the preceding verses, is a gratuitous assumption; for the “we” and the “us” in the preceding context denote the community of believers with whom the ————-|_~ ~~ * apostle identifies himself, and why should he so sharply and abruptly contract the signification, and confine it to himself and his believing countrymen? There is no hint that such particularization is intended, and there is nothing to point out the Jews as its object. Were this the idea, that the Christian 62 EPHESIANS I. 12. Jews were distinguished from the Gentiles by the forehope of a Messiah, as the great object of their nation’s anticipations and desires, then we might have expected that the phrase would have been mpondruxdtes els tov Xpictov. Nor do we apprehend that there is anything in the participle to limit its meaning to the Hebrew portion of the church. The wpo may not signify before or earlier in comparison with others, but, as de Wette maintains, it may simply mean “already ”— prior to the time at which the apostle writes. Many con- firmatory examples occur: Eph. iii. 3, caOws mpoéypayyra—as I have already written; Col. i. 5, €Avrida Hv mponcotcate— the hope of which ye have already heard; Acts xxvi. 5, mpoywweakovtes—who have already known; Gal. v. 21, @ mporéyw—which I have already told you; Rom. iii. 25, trav TpoyeyovoTwy apyapTnudtwv —of sins already committed ; 1 Thess. ii, 2, dAXa mpotraPovres —but having already suffered; and so in many other cases. The preposition indeed has often a more distinctive meaning, but there is thus no necessity caused by the words of the clause to refer it to Jews. The use of vets in the following verse might be said to be a direct transition, natural in writing a letter, when the composer of it passes from general to more special allusions and circumstances. The verb éAzifw also is used in reference to the Gentiles, Matt. xii. 21, Rom. xv. 12; and it might here denote that species of trust which gives the mind a firm persuasion that all promises and expectations shall be fully realized. But while these difficulties stand in the way, still, on a careful review of the passage, we are rather inclined from the pointed nature of the context to refer the ruds to believing Jews. The participle may certainly bear the meaning of having hoped beforehand—that is, before the object of that hope appeared; or it may mean before in comparison with others, Acts xx. 13. Thus the duets of the following verse forms a sharp contrast to the expressed nudads and the tods mpondrixoras, which is a limiting predication, with emphasis upon it, as indicated by its position and by the specifying article. Donaldson, § 492. So understood, the claim describes the privilege of believing Jews in contrast with Gentiles. Lightfoot on Iwke, ii. 34. The article tis before d0€ns is omitted by many MSS., and is justly cancelled EPHESIANS I. 13, 63 by Tischendorf and Lachmann. The clause itself has been explained under ver, 6. (Ver. 13.) "Ev @ wal dpeis. This clause is variously con- strued. Morus harshly renders évy ¢6—“ therefore,” making it to correspond to the Hebrew x3. Meyer, Peile, and Alford supply the verb of existence—“in whom are ye.” But this appears tame in contrast with the other significant verbs of the paragraph. Far better, if a verb is to be supplied to the clause at all, either to take 7Amixate, with Beza, Calvin, and Estius; or 逫AnpwOnte, with Zanchius, a-Lapide, Bodius, Koppe, Meier, Harless, and Olshausen. But the clause pre- sents only one compacted sentence—“In whom also ye, having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation ; in whom (I repeat) ye, having believed, were sealed.” 'Ev 6 wai vpeis refers to the verb éodpayicOnre—in Christ ye too have been sealed; and the second éy @ xaié resumes and intensifies the declaration, for it refers to Christ, as Harless, Olshausen, and Stier rightly think, and not—as Piscator, Grotius, and Rosenmiiller affirm—to Aoyos, or—as Castalio, Calvin, Beza, and Meyer aver—to evayyédiov. The apostle, in assuring the Gentile converts that their interest in Christ, though more recent, was not less secure than that of believing Jews, first of all turns to their initial privilege as having heard the gospel, and then he cannot but refer to their faith; and this second reference, so important, suspends the construction for a moment. The apostle describes their privilege— axovoavtes Tov Aoyov Tis dAnOelas—“ having heard the word of the truth.” The aorist has its proper meaning, though rendered “having heard,” and points to the period when their privilege commenced. The genitive is that of contents or substance. Scheuerlein, § 12, 1. This clause describes the revealed system of mercy. That word has truth, absolute truth, for its essence. There is no occasion to suppose any allusion to the types of the Old Testament, with Chrysostom, or to the lying vanities and ambiguous oracles of Heathendom, with Baumgarten-Crusius and a-Lapide. The idea was familiar to the mind of Paul, Rom. i. 18, ii. 8; Col. i. 5—%-ddAnOela; 2 Thess. ii. 12. This special truth is adapted to man’s spiritual state. It is a truth that there is a 64 EPHESIANS I. 13. God, but the truth that this God is the Saviour; a truth that God is benevolent, but the truth that grace is in His heart toward sinners; a truth that there is a future world, but the truth that heaven is the home of the redeemed. The gospel is wholly truth, and that very truth which is indispensable to a guilty world. And it comes as a word, by special oral revelation, for it is not gleaned and gathered: there is a kind and faithful oracle. It is further characterized as 76 evayyédov Tis cwTnplas vyav—the gospel of your salvation.” But what is the precise form of the genitive? We cannot regard it, with Harless, as merely a peculiar form of apposition; nor can we make it, with other critics, the gospel which secures your salvation. Rom. i. 16. For the occurrence of adxovcavtes, as explaining their relation to the gospel, would suggest the explanation—the gospel which reveals salvation, because it contains it. Bernhardy, p. 161; Winer, § 30, 2,6. The gospel is good news, and that good news is our salvation— the best of all news to a sinful and dying world. Salvation makes safe from all the elements of that penalty which their sin brought down upon transgressors, and possession to the inheritance of the highest good—the enjoyment of the Divine favour, and the possession of the Divine image. This truthful and cheering revelation they had heard, and that at two several periods, from the lips of the apostle himself. Having heard the gospel, they believed it: “Faith cometh by hearing.” They heard so as that they believed, for they had heard with candour, docility, and attention. While others might criticise the terms of the message, or scoff at it, they believed it, they took it for what it professed to be. They gave it credit, received its statements as truths, and felt its blessings to be realities. év @ Kal miotevoavtes—* in whom also having believed.” The pronoun has Xpuoros for its antecedent, and it is in close connection with the verb. The verb miorevw is found with éy in Mark 1.15, but not in the writings of the apostle. The aorist marks a time antecedent to the following verb. They not only heard, but they also believed the word of truth. eoppayicOnte to IIvevpati tis érayyedias TH ayip—* ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” The dative is ; EPHESIANS I. 13. 65 that of instrument, and the position of r@ dyip gives a signal solemnity to the epithet. This Divine Being is termed IIvedpa, not on account of His essence, since the whole Godhead is Spirit, but because of His relation to the universe as its Life, and to the believing soul as its Quickener. And He is the Hoty Spirit, not as if the sanctity of His character were more brilliant than that of Father and Son, but because of His economic function as the Sanctifier. The genitive erayyeXlas is supposed by Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, and the early church, to have an active sense, and to mean the Spirit who confirms the promise. Better is the idea which makes the genitive denote quality, as in the Syriac version—the Spirit which was promised. The genitive is almost that of ablation, as Theophylact in his first explanation gives it— éte €& emayyedias €600n. The Spirit is a prominent and pervading promise in the Old Testament. Isa. xxxii. 15, xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 27, xxxix. 29; Joel ii. 28; Zech. xii. 10. The Spirit was also the leading promise which Christ left to His disciples, as recorded in John, referred to in Acts i. 4—8, and in Gal. iii. 14. See Luke xxiv. 49. The fact is, that up to the period of our Lord’s ascension, the Spirit stood to the church in the relation and attitude of a promised gift. John vii. 39. “Holy Ghost was not yet” in plenary possession and enjoyment, “because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The same truth was taught by the apostle at Ephesus. Acts xix. 2. Paul said to certain disciples there who had been baptized into John’s baptism, “ Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed? And they said unto him, We did not so much as hear whether there be any Holy Ghost.” Surely such ignorance referred not to the person of the Holy Ghost, for these men were Jews; but the reply seems to be, “We did not hear whether His promised outpouring has been vouchsafed.” And when they were rebaptized, the blessing came upon them. To a church where such a scene occurred, where men had waited for the Spirit, and felt that His descent did not follow John’s baptism—for it was the prerogative of the Messiah to baptize with the Holy Ghost—no wonder that Paul designates this Divine Agent by the name of the Spirit of promise. And ‘though the church now possess Him, still, in reference to Fr 66 EPHESIANS I. 14. enlarged operation and reviving energy, He is the Spirit of promise. By this Spirit they were sealed. 2 Cor.i.22. The sealing followed the believing, and is not coincident with it, as Har- less argues. This sealing is a peculiar work of the Spirit. 2 Tim. ii. 19. Various ideas may be contained in the general figure. It seems to have, in -fact, both an objective and a subjective reference. There are the seal, the sealer, and the sealed. The Holy Ghost is the seal, God the sealer. Sdpayis Bacitixn eixov éott’—the Divine image in the possession of the Spirit is impressed on the heart, and the conscious enjoyment of it assures the believer of perfection and glory—Rom. vill. 16—or, as Theodore of Mopsuestia says, THv BeBaiwow édéEacbe. He who seals feels a special interest in what is so sealed—it is marked out as His: “The Lord knoweth them that are His.” He recognizes His own image. So Chrysostom—«adrep yap el tis Tovs AaxXOvTas avT@ Snrouvs troijoevev, just as if one were to make manifest such as have fallen to his lot. The notion of Theophylact is similar. But the idea that the sealing proves our security to others, or is meant to do so, is foreign to the meaning. That seal unbroken remains a token of safety. Rev. vii. 3. Whatever bears God’s image will be safely carried home to His bosom. The sealed ones feel the assurance of this within themselves. That there may be an allusion in the phrase to the miraculous gifts of the early ages, is not to be entirely denied, though certainly all who possessed those charismata were not con- verted men. Baptism was named “a seal” in early times, oppayis—signaculum. Greg. Naz. Or. xl. De Bapt.; Tertull. Apol. xxi. The reason of the name is obvious, but there is no allusion to it here. Augusti, Handb. der Christ. Archeologie, vol. i. p. 315, 16. (Ver. 14.) "Os éotw appaBov ris KdXnpovoulas jhuav— “Who is the earnest of our inheritance.” The reading 6 is found in A, B, F, G, L, but appears to be a correction. The relative does not agree with its antecedent in gender, not that, as Bloomfield imagines, such a change is any argument in favour of the personality of the wvevua, for it only assumes the gender of the following definitive predicate. So Mark ? Polyenus, p. 768. EPHESIANS I. 14 67 xv. 16; Gal. iii 16; 1 Tim. iii. 13, ete. Winer, § 24, 3; Kiihner, § 786, 3 ; Madvig, § 98. From not perceiving this idiom, some refer to Christ as the antecedent. ’AppaSav— earnest, is but the Oriental i3°Y in Greek letters. 2 Cor. i 22, v. 5, The earnest is not, properly speaking, a mere pledge, pignus, as the Vulgate has it. The pledge is restored when the contract has been performed, but the earnest is a portion of the purchase money. Isidore, lib. v. 25; Gaius, iii. 139; Suicer, sub voce. The master gives the servant a small coin when the paction is agreed on, and this handgelt, or earnest, mpodoua, as Hesychius defines it, is the token that the whole sum stipulated for will be given when the term of service expires. The earnest is not withdrawn, but is supplemented at the appointed period, for it is only, as Chrysostom explains it, wépos Tov mavros. Irenwus also says—“ Quod et pignus diztt Apostolus, hoc est partem ejus honoris quia Deo nobis pro- missus est, in epistola que ad Ephesios est."—Adv. Hares. lib. -v. cap. 11. The inheritance, «Anpovoyia, is that glorious blessing which awaits us, which is in reserve for us, and held by Christ in our name—that inheritance in which we have been enfeoffed (ver. 11), and which belonged to the vio@ec/a ; and jor is resumed, for it belonged alike to believing Jew and Gentile. The enjoyment of the earnest is a proof that the soul has been brought by faith into union with God. It has said to the Lord, “Thou art my Lord.” This covenant of “God's peace” is ratified by the earnest given. The earnest is less than the future inheritance, a mere fraction of it—exr decem solidis centum solidorum millia, as Jerome illustrates. The work of God’s Spirit is never to be undervalued, yet it is only a small thing in relation to future blessedness. That know- ledge which the Spirit implants is but limited—the dawn, faint in itself, and struggling with the gloom of departing night, compared to the broad effulgence of mid-day. The holiness He creates is still imperfect, and is surrounded and often oppressed with remaining infirmities in “this body of death,” and the happiness He infuses is often like gleams of sunshine on a “dark and cloudy day,” faint, few, and evanes- cent. But the earnest, though it differ in degree, is the same in kind with the prospective inheritance. The earnest is not 68 EPHESIANS I. &. withdrawn, nor.a totally new circle of possessions substituted. Heaven is but an addition to present enjoyments. Know- ledge in heaven is but a development of what is enjoyed on earth ; its holiness is but the purity of time elevated and perfected; and its happiness is no new fountain opened in the sanctified bosom, but only the expansion and refinement of those susceptibilities which were first awakened on earth by confidence in the Divine Redeemer. The “earnest,” in short, is the “inheritance” in miniature, and it is also a pledge that the inheritance shall be ultimately and fully enjoyed. God will not resile from His promise, the Spirit conferred will perfect the enterprise. To give believers a foretasting, and then withhold the full enjoyment, would be a fearful torture. The prelibation will be followed by the banquet. As an earnest of the inheritance, the Holy Ghost is its pledge and foretaste, giving to believers the incipient experience of what it is, and imparting the blissful assurance of its ultimate and undisturbed possession. And all this— eis ATOAUTpwWoLY THS TepiTToLnocEws, eis Errawov THs Sokns avroo—“ till the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” “The expression is idiomatic and somewhat difficult.” 1. Some suppose zrepi7rolnois to mean salus, conservatio, deliverance and life. The allied verb some- times signifies in the Septuagint “to save alive,” and so Whitby renders the phrase “the redemption of life,” and Bretschneider, redemptio qua vite eterne servamur. Wetstein, Bengel, and Bos have virtually the same explanation. Holz- hausen justifies this criticism at some length, and resolves the clause eis aro. Kat TwepiTroinow. 2. Others take the noun in the sense of possession. In 2 Chron. xiv. 13, the noun seems to signify “a remnant preserved,” «al érecov Aidiorwes wate wn elvar év avtois mepitoinow. 3. Some connect the two substantives as cause and effect. Luther renders zw unserer Erlisung, dass wir sein Eigenthum. wiirden—to our redemption, that we should be His possession. In this view Luther was preceded by Theodoret and Pelagius, and has been followed by Homberg and von Gerlach. Bucer has redemptio qua con- tingat certa vite possessio. But with an active sense the noun, as may be seen under ver. 7, is followed by a genitive. 4. Vatablus, Koppe, and Wahl give the noun a participial ren- EPHESIANS I. 14, 69 dering—the redemption which has been secured or purchased for us. Koppe also gives it another turn, “which we have already possessed,” in allusion to ver. 7. 5. Others change this aspect, and give it this rendering, ad obtinendam redemp- tionem. Beza translates, dum in libertatem vindicemur—a rendering which would require the words to be reversed. 6. Another party, H. Stephanus, Bugenhagen, Calovius, and Matthies, preceded by Ambrosiaster and Augustine, who seem to have understood it in the same sense, take the word in the general sense of possession—hereditas acquisita. But the inheritance needs not to be redeemed ; the redemption certainly applies to us, and not to the blessedness prepared for us. 7. The verb denotes to acquire for oneself: Gen. xxxvi. 6, xxxi. 18 ; Prov. vii. 4; Isa. xliii. 21, Xads pou bv reprerroen- caunv; Acts xx. 28, éxxrAnaola, fv mepierroijcato bia Tov aipatos tov idiov; 1 Tim. iii. 13, Ba@yov éavtois xadov trept- movovvtat. Similar instances occur in the Apocrypha, and the _ same meaning is found in the classics. Didymus defines it, _mepim. yap kat’ ékaipetov év Tmepiovzia Kal Kxtjpate dedoyIC- _ pévov, that is mepum., which is emphatically reckoned as portion of our substance and possession. Theophylact explains the words by the same terms, and (Ecumenius defines it by itself, mepiTr. nas Karel dua TO Trepiroincacbat Huas Tov Gedy.’ In this way the noun is used in 1 Thess. v. 9, eis reper. owTn- plas; 2 Thess. ii. 14, eis mepur. do€ns; Heb. x. 39, eis meper. auxijs. In all these cases there is the idea of acquisition for oneself, and the noun followed by a genitive has an active significance, which it cannot have here, and Meyer's connection with avrov is strained. The idea of life, vitality, or safety, found in the term so often when it stands in the Old Testa- ment as the representative of 7, and on which some exegetes lay such stress, is evidently a secondary use. The central idea is to preserve for oneself, and as life is the most valuable of possessions, so the word was employed xar’ éfox1j»—to "preserve it. The great majority of critics understand mept- moinow in the abstract—the possession, te. the people pos- * Such a meaning belongs to the verb in the Greek classica. Of lesfivew wy sweincay vi xwpier, Thucyd. 3, 102. Tas Yuxas eypswmtcacts. Xenoph. Cyrop. 4, 4. 8. SHO cin wal b Daipar eepareiner. Herodian, 8, 8 12. See the - Lexicons of Passow, Pape, and Liddell and Scott, sub voce. 70 EPHESIANS I. 14. yessed—zrrepitrounBevtes. As a collective noun to denote a body of people, weputouy is employed in Phil. iii, 3, and so — éxXoyn stands in Rom. xi 7 for of éxXextot. The word thus © corresponds to the Hebrew mpaD, often rendered by a similar term—rrepiovoros. Compare Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18; Isa. xliii. 21; or Mal. iii. 17, écovral por eis Trepitoinow. The trepiro/noss in the Old Testament refers not to any possession held by the people, but to the people themselves held in possession by God. Titus ii. 14; and dads els tepitroinaw, 1 Pet. ii. 9. The collective. people of God are His mepitro(nous—the body of the faithful whom He has taken to be His xAjpos. They are His by the blood paid for their ransom. Ofétwes, says Theophylact, éopéev mepiroinocs kal Knows Kal Tepiovoia Beod. And the redemption which is here referred to, is their complete and final deliverance from all evil. The people who form the “possession” become God’s by redemption, and shall fully realize themselves as God’s when that redemption shall be completed. Olshausen, Meyer, and Stier understand eis to denote the final cause—“ for the redemption of the purchased possession.” Still in this case “ for” would have virtually a subtemporal sense. De Wette and Riickert render it “until ;” iv. 30. Whether the words be joined with éodpayicOnre or with the immediately preceding clause, it matters not, for the meaning is much the same. The sealing and earnest are alike inter- mediate, and point to a future result—eis implying a future purpose and period, when both shall be superseded. The earnest is enjoyed up till the inheritance be received, when it is absorbed in its fulness. The idea is common in the Old Testament, as showing the relation which the ancient Israel bore to God as His “ inheritance ”—His, and His by a special tie, for He had redeemed them out of Egypt. Triune divine operation is again developed ;—the Father seals believers, and His glory is the last end; in the Son are they sealed, and their redemption is His work; while the Spirit—“ which pro- ceedeth ” from the Father, and is sent by the Son—is the Seal and the Earnest. And this doAvtpwors is our absolute redemption, as Chrysostom terms it. Wilke understands by dzroAvtpwous— the liberation of the minor on his majority, comparing this EPHESIANS I. 14 "1° passage with one somewhat similar in Galatians. But darodv- Tpwors seems, in the apostle’s idea of it, to be a long process, including not a single and solitary blessing, but a complete Series of spiritual gifts, beginning with the pardon of sin, and stretching on to the ultimate bestowment of perfection and felicity, for it rescues and blesses our entire humanity. In- Jesus “we are having redemption ;” and pardon, enlighten- ment, and inheritance, with the Spirit as the signet and the earnest, are but its present elements, given us partially and by instalments in the meanwhile: for though it begin when sin is forgiven, yet it terminates only when we are put in possession of that totality of blessing which our Lord's obe- dience and death have secured. Rom. viii. 23; 1 Cor. i 30. “We have redemption” so soon as we believe; we are ever having it so long as we are on earth; and when Jesus comes again to finish the economy of grace, we shall have it in its full and final completion. Thus the redemption in ver. 7 is incipient, and in ver. 14 is final—the first and last stages of the same atrodvtpeacs. And all issues eis éravoy tis S0&ns avtov— to the praise of His glory "—His grace having now done its work. As in verses 5th and 6th, e/s with the proximate end is followed by es with the ultimate purpose. The eperoinows—“ the Lorb’s own,” “the Holy Catholic Church” in heaven, praises Him with rapturous emotion, for His glory is seen and felt in every blessing and hope, and this perpetual and universal consciousness of redemption is ever jubilant in its anthems and halleluiahs. See under ver. 6. The period of redemption expires with the wapoveia, No more is redemption to be offered, for the human race has run its cycle; and no more is it to be partially enjoyed, for the redeemed are to be clothed with perfection : 90 that the period of perfection in blessing harmonizes with that of perfection in numbers. As long as the process of redemption is incomplete, the collection of recipients is incomplete too. The church receives its complement in extent at the very same epoch at which it is crowned with fulness of purity and blessedness. “May it please Thee of Thy gracious goodness shortly to accomplish the number of Thy elect, and to hasten Thy king- dom,” is an appropriate petition on the part of all saints. 72 EPHESIANS I, 18. (Ver. 15.) This verse begins a new section. After praise comes prayer. The apostle having given thanks to God. for the Ephesian converts, offers a fervent and comprehensive prayer on their behalf, that they may enjoy a deeper insight, so as to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His future glory, and His transcendent vivifying and exalting power, as seen in the resurrection and glorification of Christ. Aa tovro—“ Wherefore,” not, as Grotius says, and in which saying he is joined by Riickert and Matthies, “because we are bound to thank God for benefits,” for the words have a wider retrospective connection than merely with the last clause of the preceding paragraph. Nor, on the other hand, is it natural, with Chrysostom, CEcumenius, and Harless, to give them a reference to the whole previous section. It is better, with Theophylact and Meyer, to join them to the 13th and 14th verses. For in these verses the apostle turns to the believing Ephesians, and, directly addressing them, describes briefly the process of their salvation, and then, and for that reason, prays for them. The prayer is not for “us,” but for “you,” and for you, because ye heard and believed, and were sealed. Kayo, rendered “I also.” But such a translation suggests the idea of others, tacitly and mentally alluded to, besides the apostle. Who then can be referred to in the word “also”? Is it, “Others thank God for you, so do I”? or is it, “Ye thank God yourselves, I do it also for you”? thus, as Meyer says, (zusammenwirkt)—he co-operates with them. These sup- positions seem foreign to the context, since there is no allusion to any others beside the writer, nor is there any reference to the Ephesians as praying or giving thanks for themselves. Kai may be merely continuative, as it often is in the New Testament ; it may merely mark transition to another topic; or it may indicate the transition from the second person to the first. Stuart, § 185. Kayo’ may signify “indeed,” quidem; or it may have the first of those meanings in the Pauline diction. Compare Acts xxvi. 29; Rom. iii 7; 1 Cor, vi. 8, 40, x. 88, xt 1; 2 Cor.-xi. 16: Gal. iv. 12% Phil. iii 19; 1 Thess. ni. 5. The word would thus mean 1 Buttmann pronounces it to be an error to write xéy# with iota subscribed, § 29, n. 2; Jelf, § 14. | EPHESIANS I. 15. 73 “Wherefore I indeed”—the apostle who first preached to you, and who has never ceased to yearn over you— dxovcas THY KaO’ ipas trict év TH Kupip 'Incot—*having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus.” It is wrong to argue from this expression, with Olshausen and de Wette, that the apostle had no personal knowledge of the persons whom he addressed. This was an early surmise, for it is referred to by Theodoret. Some, says he, have supposed that the apostle wrote to the Ephesians, a> pndérw Oeacdpevos aitovs.' As we have seen in the Introduction, those who wish to regard this epistle as a circular letter, lay stress on the same term. But some years had elapsed since the apostle had visited Ephesus, and seen the Ephesian church, and might he not therefore refer to reports of their Christian stedfastness which had reached him? Nay, his use of the aorist may signify that such intelligence had been repeatedly brought to him. Kiihner, § 442, 1; Buttmann, § 137, 8, Obs. 5. But this frequentive sense, however, is denied to aorists in the New Testament. Winer, § 40, 5,6,1.2 The verb ravopas, connected with this aorist, is in the present tense, as if the apostle meant to say, that such tidings from Ephesus were so satisfactory, that he could not cease to thank God for them. His thanks- _ giving was never allowed to flag, for it sprang from information as to the state of the church in Ephesus, and especially of what the apostle emphatically names— tHv Kal’ tpas wiotw. The expression is peculiar. Winer, § 22, 7, renders it fidem que ad vos pertinect, but in such a version the phrase expresses no other than the common form of the pronoun—wperépa wiotis. Harless and Riickert trans- 1The criticism of Hammond upon axedeas is ingenious, but not satisfactory. He renders it here cum sciverim, for &xevw, he adds, often signifies to know or to understand. Gen. xi. 7, xlii, 23; 1 Cor. xiv. 2, He that speaketh in an ‘unknown tongue speaketh not to man—eidils yap dxove—for no one understands him. The use of the verb is similarly idiomatic in the other places cited. It signifies, to hear so as tounderstand. These phrases refer, however, to personal conference, where difference of language rendered conversation unintelligible. But in this clause it refers to reports by third parties, and therefore cannot be so used. The idiom is one easily understood, for it occurs in many similar phrases. Thus, to hear prayer is to comply with the request ; to hear one in danger, isto help him. With us in Scotland the order is inverted. One sys to his friend, ‘‘Speak for a moment,” which means, ‘‘ Hear me speak for a ~ moment.” * See Moulton’s Winer, p. 347, n. 2. 74 EPHESIANS I. 13. late, den Glauben bet euch—* the faith which is among you;”’ Riickert holding that a species of local meaning is implied in the idiom, and Harless maintaining that if the adjective pro- noun had been used, the subjective view of their faith would have been given—faith as theirs; whereas by this idiom, their faith in its objective aspect is depicted—faith as it exists among them. Though this mode of expressing relation came to be common in later Greek, as Meyer has shown, still we are inclined to think that there was something emphatic in the form. Bernhardy, p. 241. Acts xvii. 28, tives Tov Kal’ byas troumTav— certain of the poets among you ”—some of your poets, not ours — not Jewish or Christian bards, but Greek ones, whom ye claim and recognize as your national minstrels. Acts xviii. 15, the Roman proconsul says, “ If it be a question of your law,” vouov tod cad’ buas—your law; the law that obtains among you, not the Roman law—your Jewish law, to which you cling, and the possession and ob- servance of which mark and characterize you as a people. So in Acts xxvi. 3—rév Kata ‘Iovéaiovs é8@v—customs among Jews — specially Jewish; the very thing under discussion, and spoken of by one who had been educated at Rome. The ordinary phrase, 7 wioTis tue, is used seventeen times, and this form seems to denote not simply possession, as the genitive jueyv or pronoun tyerépa would imply, but also characteristic possession. It is that faith which not only is among you, but which you claim and recognize as your peculiar posses- sion—that faith which gave them the appellation of muczod in the first verse, and which is said in ver. 13 to have secured for them the sealing influences of the Holy Spirit. At all events, the instance adduced by Ellicott and Alford as against us, is not parallel. The phrase “your law,” John viii. 17, to vopw To vweTepe, is not parallel to Acts xviii. 15, for the first was spoken by a Jew to Jews—it was His law as well as theirs (Gal. iv. 4); but not so in the case of the Roman deputy in Achaia. It seems foreign to the phrase to bring out of it, as Alford does after Stier, “the possibility of some not having this faith.” He had named them quioro/ already, and will cata with the partitive’ meaning imply that some might not have this faith? That faith reposed— év t® kupip ’Incod. The usage and meaning of «vpios are EPHESIANS I. 15. 75 fully referred to under ver. 2. Such a characteristic faith was in Christ. Winzer' indeed proposes to connect duas with this clause—/idem, qua, vobis Domino Jesu veluti insitis, inest. The position of the words excludes such a connection. Their faith lay immoveable in Jesus, and the same idea, expressed by év, is very frequent in the preceding verses. See under ver. 1. IIicris followed by év is not common; yet eis, zpos, émi occur often in such connection in the Septuagint; Ps. Ixxviii 22; Jer. xii. 6; Gal. iii. 26; Col. i 4; 1 Tim. i. 14, ii 13; 2 Tim. i. 13, iii, 15. See under the first verse. The zictis, so well defined by «a6 duds, and so closely allied to xupwos, needs not the article after it, and the want of the article indicates the unity of conception. The article is similarly omitted in Gal. iii. 26, and in Col i. 4; Winer, § 20, 2. That faith wrought by love— Kai THY ayaTNy Thy eis TuvTas TOs dylous—“and your love to all the saints.” Some MSS. such as A, B, etc., omit tv aydrny, and Lachmann, true to his critical principles, leaves them out in his edition. But the omission is an evident blunder. The Syriac version, older than any of these MSS., has the words, and without them no sense could be made of the verse. Chrysostom also reads the words, and says that the apostle always knits and combines faith and love, a glorious pair— Bavpaotny twa Evywpida :— dy.os is explained under ver. 1. Faith and love are often _ associated by the apostle. Col. i.4; Philem. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3. > * The article is repeated after dyamnv, because the relation expressed by eds is not so intimate as that denoted by ¢, because it has not the well-understood foundation of iors, and it may also signalize the difference of allusion—dayd7n, not to Christ, but—r7v els wdvras tods dylovs. This conception, therefore, has not the unity of the preceding: it is love, but love further defined by a special object—“ to all the saints.” It is not philanthropy—love of man as man—but the love of the brethren, yea, “all” the brethren—“ the household of faith.” Community of faith begets community of feeling, and this brother-love is an instinctive emotion, as well as an earnest obligation. In that spiritual temple which the Spirit is rearing in the sanctified bosom, faith and love are the } Commentatio in Eph. cap. i. v. 19. PAngstprogramm, Leipzig, 1836. 76 EPHESIANS I. 16. Jachin and Boaz, the twin pillars that grace and support the structure. (Ver. 16.) Ob ravopar edyapictav imép tyuav—“I cease not giving thanks for you.” ‘Yzrép is thus used, v.20; 1 Tim. i 1. Evyapiorteiv, in the sense of “to give thanks,” belongs to the later Greek, for, prior to the age of Polybius, it signified to please or to gratify. Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 18. Instead of a participle the infinitive is sometimes employed, but there is a difference of meaning. The participle expresses an action which already exists, and this form of construction prevails in the New Testament. “As one giving thanks for you I cease not.” The infinitive evyapictety would mean, “I cease not from a supposed period to give thanks.” Winer, § 45, 4; Stuart, § 167; Scheuerlein, § 45, 5; Hermann, Ad Viger. p. 771; Bernhardy, p. 477.1. The Gothic version of Ulphilas has preserved the peculiar point of the expression—“ unsvei- bands aviliudo,’—non-cessans gratias dico. The apostle, though he had visited them, does not felicitate himself on his pastoral success among them, but gives thanks on this account to God, for His grace had changed them, and had sustained them in their Christian profession. Hvelav bpwv Trovovmevos etl TAY Tpocevyav ou—< making mention of you in my prayers.” Rom. i. 9; Phil. i. 3; 1 Thess. i 2,3. Some MSS., as A, B, and D, omit duav, and it is rejected by Lachmann ; but there is no good reason for its exclusion, for it may have been omitted because of the previous vzev so close upon it, for A and B have the same omission in 1 Thess. ii 2. F and G place the pronoun after the participle. The terms evyapiota@y and pveiav rrovovpevos are not to be identified. The apostle gave thanks, and his thanks ended in prayer. As he blessed God for what they had enjoyed, he implored that they should enjoy more. He thanked for their faith and hope, and he prayed as he glanced into the future. And he made special mention of the Ephe- sian church; movoduevos in the middle voice implying— for himself ”—éal tev mpooevyav pov. The preposition has a temporal meaning with a sub-local reference. Bernhardy, p. 1 Kiihner occupies no less than seven sections in enumerating and defining the different classes of verbs which are followed by a participle rather than an infinitive (§ 657-664), EPHESIANS I. 17. 77 246; Winer, § 47, g,d; Stallbaum’s Plato, de Rep. p. 460. He did it as his usual work and pleasure, and perhaps the language implies that he made formal mention of them when- ever and wherever he prayed. He yearned over them as his children in Christ, and he bore their names on his heart before the Lord in fervent, repeated, and effectual intercession. (Ver. 17.) “Iva 6 @eds tod Kupiou syyav Inood Xpictoo Son— That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would give.” Making mention of you in my prayers, offering this prayer for you, that the God, etc. His prayer for them had this special petition—that. “Iva is thus used with the optative, and that telically to denote the object of desire, the blessing wished for. Bernhardy, p. 407. We see no reason to agree with MHarless, Olshausen, Winer, Robinson, Riickert, and others, in denying the proper telic use of iva in such a con- nection, or after verbs of entreaty. Ellicott also gives it a sub-final meaning—the purport of the prayer being blended _ with the purpose. Winer, § 41, 8,1. On the other hand, to deny with Fritzsche the ecbatic sense of (va, is an extreme quite opposed to many passages of the New Testament, and as _ wrong as to give it too often this softened meaning. Harless - says, that the optative is here used for distinctness, because a r verb expressing desire is omitted. But the final cause of entreaty is—“in order that” something may be given. The object of the apostle’s prayer was, that God would give the Ephesians the spirit of wisdom. He prayed for this end— this final purpose was present to his mind; he prayed with this avowed intent—@%a. Ellicott’s statement is after all but _atruism: if a man tell you to what end he prays, he surely tells you the substance of his prayers. Disclosure of the pur- pose must express the purport, and fa, pointing out the first, ~ also of necessity introduces the last. But the iva in such an idiom contains in itself the idea of previous desire, and the - optative is used, not as if there were any doubt in the apostle’s mind that his prayer might not be granted, or as if the answer _ might be only a probable result, but that God’s giving the : object prayed for would be the hoped-for realization of the intention which he had, when he began to offer the petitions _ which he was still continuing. Jelf, §807,7; Devarius-Klotz, _p. 622. Had the wish that God would confer blessing begun 78 EPHESIANS I. 17. merely when the apostle wrote the words, had the whole aim of the prayer been regarded as future to that point of time, the subjunctive would have been used. 4m is a later form for do/n. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, pp. 345,346; Sturz, De dialecto Alexandrino, p. 52. Lachmann, however, reads doy in the Ionic subjunctive form, but without sufficient ground. The Divine Being to whom Paul presented intercessory prayer for the Ephesians, is referred to under two peculiar and unusual epithets— ‘O @cos tod Kupiov nav *Inootd Xpictob— The God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He is elsewhere called the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but only in this place, simply, “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The language has need- lessly startled many commentators, and obliged them to make defence against Arian critics. Suicer, sub voce. The dangerous liberties taken with the words in the capricious use of hyper- baton and parenthesis by Menochius, Vatablus, Estius, and a-Lapide, do not gain the end which they were intended to serve. It is with some of them— “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God of glory,’ or “the God (of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father) of glory.” The criticism of Theo- doret is more rational, though not strictly correct, for he thus distinguishes the two divine appellations in reference to Christ, —Ocov pev ws avOpwrov, matépa 5é ws Ocod. The reader will find an explanation of the phrase under the first clause of the 3rd verse. The exposition of Harless is somewhat loose. His explanation is—the God by whom Christ was sent to earth, from whom He received attestation in word and deed, and to whom He at length returned. But more special ideas are included—1. To be His God is to be the object of His worship—my God is the divinity whom I adore. As a man Jesus worshipped God, often prayed to Him, often consulted Him, enjoyed His presence, and complained on the cross of His desertion, saying—“ My God, my God.” 2. The language implies that God blessed Him—my God is He who blesses me. Gen. xxviii. 21. He prepared for Him His body, sustained His physical life, bestowed upon Him the Spirit, protected Him from danger, “ gave His angels charge concern- ing Him,” raised Him from the dead, and exalted Him to glory. 1 Cor. xi 3, xv. 27; 1 Pet. i 21. Especially, as , , 3 EPUESIANS I. 17, 79 Harless intimates, did He as Messiah come from God and do the will of God, and He is now enjoying the reward of God. Possessed Himself of supreme divinity, He subordinated Him- self to God, in order by such an economy to work out the _ glorious design of man’s salvation. The immanent distinctions of the one Godhead are illustrated in their nature and necessity from the scheme of redemption. And the reason why Paul refers to God in this relation to Jesus is, that having sent His Son and qualified and commissioned Him, having accepted from Him that atonement of infinite value, and having in proof of this acceptance raised Him to His own right hand, it is now His divine function and prerogative to award the blessings of the mediatorial reign to humble and believing suppliants. At the same time we cannot fully acquiesce in many inter- pretations of the Nicene Creed, even as illustrated by Petavius,' and adopted by such acute defenders as Cudworth? and Bull.’ To admit the divinity of the Son, and yet to deny Him to be avro@eos as well as the Father, seems to us really to modify and impugn the Saviour’'s Godhead by a self-contra- dictory assertion. We cannot but regard self-existence as essential to divinity. Bishop Bull says, however—“ Pater solus naturam ulam a se habet.”. The Creed of Nice declares, “We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the Essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one Essence with the Father.” These sentiments have been the faith of the church in every age, but they have been in many instances explained by unjustifiable imagery and language, often taken in the earlier centuries from the Platonic ontology, and drawn in later times from material _ sources. The arguments against what is called the eternal sonship, by Roell, Drew, Moses Stuart, Adam Clarke, and E _others, are, with all their show of argument, without founda- tion in Scripture, for a sonship in the Divine nature appears _ to be plainly taught and implied in it. But a sonship which affirms the Divine nature of the Son to be derived from the Father, makes that Son only Sevtepos Oeos—a secondary Deity. Not only is the Son dpoovc.os 7 matp/—of the same essence 1 De Trinitate, i. 5. ® Intellectual System, vol. ii. 406, ed. 1845, London, ® Defensio Fidei Nicene. Works, vol. v. ed. 1827, Oxford. 80 EPHESIANS I. 17. with the Father, but He is also avrofeos—God in and from Himself. Sonship appears to refer not to essence, but to existence—not to being in itself, but to being in its relations, and does not characterize nature so much as_ personality. But such difference of position is not inequality of essence, and when rightly understood will be found as remote from the calumnious imputation of Tritheism, as from the heresy of Modalism or Sabellianism.! | o IIatnp rhs 80&ns—*“ the Father of glory ”—is a unique phrase, having no real parallel in Scripture. It has some resemblance to the following phrases—“ King of glory” in Ps. xxiv. 7; “Lord of glory,” 1 Cor. ii. 8; “God of glory,” Ps. xxix. 3, quoted in Acts vii. 2; IIatnp trav dotav, Jas. i 17; 6 Ilarnp trav oixtippor, 2 Cor. i. 3; and yepovBly do£ns, Heb. ix. 5. Mo&ns is the genitive of characterizing quality. Winer, § 30,2. The notion of Theodoret is, that Sofa signifies the Divine nature of Christ, and many of the Fathers held a similar view. Athanasius remarks on this passage, that the apostle distinguishes the economy—kai dokav pév Tov povoyevh xanet, referring to the phrase in John i. 14, “the glory of the only-begotten of the Father ”—an idea also repeated by Alford. Theophylact quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as giving the same view—xal @cov nai IIatépa; Xpictod ev iyyovv Tod avOpw- mivov, Beov' Tis Sé SdEns, Hryouv ths Ocorntos, IIatépa. Cyril also (De Adoratione, lib. xi.), Jerome, and Bengel adopt the same hypothesis. Suicer, Thesaurus, i. 944, 5. These views are strained and moulded by polemical feelings, and the use of d0€a in reference to Jesus in other parts of the New Testament will not warrant such a meaning here. While this special and personal application is without ground on the one hand, it is a vague and pointless exegesis on the other, which resolves the phrase into IIatnp évdofos. De Wette 1 See also Schleiermacher, der Christl. Glaube, § 170-190 ; Twesten, Vorles- ungen tiber die Dogmatik, § 41; Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, § 72; Treffry, On the Eternal Sonship of Christ, London, 1839. It is a pity that so many non- biblical terms have been found necessary in the treatment of this awful subject, but sad and fatal errors seem to have made the coinage of them indispensable. One is disposed to say of them with Calvin—‘‘ Utinam quidem sepulta essent, constaret modo hee inter omnes fides, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum esse unum Deum : nec tamen aut Filium esse Patrem, aut Spiritam Filium, sed proprietate quadam esse distinctos.”—Institutio Christ. Reliyionis, vol. i. p. 89, ed. Berolini, 1834. EPHESIANS I. 117. Bt _renders—The Father with whom glory is ever present ; refer- Ting to the last clause of ver. 18—the glory of the inherit- ance. Others find in waryp the sense of origination—source of glory—auctor, fons. So Erasmus, Fesselius,' a-Lapide, _Grotius, and Olshausen, though with varying applications of _the general exegesis. This explanation is at least admissible. Did we, with some, regard Sofa as the immanent or essential glory of God, it would be impossible. Such glory is coeval with the Divine nature, the Essence and Effulgence are -coeternal. Or did we, with others, regard 80fa as meaning glorious gifts conferred upon us, then such a notion would not be in harmony with the context. That Iatyjp may signify originator is plain, though Harless expressly denies it. What is Ilatnp tay rvevpdtwv but their Creator? (Heb. xii. 9); or Tlatnp trav dare (Jas. i. 17) but their Producer? or Tari “Tov oixtipp@y (2 Cor. i. 3) but their Originator? Harless /refers the Sofa very much to the epithets of the following verses, while Stier and Alford virtually maintain an allusion to the God-man, in whom God's glory is revealed, by whom it dwells in humanity, and in whom all His people are glorified. On the other hand, and more in harmony with the course of ‘thought, Sofa appears to us to be that glory so often already referred to, and throwing its radiance over this paragraph. Men are elected, predestinated, sanctified, and adopted—eis éra:voy Oofns; enlightened, enfeoffed in an inheritance according to eternal purpose—els éraivoy Sons av’rod; and they hear, Believe, are sealed, and enjoy the earnest of the Spirit—eés mvov tis Sofns avTov. The three preceding paragraphs are thus each wound up witha declaration of the final result ‘and purpose—the glory of God. And now, when the apostle Tefers to God, what more natural than to ascribe to Him that glory which is His own chief end, and His own prime harvest in man’s redemption? Here stand, as repeated and leading ‘Wdeas, ver. 6, S0&ns—ver. 12, d0£ns—ver. 14, 56Ens ; so that in ver. 17 He is saluted with the title, arip rijs 80€ns. This lory is not His essential glory as Jehovah, but the glory which » has gathered for Himself as the God of our Lord Jesus nrist. The clause is in close union with the preceding one. Saviour-God, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, is in this 1 Adversaria Sacra, i. 350. ¥ 82 EPHESIANS I, 17. very character the possessor and thus the exhibiter of glory. It is then wholly—zrpos To mpoxeiyevov, as CEcumenius says, that such a title as this is given to God, that is, because of the contextual allusions, but not simply because the gifts prayed for are manifestations of this glory, as Olshausen supposes ; nor merely, as Cocceius and Meyer argue, because He will do that in answer to prayer which serves to promote His own glory. The gift prayed for is—that He would give “ you ”—dpiv —mrvedpa copias Kai atroxadrvrpews év érruyvoces avtoD— the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.” Though avedua wants the article, there is no reason, with Middleton, Chandler, Crellius, and Locke, to deny its reference to the Holy Spirit, and to make it signify “a wise disposition,” for the word came to be regarded very much as a proper name.’ Thus, Matt. xii, 28, év wvevpats Ocod—“by the Spirit of God;” Rom. i. 4, cata mvedpa dywwovvns; 1 Pet. i. 2, év ayacue mvevpatos; and in Mark i. 8; Luke i. 15, 35, 41, 67. The reference in these cases is plainly to the Holy Spirit, in some peculiar phases and manifestations of His divine influence. The canon of Middleton is not borne out by usage. On Greek Art. pp. 125,126. The genitives are not wholly those of possession, but perhaps also of character. fom. viii. 2,15; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim.i. 7. The Ephesians had possessed the Spirit as an earnest and seal, and now the apostle implores His influence in other modes of it to descend upon them. This “revelation” is His mode of operation, and the enlightened eye is the fruit of His presence. Indeed, Chrysostom and Theodoret use copia mvevpatixyn—spiritual wisdom—in explanation of mvetpa codias, but Chrysostom distinctly acknowledges the influence of the Spirit. Theo- phylact plainly specifies the gift of the Divine Spirit, “That He may supply you with spiritual gifts, so that by the Spirit you may be enlightened—@ore dca Tod mvevpatos dwtic Ova.” The Reformers supposed that the Spirit of grace and revela- tion is taken for the grace itself, as Calvin explains—spiritus sapientie et revelationis pro ipsa gratia capitur. We prefer a clear and formal reference to the Holy Spirit—the gift of God 1 Compare Gersdorf, Beitrdge zur Sprach-Characteristik der Schriftsteller des | neuen Test., Kap. iv, EPHESIANS I. 17. 83 through Christ. o¢éa and droxdAvyis are intimately joined, but not, as Meyer thinks, by the union of a general and special idea. Nor can we, with Olshausen, refer the words to the ancient charismata, and make droxd\vyis mean the capacity _ for receiving revelation, or for being a prophet. These super- natural endowments cannot be alluded to, because the apostle prays for the bestowment of wisdom and revelation to enable the Ephesians to know those blessings in the knowledge of which every Christian is interested, and which all Christians through all time receive in a greater or less degree from the Holy Ghost. The Ephesians had already enjoyed spiritual blessings, and they had been sealed by the Holy Spirit. Now the apostle prays that they may enjoy Him as a Spirit of wisdom and revelation. Yoda is wisdom, higher intelligence, rising at length into the “ riches of the full assurance of understanding.” It is connected with droxaduyis, for the Spirit of wisdom is the Spirit of revelation, and by such revelation that wisdom is imparted. The oracles of the New Testament had not then been collected, and therefore truth in its higher aspects might be imparted or extraordinarily revealed by the Holy Ghost. Such generally is the view also of Harless, codxa, _ however, being, according to him, the subjective condition, and doxdAvyis the objective medium. The clause is no -hendiadys. It resembles Rom. i. 5, “This grace and apostle- ship,” that is, grace, and the form in which the grace was } given—that of the apostolate; Rom. xi. 29, “The gifts and calling of God,” that is, the gifts and the medium of their - conferment—the Divine calling. Here we have the gift of wisdom along with the mode of its bestowment—revelation. ‘We cannot say, with Ellicott, that cop/a is the general and amoxddvyis the more special gift, for the last term carries | in it the notion of mode as well as result—insight commu- “nicated so as to impart wisdom. Nor can we see how it is “illogical to mention the gift, and then refer to the vehicle of And still all spiritual truth is His revelation. The Bible “is His gift, and it is only when the prayerful study of the ‘Bible is blessed by spiritual influence that wisdom is acquired. “Solemn invocation of the Holy Spirit must precede, and His 84 EPHESIANS I. 17. presence accompany, all faithful interpretation of the word of God. As we contemplate the holiness and veracity of its Author, the grace and truth of all His statements, and the benevolent purpose of His revelation, the heart will be soft- ened into that pure sensibility which the Holy Ghost delights in, as of old the strains of music in the schools of the prophets soothed and prepared the rapt spirit of the seer for the illapse of his supernatural visitant. Earthly passions and turbulent emotions must be repressed, for the “dew” descends not amidst the storm; the conflicting sensations of a false and ungodly heart forbid His presence, as the “dove” alights not amidst the tossings of the earthquake. The serenity resulting from “that peace which passeth all understanding,” not only draws down the Spirit of God, not only imparts a freer scope to the intellectual powers, a purer atmosphere to the spiritual vision, and a new relish to the pursuits of biblical study, but also refines and strengthens those faculties which unite in discovering, perceiving, and feeling the truths and beauties of inspiration. év émriyvoce. avtovd. The avtod refers to God, and not to Christ, as Calvin, Beza, Bodius, Calovius, Flatt, and Baum- garten suppose. ’Ev does not signify e/s—in reference to, or in order to, as Jerome, Anselm, Luther, a-Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and von Gerlach erroneously argue. The spirit of this exegesis may be seen in the note of Piscator—* Ut eum in dies muagis magisgue cognoscatis.” Such an unusual meaning is unnecessary. The versions, “through” the knowledge of God, as Rollock renders, or “along with” it, as Hodge makes it, are. foreign to the context. Tyndale cuts the knot by translating —‘“That he myght geve vnto you the Sprete of wisdom, and open to you the knowledge of him silfe.” Meyer, Harless, and Matthies suppose that ¢v marks out the sphere of operation —die Geistige Thiitigkeits-Sphére. Connecting the words especially with dioxadiews, we suppose them, while they formally denote the sphere, virtually to indicate the material of the revelation. In the last view they are taken by Homberg, Riickert, and Stier. If the knowledge of God be the sphere in which the Spirit of revelation operates, it is that He may deepen or widen it—in our possession of it. In what aspect is the Spirit prayed for? It is as a Spirit of wisdom. How is this EPHESIANS I. 17. 85 wisdom communicated by Him? By revelation. What is the central sphere, and the characteristic type, of this revela- tion? Jt is the knowledge of God, not agnitio, as the Vulgate has it, and Beza and Bodius expound it, but cognitio— not the acknowledgment, but the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God stands out objectively to us as the first and best of the sciences ; and when the Spirit imparts it, and gives the mind a subjective or experimental acquaintance with it, that mind has genuine wisdom.! 'Emiywots Qecod is the science, and go¢/a is the result induced by the Spirit of reve- lation. The preposition é7é, in émi-yvwors, contains probably the idea of the “additional” as the image of intensive. Such a preposition sometimes loses its full original force in com- position, but it would be wrong to say with Olshausen, that here such a meaning is wholly obliterated. Tittmann, De Syno- nymis, etc., p. 217; Wilke, Appendiz, p. 560. 'Emiyvwor is not ascribed to God in the New Testament, neither could it with propriety. His knowledge admits of no improvement either in accuracy or extent. Phavorinus defines the term peta THY TpwTny yvaow Tod mpdypatos Kata Suvayw avers Katavonots. The simple verb and its compound are used with beautiful distinction in 1 Cor. xiii. 12, dpre ywooxw €x pépous, Tore 5é emrvyvdcouat. That knowledge of God in which the Spirit of revelation works, and which He thereby imparts, is a fuller and juster comprehension of the Divine Being than they had already enjoyed. The subsequent verses show that this additional knowledge of God concerns not the works of His creation, which is but the “time vesture ” of the Eternal, but the grace and the purposes of His heart, His possession and exhibition of love and power, His rich array of blessings which are kept in reserve for His people, and that peculiar influence which He exercises over them in giving them spiritual and permanent vitality. Harless says that ériyvwors signifies the knowledge of experience, because 1 Stier quotes a remark ‘‘sehr naiv” from one of Francke's Fast-Sermons, illustrating at once the spirit of the good old man's peculiar pietism, as well as his opinion of the godless and Christless teaching beginning to prevail in the colleges of Germany : ‘‘The apostle does not say he wished that a university should be founded in the city of Ephesus, to which should be appointed a host of professors by whom the people should be made wise. O no: he implored the Spirit of wisdom.” 86 .EPHESIANS I. 18. dvvayis stands as its object. This view, however, is defective, for Svvauis is not the only object—there is also the “ in- heritance,” which is future, and therefore so far external to believers. Some, however, join the clause with the following verse —‘“In the knowledge of Him the eyes of your heart being enlightened.” Thus construe Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zachariae, Olshausen, Lachmann, and Hahn. Such a con- struction is warped and unnatural. Olshausen’s reason is connected with his notion that codia and dmoxddvis are charismata or extraordinary gifts, and could not be followed up and explained by such a phrase as the “knowledge of God.” But the verb dwrifm is nowhere accompanied by év; in Rev. xvii. 1 it is followed by é«. The Syriac renders, “ And would enlighten the eyes of your hearts to know what is,” ete. (Ver. 18.) Iehwricpévovs tots odOarpovs tis Kapdias vuav—The eyes of your heart having been enlightened ;” that is, by the gifts or process just described. Kapdéas is now generally preferred to dvavolas, as it has preponderant authority, such as MSS. A, B, D, E, F, G, etc., with the Syriac, Coptic, and Vulgate, etc. Thus, too, Clemens Romanus— oi ofOarpol ths Kxapdias. Ep. ad Corinth. § 36. Various forms of construction have been proposed. 1. Some under- stand the clause to be the accusative governed by do. The words are so taken by Zanchius, Matthies, Riickert, Meier, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Stier, and Turner. This con- struction, however, seems awkward. Bengel remarks that the presence of the article before 6f@adrpovs is against such a construction. For the eyes were, not precisely a portion of the gift, but only the enlightenment of them ; whereas, according to this construction, if tods 6¢@arpovs be governed by den, both the eyes and their illumination would be described as alike the Divine donation. This, however, is not the apostle’s mean- ing. The eyes of the heart needed both a quicker perception and a purer medium in order to distinguish those glorious objects which were presented to them. The words, as placed by the apostle, are different from a prayer for “enlightened eyes ;” and the clause is not parallel with those of the pre- ceding verse, but describes the result. 2. Iebwtiopévous may EPHESIANS I. 18 87 be supposed to agree by anticipation with the following duas —*that you, enlightened as to the eyes of your heart.” 3. Ellicott takes it as a lax construction of the participle redwrie- pévous referring to byiv, with rods 6pOarpovs as the accusative of limiting reference. But in a broken construction the participle usually reverts to the nominative. See Buttmann, Gram. der Neutest. Sprach. § 145, 4. 6. 7. The clause may be a species of accusative absolute—“the eyes of your heart having been enlightened,” and it expresses the result of the gift of the “Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.” Such is the view of Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Kiittner, and Koppe. Kiihner, § 682; Bernhardy, p. 133. But we cannot adopt the hint of Heinsius, that the participle has eivas understood, and that the formula is then equivalent to dwriferOar. Exercit. Sac. p. 459. The “heart” belongs to the “inner man,” is the organ of perception as well as of emotion; the centre of spiritual as it is physically of animal life. Delitzsch, System der Bibl. Psychol. § 12; Beck, Umriss der Bib. Scelenlehre, § 26. The verb ¢wrifw, used in such a relation, has a deep ethical meaning. Light and life seem to be associated in it—as, on the other hand, darkness and death are in Hebrew modes of conception. Thus Ps. xiii. 3, xxxvi. 9; John Lt 4, vill. 12. The light that falls upon the eyes of the heart is the light of spiritual life—there being appreciation as well as perception, experience along with apprehension. Suicer, sub voce das. Matt. xiii. 15; Mark vi. 52; John xii. 40.’ The figure is common too among classical writers. If the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God be conferred, then the scales fall from the moral vision, and the cloudy haze that hovers around it melts away. It is as if a man were taken during night to a lofty eminence shrouded in vapour and dark- ness, but morning breaks, the sun rises, the mist disparts, rolls into curling wreaths and disappears, and the bright landscape unfolds itself. Such is the result, and the design, is that they may obtain a view of three special truths. And first— Eas eis TO eldévat tpas, tis eat 4 edtris Tis Kdijoews ere “that ye may know what is the hope of His calling —the 1 Olshausen’s virtual denial of any reference in the phrase to the ro faculty, is contrary to the passages quoted. See also his Opuscula, p. 159. 88 EPHESIANS I. 18 infinitive of aim with e/s and the article, Winer, § 44, 6; and the genitive being that of origin or possession—the hope asso- ciated with or the hope springing out of His calling. KyAjjous is a favourite Pauline word. It describes Christian privilege in its inner power and source, for the “ calling” is that Divine summons or invitation to men which ensures compliance with itself. The term seems to have originated in the historical fact of Abraham’s call, and the fact gives name and illustra- tion to the spiritual doctrine. It is His calling—man’s calling is often slighted, but God’s is “ effectual calling.” The’ KAjnots is the incipient realization of the éxAoyn. Calovius: and Goodwin take éAmis wrongly as the ground of hope. Zanchius, Calovius, Flatt, Meyer, Harless, and Baumgarten- Crusius maintain it to be the subjective hope which His call- ing creates, but the reference seems rather to be to the object of that hope—the inheritance of the following clause. ’EAis: is To éAmfouevov—res sperata, in the opinion of Meier, Olshausen, and Stier; but of course the knowledge of the thing. hoped for sustains the emotion of hope, so that the two ideas are closely allied. The apostle seems to refer rather to what the hope embraces, than either to its basis or to its character. Col. i. 5; Tit. ii, 13. It needs no special grace to know the emotion of hope within us; it can be gauged in its depth, | and analyzed in its character; but it does need special en- lightenment to comprehend in their reality and glory what are the objects hoped for in connection with God’s calling. We give tis its ordinary meaning, “what”—not making it mean gualis vel cujusnam nature, with Harless; nor quanta, gmotamy, with Baumgarten-Crusius and Stier. That it may occasionally bear such a sense we deny not; but the simple signification is enough in the clause before us, though indeed it involves the others. What, then, is the hope of His call- ing? <Abraham’s calling had hope, and not immediate possession attached to it, for not he, but his seed, were to in- herit in future years. Salvation is partially enjoyed by “ the called” on earth, but much of it is in reserve for them in heaven. Therefore all that lies over for us creates hope, and this rich reversion is here connected, not with our election— the reality of which prior to our calling we knew not—but with the calling itself, and the conscious response of the heart EPHESIANS I, 18 89 to the influence of the truth and the Spirit. The apostle also specifies a second design— kai tis 6 TroUTOS Tis SoENS Tis KAnpovoplas abrod év Tots aylous—“ and what the wealth of the glory of His inheritance among the saints.” The «a/ is omitted by some MSS., such as A, B, Dt, K, G, and by Lachmann; but it is found in D’, E, K, L, and is rightly retained by Tischendorf. The repetition of «a/ in the next verse might have led to its omission. Tvs is repeated to bring out the emphatic thought. “The riches of the glory of His inheritance” is a phrase to be resolved neither, with some, into the rich glory of the inheritance, nor the riches of the glorious inheritance. The words represent, as they stand, distinct but connected ideas. It was the riches of His grace in ver. 7—the norm according to which blessing is enjoyed now; here it is the riches of glory to be enjoyed in the future, the genitives being those of possession. KAnpovouda has been already explained under ver. 11, in connection with the verb é«AnpwOnper. The phrase év tots dy/ous is attended with some difficulty. 1. Winer and others insert the verb éors, and suppose it to _ signify “which is in the possession of the saints.” The strain of the context forbids the exegesis—it is future, and not present blessing, which the apostle refers to. 2. It is taken by Homberg and Calovius in the neuter gender as a local epithet—“in the holy places.” Such an idea is not found in the epistles, and is not of Pauline usage. 3. Others assume the meaning of “ for,’——“ prepared for the saints,” such as Vatablus, Bullinger, and Baumgarten; but this gives an unwarranted meaning to the preposition ¢év. 4. Stier understands the words with special reference to his own interpretation of ver. 11, which he renders—“in whom we have become God’s inheritance”—so that God's inheritance is the saints; and as they form it, it possesses a peculiar glory. But the inheritance, as we understand it, is something external to the saints—something yet to be fully enjoyed by them, and of which in the interval the Holy Spirit is declared to be the earnest. 5. The better opinion, then, is, with Riickert, Harless, Winzer, Meier, Olshausen, Ellicott, and Alford, to take éy in the sense of “among,’—“ among the saints.” Job xlii 15. Of Job’s daughter it is said, their 90 . EPHESIANS I. 18. father gave them xAnpovoulay év rots adeApots—“ among their brethren.” So Acts xx. 32, cAnpovomlay év Tois jyvacpévors —‘“inheritance among the sanctified.” Also Acts xxvi. 18. Perhaps the full formula may be seen in Num. xviii. 23, év péow viav Iopand xAnpovoyiay. There seems no need to supply éorw, as is done by Ellicott after Meyer—nor does the article need to be repeated. “Aryios has been explained under the first verse, and means here, those possessed of completed holiness, or as Cameron—rovds TeTeAevwpévovs. Myrothecium, p. 248. The inheritance is meant for the possession of the saints. It is their common property. And the consecrated ones are not merely, as Baumgarten-Crusius says, those of the former dispensation who first were called “holy,” though saints alone enjoy the gift. It is “ His,” and they are His. The possession of holiness is the prerequisite for heaven. Such a character is in harmony with the pursuits, enjoyments, and scenes of the celestial world. Saints have now the incipient heritage, but not in its full fruition. It is not here presented to us as a rich blessing of Christ’s present kingdom; but it is the blessing in prospect. The two clauses are thus nearly related. The prayer is, that the Ephesians might first know the reality of the future blessing; and, secondly, might comprehend its character. What, then, are the riches of its glory? There is the “glory ” of the inheritance itself, and that glory is not a mere gilding—glitter without value; for there are also “the riches” of the glory. There is glory, for the inheritance in its subjective aspect is the perfection of the “saints.” But there are also “riches of glory,” for that perfection is complete in the sweep and circle of its enjoyments, and is not restricted to one portion of our nature—the mind being filled with truth, and the heart ruled in all its pulsations by undivided love. There is “glory,” in that the inheritance is God’s, and they who receive it shall hold fellowship with Him; but there are in addition “riches of glory,” inasmuch as this fellowship is uninterrupted, the harmony of thought and emotion never disturbed, and the face of God never eclipsed, but shedding a new lustre on the image of Himself reflected in every bosom. There is “glory,” in that the inheritance yields satisfaction, for a perfect spirit in perfect EPHESIANS I. 19. 91 communion with God must be a happy spirit; but there are likewise “riches of glory,” since that blessedness is un- changing, has no pause and no end; all, both in scene and society, being in unison with it, while it excites the purest susceptibilities, and occupies the noblest powers of our nature, giving us eternity for our lifetime and infinitude for our home. The third thing which the apostle wished them to know, was the nature of that power which God had exerted upon them in their conversion. The calling of God had glorious hopes attached to it or rising out of it. The wealthy inherit- ance lay before them, and the apostle wished them to know how or by what spiritual change they had been brought into these peculiar privileges, and how they were to be sustained till their hopes were realized. Not only had they been the objects of God’s affection, as is told them in the first paragraph—but also, and especially, of God's power. _ Infinite love prompted into operation omnipotent strength. _ And that power is exercised in a certain normal direction, - for it works on believers as it wrought in Christ, and, as the _ apostle shows in the second chapter, it does to them what it did to their great Prototype. The same kind of power manifested in the resurrection and glorification of Jesus, is exhibited in the quickening of sinners from death. The 20th verse of this chapter is illustrated by the 6th of the following chapter, and all between is a virtual digression, or suspension of the principal idea in the analogy. The power which the apostle wishes them to comprehend was the power which quickened Jesus, and had in like manner quickened them ; which raised Jesus, and had in the same way raised them ; which had elevated Jesus to God’s right hand in the heavenly places, and had also raised them with Christ, and made them sit with Christ in the heavenly places. Such is the general idea. He says— (Ver. 19.) Kal rf 1rd imepBadrov péyebos rijs duvdpews avrod els nuds rods motevovras—“ And what is the exceed- ing greatness of His power to us-ward who believe.” 2 Cor. xiii. 4. The apostle writes tr .. . tis . . . TH—repeating the adjective in his emphatic and distinct enumeration. Els -pas—* in the direction of us ”—is most naturally connected 92 EPHESIANS I. 19, With Svvayews, and not with an understood éet:—power exercised upon us believers. Winer, § 49,c,6. The greatness of that power is not to be measured; it is “exceeding,” for it stretches beyond the compass of human calculation. It is the power of giving life to the dead in trespasses and sins— a prerogative alone of Him who is “ Life.” Compounds with tép are great favourites with the apostle, and this word is used by him alone. Speaking of those who are to enjoy the future glorious inheritance, he calls them absolutely ot dyiot, but those on whom rests this power in the meantime are only ot muctevovtes; and while in recording his prayer he naturally says “you,” he now as naturally includes himself—npas. The connection of this with the following clause is im- portant—xata thy évépyecav. Some join the words with the immediately preceding wiotevovtas—an exegesis followed by Chrysostom, Meier, Matthies, and Hodge. On the other hand, the words are joined to duvdyews by Cicumenius, in one of his explanations, by Calvin, Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, and Stier. The last appears to be preferable. It is indeed true, that in consequence of God’s mighty power men believe. See under Col. ii. 12. But the adoption of such a meaning, advocated also by Crellius, Griesbach,' and Junkheim, would be almost tantamount to making the apostle say—that they might know the greatness of His power on them who believe in virtue of His power. Some of the older divines adopted this view as a mode of defence against Armi- nian or Pelagian views of human ability, and as a proof of the necessity and the invincibility of Divine grace. But «ard rarely signifies “in virtue of,’ and even then the idea of conformity is implied. Certainly the weak faith of man is not in conformity with the mighty power of God. Nor can Kata point out the object of faith in such a construction as this, and it never occurs with mwiorevw to denote the cause of faith. Besides, and especially, it is not to show either the origin or measure of faith that the apostle writes, but to illus- trate the power of God in them who already believe. Kara, therefore, signifies “after the model of.” It points out how the power to us-ward operates; xatd—after the model of that power which operated in Christ. 1 Opuacula, ii. 9; Brevis Commentatio in Ephes. i. 19. EPHESIANS I. 19. 93 It weakens the point of the apostle’s argument to take the clause followed by xatd merely as an amplification, as Chry- sostom, Calvin, Calixtus, Estius, Grotius, Meier, and Winzer have done. It is not the apostle’s design to illustrate the mere trepSad\rXov—the mere vastness of the power, but to define its nature and mode of operation. Nor can we agree with Harless, after Ambrosiaster, Bucer, and Zanchius, in making this clause and those which follow it belong equally to the €Azis and «Anpovopia, and in regarding the paragraph as a general illustration of the nature of the hope, and the wealth and glory of the inheritance. Thus Ambrosiaster:— Exemplum salutis credentium et gloria in resurrectione Salva- toris consistere profitetur, ut ex ea cognoscant fideles quid cis promissum est. This explanation is too vague, for évépyea and the allied words are connected with Svvaycs naturally, but not with the hopes or the inheritance. The exegesis of Harless would imply, that the blessings described in the paragraph are future blessings, whereas, as himself virtually admits, they are blessings already enjoyed by Christians (ii. 6). Ellicott errs in the same way when he says, that the reference is “primarily to the power of God, which shall hereafter quicken us even as it did Christ.” What he calls primary the context places as secondary, for it is present power which _is causing itself to be felt on present believers. The order of thought is not, the hope—then the inheritance—and then the power which shall confer it; but, the hope—the inheritance —and the power which sustains and prepares us for its possession. Meyer's notion is similar to Ellicott’s. Nor does «ard, as in the opinion of Koppe and Holzhausen, signify mere similitude. For if the resurrection of Jesus be the normal exhibition of Divine power, the implication is, that other similar exhibitions are pledged to Christ’s people. That power has operated, «ard—after the model of that energy which God wrought in Christ. CZcumenius has the right idea to some extent when he compares the two acts—rd dvacrijvas Has tod YuytKod Oavdrov Kal ro avactivas Tod cwpatiKod tiv Xpictov. The objection of Matthies that, had the apostle meant to show the correspondence between the power exerted on us and that on Christ in His resurrection, he would have said év ipiv, as he has said é¢v r@ Xpiore, is without founda- 94 EPHESIANS I. 19. tion, because the power put forth on Christ was an act long past and perfect, whereas the power put forth on believers is of present and continuous operation, and a stream of that divine influence is ever coming—els judas Tods miotevovtas. This use of the article and participle, instead of a simple adjective, is emphatic in its nature. The participial meaning is brought into prominence—‘“on us who are believing,” on us in the act or condition of exercising faith. Nor is the objection of de Wette more consistent. It is illogical, he affirms, to speak of applying a norm or scale to exceeding greatness. But the apostle does not use a scale to mete out and measure the exceeding greatness of God’s power, he merely presents a striking example to enable us to know something of its mode of operation. The sacred writer illustrates his meaning by the presentation of a fact, and that meaning will be best brought out after we have examined the phraseology. For God puts forth that power— KaTa THY Evepyelav TOU KpaToUS THS Layvos avToD-—“accord- ing to the working of the force of His might.” To suppose that the apostle used these three terms without distinction, and for no other purpose than to give intensity of idea by the mere accumulation of synonyms, would indeed be a slovenly exegesis, Nor is it better to reduce the phrase to a Hebraism, connecting tod xpdtous, as Peile proposes, with évépyevay, as if it were equivalent to t7v xparodcay; or, on the other hand, resolving it either into xpdtos ioyupov, or ioxds Kpa- Tepad, aS is recommended by Koppe and the lexicographers Bretschneider, Robinson, and Wahl. “Icxyvs, connected with icyw, another form of €yw, is—power in possession, ability, or latent power, strength which one has, but which he may or may not put forth, Mark xii. 30; Luke x. 27; 2 Pet. ii. 11. Kpdros, from xpas, the head, is that power excited into action — might. Luke i. 51; Acts xix. 20; Heb. ii.-14, "Ioyvs, viewed or evinced in relation to result, is xpdros. Hence it is used with the verb zrovety. The words occur together, Eph. vi. 10; Isa. xl. 26; Dan. iv. 27; Sophocles, Phil. 594, "Evépyeva, as its composition implies, is power in actual operation. “Ioxvs, to take a familiar illustration, is the power lodged in the arm, xpdros is that arm stretched out or uplifted with conscious aim, while évépyeva is the same EPHESIANS 1. 20, 95 arm at actual work, accomplishing the designed result. Calvin compares them thus: icyvs—radiz ; xpdtos—arbor ; évépyea — fructus. The connection of words similarly allied is not uncommon, Lobeck, Paralipomena, Diss. viii. § 13, p. 534 The language is meant to exalt our ideas of Divine power. That might exercised upon believers is not only great, but exceeding great, and therefore the apostle pauses to describe it slowly and analytically ; first in actual operation—évépyea ; then he looks beyond that working and sees the motive power —xparos; and still beneath this he discerns the original unexhausted might—ioyvs. The use of so many terms arises from a desire to survey the power of God in all its phases ; for the spectacle is so magnificent, that the apostle lingers to admire and contemplate it. Epithet is not heaped on epithet at random, but for a specific object. The mental emotion of the writer is anxious to embody itself in words, and, after all its efforts, it laments the poverty of exhausted language. The apostle now specifies one mode of operation— (Ver. 20.) “Hv évnpyncev év tm Xpiot@, éyeipas aitov éx vexepav—“ Which He wrought in Christ, having raised Him from the dead”—in Christ our Head and Representative, év denoting the substratum, or ground, or range, as Winer calls it, on or in which the action takes effect, § 48, a, 3. The use of a verb with its correlate noun has been noticed already, chap. i. 3,6. In such cases there is some intensification of meaning. Bernhardy, p. 106. The participle is contemporaneous with the verb. That manifestation of power is now described in its results, to wit, in the resurrection and glorification of Christ. - He raised Him from the dead. It was the work of the Father —having sent His Son, and having received the atonement from Him—to demonstrate its perfection, and His own accept- ance of it, by calling Jesus from the grave. In the meantime, we may briefly illustrate this third section of the apostle’s prayer—‘ that ye may know the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of the might of His power which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead.” Our general view has been already indicated. The specimen and pledge of that power displayed in quickening us, is Christ's resur- rection. Now, 1. It is transcendent power — UwepSddrAov 96 EPHESIANS I. 20, péyeOos. The body of Jesus was not only lifeless, but its organization had been partially destroyed. The spear had pierced the pericardium, and blood and water—blood fast resolving itself into serum and crassamentum, issued imme- diately from the gash. To restore the organization and to give life, not as the result of convalescence, but immediate and perfect life, was a sublime act of omnipotence. To vivify a dead heart is not less wonderful, and the life originally given is the life restored. But created effort is unequal to the enterprise. The vision of Ezekiel is on this point full of meaning. The valley lay before the mind’s eye of the prophet, full of bones, dry and bleached, not only without muscle and integument, but the very form of the skeleton had disappeared. Its vertebree and limbs had been separated, and the mass was lying in confusion. The seer uttered the oracle of life, and at once there was a shaking—the various pieces and organs came together — “bone to his bone.” The osseous framework was restored in its integrity, nay, sinew and flesh came upon it, and “ the skin covered them above.” But there was no breath in them. The organization was complete, but the vital power—the direct gift of God—was absent. The prophet invoked the “ breath of Jehovah.” It descended and enveloped the host, and at the first throb of their heart they started to their feet, “an exceeding great army.” The restora- tion of spiritual life to the dead soul results immediately from the working of the might of His power. Conviction, impression, penitence, and reformation, may be to some extent produced by human prophesying; but life comes as God’s own gift—-a Divine operation of the power of His might, analogous to the act of our Lord’s resurrection. 2. It is power already experienced by believers—power— eis —* to us-ward.” They had felt it in prior time. It is not some mighty influence to be enjoyed by them in some future scene of being, or, as Chandler and others suppose, at the resurrection. “You did He quicken,” raise up, and enthrone with Christ. 3. It is resurrectionary power—power displayed in restor- ing life, for it has its glorious prototype in the resurrection of Jesus. Divine power restored physical life to Jesus, and that same power restored spiritual life to those who “were dead a EPHESIANS I. 20. 97 in trespasses and sins.” The context shows plainly that this is the meaning of the reference, for the subject is resumed at ver. 5 of the succeeding chapter. There was spiritual life once in man—in his great progenitor; but it left him and he died; and the great purpose of the gospel is to unite | him to God, and to give back to him, through union with “Christ our life,” this life which he originally enjoyed. See } chap. ii. 5, 6. 4. The resurrection of Jesus is in this respect not merely a specimen or illustration—it is also a pledge. Some regard it as a mere comparison. Morus defines xara merely—simili modo. Koppe says the power in us is non minor—“ not less” than that in Christ; and Grotius looks upon it as a proof of God’s ability—quod factum apparet, id iterum fieri potest. Chrysostom, on the first verse of the next chapter, says—#ére ToU vexpous avuiaTay TO Wuyny vevexpwyévny iacacBat TOM@ peifov éott—“ to heal a dead soul is a far greater thing than to raise the dead.” But when God raised His Son—the repre- sentative of redeemed humanity—the deed itself was not only an illustration of the mode, but also a pledge of the fact, that all His constituents should be quickened, and should have this higher life restored to them. For the man Jesus died, that men who were dead might live, and the revivification of His dead body was at once a proof that the enterprise had been accomplished, and a pledge that all united to Him should live in spirit, and live at length like Himself in an entire and glorified humanity. The nobler life of soul, and the reunion of that quickened spirit with a spiritualized body, are covenanted blessings. Olshausen makes the general resur- rection of believers from the dead the prinicipal reference of the passage. But this, as we have seen, is a mistaken view. Still, as this new life cannot be fully matured in the present body, for its powers are cramped and its enjoyments curtailed, so it follows that a frame suited to it will be prepared for it, in which all its faculties and susceptibilities will be completely and for ever developed and perfected. Present spiritual life and future resurrection are therefore both involved. He raised Him— nal éxdOicev ev Seiad abtod ev tots érovpavlouw—" and He set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places.” G 98 EPHESIANS I. 20. Lachmann reads xa@/cas, after A, B, and some other MSS., but the common reading is the best sustained, and the other has the plausibility of an emendation, like the reading évnp- ynxev in the previous clause. This recurrence to the aorist forms, therefore, an anacolouthon or inconsequent construc- tion. These anacoloutha only occur when the mind, in its fervour and hurry, overlooks the formal nexus of grammatical arrangement, or when the writer wishes to lay emphasis on special ideas or turns of thought. Winer, § 63, 2,6. The transition is sometimes marked by &é In similar cases it appears as if the writer wished to indicate a change in the train of illustration, his immediate purpose being served. John v. 44hapBavovtes—xai ov Enteite; 2 John 2—rnv pévoveav —«aiéorat. So in the present passage. The sense is com- plete—éyeipas avtrov é« vexp@v; the principal, essential, and prominent idea illustrative of Divine power is brought out. But, changing the construction as if to indicate this, the apostle adds, not cal xa@icas, but éxd@icev—his mind fondly carrying out the associated truths. The chief object of the apostle is to show the nature of that power which God has exercised upon believers. It is power which operates after the model of that which He wrought in Christ. Power was manifested in Christ’s resurrection, visibly and impressively, but not in the same form in His glorification. Might is seen in the one and honour in the other. In the sixth verse of the following chapter the principal thought is that of revivification or spiritual resurrection, though the other idea of glorification is also annexed ; but it is still a minor idea, for though we are spiritually brought into a new life as really as Christ was physically quickened, yet we are not é€v Tots émovpavioss, in the very same sense as Christ personally is, but only as being in Him—members of the body of which He is the ever-living and glorified Head. The verb éxa@:cev has a hiphil signification, and like some other verbs of pregnant meaning, seems here as if to contain its object in itself. It is not therefore followed by a formal accusative. So the corresponding Hebrew verb, awinp, wants the personal pronoun as its accusative in 1 Sam. ii. 8. év de&ia avtov—* at His own right hand.” Mark xvi. 19 Heb. viii. 1, x. 12, xii. 2. The language refers us to Ps. cx. EPHESIANS I. 20, 99 év tois émovpavios. The phrase has been explained under ver. 3. Lachmann reads—éy ois ovpavois, without any emi- nent authority. We cannot say with Matthies, and Hunnius quoted and approved by Harless, that the expression has a special reference to things and not to places, and denotes the status celestis, For the idea of place does not necessarily imply local and limited conceptions of the Divine essence. Our Master taught us to pray, “Our Father which art in heaven.” The distressed mind instinctively looks upward to the throne of God. The phrase ta érovpama does not signify heaven in its special and ordinary sense, but the heavenly provinces. In the highest province Jesus is at the right hand of God, and in the lowest province of the same region the church is located, as we have seen under i. 3, and shall see again under ii. 5, 6. Jesus was not only raised from the dead, but placed at the Father's “right hand.” Three ideas, at least, are included in the formula, as explained in Scripture. 1. It is the place of honour. Jesus is above all created dignities, whatever their position and rank. Ver. 21. 2. It is the place of power. He sits “on the right hand of power.” Matt. xxvi. 64. “All things are under His feet.” He wields a sceptre of universal sovereignty. Ver. 22. 3. It is the place of happiness—happiness possessed, and happiness communicated. “At Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” Ps. xvi. 11. The crowned Jesus possesses all the joy which was once set before Him. But His humanity, though glorified, is not deified—is not endowed with any of the essential attributes of divinity. | Whatever the other results of the €vwats xaO’ brootacw, or the commu- nicatio idiomatum, may be, we believe that the inferior nature of Jesus remains a distinct, perfect, and unmixed humanity. The @edvOpwros is in heaven, was seen in heaven, “from whence we look for Him,” and the saints are to be caught up to meet their Lord in the air! Augustine says well (Hp. 57) 1In the Formula Concordia, ii. 8, De Persona Christi, ubiquity is without hesitation claimed for Christ's humanity—‘‘ Ut videlicet etiam secundum illam suam assumtam naturam, et cum ed prasens esse possit, et quidem pravsens mt, ubicunque velit."— Die aymbolischen Biicher der evangelisch-lutheriachen Kirche, ed. Miiller, Stuttgart, 1848, p. 674 et seq. Hasse, Hutterus Redivivus, §105. Schmidt, Dogmatik der Evang.-Luth, Kirche, p. 243, ete. 100 EPHESIANS I. 21. —Cavendum est, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus. (Ver. 21.) ‘Yrepdvw tracns apyjs Kai éEovaelas Kal Surdpews kal KkupsoTntos—“ Far above all principality, and power, and might, and lordship.” The clauses to the end of the chapter explain and illustrate, as we have now hinted, the session at the right hand of God. These various appellations are used as the abstract for the concrete, as if for sweeping significance. The highest position in creation is yet beneath Christ. Some of the beings that occupy those stations have specific and appropriate names, but not only above these, but above every conceivable office and being, Jesus is immeasurably exalted. There is no exception; He has no equal and no superior, not simply among those with whose titles we are so far acquainted, but in the wide universe there is no name so high as His, and among all its spheres, there is no renown that matches His. These principalities stand around and beneath the throne, but Jesus sits at its right hand. It is a strange whim of Schoettgen, on the one hand, to refer these names to the Jewish hierarchy, and of van Til, on the other hand, to regard them as descriptive of heathen dignities. To attempt to define these terms would serve little purpose, and those definitions given by the pseudo-Dionysius, and others even of the more sober and intelligent Greek fathers, are but truisms. For example: dpya/ are defined by Diony- sius—as éxeiyny thy apynv dvagatvoveat; Suvdmers are pro- nounced by Theodoret—s wAnpody Ta Kedevopeva Svvapevor ; and the «upidrntes are stated by Phavorinus to be—dvvdpes diytau NetToupytkal Kupiov. The first two of these four terms are used of human magistracy, Tit. iii, 1; in this epistle, of the hostile powers of darkness, vi. 12; of the celestial hier- archy, in iii. 10; and they are spoken of as distinct from angels, in Rom. viii. 38, and 1 Pet. iii, 22. Jesus is described as at the right hand of the Father—év rots érovpaviois, and perhaps the beings referred to under these four designations are the loftiest and most dignified in heaven. To restrict the word solely to angels, with Meyer, or good angels, with Ellicott, might be too narrow; and it would be too vague, with Erasmus, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, and Olshausen, to refer it to any kind of dignity or honour. These dignities EPHESIANS I. 21. 101 and honours are at least heavenly in their position, and belong, though perhaps not exclusively, to the creatures who, from their office, are termed angels. To say that He who is at the right hand is raised above human dignitaries, would be pointless and meaningless ; and to affirm that He occupies a station superior to any on which a fiend may sit in lurid majesty, would not be a fitting illustration of His exalted merit and proportionate reward. Yet both are really included. Human princedoms and hellish potentates must hold a_posi- tion beneath the powers and principalities of heaven, above which the Son of God is so loftily exalted. What the distinction of the words among themselves is, and what degrees of celestial heraldry they describe, it is impossible for us to define. We are obliged to say, with Chrysostom, that the names are to us donua cal od yvwpifo- peva; and, with Augustine—dicant, qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quod dicunt ; ego me ista ignorare confiteor. Hofmann denies that the words indicate any gradations of angelic rank, but only indicate the manifoldness of which their relation to God and to the world is capable. This may be true so far, but the relation so held may indicate of itself the rank of him who holds it. Schriftb. vol. i. p. 347. The four terms form neither climax nor anticlimax; the two first of them here are the two last in Col. i. 16, and the last term here, xuptorntes, stands second in the twin epistle. The first and last have special reference to government, princedom, or lordship, and the intervening two may refer more to preroga- tive and command. And they may be thus connected: Who- ever possesses the dpy7 enjoys and displays éfovela; and whoever is invested with the dSvvayis, wields it in his ap- pointed xupidrns. Speculations on the angelic world, its number, rank, and gradations, were frequent in the earlier centuries. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus set the example, but the pseudo-Dionysius mustered the whole angelic band under his review, and arranged them in trinary divisions :— L @pdvor, XepovBip, L<padip. IL Kupiéryres, "Efovoia, Avvdpas. IIT. "Apyxai, "ApydyyAou * Ayyaou.' 1 Enchiridion, cap. 58. 102 EPHESIANS I. 21. The Jewish theology also held that there were different ranks of angels, and amused itself with many fantastic reveries as to their power and position.’ All that we know is, that there is foundation for the main idea—that there is no dull and sating uniformity among the inhabitants of heaven—that order and freedom are not inconsistent with gradation of rank —that there are glory and a higher glory—power and a nobler power—rank and a loftier rank, to be witnessed in the mighty scale.” As there are orbs of dazzling radiance amidst the paler and humbler stars of the sky, so there are bright and majestic chieftains among the hosts of God, nearer God in position, and liker God in majesty, possessing and reflecting more of the Divine splendour, than their lustrous brethren around them. But above all Jesus is enthroned—the highest position in the universe is His. The seraph who adores and burns nearest the eternal throne is only proximus Huic— ** Longo sed proximus intervallo.” vmepdvew— over above ;” not reigning over, as Bengel has it, but simply in a position high above them. The majority of cases where the word is used in the Septuagint would seem to show that it may intensify the idea of the simple avo. We cannot agree with Ellicott’s denial of this. It is true that compounds are numerous in Alexandrian Greek, and cease from use to have all their force; yet in the Septuagint the passages referred to and others, from the spirit of them or the suggested contrast to the position of the observer, point to a full sense of the compound term. Deut. xxvi. 19, xxviil. 1; RZeKS 1. 220, x2 0) ee 2; The second clause expands and rivets the idea of the first, and corresponds, as Stier well remarks, to the ovre tis KTlows érépa, in Rom. viii. 39. For the apostle subjoins— kal TravTos dvouatos dvowafouévov-—“ and every name that is named.” Kai introduces a final and comprehensive asser- tion, “and in a word” (Ellicott)—et omnino. Fritzsche on Matt., p. 786. Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Meier, and ‘ Hierarchia Celestis, cap. vi. 2 Kisenmenger, Hntdecktes Judenthum, ii. p. 874; Boehmer, Zsagoge in Ep. ad Col. p. 292; Petavius, Dogmata Theol. tom. iii. p. 101; Twesten, Dog- matik, vol. ii. p. 305. a ——————— «* aS ——_— -——— EPHESIANS IL. 21. 103 Bloomfield, take évoua here as a name or title of honour, referring to Phil. ii. 9; John xii. 28; Acts iv. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 19; and to the verb in Rom. xv. 20. To this we see no great objection, especially in such a context. But as the following | participle has its usual meaning, dvoza may be taken in its common signification—an exegesis certainly preferable to that of Morus, Harless, and Riickert, who qualify it by its position, and make it denote every name of such a kind as those just rehearsed. To show the height of Christ's exaltation, the apostle affirms that He sits above all ‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms, kingdoms, powers ;" but to enlarge the sweep of his statement he now adds—and also above every name of being or of rank that the universe contains. Bodius, Meyer, and de Wette say—rrav dvoya is simply for av; Beza renders—quicquid existit. CEcumenius makes it equivalent to wav pntov nal dvowastov—which is preferable. ov povoyv év T@ alae TovTw, GAdAa Kal év TH pédXovTI— “not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” This clause does not belong to the preceding éxa@icev, as Calvin, Beza, Bodius, Koppe, Holzhausen, Kiittner, and Burton suppose ; for they regard it as expressing the perma- nency of Christ’s dominion. The intervening sentences show that this exegesis is unfounded, and that the words must be construed with dvoyafouevov—“ every name named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” What, then, is meant by ai@y odtos and aiwy pérdkwv? The phrase cannot have its Jewish acceptation—the period before Messiah and the period of Messiah, as Cocceius and others hold. The. plain meaning is—the present life and the life to come,’ with the attached idea of the region where each life is respectively spent—earth and heaven, but without any marked ethical reference. “The future,” as Olshausen remarks, “is in the phrase opposed to the present.” Over all the beings we can name now, or shall ever be able to name, Jesus is exalted —. over all that God has brought, or will bring, into existence. Whether, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Bengel suppose from this verse, we shall have our knowledge of the celestial 1 Vide Koppe, Zxcursus 1. ; Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra, vol, i 618. 104 EPHESIANS I. 22. powers extended, is a question which it does not directly solve. Lest, however, there should be any imagined excep- tion to Christ’s supremacy, or any possible limitation of it— any power or principality anywhere left uncompared or out of view, the apostle says, Jesus is exalted not only above such of them as men now and on earth are in the habit of familiarly naming, but also above every name of existence or rank in every sphere and section of the universe. hil est, says Calvin, tam sublime aut excellens quocunque nomine censeatur, quod non subjectum sit Christi majestati. There seems to be no immediate polemical reference in this extraordinary paragraph. Not only is there exaltation, but there is also authority— (Ver. 22.) Kat ravra irétakev iro tods modas avtov— “ And put all things under His feet.” The allusion is clearly to the language of the 8th Psalm. In the 110th Psalm the enemies of Messiah are specially referred to, and their sub- jugation is pictured out by their being declared to be His foot- stool. The allusion is not, however, in this clause, to enemies defeated and humbled, as Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, and Olshausen, to some extent, suppose. The apostle is de- scribing the authority of the Saviour by this peculiar figure. It is no repetition of the idea in the preceding verse. That exhibits His honour, but this proclaims His imperial preroga- tive. Heb. ii 8. The wavta not only contains what has been specified, but leaves nothing excluded. The brow once crowned with thorns now wears the diadem of universal sove- reignty ; and that hand, once nailed to the cross, now holds in it the sceptre of unlimited dominion. He who lay in the tomb has ascended the throne of unbounded empire. Jesus, the brother-man, is Lord of all: He has had all things put under His feet—the true apotheosis of humanity. This quotation from the Psalms Theodoret names 7)v mpopytixiy paptupiav, for this old Hebrew ode plainly refers to man’s original dignity and supremacy —to the race viewed in unfallen Adam (Gen. i. 26—28); but it also, as interpreted in Heb. ii. 6, 7, as plainly refers to the Second Adam, or to humanity restored and elevated in Him—<in Christ as its Representative and Crown. kal avtov ewxe Kefarynv trép tavta TH éexkrnola—* and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church.” There EPHESIANS I. 2. 105 no reason for changing the ordinary meaning of &w«e, and ndering it “appointed "—@nxe—as is suggested by Calvin, za, Harless, Meier, and Olshausen. In chap. iv. 11 we rave the same verb. His occupancy of this exalted position a Divine benefaction to the church; His appointment is the ult of love, which gives with wise and willing generosity. ay more,and with emphasis—xal avrdv éwx<e—“ and Him e gave.” The natural meaning of éSwxe is thus sustained y the prefixing of the pronoun, and it governs the dative, exxAnola, after it. This repetition of the pronoun intensifies he idea, and its position in this clause is emphatic—* and im, so exalted and invested, so rich in glory and power— ven Him and none other, has He given as Head.” The most difficult phrase is xefadyy trép wdvta. The ulgate merely evades the difficulty by its translation—supra nem ecclesiam. The Syriac rendering is preferable :— Him who is over all hath He given to be Head,” transposing e order of the words, a rendering followed by Chrysostom— tov dvta i@ép Tmavta Xpiotov; and the same idea is adopted by Erasmus, Camerarius, Estius, and a-Lapide. The position of the words shows that trép mavra qualifies xepadryv. But in what sense? Not— 1. In the vague sense of “special.” ’Ext raoi— in “ pre- ference to all,” as it is explained by Bodius and Baumgarten. Bodius thus paraphrases—Super omnia, nempe catera superius enumerata, hoc est, pre aliis omnibus creaturis. Nor— 2. In the general sense of “Supreme Head,” as is ad- vocated by Beza, Riickert, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Olshausen, Conybeare, Bisping, and de Wette. This exegesis gives imép the sense of “above,” as the highest head is the Head above all other heads. Koppe resolves it by trepeyouca mavrwyv—“ overtopping all;” but nocomparison of this nature seems to be in the apostle’s mind. Olshausen says, the apostles and prophets were also in a certain sense heads of the church, while Christ was—xedad1 iép mdvta. But the mavra has no such implied contrast in itself, and it naturally turns our attention to the previous verses, where the princi- palities and powers are not only pronounced to be inferior to Christ, but are affirmed to be under His special jurisdiction. 3. The words may mean—"He gave Him as Head over \ 06 EPHESIANS I. 22. all things to the church,” or “He gave Him who is Head over) all things to be Head to the church.” The former of these | renderings is expressed by Harless, Alford, and Ellicott in his second edition, the latter by Stier and Meyer. The dif- ference is not very material Meyer supposes that by a figure of speech called Brachyology, a second xepadry is understood. Matthiae, § 634; Kiihner, § 852; Jelf, § 893. But there is no need of this shift—and the first exegesis | is preferable (Madvig, § 24, a); the noun being a species of what Donaldson calls “tertiary predicates’ 489. New Cratylus, § 302. Christ is already declared by the apostle to be above all in position and power, t7rép mavta; but besides, He is by the Father’s gift «efad7 to the church. The wavra are not connected with Him as their xefady, their relation to Him being merely denoted by vép; but the church claims Him as its Head, yea, claims as its Head Him who is over all. Were the izép to be taken in the active sense of super- intendence, the genitive would be employed, as Harless intimates ; but it denotes here, above or beyond all in honour and prerogative, for twép in the New Testament with the accusative, has always this tropical meaning. Matt. x. 24; Luke xvi. 8; Acts xxvi. 13; Phil. ii. 9; Philem. 16. The signification, therefore, is—This glorious Being, above all angelic essences, and having the universe at His feet, is, by Divine generosity, Head to the church, for the wavra refers not to members of the church, as Jerome and Wahl argue and as Harless favours, but to things beyond the church, being equivalent to wavra in the preceding clauses; nor is the word to be restricted to good angels, as Theophylact and CEcumenius seem to suppose. The noun éxxAnola is the name of the holy and believing community under the New Testament. Its meaning is obvious —the one company—np, who have been called or summoned together to salvation. The church here spoken of is specially the church on earth, which stands in need of protection, though the church in heaven be equally related to Jesus, and equally enjoy the blessings of His Headship. Jerome, Nosselt, Koppe, and Rosenmiiller extend it to all good beings—an extension not warranted by the name or the context. The dative is not, as de Wette takes it, a dativus commodi, nor is it connected ! EPHESIANS L 23, 107 with the xefadyv immediately preceding as its complement, but it belongs naturally to the verb éSwxev. The relation of ‘Christ to the church is not that of austere government, or lofty » and distant patronage. He is not to it merely drép ravta— glorious being to contemplate and worship, but He is its » Head, in a near, tender, necessary, and indissoluble relation. And that Head is at the same time “ Head over all.” His intelligence, His love, and His power, therefore, secure to the church that the wdyra will “ work together for good.” Under His “over all” Headship, everything that happens benefits His people — discoveries in science, inventions in art, and revolutions in government—all that is prosperous and all that is adverse. The history of the church is a proof extending through eighteen centuries; a proof so often tested, and by such opposite processes, as to gather irresistible strength with its age; a proof varied, ramified, prolonged, and unique, that the exalted Jesus is Head over all things to the church. And the idea contained in this appellation is carried out to its correlative complement in the following verse, and in these Ttemarkable words— (Ver. 23.)"Htis éotivy ro capa abtod—“ which indeed is His body.” “Hris—welche ja, as it is rendered by de Wette. ) Kiihner, § 781, 4,5. Of this meaning of éo7vs there are many examples in the New Testament, though it has also other | significations. “Head over all things to the church, which in ’ truth is His body.” The mode of expression is not uncommon. mChap. ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 16, v. 23, 30; 1 Cor. xii, 15; Col. i 118, 24, ii, 19, iii. 15, etc. Head and body are correlative, and are organically connected. The body is no dull lump of slay, no loose coherence of hostile particles; but bone, nerve, | and vessel give it distinctive form, proportion, and adaptation. | The church is not a fortuitous collection of believers, but a | ‘society, shaped, prepared, and life-endowed, to correspond to its Head. The Head is one, and though the corporeal members | are many, yet all is marked out and “curiously wrought | first a connection of life: if the head be dissevered, the body | dies, The life of the church springs from its union to Christ by the Spirit, and if any member or community be separated | with symmetry and grace to serve the one design ; there being organization, and not merely juxtaposition. There 1s 108 EPHESIANS I. 23. . ; from Christ, it dies. There is also a connection of mind: the purposes of the head are wrought out by the corporeal organs © —the tongue that speaks, or the foot that moves. The church should have no purpose but Christ’s glory, and no work but the | performance of His commands. There is at the same time a _ connection of power: the organs have no faculty of self-motion, — but move as they are directed by the governing principle - within. The corpse lies stiff and motionless. Energy to do- good, to move forward in spiritual contest and victory, and to exhibit aggressive influence against evil, is all derived from — union with Christ. There is, in fine, a connection of sympathy. The pain or disorder of the smallest nerve or fibre vibrates to the Head, and there it is felt. Jesus has not only cogniz- ance of us, but He has a fellow-feeling with us in all our infirmities and trials. And the members of the body are at the same time reciprocally connected, and placed in living affinity, so that mutual sympathy, unity of action, co-opera- tion, and support are anticipated and provided for. No organ is superfluous, and none can defy or challenge its fellow. Similar fulness and adjustment reign in the church. See under iv. 15, 16. Not only is the church His body, but also— TO TANpwopa Tod Ta TavTa ev Tao TAnpovpévov-—“ the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.” 1. The term wAnpwpa is in apposition to cdpa, and is not governed by édwxe, as is the strange view of Homberg, Cas- talio, and Erasmus, who says—ro mAnpopa videtur accusandt casu legendum, ut referatur ad Christum. Meier holds a similar view, making the words #75 éotl TO capa avdTod a parenthesis, and supposing that 7Anpwya. stands in apposition to avrov. This arrangement not only does violence to the natural and obvious syntax, but, as Olshausen well observes, God cannot make Christ to be the mAnpapa, for Christ pos- sesses the fulness of the Godhead, not through an act of the Father’s will, but by the necessity of His nature. Bengel regards 7Ajpwya as neither referring to the church, nor as governed by édw«xe. It stands, in his opinion, as a species of accusative absolute, like waptvpiov in 1 Tim. ii. 6, and forms an epiphonema—a quod erat demonstrandum. The violence resorted to in such an exegesis is not less objectionable than that seen in the opposite opinion of Storr, who imagines tha : EPHESIANS I. 23. 109 : it signifies that “which is in God abundantly,” and that it is employed as a species of nominative in apposition to 6 @eds mdova103, ii. 4. 2. Many understand the noun in the general sense of mul- titude—copia, cetus numerosus, making mAnpwpa equivalent to -mA700s. Such is the view which Storr calls probable, and it is that of Wetstein, Koppe, Kiittner, Wahl, and even Fritzsche. Hesychius and Phavorinus define rAnpwpa by mAjOos, and Schoettgen renders, Multitudo cui Christus preest. This notion _is plainly unwarranted by the philology of the term. IT\#@os has always a reference to abundance, but such an idea is only secondary in 7A7pwpya—fulness being merely a relative term, ‘in application either to a basket (Mark viii. 20), or to the globe (Ps. xxiv. 1), and its quantity is determined by the subject. What meaning in such a case would be borne by the homogeneous 7Anpoupévov? Besides, the idea of unity in o@pa would ill correspond with that of multiplicity given to mAjpopya. Cameron and Bos render 7Anpwya “the full body,” f plenitudo illa que est in corpore—a meaning which the simple word cannot bear, and which is borrowed from iv. 16, where other terms are joined with the substantives. 3. Some refer the use of the term to the familiar employ- ment of the 73°3¥*—the divine glory, or visible manifestation of God, which some, such as Harless, identify with 7Anpwpa. But the church cannot stand in such a relation to God—the Shechinah is the highest personal manifestation of His own infinite fulness, the glory of which is reflected by the church, ‘as shone the face of Moses when even a few straggling rays f the divine radiance fell upon it. 4. Allied to this last view is the more general one of those who regard the wAnpwyua in the light of a temple in which he glory of God resides, and who refer it in this sense to the hurch. Michaelis and Bretschneider espouse this notion, the tter of whom paraphrases wAjpwpa—gquasi templum, in quo tat, quod occupat et regit, ut anima corpus. The idea of arless, found originally in Hackspann, is very similar. “As,” ys he, “the apostle employs the same term to denote the shurch, which he uses to represent the richness of that glory 1 Comment. in Rom. vol. ii. 469. *Buxtorf, Lez. Talmud. 2394; Wagenseil, Sota, p. 83. 110 EPHESIANS I. 23, which dwells in God and Christ, and emanates from them, so the church may be called ‘the fulness of Christ, not because it is the glory which dwells in Him, but because it is the glory which He makes to dwell in her as in everything else. It is the glory not of One, who without it suffers want, but of One who fills all—das All—in all places—‘ The whole earth is full of His glory.’ In fact, ‘the church’ is the glory of Christ, because He is united to it alone as the head with its body.” This is also the view of von Gerlach: “the church is His fulness—seine Herrlichkeit, that is, His glory. All His Divine perfections are manifest in it. It is His visible appearance upon the earth.” This exegesis, however, gives the word a peculiar conventional meaning, not warranted by its derivation, but drawn from expressions in Colossians which have no affinity with the place under review ; and such a sense, moreover, is so recondite and technical, that we can scarce suppose the apostle to give it to the word without previous warning or peculiar hint and allusion. No traces of hostility to Gnosticism and its technical cévwya and mAjpwpya are found in the context, and there is no ground for such a con- jecture on the part of Trollope, Burton, and Conybeare. The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ—owpartuixas, says the apostle in a letter which formally opposes a false philosophy. Col. ii. 9. Here he says, on the other hand, the church is Christ’s body, His fulness. Passing by those forms of inter- pretation which are not supported either by analogy or by the nature of the context, we proceed to such as have higher ground of probability. The grammatical theory in the case of verbal nouns is, that those ending in pos embody the intransitive notion of the verb, while those in ows have an active, and those in pa have a passive sense, or express the result of the transitive idea contained in the verb. Kiihner, § 370. The theory, however, is often modified by usage. According to it—and in this case it is verified by many examples—zAnpwpa will be equivalent ‘to To aemAnpwpyévov—the thing filled, just as Tpaypa is TO Tempayuevov—the thing done; or the word may be taken in an abstract sense, as «Aaoua—not the thing broken, but the fragment itself. Thus the meaning may pass to that by which the effect is produced, and this is virtually ‘EPHESIANS I. 23, 111 the so-called active sense of such nouns; not, as Alford observes, “an active sense properly at all, but a logical transference from the effect to that which exemplifies the effect.” In fact, those aspects of active and passive meanings depend on the view assumed—whether one thinks first of the container, and then of the contained, or the reverse. Thus, Ps, xxiv. 1; 1 Cor. x. 26, 9 yj Kai 7o mAnpwya adtijs— “the earth and its fulness.” So the noun is used of the in- habitants of a city, as its complement of population; of the manning of a ship; the armed crew in the Trojan horse; and the animals in Noah’s ark.' In such examples the idea is scarcely that of complement, but rather the city, ark, and ship are represented as in a state of fulness. What they contain is not regarded as filling them up—Anpwais, but they are looked upon simply as being already filled up. The great question has been, whether wAnpwya has an active or a passive sense. Critics are divided. Harless? affirms, with Bahr, that the word is used only in an active sense, while Baumgarten-Crusius’* as stoutly maintains on the other side, that the noun occurs with only a passive signification. The truth seems to lie between the two extremes. The word sometimes occurs in the so-called active sense, denoting that which fills up (Matt. ix. 16), where wAxpwya is equivalent to é7i8Anuwa—the piece of new cloth designed to fill up the rent. Mark ii. 21. But it is often used in a passive sense to denote fulness—the state of fulness: Mark viii. 20, Tocwy orupiéwv Trnpwopata— the fulnesses of how many baskets "—“ how many filled baskets of fragments?” So Rom. xiii. 10, 7A»- popya voyov— fulfilment or full obedience of the law.” The idea of amplitude is sometimes involved, as Rom. xv. 29, év tAnpwpate evroyias—“ in the fulness of the blessing ;” and in Rom. xi. 25, wAnpopa tov €Ovav— the fulness of the Gentiles,” where it is opposed to aro pépous, and in the 12th verse is contrasted with #rrnwa. As applied to time (Gal. 1 Robinson, Passow, Liddell and Scott, sub voce. 2 ‘Ich betrachte es nun mit Bahr als ein unzweifelhaftes Resultat der gefiihrten Untersuchung, dass es im N. T. nur im activen Sinne gebraucht werde,” ete., 4 2 i Genin aber hat wAvgwue auch in N. T., wie in dem gesammten Sprach- . gebrauche durchaus passive Bedeutung, nur den Schein activer Bedeutung niwmt es,” ete., p. 50. 112 EPHESIANS I. 23. iv. 4; Eph. i. 10), it signifies that the time prior to the appointed epoch is regarded as filled up, and therefore full. See under i. 10. 1. An active signification, however, is preferred by Chrysos- tom, (Ecumenius, Ambrosiaster, Theophylact, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin,’ Beza,? Rollock, Zanchius, Hammond, Cro- cius, Zegerus, Calovius, Estius, Bodius, Passavant, Richter, von Gerlach, Bisping, and Hofmann. The words of Chrysos- tom are—“The head is ina manner filled up by the body, because the body is composed of all its parts, and needs every one of them. It is by all indeed that His body is filled up. Then the head is filled up, then is the body made perfect, where we all together are knit to one another and united.” * The notion involved in this exegesis, which is also beautifully illustrated by Du Bosc in his French sermons on this epistle, is the following: The church is His body; without that body the head feels itself incomplete—the body is its complement. The idea is a striking, but a fallacious one. It is not in accordance with the prevailing usage of 7wA7pwpa in the New Testament, and it stretches the figure to an undue extent. Besides, where wA7jpwya has such an active sense, it is followed by the genitive of what it fills up, as wAnpwpata KXNacpuatov. How, then, would it read here—the filling up of Him who fills all in all? But if He fill all in all already, what addition can be made to this infinitude? Or, if the participle be passive—the filling up of Him who is filled as to all in all; then, if He be already filled, no other supple- ment is required. We are not warranted to use language as to the person of Christ, as if either absolute or relative im- perfection marked it. According to this hypothesis also, that 1 «* Hic vero,” says Calvin, ‘‘summus honor est Ecclesiw, quod se Filius Dei quodammodo imperfectum reputat, nisi nobis sit conjunctus.” 2 Beza says: ‘‘Complementum sive supplementum. Is enim est Christi amor ut quum omnia omnibus ad plenum prestet, tamen sese veluti mancum et membris mutilum caput existimet, nisi ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis adjunctam.” 3 TArewpa Onoi, rovrioriy, olov xiParn wAngovras wage Tov Coparos did yao Tavrwy Mipay 7d cupa arviornxs xal ives ixacrov xentu. “Ogu wag airiv xowy wavTwy xentovra sivayt, "Av yee un duty wordol xa) 6 wiv vele, 6 di mois, 6 dt AAAO Ti bons, ob Angedras Grov ro caue, Aik wdvrwvoryTAngras To copa airov. Tort rAngovras A usQarn, TOTs TIASOY Cam YivsTas Grav buod Tarets wusY CuYMupiver xal GUYXExOA- Anwivos. EPHESIANS I. 23, 113 ae mystical body will be gradually growing, and will not be complete until the second coming. Moreover, in other parts of the New Testament, the word, when used ina religious sense, expresses not any fulness which passes from us to Christ, but, as we shall see in the next paragraph, that fulness which passes from Christ to us. We need scarcely allude to the view of Riickert, that +Anpwya is the means by which the m™Anpodr is to be realized, or by which Christ fulfils all things —the means of His fulfilling the great destiny which has devolved upon Him of restoring the world to God. But ra _ mavra cannot be restricted to the Divine plan of that redemp- _ tion, which the church is Christ’s means of working out, _ neither can wAnpwpya signify means of fulfilment, nor does the verse contain any hint of universal restoration. Bitterly does Stier say, “We venture to wish in truth and in love, that such an interpreter might learn to read the writing ere he interpret it.” 2. The word, we apprehend, is rightly taken in a passive sense—that which is filled up. This is the view of Theo- doret,! Cocceius, Grotius, Roell, Wolf, Flatt, Cramer, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Matthies, de Wette, Meyer, Holzhausen, Stier, Alford, and Ellicott. This exegesis is certainly more in unison with the formation, and general use of the term in the New Testament, and with the present context. So | wAnpwpa is employed, Lucian, Rerum Hist. ii. 37,°Amo dvo0 | “TAnpwpatov éuayovto—they fought from two filled vessels ; ~ and so, 38—révte yap elyov TANpwpyata—the ship being named _ mAnpwpya from its full equipment. So the church is named _ mXypwpua, or fulness, because it holds or contains the fulness of Christ. It is the filled-up receptacle of spiritual blessing, from Him, and thus it is His +Aypwpa, for He ascended—ive mAnpbon Ta wdvta. Again, Col. ii. 10—xai date ev adre meTAnpwuéevoi—“in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him ye are filled,’—ye have become His mripwpa or fulness. John i. 16—* Of His fulness have all we received, and so we become His fulness.” Believers are . r 3 Theodoret thus explains it—ixxrnciav, . .«geenyigues ree pir Xgeewes copa, : wou Bi Targis wrrgwua® lwdnewes yag airhy warrelarey xaqueparen, wal oats iv iF airs, xai iurigrarss nara wgopntinny Qwrir, This interpretation is wrong in one i particular, but it rightly explains ea%geua, : H ” eae ind 114 "EPHESIANS I. 23. filled with all the fulness of God—that fulness which dwells in Him, iii. 19. The tod which follows wAnpwpa I refer to Jesus; not to God, as do Theodoret, Koppe, Winer, Wetstein, Meier, Alford, Turner, and Stier. It is Jesus, the Head, who is spoken of ; the church is His body, and the next clause stands in apposi- tion—* which is also His fulness ”— Ta jTavtTa év Taow TAnpovpévov. Tdis not found in the Textus Receptus, but on the testimony of A, B, D, E, F, G, J, K—the majority of minuscules, etc., and the Greek fathers, it is rightly received into the text... Many take mAnpovpévou as a passive, such as Chrysostom, Jerome,? Anselm, Wetstein, Winer, and Holzhausen. So the Vulgate reads adimpletur. Estius has a similar explanation, and also Bisping, who finds it a proof-text for the dogma of the merit of the saints. The exegesis of these critics almost necessitated such a view of the participle. The idea of Beza, adopted by Dickson, is better, viz., that the phrase is added to show that Jesus does not stand in need of this supplement—wt qui eficiat omnia in omnibus reverd. If the participle be taken as a passive form, the words ta mavta év tdaox present a solecistic difficulty, and we are therefore inclined, with the majority of interpreters, to regard the participle as of the middle voice. Winer, § 38, 63 Similar usage occurs in Xenophon,’ Plato, and Pollux. The force of the middle voice is—“ who fills for himself,” all in all. The Gothic version has usfwlljandins—* filling;” and the Syriac also has the active. Holzhausen capriciously makes the phrase equivalent to das Hwige—the Eternal, that is, Christ carries in Himself the fulness of eternal blessings. Both nouns—zravta and mado1.—seem to be neuter, and are therefore to be taken in their broadest significance—*“ who fills the universe with all blessings.” In Col. i. 16, ra mavta is used as the appellation of the universe which the Son of God has created. 1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph. iit. 9. It narrows the sense of the idiom to give 7aoe a masculine 1 Reiche, Comment. Criticus in N. T’., vol. ii. p. 144 ; Gottinge, 1859. 2 **Sicut adimpletur imperator, si quotidie ejus augeatur exercitus, et fiant nove provincie, et populorum multitudo succrescat, ita et Christus in eo quod sibi credunt omnia—ipse adimpletur in omnibus.” 3 Moulton, p. 323. * Hellen. 6, 2,14. *Gorg. 493. © Onomast. 164-175. | EPHESIANS I. 23. | 115 signification, and confine it, with Grotius, Matthies, and Stier, to members of the church—His body; or, with Michaelis, to give it the sense of—“in all places;” or, with Harless and de Wette, to translate it-—“in different ways and forms ;” or, with Cramer, to interpret it as meaning, that religious bless- ings are no longer nationally restricted, but may be enjoyed by all! The preposition is instrumental, v. 18. Winer, § 48, a, 3, d. The true meaning is—“in all things,” as Fritzsche rightly maintains. Comment. in Rom. xi. 12. The idiom occurs, 1 Cor. xv. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 6; 1 Tim. iii 11; Tit. ii. 9. Macknight, preceded by Whitby, takes wavta as a masculine—*“ who fills all his members with all blessings.” But why should the adjective dwindle in meaning? Why should 7a wdvta be less comprehensive here than the repeated indefinite wdvra of the preceding verse? On the one hand the verse speaks nothing for the ubiquity of Christ’s body, nor does it bear such a reference to Gnostic philosophy and - nomenclature as betokens a post-apostolical origin, as Baur _ conjectures. Ebrard, Christ. Dogmatik, ii. p. 139; Martensen, ibid. § 176, etc. But see also Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, vol. ii. § 45; Schmid, Die Dogmatik der Evang. Luth. | Kirche, § 31, 32, 33. _ The church, then, is the wA7pwpa—the glorious receptacle of such spiritual blessings. And as these are bestowed in no scanty or shrivelled dimensions—for the church is filled, so loaded and enriched, that it becomes fulness itself—and as that fulness is so vitally connected with its origin, it is _ lovingly and truly named “the fulness of Christ.” The store- house, “ filled with the finest of the wheat,” is the farmer's fulness. The blessings which constitute this fulness, and _ warrant such a name to the church—for they fill it to over- flowing, “good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over”—are those detailed in the previous verses of the chapter. “All spiritual blessings,’ the Divine purpose realizing itself in perfect holiness ; filial character and preroga- _ tive ; redemption rooting itself in the pardon of sin; grace exhibited richly and without reserve; the sealing and earnest of the Spirit till the inheritance be fully enjoyed—the results of the apostle’s prayer—Divine illumination ; the knowledge and hope of future blessedness, and of the depth and vastness fs 116 EPHESIANS I. 23. of that Divine power by which the new life is given and sus- tained, union to Jesus as the Body with the Head, the source of vitality and protection—all these benefactions, conferred upon the church and enjoyed by it, constitute it a filled church, and being so filled by Christ, it is aptly and emphati- cally called—His FULNEss. And the exalted goodness of the Mediator is not confined to filling the church. His benign influence extends through the universe—ra mdvra, as gathered together in Him. As all ranks of unfallen beings are beneath Him, they receive their means of happiness from Him; and as all things are beneath His feet, they share in the results of His Mediatorial reign. The Head of the church is at the same time Lord of the universe. While He fills the church fully with those blessings which have been won for it and are adapted to it, He also fills the universe with all such gifts as are appropriate to its welfare—gifts which it is now His exalted prerogative to bestow. CHAPTER II. THE apostle resumes the thought which he had broken off in ver. 20. He wished the Ephesian saints to know what was the exceeding greatness of God’s power toward those who believe—a species of power exemplified and pledged in the resurrection of Jesus. That power, he virtually intimates, _ you have experienced, for he who gave life to Jesus gave life _ to you, when you were dead in trespasses and sins. (Ver. 1.) Kat tas dvtas vexpods tois mapattwpact Kal _ tais duaptiais— And you being dead in trespasses and sins.” We do not connect the words grammatically with ver. 20, and we hold it to be a loose interpretation which Calvin, _ Hyperius, Bloomfield, and Peile express, when they say that this verse is a special exemplification of the general act of _ Divine grace expressed in the last clause of the former chap- _ter. The connection, as we have stated it, is more precise _ and definite, for it is the resumption of a previous train of thought. The verb which governs tds is not téragev, nor érdnpwoe mentally supplied, nor the mAnpoupévov of the _ preceding verse, as is supposed by Calovius, Cramer, Koppe, _ Rosenmiiller, and Chandler, for “ filling” and death are not homogeneous ideas. The governing verb is ouve{woroince in ver. 5, as Jerome and (Ecumenius rightly affirm, though the former blames Paul for a loose construction there— conjunctionem vero causalem arbitramur, aut ab indoctis _ scriptoribus additam, et vitium inolevisse paulatim, aut ab ipso _ Paulo, qui erat imperitus sermone sed non scientia, superflue _usurpatam. The thought is again interrupted between vers. 1 and 4, as it had been between the previous ver. 20 and ver. 1 of this chapter. The apostle’s mind was eminently _ suggestive, influenced by powerful laws of mental association, and prone to interpolate subsidiary ideas—but he resumes by _8é in ver. 4. Bengel, Lachmann, and Harless separate the 4 117 118 EPHESIANS II. 1. two chapters only by a comma, but the sense is complete at the termination of the first chapter, and the xa/—giving emphasis, however, to the following wtuas—continues the discourse, signifying not “even,” but simply “and.” The MSS. B, D, E, F, G, ete. the Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Latin versions, with Jerome, Theodoret, and Ambrosi- aster, place vua@y at the end of the verse. Lachmann has ~received it into the text, so has Tischendorf in his seventh edition, with Hahn and Meyer. A has éavrwy, showing emendation at work. It is long since attempts were made to show a distinction between vapart@patra and dapaprias. Augustine, in his twentieth question on Leviticus, says— Potest etiam videri illud esse delictum, quod imprudenter, ulud peccatum quod ab sciente committitur. Jerome says that the former is—quast initia peccatorum, and the latter—cwm quid opere consummatum pervenit ad finem. These definitions are visionary and unsupported. On the other hand, Olshausen regards maparTopata as denoting sinful actions, and duapriat as indicating more the sinful movements of the soul in inclina- tions and words. Meier, again, supposes the words to be synonymous, but yet to be distinguished—wie Handlung und Zustand—as action and condition. The opinion of Baum- garten-Crusius is akin. Bengel imagines that the first term had an emphatic reference to Jewish, and the last term to Gentile transgressions—an opinion in which Stier virtually concurs; while Matthies characterizes mapamtopata as spi- ritual errors and obscurations, and dwapriac as moral sins and faults. ‘Tittmann says that the first substantive refers to sin as if rashly committed, and is therefore a milder term than dpaptiat, which denotes a willing act. De Synonymis, etce., p. 45. Lastly, Harless gives it as his view, that wapdmropa denotes the concrete lapse—the act, while the term duapriat, as the forcible plural of an abstract noun, signifies the mani- festations of sin, without distinguishing whether it be in word, deed, or any other form. Crocius, Calovius, Flatt, Meyer, and Riickert regard the two words as synonymous. (IIapartwya has been explained under i. 7.) Perhaps while the first term refers to violations of God’s law as separate and repeated acts, the last, as de Wette supposes, may represent all kinds of sin, all forms and developments of a sinful nature. EPHESIANS I, 1. 119 Thus wapart@para, under the image of “ falling,” may carry _ an allusion to the desires of the flesh, open, gross, and palp- _ able, while duapréas, under the image “missing the mark.” may designate more the desires of the mind, sins of thought and idea, of purpose and inclination. Miiller, Zehre von der Siinde, vol. i. p. 118; Buttmann, Lexil. p. 79, ed. Fishlake ; Fritsche, in Rom. v. 12. The two words in close connection must denote sin of every species, form, and manifestation, of intent as well as act, of resolve as well as execution, of inner meditation as well as outer result, In Ps. xix. 13, ‘14, there is apparently a contrast between the terms—the last being the stronger term—wapartwpata tis ovrrces, and then xa@apicOncopar dd dyaptias peyddns. The article before each of the nouns has, according to Olshausen and Stier, this foree—Sins, “which you are conscious of having committed.” We prefer this emphasis—Sins, which are well known to have characterized your unconverted state. In the corresponding passage in Col. ii. 13, év precedes the substantives, and denotes the state or condition of death. Compare also, for the use and omission of éy in a similar clause, Eph. ii. 15 with Col. ii. 14. Though that preposition be wanting here, the meaning, in our apprehension, is not _ very different, as indeed is indicated by the phraseology of _ ver. 2—‘“in which ye walked.” The “trespasses and sins” _ do not merely indicate the cause of death, as Zanchius, Meier, Ellicott, and Harless maintain, but they are descriptive also _ of the state of death. They represent not simply the in- _ strument, but at the same time the condition of death. _ The dative may signify sphere. Winer, 31, 6; Donaldson, _ §456. The very