prt eke etalled clehet.4. eee : Wie? . ie bx bs Abie re win “passe hrstliitans toplen as peeceae bya ataniin cotta tes feferrtedate re ae 7 wicigheiaie’|- Dts a lat tries riers TybaNy tiaras : ; rake ; Sele jst efetabe jeiclalebssstetstern : 4 aeeticterets: : Rais Sears hercta wine? # PRD aha lel wh taba ie 4 po aheh bel eet bet banet ate: stebesveree. b jirteanth 5 pefere Me ae mJ sae eds prvi a AL a a a eee aa ae ee a a -F 5 es, rine 1o,\ 3 10/3/ot | legen seis” Bs 25D E 4 | 264 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/stpaulsepistletoepheOOelli ‘4 —ie y Bie a ‘ WEE 1 4 i ‘ Lu ; Gus ol PAUL S EPISTLE TO. THE EPHESIANS: WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY, AND A REVISED TRANSLATION, BY CHARLES J. ELLICOTT D.D. BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. THE THIRD EDITION, CORRECTED. LONDON : LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, ROBERTS & GREEN 1864. Cambridge : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION. HE present edition has been revised in the same way as the third edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. A few alterations in reading will be found, especially in chap. 1 1, the newly discovered Sinaitic Manuscript having in some cases altered the ba- lance of critical judgment. It is much to be desired that the respected Editor of the Manuscript should, if possible, put an end to the doubts which are still allowed to linger round this apparently venerable and trustworthy document. BRriSTOL, December, 1863. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. HE second edition of the present Epistle is in all respects similar to the second edition of the Epistle to the Gala- tians which appeared a few months since, and is brought up, I sincerely hope, fully to the same standard. It is perhaps right to say that little lias been substantially altered, and that the reader of the first edition will scarcely find more than half a dozen passages where the opinions formerly maintained are either retracted or modified; still the additions are great, and the tumber of notes that have been recast or rewritten by no means inconsiderable. By this means space has been obtained for the introduction of new matter; weaker arguments in contested passages have been made to give place to what might seem to put in a clearer light the stronger argument; fogical and grammatical observations have beeti more grouped, and the links of thought that connect clause with clause or sentence with sentence more studiously exhibited. In this last respect the additions will be found great, and will I trust, by the blessing of God, be of no little use to the reader in properly pursuing the train of sublime thought that runs through this tran- scendent Epistle. This alas! is the point most commonly neglected in our general study of Scripture: we trust to ge- neral impressions and carry away general ideas, but the exact sequence of thought in the mind of the inspired writer is what, I fear, is only too frequently overlooked. It is useless to disguise that this close analysis of the sacred text is very difficult; that it requires a calm judgment and a disciplined Vi PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. mind, no less than a loving and teachable heart; that it is not a power we can acquire in a week or in a month: yet if Scripture be, what I for one believe it to be, the writing of men inspired by the third Person of the adorable Trinity, then we may well think that no labour in this direction can be too severe, no exercise of thought too close or persistent. Let it alsv be not forgotten that no intelligent reader can now fairly say that he is without proper assistance, that the well is deep and he has nothing to draw with. Setting aside all mention of the general improvement in the commentaries of the day, and supposing the tacit objector to be either unable or unwilling to face the labour of reading the great patristic expositors, let him still remember that the science of grammar is now so much advanced’, that syntax and logic are now so well and so happily combined, that no one who is really in earnest, and to whom God has given a fair measure of ability, can for a moment justly plead that an accurate knowledge of the Greek of the New Testament is beyond his grasp, and a power of analysing the connexion of its weighty sentences not abundantly ministered to him. I studiously limit myself to saying the Greek of the New Testa- ment: individual industry, however steadily exercised, may sometimes fail in making a student a good general Greek scholar; he may have no natural power of appreciating those felicities of expression, no ready ability for discriminating be- tween those subtle uses of particles which mark the best age of Attic Greek; but the language of the New Testament, its plain, hearty, truly simple, but truly Greek diction is, I am confident, above the reach of no one who will soundly study the general rules of thought and language, as they are now put before us by the grammarians of our own time. And this I say, partly to encourage the humbler reader who might have thought such acquirements decidedly out of his reach, 1 ITmay here remark that the Greek _ parts, and so felicitous in its combina- Grammar of Dr Donaldson, noticed tion of logic with grammar, as to form in the Preface to the Galatians, has a most important contribution to the now reached a second and enlarged accurate study of the Greek lan- edition, and is so complete in all its guage. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. vil partly for the sake of augmenting that kind and considerate company of students that have given these commentaries a hearing, and have borne patiently with the constant notice and repetition of grammatical details. I venture thus to dwell upon this topic—a topic in part alluded to in the preface to the first edition—as four years of hard study since that was written, and, what is more valuable for testing opinions, one year of responsible teaching, have convinced me that a really accurate knowledge of the language of the Greek Testament may be acquired far more easily than might at first have been imagined; and have further confirmed me in the belief that it is by these accurate investigations of the language of the Inspired Volume, that we are enabled really to penetrate into its deeper mysteries, and thence to learn to appreciate the more convincing certainty of our highest hopes, and the more assured reality of our truest consolations. But to return to the present volume. The student will find a great, and I trust a welcome addition, in the constant citations from nine ancient Versions, viz. the Old Latin, the two Syriac Versions, the Vulgate, the Coptic, the Gothic, the two Ethiopic Versions, and the Armenian’, All these have been carefully studied, their opinions maturely considered, and their views of debated passages exhibited in brief and unpretending, but (if labour may be allowed to make me hopeful) in correct and trustworthy enumerations. Considerable additions have been made in the way of short critical notes, especially in those cases in which the Re- ceived Text differs from the reading which I have thought it right to follow. Here I have received some welcome assistance from the last, the so-called seventh edition of Dr Tischendorf’s New Testament’, though I regret to say I am still obliged to 1 I may take this opportunity of noticing, for the benefit of those who may be disposed to study this interest- ing and not very difficult language, that I have derived much useful as- sistance from the Brevis Lingue Ar- menace Grammatica (Berl. 1841) of J. H. Petermann. It is furnished with a good chrestomathy and a useful glossary, and has the great advan- tage of being perspicuous and brief. 2 In deference to the opinion and present usage of this critic, I now de- signate the MS. of St Paul’s Epp. formerly marked J in the critical edi- tions by the new mark L. vill PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. reiterate the opmion which I have formerly expressed, that at any rate in the citations from the Ancient Versions, Dr Tischendorf is not always to be depended on. His own preface, though marked by great assumption of tone, will indeed itself confirm this; as he has, by his own admissions, depended nearly entirely on Leusden and Schaaf for the Peshito-Syriac; on the incorrect edition of Wilkins for the Coptic Version of the Epistles, to the complete neglect of the more recent edition of Bétticher; on a collator for Platt’s Ethiopic; and for the Armenian, on the edition of a man whose general inaccuracies he has unsparingly denounced, Dr Scholz. The subjective criticisms mixed up in the notes cannot be pronounced as either very useful or very satis- factory, and will serve to show how hard it is to find m one and the same person the patient and laborious paleeographer and the sound and sagacious critic. Still we owe much to Dr Tischendorf, and it is probable shall have to owe much more; his unwearied labours command our highest respect, and may only the more make us regret that they are not set off by a greater Christian courtesy in his general tone, and by more forbearance towards those who feel it their duty to differ from him. The last addition to the present edition which it is here necessary to specify is perhaps the most important, syste- matic reference to the sermons and treatises of our best English Divines. This, it will be remembered, appeared to some extent in the first edition, and has always formed a feature of these commentaries; still I am now enabled to give to the reader the results of a wider reading, and to entertain the hope that he will find but few really valuable illustrations from our best Divines overlooked in the present volume. All I have done however is only in the way of reference. J much regret that neither space, nor the general character of the commentary, enable me to make long quota- tions: still I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, that as the references have been made with great care and consideration, J venture to think that the reader who will take the trouble of consulting the writers in the places PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ie referred to will find himself abundantly rewarded for his labour. I have already received many kind recognitions of the service which this class of references has rendered to students in Theology; and I now continue them with renewed interest, feeling day by day more assured that in these latter times it is to our own great Divines of the sixteenth and seven- teenth centuries that we must go for our Theology; and that it is from them alone that we can provide ourselves with pre- servatives against the unsound, vaunting, and humanitarian theosophy, that is such a melancholy and yet such a popular characteristic of our own times. Nothing now remains for me, except to notice briefly the works of fellow-labourers that have appeared since the pub- lication of the first edition. A new edition has recently appeared by Harless, but is, as the author himself apprizes us, too little changed to need any further notice than what has already appeared in the original Preface to this work. A very useful edition for the general reader has also appeared in America, from the pen of the estimable Dr Turner, but is too different in its prin- ciples of interpretation to have been ‘of much use to me in a critical and grammatical commentary such as the present. To two commentaries however which have appeared in this country during the interval I have alluded to I have paid very great attention. The first is the Third Volume of my friend Dean Alford’s Commentary; the second is the Third Part of Canon Wordsworth’s Commentary; works which both deserve and have received the high approbation of all bibli- cal students: the former for its able and attractive exegesis, the latter for its valuable citations from Patristic and English Divinity; and both for their accurate scholarship, and sound and intelligent criticism. I now commend myself to the kind judgment of my readers; and with the hope that some time in the course of the following year, if God be pleased to give me health and strength, I may be enabled to complete another portion of my laborious undertaking, I here bring to its close a work that has claimed my incessant attention for some months. : PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. May the blessing of God rest on this reappearance of a lowly tribute to His Honour and Glory, may its errors and shortcomings be forgiven, and its broken and partial glimpses of Divine Truth be permitted to excite in others a deeper reverence for the Eternal Word, and a more earnest longing for the full and perfect Day. CAMBRIDGE, August, 1859. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. HE following pages form the second part of a comment- ary on St Paul’s Epistles, founded on the same prin- ciples and constructed on the same plan as that on the Epistle to the Galatians. As I explained somewhat at length in the preface to that Epistle the general principles, critical, grammatical, and exe- getical, upon which this commentary has been attempted, I will now only make a few special observations on this present portion of the work, and record my obligations to those ex- positors who have more particularly devoted themselves to this Epistle. With regard to the present commentary, I must remind the reader, that as in style, matter, and logical connexion, this sublime Epistle differs considerably from that to the Galatians, so the commentary must necessarily in many respects reflect these differences and distinctions. Several points of grammatical interest which particularly character- ized the former Epistle are scarcely perceptible in the pre- sent; while difficulties which made themselves but slightly felt in the vivid, argumentative, expostulatory language of the Epistle to the Galatians, are here, amidst the earnest hortatory comments, the deeper doctrinal expositions, and the more profound enarrations of the primal counsels of God, ever maintaining a distinct and visible prominence. In the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, the explanation of the uses of the cases did not commonly involve many points of interest: in this Epistle, the cases, especially the genitive, present almost every phase and form of difficulty; the uses are most various, the combinations most subtle and signi- ficant. In the Epistle to the Galatians again, the particles, causal, illative, or adversative, which connected the clauses were constantly claiming the reader’s attention, while the subordination or co-ordination of the clauses themselves and the inter-dependence of the different members and factors of the sentence were generally simple and perspicuous. In the present Epistle these difficulties are exactly reversed, the use of the particles is more simple, while the mtertexture of sentences and the connexion of clauses, especially in the xl PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. earlier portions of the Epistle, try the powers and principles of grammatical and logical analysis to the very uttermost. In the first chapter more particularly, when we are per- mitted as it were to gaze upon the evolution of the arche- typal dispensation of God, amidst those linked and blended clauses that, like the enwreathed smoke of some sweet- smelling sacrifice, mount and mount upwards to the very heaven of heavens, in that group of sentences of rarest har- mony and more than mortal eloquence, these difficulties are so great and so deep, that the most exact language and the most discriminating analysis seem, as they truly are, too poor and too weak to convey the force or connexion of expressions so august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound. It is in this part that I have been deeply conscious that the system of exposition which I have adopted has passed through its sorest and severest trial; and though I have laboured with anxious and unremitting industry, though I have spared neither toil nor time, but with fear and trem- bling, and not without many prayers, have devoted every power to the endeavour to develop the outward meaning and connexion of this stupendous revelation, I yet feel from my very heart how feeble that effort has been, how inexpressive my words, how powerless my grasp, how imperfect my de- lineation. Still, in other portions of this Epistle, I trust Iam not presumptuous in saying that T have been more cheered and hopeful, and that I have feft increased confidence in the system of exposition I was enabled to pursue in the com- mentary on the preceding Epistle. I have thus (especially after the kind notices my former work has received) studiously maintained in the present notes the same critical and gram- matical characteristies which marked the former commentary. The only differences that I am aware of will be found in the still greater attention I have paid to the Greek Expositors, a slight decrease in the references to some modern commen- tators in whom I have felt a diminishing confidence, a slight increase in the references to our best English Divines which the nature of this profound Epistle has seemed to require. I deeply regret that the limits which I have prescribed to myself in this commentary have prevented my embodying the substance of these references in the notes, as I well know the disinclination to pause and consult other authors which every reader, save the most earnest and truth-seeking, 1s certain to feel. Yet this I will say, that I think the student will not often regret the trouble he may have to take in reading those few portions of our great English Divines to PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xl which I have directed his attention, and which, for his sake, I could wish had been more numerous. Such as they are, they are the results of my own private reading and observation. In the grammatical portion of the commentary I must entreat the reader to bear with me, if, for the sake of brevity, and I might even say perspicuity, I have been forced to avail myself of the current forms of expression adopted by modern grammatical writers. They will all be found elucidated in the treatises to which I have referred, and of these every one, to the best of my belef, is well known and accessible, and will probably occupy a place in the library of most scholars. I must now briefly notice the authors to whom, in addition to those mentioned in the preface to the Galatians, 1 am indebted in the present Epistle. Of the patristic commentators I have derived great benefit from some exceedingly valuable annotations of Origen, which are to be found in Cramer’s Catene, and which have hitherto scarcely received any notice from recent expositors, though they most eminently deserve it. Of modern commentators on this Epistle, I am deeply indebted to the admirable exposition of Harless, which, for accurate scholarship, learning, candour, and ability, may be pronounced one of the best, if not the ver y best commentary that has ever yet appeared on any single portion of Holy Scripture. The exposition of this Epistle by Dr Stier under the title of Die Gemeinde in Christo Jesu, is very complete and compre- hensive, but so depressingly voluminous as to weary out the patience of the most devoted reader. When I mention that it extends to upwards of 1050 closely printed pages, and that some single verses (e.g. ch. 1. 23, . 15) are commented on to the extent of nearly thirty pages, I may be excused if I express my regret that a writer so earnest, so reverential, and so favourably Known to the world as Dr Rudolph Stier, should not have endeavoured to have confined his commentary to somewhat more moderate dimensions. The chief fault I ven- ture to find with Dr Stier’s system of interpretation is his constant and (in this work) characteristic endeavour to blend together two or more explanations, and, in his earnest and most praiseworthy attempt to exhibit the many deeper mean- ings which a passage may involve, to unite what is often dissi- milar and inharmonious. Still his commentary is the produc- tion of a learned and devout mind, and no reader will consult it in vain. A review of it may be found in the seventy-ninth volume of Reuter’s Repertorium. The third special commentary I desire to mention is the X1V PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. full and laborious work of Professor Eadie. I have derived from it little directly, as it is to a great degree confessedly a compilation from existing materials, and these I have in all cases thought it my duty to examine and to use for my- self; still I have never failed to give Professor Eadie’s de- cisions my best consideration, and have in many cases felt myself edified by the devoutness, and not unfrequently the eloquence of his expositions. I trust however the learned author will excuse me when I say that I do not think the grammatical portion of the commentary is by any means so well executed as the exegetical, and that I cannot but regard this otherwise able work as to a certain extent an example of the truth of an opinion which I ventured to express in the preface to the Galatians, viz. that theological as well as gram- matical learning is now so much increased, that it is hard to find a commentator who is able satisfactorily to undertake, at one and the same time, a critical, grammatical, exegetical, and dogmatical exposition of any portion of the New Testament. In his cumulative representation of the opinions of other commentators, as my notes will occasionally testify, Professor Eadie is also not always exact: with these abatements how- ever, Which candour compels me to make, I can heartily and conscientiously recommend this commentary as both judicious and comprehensive, and as a great and important addition to the exegetical labours of this country. I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned commentary of Dr Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout, and I must again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned editor. In many doctrinal questions I differ widely from Dr Meyer, but as a critical and grammatical expositor he deserves the respect of all thoughtful readers. I have now only to commit my work to the reader with the humble prayer to Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, that it may receive a blessing from above ; and, though feebly and imperfectly, may still be permitted to minister somewhat, to the more accurate knowledge of His blessed Word, and to the clearer perception of the outward forms and expressions of His everlasting Truth. CAMBRIDGE, June, 1855. INTRODUCTION. HE sublime Epistle to the Ephesians was written by St Paul during his first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), and stands second or more probably third in the third of the four groups into which the Epistles of St Paul may be conveniently divided. The Ep. to the Colossians (Meyer, Hinleit. p. 18, Wieseler, Chronol. p- 450 sq.), and also that to Philemon, appear to have immediately preceded, while that to the Philippians seems to have succeeded after an interval of perhaps a year, when the Apostle’s confine- ment assumed a harsher character, and his prospects seemed in some measure more cheerless (Phil. i. 20). It was thus written about the year A.D. 62, and was conveyed to the Church of Ephesus by Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21), either while on his way to deliver the Epistles addressed respectively to the Colossians and to Philemon, or, as has been thought more proba- ble (Meyer, Hinleit. p. 17), on his return after having performed that duty. That the Epistle was addressed to the Christians of the import- ant city of Ephesus is not open to very serious doubt. The critical arguments (see note on ch. i.1), and the nearly unanimous consent of the early Church (Iren. Her. v. 2. 3, Clem. Alex. Strom. Iv. 8, Vol. 1. p. 592, ed. Potter, Orig. Cels. Vol. 1. p. 458, ed. Bened.) are generally in favour of such a destination. Still as the critical arguments have to some extent been modified by the evidence of the Sinaitic MS., and as the omission of greetings and personal notices in an Epistle sent from the founder of the Church of Ephesus (Acts xix. 1 sq., comp. xviii. 19) to converts with whom he had dwelt nearly three years (Acts xx. 37) is certainly striking and noticeable, we may now the more confidently adopt the opinion of Usher (Annal. ann. 4068) and of several recent expositors, that this Epistle, if addressed primarily to the Christians at Ephesus, XVI INTRODUCTION. was still designed for circulation in all the churches conterminous to or dependent on that city, and was thus left studiously general ‘in form, and free from distinctive notices. Individual greetings and other messages of affection might well have been entrusted _to a bearer who was specially commissioned to inform the receiv- ers of the Epistle upon all points connected with the personal state of the Apostle (ch. vi. 21). The Kpistle does not appear to have been called forth by any particular circumstances, nor to have involved any warning against the peculiarities of Jewish or Eastern Philosophy, but was de- signed to set forth the origin and development of the Church of Christ, and to display to the Christian dweller under the shadow of the great temple of Diana the unity and beauty of that transcend- ently more glorious spiritual temple (ch. ii, 20) of which Christ Himself was the chief corner stone, and the saints portions of the superstructure. That it should also contain many thoughts nearly identical with those expressed in the Epistle to the Colossians is readily accounted for by the fact that both were written nearly at the same time, and both addressed to Churches which were sufli- ciently near to each other to have had many things in common, especially in the relations of social and domestic life. The genuineness and authenticity admit of no reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the Early Church are unusually strong and per- sistent (see reff. above, and add Tertull. de Preser. ch. xxxv1, Hip- pol. Refut. Her. p. 193, ed. Oxf.), and have never been called in question till comparatively recent times. The objections are purely of a subjective character, being mainly founded on imaginary weaknesses in style or equally imaginary references to early Gnos- ticism, and have been so fairly and fully confuted that they can no longer be considered to deserve any serious attention: see esp. Meyer, Finleit. p. 19 sq., Davidson, ntrod. Vol. u. p. 352 sq., Alford, Prolegom. p. 8. The arguments in favour of the Epistle having been written at Ceesarea will be found in Meyer, Hinleit. § 2, but are far from convincing. WPO> E®ESIOY:. Apostolic address and salutation. AYAOZ dzdcrtoros Xpicrov "Iy- I. cov da OeArnpatos Qeov Tois ayiors Cuap. I. 1. dméatodos X.I1.] San Apostle of Christ Jesus: gen. not of ablation (the source from which his commission proceeded; comp. Stier in loc.), but simply of possession, in reference to the Master whose servant and minister he was; see Acts xxvii. 23, ov etul; Rom. i. 1, doddos “I. X.: and comp. notes on Col. i. 1. The distinction between these forms of the gen. (which Eadie appears not to have fully felt) is often faintly marked (compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 16, 17); still Harless seems quite correct in saying that the idea of authorisation does not depend simply on the gen., but on the modal clauses, as Kav’ émi- Taynv, 1 Tim. i. 1, which are com- monly attached: comp. Gal. i. 1, where the nature of the relations be- tween the Apostie and his converts suggests language of unusual pre- cision. Sia. GeAr}patos Ocodv] ‘by the will of God;’ modal clause appended to the preceding words, not so much to enhance his apostolic authority (comp. Alf.), as in that thankful remembrance of God’s power and grace which any allusion to his ministerial office was sure to awaken in the Apostle’s heart: comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10, Gal. i. 15. These and the preceding words occur in the same order and connexion in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. r, 2 Tim. i. 1; comp. 1 Cor. i. I. Though it is not possible to doubt that the Apostle, in addressing dif- ferent Churches or individuals, de- signedly adopted the same or different modes of salutation, still it is not in all cases easy to trace from external considerations the reasons for the choice; comp. notes on Col. i. I. Riickert, who has slightly touched on the subject (on Gal. i. 1), refers the Apostle’s present specification of his authority, da Ged. O., to the en- cyclical character of the Epistle. As this character, though probable (see crit. note), is merely hypothetical, it will be safer, and perhaps more na- tural, to adopt the more general ex- planation above alluded to; see Meyer Gi 1 Cone tar. rots aylous] ‘to the Saints.’ Christians are appy. called dy. in the N.T. in three senses: (a) generally, as mem- bers of a visible and local community devoted to God's service (Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10, Rom. xv. 25), and, as such, united in a common outward profes- sion of faith (1 Cor. i. 2; see Chrys. on Rom. i. 7); (b) more specifically, as members of a spiritual community (Col. iii. 12, 1 Pet. ii. 9); and (c) as also in many cases having personal and individual sanctity; comp. ver. 4, see Fell in loc. The context will B 2 WPO2 E®EZIOY:2. Tois ovoLY [ &v "Edéce | kat mistois ev Xpict@ “Iyncod. 1. [év ’Edécy] In consequence of the omission of these words in the newly discovered S we are now perhaps at length justified in placing them in brackets. The facts of the case are as follows: (1) As far as our present collations can be depended upon, all the MSS., mss., and Vy. are unanimous in favour of the insertion; except B, where the words are supplied on the margin by a second hand (Zisch.), &, where the words are added by the fourth hand (Tischendorf’s C), and 67, where they appear in the text, but with diacritical marks indicative of suspicion: (2) Basil, whom we have reasons for believing to have been careful as a critic (see Georg. Syncell. Chron. p. 203, ed. Paris, 1651), certainly did not find the words éy rots rahatols Tév dvrvypapav' Eunom. 11. 19. Bp Middleton supposes Basil only to appeal to the ancient MSS. as containing rot’s ofciv & °Ed., not simply ros év “Ed.; comp. Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 1841, p. 423; this opinion however has no diplomatic support of any kind, and cannot fairly and logically be deduced from the words of Basil; see Meyer, Linleit. p. 2, note: (3) Tertullian (Mare. Vv. 11, 17) possibly was not aware of their existence; it is un- critical to say more. His words, ‘veritas Ecclesiz,’ do not necessarily imply an absence of diplomatic evidence, nor can ‘interpolare’ (comp. J/arc. Iv. 1, Vv. 21) be pressed: (4) Origen (Caten. Vol. 11. p. 102) appears to have accepted the omission, as ke comments on the peculiarity of the expression rots aylows Tots oticw* see Tisch. (ed. 7). The internal evidence, such as absence of greetings and personal notices, is of more importance. Still both combined do not as yet seem quite sufficient entirely to overthrow the preponderance of external authority, and the appy. unanimous tradition of the early Church, that this Ep. was addressed to the Ephesians (Iren. Her. v. 2, 3; Clem. Al. Strom. 1v. 83 Tertull. /. c.; Origen, Cels. 111. p. 458, ed. Ben.). We therefore now place the words in brackets, but retain them in the text, feeling it still possible that their omission in B and % may be due to an early exercise of criticism founded on supposed internal evidence, traces of which are found in Theodoret, Pref. in Eph.: comp. Wieseler, Chronol. p. 442 sq. The different theories and attempts to reconcile conflicting evidence will be found in Meyer, Eimleit. § 1; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 432 sq.; and Davidson, Jntrod. Vol. 1. p. 328 sq. Of the many hypotheses, that of Harless (Hinlett. p. 57)—that the Ep. was designed not only for the Ephesians, but for the Churches dependent on Ephesus, or the Christians who had already been converted there—is perhaps the most plausible. generally show which of these ideas involving these different ideas are predominates. In salutations like the grouped round xAyrots aylous: comp. present, d-yos appears to be used in Thorndike, Review, 1. 33, Vol. I. p. its most comprehensive sense, as in- 656 (A.-C. Libr.), and Davenant on volving the idea of a visible (hence the Col. 1. 2. murrois év Xp. local predicate), and also (as the com- Ino.] ‘faithful, se. believing, in Christ plementary clause kal muorots €v Xp. 1. Jesus.’ Teords stands here not in its suggests) that of a spiritual and holy — general and classical sense, ‘qui fidem community: see Col. i. 2, and esp. prestat’ (Grot., Alf.), but in its par- 1 Cor, i. 2, where defining clauses ticular and theological sense, ‘qui fi- 1 ARCS 3 , Cr a A 3 ae: 5 ‘ a) an ‘ e ~ 4 K r Xapes ULLV KGL elpnvy aTO €OU TAT Pos WAWV Kal uplou 2 *Incot Xpirrov. Blessed be God who has predestinated us to the EvAoyytos 6 Oeos Kat waTnp Tov 3 adoption of sons, redeemed us by Christ’s blood, revealed to us His eternal purpose of uniting all in Him, and has commenced its fulfilment by sealing with His Spirit both Jew and Gentile. dem habet’ (comp. Syr.), a meaning which it indisputably bears in several passages in the N.T.; e.g. John xx. 27, 2 Cor. vi. 15, Gal. iii. 9, 1 Tim. iv. 3 (not 1 Tim. i. 12, Eadie), Titus i. 6, dec. ; comp. Ecclus. i. 14, Psalm ci. 6, and see Suicer, Zhesawr. s.v. Vol. 1, p- 741. éy Xptore@ implies union, fellowship, with Christ (see notes on Gal. ii. 17), and qualifies only the more restricted term zucrés, not dytos (Phil. i. 1) and micrés (Harl., Meyer). The clause is not however, on the one hand, a mere epexegesis of ayo (Beza), nor, on the other, a spe- cification of another and separate class (Stier); but completes the description of the dy, by the addition of a second and more distinctive predica- tion: see Meyer in loc. Iliocrés &v Xp. thus approximates in meaning to mistevev eis Xp. (Gal. ii. 16), ex- cept that the latter involves a closer connexion of the verb and the prep. (riot. eis... Xp.), and points rather to an act of the will, while the former involves a closer connexion of the prep. and the noun (muot....€v Xp.), and marks a state and condition: see Fritz. Mare. p. 175, and Eadie im loc., where the full force of the preposition is eloquently expanded. 2. Xaptis tpiv kal eipyvy] ‘Grace to you and peace;’ scil. etn, not éoTw (Meyer, Holzh.), which, though not untenable (Bernhardy, Synt. XI. 5, p. 392; comp. 2 Chron. ix. 8), is far less suitable and even less usual than the optative; see 1 Pet. i. 2, 2 Pet. i. 2, Jude 2; and comp. 2 John 3, where however éora gives the wish the cha- racter of a definite expectation. The suggestion of Stier that xdpes and éi- phvn refer respectively to the dyoe and moTot does not seem tenable, as the formula is so common without any such antecedents (Rom. i. 7, 1 Cor. 1. 3, 2 Cor. i. 2, al.); still they must not be diluted into mere equivalents of the ordinary forms of salutation (Fritz. Ronn 7atvOlen ta p23) = presses God’s love toward man; /e- pin, the state of peace and blessed- Xdpis ex- ness which results from it; elpyvever yap mpos Tov Oedy 6 Thy ebayyedtKny a- omacdmevos Toditelav’ Theod. on Rom. i. 8; see notes on Gal. i. 3. It may be observed that as this form is regularly maintained in all St Paul’s Epp. to Churches (Philem. 3 is no exception, being addressed also 77 Kar’ olkov ék- KAnoia), while in 1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4 (Rec., Lachm.), the more personal term éeos is added, the latter might seem the form addressed to individuals, the former to communities; comp. too Rev. i. 4, 2 John 3, but consider Jude 2, Gal. vi. 16, and ob- serve that in Tit. /.c. xdpus kal elpnyn is the reading best supported. St James alone adopts the usual formula, xaipew: in 3 John 1, 2, the salutation passes into a prayer. Kat Kvotov] Scil. cal dd Kupiov, x.7.d.: so expressly Syr., Arm., both: f which repeat the preposition. The Socinian interpretation, kal (marpds) Kup., is grammatically admissible, but in a high degree forced and improbable : see esp. Tit. i. 4, and compare 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess ii. 16. 3. Evdoynrés] ‘ Blessed,’ scil. oT w B2 4 IIPO= E®EZIOY2. Kupiou uu.av “Incot Xpicrov, 6 evhoyjoas juas €v Tracy (2 Chron. ix. 8), or et7 (Job i. 21, Psalm exiii. 2): the verb is however commonly omitted in this and similar forms of doxology; comp. 2 Cor. i. 3. In this solemn ascription of praise evAoyntos (é€rawetcbar Kal Oavudvecbac déwos*, Theod.-Mops.), as its position shows, has the principal emphasis, the rule of Fritz. (Rom. ix. 5, Vol. 1. 274) being appy. reasonable, viz. that evdo- ynros or ev\oynuévos will occupy the first or some succeeding place in the sentence, according as the emphasis rests on the predicate (as it commonly does) or on the substantive; 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. /.c., Job /.c., and esp. Psalm l.c., which are thus comp. more satisfactorily explained than by a supposed limitation of position in consequence of the inserted copula (Alf. on Rom. ix. 5). Tt has been remarked by Steiger on 1 Pet. 1. 3 (comp. Harless), that in the N.T. ev\oyyTos is only applied to God, evd\o- ynuévos to man: it may be added that in the LX X the latter is occasionally applied to God, the former but seldom to man, appy. only in Gen. xxvi. 29 (Alex.), Deut. vii. 14, 1 Sam. xv. 13, xxv. 33. For a good analysis of the present paragraph, in which the relations of the Church to the three persons of the blessed Trinity are dis- tinctly unfolded, see Alford zn loc. Ocds Kal watyp, KT.A.] ‘God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Tt is doubtful whether in this formula (which Riick. needlessly terms ‘pau- linisch,’ see 1 Pet. i. 3) the gen. de- pends (a) on both (Theoph.), or (4) only on the latter (Syr., Auth., Theod.- Mops. 1, Theodoret) of the two nomi- Chrys. leaves it undecided. do. not natives. Grammatical considerations assist us; for, on the one hand, the position of the article before Qeds rather than zarhp (Olsh.) does not invalidate the latter interpretation (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 3, p. 115 note), nor the omission of te before cat (Har- less) the former; the usual ‘prepara- tive’ force of re (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 98; Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 730) being here obviously out of place. To the former interpretation, Ocds mev Ws capkwh&Tos, maTnp 5é ws Gc00 Néyou, there can be no doctrinal objections (see ver. 17, John xx. 17, and comp. Olsh. on Matth. xxi. 31, 32), but from the considerations suggested on Gal. i. 4, a8 well as from the fact that, except in ver. 17, St Paul has not elsewhere so designated the Father, the latter construction seems decidedly preferable. On the most suitable translation, see notes on Gal. i. 4 (Z'ransl.). 6 eddoyyjoas pas] ‘who blessed us ;’ ‘antanaclasis ; aliter nobis benedixit Deus, aliter nos bene- dicimus Illi;? Bengel. The aorist par- ticiple (where the aoristic force is always least obscure ; Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 383) refers to the counsels of the Father as graciously completed in the Redemption, and is thus neither used (a) for a pres. (Holzh.), an un- tenable position, except in a sense and under limitations (Scheuerl. Syntaz, § 32. 2, p. 331) which would here be doctrinally unsuitable; nor (0) as marking ‘a customary or repeated act’ (Eadie), a meaning which the avorist appears never to bear in the N.T.; see Winer, Gr. § 40. §. 1, p. 248. The reference of judas can scarcely be doubtful: it cannot refer to St Paul (Koppe),—for comp. Kayw, ver. 15—but, as the inclusive nature of the context (ver. 4, I1, 12) distinctly implies, must be extended to Christians generally. No fixed rules can be laid down as to the ite A or gr 2 - ° ’ ; M4 evroyia mveumatikh €v Tois eTovpaviow év X pire, reference of the plural pronoun: this must always be determined by the context. év TAoy EvAoyla, TvevpatiKy] ‘with every blessing of the Spirit ;? agency by which the blessing was imparted, é& here being appy- instrumental (see notes on f Thess. iv. 18), and perhaps not with- out some parallelism to the Hebrew 2 922; comp. the analogous construc- tion, Tobit viii. 15, and James iii. g, where however the instrumental sense is much more distinct. The meaning and force of mvevyaricp is slightly doubtful, Chrys. and Theod.-Mops. find in it an antithesis to the blessings of the Old Covenant (riv ‘lovéaixyy évTravda aivirrerar evd\oyla mev yap qY, GAN ob mvevparcxy Chrys.; comp. Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 756): so distinctly Syr., Aith., and, with a detailed enumeration of the bless- ings, Theod. in loc. It seems however much more in accordance both with the present context and with the prevailing usage of the N.T. (see Rom. i. 11, xdpioma mvevuarcKoy, and 1 Cor. xii. 1, T@y mvevpaTiKOyv, com- pared with ver. 11), to refer the epithet directly to the Holy Spirit (Joel ii. 28 sq., Actsii. 17). Bengel has not failed to notice the allusion to the Trinity, which, as Stier (Vol. 1. p. 57) has clearly shown, pervades the whole of this sublime Epistle. év Tois érovpaviots] ‘in heavenly re- Cee d y ‘gions ;” bLitoed [in ccelo] Syr., ‘in ccelis,’ Auth. The exact meaning of these words is doubtful. Many of the ancient and several modern ex- positors explain 7a érovpdvia, as ‘hea- venly blessings’ (érovpava yap ra d@pa tatra* Theodoret), ‘heavenly institutions’ (J. Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 198, A.-C. Libr.), and thus as standing in ethical contrast to 7a émiyea (Chrys.), see John iii. 12; but comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40, where the same words are in physical contrast. This is not grammatically untenable, and would not require the omission of ros (Riick., Eadie, al.), as the article would thus only correctly designate the class ; see Middleton, Greek Art. 11, 2. 2, p. 40, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 3, p. 99. As however such a specification of the sphere, and thence of the spi- ritual character of the action, would seem superfluous after the definite words immediately preceding ; as in the four other passages in this Ep. (i. 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, and vi. 12, but contr. Chrys.) the expression seems obviously local; and lastly, as throughout St Paul’s Epp. (even 2 Tim. iv. 18) ézrou- pdvios has that local or physical force which the preposition érl (Harless) would also seein further to suggest, it will be best, both on contextual and lexical grounds, to retain that meaning in the present case. "Ev rots éoup. must then here be referred as a local predication to ed\oy. mvevu., defining broadly and comprehensively the re- gion and sphere where our true home is (Phil. ili. 20), where our hope is laid up (Col. i. 5), and whence the blessings of the Spirit, the 7 dwpea 7 émoupdvios (Heb. vi. 4), truly come; see notes to Z77ansl. év Xpior@] Not for da Xp. (Chrys., Hamm.), but, as in ver. 1, ‘in Christ? ‘in quo uno spirituali et sanctifica benedictione donamur;’ Beza. Thus evhoyjoas contains the predication of time (Donalds. Gir. § 574 sq.), év evd\cy. mveuu. the predication of manner, more exactly defined by the local predication év tots émovp., while év Xp. is that mystical predication which, as Stier well observes, ‘is the very soul of this 6 ITPO= E®EZIOY2. 4 KaBws eEedéEato juas ev alto ™po KkataBoAns Koomou, oO e ~ cen, ‘ ] , , b) a 3 ELVAL MAG aylous KQAL GUWKOUS KATEVWTLOY AUTOU, EV Epistle,’ and involves all other con- ceptions in itself. For a good example of this species of analysis of clauses and sentences, see Donalds. Crat. § 304. 4. Kabds] ‘even as,’ ‘sicut,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., al. ; explanation and expansion of the preceding ev\oy%- gas k.T.\., the particle ka0ws, which in most cases has a purely modal, appearing here to have also a slightly explanatory or even causal force (‘in- asmuch as’), and to mark not only the accordance, but the necessary connexion of the evAoyla with the éxdoyn: see Rom. i. 28, 1 Cor. i. 6, and compare xo@ére (used only by St Luke), which has both a modal (Acts li. 45, iv. 35) and a causal (Acts ii. 24) meaning. The form cals is not found in the older Attic writers, or in Lucian; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 426, and notes on (al. iii. 6. eEehdEaro pas] ‘chose us out for Himself ;’ ‘elegit,’ Vulg., Clarom., al., but with some sacrifice of the fullest meaning. Without entering into the profound dogmatical questions con- nected with the meaning of this verb (only used by St Paul here and 1 Cor. 1. 27 bis, 28), it may be simply ob- served that in é£e\éfaTo three ideas are suggested : (a) selection (not neces- sarily of individuals, see Ebrard, Dogm. § 560) from, out of, others not chosen (é€x Tod kdcmov, John xy. 19; contr. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 198), suggested by the plain meaning of the word: (b) simple unrestricted preter- ition of the act (alike irrespective of duration or relation; Bernhardy, Syn- tav, x. 8, p. 380, and esp. Fritz. de Aor. p. 17 sq.), conveyed by the fense, and further heightened by the ‘time- lessness’ (Olsh.) of the quasi-temporal predication apd xaraBodjjs ; compare 2 Thess. ii. 13, eiAaTo dw dpxjs: God is 6 kaAG@y (1 Thess. ii. 12) as well as 6 kahéoas (Gal. i. 6), but not 6 ék)e- yS5pevos: (c) reflexive action (for Himself ; compare Eph. v. 27, Rev. xxi. 2), implied by the voice. While the primary meaning of éxhéyeoOar and similar words is undoubtedly to be looked for in their general and national references in the O.T. (Usteri, Lehrbegr. Il. 2. 2, p. 271; Knapp, Seript. Var. Avg. p. 556), the modal clauses with which they are combined show the deeper and more distinctive sense in which they are used in the New Tes- tament. On this profound subject, and on the estates of man (the estate of wrath, of reconciliation, and of election), see esp. Jackson, Creed, x. 37. 11 sq., Vol. EXsip.yaue sds, and comp. Hammond on God’s Grace, Vol. I. p. 667 sq. (Lond. 1674), and Lau- rence, Bampt. Lect. for 1804. év avT@] Not for 6¢ adrod, scil. 51a THs els avtov miarews (Chrys., Hamm.), nor for eis avrov (comp. Aith.), nor yet with an instrumental force (Arm.), but, as Olsh. correctly and profoundly explains it, ‘in Him ;’ in Christ, as the head and representative of spiritual, as Adam was the representative of natural humanity; comp. 1 Cor. xv. DPA. ™po kaTaBoAts Kdopov | This expression, used three times in the N.T. (John xvii. 24, 1 Pet. i. 20), here serves to define the archetypal character of the New Dispensation, and the wide gulf that separated the mpd0ecis mpd xpovev aiwviwy (2 Tim, i. 9) of God with respect to Christians, from His temporal éx\ov7 of the Jews ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 522 (Bohn). elvat Las KT.A.] ‘that we should be holy and T4555. 7 ’ ’ U x I 3 € , G9 An fn ayamn Tpoopicas nuas es vioOeciay dia “Incod Xpicrod 5 blameless ; object contemplated by God in His gracious éx\oy7, the infin. being that of intention; scil. émi ro’rw wa dyto. Guev kal duwuow' Chrys.: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2, Col. i. 22, and see Winer, Gr. § 44.1, p. 284, Donalds. G7. $607. a, p. 598. dylous kal apopous] ‘holy and blameless ;’ posi- tive and negative aspects of true Chris- tian life. The meaning of duwpos (d- Meumros, Kafapds, awWextos’ Hesych.) is slightly doubtful; it may be (a) ‘inculpatus, 6 dverihntrov Biov éxwv (Chrys.), in accordance with its deri- vation (u@uos, wéuomat); or (b) *im- maculatus’ (Vulg., Clarom., Arm. ; comp. Syr., Goth.), with possible re- ference to its application in the LXX to victims, Ley. i. 10, xxii. 19; comp. 1 Mace. iv. 42, lepe?s duwmous, and see Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The latter mean- ing is strongly supported by 1 Pet. i. 19, duvod dudmov kal domidov, and Heb. ix. 14: still, as there is here no sacrificial allusion direct or indirect (comp. ch. v. 27), it seems best to retain the simple etymological meaning; see Col. i. 22, dylous kal duwpmous Kal avey- KAyrous, and comp. Wisd. x. 15, Aaov Govoy Kal omépa djLewmrov. It is more doubtful whether these epithets point to a moral condition, 7.e. to the righteousness of sanctification (Chrys., Hamm.), or to the imputed righteous- ness of Christ (Olsh., Mey.). The former reference seems most conso- nant both with St Paul’s general teaching (rt Thess. iv. 7), and the obvious inferences that may be drawn from other passages in the N. T., 1 Pet. i. 16, Rev. xxii. 11; see Stier im loc., and on the distinction between sanctifying and justifying righteous- ness, the excellent remarks of Hooker, Serm. 1. 6, Vol. 111. p. 611. KatTevoriov avtov| ‘before Him ;’ ‘id est vere, sincere,’ Beza; ay.wotynv &n- Tel HV O TOD Oeot dPOahuds dpg* Chrys. The form avro@ is here to be preferred, as the reference to the subject is ob- viously remote and unemphatic ; comp. Bremi, Jahrb. der Philol. 1x. p. 171 (Winer). The distinction however be- tween the proper use of these two forms cannot be rigorously defined ; see Buttm. Mid. Excurs. x. p. 140, and Tisch. Prolegom. p. LVI. év dydarq may be joined with ééedééaro; more probably with ay. xal dpdp. (Vulg., Copt.); but appy. most pro- bably with zpoopicas (Syr., Chrys., Theod.), as St Paul’s object seems here not so much to define the nature of the required dyiwotvy and dueudla on the part of man, as to reveal the transcendent principle of Love which (if we may so speak) was the moving principle of the wpoopicuos of God; Kat Tpoetoey Huds Kal wyydrnoe’ Theod., comp. Theod.-Mops. The arguments derived from the collocation of the words are not decisive, for évy ayary could as well be joined with ay. kal du. here, as év dywwovtvyn with duéu- mrous in I Thess. iii. 13; and again could as easily precede emphasis gratid mpoopicas here, as it does éppifwpévot, ch. iii. 18. Lastly, it cannot be said that the second modal clause, xara Thy e0d., is thus superfluous (Meyer) : the two clauses point to two different attributes; év dydmy to the loving Mercy, kara Ti v6. to the sovereign Power of God. For a good defence of the second form of connexion see Alford in loc. 5. tmpooploas mas] ‘having fore- ordained us; i.e. not ‘predestinans,’ Beng., but ‘quum preedestinasset,’ Syr.- Phil., the participle being most natu- rally regarded as temporal, not modal, and its action as prior to, not syn- 8 IPOS E®EZIOY*2. , 5 2 4 4 9 ’ a , 9 A els. QUTOV, KaTa THY EevooKlay TOU OEAnMaTOS avTO, chronous with (as m ver. 9) that of €&ehéEaro: comp. Rom. viii. 29, 30, and see Bernhardy, Synt. 11. 9, p. 383, Donalds. Gr. § 574 sq. With regard to the prep. it would certainly seem that. mpd does not refer to others (Baumg.), nor appy. to existence be- fore time (Eadie), but simply to the realization of the event: the decree existed before the object of it came into outward manifestation ; comp. mponvmiKoTas, ver. 12, and see Olsh. on Rom. ix. 1. The distinction be- tween éxAoyy and mpoopicuos is thus drawn by Scherzer (cited by Wolf); ‘differunt tantum ratione ordinativa et objectiva,’ the é« of the former referring to the mass from whom the selection was made, the mpd of the latter to the pre-existence and prio- rity of the decree. On mpoopicpds, d&c. see Petavius, Theol. Dogm. 1x, 1, Vol. I. p. 565 sq., and Laurence, Bampt. Lect. vu. p. 169 sq. eis vioberlav] ‘ for adoption,’ scil. iva avrod viol Neyolld|weba Kal xpnuatifw- pev’ Theod.-Mops. ; viofecla however not being merely sonship (Ust. Lehrb. II. 1. 2, p. 186), but as usual, ‘adop- tionem filiorum,’ Vulg.; see notes on Gal. iv. 5, and Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 477 (Bohn). eis aitév] ‘unto Him;’ comp. Col. i. 20, amoxatah\diat Ta mavTa els avrév. As the exact meaning of these words is slightly obscure, it will be best to premise the following state- ments. (a) His viod. . must be regarded as a single com- pound clause expressive of the manner and nature of the mpoopicpds, d¢ Ino. and eis avr. being separate sub-clauses further defining the prominent idea eis viobeclay. (b) Adrov (not avrdv) is not to be referred to Christ (De W.), but, with the Greek expositors, . els avrov to God. (c) Els atréy is not merely equivalent to év avt@ (Beza), or AD: scil. indnad (Holzh.); nor is the favourite transl. of Meyer, ‘in refer- ence to Him’ (comp. Riick.), though grammatically tenable (Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354), by any means sufficient. In these deeper theological passages the prep. seems to bear its primary (eis=évs Donalds. Crat. § 170) and most comprehensive sense of ‘to and into’ (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v.); the idea of approach (ri eis abrov avd-youoav’ Theoph.) being also blended with, and heightened by, that of i- ward union; comp. notes on Gal. iii. a7: We may thus paraphrase, ‘God predestinated us to be adopted as His sons; and that adoption came to us through Christ, and was to lead us unto, and unite us to God.’ Stier compares what he terms the bold ex- pression, 2 Pet. i. 4. kaTa TH evdoKlay K.T.A.] ‘according to the good pleasure of His will,’ ‘secun- dum placitum (propositum, Vulg.) voluntatis suze,’ Clarom.; the prep. kard, as usual, marking ‘rule, mea- sure, accordance to,’ Winer, G7. § 49. d, p. 357. The exact meaning of evdoxla is here doubtful. The Greek expositors (not Chrys.) refer it to the benevolentia ( ém evepyecia Bovdyous* (Hcum,), the Vulg , Syr., Goth. (‘lei- kainai’), al. to the voluntas liberrima of God. The latter meaning rarely if ever (not even EKcclus. i. 27, xxxii. 5) occurs in the LXX; in the N.T. however, though there are decided instances of the former meaning, e¢.9. Luke ii. 14 (not ‘leetitia,’ Fritz), Phil. i. 15 (6v ev6. opp. to dia dédvor), still there is no reason to doubt (Harl.) that the latter occurs in Matth. xi. 26 (0€\nots Kal dpéoxeca’ Theoph,), Luke x. 21, and probably Phil. ii. 13. ii 6. 9 oe , A , b) ~ , a9 , €L$ ET ALVOV do&ns TNS XGPLTOS GUTOV, EV ¥ EXAPLTMOEY 6 6. & 4] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with DE(F om. 7)GKL; great majority of mss.; Clarom., Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Phil., Arm., al.; Bas., Chrys., Theod., al. and rightly; for 7s, though found in ABN; mss.; Syr., Aith.; Orig. (Cat.), Chrys. (1), al. (Lachm., Mey., Alf.), has less external support; and on inter- nal grounds, as a grammatical correction, seems very suspicious. The state- ment of Alf., that ‘a relative following a substantive is as often in a different case as the same,’ certainly cannot be substantiated; see Winer, Gr. § 24. 1, p- 148. Thus the context must decide, As here and ver. 9 evdoxia seems to refer exclusively to the actor (poopicas, yvwploas), not to the objects of the action, it seems best with De Wette (mis-cited by Eadie) to adopt the latter meaning, though not in the extreme sense, 70 oodpov OéXnua, as advocated by Chrys. In this the idea of goodness (n apictn Kal KadrNiory Tod Geot éxovawos OéAnos' Etym. M.) is of course necessarily involved, but it does not form the prominent idea. For further details, see esp. Fritz, on Rom. x. 1, Vol. 11. p. 369 sq., and Wordsw. in loc. 6. eis Srawov k.7.d.] ‘for the praise of the glory of Mis grace,’ ‘in’ or rather ‘ad [Clarom.; see Madvig, Opusc. Acad. p. 167 sq.; corap. Hand, Tursell. Vol. WI. p. 317] laudem glorie gratie sue,’ Vulg.; wa 7 THs xapitos avrov dba decxOy° Chrys.: di- vine purpose of the mpoopicpds, eis here denoting the ‘finis primarius’ (Phil. i. 14), not ‘consequens aliquid’ (Grot.), as in 1 Pet. i. 7. It is scarcely necessary to say that neither is érae- vos 66éns for émaivos évdotos (Grot.), nor 6déa THs xdpiTos for évdokos xapus (Beza) ; both of them weak and, espe- cially here, wholly inadmissible solu- tions. As Chrys. appears rightly to have felt, 6é&ys is a pure subst., and serves to specify that peculiar quality or attribute of the xdpis which forms the subject of praise; comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3, obs. p. 2¥E. Thus then of the three genitives, the first is that ‘of the object,’ or more strictly speaking, ‘of the point of view’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129), while the last two are united (Winer, G7. § 30. 3. I, p. 172), and form a com- mon possessive genitive. Owing to the defining gen., the article is not indispensable; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 113, and compare Madvig, Synt. § 10. 2. év a] ‘in qua,’ Vulg., Clarom., not ‘e qua,’ Beza, or ‘qua,’ Arm. (instrum. case); the antecedent here much more naturally marking the state in which, than the means by which God showed us His favour. éxapitwcev rp.] ‘He imparted His grace to us,’ ‘ gratifica- vit,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘largitus est,’ Auth. The exact meaning of xapitéw is doubtful. From the analogy of verbs in éw, whether in reference to what is material (e.g. ypucdw, &c.) or what is immaterial (e.g. Qavardw, &c., see Harless), yapir6w must mean ‘xdpite aliquem afficio. As however xapts is indeterminate, and may mean either the subjective state of the indi- vidual or the objective grace of God, éxaplrwoe may still have two mean- ings: (a) éwepdorous érolyce, Chrys., ‘gratis sibi acceptos effecit,’ Beza; comp. a somewhat similar use in Ee- clus. xviii. 17, Psalm xviii. 26 (Symm.), and see Suicer, Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. U. p- 1504; or (b) gratia amplexus est, 10 IiPOz E@®EZIOY2. eon ’ n 9 , ’ > + y 9 , 7 nas ev TH NYATHMEVH, EV W EXOMEV THY aToNuT pwr \\ a - >] Ola TOU aluatos avToU, THY Beng., sim. Syr., ‘gratis, quam effu- dit ; comp. Luke i. 28. Both the con- text (comp. Alf.) and the prevailing meaning of xdpis in St Paul’s Epp. seem distinctly in favour of the latter meaning. On the use of the aor., comp. note on é£ehéfaro, ver. 4. ev TO HyaTnpéevw] ‘in the Beloved ;’ see Matth. iii. 17, and comp. Col. i. 13. Ey is not here interchangeable with dua (comp. Chrys.), or equivalent to propter (Grot., Locke), but retains its full primary meaning. Christ, as Olsh. well observes, is regarded not only as the mediator, but as the true repre- sentative of mankind. 7. €v @| ‘in whom;’ further illus- tration and expansion of the preceding éxapirwoev. Here again év is neither instrumental (Arm.), nor identical in meaning with 6ud (Vatabl.). Fritzsche indeed (Opusc. p. 184) adduces this passage as an instance of this identity, and regards 6ud Tov alu. as a sort of epexegesis of év @, ‘per quem, 7.¢. eo quod sanguinem effudit ;’ but such an explanation falls greatly short of the true meaning. As usual, év has here its primary and fullest theological meaning: it implies more than wnion with (Riick., Eadie); it points to Christ as the living sphere of redemp- tion, while Oia x.7.d. refers to the outward means of it; comp. Rom. iii. 24. As Olsh. profoundly observes: ‘we have not redemption in His work without His person, but in His person with which His work forms a living unity;’ see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 note. éxopev] ‘we are having; present, and not without emphasis; ‘we are ever needing, and are ever having it:’ Eadie. THY adtohitpwcww] ‘the (not owr, Conyb.) redemption; scil. the long promised, ‘ + A if adeouv TOV TAPATTOLATWY, and now known and realized redemp- tion. The use of this word is thus briefly but perspicuously elucidated by Usteri in loc.: ‘Who is ran- somed? Man, from the punishment he deserved. What is the dvrpov (Matth. xx. 28, Mark x. 45, 1 Tim. ii. 6)? The blood of Christ. To whom is it paid? To God. Who pays it? Christ in the first place; though strictly God who sent Him; so, God through Christ ;’ Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 107: see collection of texts, Waterl. Doc- trine of Euch. Iv. 3, Vol. IV. p. 513. We must not however too much limit the application of this important word. As the art. renders it impos- sible to explain it merely metonymice, ‘a redeemed state’ (comp. Corn. a Lap.), so it presents to us the con- ception of ‘redemption’ in its most general and abstract sense, alike from Satan, sin, and death: comp. Mid- dleton, Greek Art. V. 1, p. 90 (ed. Rose). Sud Tod alparos adrod | ‘through His blood ;’ closer definition of the év @, by a notice of the ‘causa medians,’ the blood of Christ, that without which there could have been no dgeois: comp. Heb. ix. 22, and see the sound remarks of Alf. and Wordsw. inh. l. trv Aer K.T.A,| ‘the forgiveness of our transgressions ;’ in apposition to the preceding doNv- Tpwots, and a specification of its essen- tial character. The distinction between dpeots (condonatio) and mdpeous (pre- termissio, Rom. ili. 25) is noticed by Trench, Synon. § 33; more briefly but most acutely by Fritz. Rom. Vol. I. p. 199. Too much stress need not here be laid on the distinction between TaparTwpara and duaptia, for com- pare Col. i. 14. Still the former so naturally point to sins on the side of LETS, 9: 11 4 \ A A , 3 A #4 9 ? 9’ KaTa TO TAOUTOS TIS XAplTOS AUTOV, IS ETEPLTTEVTEV ELS 8 GoD ’ , , ‘ , , Gina \ nas ev TAacH copia Kal ppovycet, Yyvopicas yuiy TO Gg commission, sinful acts, the latter to sins as the result of a state, sinful conditions, that it seems best (with Beza) to preserve the distinction in translation; comp. notes on ch. ii. 1, where the distinction is more fully discussed. TO TAOVTOS TIS KAP. avrov]| ‘the riches of His grace ;’ cer- tainly not per Hebraismum for ‘ abun- dans bonitas’ (Grot.), but with the usual meaning of the possessive gen., the riches which appertain to, are the property of His xdpis. On the form 70 mNovTos, here rightly retained by Tisch., see Winer, Gr. § 9. 2. 2, p. 61. It occurs again, Epb. iii. 8, 16 (strongly supported), Eph. ii. 7, Phil. iv. 19, Col. i. 27, ii. 2 (well), 2 Cor. viii. 2 (doubtfully) ; comp. Tisch. Pro- legom. p. LY. 8. as émreplooevorev | ‘which He made to abound; ‘ufarassau ganohida’ [abundanter concessit|, Goth., ‘abun- dare fecit,’ Auth. Though repiccedw is used intransitively by St Paul no less than twenty two times, yet as it is certainly transitive in 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8, 1 Thess. ili. 12 (comp. Athen. Deipn. 1. 16 [42], mepirreder Tas pas), and as there is no satisfactory instance in the N.T. of attraction in the case of a verb joined with a dat. (Fritzsche’s explanation of Rom. iv. 17 is more than doubtful, and in 1 Tim. iv. 6, 7s [Lachm. ed. min.] is only supported by A in opp. to CDFGK LW), it seems better to adopt the latter meaning with Theod. (juds khvGer) and the Vv. above cited, than the intrans. with Syr., Vulg., Arm., and appy. Chrys. im loc. On the apparent violations of the law of attraction in the N.T., see Winer, Gr. § 24. 1, p. 148. év TAacy copia Kal dpovyce] ‘in all wisdom TEpl- and intelligence ;? sphere and element in which the érepiscevcev is evinced and realized. As there is some diffi- culty in (1) the meaning, (2) reference, and (3) connexion of these words, it will be best to consider these points separately. (1) Idoa codia can only mean ‘all wisdom,’ i.e. ‘every kind of, all possible wisdom,’ not ‘summa, sapientia’ (Rosenm., Eadie); ads, as Harless correctly observes, always denoting extension rather than inten- sion, and thus often giving a con- crete application to abstract nouns ; comp. Col. iv. 12, and see Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. Ior. The exx. ad- duced by Eadie (Matth. xxviii. 18, Acts v. 25 [23], 1 Tim. i. 15).do not in any way invalidate this principle. Zo- gia and Ppdvyots are not synonymous (Homb.; comp. Plato, Symp. 202 A), but may be thus distinguished: cogla (cognate with oadns, sapio) denotes ‘wisdom’ in its general sense, xowdés amrdvrov wdbyow: Suid. (see 4 Mace. i. 16); @pdvnors is rather ‘intelli- gentia,’ ‘a right application of the dpi’ (7d SWvacGat KahSs BovdevcacPat wept Ta avT@G ayaba Kal cuvppépovra” Aristot.),—in a word, an attribute or result of codia (m 5é copia avépl Tixre. ppdvnow: Prov. x. 23), thus serving here (like daoxd\uys ver. 17, ctveots Col. i. 9) to define and limit the reference of the more general and comprehensive word. That cola is theoretical, ppovnots practical (Krebs; comp. Aristot. Zthic. VI. 5. 7, and Cicero, Off. 11. 2), is too bald a distinc- tion ; for sofia in its Christian appli- cation necessarily wears a practical aspect, and may in this respect be as much contrasted with yyaous (1 Cor. viii. 1), as gpdvyo.s with the more nearly synonymous avveots (Col. i. 9); 12 WPOz E@®EZIOY2. , A , ) a ‘ 4 “} ’ 2) MuoTHpLOV TOU OeAnmaTos avTOU, KAaTa THY EvdOKiaY av-= n~ aA , , e An 3 cy , a , 1O Tov, HY mpoeero €V QUTW ELS OLKOVOLLLAaY TOU TAnpMMa- see notes to Zransl., Trench, Synon. Part 1. $25, and comp. Beck, Seelent. TieeLO;, 0) Oils (2) The reference is to man, not God (Alf.), for though pdvnors might be applied to God (see Prov. iii. 19, Jer. x. 12, 1 Kings iii. 28), and év go. kal dpov. might, sym- metrically with év dyday ver. 4, de- note the principle in which God was pleased to act, yet (a) doy seems incompatible with such a reference; (>) the introduction of these attributes in reference to God disturbs the per- vading reference to the Divine xdpus ; (c) the analogy of Col. i. 9, urged by Olsh., forcibly suggests the reference to man. (3) The connexion (left un- decided by Zachm., Tisch.) must then be that of the text. If the arguments a, b, c, be not considered valid, é mdon k.T.A. must be jomed with yrw- ploas, as Theod. (wera moddjjs sodas éyvwpirev), Griesb., al. The reference to God, if the ordinary punctuation be retained (De Wette), is in the high- est degree unsatisfactory. 9g. yoploas] ‘having made known,’ or, more idiomatically, ‘in making known ;? participle explanatory of the preceding érepiocevoev...€v radon copia Kal dpov., esp. of the latter words, and appy. denoting an act coincident, and terminating synchronously with the finite verb: see Bernhardy, Synt. xX. 9, p- 383, Donalds. Gr. § 576; and esp. Herm. Viger, No. 224, Stallbaum, Plato, Phado, 62 D. The ‘ut notum faceret’? of Vulg. (comp. Clarom., Goth.) is due to the reading ywplcat found in FG; 76; Hil., and some Latin Ff. 7d [LvorTrpLov k.t.r.] ‘the mystery of His will; not ‘Hebreo loquendi genere’ for consi- lium arcanum, Grot., but ‘the mys- tery pertaining to it; Tod Oedju. being neither a gen. of apposition (7d dao- KEKpuupevoy avTod OéXnua Kal ddndov Tos TaotuvaTnpioy avTO KaA@v* Theod.- Mops.), nor a gen. subjecti (‘as it has its origin in,’ Eadie), but simply a gen. objecti (‘concerning His will,’ Meyer) marking that to which the mystery was referred, and on which it turned: see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 7. 1, and Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 127. The incarnation of Christ and the redemp- tion He wrought for us, though an actual revelation considered as a mat- ter of fact, was a jvoT7plov consi- dered with reference to the depths of the divine will: see Theod.-Mops. cited above, and comp. Olsh. in loc. kata thy evdok. adr. | ‘according to His good pleasure ;’ specification of the yrw- pioas as having taken place in strict dependence both in time and manner on the will of God; comp. ver.5. To refer this to what follows (‘to wit, His intention according to His good pleasure to gather,’ Eadie) seems ob- viously incorrect, involved, and out of harmony with ver. 5: as kard K.7.d. formed a modal clause to mpoopicas there, so it naturally qualifies yywpicas here. ampoceto] ‘ purposed ;’ ‘ proposuit,’ Vulg., not ‘ prestituerat,’ Beza. The verb mporidec#ac only occurs in the N.T. in two other passages, viz. Rom. i. 13 (ethical, as here), and Rom. iii. 25 (quasi-local, ‘ set forth’) ; the force of the prep. in both cases being local rather than temporal (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 20), and ana- logous to the use of the prep. in mpoarpetc Oar (2 Cor. ix. 7) and mpoxe- plgecOa (Acts iii. 20). It may indeed be doubted whether any instance can be found of mpori@ecOac in a purely temporal sense: Polyb. Hist. vill. 13. ee TO: 3 A ~ x , ‘ , ’ lal TOS TWY KaLpar, avakepadawoac bat TA TAVITA €V Tw 1, is not in point. év atto] ‘in Himself; not aitg as Tisch. (ed. 2, 7), ‘in eo,’ Vulg. Though it is often difficult to decide between the reflexive and non-reflexive pro- noun (see Buttm. Mid. Excurs. x. p- 140), yet as a general rule, where the attention is principally directed to the subject, the former is most natu- ral; where it is diverted by the im- portance of the details, the latter. Thus in ver. 5, viofecla is so distinctly the important word that av’rév is suf- ficiently explicit; here the connexion with rpoéGero is so immediate that the reflexive form alone seems admissible. 10. ¢is olkovoplay] ‘for, with a view to, the dispensation;’ eis being not for év (Vulg., Auth.), or tem- poral, ‘usque ad,’ Erasm. (a more justifiable translation), but simply in- dicative of the purpose, intention, of the mpé@ecrs: comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. 2, P- 354. The meaning of oikovouia has been much debated. It occurs nine times in the N.T.; (a) in the simple sense of stewardship, Luke xvi. 2 sq., a meaning which Wieseler (Chron. p. 448) maintains even in this place; (6) in reference to the apostolic office, to the otkos Geod, 1 Cor. ix. 17, Col. i. 25, and (more remotely) 1 Tim. i. 4; (ce) in reference to the Divine government of the world, disposition, dispensation, here, and ch. iii. 2, 9; see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Zex. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 417, and esp. Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. 3. v. The special mean- ings, ‘dispensatio gratiz,’ ‘redemp- tionis mysterium,’ scil. Christi évav- Opwrnots (Suicer, Thesaur. s. v.; comp. Valesius, Euseb. Hist. 1. 1, Petav. de Incarn. . 1, Vol. Iv. p. 110), which were probably deduced from the whole clause, cannot be ad- mitted as explanations of the simple word. The article is not required, as the governing substantive is sufti- ciently defined by the gen. which fol- lows; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 113 sq. TOU TANpwOpLaTOS TaV Katpov] ‘of the fulness of the seasons ,’ scil. that moment which completes, and as it were fills up the ordained kacpol (time estimated in reference to the epochs in the Divine government) of the. Gospel dispensation: compare the somewhat similar expression, m)7- pwots tuepav, Dan. x. 3 (Theod.), Ezek. v. 2, where however the com- pletion is estimated relatively to the act, rather than to the exact moment that made the remaining temporal void full; see notes on Gal. iv. 4. The genitival relation of these words to oikovoula is very obscure. It would certainly seem that Tod rAypum. K.T.d. cannot be (a) a gen. of the object (Theod.-Mops.), for, as Meyer justly observes, the r\jpwua may be said €hetv (Gal. /.c.), but not olkovonetc bat: nor again (}) can it be an explanatory gen. or gen. of zdentity (Harless; comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82), for an essentially temporal conception can scarcely be used in explanation of an ethical notion: it may however be plausibly considered as (c) a gen. of the characterizing quality (Scheuerl. § 16. 3, p. 115), which, especially in local and temporal reference, admits considerable latitude of application ; comp. Jude 6, xplows weydAns huepas’ and see exx. in Winer, G7. § 30. 2, p. 168 sq., and in Hartung, Casus, p. 27. The difficult expression oikoy. Tod yp. k.T.r. will thus seem to imply not merely ‘the full-timed dispensa- tion’ (Eadie), but more exactly, ‘ the dispensation that was characterized by, that was to be set forth in, the fulness of time’ (‘ propria plenitudini temp.,’ 14 WPOZ E®EZIOY2. ~ 4 ° a <) - q 4 ) Q an Qn . X piste, Ta €V TOS ovpavors KOU Ta (ihe aay V1S5 €V 10. év Tots ovpavols] Tisch. is perhaps right in maintaining this reading with AFGK; appy. majority of mss.; Copt.; Chrys., Theodoret (1), Theophyl., al. (Ree., Griesb., Scholz, Harless; De W.); against émt rots ovpavois even with BDELN; about 40 mss. ; Goth. ; Theodoret (1), Dam., Cic., al. (Lachm., Riick., Meyer, Alf.): for, conceding that it may be grammatically correct (comp. exx, Rost u. Palm, Lew. éri, 11. 1, Vol. I. p. 1035), we must still say that the internal objections, that émi is never joined in the N.T. with ovpavds or ovparol, and that év ovpavg and éri yis (probably not without significance) are invariably found in antithesis, are almost decisive: see Harless én Joc. Caloy.); and must be referred not only to the period of the coming of Christ (ed. 1; Ust. Lehrb. 11. 1, p. 83; comp. TANGA TOV Katpwov } Tapoucia avTod qv Chrys.), but appy., as the more extended ref. of the context seems to suggest, the whole duration of the Gospel dispensation (Alf.): see Stier in loc. (p. 96), and contrast Gal. iv. 4, where, as the context shows, the re- ference is more restricted. The use and meaning of the term is noticed by Hall, Bampt, Lect. for 1797. dvakeborardcacBat] ‘to sum up again together,’ ‘restaurare,’ Clarom., ‘summatim recolligere,’ Beza; not dependent on mpoédero, but an expla- natory infinitive, defining the nature and purpose of the mpd0eo.s: comp. 1 Thess. iv. 4, and see notes on Col. i,22. This article is not necessary: see Winer, Gr. § 44. 2. obs. p. 286; notes on 1 Thess. ili. 3; and comp. Madvig, Syntax, § 144. The meaning of this word, connected as it here is with the counsels of Cmnipo- tence, must be investigated with the most anxious care. Viewed simply, Kepaatwoat (cuvrouds ouvayayely Hesych.) means ‘summatim colligere,’ Thucyd. 111. 67, VI. 91, VIII. 533; dva- Kegparawwoacbar ‘summatim (sibi) re- colligere ;’ comp. cvyxepahaova Pat (‘in brevem summam contrahere’), Polyb. Fist alte a8e nls ae 100-0 TE, acc. = «see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb., and Raphel in loc. But viewed in connexion with the context, it gives rise to two import- ant questions: (1) Is there any allu- sion to Christ as the xe@ad7 (Chrys.)? In a writer so profound as St Paul this is far from impossible. The deri- vation of the word however (kepdNacoy not cedar), St Paul’s use of it in its common meaning, Rom. xiii. 9, and most of all the context, which points ‘in Christo,’ not ‘sub Christo’ (Beng.), to His atonement ra- ther than His sovereignty (Col. ii. ro), render it improbable. (2) What is the force of dvd? From Rom. J, c. (see Fritz.) it has plausibly been con- sidered latent; still, as even there this is very doubtful (see Meyer in loc.), it must not here be lightly passed What then is this force? Ob- viously not simple repetition; nor again (from reasons above) summation upwards, in reference to Christ as the Head (ctvdecmov dvwbey émixemévar’ Chrys.), but ve-wnion, re-collection, a ‘partium divulsarum conjunctio,’ in reference to a state of previous and primal unity: so far then, but so far only, a ‘restoration’ (Syr., Vulg.) to that state; comp. Beng. im loc., the editor’s Destiny of the Creature, p. 162, and see an excellent discussion on the word in Andrewes, Serm. XV1. Vol. 1. p. 265, 270 (A.-C. Libr.). The force of the middle voice must also appy. not be overlooked. to a union over, Ee rr 15 . a ’ ” ty 8 , , ‘ , QUT, EV @ KQL exAynpwOymev TpoopiaGevres Kata mpo0e- 11 Ta TwdvTa may imply ‘all intelligent beings’ (comp. notes on Gal. ili. 22), but, on account of the clauses which follow, is best taken in its widest sense, ‘all things and beings,’ Meyer; comp. Andrewes, Serm. Xv1. Vol. I. p. 269. TG év Tots Odpavois K.T.A.] ‘the things in heaven and the things upon earth ;’ widest expression of universality de- signed to show the extent of the pre- ceding 7a mdvra (Andr.); comp. Col. i. 20, and see notes in loc. Without entering into the profound questions which have been connected with these words, it may be said that as on the one hand-all limiting interpretations— c.g. Jews and Gentiles (Schoettg.), dy- yédous Kal dv@pmmovs (Chrys.), the world of spirits and the race of men (Meyer),—are opposed to the gene- ralizing neuter (Winer, Gr. § 27. 5, p- 160) and the comprehensiveness of the expressions; so, on the other hand, any reference to the redemption or restoration of those spirits (Crel- lius), for whom our Lord Himself said 7d) mip 7d aidvov (Matth. xxv. 41) was prepared, must be pronounced fundamentallyimpossible: comp. Bram- hall, Castigations, &c. Disc. u. Vol. IV. p. 354 (A.-C. Libr.), Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. I. p. 192, and the edi- tor’s Destiny of the Creature, p. gt sq. The reading émi 7. ovp. (Lachin., Alf.), though strongly supported [BDELN], is the less probable one; see crit. note. év avta] ‘in Him ;’ not added merely ‘explicationis causa’ (Herm. Viger, 123. b. 5), but as re-asseverating with great solemnity and emphasis (see Jelf, Gr. § 658) the only blessed sphere in which this dvaxed. can be regarded as opera- tive, and apart from which, and without which, its energies cannot be conceived as acting: see Destiny of the Creature, p- 89. It forms also an easy transition to the following relative. Ir. &y @ Kal ékAnpdd.] ‘Zn whom we were also chosen as His inheritance ;’ cal obviously qualifying ék\xp., not (Auth.), and specifying the gracious carrying out and realization of the divine zpé- the unexpressed pronoun Oeots, ver. 9. This ascensive force may sometimes be expressed by ‘really,’ see Hartung, Partik. cat, 2. 7, p. 132 sq.; the exact shade of meaning how- ever will be best defined by a consi- deration of the exact tenor and tacit comparisons of the context; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 636. The exact meaning of ékAnpdéé. is very doubtful. Passing over the more obviously untenable interpretations of Bretsch., Wahl, Koppe, and others, we find four translations which de- serve attention: (a) Pass. for m'dd’e; ‘we have obtained an inheritance,’ Auth., Conyb.; comp. Elsner, Obs. Vol. I. p. 204: this however is not fairly substantia‘ed by the citations adduced, and is distinctly at variance with the significant passives which prevail throughout this profound para- graph in reference to man; even mpocexAnpcOnoav, Acts xvil. 4, is best taken passively ; see Winer, G7. § 39. 2, p. 234: (b) Simple pass. ; ‘sorte vo- cali sumus,’ Vulg., Syr., Goth. ; comp. 1 Sam. xiv. 41, and see exx. in Els- ner, U.¢c.; ¢.e. ‘as though by lot,’ in allusion to the sovereign frecdom of God’s choice; KAjpou yevouévov judas éfehéEaro’ Chrys.: this however is seriously at variance with St Paul’s modes of thought and the regular forms of expression (kaetv, éx\éyer Pat) which he uses on this subject: see Harless and Meyer in loc.; (¢) Pas- sive, used like mucrevouar, paprupovpar (comp. dmopotua, Gal. iv. 20, and see Winer, Gr. § 39. I, p- 233), with an 16 ILPOz E®EZIOY2=. ~~ 4 , ’ ~ A 8 4 ~ otvy Tov Ta TavTa EvepYyouvTos KaTaA THY BovAny TOU ’ 5) 5 ’ \ > e = ° yx , 12 ODeXnuaTtos auvToU, els TO Elval Huas ELS ETTaLVOV doEns implied accus., scil. ‘in hereditatem adsciti sumus,’ Grot. 2, Harl., Meyer (‘were enfeoffed,’ Eadie), with allu- sion to Josh. xiv. I sq., and reference to the kAfpos tév ayluv, Col. i. 12: (d) Pass., in a special sense ; ‘eramus facti hereditas (Domini),’ Beng., Hamm. [mis-cited by De W.], ¢.e. Aads éyk\npos, Deut. iv. 20, see ch. ix. 29, Xxxil. 9. Between (c) and (d) it is somewhat hard to decide. While both present some difficulties, (c) in point of structure, (d) in the special character of its meaning, both har- monize well with the context, the former in its allusion to xAypovoula, ver. 14, the latter with reference to mepitoinos, ver. ib. As how- ever (c) is doubtful in point of usage, and as the force of kat is well maintained by (d) in the gentle con- trast it suggests between the general éxXoy?) and the more specially gracious KMjpwots, this latter interpr. is cer- tainly to be preferred; ‘we were not only chosen out, but chosen out as a ads éyxAnpos:’ etrev efeNEaTO Tuas avatépw, evTaild pynow éxAnpwOnuev* Chrys. The reading éxA7Onper, though found: in ADEFG ; Clarom., Sang., Boern., al. (Lachm.), seems almost certainly a sort of gloss for the more difficult and appy. ill-understood ExAnpwOnuer. THY BovAry Tod GeArp. adtod] ‘the counsel of His will,’ ‘consilium voluntatis suze,’ Vulg., Cla- rom. ; assertion of the unconditioned and sovereign will of God appropriately introduced after ékAnpwOnue: ware ovK émed) “Lovdatoe ob mpocetxov, Sid TovTo Ta eOvn Exddecev, OvdE avaryKa- ofels* Chrys. The expression Bovdy OeXnwatos is not either pleonastic, or expressive of ‘consilium liberrimum’ (Beng.), but solemnly represents the Almighty Will as displaying itself in action; 0é\nua designating the will generally, BovAy the more special ex- pression of it. The distinction of Buttmann (Lewil. s. v. § 35, comp. Tittm. Synon. p. 124 sq.) that ‘Pov- Nowa is confined to the inclination, €0é\w to that kind of wish in which there lies a purpose or design,’ does not seem generally applicable to the N. T. (see Matth. i. 19, and comp. t Cor. iv. 5 with Eph. ii. 3), and pro- bably not always to classical Greek: see Pape, Lex. s.v. Bovhoua, Vol. I. p- 383; Donalds. Crat. § 463. For | further illustrations see notes on 1 Tim. v. 14. 12. eis Td elvar KT.A.] ‘that we should be to the praise of His glory ;’ final cause of the kAjpwors on the part of God mentioned in the pre- ceding verse, eis 76 x.7.A. depending on éxAnp., and rods mpond\mix. forming an opposition to judas. To refer this clause to zpoopicbévres, and to connect elvat with mpon\mexéras (Harl.), is highly involved and artificial; see Meyer in loc. The reference of the pronoun is somewhat doubtful. Up to the present verse 7juets has de- signated the community of believers, Jews and Gentiles. It would seem most. natural to continue it in the same sense; the meaning however assigned to éx\yp., that of mpondrz., and most of all the opposition cat buets (which De Wette does not inva- lidate by ref. to ch. ii. 1, Col. i. 8), seem convincingly to prove that jets refers especially to Jewish Christians, tuets to Gentile Christians. Chrys. has not expressed this, but the citation above (on éxAnp.) would seem to imply distinctly that he felt it. It may be observed that the insertion of the Terere rs: 17 ao fa ‘ , ’ A mo aN Gives Pt avTov, Tous TpoyATKOTas ev TH XpigT@ ev @ Kal iets, 13 art. tis before d4éns, with A; many mss.; Chrys., al. (Zec.), is opposed to all other uncial MSS. and rejected by all recent editors. TOUS mponAtik. | ‘we, J say, who have before hoped ;’ Bai faura venjandans [hi ante sperantes], Goth.; the article with the part. standing in distinct and emphatie apposition with 7uds, and defining more fully their spiritual at- titude; comp. Winer, G7. § 20. I. ¢, p- 121, but observe that the transl. ‘quippe qui speravimus’ (ed. 1, Wi- ner, Mey., al.) is inexact, as this would imply a part. without, not as here with the article; on these distine- tions of predication, see esp. Donalds. Crat. § 304 sq., Gr. § 492 sq. The prep. 7po has received many different explanations, several of which (e.g. mpiv ) érioTH 6 wé\\wv aladv, Theoph.; ‘qui priores speravimus,’ Beza ; ‘al- ready, prior to the time of writing,’ Eadie) appear to have resulted rather from preconceived opinions of the re- ference of jets, than from a simple investigation of the word. As poopifw, ver. 5, implies an dpiopuods before the object of it appeared, so mpoe\rlfw seems to imply an exercise of é\mls before the object of it, i.e. Christ, ap- peared. The perf. part., as usual, indicates that the action which is described as past still continues, see exx. Winer, Gr. § 40. 4. a, p. 244. év Xpiore@ denotes the object in whom the hope was placed; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 19, and see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10, Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Iv. 22, Vol. 1. p- 222. The preceding reference of the fore-hope in the Messiah to the Jews (comp. Acts xxviii. 20) is in no way incompatible with the use of éy Xpic7@ rather than of els Xpicrdv (Holzh., Eadie): to have hoped in Christ was a higher characteristic thin to have directed hope towards Christ, and designated them as more worthy exponents of the praise of God’s glory ; comp. Stier in loc. p. 112, TT4. 13. év @ kal tpeis x.7.A.] The construction of this verse is somewhat doubtful. A finite verb is commonly supplied, either from ver. II, or mpoynAmekéras. Ex npwOnpev, If from the former (Harless), the ék\np. would now be limited to the Gentile Chris- tians, though it formerly referred to both them and Jewish Christians: the regression too would seem unduly great. If from the latter, mpon\- mikare (not 7Amlkate, Beza) must be supplied, which would imply what was contrary to the fact. Others (Mey., Alf., al.) supply the verb subst., ‘in whom ye are,’ but thus introduce a statement singularly frigid and out of harmony with the linked and ever- rising character of the context. It can scarcely then be doubted that we have here a form of the ‘oratio sus- pensa’ (Beng.), according to which the second év @ does not refer to a fresh subject (Mey.), but is simply resump- tive of the first. The full force and meaning of this anacoluthon have scarcely been sufficiently expanded. Kal vets [juets, AKL; mss., but with no probability] directs the atten- tion to the contrast between the pro- nouns; dkovcoavres x.T.\. suggests a further reference to those who had hoped on less convincing evidence. This might have been followed at once by the finite verb éodpay. k.T.X.: but was so important a clause to fol- low at once on dkovcavres? Surely axon must be expanded into something more vital before it could be so blessed. Kat mor. is thus intercalated with all the ascensive force of kal (ov yap bé- vov nKovoare GANG Kal émicretoare® C 18 IPO E@®ESIOY=. 9% , A , lal x! , \ ’ , ~ axovoavrTes Tov AoYov THs adnOeas, TO evayyeAtov TNS ’ eon ’ > \ , 9 , r TWTUPLAS UMWY, EV W KAL TLTTEVTAVTES ecppayia byte TH Theod.), and thus, far from becoming superfluous (Mey.), is truly a neces- sary and vital member of the sentence. So appy. Syr., Copt., Goth., Auth., which, though suppressing the cai, and converting the participles into finite verbs, retain substantially the correct structure. *Eyv @ may be joined with musrevoavres (Mark i. 15) as well as éoppay. (Scholef.), but as murreveuw év rweis not used by St Paul, and as év @ in ver. I1 is not joined with the participle but the finite verb, it seems best to preserve the same construction in this somewhat parallel verse; see Riick., and Harl. in Joe. _rov oyov Tis GAnBetas] ‘the word of the truth;’ not the gen. of apposition (Harless), but the gen. substantiw; see Scheuerl. Synt. $12.1, p. 82, Hartung, Casus, p. 21. The truth did not only form the subject (Mey.), but was the very substance and essence. The re- mark of Chrys. is thus perfectly in point, 77s adnOetas, obKére Tov TOU TUTov, ovdé TOY THS elkdvos* See notes on Col. i. 5. THs cornp. tpav] ‘the Gospel of your > TO evayyéALov salvation ;? not a gen. of apposition, nor exactly, as above, a gen. of the substance, but rather a gen. of the (spiritual) contents or subject-matter (Bernhardy, Synt. 11. 44, p. 161, Scheuerl. Synt. $17. 1, p. 126), scil. ‘the Gospel (7d xjpuyua, Chrys.) which turns upon, which reveals sal- vation ;’ thus forming one of that large class of genitives of remoter reference (see exx. in Winer, G7. § 30. 2. B, p. 169 sq.), and belong- ing appy. to the general category of the genitive of relation; see Donalds. Gr. § 453, p- 475 sq. For a list of the various substantives with which evayyéduoy is associated (Ocov, Rom. i. 1, xv. 16, al.; Xpicrod, Rom xv. 19, Gal. i. 7, al. ; THs xadpitos Tot Oeod, Acts xx. 24; 77s elpnvns, Eph. vi. 15), see esp. Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Iv. 8, Wolbiteapsrcite is not present (Eadie) and contem- TLOTEVOTAVTES poraneous with éoppay. (Harl.), but antecedent; comp. Acts xix. 2, and see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 2, p. 267: the ordinary sequence, as Meyer observes, is (a) Hearing; (0) Faith, which of course implies preventing grace; (¢) Baptism; (d) Communication of the Holy Spirit: compare together esp. Acts il; 38, a; 6, di vills (0,2 Gab Gs» XIX 5, LOS CO EACH exe 44 d, c, and perhaps ix. 17, are ex- ceptional cases. On the divine order or method mercifully used by God in our salvation, see the brief but weighty remarks of Hammond, Pract, Catech. 1. 4, p. 83 (A.-C. Libr.). éxppayloOnte] ‘were sealed ;’ rip Be- Balwow édéEacbe’ Theod.-Mops.: see Suicer, Thesaurus. s.v. Vol. II. -p. 1197. The seal of the Spirit is that blessed hope and assurance which the Holy Spirit imparts to our spirit, é7¢ éouev Téxva Oeod, Rom. viii. 16: see esp. Bull, Disc. m1. p. 397 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844). Any purely objec- tive meaning in ref. to heathen (Grot.) or even to Jewish customs (Schoettg. Hor. Hebrx Vol. i. p. 508; comp. Chrys.) seems here very doubtful: 7 cdpayis is undoubtedly used by ecel. writers simply for Baptism (Grabe, Spicil. Vol. 1. p. 331 sq., comp. Rom. iv. 11), but any special reference of this nature would appear not to be in harmony with the present context. +S Ilvevpary tis émayyeAlas] ‘the Spirit of promise,’ Loon torso» ae: 2 x We [qui promissus erat] Syr., ‘quem AB 14. 19 Il , ~ ’ , ~ e , (A ’ 7 158 4 VEULaATL THE eTwayyeNias T® ayo, OS €OTLY appaPav 14 TIS «Anpovopias UO, ELS am oNUTpwow THS TEptTow- , a lol Oo b] a TEWS, ELS ETALVOY TIS o&ns QUTOU. promisit,’ Ath. The genitival rela- tion has here again received different explanations. The simple meaning derived from the most general use of the gen. as the case of ablation (Donalds. Gr. § 451; the ‘ whence- case,’ Hartung, Casus, p. 12) requires but little modification. To Iv. rijs ém. is ‘the Spirit which came from, i.€. Was announced by, promise ;’ é7e Kara émayy. avro é\dBouev’ Chrys., or as Theoph. J, still more literally, ére €& Erayy. €660n° so in effect Syr. The active sense, 67s BeBarot rhy érayye\. (Theoph. 2), is grammati- cally doubtful, as there is no such verbal basis compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 126; and is exegetically unnecessary, as the idea of BeBaiwats lies in éoppayicbnre. See Snicer, Thesaur. Vol. i. p. 1767, and comp. notes on (ral. ili. 14. 7@ aylw marks, with solemn emphasis, Him by whom they were sealed, Him whose essence was holiness, the per- sonal Holy Spirit of God. weighty and practical sermon on this verse, see Usher, Serm. xt. Vol. xt. p- 175 (ed. Elringt.), and for three discourses of a more general character Barrow, Serm. X1II. Xiv. xv. Vol. 1. p. {—59 (Oxf. 1830). 14. 6s] As the noun in the expla- natory clause (és...7uGy) gains a pro- minence by being not only an eluci- dation or amplification (ch. i. 23), but a definition and specification of that in the antecedent, the relative agrees with it in gender: see esp. Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150, Madvig, Synt. § 98. b. “Os need not therefore be referred to Christ, nor indeed to the personal nature of the Holy Spirit in Iveta, For a (John xiv. 26), as 76 IIv. in its most distinct personal sense is invariably used with the neuter relative; com- pare the collection of exx. in Bruder, Concord. s.v. 6s, I. p. 619. The reading 8, adopted by Lachm. [with ABFGL; 15 mss.; Athan. (2), al.] seems clearly a grammatical gloss, and is rejected by most recent editors. appaBwv} ‘earnest, Auth., Arm.: a word used in the N.T. only here and 2 Cor. i. 22, Vv. 5; comp. paw Gen. XXXVili. 17 sq. ; ‘arrhabo,’ Plaut. Most. ir. 1. 3, and Rud. Prol. 45. It is a term probably of Phoenician origin (Gesen. Lex. s.v.), and denotes (1) a portion of the purchase money, an carnest of future payment, mpddoua, Hesych.; 7 émi rats @vats mapa Tay dvoupevwy bidonevn mpokaraBoAn, Ltym. M.; (2) pignus, Vulg., Clarom., ‘vadi,’ Goth.; see esp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 239. The word has here its pri- mary meaning: the gifts and viodecia, of which the Spirit assures us now, are the earnest, the amapx7 (Basil) of the KAnpovouia (ev TH Baci\ela Tod Xp. xal @eov, ch. v. 5) hereafter ; see Rom. viii. 23, and comp. Reuss, 7'héol. Chrét. Iv. 22, Vol. 11. p. 248. Christ is termed somewhat similarly the a6). THs Sucaocdvys jnuav, Polye. Phil. cap. 8, Tis dvacrdcews Huay, Constit. A post. v. 6: see Suicer, Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p: B42: els dTrOAUTpwoLY THs twepitr.] ‘for the redemption of the o 0 n» purchased possession,’ LrojaaXs ° vy bs? ee [in redempt. eo- a a rum qui vivunt, sc. servantur] Syr., ‘in redemptionem adquisitionis,’ Vulg. ; first of the two final clauses, expressive Cae 4 a ) , w) , 4 3 rs Ata TovTo Kaye, akovoas tiv Kab WPOZ E@®EZIOY2. I ever give thanks, and pray that ye may be enlightened to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the greatness of His power, which was especially displayed in the resurrection and supreme exaltation of Christ. of the divine purpose involved in the éoppayladnre Kx.T.’.; see below (2). The explanations of these difficult clauses are very varied. Passing over those founded on questionable con- structions, whether by participial solu- tion (Koppe, Wahl), apposition (a7o- NuUrp. scil. repi., comp. Chrys., Theo- phyl. 1,), conjunction (azron. Kal repur., comp. Holzh.), or virtual interchange (repir. Tis amon. Beza; Steph. Thesaur. 8.V. mepum.), we will notice (1) the pro- bable meaning of the words, (2) the pro- bable connexion of the clause with the sentence. (1) dtrodttpacts, a word always (e.g. ch. iv. 30, Rom. viii. 23), and here especially, modified by the context, appears to denote the final and complete redemption (7 ka@apa dmo\., Chrys.) from sufferings and sins, from Satan and from death: see Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 1. I, p. 106, Neand. Planting, Vol. I. p. 456, and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 17, Vol. 11. p. 183 sq., who however is appy- unduly restrictive. mepito(yots is much more obscure; while its etymological form and syn- tactic use (comp. I Thess. v. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 14, Heb. x. 39) suggest an active and abstract interpretation (Beng.), the genitival relation with dmo\utp. renders this in the present ease wholly untenable. may be said of the concrete passive explanation ‘hereditas acquisita’ (Caloy.), even if that explanation be lexically demonstrable. The most ancient interpretation (Syr.), accord- ing to which wepir.=oi mepiron- The same Oévres, scil. ads els epi. I Pet. ii. g (comp. Isaiah xlii. 21, and esp. Mal. iii. 17), and is a Christian appli- cation of the mn) n53D, the dads meptovatos (LXX) of the Old Testa- ment, is on the whole the most satis- factory. The objection that meprm. is never absolutely so used is of weight, and is not to be diluted by a forced reference to aitod (Mey.); still, while the exx. adduced show such a mean- ing to be possible, the context, and esp. the genitival relation, render it in a high degree probable. The dis- cussions of the other interpretations by Harless, and the comments of Stier (p. 129) on dzo\vrp., will repay perusal. (2) Connexion: els may be joined with és éorw x.7.d. (Tisch., Riick.) in a temporal sense, ‘until,’ Auth. Ver,, but much more probably belongs to éc¢paylicOnre. Nis aaron. is thus a clause co-ordinate with eds érawov x.7.d., the former expressing the final clause in reference to man, the latter in more especial and ulti- mate reference to God. 15. Ata toriro Kaye] ‘On this ac- count I also,’ ref. to the preceding verses as a reason for thanks to God for the spiritual state of the Ephe- sians, with a prayer (ver. 17) for their further enlightenment. The ex- act reference of these words is doubt- ful. Harless (after Chrys.) refers Suc tooro to the whole paragraph; as how- ever the Ephesians are first specially addressed in ver. 13 (kal vers), it seems best, with Theophyl., to con- nect dia Tov7o only with ver. 13, 14; ‘on account of thus having heard, believed, and having been sealed in Christ.” Kayo (‘7 also, I too,’ not ‘I indeed,’ Eadie) is thus faintly corresponsive with cal tuets, and hints at the union in prayer and praise which subsisted between the Apostle and his converts. De Wette refers Lene 10, 21 a e lal r ,’ ~ K , | lod \ A ° , A umas TiaTly ev TH WWupim Inoov kat THY ayaTyY THY ’ , Ny e , b) / an ei¢ WavTa¢g Tove aytous, OU TQAVOMAL eUXAapLT TOV UTED 16 kal to dca rodro, adducing Col. i. 9, but this example (comp. ver. 4 with ver. 9) certainly confirms the strict union of particle and pronoun; see notes in loc. Eadie and Bretschneider cite Rom. iii. 7, 1.Cor. vii. 8, xi. 1, Gal. iv. 12, 1 Th. iii. 5, al., but in all these instances cal has its full and proper comparative force: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635. adkovoas] ‘having heard.’ All histo- rical arguments (ws pydérw Oeacd- pevos avrovs,—noticed, but rejected by Theodoret) derived, on the one hand, from pressing the meaning of the verb (De W.), or on the other, from the improbable (see Winer, (7. § 40. 5. b. 1, p. 248, comp. on Gal. v. 24) frequentative force of the tense (Eadie), must be pronounced ex- tremely precarious. St Paul cer- tainly uses dxovcavres, Col. i. 4, in reference to converts he had not seen; but this alone would not have proved it, and thus does not prevent our here referring dxo’cas to the progress the Ephesians had made in the four or five years since he had last seen them: see Wieseler, Chronol., p. 445, Wig- gers, Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 431 sq. Thy Kad’ das miotiw] this is com- monly regarded as a mere periphrasis for riv buerépay m., or rather Ti 7, vudv, the possessive tbuérepos (comp. quer.) being used sparingly (only 4 times) in St Paul’s Epp. It must be admitted that later writers appear to use kara with acc. as equivalent to possess. pronoun or gen. (see Bern- hardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 241, Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. obs. p. 139), still, as St Paul uses 7 mlor. tudy at least 16 times, and 7 kad’ tu. m. only once, there would seem to be a distinction; the latter (kava distributive) probably denoting the faith of the community viewed objectively, ‘ the faith which is among you,’ the former the subjective faith of individuals: see Harless and Stier i loc., and comp. John viii. 17, TO vouw THO bwerépw (addressed to Pharisees), with Acts xviii. 15, vouwot Tov kad’ wuds (in reference to Jews in Achaia), which seem to convey a parallel distinction, and at any rate to invert the supposition of Eadie, that m xa’ du. a. denotes more distinc- tive characteristic possession than the former. év TO Kuplw] ‘in the Lord ;’ definition of the holy sphere and object of the wloris, the omission of the article giving a more complete unity to the conception, as it were, ‘Christ-centered faith,’ ‘jidem erga Deum in Domino Jesu,’ Beng.; see notes on Gal. iii. 26. It is instructive to compare with this the subsequent clause, Tijvy dydrnv Thy K.T.\., where the second article [Zachm. omits with AB; 17 al.] seems inserted to con- vey two momenta of thought, love generally, further defined by that amplitude (od rods émixwplous pyct pdvoy, Chrys.) which is its true Chris- tian characteristic ; see Fritz. Rom. Hie 2 5p Viole te py los: rule it may be observed, that when As a general the defining prepositional clause is so incorporated with (e.g. ch. ii. 11), appended to (Col. iv. 7), or, as here, structurally assimilated (alorts, m- oTevw, ev, comp. ch. iii. 13, Rom. vi. 4) with the subst. it defines as to form only a single conception, the article is correctly omitted; see Har- less tm loc., and Winer, G7, § 20. 2, pa l23: eis mdvTas TOUS dylovs] ‘towards all the Saints ;’ ob- jects towards whom the love was di- rected; ‘omnes character Christianismi,’ 22 WPO2 E®EZIOY2. e A , Pts , 9) A a aA VKLWY, FLVELAVY ULWY TOLOUMEVOS ETL TWY TPOTEVKWY fLOU, 17 tva 0 Ocos Tov Kupiov jor Inco Xpiorov, 6 TaTNp 16. yuvelav budy towovmevos| So Tisch. with D?EKL (FG, Boern., transpose vudy and rotovu.) great majority of mss.; Sangerm., Aug., Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt., al. ; Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Rec., Griesb., De W. e sil., Alf., Wordsw.). The omission of tuav is strongly supported by external evidence, viz. ABD!S (not C, Eadie; this is one of its lacunze); about 10 mss; Clarom., Goth. ; Hil. (Riich., Lachm., Mey., approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 1447), but is per- haps slightly less probable; esp. as an omission of juév owing to the preceding buoy is more likely than an explanatory insertion, where the meaning is so obvious, and as 1 Thess. i. 2 (where ABN similarly omit ‘uGv) is appy. an in- structive parallel. Bengel: comp. ch. vi. 18, Philem. 5. On the meaning of aylous, see notes on Choa a. 16. ov tavopar evxapterav] ‘7 cease not giving thanks. In this simple and well-known formula the participle points to a state supposed to be already in existence; see Winer, Gr. § 45.4, p. 308sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 45. 5, p. 48t. In many verbs (e. g. aicxtvoua, Luke xvi. 3) this dis- tinction between part. and inf. may be made palpable; in others, as in the present case, the verb is such as rarely to admit any other idiomatic struc- ture: see Herm. No. 218; Donalds. Gr. § 591; and for a good paper on the general distinction be- tween these uses of the participle and of the infin., Weller, Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt. prvelav tpoOv trovovn. | ‘making mention of you;’ limitation, or rather specification of the further direction of the evxapioria, 1 Thess. i. 2, Philem. 4, and see notes in loce. él TOV TEOTEVK OV LCV] ‘in my prayers,’ ‘in orationibus meis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Goth. ; é7i here being not simply and crudely temporal, ‘at the time of my prayers’ (Eadie), but retaining also that shade of local re- ference of which even the more dis- tinctly temporal examples are not Viger, conip,. wholly divested: see Bernhardy, Synt. V. 23. a, p. 246, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 2. The prep. thus serves to express the concurrent circumstances and re- lations, in which and under which an event took place; see Winer, Gr. § 47. g, p- 336. 17. tva 6 Ocds x.7.A.] ‘that the God &e.;’ subject of the prayer blended with the purpose of making it. The exact meaning of this particle both here and in similar passages requires a brief notice. The uses of fva in the N.T. appear to be three: (1) Final, indicative of the end, purpose, or ob- ject of the action,—the primary and principal meaning, and never to be given up except on the most distinct counter-arguments: (2) Sub-final,—oc- casional force, especially after verbs of entreaty (not of command), the subject of the prayer being blended with, and even in some cases obscuring the pur- pose of making it; see esp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 299, and notes on Phil. i. 9: (3) Eventual, or indicative of result,—appy. in a few eases, and due perhaps more to what is called ‘ He- brew teleology’ (i.e. the reverential aspect under which the Jews regarded prophecy and its fulfilment) than grammatical depravation; compare Winer, Gr. § 53.6, p. 406sq. After a Tange 1: 23 TNS do&ye, dwn vuiv Iveina cowpias Kal amokaNurlrews, ’ ° , ’ ~ , ‘ 3 A a ev eTLYV@TEL aUTOV, TePwTIcpEvous Tous OPOadpous Tis 18 maturely weighing the evidence ad- duced by Winer and others, few perhaps will hesitate to characterize Fritzsche’s and Meyer’s strenuous denial of (2) and (3) as perverse, and the criticism of Eadie, who admitting (3), denies (2) after verbs of entreaty, as somewhat illogical. In the present case, independent of the paral- lelism afforded by numerous similar passages (ch. iii. 16, Phil. i. 9, Col. i. 9, iv. 3, 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess. i. 11), the presence of the opt. 6¢7 after the pres. (hoped for, dependent reali- zation, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 622, Bernhardy, Synt. XI. 11, p. 407) in- clines us distinctly to this suh-final or secondary telic use; comp. Winer, § 41. 1. obs. p. 260. On the late and incorrect form 6a for doin, see Lo- beck, Phryn. p. 345, and Sturz, de Dial. Maced. p. 52. 6 Ocds Tov Kup!ov 1p..] ‘the God of our Lord ;’ see John xx. 17, Matth. xxvii. 46. ‘Deus ejus est quia ex eo natus in Deum est,’ Hilar. de Trin. Iv. 35, p. 96. The somewhat contorted explanations of this and the following clause cited by Suicer (Thes. Vol. 1. p. 944) may be dispensed with if this only be observed, that ‘the word God was never looked upon as a word of office or dominion, but of nature and sub- stance,’ Waterland, Sec. Def., Qu. 11. Vol. 11. p. 399. The admirably per- spicuous distinctions of the same author, in Answer to Pref. Vol. 11. p- 415, deserve perusal. 6 martip tis Sdéys] ‘the Father of glory;’ comp. Psalm xxviii. 3, Acts vii. 2, 1 Cor, ii. 8, Heb. ix. 5; gen. of the characteristic quality: see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115, Winer, Gr. § 34. 2. b, p. 211. It is singular that «a mere adjectival resolution (Riickert), or a poetical and less usual meaning of marhp (sc. ‘auctor,’ Job XxXviil. 28, probably James i. 17, and perhaps Heb. xii. 9, but see context; not 2 Cor. i. 3 [Hadie], see De W., and Mey.) should so generally have been adopted instead of this simple The use of marnp was probably suggested and grammatical explanation. by the foregoing mention of our Lord, while the qualifying gen. dd£ys serves appropriately to carry on the reference to the eternal glory of God which per- vades the whole of the first paragraph. The reference then of 66a to the glorified humanity (Stier), or to the divine nature of Christ (Athan., Greg.- Naz., see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 944), is by no means necessary, TIvetpa codlas k.t-A.] ‘the Spirit of wisdom and revelation; the charac- terizing genitives denoting the special forms and peculiar manifestations in which the Apostle prayed for the gift of the Spirit to his converts ; compare 2 Cor. iv. 13, 2 Tim. i. 7, see notes on Gal. vi. 1, and on the omission of the article with IIvedua, notes on Gal. y. 5. The favourite subjective and objective distinctions of Harl., viz. that cog. is the subjec- tive state, dmoxa\. the objective me- dium, are not necessary, nor even, as the order (state before means, not vice versa) suggests, logically satisfactory ; copia is simply the general gift of illumination, amoxa\. the more spe- cial gift of insight into the divine mysteries: see further remarks in notes on 2 Tim. i. 7. év émyvoce avTov] ‘in the (full) knowledge of Him,’ ‘in agnitione [or rather cognitione] ejus,’ Vulg., Cla- rom.; év not being for es (Grot., Wolf), or did (Beza), but, as usual, 24 WTPO2 E®EZIOY>. OL econ , \ ide Cae , . e? 4 A KapOLas UMW, ELS TO ELOEVAL UMag TIS ETTLVY 7 eATIS THS marking the sphere or element in which the action takes place; the knowledge of God (not Christ, Calv., who is not referred to before ver. 20) was to be the sphere, the circumam- bient element in which they were to receive wisdom and revelation ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 2, and see esp. Winer, G7. § 48. a, p. 345. Ev émcyy. thus belongs to the whole preceding clause, not specially to dmoxan., still less to what follows (Chrys., Lachm., al.), both of which connexions would interfere with the parallelism of ver. 15 and 16; mvedua K.-T. corresponding to repr. k.T.r., and & émvyv. to els 7d eldé- vat. The émi in émlyvwors may be either additive (Eadie), in ref. to the increments of knowledge continually received, or more proba- bly, simply intensive, scil. ‘cognitio accurata et certa,’ Bretschn., erkennt- niss; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12, see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. éi, iv. c. 5, and Delitzsch. on Heb. x. 26. 18. mepatirpévovs tots dpbad- povs K.T.A.] ‘having the eyesof your heart enlightened.’ Three constructions are here possible: (a) Accus. absolute, Tepwtiomévous agreeing with 6¢6an- pots, Peile, Eadie: (6) Accusatival clause after 647, kal being omitted to give the clause an emphatically appo- sitional aspect ; see Harless and Stier: (c) Lax construction of part. ; repwr. referring to tuiy, and rods é6pOaducis being accus. of limiting reference; Winer, Gr. § 32. 5.6, p. 205, Madvig, Synt. § 31; comp. Hartung, Casus, p- 62. Of these (a) is grammatically doubtful, for though such accusatives undoubtedly do exist, esp. in later writers (see Wannowski’s elaborate treatise de Construct. Abs. IV. 5, p. 146 sq), still they far more generally admit of an explanation from the context; see Winer, § 32. 7, p. 206, comp. Bernh. Synt. U1. 30, p. 133. Again (6) is somewhat doubtful gram- matically, on account of the article (see Beng.), and certainly exegetically un- satisfactory, ‘enlightened eyes’ rather defining the effect of the Spirit than forming any sort of apposition to it; see Meyer in loc. In (c) the con- nexion of the accusatives is less sim- ple, but the other syntactic difficul- ties are but slight, as a permutation of case, esp. in participial clauses, is not uncommon in the N.T. (e.g. Acts xv. 22; Winer, § 63. I. 1, p. 500), nor without distinct parallel in classical Greek: see exx. in Wannowski. Iv. 6, p. 169 sq., Jelf, Gr. § 711. This then seems the most probable constr.: mwepwtT. k.T.A. serves to define the result of the gift of the Spirit (comp. Phil. iii. 21 [not Rec. ], 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, P- 549 sq.), and owing to the subsequent inf. (eis 7d e(dévac) which expresses the purpose of the illumination, not unnaturally lapses into the accusative. Tos 8. THs Kapdlas ty.] ‘the eyes of your heart ? a somewhat unusual and figu- rative expression, denoting the inward intelligence of that portion of our im- material nature (the Yuy7) of which the xapdia is the imaginary seat ; comp. Acta Thom. § 28, rods TAs Wu- xis 6PPadmovs, and see esp. Beck, Seelenl. 111. 24. 3, p. 94 Sq., and notes on t Tim.i. 5. On the use and mean- ing of gwrifew here, ‘to illuminate with the brightness of inner light,’ see esp. Harl. in loc., and contrast Eph. iii. 9, where, as the context shows, the illumination is somewhat less inward and vital; comp. Beck, Seelent, 11. 13. 2 pesos The reading of Rec., 660. THs Stavolas, has only the support of some cursive mss.; Theod., Gicum. heen: 25 KAjrews avTov, Kal Tis 6 TAOVTOS THs JdENS THs KAnpo- , 3 ~ . a e , ‘ U A e , voulas avtou év Toig ayo, Kal TL TO UTEpBadXAov 19 al. tls] ‘what. There appears no reason to adopt in this verse either a qualitative (‘cujusnam nature,’ Wahl, Harl.), or, what is appy. more questionable, a quantitative (rora77, moan’ Holzh., Stier) translation; the ordinary meaning ‘what’ (‘que... spes,’ Vulg.) is fully sufficient, and in- cludes all more special interpretations. The articles with é\mls and m)ovros only serve to point them out as well- known and recognised, and as indi- rectly alluded to throughout the pre- ceding paragraph: comp. Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 27, p. 324, Stallb. Plato, Crit. 43 ¢. H Amis K.T.A.], ‘the hope of His calling, i.e. the hope which the calling works in the heart; kAjoews being the gen. of the causa efficiens, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 125. *EAmls is thus not objective, 7d éAmifo- pevov (Olsh., Eadie), a meaning scarcely fully substantiated even in Col. i. 5 (comp. notes in loc.), and here cer- tainly unnecessary, but as uswal sub- jective; émt molas édiot KexXnueba map avrov’ Theod. Like ziotis, it is probably occasionally used in an objective aspect (‘objectivirt’), as ‘the grounds, the state of hope,’ but just as miotis is not used in the N.T. for ‘religio Christiana’ ( see on Gal. i. 23), so it is very doubtful whether é\mls ever fully amounts to ‘res separata,’ as asserted by Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. I. p. 1095. tls 6 TAotTOS K.T.A.] ‘what the riches of the glory of His inheritance ;’ a noble accumula- tion of (possessive) genitives, setting forth the xAnpovouta on the side of its glory, and that glory on the side of its riches. All adjectival solutions, it need scarcely be said, are wholly in- admissible; see notes on ver. 6, and Winer, Gr. § 30. 3. 1, p. 171 sq. The prefixed kal is omitted by Lachm. with ABD!FGN!; 59; Clarom., San- germ., Amit., Goth., al., but perhaps rightly retained by Tisch., Mey., al., with D3EK LN#; nearly all mss. ; Copt., Syr. (both), Vulg., al.; Orig. cat., Chrys., Theod.; as the xal in the third member (ver. 19) might have so easily suggested an omission in the second. év Tois dylois] ‘among the saints; a semilocal clause appended to tls (ésTw) 6 m)ovros k.7.A., defining the sphere (the whole community of the faithful, comp. Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18) in which the mAodros THs Od. THs Kp. is peculiarly found, felt, and realized: comp. Col. i. 27, and see Meyer, A. /. Harless connects év Tots aylos with knpor. avrov, an interpretation exegetically tenable (see Stier zn loc. p. 161 sq.), but, on account of the omission of the article, by no means so grammatically admissible, even in Hellenistic Greek, as the somewhat sweeping language of Alf. in loc. would lead us to conclude. For as the former clause contains a defined and self-subsistent idea (ot merely xAnpov. é&v k.T.\. Job xlii. 15, é&c., but kAnpov. avTod, sc. Oeod, a very distinct expression), the latter cannot easily be regarded as supple- mental, and thus, as legitimately anar- throus; see notes on ver. 15. If however év toils ay. be immediately connected with the unexpressed écrl, the omission of the article will be less sensibly felt (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 114), and the harmony in the three clauses fully preserved: the first, é\mls x.7.X. being stated generally ; the second, modros x.7.. more nearly specialized by év rots ay., the sphere in which it is found; the third, 7d UmepBdddov k.T.A. by els Huds, the 26 WPOZ E@PEZIOY=2. ~ la a 4 péyeOos THs Suvamews aUTOU els mas TOUS TLaTEVOYTAS \ 4 7? A ’ A , 3 a A 20 KaTQa THY evepyelav TOU KpaTous THS toxvos QUTOV, WV living objects towards whom it is and will be exercised. 19. Kal rl rd brepB. k.t.A.] Sand what (2s) the exceeding greatness of His power,’ specification of that by which hope becomes quickened and realized ; don tls meplearae KTHjows ayabov Tots Tov Ocot aylors émt Tov péddovTos aiévos* Theod.-Mops. Chrys., Theoph,, and CEcum. refer this clause simply to the present life. This is doubtful, as the foregoing expressions éXmls and K\npoveula (ch. v. 5, comp. I Cor. vi. 9, Gal.v. 21), and the reference in the following verse, seem to point primarily to the power of God which shall hereafter quicken us even as it did Christ, and shall install us in our inheritance as it enthroned Him on the right hand of God. There is thus a kind of climax,—the hope which the calling awakens,—the exhaustless and inexpressible glory (Chrys.) of that inheritance to which hope is directed, — the limitless power that shall bestow it. Still the individualizing els judas seems to show that a secondary refer- ence to the present quickening power in the hearts of believers (ch. ii. 1, 5) is by no means to be excluded. els Huds TOs murt.] ‘to us-ward who are believing; objects towards whom the exceeding greatness of the power is displayed; the e/s quads not being dependent on THs duvdu. adrod (Harl., citing 2 Cor. xiii. 4, where however els duds is most probably to be joined with (joonev, see Mey. in loc.), but, as in the preceding member, on rf (éc7/); and es haying its regular and primary sense of ethical direction, admirably expressed by ‘to us-ward,’ A. V. from Tynd.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. a. c. 5, p- 353- The second and third clauses, tls 6 mAovTos K.7.A. and rt 7d vrepf. k.T.A., are thus perfectly symmetrical, the substantival sub-clauses forming a parallelism to each other, and the pre- positional sub-clause eis juds being structurally parallel to the preceding év rots wyiows, while at the same time it prepares us for the latent apposition suggested by the év Xp. which follows ; see Stier in loc., p. 155. kara Tiv évépyeav does not refer to all three clauses (Harl.), but, as the cor- respondence of ideas and language distinctly suggests, to that immediately preceding; not however especially to motevovTas (Riick.), for such a con- nexion, though doctrinally unexcep- tionable (see Col. ii. 12), is exegetically unsatisfactory from its interpolation of an unlooked-for idea, viz. the origin and antecedents of faith. The refer- ence then is simply to the whole clause, not however as an explana- tion (Chrys.) or amplification (Calv.) of this power, but, in accordance with the full ethical force of kara (‘mea- sure,’ ‘proportion,’ Bernhardy, Synt. Y. 20. b, p. 239), as a definition of its mode of operation (Eadie), a mighty measure, a stupendous exemplar by which its infinite powers towards the believing, in its future, yea, and its present manifestations, might be felt, acknowledged, estimated, and rea- lized; comp. Ignat. Zrall. 9, where however the duolwua of the éyepors is more alluded to than in the present passage. As the meaning of xara here falls short of ‘propter’ (comp. Griesb, Opuscula, It. 5), so it certainly transcends that of mere similitude. TOU KpaTous THs laxvos aiTod] ‘the strength of His might,’ ‘robur poten- tie,’ Afth., scil. the strength which appertains to, is evinced by His ioxus: neither a Hebraism (Holzh.), nor a {igo oT. 20 evnpynoey ev TH Xpicto, eyelpas QUTOV EK VEKPOY, Kal ° , > o ) a 2 a °’ , ¢c , exaOicev €vV deka QuTOU €V TOLS eTovpaviols UTEP ava) 21 20. éxdOicev] So Rec., Tisch., with DEFGKL; most mss. ; Clarom., Boern., Goth., Copt., Syr.; Chrys., Theodoret. kadicas (Lachm.) has the support of ABN; about 14 mss.; Aug., Vulg.; Eus., Cyr.: aidrdv is added by AN; 4 mss.; Eus., Procop. mere cumulative form of expression (Kiittn.), but a specification of the outcoming and exhibition of that power which is the divine attribute; see ch, vi. 10, Dan. iv. 27. Hach word has thus its distinct and proper force: icxus, as its derivation (lcxw, éxw) implies, refers rather to passive inherent power, Mark, xii. 30; xpdros (KPA, KAP, cogn. with kdpa, comp. Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. 178) to power evinced in action; see Luke i. 51. The striking force of the expres- sions here used to specify this ‘emi- nent act of God’s omnipotency’ is well illustrated by Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 11. p. 222 (ed. Burt.). 20. ‘tv évipynoev] ‘which He wrought,’ scil. qv évépyeav, which act of omnipotence God, as the princi- pal cause (see Pearson, Creed, Art. V. Vol. I. p. 301, ed. Burt.), displayed in Christ, and in Him in us (‘innuit efficaciam Dei in credentibus,’ Cocc.) who share the humanity he vouch- safed to take, and are spiritually risen with our risen Lord; see Stier zn loc. p- 172. The reading évipynxcey (AB; Cyr., Procop.) is adopted by Lachm., Mey.; but appy. on insufficient evi- dence. év TH Xpiora] ‘in Christ, in Him as our spiritual Head; év here being no mere ‘nota dativi,’ a construction now exploded in the N.T. (see Winer, Gr. § 3r. 8, p. 195), but correctly indicating the substratum of the action; see notes on (Gal. i. 24. It is scarcely necessary to recapitulate the caution of Theodoret and Theophyl., d7\ov dé ott Tav’ra mdvra ws mepl dvOpwrrov Téecxe (Theod.), 7d yap dvacray dyv- Opwmros, el kat OG jvwro (Theophyl.), In this passage, Phil. ii. 6—11, and Col. i: 14—19, as Olsh. well observes, we find the entire Christology of St Paul, éyelpas| ‘when He raised Him, Auth. or perhaps better ‘in that He raised Him,’ Arm.; con- temporaneous act with évipyncer, see notes on yvwpioas, ver. 9. Kal exaioev] ‘and He set Him, change from the participial structure to the finite verb, especially designed to enhance the importance of the truth’ conveyed by the participle; see exx, in Winer, Gir. § 63. 2. b, p. 505 sq. The distinctive and emphatic mention of the consequent and connected acts heightens the conception of the al- mighty évépyera of God (Father, Son, and Spirit : Pearson on Creed, Art. v. Vol. 1. p. 302), displayed in the re- surrection of Christ from the dead. On the session of Christ at the right hand of God, see Knapp, Scripta Var. Argum. Art. 11; let these words of Bp. Pearson’s however never be for- gotten, ‘He shall reign for ever and ever, not only to the modificated eter- nity of His mediatorship, but also to the complete eternity of the duration of His humanity, which for the future is coeternal to His Divinity:’ Art. vr. Vol. I. p. 335. év Tots emrovpavious|] ‘in the heavenly places’ ° y y, Lior fin ceelo] Syr., Goth., Z&th.; see notes on ver. 3. It is scarcely possible to doubt that these IITPOZ E@®EZIOY2. ’ 9 A VY 9 ’ 4 , Q , TATHS aPXNS Kal eEouvclas Kal duvapews Kal KUPLOTYTOS, words have here a local reference. The distinctly local expressions, éxd- Oicev, ev de&ig,—the Scripture doc- trine of Christ’s literal and local as- cent (Mark xvi. 19, al.),—His regal session in heaven in His glorified and resplendent Body (Acts vii. 56, éoréra éx de&lwy" al., see Phil. iii. 30),— His future literal and local judiciary de- scent (Acts i. 11, 6 tpdmoyv éfed- cacde avrov mopevouevorv),—all tend to invalidate the vague and idealistic ‘status celestis’ urged by Harless in loc. The choice of the more general expression, év Tots éouy., ‘in the heavenly regions’ (comp. ch. iv. 10), rather than the more specific év rots ovpavois was perhaps suggested by the nature of the details in ver. 21. The reading ovpavots (Lachm. with B; al.; Victorin., Hil.) has weak ex- ternal support, and seems an almost self-evident gloss. 21. vmrepdvel ‘over above,’ ‘supra,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘ufaro,’ Goth.; not ‘longe supra,’ Beza, and so Auth., Alf., al.: specification of the nature and extent of the exaltation. The intensive force which Chrys. and Theophyl. find in this word, tva 70 axpdtarov wos SnAwoy, and which has recently been adopted by Stier and Eadie, is very doubtful; as is also the assertion (Hadie) that this prevails ‘in the majority of passages’ in the LXX: see Ezek. i. 26 (Alew.), vill. 2, x. 10, xi. 22, xlii. 15, and even Deut. xxvi. 19, xxviii. 1. Such distinct instances as Hzek. xlili. 15, and in the N.T., Heb. ix. 5, the similarly unemphatic use of the antitheton droxdrw in John i. 51, Luke viii. 16, and the tenden- cies of Alexandrian and later Greek to form duplicated compounds (see Peyron, ad Pap. Taurin. Vol.1. p.89), make it highly probable that vrrepdvw, both here and ch. iv. 10, implies little more than simple local elevation. So too Syr. and appy. all the ancient Vv. Taons dpxys k.T.A,] ‘all (every) rule and authority and power and lord- ship: no parenthesis, but a fuller ex- planation of éy rots érovpavlos ; see Winer, Gr. § 64. 1. 2, ps 614 (ed. 5). The context and the illustrations af- forded by ch. iii. 10, Col. i. 16, and 1 Pet. iii. 22, seem to preclude any mere generic reference to all forms of power and dominion (Olsh.), or any specific reference to the orders of the Jewish hierarchy (Schoettg.), or the grades of authority among men (see ap. Pol. Syn.). The abstract words (Suvdwedy Twwy dvouaTta hu donua* Chrys.) seem to be designations of the orders of heavenly Intelligences, and are used by St Paul in preference to any concrete terms (dyyéAwy, apxay- yéhwv x.T.X.) to express with the greatest amplitude and comprehen- siveness the sovereign power and majesty of Christ; ef 7e éorly & TH ovpaye, mdvTwv dvwrepos yéyove’ Chrys., see Calv. in loc. As this verse relates to Christ’s exaltation in heaven rather than His victory over the powers of hell (1 Cor. xv. 24, comp. Rom. viii. 38), reference is pro- bably made exclusively to good Angels and Intelligences, 1 Tim. y. 21. Any attempt to define more closely (see authors cited in Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctr. § 131, Petavius, de Angelis, 11. 1, Vol, 111. p. 101 sq.) is alike pre- sumptuous and precarious: see the excellent remarks of Bp. Hall, Jnvi- sible World, Book 1. § 7. On the nature of Angels, consult the able treatise by Twesten, Dogmatik, Vol. II. esp. § 1. 4, the essay by Stuart, Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843, pp. 88— 154, Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 228 sq. T@e. 29 A ‘ ’ , J , ] , / ~ Kal TAVTOS OVOLAaTOS ovowaComevou ov Movov ev Tw A ‘ 4 9 5 , 4 ’ aiove TovTw GaAXNa Kal €v TH pweAXNOVTL, KaL TavTAa 22 Vol. I. p. 276, and the remarks of Lange, Leb. Jes. Part It. p. 41 sq. Kal tmavtds dvdparos} ‘and, in a word, every name named ;’ concluding and comprehensive designation; kal having here that species of adjunctive force according to which a general term is appended to foregoing details: see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388, notes on Phil. iv. 12, Fritz. Matth. p. 786. Ildv dvoua is not ‘every title of honour’ (Grinf. Scholl. Hell.), a par- ticular explanation to which dvomag. (which has always its simple meaning in the N.T., even in Rom. xv. 20, see Fritz.) is distinctly opposed,—nor is it used in reference to Heavenly Powers which are dkarovduacror (Theophyl.),—nor even as a generic representation of the foregoing ab- stract nouns (Wahl, Harless),—but simply with reference to everything in existence (‘quicquid existit,’ Beza), personal or impersonal, ‘ everything bearing a name and admitting desig- nation ; comp. Col.i. 16, where a simi- lar latitude is implied by the four times repeated etre, and see notes in loc. ov povov k.T.A.] clause ap- pended not to éxaficev (Beza, Koppe), but to mavros dvéu. dvouag., to which it gives a still further expansion, both in respect of time and locality, i.e, everything named whether now or hereafter, in the present state of things or the world to come; zavrés pyrod kal dvouactod, ob povoyv tod évraifa évomafouevov, add\a Kal Tod éxeidev Suvapévov pynOjvar Kal dvomacOjvar Cicum. world,’ scil. TH aidve Tota] ‘this ‘this present state of things,’ ‘systema rerum,’ Beng. With regard to the meaning of alay it may be observed that in all passages where it occurs a temporal notion is more or less apparent. To this, in the majority, an ethical idea is united, so that 6 aldy ob Tos, as Olsh. has observed, is ‘the temporary and terrestrial order of things in which sin predominates’ — (comp. Gesen. Lex. s.v. pbiy, B), to which aiay wé\\wv (=Bacirela Ocod), the holy state cf things founded by Christ, is the exact contrast; see his Comment. on Matth. xii. 31, 32, and Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 500, 501 (Bohn). In a few passages like the present a semi-local meaning seems also superadded, causing alay to ap- proach in meaning to xécuos, though it still may be always distinguished from it by the temporal and (com- monly) ethical notions which ever form its background; see notes, ch. rhs De : 22. Kal wavra wrératey x.7.A.] ‘and put all things under His feet ;’ further specification of the majesty of Christ,—not only the highest con- ceivable exaltation (ver. 21), but the The strong similarity of the language scarcely leaves a doubt that here and Heb. ii. 8, there is a distinct allusion to Psalm viii. 7, mavra bréraéas wro- most unbounded sovereignty. KdTw T&Y Today avTov" comp. Gen. i. 28. Noris this due to any ‘rabbinisch- typischer Interpretationsweise’ (Mey.) on the part of St Paul, but to a direct reference under the guidance of the Spirit to a passage in the O. T. which in its primary application to man in- volves a secondary and more profound application to Christ. In the grant of terrestrial sovereignty the Psalmist saw and felt the antitypical mystery of man’s future exaltation in Christ, even more fully than Tholuck and even Hengstenberg in loc. appear to admit. The reference thus seems less to the 30 IlPO2 E@®EZIOY2. € , e ‘ \ *) ’ a ‘ 8) 0. uTeTacev Uu7TO TOUS TWOCaS GAuTOVU, KUL AUVTOV EOCWKEV ‘ e \ if lo , aN ’ er > ‘ ‘ 23 Kearny uTep TavTa TH EKKANOLA, TIS ETT TO subjugation of foes, as in I Cor. xv. 27 (Hamm., Stier), than to the limitless nature of Christ’s sovereignty, which the words t1d Tov’s k.7.d. () éEoxdTn vmorayy, Chrys.) still more heighten and enhance. On this and the next verse see a sound sermon by Beveridge, in which the three points, Christ’s headship over all things, His headship to the Church, and His rela- tion to it as His body, are well dis- cussed ; Serm. XXXII. Vol. Il. p. 124 sq. (A.-C. Libr.) @wkev is not synonymous with }1)J, é0nxev, éorn- cev (Wolf, Holzh., and even Harl.), either here or ch. iv. 11, but (as the dat. ékkAnoia and the emphatic posi- tion of ai7oy seem to suggest) retains its primary and proper sense. The meaning then seems to be, ‘ Though He was so exalted and so glorified, yet even Him did God, out of his boundless mercy and beneficence, give to the Church to be its head.’ Kepadiy tmtp mavra] ‘head over all things.’ The exact construction and immediate reference of these words is not perfectly clear. evidently qualifies ked., not however as an immediate and adjectival epi- ‘Yrép mavra thet (‘summum caput,’ Beza, Conyb.), but as an accessory and quasi-parti- cipial definition, ¢.e. bmepéxouoay rav- Twy, wdvta being used in exactly the same general sense as before, without any limiting reference to TH éxkN. (Harl.), or any implied contrast to other subordinate heads, Apostles, Pro- phets, d&c. (Olsh.). The accus. xed. may be regarded either as (a) a sim- ple appositional accus. to the pre- ceding avrév, a second xed. being supplied (per brachylogiam) before TH ékK\.,—* He gave Him, Head over all, (as Head) to his Church;’ comp. Jelf. Gr. § 893. ¢c.; or (6) as an accus. of further predication, serv- ing to complete the notion of the verb, and forming a species of tertiary pre- dicate (Donalds. Gr. § 489); ‘He gave Him as Head over all,’ i.e. ‘in the capacity of head over all:’ comp. Madvig, Synt. § 24. a, and see the various exx. in Donalds. G7. § 490. Of these (a) was adopted in ed. 1 (so also Stier, Mey.), and it coincides in meaning with the ungrammatical order (€Owxev adrov [dvra] brép wdvra Keg. TH €xkX.) of Syr., Aith.-Platt, Chrys., al., but is, grammatically considered, less simple than (0), and, considered exegetically, but little different in meaning: if God gives Christ to the Church, and Christ at the same time is Head over all things (ter- tiary predication), He becomes ne- cessarily head to the Church. It seems best then, with Syr.-Phil. (appy.), Vulg. (‘caput supra omnem ecclesiz’), Clarom., Arm., to adopt the latter view; comp. Alf. in loc. 23. ts] ‘which indeed.’ not ex- actly ‘ut que,’ Meyer, ‘but ‘que quidem,’ the force of the indef. relative being here rather explanatory than causal, and serving to elucidate the use and meaning of kepadi by the in- troduction of the corresponding term c@ua. On the uses of doris, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. TO TOpa adTov | ‘ His body,’ not in any merely figura- tive sense, but really and truly; the Church is the veritable body of Christ mystical (ch. iv. 12, 16, esp. v. 30), no mere institution subject to Him as to a kepady used in any ethical sense, but united to Him as to a ke@ady used in its simple and literal sense; va yap bh akovaas Kepadyv dpxiv twa Kal cwpatikas pnoly éfovciay voulons, rd Ff ~ .] ~ A THOUA AUTOU, TO TAYpoma , TAnpoumevov. jpav éorl kepady C(Ecum. This great and vital truth, and the nature of our union with Christ which it in- volves and implies, is well illustrated in the beautiful treatise of Bp Hall, Christ Mystical, esp. ch. vit. TO TANpwpa K.T.A.] ‘the fulness, &e.:’? apposition to the preceding TO gpa avrov, designed still more to expand the full meaning of the pre- ceding identification of the Church with the Lord’s body, the general truth conveyed being 76 tAjpwua Tod Xpiorot 7 éxxnola’ Chrys. The spe- cial meaning and reference of these mysterious words has been greatly contested. ‘This however seems clear (esp. after the long and careful note of Fritz. Rom. xi. 12, Vol. 1. p. 469), that mAjpwua is here used pas- sively, and that of its two passive meanings, (a) id quod impletum est, and (6) id quo res impletur (see notes on Gal. iv. 4), the former, sc. 70 7re- mAnpwuevovy, though less (comp. Lucian, Ver. Hist. 1. 37, vo TAnpwudtav, ‘manned ships’), is here The Church then is TO memAnpwuevoy, not however in common alone applicable. the sense ‘plenum Christi agmen,’ ‘hominum a Christo impletorum ca- terva,’ as Fritz. paraphrases; but in a simple and almost local sense, ‘that which is filled up by Christ,’ ‘the re- ceptacle’ (Hadie), as it were, of all the gifts, graces, and blessings of Christ: comp. Philo, de Prem. et Pen. p. 920, where the soul is called a mA7jpwua dper@v, and contrast the opposed xé- vwua, as used by the Gnostics to ex- press the void world of sense: Baur, Gnosis, p. 157, 462 (cited by Mey.). Tov TA TavTa KT.A.] ‘of Him who jilleth all things with all things,’ ‘qui rerum universitatem omnibus rebus A ‘ , ) "hOGA Mayra Vey 22, 31 TACLV [sibi] implet,’ Fritz.; év being here used in its instrumental sense (see notes on t Thess. iv. 18), as serving to specify that with which the filling takes place (see ch. v. 18), and maouw being used with an equal latitude to Ta mwavTa (ver. 22) as implying not only ‘all blessings’ (Kadie), but ‘all things’ unrestrictelly; for by Christ was the whole Universe made, and all 16, and comp. in ref. generally to the terms of the expression, Philo, Sacrif. Cain, § 18, Vol. 1. p. 175 (ed. Mang.), memANpwKkws mdvTa Ova mavrwv. It has been doubted whether 7Anpodc bat is (a) passive, as Vulg., Chrys., al.; or (6) middle, as Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm., whether in a purely active sense (Xen. fell. VI. 2. 14, 35, see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 956), or perhaps, as this unique use of the middle in the N.T. suggests, in a specially re- ciprocal sense ‘sibi implere.” Of these the latter alone seems admissible, as the idea of Christ receiving completion in His members (Est., comp. Harl.) implies restrictions little accordant with the inclusive ta wdvra. The meaning then of the whole would seem to be, that the Church is the veritable mystical Body of Christ, yea the recipient of the plenitudes of Him who fillet all things, whether in hea- ven or in earth, with all the things, elements, and entities, of which they are composed, And this, as both the paral- things therein: see Col. i. Clarom., lelism of 76 cua adrod and 76 m\»p. k.7T.\. and the absence of any hint of a change of person seem distinctly to suggest, must be referred, not to God (Theod., Alf.), but to Christ; see esp. ch, iv. 10. On the doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ, an eternal 32 TIPO2 Il. Kat tuas ovras vexpovs trois rapa- E®EZIOY=. You too who were dead in sin He hath quickened, raised, and even enthroned with and in Christ, to show all ages the riches of His grace and love. truth of vital importance (Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. § 4. 3. 1 sq., Waterland, Sermon, VII. 3, Vol. 11. p. 164), to which this verse seems to allude, see notes on ch. iv. 10, Jackson, Creed, Book XI. 3. 10 sq., and the calm and conciliatory observations of Marten- sen, Dogmatik, § 177 sq. Well and clearly has it been said by Andrewes, ‘Christ is both in Heaven and earth: as He is called the Head of His Church, He is in Heaven, but in respect of His body which is called Christ He is on earth,’ Serm. xu. Vol. v. p- 407- The omission of 7a (Rec.) is opposed to all the MSS. and to the majority of mss., and adopted by none of the best recent editors. Kal tpas] ‘And special address Carrer IJ. 1. Aieie also,’ ‘you too; and application of the foregoing to the case of the readers; xal neither (a) simply connecting the verse with what precedes, sc. kal drérager, kal GOwxer, kat duds x.T.r’\. (Lachm.), as ver. 23 is plainly a conclusion of the foregoing clause; nor (b) serving to introduce a special exemplification of the general act of grace in ver. 23 (Peile), as the force of the correlation between ve- Kpods and auve{worr. is thus seriously impaired ; but rather (¢) applying what has been said to the vuds, to which word it gives emphasis and promi- nence. The Ephesians are reminded how they also had experienced in their moral death the energy of the same quickening power which raised Christ from physical death (ch. i. 20), the ascensive force of cal being just percep- tible in the implied parallelism between the véxpwors WuxiKy in the case of the Ephesians (see next note), and Your salvation is by grace not works. the véxpwots owuariky on the part of Christ; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. It. p. 636. The connexion has also its difficulties, According to the most simple view, ver. 1, after having its structure interrupted by the two relatival sentences, ver. 2, 3, is renewed in ver. 4 (not ver. 5, Schott.) by means of 6é€ resumptive (Herm. Viger, No. 544), and there further elucidated by the interpolated nomi- native Oeds, expanded in application by the more comprehensive 7uds, and concluded in ver. §; see Theoph. zn loc. dvTas vekpovs] ‘being dead,’ sc. spiritually; véxpwois ovK ] ocwuarikn ) €x Tod "Addu dpia- bevy, GAG H Wuxikh ) e€& Tudy ouvictanevn* Theophyl.; compare Bramhall, Castig. 11. 2, Vol. 1v. 233 (A.-C. Lib.). The proleptic refer- ence to physical death scil. ‘certo morituri’ (Mey.), seems irreconcile- able with the context. The rdovcvos av év ééet, which seems to specify God’s mercy in extending the exercise of His resurrectionary power, would thus lose much of its appropriateness, and the particle cal (ver. 5) its proper ascensive force. On this and the two following verses, see a good prac- tical sermon by Usher, Serm.iv. Vol. Xl. p. 45 (ed. Elringt.). Tots TapatTépacw K.T.A.] ‘by the ” trespasses and sins which ye had com- mitted,’ ‘ delictis et peccatris vestris,’ Vulg., Goth.; not ‘in delictis,’ &c. Arm. ; the dat. being appy. that of the causa instrumentalis: see Hartung, Casus, p.79, Winer, Gir. § 31.7, p. 194. In the closely parallel passage Col. ii. 13, vexpovs dvTas ev TOls TapaTTHma- ow, the same general sentiment is ex- pressed under slightly different rela- tions: here sin is conceived as that Cd Thre 2, , ‘ ~ e , Cm ’ a A TTWUMATIY KAL TALS a“apTials ULWY, EV als TTOTE TE Ple- 2 ‘ ‘ ial Ep Bey: , ‘ ‘ TATITATE KATA TOV GLWYVA TOU KOTKOVU TOUTOU, KATA TOV 1. vuayv] This word was omitted in ed. 1 with Rec. and Tisch. (ed. 2) on the authority of KL; great majority of mss.; Chrys., Dam., al.: but in spite of the variation of A (éav7dv), is now restored on the greatly preponderating authority of BDEFGN; 15 mss.; nearly all Vv.; Theod., al. and Tisch. (ed. 1, and 7). which kills (Olsh.), there it is described as the element or state in which the vex- pwots shows and reveals itself ; comp. notes i loc. It is doubtful whe- ther the distinction drawn by Tittmann (Synon. p. 45) between mapamr., sins rashly (‘a nolente facere injuriam’), and duapriat, sins designedly com- mitted, can be fully substantiated ; both equally referring to ‘ peccata actualia,’ whetLer in thought, word, or deed, and dffering more in the images (‘missing,’ ‘stumbling’) under which they are presented to our con- ceptions, than in the degree of inten- tion ascribed to the perpetrator; see Hritz, Rom. v. 15; Vol. i. p. 324, comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, I. 1. 2, Vol. I. p. g2 (Clark). Perhaps we may say generally, that tapamTdéyara, as its derivation suggests, is the more limited term, viz. particular, special acts of sin; amapria: [& mépos, pelpy, Buttm. Lexil. No, 15, note] the more inclusive and abstract, embracing ail forms, phases, and movements of sin, whether entertained in thought or con- summated in act; see Trench, Synon. Part 11. § 16, and comp. notes on Col. Ty ee 2. ais] ‘in which ;’ not so much with ref. to the prevailing direction (De Wette), as the sphere in which they habitually moved. It does not however seem necessary to press the meaning of mepurareiv (‘sphere in which they trod,’ Eadie), this being one of those words in the N.T. which So Lachm., are used with so strong a Hebraistic colouring (see the list, Winer, Gr. § 3, p- 31), that in several passages it denotes little more than ‘vivere:’ see Fritz. Rom. xiii. 12, Vol. Il. p. 141, Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 679. Kata Tov aidva, K.T.A.] ‘according to the course of this world, Auth., Kren [woXs5 olarto\s [mun- danitatem mundi hujus] Syr. ; the ethi- cal meaning of aidy here appy. pre- dominating ; see on ch. i. 21. In such cases as the present the meaning seems to approach that of ‘tendency, spirit, of the age’ (Olsh.), yet still not without distinct trace of the regular temporal notion, which, even in those passages where aia seems to imply little more than our ‘world’ (comp. 2 Tim. iv. Io), may still be felt in the idea of the (evil) course, development, and progress (‘ubi ztas mala malam excipit’), that is ta- citly associated with the term; see Beng. in loc., and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét, Iv. 20, Vol. 1. p. 228. Any Gnostic reference (Baur, Paulus, p. 433), as St Paul’s frequent use of the word satisfactorily proves, is completely out of the question. Kata Tov dpxovta K.T.A.] ‘according to the prince of the power or empire of the air, scil. the devil; climax to the foregoing member, the contrast being kata Oedv, ch. iv. 24. Without en- tering into the various interpretations these difficult words have received, we will here only notice briefly, (1) the D o4 IiPOz E®EZIOY2. ~ s , Lal 2) 7 ~ , lol Lal apxov7 a THS e£ouclas TOU aepos, TOU TVEVAATOS TOU VYUY simple meaning of the words; (2) their grammatical connexion ; (3) their pro- bable explanation. (1) The two cardinal words are éfovcia and dnp. The furmer, like many words in -ia (Bernhardy, Synt. 1. 2, p. 47), seems to be used, not exactly for é£ovcla, scil. as an abstract implying the con- crete possessors of the é&ouvcla (comp. -Dionys. Hal. vin. 44), but as a collec- tive designation of their empire and sovereignty; see esp. Lobeck, Phryn. p- 469. *Arjp is used thrice by St Paul besides this place, thrice in the rest of the N.T.; (a) ‘the air’ simply and generally, Acts xxii. 23, 1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9, and appy. Rev. ix. 2; (8) as ‘the air,’ probably with strict phy- sical reference, Rev. xvi. 17; (vy) as ‘the air or sky,’ appy. tacitly corre- lative to yj (the seat of the mepide- momevot), I Thess. iv. 17. We seem then bound to reject all partial inter- pretations, ¢.g. cxérTos (Heinsius, Kiittn. ap. Peile), awvetua (Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. I. p. 403), and to leave the con- text to define the specific meaning and (2) The “cul potestas est aeris,’ Beza; nor quali- ‘application of the word. gen. dépos is not a gen. objecti, tatis, scil. déptos, dowmaros (so Chrys. appy , but not the Gk. Fathers gene- -rally), but a gen. of place, denoting their évaépioy diarpiByv (Cicum.), the seat of their spiritual empire; ovx ws Tov dépos deomdfovra, aAN ws avTe@ Theoph.: compare Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 33. a, p. 137. (3) The explanation really turns on the latitude of meaning assigned to dip. Without venturing to deny that the word may mysteriously intimate a near propinquity of the spirits of evil, it may still be said that the limitation to the physical atmosphere (Mey.) is as precarious in doctrine, as the refer- é€upiroxwpotvra® ence to some ideal ‘atmosphere belting a death-world’ (Eadie), or to ‘the com- mon parlance of mankind’ (AIf.), is too vague and undefined. “The natural explanation seems to be this; that as ovpavos is used in a limited and par- tial (Matth. vi. 26), as well as an un- circumscribed meaning, so conversely anp, which is commonly confined to the region of the air or atmosphere, may be extended to all that supra- terrestrial but sub-celestial region (6 Umoupdvios Témos, Chrys.) which seems to be, if not the abode, yet the haunt of evil spirits jsee esp. Job i. 7 LXX, euTepirarycas Ti vm’ ovpavdy: comp. Olsh. 2 loc., and Stuart, Bibl. Sacra for 1843, p. 139; see also Hagenbach, Stud.u. Krit. Vol. 1. p. 479. Quotations out of Rabbinical writings and Greek philosophers will be found in Wetst. and Harl. in loc., but that St Paul drew his conceptions from the former (Mey.) or the latter (Wetst.) we are slow indeed to believe: see the re- marks on (ral. iv. 24. TOU amvevpatos| ‘the spirit;’ scil. the evil principle of action, more specially de- fined by the succeeding words. The explanation of this gen. is not easy, as exegesis appears to suggest one The most convenient assumption, an ano- maly of case (gen. for accus. in appo- sition to tov dpx. x.7.., Heinichen, EKuseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 20, Vol. II. p. 99), is so doubtful, that it seems best with Winer (Gr. § 67. 3, p. 558) to re- gard the gen. as dependent on 7év dpxovra, and in apposition with é£ov- clas: mvedua not referring like éfovela construction, grammar another. to the aggregate of individual rveduara (rdvros évaeplov mvevmaros, Theoph. ; comp. Eadie, Alf.), a very doubtful meaning, owing to the difference of termination, but to the evil principle ik ole 3- vo) qn - ic A ) , ’ eo AG xe a evepyourros év Tois viois Tis ameBetas, Ev olg Kal mets 3 , , ’ rye 9 ’ A \ TaVvres aver Tpaymev TOTE EV TALS eT Oumiats THS oapkos which animated the empire, and ema- nated from There is confessedly an exegetical difficulty in the expression tév dpx. Tov mvevu.: this however may be re- moved, either by supplying a similar but more appropriate substantive out of tov dpx., or (what is in effect the same) by observing that rod mvevaros has a species of objective meaning reflected on it from the words with which it is in apposition. There is probably, as Harless and Meyer sug- gest, a tacit antithesis in Tod mv. to the IIvetua 7d éx Tob Oeod: comp. 1 Cor. ii. 12. viv is commonly re- ferred to the period since the redemp- tion, the time of increased Satanic energy and of hottest strife (De W.); comp. Rev. xii. 12. This however is more than the words seem intended to convey. As zroré, ver. 2, is again repeated in ver. 3, we find the natu- ral antithesis vov...moré: the Apostle specifying the present active existence in one class, the children of disobedience, of the same spirit which formerly wrought not only in his readers but in all: sim. Hammond, and Harless in loe. Tots viots THS amev0.] ‘the sons of disobedience; a Hebraistic circumlocution nearly equi- valent to of €& dmeBelas (comp. Fritz. Rom. ii. 8, Vol. I. p. 105), and serving to mark, more vividly than the adjec- tival construction, the essential and innate disobedience of the subjects, a disobedience to which they belong as children to a parent: comp. ch. v. 6, Col. iii. 6, 1 Thess. v. 5 (notes), 2 Thess. ii. 3; and see Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b, note 2, p. 213, and Gurlitt, Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 728. *Amel#eaa, as in Col. iii. 6 (see critical note in loc.), is neither ‘diffidentia’ (Vulg., Clarom., Satan the ruler of it. ‘ungalaubeinais,’ Goth. ; comp. Auth.), nor admdry (Chrys.), but ‘disobedience’ (Zorm.ralito u 9 [inobedien- ° x tie] Syr., Arm.), whether to the mes- sage of the Gospel or the mandates of the conscience;—sin, in fact, in its most enhanced form, the violation of the dependence of the creature on the Creator: see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 2, Vol. i. p. gt (Clark). 3. éy ots] ‘among whom,’ Auth., scil. dy kal adrol dvres, Riick.; not & ols sc. mapamTdpacay (Syr., Jer.), in which case ver. 2 would illustrate the duapr., ver. 3 the mapamr. The parallelism (év ais...év ofs) is a specious argument for such a reference (see Stier a loc., p. 252); still, gramma- tical perspicuity, the studied change to dvectpdg¢nuev, and even more the very general nature of the distinction between rapamTa@mara and dpuapriat, are seriously opposed to it: comp. 2 Cor. i. 12, where dveorp. is similarly used with a double éy, the first here (semi-local) referring to the surround- ing objects, 1 Tim. iii. 15; the second (ethical) to the element in which they moved, 2 Pet. ii. 18. Kal Ets mavres| ‘even we all;’? Jews and Gen- tiles, not Jews alone (Mey.). As te?s (ver. I, 2) denotes the Gentile world, so it might be argued jmuets would seem naturally to refer to the Jews. To this however the addition of rdvres presents an insuperable objection, as being almost obviously designed to preclude any such limitation, and to expand to both classes the reference (cuvratre Kal éavrdvy, Theod.): we all, both called and reclaimed Jews and converted Gentiles, were once members of that fearful company, the ‘viol THs deeias: comp. Alf. 7m loc. DZ 36 WPO2 E®EZIOY2. aA n 4 a A 4A ~ na NUOV, TOLOUYTES TA DeANMATA THY TapKOS Kal TOY Sravowy, Nay , / ° a e 4 e , e Oe rs) , 4 KQl Huey TEKVA pucet OPY IS, WS KaL OL Aotrot: 0 0€ Veos, Ta VA para THs TapKés| ‘the (various) desires of the flesh.’ The plural is not elsewhere found in the N.T. (Acts xiii. 22 is a quotation), though not unusual in the LXX; Psalm cxi. 2, 2 Chron. ix. 12, Isaiah xliv. 28, lviii. 13, al. It here probably denotes the various exhibitions and manifestations of the will, and is thus symmetrical with, but a fuller expansion of ézv@v- plats. On the true meaning of cdpé, ‘the life and movement of man in the hings of the world of sense,’ see Miil- er, Doclr. of Sin, 11. 2, Vol. I. p. 352 sq., and esp. notes on Gal. vy. 16. Ttav Siavoiov!| ‘of the thoughts,’ scil. ‘of the evil thoughts’ (comp. dvado- yicuol. movnpol, Matth. xv. 19); the ethical meaning however not being due to the plural (‘die schwankenden wechselnden Meinungen,’ Harl.), but, as Mey. justly observes, to the con- text; comp. 7a diavojpara, Luke xi. 17. It is added, not to strengthen the meaning of odpé (Holzh.), but to in- clude both sources whence our evil desires emanate, the worldly sensual tendency of our life on the one hand, and the spiritual sins of our thoughts and intentions on the other: so Theod. in loc., except that he too much limits the meaning of odpé. On the meaning of didvoww, as usually marking the motions of the thoughts and will on the side of their outward manifesta- tions, sce Beck, Seelen/. 11. 19, p. 58. kal Apev] ‘and we were; with great definiteness as to the relation of time, the change of construction from the (present) part. to the oratio directa being intended to give emphasis to the weighty clause which follows (see notes, ch, i. 20), and also to discon- nect it from any possible relation to the present; ‘we were children of wrath by nature,—it was once our state and condition, it is now so no Téxva pice dpyqs] ‘children by nature—of wrath.’ This important clause can only be properly investigated by noticing separately (1) the simple meaning of the words; (2) their grammatical connexion ; (3) their probable dogmatical application. (1) We begin with (a) téxva, which is not simply identical with the Hebra- istic viol, ver. 2, but, as Bengel felt, = longer. is obviously more significant and sug- gestive; see Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 14. The word arouses the attention; ‘we were tTéxva,—that bespeaks a near and close relation;—but of what? Of God? No,—‘of wrath;’ its actual and definite objects: see Stier in loc. p- 256, and comp. Hofm. Schrift. Vol. I. p. 497. (6)’Opyi) has its pro- per meaning, and denotes, not Tywapla or ko\aots itself (Suicer, Zhesawr. s.v. ‘Vol. 11. p. 505), but the moving prin- ciple of it, God’s holy hatred of sin, which reveals itself in His punitive (c) The ymeaning of @vgec has been much con- The general distinction of Waterland (Second Defence, Qu. XXIV. Vol. 1. p. 723) seems perfectly satis- + factory, that @voe in Scripture relates justice; comp. Rom. i. 18. tested. to something inherent, innate, fixed, and implanted from the first, and is in opposition to something accessional, superinduced, and accidental; or, as Harl. more briefly expresses it, ‘das Gewordene im Gegensatz zum Ge- machten:’ comp. Thorndike, Covenant of Grace, 11. to, Vol. 111. p. 170 (A.-C. :Libr.). The more exact meaning must be determined by the context: comp. Gal. it. 15, Rom. i. 14, Gal- iv. 8; where gvcec respectively means, (a) transmitted, inborn nature; (8) inhe- id WET Ase 5- 37 <\ ‘ , x mAovcLOS wy ev EAEEl, OLA THY TOAAHY ayamny avTou hv nyamnsev Huds, Kal OvTas Huds veKpous Tols Tapa- 5 rent nature; (y) essential nature. The connexion must here guide us. (2) Connexion. Pice is to be joined with Téxva, not dpyys (Holzh., Hofm. Schrifth. Vol. 1. p. 497), and defines the aspect under which the predicate shows itself (see Madvig, Synt. § 40) ; the unusual order [with BKS: ADE PGL reverse it but appy. by way of emendation] appearing to have arisen from a limitation of a judgment which St Paul was about to express unlimit- edly: the Jews were the covenant people of God; Jews and Gentiles (nuets) could not then equally and unrestrictedly be called réxva dpyijs: see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, tv. 2, Vol. II. p. 306. (3) The doctrinal reference turns on the meaning of dice. This the limiting connexion seems to show must imply what is innate; for if it implied ‘habitual or developed cha- racter’ (e.g. Aflian, Var. Hist. 1X. 1, pice pi\dpyupos: see exx. in Wetst., and comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 116), there would be little need of the limi- tation, and little meaning in the as- sumed contrast to ‘filii adoptione,’ This is further confirmed by the tense (see above) and the argument ‘ex simili’ in ws xal oi Estius ap. Poli Syn. Aowrrol (joav), for it must have been some universal state to have applied to all the rest of mankind. Still i: must fairly be said that the unem- phatic position of gtce renders it doubtful whether there is any special contrast to xdpiTt, or any direct asser- tion of the doctrine of Original Sin ; but that the clause contains an in- direct, and therefore even more con- vincing assertion of that profound truth, it seems impossible to deny. The very long but instructive note of Harless in Joc. may be consulted with profit. 4. 6 8& QOeds] ‘but God.’ Re- sumption of ver. 1 after the two rela- tival sentences, év ais ver. 2, and év ois ver. 3; 6é€ being correctly used rather than oiv, as the resumption also involves a contrast to the pre- ceding verse. The declaration of the é\eos of God forms an assuring and consoling antithesis to the foregoing statement that by nature all were ithe subjects of His épy7. On the use of 6é after a parenthesis, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 377, Hartung, Par- tik. 6é, 3. 2, Vol. I. p. 173: the use of ‘autem’ in Latin is exactly similar, see esp. Hand, Jursell. s.v. § 9, Vol. I. p. 569; Beza’s correction of the ‘autem’ of the Vulg. to ‘sed’ is there- fore not necessary. Tovotos My K.T.A.] ‘being rich in mercy, scarcely ‘ut qui dives sit,’ Bezv (comp. Madvig, Lat. Gramm. § 366. 2), as the participial clause does not here so much assign the reason, as characterize (in the form of a secondary predicate of time, ‘being as He is;’ comp. Donalds. Gr. § 442. a) the general principle under which the divine compassion was exhibited. The more particular motive (De W.) is stated in the succeeding clause. The expression mAovcvos év (ovx arGs éXejuov, Chrys.) occurs James il. 5, and points to the object or sphere in which the richness is apparent; comp. 1 Cor. i. 5. On the distinction be- tween éAeos and olatipuds, the former being more generic, the latter more specific and stronger, see Fritz. Rom. be 5, WIE amin gos Since Vv Hyarnoev pas] ‘wherewith He loved us;’ cognate accus., serving to add force and emphasis to the meaning of the verb; see exx. in Winer, Gr. IIPO= ©2 DQ E®EZIOY2. lo Co , TTOMATLY TUVECWOTOLNTEV Tw Xpict@ (xapere €oTE A 4 , eS) a 6 TETWTMEVOL), Kat ouvyyeipev, Kat ouvexabicev ev ois $ 32.2, p. 200, and in Donalds. Gr. § 466. The pronoun fds obviously includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and is co-extensive with Nets Wares, ver. 3. 5. kal dvras tas vexp.] ‘even while we were dead, kat not being otiose (comp. Syr., Alth.), nor the simple copula (Mey.), nor a mere repetition of kal from ver. 1, but qualifying dvras (Syr.-Phil.), and suggesting more for- cibly than in ver. t (where it quali- fies Judas) the might of the quickening power of God which extended even to a state of moral death. Kal vexpods k.T.X. would certainly seem a more natural order (Fritz. Conject. in N. T.., p- 45; comp. Chrys. rods vexpods... TovTous éfwor.), but as St Paul seems to wish to make their state of death, its permanence and its endurance, more felt than the mere fact of it, the ascensive particle is joined with the participle rather than with the pre- ‘dicate; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. uw. p. 638. ocvvelwotrolynoey 7® Xp.] ‘He together quickened with Christ,’ not ‘in Christ,’ Copt., Arm., Vulg., perhaps following the reading but ‘with Christ,’ bosa%o Os Syr., molnoe Kakeivoy Kal aces: Chrys. ouwes. vy, B; 17, al.; al.; éfwo- The previous statement of the spiritual nature of their death, and the similar (but, owing to the mention of baptism, not wholly parallel) passage, Col.ii.13, seem to show that ouveg. has reference lo spiritual life, the life of grace. It is thus not necessary to consider the realization as future (Theod.), nor even with Theoph. (judas Suvdue viv, per’ ONlyov 6 Kal évepyeta) to limit the present degree of it: the aorist has its proper and characteristic force ; wrought ‘ipso facto’ in all who are nited with Him. Meyer aptly cites Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 206, ‘ ponitur aoristus de re, quae quamvis futura sit, tamen pro peracta recte censeatur fom God wrought in Christ He . . . cum alia re jam facta continea- tur.’ It is then just possible that ouves. may include also a future and physical reference (Rom. viii. 1c, 11, see notes ver. 6), but that its primary reference is to an actually existent and spiritual state, it seems very diffi- cult to deny. Xapurl éore cecwopevor] ‘hy grace ye have been (and are) saved; see notes on ver. 8. This emphatic mention of grace (grace, not works) is to make the readers feel what their own hearts might otherwise have caused them to doubt,—the real and vital truth, that they have present and actual fellow- ship with Christ in the quickening, yea and even in the resurrectionary and glorifying power of God; see esp. Origen (Cram. Caten.), and corp. Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. v. 1, ad init. 6. cvvryepev . . . cvvexcOiorer] ‘He raised us with (Him), He en- throned us with (Him).’ The simple meaning of these verbs, and esp. of the latter, seems to confine the refer- ence to what is future and objective. Still, as cuvefworolncer, though pri- marily spiritual and present, may have a physical and future reference,—so here conversely, a present spiritual resurrection and enthronement may also be alluded to: as Andrewes truly says, ‘even now we sit there in Him, and shall sit with Him in the end; Serm. vit. Vol. I. p. 115 (A.-C. Libr.). This may be referred (a) to the close nature of our union with Christ, so 6 7% 39 eroupaviots ev Xptato noord, iva évdeEntar ev Tois aloow 7 - ° , A e / ~ ~ , TOLS ETEPKOMEVOLS TO uTepBarAov TAOUTOS THS XapLTOS that His resurrection and exaltation may be said to be actually ours in Him (cedar) yap qudv 6 cuvedpedwr, aTapx) Nuay 6 cuuBaciievav’ Theod.) ; or more simply, (6) to that divine efficacy of the quickening power of God which extends itself to spiritually indeed present (Phil. iii. 20, Rev. i. 6), but strictly speaking future and contingent: compare esp. Rom. vill. 30, where the aorists are used with equal significance and ef- fect. év Tots érrovpaviots] ‘in the heavenly places; see notes on ch. i. 3, 20. Bengel has noticed how (ee ton St Paul omits the spe- issues cific év de&g@ of ch. i. 20; ‘non dicit in dextrd; Christo sua manet excel- lentia:’ comp. Est. in loc. év Xp.’Inood must not be connected simply with é Tots érovp. (Peile, Eadie), but with cuviyepey and cuve- KdOicev évy Tots éroup.: comp. ch. i. 3. At first sight the clause might seem superfluous, but, when more attentively considered, it will be found to define the deep mystical nature of the union: God 7yepev, Exdficer, judas, not only atv Xp., but & Xp.: not only with Christ by virtue of our fellowship, but in Christ by virtue of our mystical, entral, aud organic union with Him. On the nature of this union, see Hooker, Serm, 11. Vol. U1. p. 762 (ed. Keble), Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 445, Vol.1. p-323, Martensen, Dogmatik, $176. obs. 7. la évdelEnror] ‘in order that He might show forth ;’ divine purpose of the gracious acts specified in ver, 5, 6. The middle voice évéeltacba is not used (either here or Rom. ii. 15, ix. 17, 22, 2 Cor. vill. 24) with any reference to ‘a sample or spe- cimen of what belonged to Him’ (Riick., Eadie), but either simply implies ‘for Himself, 7.e. for His glory’ (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 363. 1), ‘let be seen’ (Peile); or, still more pro- bably, is used with only that general subjective reference, ‘show forth his, &e.’ (the ‘dynamic’ middle of Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8. 5; see Kuster de Verb. Med. § 58, and exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v.), which, owing to the following avro®, can hardly be re- tained in translation. The word oc- curs eleven times in the N.T. (only in St Paul’s Epp. and Heb.), always in the middle voice. In fact, as deixvune is but rarely used in the middle voice, though in a few formulz (see Ast, Lec. Plat. s.v.) it involves a middle sense; so évdeikvusat, which is not common in the act. except in legal forms, may in the middle in- volve little more than an active mean- ing; comp. Donalds. G7. § 434, p. 447. év Tots at@ow Tois émrepx.] ‘in the ages which are coming.’ These words have been unduly limited. Any special references to the then present and immediately coming age (‘per omne vestrum tempus,’ Mor.), or to the still future kingdom of Christ, the alav 6 médAXNwv, ch. i. 21 (Harl., Olsh.), seem precluded respec- tively by the use of the plural and the appended pres. part. érepxou. The most simple meaning appears to be ‘the successively arriving ages and generations from that time to the second coming of Christ,’ ‘tempora inde ab apostolicis illis ad finem mundi secutura:’ Wolf. Such expres- sions as the present deserve especial notice, as they incidentally prove how very ill-founded is the popular opinion adopted by Meyer and others, that St Paul believed the Advent of the Lord to be close at hand; see on t 40 IIPOZ E®ESIOYS. 9 Lal ’ a an a lal 8 auTou ev Xpurtornr ep Has eV Xpisto "Incov. TH 4 , (het) , A ’ 4 lal yap XApleTe EOTE TETWOMEVOL Ova TLOTEWS’ KAL TOUTO ovK 8. dua rictews] So Lachm. with BD'FGN; 4 mss.; Chrys., al. In ed. 1, 2, the reading adopted was dia Tis alorews with ADEKL: nearly all mss. ; Theod., Dam., al. (Zisch.); now however the addition of N seems in the pre- sent case sufficient just to turn the critical balance. Thess. iv. 15. To tTepBaddov trodtos] ‘the exceeding riches; an especially and studiedly strong ex- pression designed to mark the ‘ satis superque’ of God’s grace in our re- demption by Christ; comp. ch. iii. 20, 1 Tim. i. 14, and see Andrewes, Serm. 1. Vol. 11. p. 197 (A.-C. Libr.).’ The neuter m\oiros is adopted with ABD'FGN? (SN! omits the verse); 17 67** ; Orig. (1), and by Lachm., Tisch., and most recent editors. év xpyTTSTHTL ep Tyas ev Xp. Ino. ] ‘in goodness towards us in Christ Je- sus; a single compound modal clause appended to évdelé.: €v xp. Ep’ Hu. being closely connected (comp. Luke vi. 35 ; the art. is not necessary, see notes on (i i. 16), and defining accurately the manner in which God displays ‘the riches of His grace,’ while év X. ’T. (‘in,’ not ‘through Christ Jesus,’ Auth.; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347, note 3) specifies, as it were, the ever- blessed sphere to which its manifes- tations are confined, and in which alone its operations are felt. Well do Calvin and Stier call attention to this ‘notanda repetitio nominis Christi’ (contrast the melancholy want of ap- preciation of this in De W.), and the es areas of that eternal truth which pervades this divine epistle, —‘ nur in Christo Jesu das alles, und anders nicht,’ Stier, p. 273; see notes on chiens: On the meaning of xpnororns see notes on Gal. v. 22. 8. TH yap xapure] ‘For by grace,’ confirmatory explanation of the truth and justice of the expression 76 ve. k.7.X. by a recurrence to the statement made parenthetically in ver. 5. The rticle is thus not added merely be- cause xdpis ‘expresses an idea which is familiar, distinctive, and monadic in its nature’ (Eadie), but because there is a retrospective reference to Xdpire in ver.5, where the noun, being used adverbially, is properly anar- throus: see Middleton, Greek Art. v. 2, p. 96 (ed. Rose). It may be ob- served that the emphasis rests on 77 xapitt, the further member 61a i- crews being added to define the weighty éoTE cegwomevor. xapis is the objec- tive, operating, and instrumental cause of salvation; mlaris the subjective medium by which it is received, the causa apprehendens, or to use the lan- guage of Hooker, ‘the hand which putteth on Christ to justification, Serm. 1. 31; comp. Waterland, Justif. Vol. VI. p. 22, and a good sermon by Sher- lock, Vol. I. p. 323 sq. (ed. Oxf.). éote Terwopévor] ‘ye have been (and are) saved.’ It is highly improper to attempt to dilute either the normal meaning of the verb (‘salvum facio,’ ‘ad eternam vitam perduco,’ see Suicer, Zhesaur. s.y.) or the proper force of the tense. The perfect indi- cates ‘actionem plane preteritam, que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, aut per effectus suos durat’ (Poppo, Progr. de emend. Matth. Gramm. p. 6); and in short serves to connect the past and the present, while the aorist leaves such a connexion wholly unnoticed ; see esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. $ 56, and comp. Scheuerl Synt. § 32. / v PEP ONO; LO: 4] , e& iuov, Qcov To d@pov" ouk €& epyov, iva my TW Kav- Gg XyTNTAL avTOU yap erpmev Toinua, KTITOEVTES Ev XpisT@ 10 5, p. 342. Thus then ésré ceowou. denotes a present state as well as a for, as Eadie justly observes, ‘Salvation is a pre- sent blessing, though it may not be fully realized.’ On the other hand, terminated action; éowOnuev (Rom. viii. 24) is not év Tots cwfouévos éouév (Peile), but simply ‘we were saved,’ the context éAmidc supplying the necessary explanation. Sid miorews] ‘through faith; sub- / jective medium and condition; see above, and comp. Hammond, Pract. Catech. p. 42 (A.-C. Libr.). It is not necessary to adopt here the modifica- tion suggested by Bull: ‘ per fidem hic intelligit obedientiam evangelio pree- stitam, cujus fides specialiter sic dicta non tantum initium est sed et radix et fundamentum,’ Harm. Apost. 1. 12, 8. The contrast with é& gpywy, and connexion with xdpiti, seem to show that mioris is ‘reliance on the divine grace’ (Waterland, Justif. Vol. VI. p- 37), ‘the living capacity,’ as it is termed by Olsh., ‘for receiving the powers of a higher world; xdpus being hus identical with imparting, lore with receiving love; see Olshaus. 07 Rom, iii. 21, and comp. Usteri, Lehrb Wie Wie Hy (Ds, 205i Kal tovto] ‘and this,’ sc. 7d cecwopn eivac (Theoph. 2), not ‘nempe ho quod credidistis,’ Bull, Joc. cit., wit Chrys., Theod., Theoph. 1, al., se Suicer, iViolatees pee 7728 Grammatically considered, kal tor (=kal ratra, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v ovTos, Vol. 11. p.599) might be referre to a verbal notion (76 micrevew) de rived from wloris, but the logical diffi- culty of such a connexion with é& épywy (parallel and explanatory to €£ tudv) seems insuperable. Still it may be said that the clause kal Tovro Thesaur. kK T.\. was suggested by the mention of the subjective medium icrus, which might be thought to imply some independent action on the part of the subject (comp. Theod.): to prevent even this supposition, the Apostle has recourse to language still more rigor- ously exclusive. Ocod To Sapov] ‘of God is the gift,’ scil. O¢od dGpov 7d d@pov éori: the gen. Qeoi, emphatic on account of the antithesis to vue, being thus the predicate; 7d dGpov (‘the peculiar gift in question,” TO cecwou. elvar dia THs Thor.) the subject of the clause: see Riickert in loc. Harl., Zachm., and De W. in- close these words in a parenthesis, but certainly without reason: the slight want of connexion seems designed to add force and emphasis. 9g. ovdK €& epywv] ‘not of works; more exact explanation of the pre- ceding ov« é€& vuay, and thus standing more naturally in connexion with kai tovro than with 76 6@pov [éorl] (Mey.). The sense however in either case is the same. The grammatical meaning of é& épywy is investigated in notes on Gal. ii. 16; its doctrinal applications are noticed by Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 419 (Bohn). Wo. py TUS Kavx.] ‘that no man should boast ;’ purpose of God, involved in and in- cluded in the ‘lex suprema’ alluded to in the foregoing ov« é& épyar, comp. Rom. iii. 27. of boasting was not the primary and special object of God’s appointment of salvation by grace through faith (comp. Mackn.), still less was it merely the result (Peile), but was a purpose (iva The repression evyvapovas mepl Thy xdpw Toon, Chrys.) that was necessarily insepa- rable from His gracious plan of man’s salvation. On the force and use of 42 WPO2 E®EZIOY2. 2 a fae 9 a) - Q) , € a) ‘ oe 4o7OU ETL epyols aya OLS, OLS T PONTOLUacev oO €os lva s 3 ~ EV GUTOLS TEPLTATYTWMEV. iva, see notes on ch. 1. 17. Io. avtod yap K.T.A.] ‘for we are His handiwork, ‘ipsius enim sumus proof of the fore- going sentences kal ToiTo...d@pov and factura,’ Vulg. ; oun e& épywv; the emphatic av’rod pointing to the positive statement that the gift of salvation comes from God, and the assertion of our being His (spiritual) oinua to the negative statement that salvation is not é& juay, or as further explained, ov« é& épywv. If we are God's roinua, our «salvation, our all, must be due to Him (comp. Bramhall, Castig. Vol. Iv. 232, A.-C. Libr.): if we are a spiritual Tolnua (Thy avayévynow évraiéa ai- virrerat, Chrys.), spiritually formed and designed for good works, our sal- ation can never be é€& épywv (whether of the natural, moral, or ritual law) which preceded that dvdxrwois: see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 476 note (ed. Bohn). KTio-OéyTes év Xp. Ino.] ‘ created in Christ Jesus 7 defining clause, explaining the true application and meaning of the pre- ceding moliywa: compare ver. 15, and the expression kaw? Kriows, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi.15, with notes i loc. That the reference of ro{nua is not to the physical, and that of xric@. to the spiritual creation (‘quantum ad sub- stantiam fecit, quantum ad gratiam condidit,’ Tertull. Marc. v. 17), but that both to the dvdaxriats, not only appears from the context, but is asserted by the best ancient (o} Kkata& Tiv mpdrnv Néyer Onmioupylav, a\Aa KaTa Thy Sevrépar, Theod., comp. Gicum.), and accepted by the best modern commentators ; be it does not seem improbable that refer spiritual the more general and inclusive word oinua was designed to suggest the analogy (Harl.) between the physical creation and the spiritual re-creation of man. For a sound sermon on this text see Beveridge, Serm. 1v. Vol. U. p- 417 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). éml epyos dyabots] ‘for good works,’ i.e. ‘to do good works ;’ ent denoting the object or purpose for which they be created: see Winer, Gr. § 48. ¢, p- 351, notes on Gal. v. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 7, and exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. Il. p. 546. On the doctrinal and practical aspects of the clause, see Beveridge, Serm. Iv. Vol. u. p. 418. ois mpontoipacey] ‘which God afore prepared,’ Rise) $ou0 0? [ab initio paravit] Syr., ‘prius paravit,’ Copt., Aith., ‘preeparavit,’ Vulg., Cla- om. The construction, meaning, and doctrinal significance of these words, have been much discussed. We may remark briefly, (1) that owing to the absence of the usual accus. after mponroiu. (Isaiah xxviii..24, Wisdom ix. 8, Rom. ix. 23), ofs cannot be ‘ the dative of the object,’ ‘for which God hath from the first provided,’ Peile, but is simply (by the usual attraction) for ad: see Winer, Gr. § 24. I, p. 147, and § 22. 4. obs. p. 135. So Vulg., Syr., Copt., al., and the majority of (2) Iponrolu. is not neuter (Beng., Stier): the simple verb is so used, Luke ix. 52, 2 Chron. i. 4 (7), but there is no evidence of a similar use of the compound. Nor is it equivalent (in regard to things) with mpoopl¢w (in regard to persons), Harl., a paraphrastic translation rightly con- demned by Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, Vol. II. p. 339, ‘aliud est enim parare érot- pagew [to make roma, éra, see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. @roimos], aliud de- Lastly, neither here commentators. Jjinire oplgev.’ 1 aS i Remember that ye were once aliens, but have now been brought nigh. 15) FS: 45 {4 a A a 4 Ato pvnmovevere OTL TOTE VmEls TA II €Ovn ev TapKl, ot Neyomevor axpoBuatia UTO Tis Neyouevys TepLToMys eV TUAPKL XELPOT OWT OU, OTt 12 nor Rom. /.c. must the force of pd be neglected: compare Philo, de Opif. § 25, Vol. 1. p. 18 (ed. Mang.), ws olkevoTdT@ ... (wy TH ev KboMwW TavTa Tpontomdoaro, rightly translated by Fritz., ‘ante paravit quam conde- t.’ (3) Thus then we adhere to the simplest meaning of the words, using the latter part of the clause to xplain any ambiguity of expression n the former: ‘God, before we were created in Christ, made ready for us, re-arranged, prepared, a sphere of moral action, or (to use the simile of Chrys.) a road, with the intent that we should walk in it, and not leave it; this sphere, this road, was épya ayaéa: comp. Beveridge, Serm. l.c. p.428. On the important doctrinal statement fairly deducible from this text,—‘ bona opera sequuntur hominem justifica- tum non precedunt in homine justifi- cando,’ see Jackson, Creed, XI. 30. 6. tr. Avéd] ‘ Wherefore,’ since God has vouchsafed such blessings to you and to all of us; not in exclusive re- ference to ver. 10, dre éxtic@nuev er’ épyos ayabots, Chrys., nor alone to ver. 4—10 (Mey.), but, as the use of vuers (comp. ver. 1) suggests, to the whole, or rather to the declaratory portion of the foregoing paragraph, ver. I—7}; ver. 8—1o being an argu- mentative and explanatory addition. On St Paul’s use of 614, comp. notes on Gal. iv. 31. The construction, which is not perfectly clear, is com- monly explained by the introduction of dvres before Ta €Ovy (Fuld.), or re before (Syr.) or after (Goth.) év capxt. This is not necessary: the position of moré (as rightly maintained by Lachm., Tisch., with ABD'EN?; Cla- rom., Sangerm., Aug., Vulg., al.) seems to suggest that ra €6vn x.7.X. is simply in apposition to tpets. “Ore and zroré are then respectively resumed by érc and 7@ Karp@ éxelvy in ver. 12; see Meyer in loc. Ta evn ev capt] ‘ Gentiles in the flesh.’ On the correct insertion of the article before é0vn (to denote class, category), see Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 2. 2, p. 40 (Rose) ; and on its equally correct omission before év (ra é@v. & o. forming only one idea), see Winer, G7. § 20. 2. p. 123, notes ch. i. 15, and Fritz. Rom. Til 25-)) VOl aie LO Fe not ‘to their natural descent’ (Hamm.), nor to their cor- rupted state (ov« év mvevuart, Theoph., °Ev capi is in reference “unregenerate Gentiles,’ Peile; comp. Syr.), but, as the use of the word below distinctly suggests, to the corporeal mark; ‘preeputium profani hominis indicium erat:’ Calv. They bore the proof of their Gentilism in their flesh and on their bodies. ot Aeyépevor axpoBvotia «.T.A.] ‘who are called contemptuously the Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision.’ Both axpoB. and mepir. are used as the dis- tinctive names or titles of the two classes, Gentiles and Jews. On the omission of the art. before dxpoBvor. (a verb ‘ vocandi’ having preceded), see Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3. 2, p. 43 (Rose); and on the derivation of the word (an Alexandrian corruption of axporrog Ola), Fritz. Rom. ii. 26, Vol. 1. p. 136. év awapKl xeLpo- moujtov] ‘wrought by hand in the flesh,’ ‘et est opus manuum in carne,’ Syr.; a tertiary predication (see Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq., and observe the idiomatically exact transl. of Syr.), added by the Apostle reflectively rather than descriptively: ‘the cir- 44 Il1PO2 E®EZIOY2. = r AS 9 4 x a 9 XA , TE TH KalO@ EKELVW XLPES PLTT ou, aT OT PLWMEVOL cumcision,—yes, hand-wrought in the flesh ; only a visible manual operation on the flesh, when it ought to be a secret spiritual process in the heart; only kararouy, not mepitouy: comp. Rom. ii. 28, 29, Phil. iii. 3, Col. ii. tf. Thus then, as Calvin rightly felt, the Apostle expresses no con- tempt for the outward rite, which he himself calls a ofppayida THs buKao- ctvys, Rom. iv. 11, but only (as the present words suggest) at the assump- tion of such a title (observe 77s Neyou., not rav eyou.) by a people who had no conception of its true and deep significance. The Gentiles were call- ed, and really were the daxpoBvaria: the Jews were called the zepitoun, but were not truly so. 12. OTe yre] ‘that ye were; re- sumption of the 67: in ver. 11, and continuation of the suspended sen- tence; see notes on ver. II. TO Katp@ éxetvw] ‘at that time; ‘in your heathen state.’ The prep. év (here rightly omitted by Lachm., Tisch., with ABD'FGS; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Aug., al.; Chrys.), though occasionally omitted (2 Cor. vi. 2 quotation, Gal. vi. g), is more commonly, and indeed more correctly, inserted in this and similar forms: comp. Rom. iii. 26, iy By 2 (Chom, vat, 36}, WMO, He Oe and see Wannowski, Constr. Abs. 111. I, p. 88, Madvig, Synt. § 39, and comp. ib. Lat. Gr. § 276. aTe ..-Xopls Xprortod] ‘ ye were...without Christ xwpis Xp. forming a predi- cate (Syr.; ‘et nesciebatis Christum,’ AMth.), not a limiting clause to 7re ...amnddoTp. (De W., Eadie), which would be a singularly harsh construc- tion. The Ephesians, whom St Paul here views as the representatives of Gentilism (Olsh.), were, in their hea- then ante-Christian state, truly xwpls Xp., without the Messiah, without the promised Seed (contrast Rom. ix. 4 8q.); now however ‘eum possi- detis non minus quam ii quibus pro- The two following clauses, each of two parts, missus fuerat:’ Grot. in loc. more exactly elucidate the signifi- cance of the expression, On the distinction between dvevu (‘absence of object from subject’) and xwpls (‘separation of subject from object’), see Tittmann, Synon. p. 94. This distinction however does not appear to be perfectly certain (comp. Phil. ii. 14, with 1 Pet. iv. 9), and must at all events be applied with caution, when it isremembered that ywpls is used 40 times in the N.T., and dvev only 3 times, viz. Matth. x. 29, 1 Pet. iii. 1, iv. 9. Where, in any given writer or writers, there is such a marked pre- ference for one rather than another of two perfectly simple words, it is well not to be hypercritical. é.rm\Aotptopévor k.T.A.] ‘being aliens, or in a state of alienation, from the commonwealth of Isracl;’ in opp. to ouptToNra Tov dylwv, ver. 19. There is a slight difficulty in the exact meaning and application of the words. Reversing the order, for the sake of making the simpler word define the more doubtful, we may observe that *Icpanp is clearly the theocratic name of the Jewish people, the title which marks their religious and spiritual, rather than their national or political distinctions; see Rom. ix. 6, 1 Cor. x. 18, Gal. vi. 10. From this it would seem to follow that troAureta,— which may be either (a) ‘reipublice forma, status,’ tov Thy 7éd\w olkotyTwv Tdéts Tus, Aristot. Pol. 111. 1. 1 (comp. vouiuous moduTrelas opp. to mapavdmous €Oicpovs, 2 Macc. iv. I1, mpoyouxy mo\iTela, vill. 17); or (b) ‘jus civi- Lier: 45 TIS ToNtTElas TOU "Topayr Kal Eéver Tov O1aOnKev Tis ’ , b] , NSP. , , r , eTayyeNlas, eATiOa [Ay ExovTes Kal aBeor ev TH KOTMY. tatis,’ comp. Acts xxii. 28, 3 Mace. ii. 21; or (c) ‘vivendi ratio,’ comp. “conversatione,’ Vulg., Clarom., see Theoph. on ver. 13, and Suicer, The- saur. s.v. Vol. IL. p. 795,—is here used only in the first sense, and with a distinctly spiritual application; so Afth.-Plait, Arm., and most modern commentators. The gen. is thus, not that of the ‘identical notion,’ e.g. dotu ’A@nydv (Harl.), but a simple possessive gen.,—the ‘ reipublice sta- tus’ which belonged to Israel. danAotpiopévor is a noticeable and emphatic word (ov« elre Kexwpicpmévor ...TOAAT T&V pnudrav n eupaccs moddy detxvica Tov Xwpiomov, Chrys.), which seems to hint at a state of former unity and fellowship, and a lapse or separation (do) from it; see ch. iv. 18, Col. i. 21, Ecclus. xi. 34, 3 Mace. i. 3, and comp. Joseph. Antiq. XI. 5. 4, exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298, and in Schweigh. Polyb. Lex. s.v. This union, though not historically demonstrable, is no less spiritually true. Jew and Gentile were once under one spiritual moXirela, of which the Jewish was a subsequent visible manifestation. The Gentile lapsed from it, the Jew made it invalid (Matth. xv. 6, comp. Chrys.); and they parted, only to unite again (v7 kat Naol "Iopand, Acts iv. 27) in one act of uttermost rebellion, and yet, through the mystery of redeem- ing Love, to remain thereby (ver. 15, 16) united in Christ for ever. Eévor TOv SialyKav] ‘ strangers from the covenants ;’ second and more spe- cializing part of the first explanatory clause. The gen. after &évos is not due to any quasi-participial power (Eadie), but belongs to the category of the (‘nverted) possessive gen. (Bern- hardy, Synt. ut. 49, p. 171), or per- haps rather to the gen. of ‘the point of view’ (‘extraneos quod ad_ pac- torum promissiones attinet,’ Beza); see Scheuerl. Synt. § 18. 3. a, p. 135. The use of the plural 6va@FxKac must not be limited, either here or Rom. ix. 4, to the two tables of the law (Elsn., Wolf), nor again unne essarily extended to God’s various covenant- promises to David and the people (comp. De W.), but appears simply to refer to the several renewals of the covenant with the patriarchs: see esp. Wisd. xviii. 22, Sxpous marépuy kal diabjKas: 2 Mace. viii. 15, rds mpos Tovs marépas comp. Rom. xv. 8. avTay diadjKas: The great Mes- sianic promise (Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvil. 8; Chrys., Theoph.) was the subject and substratum of all. eAmSa py exovres] ‘not having hope,’ Auth., ‘spem non habentes,’ Vulg., Clarom., comp. Syr.; general conse- quence of the alienation mentioned in the preceding member; not however with any special dependence on that clause, scil. bore un eéxew édXrlda, ‘so that you had no (covenanted) hope,’ ‘spem promissioni respondentem’ (Beng., comp. Harl.) ;—for (a) the ab- sence of the article shows that é\7ida cannot here be in any way limited, but is simply ‘hope’ in its most gene- ral meaning; and (6) wy can be no further pressed than as simply refer- ring to the thought and feeling of the subject introduced by pynuovevere, ver, 11, ‘having (as you must have felt) no hope;? comp. Winer, G7. § 55.5, p. 428, Herm. Viger, No. 267, and the good collection of exx. in Gayler, Partic. Neg. ch. 1X. p. 275 sq. On the general use in the N. T. of “ with participles, see notes on 1 Thess. 46 WPOZ E®EZIOY2. 4 A ’ ro) ne a e Wc? ‘ 13 VUVL oe eV X piste Iycoo UMELG OL TWOTE OVTES Mak pay 14 eyyus every OTe ev TH aluate TOU Xpicrov. autos yap ih; Te abeor ev TO Koop] ‘without God in the world ;’ objective negation (4 being here equiv. to od with an adj., Harl.; see how- ever Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 35), forming the climax and accumulation of the misery involved in ywpis Xpictod: they were without church and without promise, without hope, and were in the profane wicked world (€v TS koopw being in contrast to 7o- hur. Tod “Iop., and like it ethical in its reference),—without God. ”A@eos may be taken either with active, neuter, or passive reference, i.e. either deny- ing (see exx. Suicer, Z'hes. s.v.), igno- rant of (Gal iv. 8; Deum,’ Aith.; epyuo rijs Oeoyrvwolas, Theod. ; comp. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 14), or forsaken by God (Soph. Gd. Rex, 661, Geos a&dudos): the last meaning seems best to suit the pas- sive tenor of the passage, and to en- hance the dreariness and gloom of the picture. heathenism, see the good note of Har- less in loc. 13. vuvl dé] ‘But now; in anti- thesis to 7@ kaip@ éxetv@, ver. 12. év Xp. *Inood] ‘in Christ Jesus;’ prominent and emphatic; standing in immediate connexion with vuvi (not éyevnOnre, Mey.), which it both qua- lifies and characterizes, and forming a contrast to xwpls Xp., ver.12, The addition of "Iyjcod, far from being an argument against such a contrast (Mey.), is in fact almost confirma- Such an addition was ‘ nesciebatis On. the religious aspects of tory of it. necessary to make the circumstances of the contrast fully felt. Then they were xwpls Xp., separate from and without part in the Messiah; now they were not only é& Xpicrg@ but & XpicrG "Iyood, in a personal Saviour, —in One who was no longer their future hope, but their present salva- tion. The personal reference is appro- priately continued by & 7@ atuart,— not merely atrod, but rod Xp.; He who poured out His blood, Jesus of Nazareth, was truly Christ. éyyis éyevrjOnre] ‘became nigh,’ were brought nigh to God’s holy and spi- ritual qodirela: of paxpay dvTes TIS mwontT. Tod Icp., THs KaTa Oedy eyyvs On the passive form éyev7. see notes on ch. iii. 7, and on the use of the words paxpay and éyyvs in designating Gentiles and Jews (compare the term mpoo7\uror), see the very good illustrations of Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. Vol. I. p. 761 sy., and of Wetst. im loc. ; comp. also Isaiah lvii. 19, Dan. ix. 7 (Theod.), and Valck. on Acts ii. 39, cited by Grin- field, Schol. Hell. on this verse. The order éyev. éyys is adopted by Lachm. with ABN; mss.; Aug., Vulg., Goth., al., but seems due to a mistaken cor- rection of the emphatic juxtaposition jeaxpav eyyus. alpare] ‘by the blood;’ é& having here appy. its instrumental force; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346. No very precise distinction can be drawn be- éyevnOnre’ CXcum. éy TO tween this use and 6a Tod alu. ch. e Yfe ter implies mediate and more simple, the former, immanent instrumentality: comp. Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3, Winer, J. c. p- 347 note, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18. 14. avtds yap] ‘Fur He, and none other than He:’ confirmatory explanation of ver. 13, the emphasis resting, not on eipyvn judy (De W.), but (as the prominent position of év Xp. “Inc. and repetition of Xpiorod, ver. 13, seem decisively to show) on We may perhaps say the lat- TRA wa eo eal as 47 - ’ e Sneey, e - e , Q , , a 4 A ETTLY H ELDIVN HUMWY, O TOLYTAS TA apportepa €V KQl TO , a ~ / ‘ 4 ’ ood a METOTOLYOV TOU ppayliuou Avoas, THY ex Opar, ev TH TapKl 15 avrés, which is thus no mere otiose pronoun (comp. Thiersch, de Pentat. p. 98), but is used with its regular and classical significance; see Winer, Gr. § 22. 4. obs. p. 135, and comp. Herm. de Pronom. avrés, ch. x. H ciptyvn Hpav] ‘our Peace.’ Though the context, and defining participle 6 Toijoas, seem very distinctly to prove that e/pjv7 is here used in some degree ‘per metonymiam’ (comp. I Cor. i. 30, Col.i.27), and so in a sense but little differing from el snvomo.ds (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 253), the abs- tract subst. still has and admits of a fuller and more general application. Not only was Christ our ‘ Pacificator,’ but our ‘Pax,’ the true pibys wy (Isaiah ix. 6), the very essence as well as the cause of it; comp. Olsh. 7m Loe. Thus considered, eipjvn seems to have here its widest meaning; not only peace between Jew and Gentile, but also between both and God. In ver. 15 the context limits it to the former reference; in ver. 17 it reverts to its present and more inclusive reference. 7a dpddtepa] ‘both,’ Jews and Gen- tiles; explained by rods 6vo and rods duotépovs, ver. 15, 16. We have here no ellipsis of yévyn, é6vn k.T.X., but only the abstract and generalizing neuter; see exx. in Winer, (7. § 27. 5, p- 160. kal] ‘and,’ sc. ‘namely ;’ the particle having here its explanatory force: see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, Vol. IL. p. 339, Winer, G7. $53. 3. obs. p. 388, and notes on Phil. iv. Ti. Td perdToLxov Tov dpaypov] ‘the middle wall of the fence or partition,’ scil. between Jew and Gentile. The genitival relation has been differently explained. There is of course no real (Pisc.) or virtual (Beza) interchange of words for rév dp. Tod ecor., nor does Tod Ppaypyod appear to be here either (a) a gen. of the characterizing quality, scil. 7d Suappdccov, TO duarerxifov (Chrys. 1, Harl.; comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. vt. 13, Pp. 793, TO mecdrotxov 76 d.opifor), or (6) a gen. of identity, ‘the middle- wall which was or formed the ¢paypsds’ (Mey.); but either (c) a gen. of origin, TO amo p@payuwod (Chrys. 2), or still more simply (d) a common possessive gen., ‘the wall which pertained to, belonged to the fence,’—a use of the case which is far from uncommon in the N.T., and admits of some latitude of application; comp. Donalds. Gr. $ 454. aa, p. 481 sq. The exact reference of the ¢payuds (1D Buxtorf, Lex. s.v. p. 1447) is also somewhat difficult to fix, as both elpnvn and éyOpa (ver. 15), and indeed the whole tenor of the passage, seem to imply something more than the relations of Jews and Gentiles to each other, and must include the relations of both to God; comp. Alf. in loc. If this be so, the ¢payyuds would seem to mean the Law generally (Zonaras, Lex. p. 1822), not merely the cere- monial law (Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 49, ed. Bohn), nor the ‘ discri- men preputii’ (Beng.), but the whole Mosaic Law, esp. in its aspects as a system of separation; comp. Chrys. in loc., who appositely cites Isaiah v. 2. Whether there is any direct refer- ence to the épkxloy Spu@dxrov AOlvov (Joseph. Antig. XV. II. 5) between the courts of the Jews and Gentiles (Hamm.) is perhaps doubtful; see Meyer. We may well admit how- ever, as indeed the specific and so to say localizing ¢payyuds seems to sug- gest, an allusion both to this and to the veil which was rent (Matth. 48 IPO2 E®@®EZIOY®2. ’ “ ‘ , “ ’ ~ aUTOU, TOY voucY THY evToAwY ev DOYuaTW KaTapynoas, Xxvii. 51) at our Lord’s crucifixion ; the former illustrating the separation between Jew and Gentile, the latter between both and God. As has been well remarked, the temple was as it were a material embodiment of the law, and in its very outward struc- ture was a symbol of spiritual distince- tions; see Stier in loc. p. 322, 323. 15. THY eyCpav] ‘the enmity ;’ ‘ponenda hic vrooriyuy,’ Grot.; in apposition to, and a further explana- tion of 7d weo. Tov dp., to wit, the root of the enmity (‘parietem, qui est odium,’ #th.) between Jew and Gentile, and between both and God. The exact reference of é@y@pav has been greatly debated. That it cannot imply exclusively (a) ‘the enmity of Jews and Gentiles against God’ (Chrys.) seems clear from the fore- going context (comp. 6 movjoas Ta dupotrepa év, ver. 14), in which the enmity between Jew and Gentile is distinctly alluded to. That it can- not denote simply (b) ‘the reci- procal enmity of Jew and Gentile’ (Meyer, comp. Usteri, Zehrb. m1. 2. 1, p. 253) also clear from its appositional relation to pec. Tod ¢p., from the preceding term elpyyn, and from the subsequent explanation afforded by rov vouoy tay évt. k.T.X. The reference then must be to both, se. to the €y@pa which was the resuit and working of the law regarded as a system of separation,—the enmity due not only to Judaical limitations and antagonisms, but also and, as the widening context shows, more espe- cially to the alienation of both Jew and Gentile from God; éxOpav kal Exdrepoy mecdrorxcy éuce Xpuords 6 Oeds Nusv* Phot. ap. Gicum. This though not distinctly put forward in ed, T ggg peremptorily rejected by seems ‘ éxarépay De W. and Mey., seems, on reconsi- deration, the only explanation that satisfies the strong term éx@pa, and the very inclusive context. év TH ocpkl avtod] ‘in His crucified flesh comp. Col. i. 22, & TG chmare THS oapKos avtod bia Tov Oavdrov. These words cannot be connected with Thy éxOpay (Arm., Chrys., Cocc.), as in such a case the article could not be dispensed with even in the dialect of the N.T., but must be joined as a specification of the manner, or perhaps rather of the instrument,—either (a) with karapyjoas, to which this clause is emphatically prefixed (ed. 1, De W., Mey.), or perhaps more naturally (0) with Nvoas (Syr., Adth., Theod., Theoph., cum.), to which it subjoins an equally emphatic specification. Stier (comp. Chrys.) extends the ref. of cape to Christ’s incarnate state and the whole tenor of His earthly life (‘ Fleisches-lebens’); comp. Schulz, Abendm. p. 95 sq. This is doubtful: the context appears to refer alone to His death; comp. ver. 13, & 7@ aluari; ver. 16, 6:4 Tod cravpov. On the distinction between the capé and the c@ua (the capé dobetca) of Christ, comp. Liicke on John vi. 51, Vol. 1. p- 149 sq. TOV VOLOV TOV evr. év Sdyp.] ‘the law of ordinances expressed in decrees,’ scil. ‘ the law of decretory ordinances ; comp. Col. ii. 14. The Greek commeniators join év 66yp. with xarapy., referring ddyuara (scil. tiv twiotw, Chrys.; Thy evayyeduxhy dtéacxaNlay, Theod.) to Christian doec- trines: this meaning of déyua how- ever is untenable in the N.T. Har- less (comp. Syr.) retains the same construction, but regards év déyu. as defining the sphere in which the action of Christ’s death was manifested, ‘on the side of, in the matter of decrees,’ ESTO. 49 CA \ A) , ’ ] e Clade ayy A \ EA a tvQ TOvUS OVO KTLOY €V EaUTH ELS EVA KALVOV avOowT ov, TTOLWYV i] , Wy gd , A ° , > fo AN , ELONVHV, KAL amokataddaky TOUS apu.porepous €v EVLT@UaATL 16 This is plausible, and much to be pre- ferred to Fritzsche’s expl., ‘nova pre- cepta stabiliendo’ (Dissert. ad 2 Cor. p- 168); still the article (rots déyu.) seems indispensable, for, as Winer observes (G77. p. 250. ed. 5), both the law and the side or aspect under which it is viewed are fairly definite. We retain therefore the ordinary expla- nation, according to which é ddypu. is closely united with rév évro\éy, and therefore correctly anarthrous; see Winer, G7. § 20.2, p. 123, and notes ch. i. 15. The gen. évro\, thus serves to express the contents (Bern- hardy, Synt. 11. 45, p. 163), & ddyy. the definite mandatory form (‘legem imperiosam,’ Erasm.) in which the év- To\al were expressed; see Tholuck, Beitrdge, p. 93 sq., and esp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 10. obs. 1, p. 196, ed. 6, but more fully in ed. 5, p. 250. iva tots Sto K.7.A.] ‘that He might make the two in Himself into one new man; purpose of the abrogation ; peace between Jew and Gentile by making them (ov« elre weTaBaXdy, wa detEn TO evepyés TOU ~yevomevon, Chrys.) in Himself, in His person (not 5 éavrov, Chrys.), into, not merely one man, but one new man; éva av7- veyke Oavyactov, av’tTos ToUTO mpaTov yevomevos’ Chrys. Meier’s assertion that xawvds has here no moral signifi- cance is obviously untenable: comp. ch. iv. 24, and notes 7 loc. The reading is slightly doubtful. Lachm. adopts air@ with ABFN!; 10 mss. ; Procop.; a more difficult reading, and appy. as strongly attested as éavTG [DEGKLS*; bulk of mss. ], but not improbably due to the frequent confusion between the oblique cases of avrds and those of the reflexive pronoun. Trovoy elpyvnv] ‘so making peace,’ scil. between Jews and Gentiles, and between both and God, mpos Tov Ocedy, Kal mpds adXz)- Novus’ Chrys.; contrast tiv éxOpay, ver. 15. It may be observed that the aorist is not used (as in ver. 16), but the present: the ‘pacificatio’ is not mentioned as in modal or causal dependence on the ‘creatio,’ but sim- ply as extending over and contem- poraneous with the whole process of it: comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 31. 2.4, p. 310. 16. Kal drokatadAdéy tods apd. } ‘and might reconcile us both; parallel purpose to the foregoing, and stated second in order, though really from the nature of the case the jirst; the divine procedure being, as De W. ob- serves, stated regressively, wa xtloy The double compound doxar. is used only here and Col.i. 20, 21. In both cases amd does not simply strengthen (e. g. atobauud fw, Meyer, EHadie), but ints at a restoration to a primal unity, ‘reduxerit in unum gre- gem,’ Calv.; comp. ver. 13, and Winer, de Verb, Comp. Iv. p. 7, 8. Chrys. gives rather a different and perhaps [wa] dmoKar. ...dmoxTeivas. amepydgouat, doubtful turn, deccvds bre mpd TovTov ] avOpwrivn ptois evkaTdddXaKTos HY, olov émt Tov aylwy Kal mpd Tod vouov. The profound dogmatical considera- tions connected with katah\ayi) (alike active and objective, and passive and subjective, comp. 2 Cor. v. 18 with ib. 20) are treated perspicuously by Usteri, Lehrb, I. 1.1, p. 102 sq.: see also Jackson, Creed, Book xX. 49. 3, Pearson, ibid. Vol. 1. p. 430 sq. (Bur- ton). év evi cdparte] ‘im one (corporate) body,’ scil. in the Church. The reference to the human o@ua Tob Xp. (Chrys.) is plausible, but on nearer examination not tenable, E 50 WPO2 E®EZIOY2. 7& Och dia Tov oTavpor, a / nv eyo : j pov, amoKxrevas Thy &xOpav ev tes Ni vs A 5) , oh. Cates! a ‘ 17 avt@. Kat eAOwv evnyyedicaTo elpyvyV ULV TOLS MaKpay Had this been intended, the order (comp. the position of é& Tq capxi avrov) would surely have been differ- ent, if only to prevent this very con- nexion of rods dudor. and é&v évi od. which their present juxtaposition so obviously suggests. Moreover, the query of B.-Crus. why Christ’s human body should be here designated év oa, has not been satisfactorily an- swered, even by Stier: the application ‘of it to the mystical body is intelli- gible and appropriate, comp. ch. iv. 4. "Ey does not thus become equivalent to eis, but preserves its proper mean- ing: they were xricbévras eis éva divOp., thus xric@évras, Christ reconciles them both év évl cw. (scil. 6vras, Olsh.) to God: see Winer, G7. § 50. 5, p. 370. atoktetvas] ‘having slain,’ i.e. ‘after He had slain;’ temporal participle, standing in contrast with wordy, ver. 15. The use of the particular word has evidently been suggested by did Tod oTavpov: not cas, not dvedwr, but doxrelvas, ‘quia crux mortem adfert,’ Grot.; and thus in the words, though not the application of Chrys., The éx9pa here specified is not merely and exclusively the enmity between Jew and Gentile (comp. ed. 1), but also, as in ver. 15, and here even still more dis- tinctly and primarily, the enmity be- tween both and God; maddov pds To Oesv, 7d yap Eé&js Toro Sndoi, Chrys., comp. Alf. in loc. @ore pnkére airhy dvacrhvac. ‘upon it,’ Hamm., not ‘in corpore suo,’ Bengel; see Col. ii. 15 and notes im loc. In FG; Vulg. (‘in semet ipso’), Syr.- Phil., and several Latin Ff., we find éy éav7@,—a reading probably owing its origin and support to the év atta] ‘in itt,’ scil. reference of év évl cw. to Christ. 17. Kal €@av] ‘And having come, &e.:’ not ‘and came’ (Auth.), as this obscures the commencement of the new sentence (see Scholef. Hints, p. Too), nor ‘and coming’ (Eadie), as the action described by €\@ay is not here contemporaneous with, but prior to that of ednyyeAloatro: comp. Bern- hardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 382. This verse seems clearly to refer back to ver. 14, avros ydp k.7T.X., there being, as B.- Crus. suggests, a faint apposition be- tween Xp. éorw 7 elpnvn hu., ver. 14, and evnyyen. elpyynv, ver. 17; still, as ver. 15 and 16 cannot be considered parenthetical, the connexion is carried on by kal, and the verse is linked with what immediately precedes. *E\Owv thus following dzoxrelvas will more naturally refer to a spiritual advent (see esp. Acts xxvi. 23), or a mediate advent in the person of His Apostles, than to our Lord’s preaching when on earth. The participle €\@av (no mere redundancy, Raphel. Annot. Vol. 11. Pp: 471) in fact serves to give a realistic touch to the whole group of clauses ; ‘Christ is our peace; yes, and He came, and by His Spirit and the mouths of His Apostles He preached it; see Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 338. elpyvyv] ‘peace,’ not only thy mpéos Tov Oedv (Chrys.), but also rhy mpos a\\jovs; see notes ver. 14. The repetition of efpyynv is rightly main- tained by Tisch. with ABDEFGN; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., Auth., Arm.; and many Ff. It gives an emphasis and solemnity to the pas- sage, which is here (though denied by Stier, p. 370, comp. Bengel) especially appropriate. Meyer compares Rom. ill. 3%, ‘Villy 15. Pyeng is, Fo 51 Q SLE. A ’ , v4 b) is ~ +S x Kal ElpyvyV TOLS EYYUS, OTL Ov avtou €XOMEV THY TPOTA- 18 ‘ e 9 , ee Gaty , \ \ , yoeyuy OL apporepot €V eEVl Tvevpare 7 Pos TOV TATENG. w a Cy D ‘ , A , ] Sua 9 ‘ apa OUV OUKETL €CTE Eévor Kal TAPOlKOl, avr €OTE JOU)- Ig 18. Ot. 8 avtod] ‘seeing that through Him,’ not merely explana- tory, ‘to wit that we have’ (B.-Crus.), nor yet strongly causal, ‘because we have’ (Beng.), but with somewhat more of a demonstrative or confirma- tory force, ‘as it is a fact that, dc. ;’ compare 2 Cor. i. 5, and see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 7. The ‘probatio,’ as Calvin observes, is ‘ab effectu;’ the principal moment of thought how- ever does not rest on éxouey, on the reality of the possession (Harl.), or on any appeal to inward experience, ‘for —is it not so?’ (Stier) ; but, as the order suggests, on dv avrod, on the matter of fact that it was ‘through Him, and none but Him’ that we have this Tpocaywy. Kor a sound sermon on this text see Sherlock, Serm. xvi. Vol. I. p. 288 sq. (ed. Hughes). éxopev | “we are having,’ present; the action is still going on: contrast écxjKaper, Rom. v. 2, where the reference is to the period when they became Chris- tians, and where consequently the Tpocaywyh is spoken of as a thing past. THY TeoTaywyyy | ‘our introduction, adinission,’ ‘ quia ipse adduxit,’ Adth.; not intransi- tively either here or Rom. v. 2, scil. ‘access, Auth., ‘accessum,’ Vulg., ‘adventum’ (dshini), Copt., ‘atgagg,’ Goth. ; but transitively, ‘adeundi co- piam,’ ‘admissionem,’ the latter being the primary and proper meaning of the word; see Meyer on Rom. v. 2, and comp. (appy.) Xen. Cyrop. VII. 5. 45, Tovs éuovs Pious deomévovs tpocayw- ys’ ib. I. 3. 8, and the various appli- cations of the word in Polybius, e.g. Hist. 1. 48. 2, Tav pnxarvnudrav mp., XIV. 10.9, 7T&v dpydvwv. Christ is thus our mpocaywyels to the Father ; ov elrev mpdcodo0v GANG TPOTAYWY HY, ov yap ad’ éavr&v mpoonOomev, aN’ tim aitod mpoonxOnuev* Chrys. on ver. 21; see 1 Pet. iii. 18, Wa judas mpocaydyn TS Oew. There may pos- sibly be here (less probably however in Rom. v. 2) an allusion to the mpoca- ywyeds (fadmissionalis,’ Lampridius, Sever. 4) at Oriental courts, Tholuck, Rom. l.c., and Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 1. I, p. lor; at any rate the supposi- tion does not merit the contempt with which it has been treated by Riickert. The uses of tpocaywy? are well illus- trated by Wakefield, in Steph. Thes. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 86 (ed. Valpy), and by Bos, Obs. Misc. 35, p. 149 sq. év évi IIvedpare] ‘in one Spirit, com- mon to Jew and Gentile;’ not for dud (Chrys.; comp. (Ecum., Calv., al.), but as usual, ‘united in’ (Olsh.); comp. t Cor. xii. 13. The Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital sphere or element in which both parties have their com- mon tpocaywy) to the Father. The mention of the three Persons in the blessed Trinity, with the three prepp. dud, év, mpdbs, is especially noticeable and distinct. 19. dpa ovv] ‘Accordingly then,’ ‘so then; ‘rebus ita comparatis igitur :’ conclusion and consequence from the declarations of ver. 14—18, with a further expansion of the ideas of ver. 13. On the use of dpa oty, see notes on Gal. vi. 10, and comp. Rom. v. 18, Vil. 3, 25, Vill. 12, ix. 16, 18: in all these cases the weaker ratiocinative force of dpa is supported by the col- lective ody. This union of the two particles is not found in classical Greek, except in the case of the inter- rogative form dpa: see Herm. Viger, No. 292. Eévo kal mdp- E 2 4 52 WPOS E®EZIOY2. a ~ e , 4 ‘) a ~ 3) a ) A) , 20 ToAITal TWY aAYLwY Kat OlKELoL TOU DeEov, E7TOLKO ounOev- ovcor] ‘strangers and sojourners ; ‘pe- regrini atque incole,’ Cic. Offic. I. 34. 125. The two expressions seem to con- stitute a full antithesis to cvvroNtrat, and to include all who, whether by national and territorial demarcation, or by the absence of civic privileges, were not citizens. IIdpovxos then is here (comp. Acts vii. 6, 29, 1 Pet. ii. 11) simply the same as the classical pérotkos (a form which does not occur in the N.T., and only once, Jer. xx. 3, in the LXX), and was probably its Alexandrian equivalent. It is used frequently in the LXX, in 11 passages as a translation of a, and in 10 of AWN: ‘accolas fuisse dicit gen- tiles quatenus multi ex illis mora- bantur inter Judzos, ...non tamen iisdem legibus aut moribus aut reli- gione utentes:’ Estius. Harless (after Beng.) regards mdp. as in antithesis to olketot, £évoe to cwvroNtrat, the former relating to domestic, the latter to civic privileges: this is plausible—see Lev. xxii. 10 sq., Ecclus. xxix. 26 sq.—but owing to the frequent use of mdpockos simply for érovxos, not completely de- monstrable, An allusion to pro- selytes (Whitby) is certainly contrary to the context: see ver. If sq. cvvroAirar, though partially vindi- cated by Raphelius, Annot. Vol. 1. p. 472, belongs principally to later Greek, e.g. Ailian, Var. Hist. 111. 44, Joseph. Antiq. XIX. 2. 2, but also Eur. Heracl. 826; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 172. The tendency to compound forms without an adequate increase of meaning is appy. a very distinct cha- racteristic of ‘fatiscens Grecitas ;’ comp. Thiersch, de Pentat. 11. 1, p. 83. With regard to the orthography we may observe that the form ovy7 ov. is adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7) with AB'!C DEFGN, and must be retained, as it is supported by so clear a preponder- ance of uncial authority; see Tisch. Prolegom. p. XLVIL. Tov aylov | ‘the saints ;? not inclusively the holy ‘of all times and lands’ (Eadie), for the mention of the rodurela rod "Iop., ver. 12, is distinct and specific; nor exclusively the Jews as a nation (Hamm.), or the saints of the Old Testament (Chrys.), for this the nature of the argument seems to preclude; but the members of that spiritual com- munity in which Jew and Gentile Christians were now united and in- corporated, and to which the external theocracy formed a typical and prepa- ratory institution. The expression is further heightened and defined by ol- kelot TOU Oeod. On this use of olkelos, see notes on Gal. vi. 10, and fora good sermon on this text, Beveridge, Serm. XLVIII. Vol. II. p. 381 sq. 20. émroukodounévres] ‘built up,’ ‘supercedificati,’ Vulg.; the preposition being not otiose, but correctly mark- ing the super-position, superstructure ; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14, Col. ii. 7. The accus. is not used here (as in 1 Cor. iii. 12) because the idea of rest predominates over that of motion or That the dat. rather than the gen. of rest is here used, can hardly be said to be ‘ purely acciden- tal’ (Meyer), as the former denotes absolute and less separable, the latter partial and more separable super- posi- tion: see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 483. a, Kriiger, Sprachl. 1.$68.41.1. Though this distinction must not be over- pressed in the N. T. (see Luke iv. 29), or even in classical writers (see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lew. s.v. él, 11. Vol. I. p. 1035), it still appears to have been correctly observed by St Paul. The reading él rots ovpavots, ch, i, 10 (Lachm.), which would apparently form direction. PE) 20,°2%7 53 ’ \ ae Ul “~ ) , A A + TES ETL TH OeueNim THY ATOTTOAWY Kal TPODYTHY, OVTOS ’ , ’ aA? A ie So LAN cas 3 A ak POYywvialou QUT OU Incov Xpisrot, ey w Tada olKo0oMy PHA 20. ‘Incod Xpicrot] So CDEFGKL; several Vv. ; Orig. (1) and many Ff. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer): ®! reads simply tod Xpuorod for air. ‘Inc. Xp., and Chrys. (text) omits "Inc. Tisch. inverts the order with ABN’; Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Orig. (2), Theophyl.; Ambrosiast., August. (frequently), and many others (Riick., Lachm., Alf.). to preponderate. an exception in this very Ep., is still (though now supported by NS?) of some- what doubtful authority. TOY atrocTéhwy Kal mpodyntav] ‘of the Apostles and Prophets.’ Two ques- tions of some interest present them- selves, (1) the nature of the gen., (2) the meaning of zpo@ytey. With re- gard to (r) it may be said, that though the gen. of apposition (Beuédos ob améor. kal ot mpod., Chrys., comp. Theoph., Gicum.) is perfectly tenable on grammatical grounds (comp. Wi- ner, (77. § 59. 8, p. 470), and supported by the best ancient commentators, all exegetical considerations seem opposed to it. The Apostles were not the foundations (Rev. xxi. 14 is not, like the present, a dogmatical passage, see Harl.), but laid them; see 1 Cor. iii. to. The gen. will therefore more probably be a gen. sudjecti, not how- ever in a possessive sense (Calyv. 2, Cocc., Alf.), as this seems tacitly to mix up the Geuédtos and the dxpoywy. (comp. Jackson, Creed, x1. 5. 2), but simply asa gen. of the agent or originating cause (Scheuerl. Synt. § £7. I, p. 125; see on 1 Thess. i. 6): what the Apostles and prophets preached formed the Gewédtos, comp. Rom. xv. 20, Heb. vi. 1. Thus all seems consistent, and in accordance with the analogy of other passages: the doctrine of the Apostles, i.e. Christ preached, is the @ewéduos; Christ personal (avr.’Inood Xp.) the axpoywiatos; Christ mystical the m\7- pwua: comp. ch. i. 23. (2) That The evidence of seven uncial MSS. seems ‘ the prophets of the New (Grot., al.) and not of the Old Testament (Chrys., Theod.) are now alluded to seems here rendered highly probable, by the order of the two classes (arbitrarily inverted by Calv., and insufficiently accounted for by Theod.),—by the analogous passages, ch. iii. 5, iv. 11,—by the known prophetic gifts in the early Church, 1 Cor. xii. ro, al.,—and still more by the apparent nature of the gen. suljecti; see above. No great stress can be laid on the absence of the article: this only shows that the Apostles and Prophets were regarded as one class (Winer, Gi. § 19. 4. d, p. 116), not that they were identical (Harl.) : Sharp’s rule cannot be regu- larly applied to plurals; see Middle- ton, Art. III. 4. 2, p. 65 (ed. Rose). This prominence of ‘prophets’ has been urged by Baur (Paulus, p. 438) as a proof of the later and Montanist origin of this Ep.: surely devrepov mpo- djras, 1 Cor. xii. 28, is an indisputable proof that such a distinct order existed in the time of St Paul. On the nature of their office, see notes on ch. iv. fr. adKkpoywviatov] ‘chief corner stone ;’ dxpoywy. scil. Gov; ‘summus angu- laris lapis is dicitur qui in extremo angulo fundamenti positus duos parie- tes ex diverso venientes conjungit et continet,’ Estius: comp, Psalm exviii. 22, Jer. li. (xxviii.) 26, Isaiah xxviii. 16, Matth. xxi. 42, 1 Pet. ii. 6. In 1 Cor. iii. 11, Christ is represented as the @euédos: the image is slightly o4 , +x 3 \ ce Pera) Pee , 22, TuvapmoAoyoupevy avEet eg yaov ayloyv ev Kupia, changed, but the idea is the same,— Christ is in one sense the substratum and in another the binding-stone of the building; 6 Ai@os 6 dxp. Kal rods Tolxous auvéxec Kal tovs Oemedlovs, Chrys.; see Suicer, Zhes. s.v. and Vol. Ir p. 242. On the doctrinal meaning and application of this attri- bute of Christ, see the excellent dis- cussion of Jackson, Creed, xt. 5, Vol. X. p. 88. avtrov “Ino. Xp.] ‘Jesus Christ Himself,’ no human teachers ; the pronoun being obviously referred not to QeweAlw (‘angulari ejus,’ Beng.), or to dxpoywr. (as possibly Vulg., ‘ipso summo angulari lapide Chr. Jesu’), but to Christ: so rightly Auth., Syr., Clarom.,and appy. Goth.; Copt., Aith., Arm. omit. The art. before Inc. Xp., the absence of which is pressed by Beng., may not only be dispensed with (see Luke xx. 42), but would even, as Harl. suggests, be here incorrect; it would strictly then be ‘He Himself, viz. Christ’ (see Fritz. Matth. iii. 4, p. 117), and would imply a previous mention of Christ ; whereas Christ is here mentioned for the first time in the clause, and in emphatic contrast with those who laid the foun- dations ; see Stier in loc., p. 394. 21. év@| ‘in whom,’ further and more specific explanation of the pre- ceding clause; the pronoun referring, not to axpoywriaiwy (CHcum.), but to Ino. Xp.; 6 7d wav cuvéxwv éorly 6 Xpiocrés’ Chrys. TOTO » oikodopy] ‘all the building; (oy Na) la 21 [totum edificium] Syr., ‘omne illud ed.,’ Copt., Arm. (with the distinctive ), Syr.-Phil. There is here some difficulty owing to the omission of the article; the strictly grammatical translation of raca olKod. IIPOZ E®ELSIOY2. €v @ (scil. ‘every building’) being wholly irreconcileable with the context, which clearly implies a reference to one single building. Nor can it be readily explained away; for mdoa olk. can hever mean ‘every part of the build- ing’ (Chrys.), nor can olkod. (per se) be regarded as implying ‘a church’ (Mey.). We seem therefore compelled either to adopt the reading of Ree., and insert 7 [with ACN?; many mss.; Chrys. (text), Theoph.: but opp. to BDEFGKLN!, majority of mss. ; Clem., al.], or, with more probability, to class ofcodouy in the present case with those numerous nouns (see the list in Winer, Gr. § 19) which, from referring to what is well known and defined (¢.9. raéoa yf, Thucyd, 11. 43, see Poppo in loc. p. 233), can, like proper names, dispense with the art. : comp. mdoa érvoroAn, Ignat. Hph. § 12, Pearson, Vind. Ignat. 1. 10. 1, and Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. ror. It must be admitted that there appears no other equally distinct instance in the N.T. (Matth. ii. 3, Luke iv. 13, Acts li. 36, vii. 22, cited by Eadie, are not in point, as being either exx. of proper names or abstract substt.), nor appy. even in the Greek Pentateuch (most of the exx. of Thiersch, Pentat. 111. 2, p- 121, admit of other explanations) ; still in the present case this partial laxity of usage can scarcely be denied. The late and non-Attic form olxodouy (Lobeck, Phryn. p. 421, 487), used both for ofkodéunua and olxoddunots (Rost u. Palm, Lew. s.v.), is here per- haps adopted in preference to ofkos as less distinctly implying the notion of a completed building; see Harl. in loc. cvvappodoyoupnévy] ‘ fitly framed to- gether, Auth., ‘ compaginata,’ Jerome (not Vulg.) ; present part. ; the process was still going on. The rare verb fel. 20. nr 4 e “ cal 3 ~ cal kal vers cuvotcodometcOe ets KATOLKNTPLOV tov Qeou ev Tlvevuare. guvapporoy. (=cuvvapudgev) is only found here and iv. 16. Wetst. cites Anthol. 11. 32. 4, Hpmodoynre Tagor. avge] ‘groweth;’ the present mark- ing not only the actual progress, but the normal, perpetual, unconditioned, nature of the organic increase; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 32. 4, p- 339, 340- This increase must undoubtedly be understood as extensive (opp. to Harl.) as well as intensive, and as referring to the enlargement and development of the Church, as well as to its purity or holiness; comp. Thiersch, A postol. Church, p. 52 sq. (Transl.). The pres. afm (more common in poetry) is only found once in the LXX (yijv avéoucav, Isaiah lxi. 11), and in the N. T. only here and Col. ii. 19. -év Kuplw] ‘in the Lord (Jesus Christ),’ the usual meaning of Kip. in St Paul’s Epp. ; see Winer, Gr. § 19. I, p. 113. It is difficult to decide how these words are to be connected; whether (a) with avée, Meyer; (4) with dy.ov, Harl., Usteri, Zehrb. 1. 1, p. 249; or (c) with vadv dyov (comp. Stier), to which it is to be regarded as a kind of tertiary predicate; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq. Of these, (a) seems tautologous ; (b) gives perhaps a greater prominence to the special nature of the holiness than the context requires ; (c) on the contrary, as the order shows (vady dy., not dy. vady; comp. Gers- dorf, Beitrdge, Vv. p. 334 8q.), gives no special prominence to the idea of holi- ness, but almost defines, as a further predication of manner, how the whole subsists and is realized ;—‘and it is a holy temple in the Lord, and in Him alone :’ comp. notes on ver. 11, On this account, and from the harmony with év IIvevuari, ver. 22, (c) is to be preferred. 22. & @ kal tpeis] ‘22 whom ye also ;’ further specification in ref. to those whom the Apostle is addressing ; év 6 not being temporal (‘ dum,’ Syr., but not Phil.), nor referring to the more remote vady x.7.\. (Eadie); but, as in ver. 21, to the preceding év Ku- ply, cal with its ascensive and slightly contrasting force (comp. notes on Phil, iv. 12) marking the exalted nature of the association in which the Ephesians shared; they also were living stones of the great building: comp. Alf. in loc. cvuvorkodopeto be] ‘are builded together ;’ clearly not impera- tive (Calv.), as St Paul is evidently impressing on his readers what they are, the mystical body to which they actually belong, not what they ought to be. lar to that in cuvéxNeccev, Gal. iii. 22 (see notes), and to refer to the close The force of civ appears simi- and compact union of the component parts of the building. Meyer aptly cites Philo, de Prem. § 20, Vol. m. p. 427 (ed. Mang.), olxiay ef cuvwKodopn- Keévny kal cuynppoocnevny. The comma after ouvorxod. (Griesb.), which would refer e/s karocx. to até, does not seem necessary. év IIvedpare] ‘in the Spirit; tertiary predication (‘and it is in the Spirit’) exactly similar and parallel to év Kupiy, ver. 21. Two other translations have been proposed: (a) ‘through the Spirit,’ Auth., Theoph., Meyer; (0) ‘in a spiritual manner,’ opp. to & oapkt: z.e. the karo. is mvevarixdy, not xetporroinrov, see Acts vii. 48 (Olsh.). Of these (a) violates the apparent parallelism with é& Kup., and presup- poses, in order to account for the posi- tion of év Ilv., an emphasis in it which does not seem to exist; while again (5) introduces an idea not hinted at 56 MPOz TT: A lad ’ a e A) (3 A TMLOS TOU Xpirtov Inoov UTED ULV Tovtou Xap eyw IlLatros 6 0¢e- E®EZIOY2. So I pray for you, believing ye know how God revealed to me the mystery of the call of the Gentiles, and gave me grace to preach it, that men and angels might learn God’s manifold wisdom. Faint not then at my troubles. in the context, and obscures the re- ference to the Holy Trinity, which here can scarcely be pronounced doubt- ful. It has been urged by Meyer that in the interpretation here adopted the ‘continens’ and ‘contentum’ are confounded together; but see Rom. vill. 9, and observe that the second ev refers rather to the act of karolxyovs involved in the verbal subst. ; ‘we are built in Christ, form a habitation of God, and are so inhabited in and by the influence of the Spirit; see Alf. in loc., and comp. Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 105 sq. Lastly, no ar- gument in favour of (b) can be founded on the absence of the article, as IIveiua is used with the same latitude as proper names: see notes on Gal. v. 5. The opinion also there expressed a- gainst the distinction of Harless (h. l.) between the ‘subjective’ and ‘ objec- tive’ Holy Spirit seems perfectly valid. For a practical sermon on this verse (‘the essence of religion a disposition to God’), see Whichcote, Serm, XLVIU. Vol. Il. p. 383. Cuarrer III. 1. Tovrov xdpww] ‘ For this reason,’ ‘hujus rei gratia,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; sc. ‘because ye are so called and so built together in Christ.’ The exact meaning of these words will of course be modified by the view taken of the construction. Out of the many explanations of this passage, two deserve attention. (a) That of Syr. and Chrys. (followed by Tynd., Cran., Gen.), according to which eiui is sup- plied after 6 déou. Tot Xp. *Ine., 0 déc- pos being the predicate, ‘I am the prisoner of Chr. Jesus,’ the prisoner kar’ éfox7jv (‘multa enim erat istius captivitatis celebritas,’ Beza) ; Tovrou xdpw then being ‘for the sake of this edification of yours,’ ch. ii, 22: (6) that of Theodoret, al., according to which 6 6déc,u0s is in apposition, and the construction resumed, ver. 14; rovrov xdpw then implying ‘on this account,’ ‘because ye are so built together’ (De W.), or more probably, as above, with a wider ref. to the whole foregoing subject; axpiBas émiordpe- vos, Kal tives HTe, Kal m@s éxdHOyTEe, kal él rlow éxAjOnre, Séouat Kal ixe- Tevw Tov TaY dhwv Oedv BEeBardoar buds The interpreta- tion ‘per brachylogiam,’ according TH miore’ Theod. to which décu. eius is to be supplied (Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. p. 841, p. 431 note, Meyer, ed. 1), is so clearly un- tenable, that Meyer (ed. 2) has now given it up in favour of (a). This former interpr. deserves consideration, but on account of the virtual tautology in Tovr. xdp. and brép budy, the ana- logy of ch. iv. 1, and still more the improbability that St Paul would style himself 6 décucos when, as he well knew, others were suffering like him- self (1 Cor. iv. 9 sq.), the latter is to be preferred; see Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p- 499. The recent explanation of Wieseler, which makes 6 décpu0s to be in apposition, but dispenses with all assumption of a parenthesis or of an abbreviated structure, is not very satisfactory or intelligible; see Chron. Synops. p. 446. Tov Xp. *Inood] ‘of Christ Jesus,’ scil. ‘whom Christ and His cause have made a prisoner,’ Olsh.; gen. of the author or originating cause of the captivity: comp. Philem. 13, decpuol Tov evayye- diov; and see Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. B, obs. p. 170, Hartung, Casus, p. 17, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 6. ir a » 2; 3: 57 i ; = , , ‘ . , Je , tav eOvav—eiye nKOvoaTE THY OlKOVOMLaY THS XUapLTOS 2 ~ an ~ , 3 e ~ tvd A , , tov Ocov ths doOeions mot els Uas, OTL KATA aToKG- 3 Au eyvopia Oy pol TO MUaTHpLOY, Kka0we ™poeypanya trip tp. trav vay] ‘in behalf of you Gentiles ; introducing the subject of the Apostle’s calling as an Apostle of the Gentiles, which is resumed ver. 8. 2. lye] ‘if indeed,’ ‘as I may suppose,’ ‘on the assumption that ;’ gentle appeal, expressed in a hypothe- tical form, and conveying the hope that his words had not been quite for- gotten. and if resolved, ‘tum certe si’ (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 308) ; it does not in itself imply the rectitude of the assumption made (‘ e’ye usurpatur de re que jure sumpta creditur,’ Herm. Viger, No. 310), but derives that shade of meaning from the context; see notes on Gal. iii. 4. In the present case there could be no real doubt; ‘neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii quibus Paulus ipse evange- lium plusquam biennio przedicaverat,’ Hiye is properly ‘si quidem,’ Estius; comp. ch. iv. 21, 2 Cor. v. 3, Col. i. 23. No argument then can be fairly deduced from these words against the inscription of this Ep. to the Ephesians (Mill, Prolegom. p. 9; De Wette), nor can the hypothetical form be urged as implying that the Apostle was personally unknown to his readers. THV olkovoplay k.T.A.] ‘the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me, &c. In this passage two errors must be avoided ; first, Tis dofelons must not be taken virtually or expressly ‘ per hypallagen’ for ri dofcicav, comp. Col. i. 25: secondly, no special mean- ings must be assigned either to oiko- voula or xdpis. Oikovoula is not ‘the apostolic office’ (Wieseler, Synops. p. 448), but, as in ch. i. 10 (see notes), ‘ disposition,’ ‘dispensation ;’ ris xd- piros being the gen.,—not suljecti, (dicum., who reads éyvwpice, as in Rec.), but as the pass. éyvwploOn seems rather to suggest,—oljecti, or still better the gen. of ‘the point of view,’ which serves to complete the concep- tion, sc. ‘the dispensation in respect of the grace of God, dc.’ ;—see Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129, comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. B, p. 170. This is further explained by 67 kara darok., ver. 3; oikovoulav xapitos g@yol Thy amoKdNu- yw Chrys. There is thus no need to depart from the strict meaning of Xdpis: it is not ‘munus Apostolicum ’ (Estius), but the assisting and qualify- ing grace of God for the performance of it. els dyads is well translated ‘to you-ward,’ Auth. from Tynd. ; it is not ‘in vobis,’ Vulg., or even ‘for you’ (dat. commodi), but with the proper force of eis (ethical direction), ‘toward you,’ ‘to work in you:’ comp. ch. i. 19, and Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354. 3. OTL K.T.A.] ’ ‘that by way of objective sentence (Don- alds. G7. § 584) dependent on the pre- ceding )xovcate k.7.d., and explana- tory of the nature and peculiarity of the oixovou., the emphasis obviously falling on the predication of manner These latter words are used in a very similar though not perfectly identical manner in Gal. ii. 2 (comp. 2 Cor. vill. 8, Gal. iv. 29 and note, Phil. ii. 3): there however the allusion is rather to the norma or rule, here to the manner, ‘by way of reve- lation,’ ‘revelation-wise ;’ comp. Bern- hardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 239. TO pvotiyptoy] ‘the mystery,’ not of redemption generally, nor of St Paul’s special call, but, in accordance with the context, of that which is the evi- revelation ; Kata arokdduyey. 58 IPO= E®EZIOY2. > ’ , ‘ ed , 2 , ~ A ev cAlyw, Tpos 0 dvvacOe avaywooKovT i 4 ALYY, 7p dvvac® TKOVTES VOnTaL THY dent subject of the passage,—the ad- mission of the Gentiles to fellowship and heirship with Christ in common with the Jews ; pvornpioy yap éoTe TO Ta €Ovn éEaigyns eis pelfova Tay lov- daiwy edyéveray avayayew Chrys.; see Usteri, Lehrb. p. 252. On the use and meaning of the word pvariptov see notes on ch. v. 32. The read- ing éyvwpice [Rec. with DDEKL; many mss.; Alth. (both); Dam,, Theoph., al.] is distinctly inferior to the text [ABCD!FGN ; manymss. ; Syr. (both), Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., al.] in external authority, and seems to have been an intended emendation of struc- ture. mpotypata] ‘have afore written,’ Hamm.; a translation here preferable to the aoristic ‘wrote afore’ (Auth.), as serving better to define that the reference does not relate to any earlier (Chrys., but not Theod., Theoph.), but simply to the present Epistle; comp. ch. i. 9 sq., li. 13 sq. The clause seems introduced to con- firm the readers, the ref. being, as ver. 4 clearly shows, neither to xara amoxd\. nor to uvoryp. but to éyvw- ploOn oc TO vot. It was the fact of this knowledge having been imparted, not the manner in which he attained it, or the precise nature of it, that the Apostle desires to specify and reite- rate. To enclose this clause and ver. 4 in a parenthesis (Wetst., Griesb.) is thus obviously unsatisfactory. év 7) n» oAlyo | {du3asp5 [in paucis] Syr., ° y ‘in brevi,’ Vulg., dca Bpaxéwy, Chrys. ; see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 293. The meaning ‘a short time before,’ ‘just now’ (comp. Theod.), is distinctly un- tenable: this would be mpd 6Niyou: év 6\lyw in a temporal sense can only mean, as Mey. and Harl. correctly observe, ‘in a short space of time:’ see Acts xxvi. 28, where however, as in the present case, the meaning ‘briefly,’ ‘with a compendious form of argument’ (not ‘lightly,’ Alf.; see Meyer in loc.), is appy. more tenable. Stier alludes to the common epistolary expression, ‘a few lines.’ 4. Tpds 6] ‘in accordance with which,’ ‘agreeably to which,’ scil. the mpoye- ypapmévor, not év ddiyw (Kypke): from what the Apostle had written in this Epistle his insight into the mystery of Christ was to be inferred by his readers; ‘ex ungue leonem,’ Beng. The remark of Harl., that mpds (with acc.) in its ethical use denotes the relation of conformity to, seems correct and comprehensive. Whether this be in reference to cause and effect (§ owing to,’ Herod, Iv. 161, comp. Matth. xix. 8; see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. b. aa, Vol. 11. p. 1157); de- sign and execution (‘in order to,’ 1 Cor. xii. 7, al.); simple comparison (Rom. viii. 18; Herod mt. 34, mpos Tov marépa, cited by Bernhardy, Synt. Vv. 31, p- 265); or, as here, rule and measure (see notes on Gal. ii. 14), must be determined by the context. If we add to these the indication of simple mental direction (‘in regard to,’ ‘in reference to,’ Heb. i. 7, see Winer, Gr. § 49. hb, p. 360, comp. notes on ch. iv. 12), the ethical uses of mpds with ace. will be sufficiently deline- ated. For a good and comprehensive list of exx. see Rost u. Palm, Lew. s.v. Vol. II. p. 1156 sq. Sivacle dvayw. voor] ‘you can while reading, or as you read, per- ceive;’ the temporal participle ex- pressing the contemporary act, comp. Donalds. Gir. § 576. The aor. vofoa is appy. here used as marking, not exactly the sudden and transitory na- ture of the act (Alf.; contrast Bern- Bog. 59 a , a “~ a ¢ , ouveoty [AOU év TO MUOTH OL TOU Xpirro, O ETEPALS 5 - al i) ° , e Lal yeveais ovk eyvwpicOn Tois viois Tav avOpwTwr, ws viv hardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383), but the distinct manifestations of it, the sin- gle act being regarded as, so to say, the commencement of a continuity: see esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 173. 4, Donalds. Gr. § 427. d. The student must be careful in pressing the aor. in this mood, as so much depends on the context, and the mode in which the action is contemplated by the writer: see Bernhardy, Syn. l.c., Kriiger, Sprachl. 53. 6. 9; and ob- serve that dvvamac and similar verbs, éxw, duvards eit, OéXw, are often idio- matically followed by the aor. rather than the present ; see Winer, § 44. 7, p- 298, and the note of Matzner in his ed. of Antiph. p. 153 sq. TIV civerty pov KT. A] Smy insight, my understanding, in the mystery of Christ.’ The article is not needed be- fore the prep., as atveois €v TH pvoT. forms a single composite idea ; comp. 3 Esdr. i. 33, THs cuvécews avrov ev Tu voum Kuptov (Harl.), and see notes on ch. i. 15. The formula cuvévac év (or eis) occurs several times in the LX X, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12, Nehem. xiii. 7, al., and thus justifies the omission of the article with the derivative subst. ; see Winer, § 20. 2, p. 123. The dis- tinction between oumévac (‘to under- stand,’ ‘verstehn’) and voety (‘to per- ceive,’ ‘merken’) is noticed by Titt- mann, Synon. p. 191. Tov Xpt- orov is commonly taken as a gen. ob- Jjecti, ‘the mystery relating to Christ,’ sc. of which His reconciliation and union of the Jews and Gentiles in Himself formed the subject: comp. Theoph. in loc. By comparing how- ever the somewhat difficult passage, Col. i. 27, Tod pvornpiov...... 6s éorw Xpioros év duty, it would certainly seem that it is rather a species of gen. materie, or of identity: ‘Christus selbst ist das Concretum des gottlichen Geheimnisses,’ Meyer ; comp. Stier in loc., and see exx. in Scheuerlein, Synt. S125, pus, 635 5. 8] ‘which,’ scil. which puor?- pov To0 Xp. ver. 4; there being no parenthesis (see above), but that sim- ple linked connexion by means of rela- tives which is so characteristic of this Epistle. erépais yeveats| ‘in other generations, ages,’ ‘anbaraim aldim,’ Goth.; dative of time; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 9, p. 195, comp. notes, ch.ii.12. Meyer, maintaining the usual meaning of yeved, explains the dat. as a simple dat. commodi, and Tots victs as a further explanation. This is unnecessary precision, as in Col. i. 26, amo Tay alwver Kal ard Tov yevedy, the less usual meaning ‘age’ can scarcely be denied: see Acts xiv. 16, and probably Luke i. 50. In the LXX, yeved is the usual translation of 34, which certainly (see Gesen. Lex. s.v.) admits both meanings. In one instance, Isaiah xxiv. 22, even DD is so translated. The insertion of év before érépacs (Rec.) rests only on the authority of a few mss. ; Copt., and Syr.-Phil. Tots viots Ttav avOp.| ‘to the sons of men ;’ ‘latis- sina appellatio, causam exprimens ig- norantiz, ortum naturalem ;’ so Beng., who however proceeds less felicitously to refer the expression to the ancient prophets. This is neither fairly de- monstrable from the use of DIN}2) (Ezek. vii. 2, al.), nor by any means consonant with the present passage, where no comparison is instituted be- tween the prophets of the Old and of the New Test., but between the times,—the then and the now. The ex- pression, vlol ray dvOp. seems chosen 60 TPO E®EZIOY2. °’ , rn Qa D , ’ a A , atexadupOy TOS AYLOLS ATOTTOAOLS AUTOU Kal TpOPyTals ’ , s A V4 , A , 6 ev IIvevmari, civac Ta eOvy TUVKANPOVOUA Kal TWTHME to make the contrast with the dy:oc amdoT. avTod Kal mpod., the Oeod dy- Opwrrot (2 Pet. i. 21, Deut. xxxiii. 1), more fully felt. s] Observe the comparison which the particle introduces and suggests: éy- veplabn ev Tots madat Tpopyrats, dAN’ ovX ws viv’ ov yap Ta mpdynaTa eldov [comp. 1 John i. 1] d\Aad Tovds tepl Tay TpayudTwv mpoéypaway Nédyous* Theod. Tots Gylos GtroCT. | ‘to His holy Apostles.’ The epithet aylos has been very unreasonably urged by De Wette as a mark of the post-apostolic date of the epistle. It is obviously used to support and strengthen the antithesis to the viol Tév dp. The Apostles were &y.or in their office as God’s chosen messen- gers, dyvot in their personal character as the inspired preachers of Christ ; comp. Luke i. 70, Acts iii. 21, 2 Pet. i. 21 (Lachm.), where the prophets are so designated. The meaning of zpo- pra is here the same as in ch. ii. 20, the ‘N.T. prophets ;’ see notes on ch. ivsad. év IIvetpari] ‘by the Spirit;’ Auth., Arm. (instrumental case) ; the Holy Agent by whom the amokd\uys was given, év having here more of its instrumental] force: ef ui yap TO IIvetua édldatke tov Iérpor, ovK dv Tov €OviKdy Kopy7jdcoy mera THY aiv ai7@ mapedéEato’ Theoph. ; comp. Chrys., who certainly appears errone- ously cited (De W., Eadie) as joining év Ilv. with mpog., ‘prophets in the Spirit,’ sc. Georvevdatous. This latter construction, though fairly admissible (comp. Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), is open to the decisive exegetical objec- tion that it is an ‘idem per idem :’ if prophets were not divinely inspired, ‘prophets in the Spirit,’ the name would be misapplied. On the omis- sion of the art. see ch. ii, 22. The traces of Montanism which Baur (Paulus, p. 440) finds in these words are so purely imaginary as not to deserve serious notice or confuta- tion. 6. evar ta vy] ‘to wit that the Gentiles are,’ ‘gentes esse,’ Vulg., Cla- rom., Goth.; not ‘should be,’ Auth., HKadie; the objective infin. here ex- pressing not the design but the subject and purport of the mystery: Tovr’ éort TO pevoTHplov TO elvar TA EOvN ovy- KAnpcvoua TB “Ispaind THs érayye- Alas, cal cuspéroxa’ Theoph.; comp. Donalds, Gr. § 584. cuvkAnpovopa K.T.A.] ‘ fellow-heirs and fellow-members, and fellow-par- takers of the promise.’ It does not seem correct to regard these three epi- thets on the one hand as merely cumu- lative and oratorical, or on the other as studiedly mystical and significant (comp. Stier, who here finds a special allusion to the Trinity). The general fact of the cvvx«\npovoula is re-asserted, in accordance with the Apostle’s pre- vious expressions, both in its outward and inward relations. The Gentiles were fellow-heirs with the believing Jews in the most unrestricted sense: they belonged to the same corporate body, the faithful ; they shared to the full in the same spiritual blessings, the érayyeNla: see Theod. in loc. The compounds ov’vyowos (‘concorporalis,’ Vulg., see Suicer, Zhes. s.v. Vol. II. p. 1rgt) and auruéroxos (‘comparticeps,’ Vulg.; ch. v. 7) appear to have been both formed by St Paul, being only found in this Ep. and the Ecclesias- tical writers. The verb cupueréxw occurs in classical Greek, e.g. Eurip. Suppl. 648, Plato, Theet. p. 181 ©. Tisch. (ed. 7) now adopts the forms This 6, 7 61 ‘ , A ’ , ? an} A ‘ A Kal TUVMLETONGA THS eTMayyeALas €vV Xpisto Incov Ova TOU , , a 9 , , ‘ ‘ A A evayyertou, ov ervyevn Onv Owakovos KaTa TH dwpeav THO 7 , A mh AES nee, ‘ \ On XAptTos TOU OBco0 THV do0eioay MOL KATA THV Evepyelav guvKAnp. and otycwp. [ABIDEFGN], and ouypér. [AB'CD!FGN], appy. on right principles; see his Prolegom. p. XLVII. THs émayyeAlas] ‘the promise of salvation,’ not merely of the Holy Spirit (Eadie) ; for though the promise of the Spirit was one of the prominent gifts of the New Cove- nant (Gal. iii. 14), it would here be not only too restricted, but even scarcely consonant with the foregoing ouvk\npovou.a. The addition of avrod after rs émayy. (fec.) is fairly supported [D?D°EFGKL; many mss.; Vulg. (not all codd.), Goth., Syr.-Phil.; Theod., al.], but is not found in ABCD!N; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Amit., Copt., Syr.; and thus is rightly rejected by the best recent editors. év Xp. Inc. and 8a Tov evayy. both refer to the three fore- going epithets. ‘The former points to the objective ground of the salva- tion, Him in whom it centred, the latter to the medium by which it was to be subjectively applied (Mey.): 7@ meupOyvat Kal mpos avrovs, TisTevoal’ ov yap amAws, GANG ded Tov evayyedov’ Chrys. On the dis- tinction between év and 6a in the same sentence, see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, Pp. 347 note, and comp. ch. i. 7. The reading of Rec. €v 7G Xp. [DEF GKL; most mss.; Clarom., Sang., Boern.; Orig. (3), al.] is rejected by most recent editors in favour of év Xp. *Ins. which is found in ABCN; some mss.; Aug., Vulg., Goth., Copt., al. 7. éeyevy@nv] ‘I became.’ this less usual form is rightly adopted by Lachm., Tisch., al., on the authority of ABD! FGN, against CD°EKL which read éyevdunv. The passive form how- ever implies no corresponding differ- kal T@ ence of meaning (Riick., Eadie): +l- yvouw.at in the Doric dialect was a depo- nent pass., éyev7Onv was thus used in it for éyevdunv, and from thence oc- casionally crept into the language of later writers: see Buttmann, /rreg. Verbs, s.v. TEN—, Lobeck, Phryn. p- 108, 109, and comp. notes on Col. iV, Uli SudKovos] ‘a minister ;? so Col. i. 23, 2 Cor. iii, 6. Meyer rightly impugns the distinction of Harless, that dud«. points more to activity in relation to the service, brnp- érns to activity in relation to the mas- > ter. This certainly cannot be substan- tiated by the exx. in the N.T.; see 2 Cor. vi. 4, xi. 23, 1 Tim. iv. 6, where dud. is simply used in reference to the master, and Luke i. 2, where sanpérns refers to the service. On the deriva- tion of dud. (dinxw), see Buttm. Lewil, S.v. ddkTopos, § 40. 3: for its more re- mote affinities [AK- ATK- ‘bend’], Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 22. tiv Sap. THS XaptTos] ‘the gift of the grace ;’ gen. of identity, that of which the gift, z.e. the apostolic office, the office of preaching to the Gentiles, consisted; comp. Plato, Leg. vii. p. 844 D, dirTas Swpeas xdpiTos, and see Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82, Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470. TV Sobetody por] ‘which was given to me,’ not a mere reiteration of the pre- ceding dwpedv, but associated closely with the following words which define the manner of the déc1s. The reading THs Sobelans (Lachm.) is supported by very strong external authority [ABC D!IFGN; 10 mss.; Clarom., Vulg., Copt.], but appears so likely to have arisen from a conformation to ver. 2, that it can hardly be adopted with safety. The accus. is found in D’E 62 IIPO= E®EZIOY2. 8 A BY , ’ an oy 4 ~ ’ , , TNS OVVAMEWS GAUVTOUV* EMOL TH eAAXLTTOTEPH TAVTOV aylwyv edo0y 7 Xapes avy, év Tois COverw edayyericac Bat g TO aveEtxviacrov TobTos ToD Xpicrov, kat pwrica KL; majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al., and is adopted by Zisch. and most recent critics. Kata TV évépy. | ‘according to the working or operation of His power ;’ defining prepositional clause, dependent, not on éyevyOnv (Mey.), but on tiv doPctcdy wor, which would otherwise seem an unnecessary addition: ‘the mention of the power of God is founded on the circumstance that St Paul sees in his change of heart from a foe to a friend of Christ an act of omnipotence ;’ Olsh. On the proper force of xard, see notes on ch, i. 19. 8. pol tO éAaxtoTotépw] ‘unto me who am less than the least,’ Auth. ; a most felicitous translation. No ad- dition was required to the former period; the great Apostle however so truly, so earnestly, felt his own weak- ness and nothingness (ed kal ovdéy eiu, 2 Cor. xii. 11), that the mention of God’s grace towards him awakens within, by the forcible contrast it sug- gests, not only the remembrance of his former persecutions of the church (1 Cor. xv. 9, 10), but of his own sinful nature (1 Tim. i. 15, e/ui, not 7v), and unworthiness for so high an office. Calvin and Harl. here expound with far more vitality than Est., who refers thistamewodppoovvns vrepBoniv (Chrys.) solely to the memory of his for- mer persecutions. It is perfectly in- credible how in such passages as these, which reveal the truest depths of Chris- tian experience, Baur (Paulus, p. 447) can only see contradictions and argu- ments against the apostolic origin of the Epistle. On the form é\axuor. see Winer, Gr. § 11. 2, p. 65, and the _exx. collected by Wetst. in loc., out of which however remove Thucyd. Iv. 118, as the true reading is Kd\Xtov. év Tots €0v. evayyed. | ‘to preach among the Gentiles ;’? explanatory and partly appositional clause, the emphatic éy Tots €Gveowv marking the Apostle’s dis- tinctive sphere of action, and the inf. defining the preceding 7 xdpis airn: see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 57. 10. 6, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 192, Winer, Gr. $ 44. 1, p. 284. To make this clause dependent on dwpedy, ver. 7, and to regard €éyol....airm as parenthetical (Harl.), seems a very improbable con- nexion, and is required neither by grammar nor by the tenor of the pas- sage. Lachm. omits év with ABCN; 3mss.; Copt.; (A/f.): but the authority for retaining it [DEFG KL; nearly all mss.; Syr. (both), Clarom., Vulg., Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al.] seems slightly to prepon- derate. atovTos Tov Xp. | ‘riches of Christ,’ t.e. the exhaustless blessings of salvation; compare Rom. xi, 33. It is dveiitxyvlacroy (LXX, Job v. 9, ix. 10, Heb. 7/2 })8) both in its nature, extent, and application. 9. Kal darloat mdvras] ‘and to illuminate all, make all see;’ ° X» ve¥an a RoR Souslo [et in lucem proferam omni homini] Syr.; expan- sion of the foregoing clause as to the process (the Apostle had grace given not only outwardly to preach the Gos- pel, but inwardly to enlighten), though appy. not as to the persons (ed. 1), as owing to its unemphatie position the mdvras can scarcely be thought more inclusive than the foregoing ra ¢0vn: see Meyer. The significant verb dw- ricat must not be explained away as if it were synonymous with diddéae TE Coo; 20; 63 , , , A , aS TavTas TIS 4 OLKOVOMLa TOU puaTHpLoV TOU aTTOKEKpUL- , ° 4 A , bd lod ~ lod x , Ul Meéevou ATO TaV aiovey év TO Oew TO Ta TaYTa KTICaYTL, iva yop by vuy Tais apxais Kal Tals eEovotas €v Tos IO (De W.): this derivative meaning is found in the LXX, see Judges xiii. § (Alex.), 2 Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, 28, but not in the N.T., where the reference is always to light, either physical (Luke xi. 36), metaphorical (« Cor. iv. 5), or spiritual (Heb. vi. 4, al.); comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 15, Vol. 1. p- 156 note. Christ is properly 6 ¢w- Tigo (John i. g); His apostles illumi- nate ‘participatione ac ministerio:’ Estius. On the use of the word in ref. to baptism, see Suicer, Thesawi. Vol. 1. p. 1491. Tisch. (ed. 7) omits kal apparently by mistake. Lachm, brackets mdvtas as being omitted by A, 2 mss.; Cyr., Hil., al.; to these 8 is now added. q oixovopnia «.7.A.] ‘the dispensation of the mystery, &c.’ ‘dispositio sacramenti absconditi,’ Vulg., Clarom. ;—scil. the dispensation (arrangement, regulation) of the mystery (the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, ver. 6), which was to be humbly traced and ac- knowledged in the fact of its having secretly existed in the primal counsels of God, and now having been revealed to the heavenly powers by means of the Church. On the meaning of oiko- voula, see notes on ch. i. 10, The reading xowwvia (Rec.) has only the support of cursive mss., and is a mere explanatory gloss. amd tav aidvev] ‘from the ages,’ scil. “since the ages of the world began,’ comp. raphe) Gen. vi. 4: terminus a quo of the concealment. The counsel itself was formed mpd rTéy aldvwr, 1 Cor. ii. 7; the concealment of it dated a7d Tv aldywy, from the commence- ment of the ages when intelligent beings from whom it could be concealed were called into existence ; comp. Rom. XVl. 25, wvoTnplov xpdvos alwvlos ce- ovynuevov. TO TO TavTa Ktlcayvtt] ‘who created all things,’ ‘qui omnia creavit,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; certainly not, ‘ quippe qui omnia crea- vit,’ Meyer,—a translation which would require the absence of the arti- cle; comp. notes on ch, i. 12, and see esp. Donalds. Crat. § 306. The exact reason for this particular designation being here appended to 7G Oce@ has been somewhat differently estimated. The most simple explanation would seem to be that it is added to enhance the idea of God’s omnipotence; the emphatic position of 7a& mdvra (‘nulla re prorsus excepta,’ Est.) being de- signed to give to the idea its widest extent and application ;—‘ who created all things,’ and so with His undoubt- ed prerogative of sovereign and crea- tive power ordained the very pucrjptoy itself. A reference to God’s omniscience would more suitably have justified the concealment, the reference to His omnipotence more convincingly vindi- cates the evdoxia according to which it was included in and formed part of His primal counsels. It is not ne- cessary to limit 7a dyra, but the tense seems to show that it refers rather to the physical (ovdév yap xywpls abrod merroinxe, Chrys.), than to the spiri- tual creation (Calv.). This latter view was perhaps suggested by the longer reading xric. dca ’Inood Xp. [Rec. with D3EKL; most mss.; Syr.-Phil. with asterisk ; Chrys., Theod., al.], which however is rightly rejected by most recent editors with ABCD!IFGN; a few mss.; Syr., Vulg., Goth., al.; Basil, Cyr., and many Ff. 10. ya yvwpiocby viv] ‘in order that there might be made known now ;’ 64 IIPOZ E®EZSIOY2. , ’ A ~ ’ lo ETTOUPAVLOLS Ova THs exkAnolas 4 mOAUTOLKIAOS copia Tov Q a A , a 77 a ’ , ’ Los IIE €OU, KATA 7 podectv TWVY QALWYWY HV ETTOLNGEV EV Xpisto divine object and purpose of the gene- ral dispensation described in the two foregoing verses; not of either of the facts specified in the two participial clauses immediately preceding, for neither the concealment of the mys- tery (Meyer), nor the past act of material creation (Harl.), could be pro- perly said to have had as its purpose and design the present (viv opp. to dé Tav aiwvwy) exhibition of God’s wisdom to angels. The Apostle (as Olsh. well remarks), in contrasting the greatness . of his call with the nothingness of his personal self, pursues the theme of his labour through all its stages: the é\axioTdrepos has grace given him evayyerloac@a, K.T.A., hay More, Pw- Tica. wavras K.T.A., and that too that heaven might see and acknowledge the modvmolki\0s codla of God; see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 518 (Bohn). tats dpxais k.T.A.] ‘ to the principalities and to the powers in the heavenly regions ;’ se. to the good angels and intelligences; a ref. to both classes (Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. p- 315) being excluded, not so much by év rots émroup. (Alf., for comp. ch. vi. 12), as by the general tenor of the passage; evil angels more naturally recognise the power, good angels the wisdom of God. On the term dpyats kal éfovs., each with the art. to add weight to the enumeration, see notes on ch. i. 21, and on rots ézroup. notes on ch. i. 3, 20. Sta THs exkAnolas] ‘through the Church,’ scil., ‘by means of the Church;’ dia rijs mepl Thy exkAnolay oikovouias’ Theod, The Church, the community of be- lievers in Christ (Col. i. 24), was the means by which these ministering spirits were to behold and contemplate God's wisdom: comp. Calvin zn loc., “ecclesia...quasi speculum sit in quo contemplantur Angeli mirificam Dei sapientiam ;’ dre quets EucdAoumer, TOTE Kaketvo. Oc judy’ Chrys. That the holy angels are capable of a specific increase of knowledge, and of a deep- ening insight into God’s wisdom, seems from this passage clear and incontro- vertible; comp. 1 Pet. i. 12, e¢s & ému- Oumotow dyyeho. wapaxtd Wat, and see Petavius, Theol. Dogm. Vol. 111. p. 44 sq., Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. I. p. 46. modvtrotkidos] * manifold,’ ‘ multi- formis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; see Orph. Hymn. Vi. 11, LXt. 4. This character- istic of God's wisdom is to be traced, not in the rapddogov, by which issues were brought about by unlooked-for means (dua Tey évayvTiwy Ta evayTla KaTwpOwdn, ia Oavdrov fw, du’ aabe- velas Sivapus, du’ arilas ddéa, Greg.- Nyss. ap. Theoph.), but in the zro)v- rexvov (‘Theoph.), the variety of the divine counsels, which nevertheless all mysteriously co-operated toward a single end,—the call of the Gentiles, and salvation of mankind by faith in Jesus Christ. The use of zoduzolk. in reference to Gnosticism (Irenzeus, Her. 1. 4. 1, ed. Mass.) does not give the slightest reason for supposing (Baur, Paulus, p. 429) that the use of the word here arose from any such allu- sions. Il. kata 7960, Tay aidvev] ‘ac- cording to the purpose of the ages ;’ modal clause dependent on ta yrw- pic6y, specifying the accordance of the revelation of the divine wisdom with God’s eternal purpose; viv wer, dnl, yéyover, ob viv 6€ wpicto, ANN dvwOev The gen. rav it can mpoteTUmwro’ Chrys. aldjvwv is somewhat obscure : scarcely be (a) a gen. objecti (‘ the fore- ordering of the ages,’ Whitby, comp. Dies LQ’ ‘Tycot to Kupio juor, év 6 r 1 65 A , A EXOMEV THY Tappyciay Kat 12 4 ‘ a r 2 la THV Tporayoryny ev werolOnoe dla THY TitTEWS AVTOU. Peile), or even ()) a gen. of the point of view (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129), —for the Apostle is not speaking of God’s purpose in regard to different times or dispensations, but of His single purpose of uniting and saving mankind in Christ,—but will be most naturally regarded as (c) belonging to the general category ef the gen. of possession (‘the purpose which pertain- ed to, existed in, was determined on in the ages’), and as serving to define the general relation of time; comp. Jude 6, kplow pweyadns juepas, and see Winer, G7. § 30. 2, p. 169. The mean- ing is thus nearly equivalent to that of the similar expression mpd@eow... po xpovew aiwvlwy, 2 Tim. i. 9; God’s purpose existed in His eternal being, and was formed in the primal ages (‘a seculis,’ Syr.) before the founda- tion of the world; comp ch. i. 4. qv érolycey] ‘which he wrought,’ ‘quam fecit,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., “gatavida,’ Goth. The exact meaning of érolncev is doubtful. The mention of the eternal purpose would seem to imply rather ‘constituit’ (Harl., Alf.) than ‘executus est’ (De W., Mey.), as the general reference seems mere to the appointment of the decree than to its historical realization (see Calv. ; Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 204): still the words év Xp.*Incot 76 Kuplw %pGv seem so clearly to point to the realization, the carrying out of the purpose in Jesus Christ,—the Word made flesh (compare Olsh.),—that the latter (Matth. xxi. 31, John vi. 38, t Kings v. 8, Isaiah xliv. 28) must be considered preferable. As however St Paul has used a middle term, neither mpoéGero nor émeréXece, a mid- dle term (e.g. ‘ wrought,’ ‘ made,’— not ‘fulfilled,’ Conyb.) should be re- tained in translation. The read- ing is slightly doubtful. Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 1 and 7) insert 7@ before Xp. with ABC!; 37. 116. al.: as how- ever the title 6 Xp. Ino. 6 Kup. nuav does not appy. occur elsewhere (Col. ii. 6 is the nearest approach to it; see Middl. Gr. Art. Append. I. p. 495, ed. Rose), and the omission is well sup- ported [C?DEKLN; most mss. ; Ath., Chrys., Theod.], we still retain the reading of Rec., Tisch. (ed. 2), and the majority of editors. 12, &y @ xopev] ‘in whom (founded in whom) we have ;’ appeal to, and proof drawn from their Christian experience, the relative @ having here a slightly demonstrative and explanatory force (6Tt 6é dd Tod = Xp. yéyovev dmav, év & é€xopmev dyol k.7.. Chrys., comp. Theod.), and being nearly equivalent to &v atrg yap; see Jelf, Gr. $834. 2, Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 12, p. 293, and note on ols on Col. i. 27. TV Tappy- olay] ‘our boldness,’ ‘fiduciam,’ Vulg., Clarom.; not here ‘libertatem o77s,’ whether in ref. to prayer (Beng.), or to preaching the Gospel (Vatabl.) ; for, as in many instances (Lev. xxvi. 13 pera mapp. NINDDIP, 1 Mace. iv. 18, Heb. iii. 6, t John ii. 28, al.), the primitive meaning has here merged into that of ‘cheerful boldness’ (@d- pos, Zonar. Lex. p. 1508; ‘Freudig- keit,’ Luth.); that ‘freedom of spirit’ (‘freihals,’ Goth.) which becomes those whe are conscious of the re- deeming love of Christ; ayidoas yap nuGs 6a Tod idlov alwaros mpoonyaye Gappotvras’ (Hcum.; see notes on I Tim. iii. 13. Thy mporaywoyyv] ‘our admission ;’ otx ws alxuddwrot, onal, TpogonxOnpmerv, AN us avy- yrouns dévotjmevor’ Chrys., and sim. the K 66 IITPOZ E®EZIOY=. 4 5 a A ? a ’ A , , e 4 13 O10 aiToumat py evKakeity év Tais ONieciv ov u7TEp eae e 9 A , on ULV, NTL ETT doka UMO@V. other Greek commentators; comp. Aith., ‘ductorem nostrum,’ and see notes on ch. ii. 18. The transitive meaning there advocated is appy. a little less certain in the present case, on account of the union with the in- trans. mappyoiay, still both lexical au- thority and the preceding reference to our Lord seem to require and justify it; comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. II. p. 850. How ‘the use of the article before both nouns signalizes them as the twin elements of an unique privi- lege’ (Eadie), is not clear; see on the contrary Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 117. Lachm. omits the second art., with ABN!; 2 mss.; but in opp. to CDE (D!E tiv mpoc. x. 7. app.) FG(FG Tiv mpoo. eis T. Tapp.) KLN4; nearly all mss.; Ath., Chrys., Theod., al. ;— authority appy. preponderant. év metmou8rjoe] ‘in confidence,’ mera 700 Oappetv, Chrys.,—a noble example of which is afforded by St Paul him- self in the sublime words of Rom. viii. 38, 39 (Mey.). The present clause does not qualify mpocaywy) (‘no timorous approach,’ Eadie), but is the predication of manner, and defines the tone and frame of mind (‘alacriter libenterque,’ Calv.) in which the zpoc- aywy? is enjoyed and realized. Thus then é€& Xp. marks the objective ground of the possession, 61a Tis mlor. the subjective medium by which, and év erro.0. the subjective state in which it is apprehended: ‘tres itaque gradus sunt faciendi, nam primum Dei pro- missionibus credimus, deinde his ac- quiescentes concipimus fiduciam ut bo- no simus tranquilloque animo: hine sequitur audacia, qui facit ut profli- gato metu intrepide et constanter nos Deo commendemus :’ Caly. Ilezol@7- ots (2 Kings xvill. 19) is only used in the N. T. by St Paul (2 Cor. i. 15, iii. 4, Vill. 22, x. 2, Phill iii-4)5 andassa word of later Greek: see Eustath. on Odyss. 111. p. 114. 41, Lobeck, Phryn. Pp. 294 8q. THs thetews adTod|] ‘faith on Him;’ gen. objecti, virtually equivalent to lor. eis airév: see Rom. lii. 22, Gal. ii. 16, and comp. notes It is doubtful whether the deeper meaning which Stier (comp. Matth.) finds in the words, sc. ‘faith of which Christ is not only the object, but the ground,’ can here be fully substantiated. On the whole verse, see three posthumous sermons of Sonth, Serm. Xxx. sq. Vol. Iv. p. 413 sq. (Tegg). 13. 86] ‘On which account,’ ‘wherefore,’ sc. since my charge is so important and our spiritual privileges im loc. so great; dud7t wéya TO pvoTHpLoy THs KAjoews Huay, kal weydda & éveruorev- Onv éyw: Theoph. The reference of this particle has been very differently explained. Estius and Meyer with some plausibility connect it simply with the preceding verse; ‘cum igitur ad tantam dignitatem vocati sitis, ejusque consequende fiduciam habea- tis per Christum; rogo vos, &c.’ Est. As however ver. 8—11 contain the principal thought to which ver. 12 is only subordinate and supplementary, the former alluding to the nature and dignity of the Apostle’s commission, the latter to its effects and results, in which both he and his converts (éxouev) share, the particle will much more naturally refer to the whole paragraph. The union of the Apo- stle’s own interests and those of his converts in the following words then becomes natural and appropriate. The use of 61d by St Paul is too varied to enable us safely to adduce any gram- 11D eee eae or On this account (I say) I pray to God 67 , ‘ ’ Tovrou Xap KaAKLTTO Ta yovara Mov I4 the Father to give you strength within, and teach you the in- comprehensible love of Christ, and fill you with God’s fulness, matical considerations: Gal. iv. 31. see notes on alrotpar py évkaketv] ‘7 entreat you not to lose heart ;’ buds (Alth.) not rdv Oedy (Theod.) being supplied after the verb ; comp. 2 Cor. v. 20, Heb. xiii. 19 (2 Cor. vi. 1, x. 2, cited by De W., are less appropriate), where a similar sup- plement is required. Such construc- tions as ‘I pray (God) that ye lose not heart,’ or ‘that I lose not heart’ (Syr.), are both open to the objection that the object of the verb and subject of the inf. (both unexpressed) are thus made different without sufficient rea- son. Moreover such a prayer as that in the latter interpretation would here fall strangely indeed from the lips of the great Apostle who had learnt in his sufferings to rejoice (Col. i. 24), and in his very weakness to find ground for boasting; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 30, xil. 5. On the form évxaxety, not éxkaxeiy, see notes on (ral. vi. 9. év tats OAhperw x.t.A.] ‘in my tribu- lations for you,’ ‘in (not ‘ob,’ Beza) tribulationibus meis,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; éy as usual denoting the sphere as it were in which the faint-heartedness of the Ephesians might possibly be shown ; see Winer, (77. § 48. a, p. 345. So close was their bond of union in Christ, that the Apostle felt his afflic- tions were theirs ; they might be faint- hearted in his, as if they were their own. The article is not necessary be- fore Urép, as OAlWeor can be considered in structural union with tmép bua: comp. ONiBecGar Urép Twos, 2-Cor. i. 6; see notes on ch. i. 15. rts early SdEa tuav] ‘inasmuch as it as your glory;’ reason (jmerépa ydp dofa x.7.d. Theod.), or rather expla- nation, why they were not to be faint- hearted ; the indef. relative being here explanatory (comp. ch. i. 23, notes on Gal. iv. 24, and Hartung, Casus, p. 286), and referring to O\iWeow on the common principle of attraction by which the relative assumes the gender of the predicate; see Winer, G7. § 240 3, p. 150, Madvig, Synt. $98. The way in which St Paul’s tribulations could be said to tend to the glory of the Ephesians is simply but satisfac- torily explained by Chrys., re ovrws avrovs Wydarnoev 6 Oebs, Ware Kal TOV vidv drép abrGv Sodvar Kat Tovs dovdous Kakoov iva yap ovToe TUXWoL TOTOUT WY ayabdav [see ver. 6] Iatdos édecpetro. The personal reason, ‘quod doctorem habetis qui nullis calamitatibus fran- gitur,’ Calixt. (compare Theod.), in which case 77s must refer to pi év- kakeiv, seems wholly out of the ques- tion. Glory accrued to the Ephesians from the official dignity, not the per- sonal fortitude (kaprepia, Theod.) of the sufferer. 14. Tovrov xdpw] ‘On this ac- count,’ sc. ‘because ye are so called and so built together in Christ, ’resump- tion of ver. 1 (raira mdvra év péow Tefekas, dvahapBdaver Tov wept mpocev- xfs Noyov’ Theod.); rodrov xdpw re- ferring to the train of thought at the end of ch. ii., and to the ideas paral- lel to it in the digression; in brief, éredy ovTws HyamnOnre mapa Oeov" (Ecum. KoprTe Ta Yo- vata K.t.A.] ‘2 bend my knees (in prayer) to;’ expression indicative of the earnestness and fervency of his prayer ; éonjuwave, Theoph., comp. Chrys. Kdp- mrew yovu (usually x. éml ydvu in the LXX) is joined with the dat. in its simple sense (Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11, both quotations); but here, in the meta- phorical sense of mpoce’xecOai, is ap- ie Thy mera KaTavisews dénow 68 IIPOz E®ESIOY2. N oY , 5) = lod 4 9 5) a A 15 7 Pos TOV Ilarépa, é& ov 7Tacd TAT Ola ev ovpavols KGL +] A ~ +) id (4 ow € A A A cal 16 emt is ovopaceTat, va Ow vupiy KaTa TO TAOUTOS 16. 64] So ABCFGN ; 3 mss.; Orig. (Cat.), Bas., Method., al. (Lachmn., Mey., al.). In ed. 1 and 2 the rarer form 67 was adopted with DEKL; great majority of mss.; Ath., Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Tisch. ed. 2, 7), and on the evidence then extant probably rightly. The addition of 8 seems however now just sufficient to turn the scale; comp. critical note on ch. ii. 8. propriately joined with zpos to denote the object towards whom (as it were) the knees were bowed,—the mental direction of the prayer; see Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p. 360. On the posture of kneeling in prayer, see Bingham, Antig. X11. 8. 4, and esp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 777. The interpolation of the words rod Kuplov nudv’l. X. after rarépa, though undoubtedly ancient, and well support- ed [DEFGKLN?#; nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both), Vulg., Goth., al. ; Chrys., Theod., al.], is rightly rejected in favour of the text [ABCN!; 2 mss. ; Demid., Copt., Ath. (both), al. ; Orig., Cyr., al.] by nearly all modern editors except De Wette and Eadie. 15. é€ ot] ‘from whom,’ ‘after whom; ék pointing to the origin or source whence the name was derived; see notes on Gal. ii. 16, and comp. Xen. Mem. Iv. 5. 12, py 6é Kal 7d OiaréyerOar dvouacOjvar éx Tod cupiby- Tas Kowy BovAever Oar: Hom. J. x. 68, Less direct origination is expressed by dé; comp. dvoud¢. ard, Herod. vi. 130. Taca tTatpid] ‘every race, family,’ not ‘the whole family,’ Auth.; see Middleton im loc., p. 361 (ed. Rose). The use of the particular term rarpid is evidently suggested by the preced- ing marépa; its exact meaning however, matpodev ék yevens dvoudtwv. and still more its present reference, are both very debateable. With re- gard to the first it may be said that matpia does not imply (a) ‘paternitas,’ Vulg., Syr., al. (kuplws maryp, Kal adnO6s matnp 6 Oeds, Theod.; comp. Tholuck, Bergpr. p. 394),—a transla- tion defensible neither in point of ety- mology or exegesis, but is either used in (b) the more limited sense of ‘familia’ (metiot, Copt.; comp. Arm.), or more probably (c) that of the more inclusive ‘gens’ (Heb. nna, less commonly nias n'a, comp. Gesen. Lew. s. v. Nid, 10); see Herod. 1. 200, elol 6é aitév [BaBv\wrlwy] marpial rpets, and compare Acts ili. 25 with Gen. xii. 3, where watpid and gud) are inter- changed. If then, as seems most cor- rect, we adopt this more inclusive meaning, the reference must be to those larger classes and communities into which, as we may also infer from other passages (comp. ch. i. 21 notes, Col. i. 16 notes), the celestial hosts appear to be divided, and to the races and tribes of men (‘queeque regionum,’ Aith.), every one of which owes the very title of rarpia by which it is de- fined to the great Ilaryp of all the matpiat both of angels and men: this title ox ad’ nudy avpOev advw, aN dvwlev iO els Huds’ Severian ap. Cramer, Caten. in loc. ; see Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol.1. p. 1238, and Suicer, Thesaur, s.v. Vol. 11. p. 637. évopdterar is thus taken in its simple etymological sense, ‘¢s named, bears the name of,’ scil, of warpid, ‘ dicitur,’ Copt., al., ‘namnajada,’ Goth.; see Meyer im loc. All special interpo- lations, e.g. ‘nominantur jilii Dei’ (Beng., comp. Beza), or arbitrary in- terpretations of dvouat., e.g. ‘existit, PE east 0..F 7: 69 TNS doEns avTou duvapet Kpara.mOyvar Oca tov IIvev- ~ A - f ~ 4 arog autTou ets Tov ecw avOpwrov, KaToLKnTal TOY 1 ) originem accipit’ (Estius, al.; comp. Riick.),— meanings which even ka)ei- oOa (Eadie) never directly bears,— are wholly inadmissible. 16. tva 8@ tptv] ‘that he would grant you ;’ subject of the prayer being blended with the purpose of making it; see notes on ch. i. 17. On the reading see critical notes. KaTa TO TAOUTOS K.T.A.] ‘according to the riches of His glory,’ according to the abundance and plenitude of His own perfections; see notes on ch. i. 7. Suvdper] ‘with power,’ ‘with (infused) strength;’ ‘ut virtute seu fortitudine ab eo accepta corroboremini:’ Estius. This dative has been differently ex- plained; it cannot be (a) the dat. of “reference to,’ or more correctly speak- ing, of ‘ethical locality’ (see notes on Gal.i.22, and exx. in Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 15, €.g. xpymace Suvarol elvar, éc.), for it was not one particular fa- culty, power, as opp. to knowledge, &c. but the whole ‘inner man,’ which was to be strengthened. Harl. cites Acts iv. 33, but the example is inapplicable. Nor again (b) does it appear to be used adverbially (dat. of manner, Jelf, Gr. § 603. 2), for this interpr., though more plausible (see Riick.), is open to the objection of directing the thought to the strengthener rather than to the subject in whom strength is to be in- fused; see Meyer in loc. It is thus more correctly regarded as (c) the simple instrumental dat. (Arm.) defin- ing the element or influence of which the Spirit is the ‘causa medians ;’ comp. év duvduer, Col. i. 11. eis Toy tow AvOpwrov] ‘into the inner man,’ direction and destination of the prayed for gift of infused strength; the clause being obviously connected with kparaiwé. (Vulg., Goch.,—appy.) not with karoxfoac (Syr., Copt., AMth., and Gr. Ff.); and e/s not being for év (Beza), nor even in its more lax sense ‘in regard of’ (Mey.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p- 354), but in its more literal and expressive sense of ‘to and into:’ the ‘inner man’ is the recipient of it (6 xwp@v, Schol. ap. Cram. Caten.), the subject into whom the dvvauis is infused; comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27. The expression 6 éow dvOp. (Rom. vii. 22) is nearly identical with, but somewhat more inclusive than 6 kpumrés THs Kapdlas dvOpwros (1 Pet. iii. 4), and stands in antithesis to 6 €w dvOpwmos (2 Cor. iv. 16); the former being practically equivalent to the vods or higher nature of man (Rom. vii. 23), the latter to the oapé or the wé\n: see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 21. 3, p. 68. It is within this éow dvOpwrros that the powers of regenera- tion are exercised (Harless, Christl. Ethik, § 22. a), and it is from their operation in this province that the whole man (‘secundum interna spec- tatus,’ Beng.) becomes a véos dvOpw- mos (as opp. to a former state), or a kawds dvOpwmos (as opp. to a former corrupt state, ch. iv. 24), and is either 6 kara Ocdv KTia Geis (ch. iv. 24), or 6 dvakatvotmevos els érlyywow Kar’ eixéva Tod KTlcavtos avrév (Col. iil. Io), according to the point of view under which regeneration is regarded ; see Harless, Hthik, § 24. c. The dis- tinction between this and the partially synonymous terms mvedua and vovs may perhaps be thus roughly stated: mvedua is simply the highest of the three parts of which man is com- posed (see notes ow 1 Thess. v. 23); vods the mveduw regarded more in its moral and intellectual aspects, ‘ qua- tenus intelligit, cogitat, et vult’ (see 70 WPOz E®EZIOY2. an ° a , € A 9 18 Xpirrov Ova Ths TiaTews EV TaAis Kkapotats UUW, EV notes on Phil. iv. 7); 6 éow dyOp. the mvedua, or rather the whole imma- terial portion, considered in its theo- logical aspects, and as the seat of the inworking powers of grace: comp. Olsh. on Rom. vii. 22, Opusc. Theol. Pp. 143 8q., Beck, Seelenl. 1. 13, p. 35, and on the threefold nature of man generally, Destiny of the Creature, Serm. v. p. 103 sq. (ed. 3). The at- tempt to connect St Paul’s inspired definitions with the terminology of earlier (6 évrds dvOp., Plato, Republ. 1X. p. 589 A) or of later Platonism (6 évoov dvOp., Plot. Ennead. I. 1. 10), as in Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 63, will be found on examination to be untenable. The dissimilarities are marked, the supposed parallelisms illusory. 17. KaToujoa. tov Xp.| ‘that Christ may dwell...in your hearts ;’ is- sue and result (Wore Karoukfoat, Orig.), not purpose (Eadie), of the inward strengthening; the present clause not being parallel to duvduer xparawé. (Mey.), and dependent on é@, but, as the emphatic position of karoixjoas seems clearly to show, appended to KparawwOjvat with a partially climac- tic force, but a somewhat lax gram- matical connexion: see Winer, Gr. § 44. I, p. 284, comp. Madvig, Synt. § 153. The meaning is thus perfectly clear and simple; the indwelling of Christ, the taking up of His abode (katoujoa, Matth. xii. 45, Luke xi. 26, Col. i. 19 and notes, 2 Pet. iii. 13; the simple form is however used in Rom. viii. 9, 1 Cor. iii. 16) is the result of the working of the Holy Spirit on the one side, and the subjec- tive reception of man (da rs qi.) on the other; ‘non procul intuendum esse Christum fide, sed recipiendum esse anime nostra complexu:’ Calv. Tov Xpioroy| The attempt of Fritz. (Rom. viii. 10, Vol. 11. p. 118) to show that Xpicrds is here merely ‘mens quam Christus postulat,’ by comparing such passages as Arist. Acharn. 484, Karamu Kipurldny, is as painful as it is unconvincing. What a contrast is the vital exegesis of Chrys., m@s dé 6 Xp. xarouxe? év rats Kapdlais; dKove aitod \éyovros Tod Xpicrod, “ENevad- peOa éyw kal 6 marhp Kal wovhy map’ év tats Kapdlats] ‘in your hearts;’ ‘partem etiam de- signat ubi legitima est Christi sedes, avT@ ToLnoomey. nempe cor: ut sciamus non satis esse si in lingua versetur, aut in cerebro volitet:’ Calv. On the meaning of kapoia (properly the imaginary seat of the Wvx7, and thence the seat and centre of the moral life viewed on the side of the affections), see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. iv. 11, p. 203 sq., and notes on Phil. iv. 7. 18. é dydry kT.) ‘ye having been rooted and grounded in love; state consequent on the indwelling of Christ, viz. one of fixedness and foun- dation in love, the participle reverting irregularly to the nominative for the sake of making the transition to the following clause more easy and natu- ral: doxe? wor capds Ta E&fs ev TodOL- kim elpyjcOat, ws mpos THY dpdow* mpos yap TO 67 Uptv axddovOoy jv eimeiy éppismévors kal rTebeuedw- pévots...0 6€ Gé\wv aroKkaracrioat Ta KaTa TOY TOrov xXwpls codorklas, oxéwar ef 7} Bidoerar ot tw THy dpdow amoxatactds’ Orig. Cat. The as- sumed transposition of wa (iva épp. kal te0. é&tox., Auth., Winer, Mey. ; —but adopted by none of the ancient Vv. except Goth.), which Origen thus properly rejects, cannot be justified by any necessity for emphasis, or by the passages adduced by Fritz. (Rom. xi. 31, Vol. 1. p. 541), viz. Acts xix. 4, is 16: (a a Ls 313 'e , A , of °’ , ayamn €pprCamévor Kal TePemeAtmmevot, iva eEirxvonte , \ to ~ ¢ , , A , A catahaBécOa cuv rac Tots aylols, TL TO TAATOS Kal John xiii. 29, 1 Cor. ix. 15, 2 Cor. ii. 4, Gal. ii. 10, 2 Thess. ii. 7; as in all of them (except Thess. 7. ¢. which is not analogous) the premised words are not as here connected with the sub- ject, but form the objective factor of the sentence. The only argument of any real weight against the proposed interpr. is not so much syntactic (for see the numerous exx. of similar irre- gularities in Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 9. 4) as exegetical, it being urged that the perf. part. which points to a completed state is inconsistent with a prayer which seems to refer to a state of progress, and to require the present part. (see Mey.). The answer however seems satisfactory,—that the clause does ex- press the state which must ensue upon the indwelling of Christ, before what is expressed in the next clause (va ééicx.) can in any way be realized, and that therefore the perf. part. is correctly used. The Apostle prays that they may be strengthened, that the result of it may be the indwelling of Christ, the state naturally conse- quent on which would be fixedness in the principle of Christian love. We now notice the separate words. év dydan] ‘in love, —not either of Christ (comp. Chrys. aydr7n airoi), or of God (Wolf), either of which re- ferences would certainly have required some defining gen., but the Christian principle of love,—love 6 éorw ovvie- opmos THs TeAELOTHTOS, Col. iii.14. This was to be their basis and foundation, in which alone they were to be fully enabled to realize all the majestic pro- portions of Christ’s surpassing love to man; comp. 1 John iv. 7 sq. The absence of the article is unduly pressed both by Meyer (= ‘in amando’) and Harl. (‘subjective love,’ ‘man’s love to Christ’), such omissions in the case of abstract nouns, esp. when pre- ceded by prepp., being not uncommon in the N.T.; see exx. Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, p- 109, and comp. Middleton, Greek Art. VI. I, p. 98 (ed. Rose). eppit. Kal reOeu.] It has been said that there is here a mixture of meta- phors; comp. Olsh., Mey., al. This is not strictly true: pufdw is abundant- ly used both with an ethical (Herod. I. 64, Plutarch, Mor. 6 £) and a phy- sical (Hom. Od. x11. 163) reference, without any other allusion to its pri- mitive meaning than that of jixedness, firmness at the base or foundation ; see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. Il. p. 1337, and Wetst. 7m loc. Wa euoyvonre] ‘in order that ye may be fully able; object contemplated in the prayer for Christ’s indwelling in their hearts, and their consequent fix- edness in love: éftcxvonre dyow, wate icxvos moN\js det’ Chrys.: comp. Ecclus. vii. 6, ai ovK e&ioxtoers EFGpac KaTada- Béo8ar] ‘to comprehend; the tense perhaps implying the singleness of the act (see exx. Winer, Gr. § 44. 7, p. 296, but see notes on ver. 4), and the voice the exercise of the mental power: see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 432. bb, where this is termed the appropriative middle, and Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq., where it is termed the dynamic middle, as indicating the earnestness or spirit- ual energy with which the action is performed. The meaning of the verb (karavoeic0at, Hesych.) can scarcely be doubtful: the meaning ‘ occupare’ (comp. Goth., ‘gafahan ; Copt., aho), adopted by Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11.p. 294), but supported only by one proper example, is here plainly untenable, addcklas. 72 IIPO= E®EZIOY2. Ig pykos Kat BaOos Kat vrhos, yooval te Thy vTepBar- as the middle voice only occurs in the N.T. in reference to the mental powers ; see Acts iv. 13, X. 34, XXV. 25. tl TO TAGTOS K.T.A.| what is the breadth and length and depth and height ;’ certainly not ‘lati- tudinem quandam, éc.,’ Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 294), such a use of ri im- plying a transposition, and assigning a meaning here singularly improbable. The exact force and application of these words is somewhat doubtful. Without noticing the various spiritual applications (see Corn. a Lap., and Pol. Syn. in loc.) all of which seem more or less arbitrary, it may be said (1) that St Paul is here expressing the idea of greatness, metaphysically considered, by the ordinary dimensions of space; dia yap Tod jk. Kal wr. Kal Bae. xal UY. 7d wéyeBos tapedjhwoer, €red7 Tara meyeOous Sndwrika Theod. It is however more difficult (2) to specify what it is of which the great- ness and dimensions are predicated. Setting again aside all arbitrary refer- ences (7) Tod crauvpod dicts, Orig., Se- ver.; ‘contemplatio Hcclesie,’ Beng., Eadie), we seem left to a choice be- tween a reference to (a) 7 dydry Tod Geov mGs mavtaxod éxtérara, Chrys., THS XaptTros TO éyeGos, Theod.-Mops., or (6) 7 aydrn rod Xp., Calv., Meyer. If the preceding dydmry had referred to the love of God, (a) would have seemed most probable: as it does not, and as its general meaning there would be inapplicable here, (6) seems the most natural explanation. Thus then the consequent clause, without being de- pendent or explanatory, still practi- cally supplies the defining gen.: St Paul pauses on the word twos, and then, perhaps feeling it the most appropriate characteristic of Christ’s love, he appends, without finishing the construction, a parallel thought which hints at the same conception (irepBaddovear), and suggests the re- quired genitive. The order BdOos x. twos has the support of AKLN; most mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Orig., Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Zisch.,—who both in ed. 2 and 7 has by some oversight reversed the authorities) ; and is appy. rightly maintaimed, even in opp. to BCDEFG; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Goth., Copt.; Ath., Maced. (Lachm.), which adopt the more natu- ral, and for this very reason the more suspicious order. 1g. yvovat re] ‘and to know? supplemental clause to xarahaBéobae x.T.., the former referring to the comprehensive knowledge of essentials (Olsh.), the latter further specifying the practical knowledge arising from religious experience. It may be re- marked, that though tke union of sen- tences by ve is characteristic of later Greek (Bernhardy, Synt. XX. 17, p. 483), it is comparatively rare in the Gospels. In the Epistles, but most especially in the Acts, it is of more common occurrence. ‘Te is to be dis- tinguished from xai as being adjunc- tive rather than conjunctive: like ‘ que,” it appends to the foregoing clause (which is to be conceived as having a separate and independent existence, Jelf, Gr. § 754. 6) an additional, and very frequently a new thought ;—a thought which, though not necessary to (Herm. Viger, No. 315), is yet often supplemental to, and a further development of the subject of the first clause; comp. Acts ii. 33, Heb. i. 3, - and see Winer, Gr. § 57. 3, p. 517 (ed. 5). THv dwepBaAr THs yvdoews ay.] ‘the knowledge-surpass- ing love; the gen. yvdoews being due to the notion of comparison involved IIT. 19. 73 a , A an Aoveay THs yroOrews ayarny TOU Xpirrod, iva 7Anpw- Ojre ets Tay TO TAnpwua TOV Oeod. in vrepBadd\ew: comp. Alsch. Prom. 923, Ppovrns wvmrepBdddovra KrTUmov" Arist. Pol. 111. 9; and see Jelf, Gr. § 504, Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 48. b, p. 169. The words can scarcely be twist- ed into meaning ‘the exceeding love of God in bestowing on us the know- ledge of Christ’ (Dobree, A dvers. Vol. 1. p. 573), nor can the participle t7rep8. be explained in an injfinitival sense, ‘to know that the love of Christ is aveitxviacrov’ (comp. Harl.),—a trans- lation untenable in point of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 45.4, note, p. 309), and unsatisfactory in exegesis,—but, as its position shows, must be regarded as simply adjectival. The sentence then contains an oxymoron or apparent pa- radox (comp. 4£ Cor. i. 21, 25, 2 Cor. viii. 2, Gal. ii. 19, 1 Tim. v. 6), thus simply and satisfactorily explained by Chrys. (ed. Savile) and Gicum., e kal vrepKkeirar maons yvwooews avOpwrlyns [this is too restricted] 7 dydmn Tod Xp., Gums vuets yowoerbe ef Tov Xp. cxolnre évoxovvra* comp. Theoph. Tvavar is thus contrasted with yrdous; the former being that knowledge which arises from the depths of religious ex- perience (76 yvévai dvtl Tod dmrodadoar Aéyet, Theod.-Mops.), the knowledge that is ever allied with love, Phil. i. 9; the latter abstract knowledge, not merely dvOpwrlvn (Chrys.), and most certainly not Yevddvusuos (Holzh.), but knowledge without reference to reli- gious consciousness or Christian love ; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 1 sq., xiii. 8. ayarnv tod Xp.] ‘love of Christ to- -wards us,’ gen. subjecti; not ‘love to- ward Christ,’ gen. objecti, as appy. in 1 John ii. 5, 15. iva twAwpwOiTe K.7.r.] ‘that ye may be filled to all the fulness of God; object and purpose of eLtaxvew KatahaBecbat, scil. dare m7- potcba: dons aperis ns mAjpys éorly 6 Qeds: Chrys. (ed. Sav.). There is some little difficulty in these words, arising from the ambiguity of the meaning of mAjpwua. If we adhere (a) to the more strict meaning, ‘id quo res impletur’ (see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 469 sq., notes on (al. iv. 4), the words must imply ‘that ye may be so filled as God is filled’ (Olsh.), Tov Qeot being the possessive gen., and TO mAnp. referring, not to the essence, still less to the 60a (Harl.), but to the spiritual perfections of God, Owing to the somewhat obvious objection, that such a fulness could never be completely realized in this present state of human imperfection (1 Cor, xiii. g sq.), De W. and Meyer adopt (0) the secondary meaning of mA/pwua, seil. wAotros, mAHOos (see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 471), the translation being either, ‘ut pleni fiatis usque eo ut omnes Dei opes animis vestris recipia- tis’ (Fritz. 7b.), or ‘ut omnibus Dei donis abundetis’ (Est.), according as Ocob is regarded more as a possessive gen., or as a gén. of the originating cause (notes on 1 Thess. i. 6). Both these latter interpretations are how- ever so frigid, and so little in harmony with the climactie character of the passage (duvduer Kparawwhfvar did Tod Ilv....Kkatocxjoat Tov Xp....iva mrANpw. eis tay TO TAP. TOO Geod), and with the apparently well considered use of eis (not év instrumental, or an ablatival dat.), that we do not hesitate to adopt (a), and urge, with Olsh., that where Christ the living Son of God dwells, there surely wav 7d dp. Tod Ocod is already; comp. Col. ii. 9. els wav Td mAHp.] ‘to all the fulness ;’ ‘in omnem plenitudinem,’ Vulg., Cla- rom.; efs not implying ‘accordance 74 WPOZ E®EZIOYS. 20 To dé duvapévo UTED TavTa ToinTat Doxology. UTPEPEKTFEPLTT OU ov alrovme0a 7) vooumev, KaTa THY OUVa= 21 ply THY évepyouueryy ev uty, avT@ 4 doka ev TH exxAnola 21. & TH éxkAnolg Kal €v XpictG "Inood] So ABCN; 73. 80. 213; Vulg., Copt., Arm.; Dam. (Lachm.), and perhaps rightly. In ed. 1 and 2 the more familiar reading év 77 éxx\nola év Xp. "Ino. was retained, though only with D? [E, Xp. “I. & 7H éxx\.JKL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth., al. ; Chrys., Theod., Dam. (text), Theoph., Gicum.; Vig. (Rec., Tisch.) ; it being easy to account satisfactorily for the variations (see note in ed. 1 and 2), Though the text is thus not wholly free from suspicion, this is still one of those cases in which the testimony of % seems a sufficient addition to lead us cau- tiously to withdraw a former opinion. to’ (Eadie), but with its usual and proper force, denoting the end (here quantitatively considered) or limit of the mAjpwors: see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. els, 111., Vol. I. p. 803, and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 11. b, p. 218. 20. To 8 Svvapévw] ‘ Now to Him that is able; concluding doxology, not without some antithesis (6é¢) between Him who is the subject of the present verse, and the finite bemgs who are the subjects of the preceding verses. trip mavra toujoat] ‘to do (effect, complete) beyond all things; ‘peri- phrasis Dei Patris emphatica:’ Vorst. That trép cannot here be taken adver- bially seems almost self-evident; the order would then be needlessly arti- ficial and the sentence tautological : comp. Winer, Gir. § 50. 7, note 2, p. 376. — trepextepircod dv «.7.A.] ‘superabundantly beyond what we ask or think; second member ex- planatory of the preceding, &v not re- ferring to mdvra, but forming with airovm. and voodu. a fresh and more specific subject: dpa dé dv0 bmrepBonds" 70 Umép TavTA Tolfnoa TA elpnuéva, Kal UmEepeKTeptcaod Torjoas & moet eve yap kal m\elova moovyta Tov airnbévrwy Kkepddara py mrovolws pre dayids éxacrov moujoar’ Gicum. The cumu- lative compound vzrepex. occurs 1 Thess. iii. Io (comp. notes), v. 13 (Rec.), and belongs to a class of compounds (those with wzép) for which the Apostle seems to have had a somewhat marked pre- dilection; comp. brepyikdw, Rom. viii. 37; Ureprepicoevw, Rom. v. 20, 2 Cor. vil. 4; UrepNlay, ib. xi. 5; vrrepupdw, Phil. ii. 9; vmrepavédvw, 2 Thess. i. 3; vreptcovdgw, 1 Tim. i. 14: see Fritz. RON: V8 20,0 Vila) Tsu Site ee LtIS noticeable that wtmép occurs nearly thrice as many times in St Paul’s Epp. and the Ep. to the Heb. as in the rest of the N. T.; and that of the 28 words compounded with tmép, 22 are found in these Epp., and 20 of these there alone. The gen. dy is governed by vsepexr. as yrioews by brepBdad- Aovoay, ver. 19; comp. Bernh. Synt. III. 34, p. 139 sq. airotpea i vootpev] ‘we ask or think,’ not only the requests we actually prefer, but all that it might enter into the mind to conceive; ‘ cogitatio latius patet quam preces,’ Beng. : comp. Phil. iv. 7. TIVv évepy. ev Hiv] ‘which worketh in us, Sc. In our souls,’ ‘ quee operatur in nobis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; évepy. being here not passive (Hamm.; Bull, Haam. II. 3) but middle (Syr., Goth., Aith., Arm.), as in Gal. v. 6, where see notes. On the constructions of évepyéw, see notes on Gal. ii. 8; and on the HET 208 o'r. 75 Mug ed lay bt) A .) , ‘A A A 3A KQL €V Xpisre Inc 00, els Tacdas Tas yeveas TOU AlwWVOS A , ° , TOV ALWYWY" aL. distinction between the uses of act. (mainly in personal ref.) and middle (mainly in non-personal ref.), Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 231. The dtvauis which so energizes is the power of the Holy Ghost; comp. ver. 16, Rom. viii. 26. 21. avr] ‘to Him,’ rhetorical re- petition of the pronoun ;—not however in accordance with ‘Hebrew usage’ (Eadie), but in agreement with the simple principles of emphasis; see Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 11. ¢, p. 290. 4 S6€a] ‘the glory that is due to Him, and redounds to Him from such gra- cious dealings towards us;’ see notes on Gal, i. 5. év TY éxkX. Kal é&v Xp. *Ino.] ‘in the Church and in Christ Jesus ;’ the first member denot- ing the outward province, the second the inward and spiritual sphere in which God was to be praised. With the reading now adopted this seems the clear distinction; but it may be added that even if the cal be omitted (see crit. note) the explanation will most probably be the same: év Xp.’Ino. will be neither for 6:4 Xp. (Theoph.), nor for ody Xp. (dicum.), but will re- tain its proper meaning, specifying, not exactly the manner (De W.), but the true element in which alone praise was duly to be ascribed to God; ‘if any glory come from us to God it is by [in] Christ,’ Sanderson (cited by Wordsw. ix loc.). The ordinary expla- nation of the more familiar reading, ‘the Church (which is) in Christ Jesus,’ is objectionable, not so much on ac- count of the absence of the article (for comp. 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1), as on account of the then appy. super- fluous character of the words (the éxkX. here mentioned could only be the Christian Church), which in our present interpr. echo the preceding Tov Xpicrod (ver. 19) with special and appropriate force: contrast Alf. in loc., who still partially connects the two members; but comp. Syr., which by its omission of the relative here, and its insertion in Thess. //. cc., seems not obscurely to favour the opinion here expressed. els TATaS TAS yeveds K.T.A.] ‘to all the yenerations of the age of the ages; comp. Dan. vil. 18, éws Tod aidvos Tav aidver* 3 Esdr. iv. 38, eis tov aidva rod aidvos, and see notes on Gal. i. 5. The cumu- lative expression is somewhat peculiar. It is not improbable, as Grotius sug- gests, that the two formule expressive of endless continuity, yeveal yevedv, Luke i. 50 (Rec.), Isaiah xxxiv. 17, and aidves rdv aidvwy, are here blended together. The use of yeveal suggests the use of the singular aidéy, as the conception of the successive genera- tions composing the entirety of the aidy is thus more clearly presented ; while again the subjoined plural shows aid also to be composed of a series of aidves (gen. of the content) of which it is the sum and aggregation. Harless finds a difference between the two ex- pressions aidves TGv aiwvwy and aidy T&v aiwvwy, the former being rather extensive, and conveying the idea of mdvres aidves, the latter being rather imtensive, ‘seculum seculorum, quod omnia szecula in se continet’ (Drus.), and more strictly in accordance with the Hebrew superlative. This is in- genious, but apparently of doubtful application, as in actual practice the difference between the two expressions is hardly appreciable. Baur (Paulus, P- 433) finds in this expression distinct traces of Gnosticism : it is unnecessary to refute such utterly foregone con- clusions. 76 TY, WPOZ E®EZIOY2. Il XO 3 e lan 9 A e Ave , J apaKka @ OUV UMASS eyo O OETKLOS EV Walk worthy of Kupio, aklog TEplLTATHTAL THS KAYTEWS ns your vocation in lowliness, in love, and especially in unity ; there is but one body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one God. CuHapreR IV. 1. Tlapakade x.7.A. } “IT exhort you then; commencement of the practical portion of the Epistle (comp. Rom. xii. 1), following natu- rally, and with an appropriate retro- spective reference (ody) to what has preceded ; otrws atrots émdelEas Tis Ocias evepyecias Tov mdovTOv, éml Ta elin mporpére: THs aperys” Theod. The meaning of mapaxa\G will thus be both here and in Rom. l.c. more natu- rally ‘hortor’ (7apak. 7d mpotpérw, ws érl 7d mod’ Thom. M. p. 684, ed. Bern.) than ‘obsecro’ (Vulg., Clarom., Arm., and most Vv.),—a meaning which it sometimes bears, but which would seem inapplicable in the present context; see Fritz. Rom. Vol. I. p. 4, and for a general notice of the word, Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. p. 127 sq.; comp. also notes on 1 Thess. v. If. The exact reference of ody is more doubtful: Meyer refers it to the verse immediately preceding, Winzer and Alford (Rom. l.c.) to the whole doc- trinal portion of the Ep.; the former view however seems too narrow, the latter too vague. The more natural ref, is appy. to those passages in the preceding chapter which relate to the spiritual privileges and calling of the Ephesians, e.g. ver. 6, 12, but espe- cially to 14 sq., in which the tenor of the prayer incidentally discloses how high and how great that calling really was. On the true force of this particle, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 117, Donalds. Gr. § 548. 31, and comp. notes on Phil. i. 1. 6 Sérpros Ev Kvplw] ‘the prisoner in the Lord,’ i.e. ‘ego vinctus in Christi castris,’ as paraphrased by Fritz. ; not mapax. év Kup., a construction at va- riance both with the grammatical order of the words, and the apparent force of the exhortation: see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123. St Paul exhorts not merely as the prisoner, but as the prisoner in the Lord; ‘a vinculis ma- jorem sibi auctoritatem vindicat,’ Calv., comp. Gal. vi. 17. Thus & Kup. is not for 6ua Kup. (Chrys., Theod.), or oly Kup. (Ecum.), but denotes the sphere in which captivity existed, and out of which it did not exist; ‘in Do- mini enim vinculis constrictus est, qui év Kuplw wy vinctus est,’ Fritz. Rom. vill. 1, Vol. 1. p. 84; comp. notes on Gal. 1. 24. The distinction between this and 6 6écu. tod Xp. (ch. iii. 1) seems to be that in the latter the cap- tivity is referred immediately to Christ as its author and originator, in the former to the union with Him and devotion to His service. It must be conceded that occasionally éy Kuplw appears little more than a kind of qualitative definition (comp. Rom. xvi. 8,13, 1 Coritiv, 07, Ehrleergeeale) still the student cannot be too much put on his guard against the frigid and even unspiritual interpretations into which Fritz. has been betrayed in his elaborate note (Rom. viii. 1, Vol. 11. p- 82 sq.) on this and the similar ex- pression €v Xpic7@. On the nature of this union with Christ, comp. Hooker, Serm. ut. Vol. 11. p. 762. Hs ExdyOnte] ‘wherewith ye were call- ed,’ ‘qua vocati estis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Goth.; 7s here appy. standing for 7 (comp. dat. 2 Tim. i. 9, but not 1 Cor. vii. 20 [De W.], as there & precedes), and so violating slightly the usual law of attraction, unless, following the analogy of such phrases as K\jjcw Ka- ely, Tapadk\ynow Tapax., We suppose the relative to stand as usual for the VASES 2: (ii ° , A , , A A exAnOnre, MeTAa Tacns TaTevopporuvys Kal TpavTy= 2 4 , 9 , ° , ° ’ , TOS, weTa maxpoOumLas, avexouevor aAAVAwY EV aYyaTn, accus. qv: comp. Winer, Gr. § 24. 1, p. 148. De W. indeed denies the existence of such a phrase as k\jow kadevy, but see Arrian, pict. p. 112 (Raphel), karauwxivew tiv KMjow iy KEKANKEV. 2. pera méaons tam.] ‘with all lowliness ; dispositions with which their moral walk was to be associated, comp. Col. iii. 12; wera (fcum,’ Vulg., Goth.,—not ‘in,’ Copt.) being used with ref. to the mental powers and dispositions with which an action is as it were accompanied; comp. Luke i. 39, 2 Cor. vii, 15, and see Winer, Gr. § 47. h, p. 337. Ziv denotes rather coherence (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1), not uncommonly with some collateral idea of assistance ; comp. I Cor. v. 4. On the use of mdons, comp. notes on ch. i. 8; and on the meaning of the late word ra- mewogppoovvn, “the esteeming of our- selves small because we are so,’ ‘the thinking truly, and because truly therefore lowlily, of ourselves,’ see Trench, Synon. § 42, and Suicer, The- saur. 8. v., Where several definitions of Chrysostom are cited. Most of these openly or tacitly ascribe to the rame- vippwv a consciousness of greatness (ram. éorlv bray weyadha TLs EauTe TVVELOWS pNndev éya Tepl avTov par- ta¢nrat); this however, as Trench ob- serves, is alien to the true sense and spirit of the word. TpaityTos | ‘meekness,’ in respect of God, and in the face of men; see Trench, Synon. $ 42, Tholuck, Bergpr. (Matth. v. 5), p- 82 sq., and notes on Gal. v. 23. The less definite meaning of ‘gentle- ness’ is appy. Maintained by some of the Vv. (Vulg. ‘mansuetudine,’ Goth. ‘qairrein’ [comp. Lat. cicur], Arm., al.), and also by the Greek commenta- tors (00 Tamreivos dmolws 56€ Kal mpaos, éore yap Tamewov pmev eivat, d&dv 5é kal épyl\ov' Chrys.; comp. Theoph. on Gal. v. 3); the deeper and more bibli- cal sense however is distinctly to be preferred. A good general definition will be found in Stobeeus, Floril. 1. £ (18). The reading rpairnros, though only supported by BCN; mss., is appy. to be preferred to mpadéryros (Rec., Lachm., with ADEFGL; ma- jority of mss.), as the best attested form in the dialect of the New Test. ; Tisch. Prolegom. p. L. pera. pakpobuulas ] ‘with long-suffering ;’ separate clause more fully elucidated by the following words, dvexdouevor k.T.A. Two other constructions have been proposed; (a) the connexion of pera waxp. with dvex. (Hst., Harl.) so as to form a single clause; (b) the union of all the clauses in one single sentence. The objections to (a) are, (1) that dvex. is the natural expansion of pera paxpoO.—(z) that undue em- phasis must thus, owing to the po- sition, be ascribed to feta paxpo.— (3) that the parallelism of the partici- pial clauses would be needlessly vio- lated: to (>) that the passage of the general (dlws wepur.) into the special (dvexéu. add.) becomes sudden and abrupt, instead of being made easy and gradational by means of the interposed prepositional clauses; comp. Mey. in loc. The fine word paxpodupia (‘long-suffering,’ ‘forbearance;’ ‘us- beisnai’ Goth.), implies the reverse of oévduula, and is well defined by Fritz. (Rom. ii. 4, Vol. 1. p. 98) as ‘ clemen- tia, qua ire temperans delictum non statim vindices, sed ei qui peccaverit peenitendi locum relinquas.’ The gloss of Chrys. on 1 Cor. xiii. 4, waxpd0upos bua ToUTO Aéyerat, Ered) wakpay Twa 78 I{POz E®EZIOY2. , a 4 e lol , lal 3 omovdaCorres THpELY THY évotyta Tov Ivevyuaros ev TW kal weydAnv exer ux (Clarom., ‘mag- nanimitate’), is too inclusive and ge- neral, that of Beza, ‘ire cohibitione,’ too limited and special. On the senti- ment generally, comp. James i. 19. dvexdpevor K.7.A.] ‘forbearing one an- other in love? manifestation and exhi- bition of the paxpofuula: comp. Col. iii. 13. The relapse of the participle from its proper case into the nom. is here so perfectly intelligible and natu- ral, that any supplement of éoré or yivecbe (Heins., al.) must be regarded as wholly unnecessary; see notes on ch. iii. 18, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 2L1 sq. év dydrry is referred by Zachm. and Olsh. to crovdd{orres. Such a punctuation, though supported by Origen (Caten.), seems wholly in- admissible, as it disturbs the symme- try of the two participial clauses, and throws a false emphasis on év dyd7p. 3. omovdat. typetv} ‘using dili- gence to keep,’ participial member pa- rallel to the foregoing, specifying the inward feelings (Mey.) by which the dvéxecOar is to be characterized, and the inward efforts by which it is to be promoted; od« dmévws loxtcomey elpy- vevew’ Theoph. For two good discus- sions of this verse, though from some- what different points of view, see Laud, Serm. vi. Vol. I. p. 155 sq. {A.-C. Libr.), and Baxter, Works, Vol. xvi. p. 379 (ed. Orme). aH evornta tod IIv.] ‘the wnity of the Spirit, scil. ‘wrought by the Spirit’ (rh évér. jv 7d Iveta COwkev qyiv’ Theoph. ; comp. Chrys., dicum.), rod Ilv. being the gen. of the origi- nating cause (Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p- 125), not the possessive gen. (as appy. Orig. Caten.), or both united (as Stier, see Vol. I. p. 18), neither of which seem here so pertinent: see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6, and on Col. i. 23. That the ref. is to the personal Holy Spirit seems so clear, that we may wonder how such able commen- tators as Calvin and Hstius could re- gard 700 Ily. as the human spirit, and acquiesce in an interpr. so frigid as ‘animorum concordia,’ ‘animo- rum inter vos conjunctio.’ De Wette, ‘die Hinheit des kirchlichen Gemeingeistes’ (comp. —whose own interpr., Theod.-Mops., IIvedu., 70 avayervjioay oSua), is very far from satisfactory,— urges évéTns TicTews, ver. 13 (comp. Origen), but the two passages are by no means so closely analogous as to suggest any modification of the simple personal meaning here assigned to IIveiua; see Laud, Serm. vi. Vol. I. p. 162 (A.-C. Libr.). év TO cuvicopw tis elpyvns] ‘in the bond of peace; element or principle in which the unity is maintained, viz. ‘peace ;’ ris elpyv. not being the gen. objectt. (‘that which binds together, maintains, peace,’ Riickert ; ‘ vinculum quo pax retinetur,’ Beng. ; scil. aya, Col. iii. 14), but the gen. of identity or apposition ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. I, p. 82, Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470. plausible, and appy. as ancient as the time of Origen (r7js dydmrns cuvdeovons xara TO Ivedua évoupévous’ ap. Cram. Caten. p. 165), but derives very doubtful support from Col. /. c., where aydmrn is specified, and was perhaps only due to the assumption that & was here instrumental (=6cd, icum.), The former interpretation is and that ocuvd. Tis eip. was a peri- phrasis for the agent (dyd77) supposed to be referred to. ’Ev however cor- rectly denotes the sphere, the element, in which the évérns is to be kept and manifested (see Winer, (77. § 48. a, p. 345), thus preserving its parallelism with éy in ver. 2, and conveying a EV 3594, 45: 79 de A ee a “” Niet II ~ A TVVOETUM THS ELMVNS. EV TWA Kat ev Liveuua, Kabws 4 kat exAyOnre ev pia éAmide THe KAjoTEwWS Vuav els 5 very simple and perspicuous meaning: the Ephesians were to evince their for- bearance in love, and to preserve the Spirit-given unity in the true bond of union, the ‘irrupta copula’ of peace. The etymological identity of cvvdecpuos and eipijv7n must not be pressed (Rein- ers, ap. Wolf), as the derivation of elpjnvn from EIPQ ‘necto’ is less pro- bable than from EIPQ ‘dico ;’ see Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 7, Rost u. Palm, Lew. s. v. Vol. I. p. 799. 4. €v copa] ‘There is one body; declaration asserting the unity which pervades the Christian dispensation, designed to illustrate and enhance the foregoing exhortation ; the simple verb éori, not yweabe or éaté (olmep éoré, Camer.), being appy. the correct sup- plement; see Winer, Gir. § 64. 2, p. 516. The connexion of thought be- tween ver. 3 and 4 is somewhat doubt- ful. That the verse is not directly hor- tatory, and connected with (Lachm.), dependent on (‘ut sitis,’ Syr.; Est. 2), or in apposition to (‘ existentes,’ Hst. 1) what precedes, seems clear from the parallelism with ver. 5 and 6: still less does it introduce a reason for the previous statement by an ellipse of yap (Eadie), all such ellipses being wholly indemonstrable; ‘nulla in re magis pejusque errari quam in ellipsi particularum solet;? Herm. Viger, Ap- pend. 1. p. 701 (ed. Valpy). It seems then only to contain a simple asser- tion, the very unconnectedness of which adds weight and impressiveness, and seems designed to convey an echo of the former warning; ‘remember, there is one body, d&c.;’ comp. Hofm. Schrifth. Vol. 11. p. 108. In the explanation o* the sentiment the Greek commentators somewhat vacil- late; we can however scarcely doubt that the géua implies the whole com- munity of Christians, the mystical body of Christ (ch. 11. 16, Rom. xii. 5, Col. i. 24, al.), and that the IIvedua is the Holy Spirit which dwells in the Church (Hadie), and by which the oGua is moved and vivified (1 Cor. xii. 13): comp. Jackson, Creed, XII. 3. 4, Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 2. 1, p. 249, and Wordsw. in loc. On this text, see the discourse by Barrow, Works, Vol. vil. p- 626 sq. (ed. Oxf.). Kabds] ‘even as,’ illustration and proof of the unity, as more especially afford- ed by the unity of the hope in which they were called. On the later form Kaus, see notes on Gal. iii. 6. Kal ékAnbnre ev pug eAm.] ‘ye were also called in one hope,’ ‘vocati estis in una spe,’ Vulg., Clarom., Arm. ; kal marking the accordance of the calling with the previously-stated uni- ty (‘unitas spiritus ex unitate spei noscitur,’ Coce.), and é& being neither equiv. to él (Chrys.) or eds (Riick.), nor even instrumental, but simply spe- cifying the moral element in which as it were the kAjots took place; comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 5, p. 370. Meyer adopts the instrumental sense; as however there are not here, as in Gal. i. 6 (see notes), any prevailing dog- matical reasons for such an interpre- tation, and as the two remaining pas- sages in which ca\evy is joined with éy (x Cor. vii. 15, 1 Thess. iv. 7) admit of a similar explanation, it seems most correct to adhere to the strict, and so to say theological meaning of this im- portant preposition: we were called ém édevdepia (Gal. v. 13), and eis fwhy aidjvov (1 Tim. vi. 12), but é€v edpyvy (1 Cor. vii. 15), €v dyracug@ (1 Thess. iv. 7), and év éA7mléc; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. tv. 15, p. 146. 80 IIPO= E®EZIOY2. " ’ @ 4 nN x 6 Kupzos, pla wists, ev Barticpa: eis Oeos Kat TaTNp THs KAyoews Dpav] ‘of your calling, se. arising from your calling; KAjoews being not the gen. of possession (Eadie, Alf.), but of the origin or originating cause; Kowh éotly juay édmls éx THs KAjnoews yevouévyn’ CXicum.: see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6. 5. els Kupwos] ‘one Lord,’ sc. Christ ; placed prominently forward as the Head of His one body the Church, and the one divine object to- ward whom faith is directed and into whom all Christians are baptized ; comp. Rom. vi. 8, Gal. i. 27; and for a good sermon on this text, Barrow, Serm. Xxit. Vol. Vv. p. 261 sq. pla mloris] ‘one faith ; not the ‘fides que creditur,’ and still less the ‘regula fidei,’ Grot.,—this meaning in the N. T. being extremely doubtful, see notes on Gal. i. 23,—but the ‘fides gud creditur,’ the ‘fides salvifica,’ which was the same in its essence and qua- lities for all Christians (Mey.). That this however must not be unduly limit- ed to the feeling of the individual, sc. to faith in its utterly subjective aspect, seems clear from the use of pula, and the general context. As there is one Lord, so the ula rioris is not only a subjective recognition of this eternal truth (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. t. 4, p. 238), but also necessarily involves a com- mon objective profession of it: comp. Rom. x. 10, and see Stier, Vol. £. p. 33, Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. I. p- 399 (ed. Burt.). év Bar- Tirpa}] ‘one baptism; a still further ‘consequentia’ to els Kvpuos: as there was one Lord and one faith in Him, so was there one and one only bap- tism into Him (Gal. iii. 27), one and one only inward element, one and one only outward seal. Commentators have dwelt, perhaps somewhat unpro- fitably, upon the reasons why no men- tion is made of the other sacrament, the efs dpros (1 Cor. x. 17) of the Holy Communion. If it be thought necessary to assign any reason, it must certainly not be sought for in the mere historical fact (Mey.) that the Holy Communion was not at that time so separate and distinct in its admi- nistration (comp. Bingham, Andiq. Xv. 7. 6, 7, Waterland, Hucharist, Ch. 1. Vol. Iv. p. 475) as Holy Baptism, — for the words of inspiration are for all times,—but must be referred to the fundamental difference between the sacraments. The one is rather the symbol of union (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 284), the other, from its single cele- bration and marked individual refer- ence, presents more clearly the idea of unity,—the idea most in harmony with the context ; see Kahnis, Abendm. p. 249, 276. 6. eis Oeds kal maryp] ‘one God and Father; climactic reference to the eternal Father (observe the distinct mention of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity, ver. 4, 5, 6) in whom unity finds its highest exemplification ; “etiamsi baptizamur in nomen Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, et filium unum Dominum nominamus, tamen non credimus nisi in unum Deum :’ Coce. On this solemn designation, see notes on Gal. i. 4; and for a discus- sion of the title ‘Father,’ see Pearson, Creed, Art. I. Vol. I. p. 35 sq. (ed. Burt.), Barrow, Creed, Serm. x. Vol. IV. p. 493 8q- 6 éml wavTev] ‘who is over all; 6 Kbpios Kal émdvw mdvrwv' Chrys. ; the relation expressed seems that of simple sovereignty, not only spiritual (Calvy.), but general and universal (Geamorelay onualve:, Theod.); comp. Rom. ix. 5, and see Winer, Gir. § 50. 6, p. 372,—where the associated reference to ‘ protection’ (ed. 5) is now PVN. 7. 81 ’ ey eee Se , 4 AY A , 4 ’ a TAVTWV, O ETL TAVTWY KQL {a TWAVTWY KQAL EV TACLY. Further, Christ gives His grace in measure é to each, as the Scripture testifies. rightly excluded : this would have been more naturally expressed by iép: see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68, 28. It is un- necessary to remark that the three clauses are no synonymous formule (Koppe), but that the prepositions mark with scrupulous accuracy the threefold relation in which God stands to his creatures ; see notes on Gal.i. 1, and’ Winer, Gr. 1. c., and Stier, Vol. 1. P: 44. The gender of rdvTwy is doubtful. It seems arbitrary (Vulg., Clarom.) to regard él mdvrwy and é& mao [juiv] as masc., and 6a ravTw as neuter, as there is nothing in the context or in the meaning of the prepp. to require such a limitation: the gender of one may with propriety fix that of the rest. As maow then certainly seems masculine, ravTwy may be assumed to be of the same gender ; so Copt., which by the omission of hob seems to express a definite opinion. In Rom. ix. 5, wavrwy is commonly (and properly) interpreted as neuter (opp. to Fritz. in loc. Vol. 11. p. 272), there being no limitation or restriction implied in the context. The reading is very doubtful: uiv (Rec. vyiv with mss.; Chrys. comment., al.) is added to raécw with DEFGKL; 40 mss.; Clarom., Vulg., Syr. (both), Goth.; Iren. int., Dam., al.: but seems rightly omitted with ABCN; Io mss.; Copt., Ath. (both); Ath., Greg.-Naz., Chrys. (text), al., as a not improbable gloss; so Lachm., Tisch., and appy. the majority of recent editors. Sia TdavtTwv Kal év macw] ‘through all and in all.’ These two last clauses are less easy to interpret, on account of the approximation in meaning of the two prepositions. Of these did is ‘Evi de exact jar €d00n 7 Xapes KaTa 7 referred (a) by the Greek expositors to God the Father, in respect of his providence (6 mpovody xal diocKxdy, Chrys.) ; (b) by Aquinas (ap. Est.), al., to God the Son, ‘per quem omnia facta sunt’ (comp. Olsh.),—a very inverted interpretation ; (c) by Calvin, Meyer, al. ‘to the pervading charis- matic influence and presence of God by means of the Holy Spirit.’ This last interpretation seems at first sight most in unison with the strict meaning of both prepp., ia pointing to the in- fluence of the Spirit which passes through (‘transcurrit,’ Jerome) and pervades all hearts [operative motion], ev His indwelling (6 oikéy, Chrys.) and informing influence [operative rest]; see ed. 1: still as the three Persons of the blessed Trinity have been so lately specified, as references to this holy Truth seem very notice- ably to pervade this Ep. (see Stier, Eph. Vol. 1. p. 35), and as the ancient interpr. of Ireneus ‘super omnia (?) quidem Pater...per omnia (!) autem Verbum...in omnibus autem nobis Spiritus,’ Her. v. 18 (comp. Athan. ad Serap. § 28, Vol. 11. p. 676, ed. Bened.), seems to have a just claim on our attention, it seems best and safest to maintain that allusion in the present case (opp. to Hofm. Schrift. Vol. 1. p. 184), and to refer Sta mdv- - twv to the redeeming and reconciling influences of the Eternal Son which pervade all hearts, while év maou, as above, marks the indweliiug Spirit ; see Stier im loc., and comp. Waterl. Def. of Queries, Vol. 1. p. 280. 7- “Evl 8 éxdor pay] ‘But to each of us,’ ‘to each one individually: ’ further inculcation of this unity in what might at first sight have seemed G 82 POs 8 To METPOV Tis dwpeas TOU Xpicrov. to militate against it; d¢ neither being transitional (comp. Eadie), nor en- countering any objection (Grot., comp. Theoph.), but merely suggesting the contrast between the individual and the wdvres previously mentioned, ver. 6. In the general distribution of gifts, implied in the 6 Qeds é& maou, no single individual is overlooked (1 Cor. xii. £1, deatpody idia ExdoTw) ; each has his peculiar gift, each canand ought to contribute his share to preserving ‘the unity of the Spirit:’ so in effect Chrys., who in the main has rightly felt and explained the connexion, 7a TavTwy Kepaawodéstepa, pyoi, Kowa mavruw ort, TO BdmtTicua K.T.N. El OE Teo Selva mréov exer ev TS Xapiopmart, py Gye. See also Theod.-Mops. in loc. €860n 1] xdpts] ‘the grace was given, sc. by our Lord after His ascension; ydpes however not being simply equivalent to ydpiucua (= ‘gift of grace,’ Peile), but, as De W. rightly observes, retaining some shade of a transitive force, and denot- ing the energizing grace which mani- fests itself in the peculiar gift; comp. Rom. xii. 6. The omission of the art. (Zachm. with BD! FGL; 5 mss.; Dam.) is due appy. to an error in transcription, caused by the preced- ing », by which it became absorbed, and is retained by Tisch. (with ACD® EK; great majority of mss. ; Chrys., Theod., al.), and most recent editors, kata To péTpov K.T.A.] ‘according to the measure of the gift of Christ,’ scil. ‘in proportion to the amount of the gift which Christ gives,’ Kafos thy EavTod Swpedy ExdaTtw nucv 6 decmrérns émenétpnoe Xpictds* Theod.-Mops. ; dwpeds being thus a simple possessive gen. (the measure which the gift has, which belongs to and defines the gift), and Xpiorod the gen. of ablation E®EZIOY2. Ovo Aéyee “Ava- (Donalds. Gr. § 451), or more specifi- cally, of the agent, the giver (compare dwpeas xdpiTos, Plato, Leg. VIII. 844 D, and see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6); not of the receiver (Oeder ap. Wolf),— an idea which is in no sort of harmony with the context, édwxev dduara, ver. 8; see 2 Cor, ix. 15, Stier very infelicitously (in point of grammar) endeavours to unite both. 8. 81d A€yer] ‘ On which account He saith ;’ on account of this bestowal of the gift of Christ, and that in differing measures ;—-671, @yolv, 7) xdpts Swped éoTt TOD Xp. kal abros perpHoas CdwKev, dxove, @not, Tcd Aavid' Gicum. The difficulties of this verse, both in regard to the connexion, the source, and the form of the citation, are very great, and must be separately, though briefly noticed. (1) Connexion, There is clear- ly no parenthesis; verse 8 is to be closely connected with verse 7, and regarded as a scriptural confirmation of its assertions. These assertions in- volve two separate moments of thought, (a) the primary, that each individual has his peculiar and appropriate gifts, further elucidated and exemplified in ver. 1; (b) the secondary, that these gifls are conferred by Christ. The in- trinsic rather than the contextual im- portance of (+) induces the Apostle to pause and add a special confirmation from Scripture. The cardinal words are thus so obviously €660y, Swped, and édwxev Sduara, that it is singular how so good a commentator as Olsh. could have supposed the stress of the citation to be on Tots avOp. (2) The source of the citation is not any Christian hymn (Storr, Opuse. 111. p- 309), but Psalm Ixviii.,—a psalm of which the style, age, purport, and al- Iusions, have been most differently estimated and explained (for details TEVEgo: 83 Bag ets Uvos HX MANO ever alxuadwolar, édwxev O0omata 8. éwxev] The reading here is somewhat doubtful. Tisch. (ed. 7) prefixes kal with BC!C?D3KLN?#; nearly all mss. ; Goth., Syr. (both), al.; Orig., Chrys., Theod., al. (ec., A/f.): Lachm. on the contrary omits with AC?DIEFGN!; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; Iren. (interpr.), Tertull., al. (Zisch. ed. 2); and appy. rightly, as an insertion for the sake of keeping up the connexion seems more probable than a conformation to the LX X, where the xal is omitted. see Reuss on Ps. Ixviii.), but which may with high probability be deemed a hymn of victory in honour of Jeho- vah, the God of battles (Hengst. opp. to J. Olsh.), of high originality (Hitzig opp. to Ewald), and composed by Da- vid on the taking of Rabbah (Hengst. opp. to Reuss, J. Olsh.). We have therefore no reason whatever to enter- tain any doubt of its inspired and prophetic character; comp. Phillips, Psalms, Vol. 11. p. 79. (3) The jJorm of citation is the real difficulty : the words of the Psalm are AN? DINA nin, in LXX, é\aBes d6nara év avOpwmw [-mos, Alex., Compl., Ald.]. The difference in St Paul’s citation is palpable, and, we are bound in candour to say, does not appear diminished by any of the proposed reconciliations ; for even assuming that np>= ‘danda sumsit,’ ‘he took only to give’ (comp. Gen. xv. 9, xviii. 5, xxvii. 13, and see Surenhus. Bi8\. Karadx. p. 585), still the nature of the gifts, which in one case were reluctant (see Hengst.), in the other spontaneous, appears essen- tially different. We admit then frankly and freely the verbal difference, but remembering that the Apostle wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we recognise here nei- ther imperfect memory, precipitation (Riick.), arbitrary change (Calv. ; comp. Theod.-Mops.), accemmodation (Mo- rus), nor Rabbinical interpretation (Mey.), but simply the fact that the Psalm, and esp. ver. 18, had a Mes- sianic reference, and bore within it a further, fuller, and deeper meaning. This meaning the inspired Apostle, by a slight change of language, and sub- stitution of €dwxe for the more dubious, np, succinctly, suggestively, and au- thoritatively unfolds: compare notes We now proceed to the grammatical details. héyer] ‘He saith,’ sc. 6 cds, not 7 ypa- $7. This latter nominative is several times inserted by St Paul (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17; X.,11, Gal.vivs 30, 1 Lim.v. 15), but is not therefore to be regularly on Gal. iii. 16. supplied whenever there is an ellipsis (Bos, Zilips. p. 54), without reference to the nature of the passage. The surest, and in fact only guide, is the context: where that affords no certain hint, we fall back upon the natural subject, 6 Oeds, whose words the Scrip- tures are; see notes on Gal, iii. 16. dvaBds els tipos] ‘ Having ascended on high; not ‘ascendens,’ Vulg., Cla- rom., but ‘quum ascendisset,’ Beza ;— thereference being obviously to Christ’s ascent into heaven (Barrow, Creed, Vol. vi. p. 358, Pearson, Creed, Art. vi. Vol. I. p. 323, ed. Burt.), and the aor. part. here being temporal, and, according to its more common use, de- noting an action preceding (never in the N.T. subsequent to, see Winer, G7. $45. 6. b, p. 316) that of the finite verb: see Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 383, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 10.1. Our Lord, it may be urged, gave the Holy Spirit before his ascension (John xx. 22); but this was only an ‘ arrha Pen- Ge 84 HPOz g Tos avOpwrots. E®EZIOY2. \ Oc b) / , 9 D Ne, A TO O€ ave3n TL EOTLV EL [kN OTL KQL , s A , ~ ~ 5 ¢ A 3 , 10 Kate Bn ele TA KATWTEPA TIS YNs;s oO kaTaBas QUTOS tecostes,’ Beng., a limited (Alford) and preparatory gift of the Holy Spirit ; see Liicke in loc. On this text, as cited from Psalm Ixviii., see a good sermon by Andrewes, Serm. vit. Vol. WI. p. 221 (A.-C. Libr.). AXpo- Adr. aixparwolay] ‘ He led captivity captive,’ ‘captivam duxit captivita- tem,’ Wulg., Clarom.; the abstract aix“ahwo. being used for the concrete aixuadhwrovs (comp. Numb. xxxi. 12, 2 Chron. xxviii. 11, 13, and see exx. Jelf, Gr. § 353), and serving by its connexion with the cognate verb to enhance and slightly intensify it ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 201, and see the copious list of exx. in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 498 sq. Who constituted this aiyuahwota has been much dis- cussed. That the captives were not (a) Satan’s prisoners (av9parous bro Thy Tov diaBd\ou Tupavvida KaTexomévous, Theod.-Mops.; comp. Just. Mart. Trypho, § 39, Vol. 11. p. 128 [ed. Otto], and Theod. in Joc.) seems clear from the subsequent mention of dv@pes7o.s, which (though not so in the original) seems here to refer to a different class to the captives. Nor ()) can they be the souls of the righteous in Hades (Es- tius ; comp. Lvang. Nicod.$24, in Thilo, Codex Apocryph. p. 747), as, setting aside other reasons (‘captivos non duci in libertatem, sed hostes in captivita- tem,’ Calov.), the above interpr. of the part. dvaBas seems seriously op- If however (c) we regard ‘the captivity’ as captive and subjugated enemies (Meyer, De W.), the enemies of Christ,—Satan, Sin, and Death,—we preserve the analogy of the comparison (comp. Alf.), and gain a full and forcible meaning: so rightly Chrys., aixuddwrov yap Tov tvpavvov é\aBe (not karypynoe, which posed to such a view. with regard to Death is mainly future, 1 Cor, xv. 26) Tov didBorov éyw Kal Tov Odvatov Kal Thy dpay Kal Thy apap- tlav: comp. (Hcum. 2, Theoph. Wwxev Sdpata] ‘He gave gifts,’ sc. spiritual gifts; comp. €660n 7 xdpts, ver. 7, and as a special and particular illustration, Acts ii. 33. 9. 7d St dvéeBn] ‘ Now that He as- cended,’ scil. ‘now the predication of His ascent,’ not ‘the word dvéB7,’ as avaBdas, not avéBn, precedes; dé here marking a slight explanatory transi- tion ; Hartung, Partik. 5é, 2. 3, Vol. I. p- 165. To evince still more clearly the truth and correctness of the Mes- sianic application of the words just cited, St Paul urges the antithesis im- plied by avé8n, viz. karéBy, a predica- tion only applicable to Christ ; comp. Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. 1, p. 344, where this and the preceding verses are fully investigated. tl éoriv et pr} K.T.A.] ‘what is it, what doth it imply (Matth. ix. notes on (yal, iil. 19), except that He not only ascended but also descended? the tacit assumption, as Meyer ob- serves, being clearly this, that He who 13, John xvi. 17; comp. is the subject of the citation is One whose seat was heaven,—no man, but a giver of gifts to men; especially The inser- tion of mp&rov after karéBn (Rec. with BC?7KLN*; most mss.; Aug., Vulg., Goth., Syr. (both); Theod., al.) seems clearly to have arisen from an expla- natory gloss; and that of muépy after Kkatwrepa, though strongly supported (Rec. , Lachin., with A BCD? K LN; near- ly allmss. ; Vulg., al.), to be still fairly attributable to the same origin. eis TA KaTMTEpA THS yHs] ‘te the lower (parts) of the earth,’ ‘in loca que sub- ter terram,’ Copt., ‘subter terram,’ comp. John iii. 13. EV -OSt i ct 85 , 4 e S) 4 e , , ~ , ~ ef €OTLY KAL O avaGus UTEPAaVW TAVTWVY TWY oupavay, tva Eth. This celebrated passage has re- ceived several different interpretations, two only of which however deserve serious consideration, and between which it is extremely difficult to decide: (a) the ancient explanation, according to which 7a xaTwrepa Tis ys=Ta KaTaxGoua, and imply ‘Hades’ (rot dé KaréBn; els Tov dinv, ToOToOY yap KaTWTEpa épyn THS yas Néyer Kata Thy Kownv vrdvorav’ Theoph.), the gen. not being dependent on the comparative (Riick.,—still less compatible with his insertion of uépy), but being the regu- lar possessive gen.: (b) the more modern interpretation, adopted by the majo- rity of recent commentators, according to which ris ys is regarded as the gen. of apposition (see esp. Winer, Gr. $59. 8, p. 470), and the expression as equivalent to eis riv xatwrépay viv. Both sides claim the comparative ka- TaTepa,—the PINT NAO pressed by Olsh, is at least equally indetermi- nate with the Greek,—the one as sug- gesting a comparison with the earth, ‘a lower depth than the earth,’ the other as suggested by the comparison with the heaven (Acts ii. 19, John viii. 23,—but in this latter passage kdrw reaches lower than the earth; Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. Iv. p. 447 8q.) ; comp. Hofm. Schrifth. Vol. U. 1, p. 345. These arguments must be nearly set off against one another, as the positive would have been most natural in the latter case, the superlative perhaps in the former. As however the superl. would have tended to fix the locality (comp. Nehem. iv. 13) more definitely than was suitable to the present con- text, and as the use of the term q@éns would have marred the antithesis (y7 opp. to ovpards), it does not seem im- probable that the more vague com- parative was expressly chosen, and that thus its use is more in favour of (a) than (b). When to this we add the full antithesis that seems to lie in trepdvw Tov otpavayv, ver. 10 (‘subli- miora celorum’ opp. to ‘inferiora ter- rarum,’ Tertull.), surely more than a mere expansion of e/s vos (Winer, Mey.), and also observe the sort of exegetical necessity which va Anpwoy Ta TayTa (ver, 10) seems to impose on us of giving the fullest amplitude to every expression, we still more in- cline to (a); and with Irenzeus (Her. V. 31, comp. Iv. 22, ed. Mass.), Tertul- lian (de Animd, c¢. 55), and the principal ancient writers (see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. I. p. 269, and reff. on Vol. 1. p. 195, ed. Burt.), recognise in these words an allusion, not to Christ’s death and burial (Chrys., Theod.), but definitely to His descent into hell: so also Olsh., Stier, Alf., Wordsw., and Baur (Paulus, p. 431); but it is to be feared that the judgment of the last writer is not unbiassed, as he urges the reference as a proof of the gnostic origin of the Epistle. On this clause and on ver. Io see a good sermon by South, Serm. (Posth.) 1. Vol. 111. p. 169 sq. (Lond. 1843); and for a general investigation of the doc- trine of Christ’s descent into hell, and its connexion with the last things, Guder, Lehre von der Erscheinung J. C. unter den Todten, Bern, 1853. 10. 6 KataBds] ‘He that de- scended ;’ emphatic, as its position shows: the absence of any connecting or illative particle gives a greater force and vigour to the conclusion. It may be observed that avrés is not ‘the same,’ Auth.,—as no instance of an omission of the article occurs in the N.T., though it is occasionally dropped in the earlier (Herm. Opusc. Vol. I. p. 332), and frequently in Byzantine 86 4 r iat aAnpoon Ta TavTa. TIPO2 E®EZIOY2. He appointed divers ministering orders, Kai till we all come to the unity of faith, and in truth and love grow up into Christ, the head of the living body, the Church. authors,—but is simply the emphatic ‘He; od yap tos KaTeApAVGe Kal &AXos Gvehnvdev’ Theod.; see Winer, Gres 22a obs.) px 135. TAVTwV TOV Ovpavay] ‘all the heavens,’ ‘ecelos omnes penetravit ascendendo, usque ad summum celum,’ Est. ; bW7- AéTepos THY ovpavay, Heb. vii. 26, comp. ib. iv. 14. There is no neces- sity whatever to connect this expres- sion with the ‘seven heavens’ of the Jews (comp. Wetst. on 2 Cor, xii. 2, Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 387): the words, both here and in Heb. U/. ce., have only a simple and general meaning, and are well paraphrased by Bp. Pearson,—‘whatsoever heaven is higher than all the rest which are called heavens, into that place did He ascend :’ Creed, Art. VI. Vol. I. p. 320 (ed. Burton). Wa mwAnpooy ta tavta] ‘in order that He might fill all things; more general purpose involved in the more special dwxey Sipata Tots dvOparos (ver. 8), though structurally depend- ent on the preceding participle. The subjunctive with wa after a past tense is correctly used in the present case to denote an act that still continues; see Herm. Viger, No. 350, and esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 618, who has treated this and similar uses of the subj. with wa after preterites with considerable acumen: for exx. see Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 176, who has also correctly seized the general prin- ciple, ‘subjunctivum usurpari si pre- valet consilium, aut respectus ad even- tum habendus; p. 165. Great caution however must be used in applying these principles to the N.T., as the general and prevailing use of the subj. both in the N. T. and in later writers makes it very doubtful whether the finer distinction of mood was in all such cases as the present distinctly felt and intended. It is not necessary either to limit advra mAnpovv, the solemn predicate of the Deity (Jerem. xxiii. 24, see Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. 775), to the gift of redemption (Riick.), or to confine the comprehensive Ta mavra to the faithful (Grot.), or to the church of Jews and Gentiles (Meier): the expression is perfectly unrestricted, and refers not only to the sustaining and ruling power (ris decmorelas abrod kal évepyeias, Chrys.), but also to the divine presence (preesentiad et opera- tione sud, se ipso,’ Beng.) of Christ. The doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's Body derives no support from this passage (Form. Concord. p. 767), as there is here no reference to a dif- fused and ubiquitous corporeity, but to a pervading and energizing omni- presence; comp. Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 390, Vol. 11. p. 139, and notes on ch. i. 23. The true doctrine may perhaps be thus briefly stated :—Christ is perfect God, and perfect and glori- fied man; as the former he is present everywhere, as the latter he can be present anywhere: see Jackson, Creed, Book x1. 3, and comp. Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. Vi. p. 164. tr. Kat aités] ‘And He,’ ‘jah silba,’ Goth.; é€u@arix@s 6é etre TO avros, Theoph. ‘There is here no direct resumption of the subject of ver. 7, as if ver. 8—ro were merely parenthetical, but a regression to it, while at the same time the avrds is naturally and emphatically linked on to the avrés in the preceding verse. This return to a subject, without dis- turbing the harmony of the immediate connexion or the natural sequence of IV. i) 12) 87 ea ” A \ tr) , 4 de , auTos edwKev Tous fev amoaToAous, Tous VE Tpopyras, 4 Tous O€ evayyedirras, Tous 0€ Totmevas Kat dioacKkaXdous, Tpos TOV KaTAapTITMOV TOV aYyiwy, eis epyov diakovias, 12 a PUR thought, constitutes one of the high excellences, but at the same time one of the chief difficulties, in the style of the great Apostle. exey | ‘gave,’ ‘dedit,’ Vulg., Clarom., al. ; not merely Hebraistic ({f3, Olsh.), and equivalent to é#ero (Acts xx. 28, 1 Cor. xii. 28), ‘dedit Ecclesiz id est posuit in Eccl.’ (Hst.), but in the ordinary and regular meaning of the word, and in harmony with €606n, ver. 7, dduara, ver. 8; comp. notes on ch. i. 22. arooTo\ovs| ‘Apostles,’—in the highest and most special sense; comp. notes on Gal. i. 1. The chief characteristics of an Apostle were an immediate call from Christ (comp. Gal. i. 1), a destination for all lands (Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xi. 28), and a special power of working mira- cles (2 Cor. xii. 12); see Eadie zn loc., who has grouped together the essential elements of the Apostolate with proof texts. TpopyTas | ‘Prophets,’—not only in the more spe- cial sense (as Agabus, Acts xi. 28), but in the more general one of preach- ers and expounders, who spoke under the immediate impulse and influence of the Holy Spirit, and were thus to be distinguished from the d:ddeKador: 0 ev Tpodyrevwy mavTa amo Tob IIvev- patos POéyyerat, 0 Oé KtddoKwy éotiv Grou kai €& oixelas duavolas Siadéyerac’ Chrys. on 1 Cor. xii. 28: see Thorn- dike, Relig. Assemblies, ch. V. 1 sq. Vol. I. p. 182 sq. (A.-C. Libr.), and comp. notes on ch. ii. 20. evayyAtortdas] ‘Lvangelists,’—not rods Td evayyédiov ypavdvras (Ccum., Chrys. 2), but rods evayyeefoudvous (Chrys. 1), preachers of the Gospel, who trepiiévres Exnputrov (Theod.), and yet, as wy mepttdvTes mavTaxov (Chrys.), were distinguished from the Apostles, to whom they acted as subordinates and missionaries: comp. Acts viii. 14, and see Thorndike, Felig. Assembl. Iv. 37, Vol. I. p. 176, ib. Right of Church, 11. 30, Vol. I. p. 451, Hofm. Schriftd. Mole w2h p24 Oe Tousevas Kal SiSacKddovs] ‘Pastors and Teachers.’ It has been doubted whether these words denote different classes, or are different names of the The absence of the dis- junctive vovs dé (arbitrarily inserted in Syr., but altered in Syr.-Phil.) seems clearly to show that both row. and d:ddox. had some common distinctions, —probably that of being stationary same class. rather than missionary, of KaOqjmevoe kal mepi va Tomov Hoxohnuévot, Chrys., —which plainly separated them from Thus far they might be said to form one class; but that the individuals who composed it bore either or both names indifferently, is very doubtful. The roimeves (a term probably including Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 43 sq.) might be, and perhaps always were 6.ddcKador (comp. 1 Tim. iil. 2, Tit. i. 9, Martyr. Polyc. § 16, see Thorndike, Relig. Assembl. 1V. 40, Vol. I. p. 170), but it each of the preceding classes. émicxomot and mpecBvrepot, does not follow that the converse was true. The ydpioua of xuBépynsts is so distinct from that of d:dacKaNla, that it seems nec) TAVTi ave“w TIS OwackaNias év TH KuBela Tov avOpa- the Apostle is here referring solely to present (Chrys.), or to future life (Theod.). The mention of rictis, and the tenor of ver. 14, 15, incline us to -the former view: still it is probable (see Olsh.) that no special distinction was intended. St Paul regards the Church as one; he declares its issue and destination as évérys and re\ewd- 7Tns: on the realization of this, when- soever and wheresoever, the functions of the Christian ministry will cease. 14. Wo pyxére Kt.) ‘in order that we may be no longer children ;’ purpose contemplated in the limitation as to duration of the gifts specified in ver. 11 sq. The connexion is not per- fectly clear. Is this verse (a) co-ordi- nate with ver. 13, and immediately de- pendent on 11, 12 (Harl.), or (0) is it subordinate to it, and remotely depen- dent on ver. 11, 12? The latter seems most probable: ver. 13 thus defines the ‘terminus ad quem’ which charac- terizes the functions of the Christian ministry; ver. 14 explains the object, viz. our ceasing to be v7, contem- plated in the appointment of such a ‘terminus,’ and thence more remotely in the bestowal of a ministry so cha- racterized ; see Meyer in loc., who has ably elucidated the connexion. For a sound sermon on this text in reference to the case of ‘Deceivers and Deceived,’ see Waterl. Serm. XXIXx. Vol. V. p. 717 sq. pykéte] ‘20 longer;’? TO wmnkére Oelkvuct maar This is not however said in reference to the Ephe- sians only, but as the context (advTes, ver. 13) suggests, in ref. to Christians generally. Eadie somewhat singularly totro mafovras’ Chrys. stops to comment on the use of ‘ unké- Te not ovkére:’ surely to wa in its present sense ‘particula py consen- tanea est;’ Gayler, Partik. Neg. p. 168. KAvsovilopevor] ‘ tossed about like waves’ (‘usvagidai,’ Goth., comp. Syr., Arm.),—not ‘by the waves. Stier, assuming the latter to be the true meaning of the pass. (‘metaphor from a ship lying at hull,’ Bramh. Catching Lev. ch. 3, Vol. 1v. p- 592), adopts the middle (comp. ‘fluctuantes,’ Vulg.) to avoid the then incongruous kAvé. dvéum. The exx. however adduced by Wetst. and Krebs (kAvbwviferGar éx Tot moGov, Aristzen. Epist. 1. 27, Tapacodmevos Kal kAvdwvt- §suevos, Joseph, Antig. IX. 11. 3) con- firm the passive use and the former meaning; comp. James i. 6. avénw THS Si8acKkadlas] ‘wind of doc- trine.’ The article does not show ‘the prominence which teaching possessed in the Church’ (Eadie), but specifies didacKkaXia in the abstract, every kind and degree of it: see Middleton, Art. v. 1, p. 89sq. (ed. Rose). On the pro- bable distinction between 6idacKxaNla and dc6ax7, see on 2 Tim. iv. 2. év TH KuBelqa K.T.A.] ‘in the sleight of men, —of men, not the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, ver. 13. *Ev may be plausibly considered in- strumental (Arm., Mey.) ; as however this would seem pleonast’c after the instrumental, or what Kriiger (Sprachl. § 48. 151 sq.) more inclusively terms the dynamic dat. dvéum (see Heb. xiii. g), and would mar the seem- ing parallelism with év dydry (ver. 15), the prep. appears rather to de- note the element, the evil atmosphere as it were, 7m which the varying cur- rents of doctrine exist and exert their force ; so Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Auth.- Pol., and perhaps Goth., but see De Gabel. in loc. The term kuBeia (N11) Heb.) properly denotes 92 IlPO= E®EZIOY=. 15 Tov, év Tavouvpyia mpos THv meOodeav Ths TAavys, aAy- ‘playing with dice’ (Plato, Phedr. 274 D, werretas kal kuBelas: see Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2), and thence, by an easy transition, ‘sleight of hand,’ ‘fraud’ Suid.; comp. Arrian, “pjct. 11. 19, 111. 21, cited by Wetst.): t.ov 6€ Trav KuBevdvTwy 7d (avoupyla, KuBeveuy, THOE KaKElce peTadepew Tors Wihpous Kal mavotpyws Tovro movetv' Theod. ; see Suicer, ZThesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 181, Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. nse év Tavoupyia mpds K.T-A.] ‘in craftiness tending to the deliberate system of error,’ ‘in astutia ad circum- ventionem erroris,’ Vulg.; appositio- nal and partly explanatory clause to the foregoing. The Auth. Ver. (comp. Syr.) is here too paraphrastic, and obscures the meaning of both pds and peGodeia, The former is not equi- valent to card, Riick., ‘ with,’ Peile, but denotes the aim, the natural tend- ency, of mavoupyia (comp. notes on Tit. i. 1); the mePodela Tis mH. is that which mavovpyia has in view (comp. 12), and to which it is readily and naturally dis- mpos Tov KaTapT. ver. posed. As mavouvpyla is anarthrous, the omission of the art. before pds (which induces Riick. incorrectly to refer the clause to Pepdpuervor) is per- fectly regular ; see Winer, Gr. § zo. 4p. 126, term “efodela, a dts Neyou. in the N.T. (see ch. vi. 11), must have its mean- ing fixed by “ePodevw. This verb de- notes, ‘the pursuit, dc. of a settled plan’—(a) honestly (Diod. Sic. 1. 81, ML. Thy adjnOevav x THs Eumecplas), or (b) dishonestly (Polyb. Mr. Hist. xxxviit. 4. 10), and hence comes to imply ‘ de- The somewhat rare ception,’ ‘fraud,’ with more or less of plan (2 Sam. xix. 27); comp. Chrys. on Eph. vi. 11. weOodevoai éort 76 ara- Thoae Kal did cuvTdpov (unxarijs, Sav.) €Xetv: see also Miinthe, Obs. p. 367. Thus then peOodela is ‘a deliberate planning or system’ (Peile ; rv uy- xavnv éxddecev, Theod.), the further idea of ‘fraud’ (réxv7n 7 66Xos, Suid., é7i3ouhy, Zonar.) being here expressed in m7Adyns: see Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 329. The reading is doubt- ful: Zisch. (ed. 7) adopts the form beOPodiay with B'D!FGEKLN, and seve- ral mss., but appy. without sufficient reason; as changes in orthography which may be accounted for by itacism or some mode of erroneous transcrip- tion must always be received with caution; comp. Winer, Gr. § 5. 4, ee le mAdvys has not here (nor Matth. xxvii. 64, 2 Thess. ii. 11) the active meaning of ‘misleading’ (De D vy W., comp. Syr. es? ut sedu- cant), nor even necessarily that of ‘delusion’ (Harl.), but its simple, classical, and regular meaning, ‘error,’ —‘erroris,’ Vulg., ‘airzeins,’ Goth. The gen. is obviously not the gen. objecti (Riick.), but subjecti,—it is the mravn which peodeve,—and thus stands in grammatical parallelism with the preceding gen. T@v av0p. The use of the article must not be overlooked: it serves almost to personify m\dvn, not however as metonymically for ‘Satan’ (Beng.), but as ‘ Error’ in its most abstract nature, and thus renders the contrast to ) adjOeva, implied in a\nOevovres, more forcible and signifi- cant. 15. GAnPevovres S€] ‘but holding the truth, walking truthfully, parti- cipial member attached to avéjcwmer, and with it grammatically dependent on wa (ver. 14),—the whole clause, as the use of 6é (after a negative sentence) seems distinctly to suggest (comp. Hartung, Partik. 66 2. 11, Vol. I. p. 171), standing in simple and direct op- Ens: 93 , A ’ x , ) , ° ’ 4 4 , ‘ or Bevovres oe ev ayaTy averjowev €lS GUTOV Ta TavTa, o¢ position to the whole preceding verse (esp. to the concluding rAdv7s, De W.), without however any reference to the preceding negation, which would ra- ther have required d@\\d: see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11 p. 3, 361, Do- nalds. Cratyl. § 201. The meaning of adnbevew is somewhat doubtful. On the one hand, such translations as ‘veritati operam dare’ (Calv.) and even ‘Wahrheit festhalten’ (Riick.) are lexically untenable (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. ad70. Vol. I. p. 97)3 on the other, the common meaning, ‘veritatem dicere’ (Gal. iv. 16), seems clearly exegetically unsatisfactory. It is best then to preserve an intermediate sense, ‘walking in truth’ (Olsh.), or (to preserve an antithesis in transl. between wAdvyns and a7.) ‘holding the truth,’ Scholef. (ints, p. 100),— which latter interpr., if ‘holding’ be not unduly pressed, is almost justified by Plato, Theet. 202 B, ddybevew THv wuxnv [Sverum sentire,’ Ast] repli avrTdé: so in ettect, but somewhat too strongly, Vulg., Clarom., Goth., ‘ ve- ritatem facientes,’ and sim. Copt. éy aydtwy}] The connexion of these words has been much discussed. Are they to be joined—(a) with the parti- ciple (Syr., Aith., Theoph., GEicum.), or—(b) with the finite verb (Theod., who however omits a\7@., and appy. Chrys., 7H dydry ouvdedeneva)? It must fairly be conceded that the order, the parallelism of structure with that of ver. 14, and still more the vital association between love and the truest form of truth (see Stier im loc.), are arguments of some weight in favour of (a); still the absence of any clear antithesis between év dy. and either of the preposit. clauses in ver. 14 forms a negative argument, and the concluding words of ver. 16 (whether &y ay. be joined immediately with avinow rocet- Tat Mey., or with olkodouiy) supply a positive argument in favour of ()) of such force, that this latter connexion must be pronounced the more proba- ble, and certainly the one most in harmony with the context; comp. ch. i. 4. The order may have arisen from a desire to keep avrov as near as pos- sible to its relative. eis avtov] ‘into Him,’ Auth, Ver.; e/s not im- plying merely ‘in reference to’ (Mey.), —a frigid and unsatisfactory interpre- tation of which that exposicor is too fond (comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27), nor ‘for’ (Eadie), nor even simply ‘ unto,’ ‘to the standard of’ (Conyb.; comp. els dvdpa Téecov, ver. 13), but retain- ing its fuller and* deeper theological sense ‘inlo,’ so that avé. with eds con- veys both ideas, ‘unto and into.’ The growth of Christians bears relation to Christ both as its centre and standard : while the limits of that growth are defined by ‘the stature of the fulness of Christ,’ its centre is also, and must be, in Him; comp. some profound re- marks in Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 445 sq. Ta wavtTa] ‘in all the parts in which we grow’ (Mey.), ‘in all the elements of our growth; the article being thus most simply explained by the context. It now need scarcely be said that no ‘supplement of xara’ (Eadie, Stier) is required; 7d wayra is the regular accus. of what is termed the quantita- tive object (Hartung, Casus, p. 46), and serves to characterize the extent of the action; see Madvig, Gr. § 27, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 5. 4. 6s éoTiv K.T.A.] ‘who is the Head, even Christ.’ There is here neither transposition (Grot., comp. Syr.), nor carelessness of construct. for eis airov tov Xp. (Pisc.). Instead of the ordinary form of simple, or what is termed parathetic 94 ~ TPOZ E®EZIOY=. ° a rn \ A 16 eoTw 4 kesbany, Xpirros, e& ou Tav TO THLAa TUVAp- poroyovmevoy Kat cuvBiBaCouevoy dia warns apis THs apposition (see exx. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 57. 9), the Apostle, not improbably for the sake of making é& ov, ver. 16, perfectly perspicuous (De W.), adopts the relatival sentence, with the struc- ture of which the apposition is assimi- lated ; see exx. Winer, Gr. § 48. 4. p. 424(ed. 5), and Stallb. Plat. Apo/. 41 A. The reading is somewhat doubtful: Rec. prefixes the art. to Xp. with DEF GKL®‘; most mss.; Chrys., Theod. (De W., Mcv’.),— but appy. on authority inferior to that for its omission, viz. ABCN!; 3 mss.; Did., Bas., Cyr., al. (Lachm., Tisch., Alf.). Internal argu- ments cannot safely be urged, as the preponderance of instances of real omission (53) over those of insertion (31) is not very great; see the table drawn up by Rose in his ed. of Mid- dleton, Gr. Art. Append. I. p. 490 sq., and Gersdorf, Bertrdge, 1. p. 272 sq. Under any circumstances the position of the word at the end of the verse gives it both force and emphasis. 16. é& ov] ‘from whom,’ Auth., ‘ex quo,’ Syr., Vulg., Clarom.,—not ‘in quo,’ A&th. (both); é& 00, as the instructive parallel, Col. ii. 19, clearly suggests, being joined with atéqnow moteirat, and éx, with its proper and primary force of origin, source, denot- ing the origin, the ‘fons augmenta- tionis,’ Beng. ; see notes on (ral. ii. 16. It is not wholly uninteresting to re- mark that the force of the metaphor is enhanced by the apparent physiolo- gical truth, that the energy of vital power varies with the distance from the head: see Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, § 22, p. 270 (ed. 1). ovvappodo- youpevov] ‘being fitly framed together > pres. part., the action still going on: see notes on ch. ii. 21. ovvBi- Bafopevov] ‘ compacted,’ ;-\odsoo y n [et colligatum]Syr., ‘eonnexum,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘gagahaflib,’ Goth.,— or more literally and with more special refer- ence to derivation [BA-, Balyw], ‘put together ; comp. Col. ii. 19, and ina figurative sense, Acts ix. 22, xvi. To. The difference of meaning between owapp. and ovr. has been differently — stated. According to Bengel, the first denotes the harmony, the second the solidity and firmness of the structure. Perhaps the more exact view is that which the simple meanings of the words suggest, viz. that ovvB. refers to the aggregation, cvvapp. to the in- ter-adaptation of the component parts. The external authority for the form ow BB. [AB?)CD!FGN] is appy. suf- ficient to warrant the adoption of this less usual form; see Tisch. Prolegom. p. XLVI. Sa traons ais] ‘by means of every joint,’ ‘per omnem juncturam,’ Vulg., Clarom., and sim. all the ancient Vv. Meyer still re- tains the interpr. of Chrys., Theod., ag¢n=aicOnots, and connects the clause with avé. rovetrat: but the parallel passage, Col. ii. 19, TOv addy kal cuv- décuwy (observe esp. the omission of the 2nd article, Winer, § 19. 4, p. 116) leaves it scarcely doubtful that the meaning usually assigned (comp. A- then. 111. 202 BE, Plut. Anton. 27) is correct, and that the clause is to be connected with the participles. THs Ertxopynylas] ‘of the (spiritual) supply ; the article implying the spe- cific émexop. which Christ supplies, r7s xopnylas Tay xapicudrwv, Chrys.: on the meaning of the word comp. notes on Gal. iii. 5. The gen. is not the gen. of apposition (Riick., Harl.), nor a lie emXopnylas KaT evepyerav ev MET PW EvOS EKaTTOU jépous A y ~ , A zd ’ A e aA THY avEnouw TOU THMUATOS TOLELTAL ELS OlKOOOMyY EauvTOU oe ane €v ayaTy. mere Hebraistic gen. of quality, ‘joint of ministry = ‘ministering joint’ (Peile, Green, Gramm. N. T. p. 264; comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b, p. 211), but a kind of gen. definitivus, by which the predominant use, purpose, or destina- tion of the a is specified and cha- racterized; see Heb. ix. 21, oxen Tis Aetroupyias, and comp. the exx. cited by Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. 8, p. 170. The suggestion of Dobree (Advers. Vol, I. Pp. 573), partly adopted by Scholef., that émcx. may be tata,’ is not very satisfactory or tena- ble; see Phil. i. 19. Kar ‘materia suppedi- évépyetay K.T.A.] ‘according to energy in the measure of (sc. commensurate with) each individual part;’ TQ bev Suvauéevw mréov béLacbat mréov, TH SE €\dtTw é\atTov’ Chrys. These words may be connected either (a) with émtxopnylas,—the omission of the art, is no objection (Riick.), as 7 émtx. Kar’ évépy. may form one idea (Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123), or (2) with the parti- ciples, or yet again (c) with the finite verb. As the expressions of the clause far more appropriately describe the nature of the growth than either the mode of compaction or the degree of the supply, the latter construction is to be preferred. Kar’ évépy. is then a modal predication, appended to movetrat, defining the nature of the avé- nows: this growth is neither abnormal nor proportionless, but is reguiated by a vital power which is proportioned to the nature and extent of the separate parts. Dobree (Advers. Vol. 1. p. 573) strongly condemns this translation, but, as it would seem, without suffi- cient reason. His own translation, which connects car’ évépy. with évds éx. wép. and isolates év wérpw, impairs the force of the deep and consolatory truths which the ordinary connexion For a good practical appli- cation see Eadie in Joc. The reading sé\ous is fairly supported [AC ; Vulg., Copt., Syr., al.; Cyr., Chrys., al.], but is appy. rightly rejected by most recent editors, as a gloss on pé- pous suggested by the preceding cGpua suggests. and the succeeding cwyaros. tTHY avé& Tov THpaTos Tovetrat] ‘p7o- motes, carries on, the growth of the body,’ —owpmaros being probably added for the sake of perspicuity, and so practically taking the place of the re- ciprocal pronoun; comp. Winer, Gr. § 22. 2, p. 130, Kriiger, Xen. Anab, p- 27. Stier, perhaps not incorrectly, finds in the repetition of the noun an enunciation of a spiritual truth, echoed by éavrod,—that the body makes in- crease of the body, and so is a living organism ;—that its growth is not due to aggregations from without, but to vital forces from within; compare Harless. The middle rovetrae is perhaps not to be insisted on as confirming this (as Alf.), this form appy- being not so much reflexive (Wordsw.) as intensive and indicative of the energy with which the process is carried on; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 7. 1, comp. Donalds. Gr. 432. 2). cis olkoSopyy éEavTod év dy.] ‘for building up of itself in love ;’ ous von les [S025 ae in pits See eedificium ejus] Syr. ; end and object of the avé- now movetrat: love is the element in which the edification takes place. Meyer connects év dydiry with avirow rotel- 96 IiPOz 17 Totvro obv Neyo Kat MapTipomat ev U , C a ‘A A Kupie, myxére vas wepirateiv Kabws Kat E®EZIOY=. Do not walk as dark- ened, hardened, and feelingless heathens. Put off the old, and put on the new man. 17. Ta €Ovy] So Lachm. with ABD'FGN!; 5 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Aug., Boern., Vulg., Copt., Sahid., Ath. (both); Clem., Cyr., al.,—and appy. rightly, as the addition of NS! may be considered more than sufficient to coun- terbalance the probability of Aourd having been left out as being imperfectly understood (ed. 1, 2). The authorities for 7a Nora evn are D? DIEKLN?; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both); Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod. (Ree., Tisch. ed. 2 and 7). rat, to harmonize with ver. 15, but without sufficient reason, and in opp. to the obvious objection that avéjow movetrac is thus associated with two limiting prepositional clauses, and the unity of thought proportionately im- paired; comp. Alf. in loc. 17. Tovro otv Aéyw} ‘This I say then; this, sc. what follows; connect- ing the verse with the hortatory por- tion commenced ver. I—3, by resump- tion on the negative side (uykére mept- mare) of the exhortation previously expressed on the positive side, ver. 1—3 (mapak. dilws mepurarjoa), but interrupted by the digression, ver. 4 —16; rddw avédaBe THs Tapawécews 7 mpoolutov' Theod. On this resump- tive force of ofy, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, and notes on Gal. iii. 5. The illative force advocated by Eadie after Meyer (ed. r) is here impro- bable, and rightly retracted by Meyer (ed. 2); comp. Donalds. Gr. § 548. 31. paprvpopar év Kuplw] ‘testify, solemn- ly declare (‘ quasi testibus adhibitis’), in the Lord,—not ‘per Dominum’ (udprupa 5 rov Kvpiov kaa, Chrys. ; see Fritz. Rom. ix. 1, Vol. II. p. 241), nor even as specifying the authority upon which (‘tanquam Christi discipu- lus,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 84), but, as usual, defining the element or sphere in which the declaration is made: comp. Rom. ix. 1, dAjGevav Néyw ev Xp.; 2 Cor, ii. 17, €v Xp. Nadovmev,—scarcely correctly translated by Fritz. ‘ut ho- mines cum Christo nexi;’ 1 Thess. iv. I, m@apakahovuev é€v Kupiw, and see notes in loc. By thus sinking his own personality, the Apostle greatly en- hances the solemnity of his declaration. On this use of uapr. see notes on Gal. v. 3, and comp. Raphel. Annot. Vol. I. p. 478, 595. pyKeTe duds mepiTrateiv| ‘that ye no longer (must) walk ;? subject and substance of the hortatory declaration; see Acts xxi. 21, Néywy ph mepiréuvew avrov’s TA Téxva. In objective sentences of this nature (see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.) the infinitive frequently involves the same conception that would have been expressed in the direct sentence by the imperative, and is usually (but incor- rectly) explained by an ellipsis of detv: see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3. b, p. 288, Lo- beck, Phryn. 753 sq., and compare Heindorf on Plato, Protag. p. 346 B. Kal ra vy] ‘the Gentiles also; with tacit reference to their own former state when unconverted ; the xal intro- ducing a comparison or gentle contrast between the emphatically expressed buds, and the €6v7n of which but lately they formed a part; see notes on kal, verses 4, 32, and on Phil. iv. 12. If Nora be retained it would imply that the Ephesians, though Christians, still fell under the general denomination of Gentiles: it would also appy. convey a hint reminding them what they once were, and what they now ought not to be; see Wolf in loc. Yara 18: 97 eb YJ t a ’ , lal A Se zd. eOvn TEPLTATEL EV MATALOTHTL TOV VOOS aU’TWY, bd , “ ’ +x 9 , an ETKOTLOMEVOL TH dravoia ovTes, amTyAXOT PLOMEV OL THs 18 év paravorynte K.T.A.] ‘in the vanity of their mind:’ sphere of their moral walk; compare Rom. i. 21, éuaracd- Onoay é€v Tos dLaroyiopots Chrys. rightly explains the words by TO Tepl Ta pdraa joxordnoOa, but is probably not cerrect in restricting aura. them to idolatry, as wdratos and ma- Tai6w do not necessarily involve any such reference; compare Fritz. Rom. Wollatape Os rather to that general depravation of the vots (the higher moral and intel- lectual element), which was the uni- versal characteristic of heathenism; see Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 3, p. 35 sq., and The reference seems notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, 2 Tim. iii. 8. 18. éokoTirpévor... dvtes] ‘being darkened ;’ participial clause defining their state, and accounting for the pre- ceding assertion (Donalds. Gr. § 616); €okoT. (opp. to mepwricuévot, ch. i. 18; comp. Rom. i. 21, xi. ro, 1 Thess. v. 4) referring to their state of moral darkness, and évres (rightly referred by Tisch. and Lachm. to écxor., not to dmmy\X. [Eadie],—a punctuation which mars the emphatic parallelism of the initial perf. participles) mark- ing, somewhat pleonastically after the perf. part., its permanent and endur- ing state; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 311. ‘The apparently conjugate nature of the clauses (comp, éyTes... ovocav) has led Olsh. and others to couple together éoxor. x.7.d. and dud Tiv dyv. as relating to the intellect, dann. K.T.r. and dua Thy Twp. as re- lating to the feelings. though at first sight plausible, will not be found logically satisfactory. Their being éoxor. x.t.X. could scarcely be This however, said to be the consequence of their dyvoia (‘ignorance’ simply, Acts iii. _17, Xvil. 30, and appy. 1 Pet. i. 14), but rather vice versd ; whereas it seems perfectly consistent to say that their alienation was caused by their igno- rance, and still more by the ensuing Twpwows. Hence the punctuation of the text. The reading éoxoricpévor is not perfectly certain ; the more clas- sical ésxotwuévor is found in ABN; Ath. (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 7), but has scarcely sufficient support to warran its reception in the text. 77 Stavola] ‘in their understanding,’ ‘in: their higher intellectual nature,’ diéf050s oyixyh, Orig., comp. Beck, Scelenl. 11. 19, p- 58; see ch. ii. 3, and Joseph. Antiq. 1X. 4. 3, Thy didvoray éreckotiauevous. The dat. (‘of refer- ence to’) denotes the particular sphere to which the ‘darkness’ is limited ; see notes on Gal. i. 22, Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193. The distinction be- tween this dat. and the acc., as in Joseph. /.¢., is not very easy to define, as such an accus. has clearly some of the limiting character which we pro- perly assign to the dat.; see Hartung, Casus, p. 62. Perhaps the ace. might denote that the darkness extended over the mind, the dat. that it has its seat in the mind; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4. 1. amnddotpiopévot| ‘being alienated from, addOTpio Ka- Oecr@res, Theod.-Mops.; see notes on Cheval? THs Cwrs Tov Ocov] ‘the life of God.’ This is one of the many cases (see Winer, Gir. § 30. T. obs. p. 168) where the nature of the gen., whether objecti or subjecti, must be determined solely from exe- As (wi) ap- pears never to denote ‘course of life’ getical considerations. (e.g. Thv év dperH Gwyv, Theod.) in the N.T., bat ‘the principle of life’ as opp. to @dvaros (comp. Trench, Synon. § 27), Tob Oeod will more natu- i 98 IIPO2 E®EZIOY2. A A a) a } A 4 x Q Oo) i) *) an A Cons Tov Ueov dla THY aYyvolay THY OVTaY EV AUTOLS, ova IQ THY TOpwWTly TIS Kapolas avT@Y, olTives amyAynKOTES e ‘ , ) , 9. 9 ’ 5) ’ €auTous TapédwKay TH agedyea ELS epyactay axafapavas rally be the gen. subj. or auctoris, ‘the life which God gives ;’ otvn Geod, Rom. i.17, with 7 ék O. dux., Phil. iii. 9. It is however probable that we must advance a step farther, and regard the gen. as possessive. This unique expression will then de- note not merely the mahvyyevecta, but in the widest doctrinal application, ‘the life of God’ in the soul of man; comp. Olsh. and Stier in loc., and see esp. the good treatise on {wi in Olsh. Opuse. p. 188 sq. Tv ovcav éy avrots seems intended to point out the indwelling, deep-seated, nature of the dyvo.a, and to form a sort of parallelism to 77s xapd. avrav. Meyer (compare Peile) conceiving that the words indicate the subordination of dca THY Twp. to bia THY ayy. re- moves the comma after avrots. This is certainly awkward: St Paul’s more than occasional use of co-ordinate clauses (e. g. Gal. iv. 4) leads us to re- gard both members as dependent on dmnaX. (Orig.), and structurally inde- pendent of each other; though, as the context seems to suggest, the latter may be considered slightly explanatory of the former, and (like dmy)\.) ex- pressive of a state naturally conse- quent: see esp. Orig. Caten. p. 175. mapwow) ‘callousness,’ ‘hardness,’— not ‘cecitatem,’ Syr. (both), Vulg., Clarom., Auth. (both), Arm. (zWpwors, 4 tvpdwots, Suid.), but ‘obduratio- nem,’ Copt. (¢hdm,—which however includes both significations), ‘dau- bipos,” Goth.,— 4 éoxdrn dvadynola, Theod. The word wwpwars is not de- rived from mwpds ‘czecus’ (‘ vox, ut videtur, @ grammaticis ficta,’ Fritz. Rom. xi. 7, Vol. 1. p. 452), and cer- tainly not from mépos (dadpdrrew), comp. dtxaco- as appy. Chrys., but from m@pos ‘ tuff- stone,’ and thence from the similarity of appearance, a ‘morbid swelling’ (Aristot. Hist. An. 111. 19), the ‘callus’ at the extremity of fractured bones (Med. Writers). The adject. mwpés, in the sense of taXalarwpos (Hesych.), is cognate with mnpés, and derived from JIAQ, macxyw; comp. Phavor. Eclog. 150. b, p. 396 (ed. Dind.). 19. otrwes] ‘men who ;’ explana- tory force of dcTis; see notes on Gal. ii. 4, iv. 24. aarndynkores| “being past feeling,’ Auth.,—an admi- rable translation. The use of the semi-technical term mwpweis suggests this appropriate continuation of the metaphor, There is then no reference to mere ‘desperatio’ (comp. Polyb. Hist. 1X. 40. 9, dmadyovvres Tats éh- miot, and exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. I. p. 479), as Syr., Vulg., Goth.,— but possibly with the reading of DEFG, al., dmn\mkores,—nor even to that feelingless state which is the result of it (Cicero, Hpist. Fam, 11. 16. 1, ‘des- peratione obduruisse ad dolorem no- vum,’ aptly cited by Beng.); but, as the context shows, to that moral apa- thy and deadness which supervenes when the heart has ceased to be sen- sible of the ‘stimuli’ of the conscience ; To 6€ dwndynKOTEs WoTrEp THY amd Ta- fous Twos mépn TONAGKLS TOU TwmaTos vevexpwyevay, ols adhyos ovdev éxeidev éyylverat’ Theod.-Mops. The gloss of Theoph. xareppadupnkéres (comp. Chrys.), adopted by Hamm. on fom. i. 29, but appy. retracted here, is untenable, as it needlessly interrupts the continuity of the metaphor. éavtovs] ‘themselves,’ as Meyer well says, with frightful emphasis. It has been observed by Chrys. and others EVisEO, 20: 99 , ’ , ¢ a A b) er J , ‘ Tacs €V mAcovecia. UMELS oe OVX OUTWS euaQeTe TOV 20 that there is no opposition here with Rom. i. 26, rapédwxev aitods 6 Oeds. The progress of sin is represented under two aspects, or rather two stages of its fearful course. By a perverted exercise of his free will man plunges himself into sin; the deeper demersion in it is the judicial act (no mere cuyxwpnots, Chrys.) of God ; comp. Wordsw. in loc. Ty doedyela] ‘ Wantonness.’ On the meaning and derivation of this word, see notes on Gal. v. 19, and comp. Trench, Synon. § 16. eis Epyacolav] ‘to working ;’ conscious object of the fearful self-abandonment : épyac. gdnolv, €Oevro TO Tpaypa’... 6pas TAs avrovs dmocrepel ovyyvapns’ Chrys. maons] ‘of every kind,’ whether natural or unnatural ; powxeta, mopvela, maidepagria, Chrys. As St Paul most commonly places ads before, and not, as here, after the abstract (anarthrous) subst., it seems proper to express in transl. the full force of mdons: comp. notes on ch. i. 8. év tAcovet(a] ‘in (not ‘ with’) covetousness;’ é€v marking the condi- tion, the prevailing state or frame of mind in which they wrought the dxaé. The word wdcoveéla (‘amor habendi,’ Fritz., ‘bonum alienum ad se redigit,’ Beng. on Rom. i. 29) is here explained by Chrys. and appy. some Greek Ff. (see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. It. p. 750, but comp. p. 748), followed by Ham- mond (in a valuable note on Rom. i. 29), and by Trench, Synon. § 24, as dwerpla, ‘immoderate, inordinate de- sire.’ In support of this extended meaning the recital of weovetia with sins of the flesh, 1 Cor. v. 11, Eph. v. 3, Col. iii. 5, is popularly urged by Trench and others, but appy., as a critical examination of the passages will show, without full conclusiveness. For example, in 1 Cor. v. 10, Tots mopvots ¥ Tots TAEoveKTaLs KOL dprakw (Lachm., Tisch.), the use of the dis- junctive 7 between mépv. and m)eov. opp. to the conjunctive cal between mXeov. and dp7., and esp. the omission of the art. before dpm. (Winer, G7. $19, 4. d, p. 116), tend to prove the very reverse. Again in Eph. v. 3, Topvela is joined with dxa@apola by kal, while meoveé. is disjoined from them by 77: see notes. Lastly in Col. ili. 5, the pre- ceding anarthrous, unconnected nouns, mopy., axa0., é0., have no very close union with kal tyv mAcoveélav k. T. X., from which too they are separated by érOuulay Kaki: see notes im loc. While therefore we may admit the deep significance of the spiritual fact that this sin is mentioned in connexion with strictly carnal sins, we must also deny that there are grammatical or contextual reasons for obliterating the idea of covetousness and self-seeking which seems bound up in the word ; see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 3. 2, Vol. 1. p. 169 (Clark). 20. typets 8€] ‘But you’, emphatic, with distinct and marked contrast to these unconverted and feelingless heathen. ovx otTws enabere tov Xp.] ‘did not THs learn Christ,’ —but on principles very different; the ovrws obviously implying much more than is expressed (‘litotes’) ; 7a Tod Seombrou XpioTov Tavrdmacw evay- ria’ Theod. This use of pavd. with an accus. persone is somewhat difficult to explain, and is probably unique. Raphel (Annot. Vol. 11. p. 480) cites Xen. Hell. u. 1. 1, but the examp'e is illusory. The common interpr. Xpiords = ‘doctrina Christi’ (Grot., Turner) is frigid and inadmissible, and the use of éud@ere in the sense of ‘learnt to know,’ scil. ‘who He is and Hie2 100 WPOZ E®EZIOY2. xX , 4 Chow b) , Ae 9 Ses Odd 6 21 PLoToyv, evye QUTOV YKOVOATE KAL EV AUTW EOL ax TE 22 KaQws éotiv ardjOeaa év to “Incov, aro0écOa vpmas what He desires’ (Riick.), has not appy. any lexical authority. We can only then regard Xp. as the object which is learnt (or heard, ver. 21), the content of the preaching, so that the hearer, as it were, ‘takes up into him- self and appropriates the person of Christ Himself’ (Olsh.): compare the similar but not identical expression, mapadausdavew tov Xpucrov *Ino., Col. li. 6; see notes in loc. 21. elye] ‘if indeed,’ ‘tum certe si;’ not ‘since,’ Eadie: see notes, ch. iii. 2, Hartung, Partik. Vol. I. p. 407 sq. The explanation of Chrys. ov« dudi- BddXovTos éorl, adda Kal opddpa dia- BeBacoumévov, is improved on by (Ecum., woel elrev, audiBdd\\w yap el Tus Tov Xp. akovoas Kal didaxbels év avT@ Tro.atra mparret. ‘ye heard Him; avrov being put forward with empha- sis ;—if indeed it was Him, His divine voice and divine Self, that you really heard.’ Alf. pertinently compares John x. 27, but observe that the avrév is here used in the same sort of inclu- sive way as Tov Xpiordv, ver. 20. No eee | > iA QUTOV TkovoaTe| argument can fairly be deduced from this that St Paul had not himself in- structed the readers (De W.); see on Cheatin 2: év avta@] ‘in Him? not ‘by Him,’ Auth., Arm., or “illius nomine,’ Beng., but, as usual, ‘in union with Him ;’ see Winer. Gr. § 48. a, P- 345. the precision of the language, atrév jKovcare pointing to the first recep- tion, €v a’r@ éd.dax. to the further Meyer calls attention to instruction which they had received as Christians. Both are included in the foregoing éudfete Tov Xpiorév. Kalas éoriv GAO. k. T.A.] Sas, or ac- cording as, is truth in Jesus.’ The meaning and connexion of this clause are both obscure, and have received many different interpretations, most of which involve errors affecting one or more of the following particulars, —the meaning of kaOw&s (Riick.), the position of éoriv (Olsh.), the meaning of d\7Gea (Harl.), the absence of the art. before it (Auth.), the designation of Christ by His historical rather than oficial name (Mey.), and finally the insertion of duds (De W.). It is ex- tremely difficult to assign an inter- pretation that shall account for and harmonize all of these somewhat con- flicting details. Perhaps the following will be found least open to exception. The Apostle, having mentioned the teaching the Ephesians had received (€6:5dx0.), notices first (not parenthe- tically, Beza) the form and manner, and then the substance of it. Kaéas k.7.\. is thus a predication of manner attached to €6.5., and implies, not ‘as truth is in Jesus’ (Olsh.), which de- parts from the order and involves a modification of the simple meaning of ad}. ; nor (as it might have been ex- pressed) ‘as is truth,’ abstractedly,— but, ‘as is truth—in Jesus,’ embodied, as it were, in a personal Saviour, and in the preaching of His cross. The substance of what they were taught is then specified, not without a faint imperative force, by the infin. with buds; the pronoun being added either on account of the introduction of the new subject “Incod (Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p- 288), or more probably to mark their contrast, not only with the Gen- tiles before mentioned, but with their own former state as implied in thy mpotépav avactpopiyv. Meyer, follow- ing (Ecum. 2, connects the inf. with éorly a\70., a construction not gram- matically untenable (Jelf, Gr. § 669, NVR 2 rN2 2.023, 101 4 A , ) 4 ‘ 4 a KaTa THY TPOTEDAV avarTpopiy Tov TaNatoy avOpwmrov A , A A ’ , lon ° , ° TOV pbepomevov Kata Tas emOuuias THS aTaTNS, ava- 23 comp. Madvig, Synt. § 164. 3), but somewhat forced and unsatisfactory. Stier, after Beng., regards dmo@. as a resumption of wk. mepim., ver. 17, but yet is obliged to admit a kind of connexion with é0.0. Kk. T. X. 22, aroérOar tpds| ‘that ye put off; objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584) dependent on €615., and specify- ing the purport and substance of the teaching ; see Winer, (ir. § 48. a. obs. p- 349, and comp. Orig. Caten. The metaphor is obviously ‘a vestibus sumpta,’ Beza(Rom. xiii. 12, Col. iii. 8), and stands in contrast to évdvc. ver. 24; see Usteri, Lehrd. 11. 1. 3, p. 220. The translation of Peile, ‘that you have put off,’ is very questionable, as the aor. is here only used in accord- ance with the common law of suc- cession of tenses (Madvig, Synt. § 171, sq.), and perhaps with reference (ob- serve évdvoac0at ver. 24, as compared with dvaveodcGar) to the speedy, single nature of the act; but comp. notes on and on i Less: ve 217. Equally untenable is the supposition that the inf. is equivalent to the imper. (Luther, Wolf); not however because vmuds is attached to it (Eadie, for see Winer, G7. § 44. 3. b, p. 288), but be- cause this usage is only found (ex- cluding Epic Greek) in laws, oracles, ch. iii. 4, d&c. or in clauses marked by special warmth or earnestness; comp. Bern- hardy, Synt. 1X. 3, p. 358. But few certain instances, ¢. g. Phil. iii. 16 (see notes), are found in the language of the N.T. KaTa THY TpoT. dvactp.| ‘as concerns your former conversation,’ ‘quoad pristinam vivendi, concupiscendi, et peccandi consuetu- dinem,’ Corn. a Lap. ; specification of that with regard to which the dzo- OécOa Tov mar. dvOp. was especially carried out; xara here not having its more usual sense of measure, but, as the context seems to require, the less definite one of reference to; comp. Rom. ix. 5, and see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. I. p. 1599. The con- struction roy man. dvOp. Kara K. T,X. (Jerome, Cicum.) is opposed to the order, and to all principles of perspi- cuity,—not however positively to ‘the laws of language,’ Eadie, for comp. Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123,—and is distinctly untenable. The expressive word dvacrpop) is confined (in its present sense) to the N. T. (Gal. i. 13, 1 Tim. iv. 12, al.), to the Apocrypha (Tob. iv. 14, 2 Mace. v. 8), and to later Greek (Polyb. Hist. 1v. 82, Ar- rian, Fpict. 1. 9); compare Suicer, hese Violet) pae322. TOV madavov dvOpwrov] ‘the old man,’ 7.c. our former unconverted self: personi- fication of our whole sinful condition before regeneration (Rom. vi. 6, Col. iii. 9), opposed to the kawds or véos dvOpwmos (ver. 24, Col. iii. 10) and the kawy «tious (Gal. vi. 15), or, if re- garded in another point of view (comp. Chrys.), to the gow dvOp., ch. iii. 16, Rom. vii. 22: see Harless, Hthik, § 22, p- 97, and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 352. Tov bepo- pevov] ‘which waxeth corrupt,’ det pbelpera, Orig. Caten.; further de- finition and specification of the pro- gressive condition of the madavs dvOp., —not however with any causal force (ed. 1), as this would be expressed either by a relative clause (see on 1 Tim. ii. 4), or a part. without the article. The tense of the part. (pres., —not imperf., Beng.) must here be noticed and pressed, as marking that inner process of corruption and moral disintegration which is not only the 102 IPOD E®@®EZIOY2. A A ~ , ~ A ea A ’ , 24 veovo Fat dé TH IIvevuare TOV VOOS UMWY Kat evou- characteristic (Auth.) but the steadily progressive condition of the mak. dvép.; contrast xricbévta ver. 24. Meyer refers Pep. to ‘eternal destruction’ (comp. Hows.), regarding the pres. as involving a future meaning. ‘This is tenable (see Bernhardy, Synt. X. 2, p. 371), but seems inferior to the fore- going, as drawing off attention from the true present nature of the pro- gressive POopd: comp. Gal. vi. 8, and see notes én loc. kata has here no direct reference to instrumentality (sc. =6ud, CGicum., v7, Theoph., comp. Syr.), but, as the par- tial antithesis card Oedy (ver. 24) sug- gests, its usual meaning of ‘accordance to ;’ in which indeed a faint reference to the occasion or circumstances con- nected with or arising from the ac- cordance may sometimes be traced; see notes on Phil. ii. 3, and on Tit. iii. 5. Kara ras émi@. is however here simply ‘in accordance with the lusts,’ ‘secundum desideria,’ Vulg., yo| vA 0 x A 5 [secundum concupiscen- | - Ar kK [ I tias] Syr.-Phil., 7. ¢. just as the nature and existence of such lusts imply and necessitate: comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p- 358. THs andrys] ‘of Deceit; gen, subjecti, 4 amdry being taken so abstractedly (Middleton, Gr, Art. V. 1, 2) as to be nearly personified (Mey.). The paraphrase émuutac dra- tydal (Beza, Auth.) is very unsatis- factory, and mars the obvious anti- thesis to Tis d\7nOelas ver. 24. 23. dvaveodobar 8é] ‘and that ye be renewed ; contrasted statement, on the positive side (‘ dé alii rei aliam ad- jicit, ut tamen ubivis queedam oppositio declaretur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 362), of the substance of what they had been taught, which had been previously specified on its negative side, ver. 22. It has been doubted whether dvaveotc Garis pass. or middle. The act. is certainly rare (Thom. M. p- 52, ed. Bern.; comp. Psalm xxix. 2, Aq.); still, as Harless satisfactorily shows, the middle, both in its simple and metaphorical sense, is so com- pletely devoid of any reflexive force (comp. even avaveod ceavrév, Antonin. Iv. 3), and is practically so purely active in meaning, that no other form than the passive (opp. to Stier) can possibly harmonize with the context; comp. dvaxawotcba, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Col. iii. 10, and see Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 269. The meaning of avd, restoration to a former, not neces- sarily a primal state, is noticed by Winer (de Verb. c. Prep. 1. p. to); and the distinction between dvaveod- ca (‘recentare,’—more subjective, and perhaps with prevailing ref. to renovation) and dvaxawodcba (‘reno- vare,’—more objective, and perhaps with prevailing ref. to regeneration) by Tittmann, Synon. p. 60; comp. Trench, Synon. § 18, and see notes on Col. iii. 10. 7 IIvetpare Tov voos tp] ‘by the Spirit of your mind,’ In this unique and somewhat ambiguous expression, the gen. vods may be explained either as—(a) appo- sitive, ‘spiritus que mens vocatur,’ August. de Trin. XIV. xvi.; so appy. Tayior, Duct. Dub. 1. 1. 7, comp. ib. on Repent. UW. 2. 12 :—(b) partitive, ‘the governing spirit of the mind,’ De W., Eadie, riv épuhv Tod vods mvevpareKiy, Theod. ;—or (c) possessive, ‘the (Di- vine) Spirit united with the human mvedua (comp. Hooker, Lecl. Pol. 1. 7. 1), with which the voids as subject is endued, and of which it is the recep- taculum,; 7@ Iv. 7 ev TH v@, Chrys. Of these (a) is manifestly, as Bp Bull Eve 24. 103 A AQ 7 A! A 4A , cacOat Tov Katvoy avOpwrov Tov xara Qeov xticbevTa > } , as , A 5] a) , €v tKALOTUVYH KQ@L OGLOTHTL TUS ay ELAS. designates it, ‘a flat and dull inter- pretation;’ (4) even if not metaphy- sically or psychologically doubtful, is exegetically unsatisfactory; while on the contrary (c), now adopted by Mey., has a full scriptural significance: 76 Ilv. is the Holy Spirit, which by its union with the human zvedua be- comes the agent of dvakaivwois Tov vods, Rom. xii. 2, and the vois is the seat of His working,—where paraidrys (ver. 17) once was, but now kawvér7ns. The dat. is thus not, as in (a) and (), a mere dat. ‘of reference to’ (ver. 17), but a dat. instrumenti,—scil. dca IIv. éoTw dvaxaluors, icum., dep avaveot judas, Orig. Caten.; see Tit. ili. 5, and comp. Collect for Christmas Day. This interpr. is ably defended by Bull, Disc. v. p. 477 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844); see also Waterl. Regen. Vol. v. p- 434, Usteri, Lehkrb. 11. 1. 3, p. 227, and Fritz. Nov. Opusc. Acad. p. 224. The only modification, or rather ex- planation, which it has seemed neces- sary to add to the view in ed. I, is that 7@ IIv. (as above stated) is not the Holy Spirit regarded exclusively and per se, but as in a gracious union with the human spirit. With this slight rectification, the third interpr. seems to have a very strong claim on our attention: contra Wordsw. in loc. ; comp. also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. Iv. 5) P- 144- 24. Kal évdvcacbar] ‘and that ye put on: further and more distinct statement on the positive side corre- sponding to the a7o@écba on the neya- tive; the change of tense (aor.) being appy- intentional; see notes on ver. 22. The arguments of Anabaptists based on this verse are answered by Taylor, Liberty of Proph. § 18. ad. 31. It is very improbable that there is here any allusion to baptism; the ‘putting on the new man’ refers to the renova- tion of the heart afterwards; comp. Waterl. Regen. Vol. v. p. 434. The metaphorical and dogmatical meaning is investigated in Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 1113. TOV KALYOV dvOp.] ‘the new man.’ It is scarcely necessary to observe that the kaw. évO@p. is not Christ (Zanch. ap. Pol. Syn.), but is in direct contrast to Tov mar. dvOp., and denotes ‘the holy form of human life which results from redemption,’ Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Iv. 3. ad. fin., Vol. 11. p. 392 (Clark): comp. Col. iii. to, where véos avOp. stands in contrast to a former state (Wordsw. aptly compares Matth. ix. 17, Mark ii. 22, Luke v. 38), as kawos here to one needing renewal ; see notes in loc., Trench, Synon. Part II. § 10, and Harl. Ethik, § 22, p. 97. The patristic interpretations are given in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 352. Tov kata ©. xrio@.] ‘ which after God hath been created,’—not ‘is created,’ Auth., but ‘qui...creatus est,’ Vulg., Clarom., sim. Copt., with the proper force of the aor. in ref. to the past crea- tion in Christ: the new man is, as it were, a holy garb or personality, not created in the case of each individual believer, but created once for all (‘ini- tio rei Christiane,’ Beng.), and then individually assumed. The key to this important passage is undoubtedly the striking parallel, Col. iii. 10, tov véov Tov dvakawovpevoy els emlyvwow Kat’ elxéva T00 Krioavros avrév: from which it would almost seem certain (1) that xticbévra in our present passage con- tains an allusion to Gen. i. 27, and suggests a spiritual connexion between the first creation of man in Adam and the second new creation in Christ; and 104 25 wo arobéuevor TO redd0s Nadeire HA Ae) ov ‘ a , 6) QAHUELAVY EKATTOS META TOU aAnoLov adu= (2) that card Oeédy, as illustrated hy kar’ elk. x... Col. d.¢., is rightly ex- plained as ‘ad exemplum Dei:’ comp. Gal. iv. 28, and see Winer, G7. § 49. d, p. 358. Thus then from this passage compared with that from Col. we may appy. deduce the great dogmatic truth, —‘ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est secundum imaginem et similitudi- nem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus,’ [renzus, Her, 11. 18. 1 (ed. Mass.); see notes on Col. l.c. The justice of this deduction is doubt- ed by Miiller (Doctr. of Sin, tv. 2, Vol. IL. p. 392), but without sufficient rea- son; see esp. the admirable treatise «f Bp. Bull, State of Man, &e. p. 445 sq. (English Works, Oxf. 1844), and De- litzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 11. 2, p. 51. On the nature and process of this revival of the image of God, see Jackson, Creed, Book vim. 35. 1. év Stkatoo. Kal dor6t.] ‘in righteous- ness and holiness ;’ tokens and charac- teristics of the divine image ; év defining the state in which a similitude to that image consists and exhibits itself (Olsh.). The usual distinction between these two substantives, écv6rys bev mpos Ocdy, Sixacoc’yy 5é mpods dvOpcstrovs Bewpetrat (Philo, de Abrah. Vol. 11. p. 30, ed. Mang., comp. Tittm. Synon. p- 25), is not here wholly applicable: as Harless shows from 1 Tim. ii. 8, Heb. vii. 7, that the term éevdrns [on the doubtful derivation, see Pott, £t. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 126, contrasted with Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 436] in- volves not merely the idea of ‘piety,’ but of ‘holy purity,’ 76 ca@apér, Chrys. There is thus a faint contrast suggest- ed between adxafapola and meovetia in ver. 19, and dccacoo. and dovdr. in the present verse. Olshausen (in an IIPOX E®EIOYS. Speak the truth, do not cherish anger, or practise theft: utter no corrupt speech ; be not bitter. excellent note on this verse) comments on this passage, Col. iii. ro, and Wis- dom ii. 23 (also referred to by Bull), as respectively allu’ing to the Divine image under its ethical, intellectual, and physical aspects: this last refer- ence however seems somewhat doubt- ful; comp. Grimm, én loc. THs GAndelas] ‘of Truth; exactly opp. to THs admdrns, ver. 22, and of course to be connected with both pre- ceding nouns. The adjectival solution (Beza, Auth.) wholly destroys the ob- vious and forcible antithesis, and the reading xal d\nOela [D'FG; Clarom., Sang., Boern. ; Cypr.,al.] has no claims on our attention. 25. Aud] ‘ Wherefore; in reference to the truths expressed in the verses immediately preceding: efréw Tov Ta- Aardv dvOpwrov KaGoAtKWs, Nortdov avTov Kal Vroypdgper Kara wépos* Chrys. The previous mention of a@\7fea seems to have suggested the first exhortation. On the use of 61d in the N.T., see notes on Gal. iv. 31. droPépevor To WedSos] ‘having put off (aor. with ref. to the priority of the act; comp. notes on ver. 8) lying,’ or rather false- hood, in a fully abstract sense (John viii. 44),—not merely 7d WevdecOa, scil. 7O Aadely WevdH: falsehood in every form is a chief characteristic of the mahads dvOpwros, and, as Miiller well shows, comes naturally from that selfishness which is the essence of all sin; see Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 1. pass. The positive exhortation which follows is considered by Jerome not improbably a reminiscence of Zachar. viii. 16, \a- Aefre AAjOevay e€xaotos mpos [is the change to werd intentional, as better denoting ‘inter-communion,’ ete.?] rév mAnoiov av’rod. For a short sermon TV: 25; 26. aA ’ 4 +) TOU, OTL éopmev GAAHAWY Mey. 105 ‘OpyiGerbe Kat my 26 e , e ef 4 2 , JA > A AUAOTAVETE O HALOS MH €mlOveTH E71 TY Tapopyicum on this text see August. Serm. CLXVI. Vol. v. p. 907 (ed Migne). Ott éopev K.T.A.] ‘because we are mem= bers one of another.’ The force of the exhortation does not rest on any mere ethical considerations of our obliga- tions to society, or on any analogy that may be derived from the body (Chrys.), but on the deeper truth that in being members of one another we are mem- bers of the body of Christ (Rom. xii. 5), of Him who was 7 dA7ea Kal §a7: see Harl. in loc. 26. "OpyiferSe kal pr} dpaptavere] * Be angry, and sin not; a direct cita- tion from Psalm iv. 5, LXX. The translated ‘ tremble and, déc.’ (Gesen., Ewald, J. Olsh., opp. to Hengst. and Hitzig), are adduced by St Paul from the Greek version, as best embodying asalutary and practical precept ; comp. ver. 25. The command itself has re- ceived many different explanations, though nearly all become ultimately coincident. (1) The usual interpr. ‘si contingat vos irasci’ (‘though ye be angry,’ Butler, Serm. vii.; still main- tained by Zyro, Stud. wu. Krit. 1841, p- 681 sq.) is founded on the union of two imperatives in Hebrew (Gen. xlii. 18, Prov. xx. 13, Gesen. Gr. § 127. 2), and in fact any cultivated language, to denote condition and result. This however is here inapplicable, for the solution would thus be not épy:fouevor py amap., but éav dpyifnacbe ovx apuap- thoere [not -cecfe in N.T.], which cannot be intended. (2) Winer (Gr. § 43. 2, p. 279) more plausibly con- ceives the first imper. permissive, the second jussive: comp. the version of Symm. épy. d\Ad wy auapr. Itis true indeed that a permissive imper. is found occasionally in the N. T. (1 Cor. vil. 15, perhaps Matth. xxvi. 45), still the close union by xat of two impera- tives of similar tense, but with a dis- similar imperatival force, is, as Meyer has observed, logically unsatisfactory. (3) The following interpr. seems the most simple: both imperatives are jus- sive; as however the second imper. is used with 7, its jussive force is there- by enhanced, while the affirmative command is by juxta-position so much obscured, as to be in effect little more than a participial member, though its intrinsic jussive force is not to be denied. There is undoubtedly an anger against sin, for instance, against deli- berate falsehood, as the context appy. suggests (see Chrys.), which a good man not only may, but ought to feel (see Suicer, Theswuwr. Vol. 11. p. 504), and which is very different from the épyn forbidden in ver. 31: compare Trench, Synon. § 37, and on the sub- ject of resentment generally, Butler, Serm. Vitl., and the good note of Wordsw. in loc. 6 tALos K.T-A.] ‘let not the sun go down on your irritation.’ The command is the Christian parallel of the Pythagorean custom cited by Hammond, Wetst., and others, elzrore mpoax eter eis Nodo- plas wr’ dpyjs, mply 4 Tov aALov Sdvac Tas devas éuBaddovTes dAAjAOS Kal domacduevor dtehvovro’ Plutarch, de Am. Frat. 4888 [$17]. There does not appear any allusion to the possible effect of night upon anger, piyjrws 7 wé éov dvakaton TO TUp bid THy év- vo.ov’ Theoph. (see Suicer, Zhes. s. v. HALos, III. 2), but to the fact that the day ended with the sunlight; ‘ quare si quem irascentem nox occuparet, is iram retinebat in proximum diem ;’ Estius. TO TApOpytopa | 106 28 ‘irritation,’ ‘exasperation,’ and there- fore to be distinguished from épy7, which expresses the more permanent state. The word is non-classical and rare, but is found r Kings xv. 30, 2 Kings xix. 3 (where it is joined with OrlYis and éeyds), ib. xxiii. 26, Ne- hem, ix. 18, 26, and Jerem. xxi. 5 (Alex.) with Ouyds and dpy7. The mapa is not merely intensive (Mey.), nor even indicative of a deflection from a right rule (Wordsw.), but probably peints to the irritating cireumstance or object which provoked the dpy7: comp. mapoétvw, and Rost u. Palm, Lex. 8.v. Iv. 1, Vol. 1. p. 670. The article before rapopyicu@ is omit- ted by Lachm. with ABS!; al..—but appy- without fully sufficient grounds, as the external authority is not strong, and as the omission may be accounted for as a correction suggested both by the frequent disappearance of the art. after a prep. and by the apparently sufficient definiteness of the tuav. 27. pydé] ‘ ror yet ;’ ‘also do not ;’ wnoé here serving to connect a new clause with the preceding (WJelf, Gr. § 776), on the principle that dé in ne- gative sentences has often practically much of the conjunctive force which «xal has in affirmative sentences; see Wex, Antiy. Vol. 1. p. 157. It must surely however be very incorrect to say that the clauses ‘are closely con- nected, and that muydé indicates this sequence’ (Eadie); there ts a con- nexion between the clauses, and pundé has practically a conjunctive force (per enumerationem), but it is always of such a nature as 6é would lead us to expect, ‘sequentia adjungit prioribus, non apte connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu accedentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 707; see esp. Franke, de WPOS E®EZIOY=2. 27 Suav, unde Odote TOTOV TG diaBdrw. ‘O KrACTTOV [HK- Part. Neg. Part 11. 2, p. 6. On the most appropriate translation of m7... uendé, see notes on t Thess. il. 3 (Transl.). The reading pyre [ Rec. with a few mss.; Chrys. (1), Theod.] seems clearly to be rejected (opp. to Matth.), not only on critical, but even on grammatical grounds, as the position of wy in the previous clause shows that it cannot be re- garded as equivalent to wyre, which supposition, or the strictest union of the clauses (Franke, § 25, p. 27), cam alone justify the abnormal sequence: see Winer, Gi. § 55. 6, p- 433, Klotz, Devar. Vol. It. p- 799- Sidore Tomov| ‘give room,’ ‘ne detis viam’ (fenot), Aith.; scil. ‘ give no room or opportunity to the Evil One to be ac- tive and operative;’ comp. Rom. xii. TQ, and see exx. of this use of té7ov d.Sdvac in Wetst. Rom. l. c., and Loes- ner, Obs. p. 263. TH SaPoro] ‘to the Devit’ (ch. vi. 11); the con- stant and regular meaning of 6 d:d8. (subst.) in the N.T., not excluding John vi. yo, and 1 Tim. iii. 6; see esp. Stier, Red. Jesu, Vol. Iv. p. 345. It is obvious that Laravas (Auth.) is more a personal appellation; 6 ddf., (q yosoll [calumniatori] Syr.) a name derived from the fearful nature and, so to say, office of the Evil One; the usage however of the N.T. writers is by no means uniform. St John (in Gosp. and Epp.) once only uses the former; St Mark never the latter ; St Paul more frequently the former, the latter being only found in this and the pastoral Epp. (and once in Heb.). The former is not found in the Catho- lic Epistles. The subject deserves ful- ler investigation. On the nature of this Evil Spirit generally, see the TV. 27, 28 107 , , a ‘4 , 9 , a €Tt KAeTTETW, MaXAOV o€ KomTlLaTw epyaComevos TALS o\r ‘ M39 , oe ” A) A) , as , idtacs XEpr TO ayalov, iva éxn meTadLdovat TH YpELav 28. ais ldlas xepolv 7d dyabdy] The variations of reading in this passage are great, and, considering the simplicity of the passage, difficult to account for. The choice appears to lie between four. (a) That in the text with ADE FGN!; 37. al. 6; Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., Sahid., Aith., Arm.; Bas., Naz., al.; Hier., al. (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 1, Riick., Wordsw.):; (6) 76 dy. Tats i. xep. with K; 10 mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Theod.: (c) rats xep. 7d dy. with BN‘; Amit.; Ambrosiaster (Meyer): (d) 7d ay. T. xep. with L; great majority of mss. ; Slav.; Chrys., Dam., Theoph., Gicum. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. 2 and 7, A/f.). Harless and Olshausen (see Mill, Prolegom. p. 168) favour a sth and shorter reading rats xep., after Tertull. de Resurr. 45, urging the probabi- lity of (6. being interpolated from 1 Cor. iv. 12, and 76 dy. from Gal. vi. 10. It will be seen however that Gal. vi. to contains no such allusion to manual labour as might have suggested a reference to it; and if idfacs (see notes) is maturely considered, it will seem to have a proper force in this place, though not at first sight apparent. As it seems then more likely that (dlavs was an intentional omission (its force not being perceived) than an interpolation from I Cor. iv. 12, we retain (a) as not improbable on internal grounds, and as sup- ported by a clear preponderance of external evidence. curious and learned work of Mayer, Historia Diaboli (ed. 2, Tubing. 1780), and in ref. to the question of his real personal nature, the sound remarks on p- 130 sq.; comp. notes on 1 Thess. ii. 18. 28. ‘O Kdértwv] ‘He who steals, the stealer ;’? not imperf. ‘qui furaba- tur,’ Vulg., Clarom., nor for 6 xdéwas, but a participial substantive; see Winer, Gr. § 45.7, p. 316, and notes on Gal. i. 23. All attempts to dilute the proper force of this word are wholly untenable; 6 k\érrwy (not 6 kAém7ns on the one hand, nor 6 kAé- was on the other) points to ‘the thiey- ish character’ (qui furatur,’ Copt.), whether displayed in more coarse and open, or more refined and hidden prac- tices of the sin. Theft, though gene- rally, was not universally condemned by Paganism: see the curious and valuable work of Pfanner, Z'heol. Gen- tilis, XI. 25, p. 330. For a sermon on this text, see Sherlock, Serm. Xxxvil. Vol. 11. p. 227 (ed. Hughes). padAov 8] ‘but (on the contrary) rather ;? ob yap apxel matoacba THs auaprias, G\AG Kal Thy évaytTlay airfs oddv jeredOeiv’ Theoph.; see also Kiihner, Xen. Mem. tt. 13. 6, and notes on Gal. iv. 9, where however the corrective force is more strongly marked. tais Slats xepotv] ‘with his own hands.’ The pronomi- nal adjective téeos (Donalds. Crat. § 139), like olxetos in the Byzantine writers, and ‘proprius’ in later Latin (see Krebs, Antibarb. p. 646), appears sometimes in the N.T. to be nearly pleonastic (see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7, p. 139); here however an in- tentional force appears to lie in the use of the word. The thievish man lives’ by the labours and hands of others: he is now himself to labour, and with his own hands—those very hands that robbed others (Beng.)—to work, not at 76 kaxév, but at To aya- Gov: see Riick. in loc. 108 IIPOz E®EZIOY2. 29 éyovrt. las \dyos campos ek TOU TTOMATOS UMoV MI OrEX 7 p A exTropevés Ow, GANA Et TIS 7d dyab6v] ‘that which is good,’ that which belongs to the category of what is good and honest,’ rdv dlxacov ope opov, Schol. ap. Cram. Caten.: ‘7d dyad. antitheton ad furtum, prius ma- nu piceataé male commissum ;’ Beng. There may perhaps be also involved in 70 dy. the notion of what is bene- ficial instead of detrimental to others ; comp. notes on (al. vi. 10. Wa «.7.d.] ‘in order that he may have,—not merely ‘what is enough for his own wants,’ but ‘to give to him that needeth ; the true specific ob- ject of all Christian labour (Olsh.); comp. Schoettg. Hor. Hebr, Vol. 1. Pp. 77°. 29. ILds...py] The negation must be joined with the verb; what is com- manded is the non-utterance of every éyos campds. On this Hebraistic structure, see Winer, Gir. § 26. 1, p. 155, and notes on Gal. ii. 16. NOyos wampds] ‘corrupt, speech,’ ‘sermo malus,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., sim. Goth.,—not necessarily ‘filthy,’ Hows. (comp. Bp. Taylor, Serm. XXiI., though he also admits the more general meaning), as this is worthless specially forbidden in ch. v. 4, nor again quite so strong as ‘ detestabilis,’ Syr., but rather ‘pravus,’ Auth., esp. in ref. to whatever is profitless and unedifying (Chrys.), e.g. alaxpoNoyia, Aovdopia, cvkoparTia, BacPynuia, Wev- dodoyla, Theod. The exact shade of meaning will always be best determined by the kal Ta TovTOLsS mpoodjoLa’ context. posed, not 7@ diddvTe xapw (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 298), but to dyabds mpos, oikod. THS xXpelas: Wetst. cites Arrian, Hpict. 11. 15, byes opp. to campov kal KaTamimrov. Here campos is clearly op- On the gene- ral metaphorical use, see Lobeck, ° ‘ ‘ b) nd lon ayalos mpos OLKOOOLNY THE Phryn. p. 377, and the exx. collected by Kypke, loc. cit. ayaGds| ‘good,’ i.e. ‘suitable for,’ 6zep olkodo- et Tov mAnoiov, Chrys.: instances of this use of dya0ds with els, mpés, and the inf., are of sufficiently common oc- currence; see Rost u. Palm, Lew.s.v., exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. I. p. 219. T™pos oikods. THs xpelas] ‘for edifica- tion in respect of the need,’ ‘ad edifi- cationem opportunitatis,’ Amit. (‘fi- dei,’ Vulg.). Neither the article nor the exact nature of the genitive has been sufficiently explained. It seems clear that tis xpeias cannot be merely ‘qua sit opus’ (Erasm.), but must specify the peculiar need in question (observe ei tus), the ypela which im- mediately presses,—T js mapovons xpel- as, (icum. then that the gen. ypelas is not a mere gen. of quality (‘seasonable edifica- tion,’ Peile) nor in any way an abstr. for concer. (‘those who have need,’ Riickert, Olsh., comp. Eadie), nor, by inversion, for an accus. (‘use of edify- ing,’ Auth., comp. Syr.), but is simply a gen. of (see Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 169), or, as it has been termed, of ‘the point of view’ (comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129)—‘ edifying as regards the need,’ 7. €. Which satisfies the need, dvayKatov It would seem to follow ‘remote reference’ ov TH Tpokemery pela, as rightly para- phrased by Theoph. On the practical bearing of this passage, see esp. 4 sermons by Bp. Taylor, Serm. xx11.— xxv. Vol. I. p. 734 sq. (Lond. 1836), and Harless, Hthik, § 50, p. 261. The reading rlarews, though found in DIE'FG; Vulg. (not Amit.), and some Latin Vv., Goth.; Bas., Naz., al. (partially approved of by Griesb.), is still certainly to be resected, both Ves20% 30: 109 4 r fv a a elas iva ow aolv TOL akovoUcLY" Kat hy Au Cane TO oO XPELES; Puxee a 3 Hyedua +o ayov tov OQcov, ev & éopayicOyTe ets ¢ te 3. 7 nuMEpav aAToAVTPHTEWS. as inferior in external authority to xpelas, and as an almost self-evident correction. 89 xdpw] ‘may impart a blessing.’ The ambiguous term xdpis has been explained (a) as xdpis Qeotv, Cicum. (who however does not refer to Rom. i. 11 for a proof, as Hadie singularly asserts), ‘omnia salutis adminicula,’ Calv.; (5) as little more than @uundla ; scil. va gavy dexros Tots akovovet, Theod., ‘ut invenietis gratiam,’ Aith.- Pol., comp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. I. p. 298,—but remove the ref. to Eur. Suppl. 414, which is not in point; (c) as retaining its simple and regular meaning in connexion with 6cddvat, ‘favour, benefit’ (Harl., Olsh., Mey.). Of these (c) is much the most probable (see Exod. iii. 21, Psalm Ixxxiv. 12, and perhaps James iv. 6, 1 Pet. v. 5): still, as ydpis has so notably changed its meaning in the N.T., it seems un- critical, even in this phrase, to deny the reference of xdpis to a spuritual ‘benefit; see Stier in loc. The most exact transl. then here is ‘blessing’ (‘minister grace,’ Auth., is ambiguous), as it hints at the theological meaning, and also does not wholly obscure the classical and idiomatic meaning of the phrase. 30. Kal pay Avtetre K. 7...) ‘and grieve not the Holy Spirit of God; not a new, unconnected exhortation (Lachm.), but a continued warning against the use of mds Néyos campos by showing its fearful results; éay eda7js phpa campoy Kal dvdgiov rod Xpiote- avod oTouatos, ovK dvOpwrov éMUrnoas a\da 70 IIv. ro} Geod’ Theoph. The tacit assumption clearly is that the Spirit dwelt within them (see Basil, Spir. Sanct. XTX. 50, Hermas, Past. Mand. ro), and that too, as the solemn and emphatic title 76 Iv. 7d dy.ov Tov cov and the peculiar term Auzeire further suggest, in His true holy per- sonality; comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. vu. Vol. I. p. 366 (ed. Burt.), and for an excellent sermon on this text, see Andrewes, Serm. VI. Vol. II. p. 201% sq. (A.-C. Libr.): see also a very good practical sermon by Bp. Hall, Serm. xxxvi. Vol. v. p. 489 sq. (Talboys). év & éodpaylcOnre} ‘in whom ye were sealed,’—not ‘quo,’Goth., Arm. (comp. ‘per quem,’ Beza), but ‘in quo,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘77 whom, as the holy sphere and element of the sealing.’ This clause seems intended to enhance still more the warning by an appeal to the blessings they had received from the Holy Spirit; «fra xal 7 tmpocOnkn THs evepyecias, wa pelfwr yenra 4) Katnyopia’ Chrys. It does not then seem that there is here any reminiscence of Isaiah xiii. 10, tapwév- vay TO lly. 7d dy. av’rod (cited by Harl.), which would have given the warning a different tone. For the ex- planation of these words, see notes on ch. i. 13; and for the doctrinal appli- cations, Hammond in /oc., and Petav. de Trin. vu. 5. 3, Vol. 11. p. 823 sq. For some comments on this clause, see Andrewes, Serm. VI. previously cited, and another serm. by Bp. Hall, Serm. XXXvul. Vol. v. p. 504 (Tal- boys). els tpépav atrodv- tpwcews] ‘ for the day of redemption,’ for the day on which the redemption will be fully realized: see exx. of this use of the gen. in definitions of time in Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 169. On the meaning of dmoAvrTpwots, see notes on 110 IPOS E®EZIOY2. 31 Tlaca mixpia kat Ovuos Kai opyn Kat Kpavyy Kat 22 Brxacdynula apOijro ad tuav ovv macy Kaka S P ‘ ‘ y- vere de els aAAHAOUS XpNTTOl, eVTTAAYXVOL, XaptComevor EauvTois KaOws Kat 6 Oeds ev XpicTH exapicaro vpiv. ch. i. 14, and on ‘final perseverance,’ of which Eadie here finds an affirma- tion (comp. Coce. in loc.), see Thorn- dike, Cov. of Grace, ch. xxx1. Vol. III. p- 615 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 31. Udoa mpta] ‘All bitterness,’ i.e. ‘every form of it’ (see notes on ch. i. 8), and that not merely as shown in expressions, ‘sermo mordax,’ but, as the context suggests, in feeling and disposition (see Acts viii. 23, Heb. xii. 15), mixkpla marking the prevailing temperament and frame of mind; 6 Totovros Kal BapvOuuds éott Kal ovdé- mote avinat Thy Wuxnv, del ctvvous dy kal cxvOpwrés* Chrys. The contrast is not merely yAukiéryns (comp. Orig. Cat.), but xpyorétrs: see Wetst. on Rom. iii. 14, and for an able sermon on this text (the obligations and ad- vantages of good-will), Whichcote, Serm. LXXxi1. Vol. Iv. p. 198 sq. Ovpos Kal dépyy] ‘wrath and anger; the emanations from, and products of the muxpla; plga Oupod cal épyis muxpla* Chrys. With regard to the distinction between these two words, it may be observed that @uuds is properly the agitation and commotion to which mikpla gives rise (7 évapxouévn érl Twa yevécOu opyn Orig. Cat.; comp. Diog. Laert. vit. 1. 63. 114), épyy the more settled habit of the mind (7 érolun Kal évepyntiKh mpos Thy Tiwwplav Tov HoiKnKévat vowgomévov, Orig. ib.); see Tittm. Synon. p. 132, Trench, Synon. § 37, and notes on Gal. vy. 20. Kpavyyn Kal BrAacdnypia] ‘clamour and evil speaking; outward manifes- tations of the foregoing vices; Umzos yap éoTw dvaBdtnv pépwy Kpavyy Thy opyny' Chrys. The distinction between the two words is_ suffici- ently obvious. Kpavyi is the cry of strife (‘in quem erumpunt ho- mines irati,’ Est.); BXaopyuia, a more enduring manifestation of inward anger, that shows itself in reviling,— not, in the present case, God, but our brethren, (Aovdopla:, Chrys.); it has thus nearly the same relation to Kpav- yh that copy has to Ouuds: see Col. iii. 8, 1 Tim. vi. 4, and comp. Rom. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 2. For a good practical sermon against evil speaking see Bar- row, Serm. XVI. Vol. I. p. 447. kak(qa.] ‘malice,’ the genus to which all the above-mentioned vices belong, or rather the active principle to which they are all due (comp. wera lor. ch. vi. 23, and notes), z.e. uncharitable- ness in all its forms, ‘animi pravitas, humanitati et zequitati opposita,’ Calv.; comp. Rom. i. 29, Col. iii. 8, and on the difference between this word and Tovnpla (its outcoming and manifes- tation), see Trench, Synon. § 11. 32. ylverOe 8é] ‘but become ye;’ contrasted exhortation: not ‘be ye,’ Auth., Alf., but ‘ vairpaiduh’ [fiatis] Goth.,—there were evil elements among them that were yet to be taken away; see ch. v. 1. Lachm. omits dé with B; 4 mss.; Clem., Dam., al.; but this omission as well as the vari- ation ofy [D'FG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Boern.] seems due to a cor- rector who did not perceive the anti- thesis between the commands in the two verses. xpyorol, etomArayxvor] ‘kind, tender-hearted.’ On the former of these words (‘sweet in disposition’), comp. notes on Gal. v. 22, and Tittmann, Synon. p. 140. IVAS IS 2, Vir, Strive then to imi- tate God, and, like Christ, to walk in love. The latter evor\ayxvos occurs Orat. Manass. 6, 1 Pet. iii. 8, and desig- nates the exhibition of that merciful feeling of which the om\dyxva were the imaginary seat; comp. Col. iii. 12, and notes in loc.; for additional exx., see Polyc. Phil. 5, 6, Clem. Rom. Commie san -lest; XU ebaln ps 537. The substantive evordayxvia is found in classical Greek, in the sense of ‘good heart,’ ‘courage’ (comp. Eurip. Rhesus, 192), and also in the primary and medical sense (comp. Hippocr. 89, ed. Foes.), but the adjective ap- pears to be rare. Xaplopevor éavrots] ‘forgiving each other; participle of concomitant act, specifying the manner in which the Xpnororns and evordayxvia were to be manifested; comp. Col. iii. 13 and notes im loc. Origen (Caten.) calls at- tention to éavroés as involving the idea that what was done to another was really done to themselves; it is how- ever doubtful whether this can be maintained ; see notes on Col. l.c., and for exx. of the use of éavrois for the personal pronoun, Jelf, Gr. § 54. 2. Kalas kal 6 Ocds] ‘even as God,’ ‘as God also; kaOas (as in ch. i. 4) having a slightly argumentative force, while xa introduces a tacit comparison; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635 sq., and notes on Phil. iv. 12. The two com- bined do not then simply compare, but argue from an example (Harl.),— Tov Ocov mapdyecels Ur dderyua, Theoph.; comp. ch. v. 2, 25, 29. év Xpirtra] ‘in Christ,’ not ‘for Christ’s sake,’ Auth., nor ‘perChristum,’ Calv., but ‘in Him,’ 7.e. in giving Him to be a propitiation for our sins, pera Tod kwovvou Tov viod abrod Kal THs cpayis atrov°' Theoph.; comp. 2 Cor. v. 19. éxap. dpiv] The context seems clearly to show that the meaning of xapi(é- TEE TivecOe obv pipynrat tov Qeod, ws réxva V. pevor (and hence of éxapicaro) is not ‘donantes,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘largien- tes, libenter dantes,’ Erasm. (comp. Orig. I. ap. Cat.), but ‘ condonantes,’ Copt., Syr., Goth., cvyyv@pixol, Chrys.: they were not only to be xpyorol and eVordayxvot, but also merciful and forgiving, following the example of Him who ‘prebuit se benignum, mi- sericordem,—condonantem ;’ Beng. The reading is doubtful: Lachm. reads qui with B2DEKL; 25 mss.; Amit., Syr. (both), al.; Orig. Cat., Chrys. (Comm.), Theod., al.,—but scarcely on sufficient authority, as the pronoun of the first person might have been probably suggested by the judas in ch. v. 2; see crit. note in loc, CHAPTER V. 1. T'lveoe ody .7.X.] * Become then followers (imitators) of God ;’ resumption of the previous yiveoOe, ch. iv. 32, the otv deriving its force and propriety from the concluding words of the last verse. Stier, on rather insufficient grounds, argues against the connection of these verses, refer- ring odv to the whole foregoing subject, the new man in Christ. In this latter case, oy would have more of what has been called its reflexive force (‘lectorem revocat ad id ipsum quod nunc‘agitur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717); that it is here however rather collective (‘ad ea que antea revera posita sunt lecto- rem revocat,’ Klotz, 2b.) seems much more probable; comp. Hartung, Par- tik. odv, 3. 5, Vol. IL. p. 22. ayarnra] ‘beloved; not ‘liebe Kin- der,’ Riick. (compare Chrys.), but ‘ ge- liebte.’ The reason is given by (Hcum., who however does not appear to have felt the full force of the word ; rots yap To.ovros (dyamnrols) é& avdyKns Twos 7] piunots. The dvdyKn consisted in the fact of God having loved them; 112 IPOS EPEZIOY2. 9 ne 4 n ‘2 ? if A 4 ¢ 2 ayaTyTa* Kal TEPLTATELTE €V ayaTy, Kabus Kal O Xpirros yyamycey nuas Kat TapedwKey €auTOV UTEp Cuba my 4 ’ a ra) Co 0) ° ‘ p) ’ 1) [AWV ™ poo popay Kal Ouciav TH EW ELS OT KHV evmdias. 2. ‘tuas| Tisch. (ed. 2 and 7) reads dyads with ABN'; 37. 73. 116, de. ; Sah., 4ith. (both); Clem. (2), Theoph., al. The text is supported by DEFGK LN‘; most mss. and Vy.; Chrys., Theod., Lat. Fathers. im. Nudv] Here Tisch. (ed. 2 and 7) reads tudy, which is supported by B; 37. 73. 116; Sah., Auth. (both); but without sufficient reason, as it is plainly a conformation to the preceding buds. love must be returned by love; and in love alone can man imitate God: see 1 Johniv. 10, and comp. Charnock, Attrib. p. 618 (Bohn). For two prac- tical sermons on this text, see Farin- don, Serm. LXXXVII. (two parts), Vol. IIt. p. 494 sq. (ed. Jackson). 2. Kal mepum. év dyamy| ‘and walk in love; continuation of the foregoing precept, kal serving to append closely a specification of that in which the imitation of God must consist. Kalas kal 6 Xp.k.7.A.] ‘even as Christ also loved,’—not ‘has loved; the pure aoristic sense is more appropriate and more in accordance with the historic aor. which follows. Kal Trapedaxev éavt.| ‘and gave up Him- self ;’ specification of that wherein (‘non tantum ut Deus sed etiam ut homo,’ Est.) this love was pre-eminently shown, cal having a slightly explana- tory force; see Gal. ii. 20, and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12, The supple- mentary idea to wapé6. must surely be eis Odvarov (Harl.), as in every case where apad. is used by St Paul in ref, to Christ, els Ody. or some similar idea seems naturally included in the verb: see esp. Rom. iv. 25, where mapes00n is followed by 7yép, and comp. Rom. viii. 32, Gal. il. 20, Eph. v.25. For asound and clear sermon on this text (Christ’s sacrifice of Himself), see Waterl. Serm. XxxI. Vol. V. p. 737 q. trtp Hav] ‘for us,’— and also, as the context indisputably shows, ‘in our stead;’ on the mean- ing of Jrép in this connexion, see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 115 sq., and notes on Gal. iii. 13, comp. i. 4. tpoadopav Kal Ovolav] ‘an offering and sacrifice; not ‘a sacrifice offered up,’ Ovoiav rporpepouévyny, Conyb.,— a mode of translation ever precarious and insufficient. It may be doubtful whether @vc. and mpoc@. ave intended to specify respectively bloody and un- bloody sacrifices, for mpocd. is else- where used in ref. to bloody (Heb. x. 10), and @uc. to unbloody offerings (comp. Heb. xiii. 15, 16), and further, the rough definition that @veta implies ‘the slaying of a victim’ (Eadie) is by no means of universal application; see esp. John Johnson, Unbl. Saer. 1. 1, p- 73 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). Equally doubtful, esp. in reference to Christ, is the definition that a @ucia is a ‘ mpocd. rite consumpta,’ Outram, de Sacrif. VIII. 1, p. 182 (ed. 1677). Still it is probable that a distinction was here intended by St Paul, and that rpoc@., as the more general term, relates not only to the death, but to the life of obedience of our blessed Lord (comp. Heb. v. 8), His ducta (Soa (Rom. xii. 1); O@voia, as the more special, more particularly to His atoning death. ‘On this accus., which in its apposition to the foregoing is also practically predicative, and serves to complete Ve Avoid fornication covetousness and all forms of impurity, for on such comes the wrath of God. ON} a8 113 Ilopveta de cat axaOapoia aca 1 3 TAcoveEla unde ovopacer Bw év viv Kabws Ye were once in heathen darkness, but now are light: reprove the works of darkness, awake and arise. the notion of the verb, see Madyvig, Synt. § 24. TO @«@ is commonly explained either (a) as the ordinary transmissive dative, se. mapéd. T@ Oew (Mey.; so appy. J. Johns. Vol. I. p. 161), or (6) as a dat. of limitation to eis dou. answering to the Heb. njm%> nim) my) (Stier). As however the meaning of trapédwxev (see above) and the distance of the dat. (De W. compares Rom. xii. 1, but there 7@ Oe is not joined with the verb) do not harmonize with the jor- mer, and the prominent position of 7@ Oe@ is difficult to be explained on the latter hypothesis, it seems more simple to regard 7@ Oe@ as an ethical dative or dat. commodi appended to the two substantives; so Beng. and appy., by their studied adherence to the order of the original, all the an- cient Vv.; see Scheuerl. Synt. $23. 1, p- 186. eis Gop. edwdlas] ‘for, se. to become, a savour of sweet smell; se. Chrys.; see Phil. iv. 18, Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, ll. 12, iii. 5, comp. Gen. viii. 21. The authors of the Racov. Catech. (§ 8) have correctly explained the constr., but have erroneously asserted that these words (‘que de pacificis creberrime, de expiatoriis autem vix a Ovola evmpdadexTos, uspiam usurpantur,’—but see Deyling, Obs. Vol. I. p. 315, No. 65) do not represent Christ’s death as an expiatory sacrifice; comp. even Ust. Lehrd. 1. I. 1, p. 113. To this, without need- lessly pressing vaép, we may simply say with Waterland, that the contrary ‘is as plain from the N.'T. as words can make it,’ and that St Paul’s per- petual teaching is that Christ’s death was ‘a true and proper expiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind ;’ see proof texts, Vol. Iv. p. 513, and esp. Jackson, Creed, Book 1x. 55, Vol. 1X. p. 589 sq. (Oxf. 1844). The nature of the gen. edwdias is rightly explained by Wordsw. as that of the characterizing quality; see notes on Phil. iv. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. 0, note, p. 212. 3. Ilopvela 8€] ‘ But fornication ;’ gentle transition to another portion of the exhortation, with a resumption of the negative and prohibitive form of address (ch. iv. 31): the dé being mainly weraBarixdy (see on Gal. i. 11), though perhaps not without some slight indication of contrast to what has preceded. On the Apostle’s con- stant and emphatic condemnation of the deadly sin of opvela, as one of the things which the old Pagan world deemed ddidgopa, comp. Mey. on Acts XV. 20. wraca] ‘of every kind:’ placed rightly after dxafapola by Tisch. with ABN; mss.; Copt., al. On the use of mds with abstract nouns com- pare notes on ch. i. 8. q theovetta] ‘or covetousness ;’ the 7 is not explanatory (Heins. Exercit. p. 467), but has its full and proper dis- junctive force, serving to distinguish m\eov. from more special sins of the flesh ; see notes on ch. iv. 19. pdt dvopatécbw] ‘let it not be even named,’—not, ‘ut facta’ (Beng. 1), a meaning which dvouaf. will scarcely justify; but, ‘let it not be even men- tioned by name’ (Beng. 2), of yap Nbyot TGv tpayudrwv elolv ddol* Chrys.; see ver. 12, and comp. Psalm xvi. 4. Meyer cites Dio Chrys. 360 b, ordow 5é ovde dvomacew dévov map’ bucy. Kalds mpérer dylois] ‘as becometh T 114 IIPO2 E@®EZIOY2. e 4 ’ “a ’ 4 7 peTret aylots, Kal airy porns Kal uwporoyla 1 euTpa- saints, —sc. thus to avoid all mention even by name of these sins; ixavds To pucapoy T&v elpnudvuv tbrédecte, Kal avras aitay mpoonyoplas THs myyuns éfoploat keXevoas’ Theod. 4. kalatoxpérnys] ‘and filthiness,’ not merely in words (Aith., Theoph., (Ecum.), which would be aisxpodoyla (Col, iii. 8), but, as the abstract form suggests, 7d alaxpdv, whether actively exhibited or passively approved, in word, gesture, or deed. The context obviously limits its reference to axaé. and sins of the flesh ; tls éstw Kal’ &xacrov etdos akoNaclas: Orig. Cat. Lach. reads 4 aicxp. 7] pwpoX. with AD!E'FG; 4 mss. ; Clarom., Vulg., Sahid.; Bas., al. (Mey ), but in opp: to good external authority [BD°E?KLN?; nearly all mss.; Syr., Copt., Ath. (both), al. ; Clem., Chrys., al.], and to the inter- nal probability of a conformation to the following 7: N! reads cal aicxp. 7 Hwpon. pwporoyla] ‘foolish talking,’ stultiloquium, Vulg., Clarom., 1 Zoe) tso [sermones stul- titi] Syr. ; ay aaae Aeyou. in the N.T., of which the exact meaning must be defined by the context. Of the two definitions of Origen, the first, N adokovuéervn vrd TOV pwpoddywr Kal aicxporys dé yedwroroay, is too lax; the second, TO pwpov elyar év Tots doymarifouevoss, too restrictive. The terms with which it stands in connexion may at first sight appear to preclude any idea of positive profanity (comp. Calv.); how- ever Trench is probably right in here superadding to the ordinary meaning of idle, aimless, and foolish talk, a reference to that sin and vanity of spirit which the talk of fools is cer- tain to bewray; see Synon. § 34, and Wordsw, in loc. evtpatredla] ‘jesting,’ ‘wittiness;’ a second drag Reyiu.: &vOa yéXAws dkapos éxel n ev- The word, as its derivation suggests, properly means tpareNla* Chrys. versatility, whether in motion, man- ners, or talk (Dissen, Pind. Pyth. 1. 93); from which a more unfavourable signification, ‘polished jesting’ (ev- Tpdenos, 0 Suvduevos oKOWat Eupedos* Aristot. Moral. 1. 31), ‘use of witty equivoque’ (‘ingenio nititur,’ Beng.), is easily and naturally derived: see Trench, Synon. § 34, and the excellent sermon by Barrow on this text, Serm. xiv. Vol. 1. p. 383 sq. The disjunc- tive 4 (surely not ‘conjunctive,’ Bp. Taylor, Serm. XXII.) marks it as a different vice to wwpoX., and thus appy. as not onlya sin of the tongue (Trench), but as including the evil ‘urbanitas’ (in manners or words) of the witty, godless, man of the world. The prac- tical application may be found in Taylor, Serm, xxl. (Gold. Grove), and esp. in the latter part of Chrys. Hom, XVIL. Ta OvK avyKovta] ‘things which are not con- venient ;’ Im apposition to the last two words, to both of which evxap., as de- noting oral expression yet implying inward feeling, forms a clear contrast. It is instructive to compare’ Rom. i. 28, Ta hn KabjKovra: there the subjective denial seems appropriately introduced (‘facere que, si quee, essent indecora,’ Winer, Gr. § 59. 4, p. 564, ed. 5); here is a plain objective fact that such things ov« dvijxev, The reading & otk avnxev is found in ABN; 3 mss.; Clem., al. (Zachm.), and has considera- ble claims to attention, though appy. not quite sufficient to justify its being placed in the text. On the use of od and wt with participles, see Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 287, but observe the caution suggested in notes on Wea 5, OF 115 , ‘ 9 ‘ cr , a meNla, Ta OvK avxKovTA, GANG MaANOY EvYapLTTIA. TOUTO 5 bs) x , ¢ cal , AY tere xn y4p lOTE VivwoKOVTES oTl Tag Topvos 7] axafaptos ] , ec ’ s Mi >) LA , awAeoverTNS, OF ETTLY elOwAoAaT py, ov €yet KAnpovomay év 7H Bactketa Tov Xpiotov cat Oecov. W Thess. Wi. 15, it. T. evX apt- otla} ‘giving of thanks: see Trench, Synon. Part 1. §$ 1. The meaning of this word adopted by Hammond, several of the older, and some later expositors, ‘edifying discourse,’ ‘de- voutness,’ cannot be justified by St Paul’s use either of the verb or the subst.; comp. Petav. Dissert. Becl. ie (io 45 5,’ and) “omthe true force of the ethical connexion, see Harl. Lthik, § 32. a. On the duty generally, so frequently incul- cated by St Paul, see notes and reff. on Phil. iv. 6, and on Col. iii. 15. The verb here omitted ‘per brachy- logiam’ (Jelf, Gr. § 895) is differently supplied ; perhaps ywécOw év duly is the supplement most natural, dvjKee (Beng.) that Jeast so. 5. TovTo yap lore ywook.] ‘Mor this ye know, being aware, or as ye are aware ;’ confirmation of the preceding prohibitions by an appeal to their own knowledge of the judgment against those who practise them. It is scarcely critically exact to connect this with the Hebraistic (but comp. also Jelf, ; Gr. § 705. 3) mode of expression, ywa- ckov yoo, Gen. xv. 13, ‘thou shalt know full well,’ dc. (Stier), as ic7e and ywaox. are not portions of the same verb. The part. must be joined more immediately with 671, and seems used with a slightly causal force which serves to elucidate and justify the ap- peal; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 8, p. 318. Whether icre be taken as imperative or indicative must be left to individual judgment. adopted by Vulg., Clarom., Arm. (comp.,—but with different reading, The former interpr. is pnoets vmas 6 Syr., Auth.) and by some Ff., e.g. appy. Clem, Alex. (Pedag. Il. 4), but seems scarcely so impressive as the latter (Copt.), and somewhat tends to diminish the force of the now iso- lated and emphatic imperative in ver. 6; comp. Alf. zn loc. The reading éore yw. (Rec.) is supported by D* EKL; mss.; Syr. (both), al. ; Theod., Dam., but is altogether inferior to lore in external autority [A BD'FGN; 30 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., al.; Clem., al.], and is rightly rejected by nearly all recent editors. Tas... ovk| On this Hebraistie mode of ex- pression, see notes on ch. iv. 29. és éorw refers immediately to m\eo- véxTns, not to the three preceding sub- stantives: comp. Col. iii. 5, Thy mAeo- veciay wrus éotiv eldwrodaTpela. Co- vetousness is truly a definite form of idolatry, it is the worship of Mammon (Matth. vi. 24) instead of God; comp. Theod. ‘To this therefore, rather than to the other sins, which are veritable but more subtle forms of the same sin, the Apostle gives the above specific designation. The passages adduced by Wetst. and Schoettg. illustrate the form of expression, but nothing more. The reading 6 is found in BN; 3. 67**, al.; Cyr. (Lachm., Alf.), and, followed by efdwXodarpela, in FG; Vulg.: as the less obvious reading it ovK x. KAnp. | ‘hath no inheritance ;’ a weighty pre- sent, involving an indirect reference to the eternal and enduring princip!es by which God governs the world,—not so much ‘has no inheritance, and shall have none’ (Eadie), as ‘has...and can have none;’ comp. ver. 6, and Col. deserves notice. | (ate 116 WPO2z E®EZIOY2. 5) , a“ , é } ‘ > ‘ 4 ee a! 4 ATAaTATW KEVOLS Noyos lu“ TavTa yep EPXET AL 1] opyn iii. 6, dc’ d €pxerar 7 dpyi) Tod Oeod: see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237. TOU Xp. kal O.] ‘of Christ and God,’—not ‘of God,’ Auth. This is the first decid- ed instance (the reading being doubt- fulin Acts xx. 28) adduced by Granville Sharp to prove that the same Person in Scripture is called Christ and God, see Middleton, Greek Art. p. 362 sq. (ed. Rose), and ch. III. 4. 2, p. 57 sq. When however we maturely weigh the context, in which no dogmatic asser- tions relative to Christ .find a place (as in Tit. ii. 13, 14),—when we recall the frequent use of Oeds with- out an article, even where it might have been expected (compare Winer, Gr, § 1g. 1, p. 110),—and lastly, when we observe that the presence of the art. tod Qeot would really have even suggested a thought of subordination (as if it were necessary to specify that the kingdom of Christ was also the kingdom of God,—the inadvertence of the Auth.), we seem forced to the con- viction that Sharp’s rule does not ap- ply here. Christ and God are united together in the closest way, and pre- sented undera single conception (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 4, p. 116),—an in- direct evidence of Christ’s divinity of no slight value,—still the identity of the two substantives (‘of Him who is Christ and God,’ Wordsw.) cannot be safely or certainly maintained from this passage. term Pacidela Ceci, see notes and reff, on Gal. v. 21. 6. pdels dpds k.7.A.] ‘Let no one deceive you with vain words, i.e. so- phistries:’ emphatic warning (without any particle) against all who sought to deceive them as to the real nature of the sins condemned. It does not seem necessary to limit the regular meaning of xevds (‘empty,’ ovdauds On the meaning of the éml tay épywv decxvdmevct, Chrys.,— hence ‘a veritate alieni,’ Kypke, Ods, Vol. 11. p. 299), and to refer the kevol Abyot specially to heathen philosophers (Grot.), to Judaizers (Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 184, note, Bohn), or to Christian Antinomians (Olsh.). The Apostle generally condemns all apo- logists for vice, whoever they might be. These would of course be most commonly found among the heathen, and to them the passage most natu- rally points. ‘The palliation or tacit toleration of vice, especially sensuality, was one of the most fearful and repul- sive features of heathenism; see esp. Tholuck, /njfluence of Heathenism, Part TVeie. Sid. TadTa yap] ‘for on account of these sins:’ confir- mation of the preceding warning; it is on account of these things (obs. the emphasis on 6.4 ratra) that God’s and vengeance is directed against the perpetrators. The reference wrath of ravra is clearly to the sins above mentioned (rovtwy Exacrov edpwy, Theod.); comp. Col. iii. 6, 6:’ &, and Gal. v. 21, a mpodéyw viv, in reference to a foregoing list of vices. noun has been referred to the drarn of the xevol Néyou (Theoph. 2), or to the The The pro- amrdrn and the foregoing vices. ‘first interpr. is not grammatically un- tenable, as the plural raira may be idiomatically used to denote a single object in its different manifestations (see Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 8. d, p. 282, Winer, Gr. $)-23> 5, unpel4O) mbt. equally with the second, is open to the contextual objection that ver. 7 seems a general warning against Gen- tile sins, to which consequently the present verse will be more naturally referred. 1 Spy) TOU Ocod] ‘the wrath of God ;’ certainly not to be restricted to this Nope os A a) aA 9 4 A CoN ~ ‘i , TOU €OU €7L TOUS VLOUS THS a7eOeias. , OA TUVMLETOX OL QuUTWY, A Fy pn ovv yiverOe 7 > , TE Yap TOTE cxoTos, 8 viv o€ pas ev Kupior os TEKVa pros TEPLTATELTE, life, ‘ordinaria Dei judicia,’ Calv., but, as the solemn present (comp. éxet, ver. 5) indicates, to be extended also, and perhaps more especially, to the judgments &y rH Bac. Tot Xp. kal Ocod. Tovs viois THs dre}. | ‘the sons of disobedience ;’ scil. in effect, Tods opdépa dmebe’s, Chrys., éxovres Toy THS pNTpOS XapaxTipa, Orig.: see esp. notes on ch. ii. 2, and Suicer, Zhes. Vol. 1. p. 1357. The a7el9. here is disobedience to the prin- ciples and practice of the Gospel; see more on ch. ii. 2. 7. pr odv ylverGe] ‘Do not then become ;’ ofv having its full collective force (see on ver. 1), and referring to the previous statement that the wrath of God certainly does come on all such. The yiveode (‘nolite fieri,’ Cla- rom.; ‘nolite effici,’ Vulg.,—perhaps somewhat too strongly) is not to be explained away: the Apostle does not warn them only against being (Alf.), but against becoming (‘ni vairbaip,’ Goth.) partakers with them, against allowing themselves to lapse into any of their prevailing sins and depravities. cuvpeToxo avtav] ‘partakers with them;’ not in their punishment (Holzh.), nor their punishment and sins (Stier), but, as the context, esp. ver. I1, obviously suggests, their sins ; ‘“nolite similia facere;’ Estius. On cvvpéroxos, see notes ch. iii. 6, and on the orthography (which has here the authority of AB'D'FGS), comp. Tisch. Proleyom. p. XLVI. 8. Te yap] ‘For ye WERE;’ em- phatic, the time is now past, Rom. vi. 17. It is this very difference between the past and present state that con- firms and proves (yap) the propriety of the preceding warning; ‘as that state is past, do not recur to it,—do not lapse again into a participation in vices from which you have now turned away ;’ comp. note on ylvecGe (ver. 7), of which the present verse seems tacitly confirmatory. The assertion of Riick. that in this and several other passages in St Paul’s Epp. (e.g. Rom. v.-13, Vi. 17, t Cor. iii. 12, 21, Gal. ii. 6, 15, vi. 8) ev ought to be inserted is sufficiently refuted by Harless. The rule is simple,—if the first clause is intended to stand in connexion with and pre- pare the reader for the opposition in the second, mévy is inserted; if not, not: see the excellent remarks of Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 356 8q., Fritz. Rom. x. 19, Vol. If. p. 423, and notes on Gal. il. 15. oKétos] ‘darkness ;’ not merely living or abiding in it (comp. Rom. ii. 19, 1 Thess. v. 4), but themselves actual and veritable darkness; for examples of this vigorous and appropriate use of the abstract term, see Jelf, (7. 35 32 as év Kupia] ‘light in the Lord ;’ not dia THs Oelas xdpiros, Theoph., but ‘in fellowship with the Lord;’ ‘extra Christum Satan omnia occupat,’ Calv. The continued and corresponding use of the abstr. for concr. (see above) suit- ably prepares for the energetic exhor- tation (without ofv) which follows. They were #@s, not only in themselves (repwriopévot), but to others (comp. Matth. v. 14), and were to pursue their moral walk in accordance with such a state of privilege. On the use of the terms ¢@s and cxéros, see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 3, p. 229. 118 WPO2 E®EZIOY=. 9g 0 yap KapTos TOU pwr os ev Taon ayabwcvry KL OLKALO- , oad ’ , ro9 a” a 10 GOvuvy Kal adnbaa, doxtmaCovTes ail: \COwiney evapeo Tov TO , A si a a la a s , rie Kupigr KQL [ky CUVKOLYMVELTE TOLS Epyos Tols aKkap- as Téxva wtds mepim.] ‘walk as children of light,’ as those who stand in nearest and truest connexion with it; see notes on ch. ii. 3. The ab- sence of the article can hardly be pressed (Alf.), as it appears due only to that common principle of correla- tion, by which, if the governing noun is without the article, the governed will be equally so; see Middleton, Art. 111. 3. 7, p. 49 (ed. Rose). On the meaning of mepirarety, which however must not always be too strongly pressed, see notes on Phil. iii. 18, and on 1 Thess. iv. 12. g. 6 yap K.7.A.] ‘for the fruit of the light ;? parenthetic confirmation of the foregoing command, and incite- ment to follow it. simply explanatory (womep épepunvever th éote 70 TéKva TOO dwrds' Theoph ), but, as the order seems to suggest, confirms the propriety of using the term mepirarteire, and also supplies its fuller explanation; ‘As children of the light walk ye, for the fruit of light is shown in a moral walk, in Tap is thus not practical instances of ayabwotvn.’ The modal participle doxudfovres (see below) is thus closely joined with mepimareire, and ver. g is clearly parenthetical in sense, though not fully so in form: contra Suer, who however fails to explain properly and grammatically the use of the parti- ciple. The reading mvevuatos [Rec. with D°E?KL; great majority of mss.; Syr.-Phil., al.; Chrys., Theod.] seems clearly a gloss from Gal. v. 22, and is rightly rejected by nearly all recent editors. év] ‘consistit im,’ Beng., or, more exactly, ‘continetur, ponitur in:’ the assertion that év is here the ‘ Beth essentize’ (compare Gesen. § 151. 3. a) is distinctly untenable; see Winer, Gr. § 29. 3. obs. p. 166. Tracy dyabwovvy] ‘all goodness,’ i.e. all forms and instances of it; notes on ch. i. 8. On the meaning of aya. see notes on Gal. v. 22. The special appositions which Chrys. finds in these three nouns, mpds Tovs dpytfo- see févous, pos To’s TAEOVEKTOUVTAS, 7120S Tiv Wevdh ndovyjy, are too limited. As Meyer correctly observes, the whole of Christian morality is presented under its three great aspects, the good, the right, the true; the dayri- oToxa are Kakla, ddikla, Wevdos: comp. Harl. in loc., and for a Sermon on this text, see Tillotson, Serm. CXLVII. Vol. 1. p. 311 (Lond. 1717). 10. SoKipatovres] ‘proving,’ ‘test- ing; predication of manner appended to mwepimaretre, defining its character and distinctive features. The verb doxtuagew is not ‘to have a just con- ception of,’ Peile, nor ‘examinando cognitum habere,’ Borger, ad Rom. p- 12 (cited by Fritz.); but in its simple and primary sense, ‘to prove, to. try,’ the word marking the activity and experimental energy that should characterize the Christian life; see Rom. xii. 2, and Fritz. in loc., Trench, Synon. Part . § 24, and notes on Phil. i, 10, where the meanings of this word are briefly discussed. The sense then is well expressed by Hadie ; ‘the one point of the Christian’s ethical investigation is, Is it well pleasing to the Lord?’ dpa ddoxiuou Kal matducjs Suavolas ra dANa* CHcum. II. py ovvkoweveite] ‘have no fellowship with,’ Auth.—a _ good V. 9—12. ~ ~ \ ‘ See A mots TOU oKOToUs, MaAAov dé Kal EeYyXeETE 119 Ta yap 12 ~ , e , be) co) 3 , 9. in! Xe < Kpupy Yyivopeva UT QuTwV aia KX pov EGTLVY KAL eyely and accurate translation ; —2Lohaso [commercium ha- x y n compare bentes] Syr., ‘gadailans,’ Goth. The version of Eadie and De W., ‘take no part in,’ is questivnable if not erro- neous, as this would imply a genitive ; comp, Rom. xi, 17, © Cor. ix. 23, Phil. i. 7. Though the sense is nearly the same, there is still no reason, either here, Phil. iv. 14, or Rev. xviii. 4, for departing from the exact trans- lation. The form gurkow. is found in AB'D!FGLN; and on such evidence is appy. rightly adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7); see Prolegom. p. XLVI. Tots tpyots Tots dkap.] ‘the unfruit- ful works;’ comp. Gal. v. 19, 22, where there is a similar opposition be- tween épya and xapmos. The com- ment of Jerome (cited by Harl.) is very good, ‘vitia in semet ipsa fini- untur et pereunt, virtutes frugibus pullulant et redundant ;’ see notes on Gal. v. 22. paddAov d€ Kat cannot be correctly considered as a single formula, ‘yea, much more,’ Eadie: ~addov 6é is corrective (see notes on (ral. iv. 9), while kai is closely connected with the verb, preserving its full ascensive force, ‘not only “7 suyk. but rather even édéyxeTe,’ ‘non satis abstinere est,’ Beng.; comp. Fritz. Rom. viii. 34, Vol. 11. p. 216. éheyxerte] ‘reprove thom,’ ‘redarguite,’ Vulg., Clarom.,—not by the passive virtual reproof of your holy lives and conversation (Peile), but, as St Paul’s use of the word (see esp. 1 Cor. xiv, iy 2 SMiibA Os AMR Th OY eh ohn se and still more the context, suggest, — by active and oral reprobation. The antithesis is thus most fully marked ; ‘do not connive at them or pass them over unnoticed, but take aggressive measures against them; try and raise the Gentiles to your own Christian standard ;’ see Olsh. iz loc. 12, Ta yap KT.A.] ‘For the things, &c.;? confirmatory reason for the com- mand in the preceding clause. The connexion of this verse with the pre- ceding has been differently explained. If the correct meaning of é\éyx. (see above) be retained, there seems but little difficulty; yap then gives the reason for the cal é\éyxere, ‘reproof is indeed necessary, for some of their sins, their secret vices for instance, are such that it is a shame even to speak of them, much less connive at them or join in them.’ Harl. refers yap more to uy ouvk.; ‘do not com- mit these sins, for they are too bad even to mention.’ This however as- sumes a perfect identity between 7a épy. To0 ox. and Ta KpupH yev., which (see below) is highly doubtiul; and also gives to the negative part of the command (which, as the corrective ua)dov 6é suggests, is obscured by the positive) av undue and untenable pro- minence. TQ...Kpupy K.T.A.] “the things which are done in secret by them,’ sc. by the viol r7s dreGeias, ver. 6, There is not enough in the context to substantiate a reference to the mysteries and orgies of heathenism (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 223). The use of kpup7 (which obviously has here a simple, and not an ethical meaning like cxdros), and its emphatic position, seem alike to show that ra Kpup7j yw. are sins, not simply identical with ra épya 7. oKdrous, ver. II (Harl.), but a specific class of the genus. These ‘deeds done in secret’ then were all those ‘peccata occulta’ which presented the worst features of the genus, and which, from their na- 120 IIPO2 E®EZIOY2. Qa A , s , e AQ a \ A 13 Ta de TavTa eheyxXoueva UTO TOU :wros Pavepovrar’ ture and infamy, shunned the light of day and of judgment. kal Aéyewv] ‘even to speak of,’ ‘ only to mention.’ ‘This is an instance of what may be termed the descensive force of kai; see exx. in Hartung, Partik. cai, 220s) Violesis ps L303) scomp., kelotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 364, and notes on Gal. iii. 4. Elsner compares, not in- appropriately, Isocr. Demon. p. 5, & movety alaxpov, Tav’Ta vource unde Eyer elvat KaNov. 13. Ta 8€ wavra] ‘but all of a» them,’ ‘they all,’ ols ol {illa omnia] Syr.-Phil.; continuation of the reason for the command “@)\)ov 6é kal é\éyx.— with antithetical refer- ence to the kpu@7 ywoueva, dé retain- ing its proper force in the opposition it suggests to any inference that might have been deduced from ver. 12; ‘it is true these deeds are done in secret, but all of them, &c.;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. It. p. 363, 365. Ta mavra is not ‘all things,’ taken generally (Riick., Alf.), but, as the antithesis between Kpupy and davep. (comp. Mark iv. 22) clearly suggests, ‘all the kpupf yuwdz.,’ ‘haud dubie quin ea que occulte fiunt, Jer.; so rightly De W. and Meyer in loc. eXeyxdpeva] ‘when they are reproved,’ moms /so p> [dum redargu- untur] Syr.-Phil. ; predication of man- ner or perhaps rather of time ap- pended to ra mdvra. The absence of the art. before é\eyx. distinctly pre- cludes the translation ‘que arguun- tur’ (Vulg., Clarom., Auth.,—comp. Copt.), and shows that the participle is not an epithet but a secondary pre- dicate; see Scholef. Hints, p. 103. Jd Tov dwrds havepovrar]) ‘are made manifest by the light. It is somewhat difficult to decide whether these words are to be connected with the part. (Syr., Copt.), or with the finite verb (Auth., Syr.-Phil.,—appy.): nexion with both (Scholef., comp. Stier) is an evasion, but not an expla- nation, of the difficulties. The follow- ing positions will perhaps serve to (a) ’EXeyx6- weva, both in tense as well as meaning (contr. Hamm., Peile), must stand in closest reference to édéyxere: it may still be said however that the second- ary meaning of the word (comp. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 11. p. 19, ééyxee Tov "Iaxxov 70 &s) may have suggested the metaphorical language which fol- lows. (6) ®&s (dos, davepds) and gpavepow are closely allied terms; the one so obviously explains, elucidates, and implies the other, that the con- nexion of the two in the same clause a con- narrow the discussion. seems in a high degree natural and probable. (c) @&s must have the same meaning in both clauses; if simply metaphorical in the latter clause, then also simply metaphorical (not ethical, as in réxva gdwrds) in the former. (d) The voice of gavepdw must be the same in both clauses, and is certainly passive; the verb occurs 49 times in the N.T., and never in a middle sense; see Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 230. These premises being applied, it seems clear that if we adopt the first-mentioned connexion, édeyx. bd Tod dur. (Chrys., al.), conditions (a) and (c) cannot be fully satisfied; for either é\eyx. must be taken as nearly syn- onymous with gavep. (De W.), or ¢s must have an ethical reference (‘lux verbi,” Croc.) in the former clause which it can scarcely bear in the latter; and further, é\eyxou. will thus have a specification attached to Ve FS* 14: 121 mav yap TO davepoimeroy das ertiv. dro Aéyer "Evyerpe 14 e , LWP at) i? ’ “ ~ Ah. , oO Kkabevowy Kal GVAGTQ €K TWYV VEK NOY, Kal eT ave et Jol e O Xpiores. it, which is not in harmony with ver. 12, where the act alone is enjoined without any special concomitant men- tion of the agent. It would thus seem to be almost certain that t7d Tod dw- Tos must be joined with gdavepotra., which it somewhat emphatically pre- cedes. We translate then, in ac- cordance with (a), (6), (c), (d), as fol- lows; ‘but all things (though so kpu¢q yw.) when reproved are made manifest by the light (thus shed upon them), for everything that is made manifest is light (becomes daylight, is of the na- ture of light) ;’ comp. Scholef. J. c., and Wordsw. in loc. Ina word, the rea- soning depends on the logical proposi- tion which Meyer has adduced,— ‘quod est in effectu (pas écri), id debet esse in caus (76d T00 dwrés),’ That this gavépwors however does not necessarily imply or involve a ‘muta- tio in melius’ (Jer. comp. Wordsw.), seems clear from (c). All that is asserted is that ‘ whatever is illumined is light; whether that tend to con- demnation or the contrary depends upon the nature of the case, and the inward operation of the outwardly illuminating influence; see Alf. 7m loc. 14. 816] ‘On which account,’ since this é\eyéts is so urgent and necessary a duty, and its nature such as described. On the use of 616, see notes on Gal. iva oie Neyer] ‘ He saith» scil. 6 Oeds, according to the usual form of St Paul’s quotations ; see notes ou ch, iv. 8, and on Gal. iii. 16. The words here quoted are not found exactly in the same form in the O. T., but certainly occur in substance in Isaiah lx. 1 sq. Meyer represents it as a quotation from an apocryphal writing which the Apostle introduces by a lapse of memory; De W. as an application from a passage in the O. T., which he had so constantly used as at last to mistake for the original text. Alii alia, It seems much more reve- rent, as well as much more satisfactory, to say that St Paul, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is expressing in a condensed and sum- mary form the spiritual meaning of the passage. The prophet’s immediate words supply in substance the first part of the quotation, NI °3 IN DIP JUN; while cad ém@. x.7.d. is the spiritual application of the remainder of the verse, viz. Mt poy mn 1333, and of the general tenor of the pro- phecy: see esp. Is. lx. 19, and comp. Surenhus. Bi@X. Karadi. p. 588. Any attempt to explain \éyec impersonally (fone may say,’ Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. XLvi1.) is not only opposed to St Paul’s constant use of Néye, but is grammatically unsupported: gyal (comp. Lat. ‘inquit’) is so used, espe- cially in later writers, but, no instances have been adduced of a similar use of Aéyer: comp. Bernhardy, Synt. X11. 4, p- 419. "Byewpe] ‘Awake,’ ‘Up! This expression is now gene- rally correctly explained: it is not an instance of an ‘act. pro medio.’ (Por- son, Eurip. Orest. 288), or of an ellip- sis of ceaurév, but simply a ‘formula excitandi;’ consult the excellent note of Fritz. Wark ii. 9, p. 55. The read- ing of the Rec. éyepat, found only in some cursive mss., is undoubtedly a correction, and is rejected by all the best editors. avacra] ‘arise. This shortened form occurs Acts xii. 7, and may be compared with xardBa, Mark xv. 30, dvdBa, Rev. iv. 1; see Waner Gia S) 14) 1, p: 73> HWPoz E®EZIOY2. 15 Bnrérere ovv TOS ax pi Bas TEPlT a= Walk strictly: avoid a A lj 16 Tere, My ws AToot adr’ we copa, efa- excess, but be filled with the Spirit; sing psalms outwardly with your lips, and make melody with thankfulness in your hearts within. Kal émupavoe K.T.A.} Sand Christ shall shine upon thee,’—obviously not in the derivative sense, ‘Christus tibi propitius erit’ (Bretsch.), but simply ‘illucescet tanquam sol’ (Beng.), ‘per gratiam te illuminabit’ (Hst.) ; ctv éyephn Tis awd THS apmaprias, TéTE oTav émipatoe. avT@ 0 Xpiotds, TovtécTw, emidduper Warep Kal 6 yALos Tots €f Umvou éyepOeiow’ Theoph. 15. Bdérere ovv] ‘ Take heed then; resumption of the preceding exhorta- tions (ver. 8) after the digression caused It is quite unnecessary to attempt to con- nect this closely with the preceding verse (Harless, Eadie) ; this resumptive by the latter part of ver. II. use of ofy being by no means of rare occurrence (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 718, notes on (ral. iii. 5), and indeed being involved in the nature of the particle, which nearly always implies retrospective reference rather than direct inference; see Donalds. G7. § 548. 31, p- 571. It is scarcely necessary to add that Bdérere has no reference whatever to the as previously alluded to (comp. Est.), but simply implies ‘take heed;’ see 1 Cor. xvi. 10, Col. iv. 17 and notes in Joc. THs aKptBas mepiTareire] ‘how ye walk exactly, or with strictness,’ scil. ‘quomodo illud efficiatis ut provide vivatis’ (T@s 7d axpiBas épydferbe), Fritz. Fritz. Opuse. p. 208, 209, note, —where this passage is carefully in- vestigated ; see also Winer, (Gr. § 41. 4. ¢. obs. p. 268, who has long since given up the assumption that the text is an abbreviated expression for B)é- mere otv Was Tepimaretre, del dé vuas axpiBOs wepirarety, though cited by Meyer (ed. 2, 1853) as retaining it. Thus then the indic. is not used for the subj. (Grot.), which (if an admis- sible structure) would be ‘quomodo provide vivere possitis;’ nor for the future, which would be ‘quomodo provide vitam sitis acturi;’ but simply calls attention to that in which 76 d«pu- BOs wepirarew finds its present mani- festation, and which is specified more precisely in the clause which follows. As mepir, appy. here implies little more than fv (see Fritz. Rom. xiii. 12, Vol. Ill. p. 141, comp. notes on ver. g), there is no necessity to depart from the literal meaning of dxpi8as,—not ‘caute,’ Vulg., Syr., still less, ‘ with- out stumbling,’ Conyb., but ‘exactly,’ ‘accurate,’ Beza, ‘tanquam ad regu- lam et amussim,’ Fritz. Opuse. l.c. ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 486 (Bobn). p71] &s doodor K.T.A.] ‘to wit, not as unwise but as wise; more exact specification of the terms of the preceding clause. It is thus not necessary to supply either mepirarouvres to this clause (Harl.), or mepirarjre to its second member (as in effect Fritz., ‘sed ut homines sapientes [vitam instituatis’], loc. cit., p- 209): the clause is simply dependent on mepirateire, explaining the fore- going adverbs first on the negative and then on the affirmative side; both the strictness of their walk and the way in which that strictness was to be shown were to reflect the spirit of wise men and not of fools: comp. Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 63, where simi- lar positions of the negative clause are incidentally cited. 16. é@€ayopatépevor tov Katpdv] ‘buying up for yourselves (making your own) the opportunity, the fitting season ;” part. of manner exemplifying the wise spirit of action specified in ‘the fore- . Ms ayn, 7 125 , ‘ , / e e / Je s YyopaCopevor TOV Kalpoy, OTL al nMEPal TOvApal ELoLV. A _ ry , ” 3 ~ , , ‘ Ola TOUTO py yiver Oe adpoves, adAa ouvievTes TL TO 17 going member. This expression occurs twice in the N. T.; here with, and in Col. iv. 5 without an appended causal sentence: compare also Dan. ii. 8, xac- pov é&ayopdfere (appy. ‘Shane oppor- tunitatem capiatis,’ see Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 780, not ‘dilationem queritis,’ Schleusn.). The numerous and in most cases artificial explana- tions of this passage arise from the attempts to specify (a) those from whom (comp. Beng., ‘mali homines;’ Calv., ‘Diabolus’) the xapos is to be pur- chased, or (b) the price (all worldly things, ra mdvta, Chrys., Theoph., Schrader) paid for it; both of which are left wholly undefined. The force of é« does not appear intensive (Mey., comp. Plutarch, Crass. § 2), or simply latent (a Lap.), but directs the thoughts to the undefined time or circumstances out of which in each particular case the xaipds was to be bought; comp. Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5, where however the meaning is more special, and the re- ference of the preposition better de- fined by the context. The expression then seems simply to denote that we are to make a wise use of circumstances for our own good or that of others, and, as it were, like prudent merchants (comp. Beza, Corn. a Lap.) to ‘buy up the fitting season’ for so doing ; ‘ dili- ygenter observare tempus, ut id tuum facias, eique ut dominus imperes,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 42; so Sever. (ap. Cram. Caten.), and in effect Origen (ib.), though he has too much mixed up the ideas of a right purchase of the time and a right expenditure of it. Fora sermon on this text see August. Serm. cLxvil. Vol. v. p. 909 sq. (ed. Migne). tov Kaipsy] ‘the opportunity; not ‘hoc tempus; scil. tempus breve quod t restat huic #vo,’ Bretsch. (Sever. 6 Kaltpos 6 Tapwy, comp. Stier), but, as rightly explained by Cornel. a Lap., ‘oceasionem et opportunitatem scil. mercandi.’ On the use of ka:pos (‘tem- pus, seu punctum temporis opportu- num’) and its distinction from aldy, xpévos, and dpa, see Tittm. Synon. p. 39 sy., comp. Trench, Synon. Part 11. $7. movnpat] ‘evil, in a moral sense (Gal. i. 4), not ‘ difficulta- tum et asperitatis plena,’ Beza (comp. Gen. xlvii. 9), which would introduce Chris- tians are bidden to walk dxpi8ds, and to seize every opportunity, because ‘the days’ (of their life, DD or of the period in which they lived) were an idea foreign to the context. marked by so much moral evil and iniquity; émel ody 6 Katpos dovdever Tots movnpots, é&ayopasacbe avrov, wore KaTaxpjoacba a’t@ mpos evcé- Becav’ Sever. ap. Cram. Caten. 17, 8a tovto] ‘ For this cause ;’ commonly referred to the clause im- mnediately preceding, éeid7 7 tovnpia avOer? (Ecum., Theoph. (so De W., Olsh.), but far more probably (see Mey.) to ver. 15, 16,—‘for this cause, sc. because ye ought to walk with such exactness; ef yap éceabe tippoves ax- pibas Schol. ap. Cram. Caten. adpoves] ‘ un- wise,’ senseless; ‘dppwv est qui mente non recte utitur,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 143, —where the distinctions between this ov TeplmaTioETE® word, v7mios, avénros, and dovveros are investigated ; but see notes on Gal. Mis ie ovvreytes] ‘understand- ing; “plus est cuviévar quam yuwwokerv, ut apparet ex hoc loco cum Luc, xii. 473 ywwokew est nosse, cvvievar attente expendere ;’ Grot. (Pol. Syn.). The reading is perhaps doubtful. Lachm. reads guviere with ABN; 6 mss.; Chrys. (ms.), but on external evidence 124 WPOs 18 OéAnua Tov Kupiov. 4 4 , x ’ Q Kat pn peOvoxerOe ovm, ev & E®EZIOY2. aS 3 4 i) , A a n~ 19 €oTiv agwria, adda 7Anpovabe ev Ivevuati, Aadovy- e a A \ wv sy 9 - a TES EAUTOIS Wadmois Kal UmvoLs Kal dais TVEULATLKALS, hardly equal to that for the participle [ounévres, DIEKL (cuviovres, D1FG ; Alf.); nearly all mss.; Clarom., Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Phil., al., and many Ff. ], and in the face of the high probability that the imper. is due to a conforma- tion to ver. 18. 18. Kal pa) peOvok.] ‘And be not made drunk with wine; specification of a particular instance; xai being here used to append the special to the gene- ral: on this and on the converse use, see notes on Phil. iv. 12, and comp. the good note of Fritz. Mark i. 5, p. 11. év & | ‘wherein,’ Auth.; referring not simply to otfvos (Schoettg.), but to peOvcKecOar oly, scil., ‘in inebria- tione,’ Beza; so rightly Orig. 1, ap. Cram. Cat. acwrtal ‘ disso- luteness,’ Hamm., ‘luxuria,’ Vulg., Clarom.; not inappropriately Goth., ‘usstiurei’ [unyokedness]; tods dxpa- Tels Kal els AkoN\aciay Sarayypovs aow- Tous kKaNovuev’ Arist. Ethic. Nic. Iv. 1; comp. Cic. de Fin. 11. 8. "Agwros (cfw) appears to have two meanings, the rarer, ‘qui servari non potest,’ a meaning which Clem. Alex. (Pedag. Il. 2, p. 184, ed. Pott.) applies to this place, 7d doworov Tis méOns bia THs dowrlas aivéduevos,—and the more common, ‘qui servare nequit;’ see Trench, Synon. $16. The latter mean- ing passes naturally into that of ‘dis- soluteness,’ the only sense in which dowtia and dowrws are used in the N.T., e.g. Luke xv. 13, Tit. i. 6, 1 Pet. iv. 4: the substantive is found Prov. xxvili, 7 (Trench), to which add 2 Mace. vi. 4, where it is joined with k@mor; see also Tittm. Synon. p. 152. év Lvedpare] ‘with the Spirit,’ év being appy. primarily, though not exclu- sively, instrumental (Vulg., Arm.; see Orig. Cat.),—though an unusual con- struction with wAnpdw: see however ch. i. 23. Meyer cites also Phil. iv. 19, but this is a doubtful instance ; still more so are Col. ii. 10, iv. 12 (cited by Eadie after Harl.), as in the first of these passages év is obviously ‘in,’ and in the second the reading is more than doubtful; see notes in loc. There would seem to have been an inten- tional inclusiveness in the use of this prep., as Matthies (misrepresented by Eadie) suggests: the Spirit is not the bare instrument by which, but that i which and by which the true Christian is fully filled. Whether the passive m)npovo be hints at our ‘reluctant will’ (Mey.) seems doubtful: there is no doubt however that the opposition is not between olvos and IIvedua, but, as the order of the words suggests, be- tween the two states expressed by the two verbs. On the omission of the article (which is inserted in FG), see notes on ch. ii. 20, and on Gal. v. 5. 19. Aadovvres Eavtots] ‘speaking to one another ;—not ‘to yourselves,’ Auth.; éavrovs being used for d\A7jAoxs, as in ch. iv. 32; comp. Col. iii. 16, and see Jelf, Gr. § 654. 2. Scholefield (Hints, p. 103), and before him Bull (Prim. Trad. 1. 12), compare the well known quotation, ‘carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum ¢nvicem,’ Pliny, Epist. X. 97. Whether the reference is here to social meetings (comp. Clem. Alex. Pedag. 1. 4, p. 194, Pott.), or expressly to religious service (Olsh.), or, as is more probable, to both, can hardly be determined from the con- text. Woarpots K.7.A.] ‘with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.’ The distinctions between these words have been somewhat differently esti- VE 2810, “20; 125 , ’ a , e “ a“ ‘i , aOovTes Kal WadXortes ev TH Kapola ULoOV Tw Kuply, a , e \S [2 ’ Sie. “A eUXAapLTTOUVTES TAVTOTE UTED TAVTWY EV OVOMATL TOV 20 mated. Olsh. and Stier wou'd confine Wau. to the Psalms of the Old. Test., vuvos to any Christian song of praise: this does not seem borne out by 1 Cor. xiv. 26 (see Alf.), compare James v. 13. Harless refers the former to the Jewish, the latter to Gentile Chris- tians; Origen (Cat.) still more arbi- trarily defines the Wahu. as mepl ror mpaxtéwy, the @dn as mepl THs Tod Kéomou Tdfews Kxal Trav Rowrdv 4n- Hioupynudtwy. In a passage so gene- ral as the present, no such rigorous distinctions seem called for: Wadpds most probably, as Meyer suggests, denotes a sacred song of a character similar to that of the Psalms (0 Wah- Mos éEumedrs eoTrw evroyia kal coppwv" Clem. Alex. Pedag. U1. 4, p. 194); Upvos a song more especially of praise, whether to Christ (ver. 19), or God (ver, 20, comp. Acts xvi. 25, Heb. ii. 12); @81) a definition generally of the genus to which all such compositions belonged (@dyv mvevmatixjy 6 °Aré- aToNXos eipnke Tov Wadusv Clem. Alex. l. c.): so Trench, Synon. Part It. § 28. To this last the epithet mvevuarcxais is added,—sc. not merely ‘of religious import,’ Olsh. (‘sancta,’ A®th. ), ‘having to do with spiritual things,’ Trench, but in accordance with the last clause of ver. 18, ‘such as the Holy Spirit inspired and gave utterance to;’ Wd)- ovres yap IIvevu. mdypodvrac aylou* Chrys. Much curious information will be found in the article ‘ Hymni a Christianis decantandi,’ in Deyling, Obs. No. 44, Vol. 111. p. 430 sq.: for authorities, see Fabricius, Bibliogr. Antig. XI. 13, and for specimens of ancient vuvor, ib. Bibl. Greca, Book v. 1.24. Lachm. inserts & in brackets before Yadots, but on authority [B; 5 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg., Goth., al.; Chrys. ] nearly the same and apparently equally insufficient with that [B ; Clarom., Sangerm. ; Ambrst. ed.] on which he (so Alf.) similarly encloses the scarcely doubtful svev- MarcKals. adovres kal Wad- Aovres K.T.A.] ‘singing and making melody in your heart; participial clause, co-ordinate with (Mey.) not subordinate to (so as to specify the moral quality of the psalmody, mera auvéoews, Chrys.) the foregoing \adoiv- tes k.T.. Harl. very clearly shows that é&y 77 Kapdla even without tuav could not indicate any antithesis be- tween the heart and lips, much less any qualitative definition,—‘ without lip-service’ (comp. Theod., Eadie), or ‘heartily,’ like é« ris kapdlas (kara Tiv kapd. CAcum.), but that simply another kind of psalmody is mentioned, that of the inward heart; ‘ canentes intus in animis et cordibus vestris,’ Bulling. (cited by Harl.). The reading év rats xapdlas, though well supported [Zachm. with ADEFGN*; 47; Clarom., Vulg., Syr., Goth., Copt., Syr.-Phil. in marg.; Bas., Chrys. (2), al.], is still properly rejected by Tisch., as an emendation of & TH kapdig [BN}(both omit év) KL; nearly all mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theod., al.] derived from. Col. iii. 16. 20. evdXapior. TavT.] ‘giving thanks always; third, and more comprehen- sive participial member, specifying the great Christian accompaniment of this and of all their acts (see notes on ver. 4, Phil. iv. 6, and Col. iv. 2), and pre- paring the way for the further duty expressed in ver. 21. It would thus appear that the imperative m\mp. év IIv. has four participial clauses appended, two of which specify more particular, and the third a more pervading mani- 126 IIPO2 E®EZIOY2. 21 Kuptov juov “Incot Xpistod 76 Oem cat Tatpl, vro- TAaTTOMEVOL AAAAOLS EV poBo Xpirrov. Wives be subject to your hushands as the Church is to Christ. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved His Church. Mar- riage is a type of the mystical union of Christ and the Church. 22 Ai yuvaixes, rots idcors avopacw 22. avipdow] Tisch. has with good judgment rejected the addition of dzo- tdocecbe,—whether after yuvaikes with DEFG; Lect. 19; Syr., al.: or after dv5paow, with KL; very many Vv.; Chrys, al. (Rec., Scholz),—though sup- ported in the omission only by B, all Gr. MSS. used by Jerome, and Clem. (Harl., Mey., De W.). AN; 10 mss.; Vulg., Copt., Goth.; Clem. (1), Bas., al.; the variations however, and still more the absence of the word in the MSS. mentioned by Jerome, render it in a very high degree probable that the original text had no verb in Lachm. inserts troraccéoOwoay after avipdow with the sentence. festation of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, viz. gdal xeéwv (Kcclus. xxxix. 15), @dal év TH Kapdia, and evxapic- tia, while the fourth, troracc., passes onward to another form of Christian duty; see notes ver. 21, and for two good sermons on this text, Barrow, Serm. Vit. 1X. Vol. 1. p. 179 sq. trip mavtwv] ‘ for all things,’ Auth.; not masc., sc. tmrép .mrdyTwy TaY THs evepyecias meTeAnxoTwr* Theod. Meyer needlessly limits the mdvra to bless- ings; surely it is better to say, with Theoph., ovx tmép Trav ayabav pdvor, a\Xa kal Tay AuTNpSr, Kal ay icper, kal Gy ovx icpev, Kai yap bia mavrwy evepyeTovmeba Kav dyvoGuer. Numer- ous instances of similar cumulation and mapyxnots are cited by Lobeck, Paralipom. p. 56, 57. év dvopatt] ‘in the name ;’ obviously not ‘ad honorem’ (Flatt.), nor even ‘per nomen,’ scil. ‘per Christum’ (a Lap.), but ‘in nomine,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., al.: the name of Christ is that general and holy element, as it were, in which everything (as Harless forcibly re- marks) is to be received, to be enjoined, to be done, and to be suffered; see Col. iti. 17. The context will always indicate the precise nature of the ap- plication; see the exx. cited by Alf. in loc. 7) Oc@ kal trarpl] ‘to God and the Father, see notes on ch. i. 3, on Gal. i. 4, and on the most suitable mode of translating this special and august title, notes to Gal. i. 4 (Transl.). 21. vmrorarcduevor GAAA.] ‘ sub- mitting yourselves to one another; not for the finite verb (Flatt.; see contra Hermann, Viger, No. 227, Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, p. 314), but a fourth parti- cipial clause appended to mAnpotc@e. The first three name three duties, more or less special, in regard to God, the last a comprehensive moral duty in regard to man, which seems to have been suggested by the remembrance of the humble and loving spirit which is the moving principle of evxaporia. In the following paragraph, and under a somewhat similar form (v7raxoy) in vi. I sq. and vi. § sq., this general duty is inculeated in particular instances: ered) KoWw ny T7v Tepl THS UroTayHs vowobeclay m-oonveyKe Kar’ el60s, Aot- mov mapawet Ta KaTadd\An\a* Theod. On the distinction between vrotacc. (sponte) and meapxeiv (coactus), see Tittm. Synon. Part I. p. 3. It must be admitted that there is some difficulty in the connexion between this and the foregoing participial member. Mitten; ws to Kuplo, ore ao éoriw Kedady t P ‘ 7 We can however hardly refer the clause to the remote wy webiok. (* don’t blus- ter, ... but be subject,’ Eadie, Alf.), but may reasonably retain the con- nexion indicated above, the exact con- necting link being perhaps the w7rép mavrwy; ‘thanking God for all things (joys—yea sorrows, submitting your- selves to Him, yea), submitting your- selves to one another; comp. Chrys., wa mdavTwy KpaTouev TY Tabdr, iva TG Oe@ dovlevwuer, iva THY pds adA7- Rous aydrny dracdfwpyer. év p6Bw Xp.] ‘in the fear of Christ :’ the prevailing feeling and sentiment in which trorayy is to be exhibited ; ‘ex [in] timore Christi ; quia scilicet Chris- tum reveremur, eumque timemus offen- dere ;’ Corn. a Lap. The reading Gc0d (Rec.) is only supported by cur- sive mss.; Clem., Theod.; and is rightly rejected by all modern editors. 22. At yvuvaikes] ‘Wives,—sc. be subject:’ first of the three great ex- emplifications (husbands and wives,— parents and children, ch. vi. 1 sq.,— masters and servants, ch. vi. 5 sq.) of the duty of subjection previously specified. A verb can easily and ob- viously be supplied from the pre- ceding verse,—either broraccésOwoav (Lachm.), or more probably, as the imper. in ver. 25 and Col. iii. 18 sug- gests, Urordacecbe (Kec.). Tots lous dvSpacw] ‘your own husbands ; those specially yours, whom feeling therefore as well as duty must prompt you to obey; comp. 1 Pet.iii.1. The pronominal adject. (6to1s is clearly more than a mere possess. pronoun (De W.), or, what is virtually the same, than a formal designation of the husband, ‘der Ehemann’ (Harl., Winer), for St Paul might have equally well used Tos avdpdow, as in Col, iii. 18. It seems rather to retain its proper force 22, 23. '2F TIS yuvat- 23 both here and 1 Pet. iii. 1, and imply by a latent antithesis the legitimacy (comp. John iv. 16), exclusiveness (1 Cor. vii. 2), and speciality (1 Cor. xiv. 35) of the connexion; see esp. 1 Esd. iv. 20, éyxaraNelre...THv 16. xwpav kal mpos THv i6. yuvatka Ko\\dTa. We may also adduce against Harl. his own quotation, Stobeus, Floril. p. 22, Ocavd...épwrnfetca th mp@rov ein yu- vakl’ 70 7@ idiw, tpn, apécxew avbpl: clearly ‘her own husband,—no one except in that proper and special re- lationship.’ It may still be remarked that the use of idvos in later writers is such as to make us cautious how far in all cases in the N.T. (see Matth. xxii. 5, John i. 42) we press the usual meaning: see Winer, Gr. § 22. 7, p. 139, and notes on ch. iv. 28. 3 T@ Kuplw] ‘as to the Lord,’ clearly not ‘as to the lord and master,’ which perspicuity would require to be rots kuplos, but—to Christ; ‘vir Christi imago,’ Grot., kahdv 77 yuvarkl Xpiordv aidetcOat dia Tod avdpds* Greg.-Naz. The meaning of ws is somewhat doubt- ful. Viewed in its simplest gram- matical sense as the pronoun of the relative (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 737), the meaning would seem to be ‘yield that obedience to your husbands which you yield to Christ ;; comp. Beng. As however the immediate context and, still more, the general current of the passage (comp. ver. 32) represent mar- riage in its typical aspect, ws will seem far more naturally to refer (as in ch. vi. 5, 6, comp. Col. iii. 23) to the aspect under which the obedience is to be re- garded (‘quasi Christo ipsimet, cujus Jocum et personam viri representant,’ Corn. a Lap.), than to describe the nature of it (Eadie), or the manner (De Wette) in which it is to be ten- dered ; see notes on Col. iii. 23. Still 128 IiPO= E@®EZIOY2. KOS WS Kal O Xpioros ceady Ths ekkAnoias, autos 4 A , 5) ‘ e Cres , e g 24 TWTNP TOU TwWuaTOS. aAAG ws 1 EKKANTLA VTOTATOETAL less probable is a reference merely to the similarity between the duties of the wife to the husband and the Church to Christ (Koppe, comp. Eadie), as this interpr. would clearly require ws N €xkX. TH Kup.: see Meyer. It is thus well and briefly paraphrased by Chrys., érav vrelkys Tw dvdpl, ws T@ Kupiw dovevovca nyod melfecbat (Sav.): see also Greg.-Naz. Orat. XXxXI. p- 500 (ed. Morell.). 23. dvryp] ‘a husband.’ The omis- sion of the article [with all the uncial MSS., and nearly all modern editors] does not affect the meaning of the pro- position, but only modifies the form in which it is expressed: 6 dvyjp would be ‘the husband,’ 7.e. ‘every husband’ (see notes on (Gal. iil. 20); avip is ‘a husband,’ ze. any one of the class; comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. I, p. 111: yuvy, on the contrary, has properly the ar- ticle as marking the definite relation it bears to the avnp (‘his wife’), on which the general proposition is based. @s kal 6 Xp. k.7.A.] ‘as Christ also is head—of the Church :’ the ‘being head’ is common to both dvip and Xp.; the bodies to which they are so are dif- ferent. In sentences thus composed of correlative members, when the enun- ciation assumes its most complete form, kal appears in both members, e.g. Rom. i. 13; comp. Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 1.1.6. Frequently it appears only in the demonstrative, or, as here, only in the relative member; see Har- tung, Partik. cal, 2.2, Vol. 1. p. 126. In all these cases however the particle «al preserves its proper force. In the former case, ‘per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem,’ a double and reciprocal comparison is instituted between the two words to each of which kal is an- nexed; see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 38: in the two latter cases a single com- parison only is enunciated between the word qualified by cal and some other, whether expressed or understood; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 5, p. 390, who how- ever on this construction is not wholly satisfactory. aitds cwrttp] ‘He Himself is the saviour of the body.’ declaration, apparently with a paronomasia (cwrnp...cwmaros), of an important particular in which the com- parison did not hold; the clause not being appositional (Harl.), but, as the use of a\\a in the following verse seems distinctly to suggest (see notes on ver. 24), independent and emphatic (Mey.); ‘ He—and, in this full sense, none other than He—is the cwrip of the body.’ The reading cal airés éore [Rec. with D?D3E?KL&*; majority of mss. ; Syr. (both), Goth., al.; many Ff.] seems clearly an explanatory gloss, and is rightly rejected by nearly all recent editors. 24. GAAd] ‘Nevertheless.’ The ex- planation of this particle is here by no means easy. According to the usual interpr. avros k.7.X. (ver. 23) forms an apposition to the preceding words, the pronoun airés (comp. Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 10, p. 287) being inserted with a rhetorical emphasis. The proof is then introduced by ddd, which, according to De W.., preserves its ad- versative character in the fresh aspect under which it presents the relation ; “ But as the Church, é&c.:’ see Winer, Gr. § 53. 10. Je a, p. AQ. sEhisiag plausible, but, as Meyer has ably shown, cannot be fairly reconciled with the clear adversative force of a\\d,— ‘aliud jam esse de quo sumus dic- turi’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2): 6é or ovv would have been appropriate ; Vilas. 36) 129 tad rc er x e - “ oi 5 , ’ Tw Xpisro, OUTWS KQaL AL Yyuvarkes Tolg ay pacly eV ’ TaVTl. Oi dvdpes, ayawate Tas yuvaikas Kabus 25 ‘ e s 5) , A ’ , ‘ e A Kal O Xpirros nyamncev THY EKKAyNoLaVY Kal eauvToV , e ‘ Ses eo 5) c , , TapedwKev UTEP GUTNS, Wa auUTHVY aylacy cabapioas 26 a\XG is wholly out of place. Riickert and Harless explain it as resumptive (Hartung, Partik. add, 2. 7, Vol. II. p- 40), but surely, after a digression of only four words, this is inconceivable. Eadie supposes an ellipsis, ‘be not dis- obedient, dc.’ an assumption here still more untenable; as in all such uses of a\Ad, and in all those which he has adduced (some of which, e.g. Rom. vi. 5, 2 Cor. vii. 11, are not correctly explained), the ellipsis is simple and almost self-evident; compare Klotz, Devar.. Vol. 1. p. 7. Amid this variety of interpretation, that of Calv., Beng., Meyer, and recently Alf., alone seems simple and satisfactory. Avrds k.T.d. is to be considered as forming an independent clause; it introduces a particular peculiar to Christ, and therefore in the conclusion is followed, not by o@v or dé, but by the fully ad- versative d\\d: ‘ He is the saviour of the body (man certainly is not that), nevertheless, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so, &c.’ The various at- tempts to explain the owrypla in reference to the other members of the comparison, the husband and wife (comp. Bulling., Beza, Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. IL. 2, p. 115), are all forced and untenable. The reading womep for ws [Rec. with D?EKL; most mss.; Theod., Dam.] is rightly rejected by most recent editors. oUTaS kal «.7-A.] ‘so let wives also (be sub- ject) to their husbands in everything,’— scil. trotaccéoOwoay, supplied from the preceding member. The Zec. in- serts ldlois before dvépdow with AD? E*KL; many mss., Vv. and Ff.,—but in opp. to preponderant authority [BD'E! FG ; Clarom., Sangerm., al.], and to the internal objection that the word was an interpolation taken from ver. 22. 25. Oi dvdpes x.7.A.] ‘Husbands, love your wives ;’ statement of the re- ciprocal duties of the husband; dove kal mGs oe mddw dvayKkafe. ayamav aitiv, aN’ obxl SeomoriKGs mpoogépe- oO. dydra yap abtiv rol wéTpy; @ kal 6 Xp. Thy éxxAnolav. mpovder avr is, ws kal 6 Xp. éxelvys’ kav béy Te wader, Kav amobavely St aithy, wh wapairjcy’ Theoph. On this and the two fol- lowing verses, see a good sermon by Donne, Serm. LXxxv. Vol. Iv. p. 63 sq. (ed. Alf.). It may be remarked that we seem right in returning to the reading of ed. I, Tas yuwatkas, not Tas yuv. éavrdy as in ed. 2; the critical balance being altered in con- sequence of the testimony of ® in favour of the shorter reading. KaQas Kal K.7.A.] ‘even as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it;’ nearly a repetition of the latter part of ver. 2, where see the notes on the different details. 26. tva adriyy ay.] ‘in order that He might sanctify it;’ immediate, not (as De W.) remote purpose of the 7ra- pad.d6var,—sanctification of the Church attendant on the remission of sins in baptism ; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p- 435 (Burt.), Taylor, Bapt. 1x. 17, Waterland, Hucharist, 1x. 3, Vol. Iv. p. 645. Both sanctification and puri- fication are dependent on the atoning death of Christ, the former as an act contemplated dy it, the latter as an act included in it. There is thus no necessity to modify the plain and K 130 27 TH ovtpw Tov VaTos natural meaning of the verb; ayiaf. here neither implies simple consecra- tion (Hadie) on the one hand, nor ex- piation, absolution (Matth.), on the other, but the communication and in- fusion of holiness and moral purity; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. I. p. 404, comp. Suicer, Thesawr. s.v. 11. a, Vol. I. p. 54. Kkabaploas] ‘having purified it;’ temporal participle, here more naturally denoting an act anteece- dent to ayiacn (Olsh., Mey.) than one contemporaneous with it, as appy. Syr., Vulg., al., and, as it weuld seem, the Authorized Version. adie is far too hasty in imputing ‘error’ to Harl. for maintaining the latter: it is clearly tenable on grammatical (see Bernhar- dy, Synt. X. 9, p- 383, and notes ch. i. g), but less probable on dogmatical grounds: comp. 1 Cor, vi. 11, dANG amedovcacbe, dNXa Tyrac Onre. +® AavTpS Tov USaros] ‘by the [well- known] laver of the water ;” gen. ‘ma- terie,’ Scheuerl. Synt. § 12, p. 82; comp. Soph. Gd. Col. 1599. The reference to baptism is clear and dis- tinct (see Tit. iii. 5, and notes in loc.), and the meaning of oirpoy (‘ lava- erum,’ Vulg., Clarom., Loo Syr., ‘pvahla,’ Goth.)—indisputable: instances have been urged in behalf of the active sense of \oirpov (adopted by Auth., and perhaps by Copt., AMth.), but in all that have yet been adduced (e.g. Ecclus. xxxiv. 25 [30], 7h &péedrnoev TH AouTpG adrod;),. the peculiar force of the termination (instrumental object; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 267, Pott, Hiym. Forsch. Vol. II. p. 403) may be distinctly traced : see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lew. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 83, and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 0. p. 277. It seems doubtful whether Olsh. is quite correct WPOS E®EZIOY2. 2 P ev pyuatt, wa TapactTyoy in denying that there is here any allu- sion to the bride’s bath before marriage (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 226); see ver. 27, which considered in reference with the context, and compared with Rey. xxi. 2, makes such an allusion év pyparel ‘in the word,’ ‘in verbo,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Goth. There is great difficulty in determining (1) the exact meaning, (2) the grammatical connexion of these words. With regard to the former, we may first remark that far from improbable. pijwa occurs (excluding quotations) five times in St Paul’s Epp. and four in Heb., and in all cases directly (Rom. x. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, xi. 3) or indirectly (Rom. x. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 4, Heb. i. proceeding ultimately or immediately from God. The ancient and plausible reference to the words used in baptism (Chrys., Waterl. /ustif. Vol. vi. p. 13) would thus, independently of the omission of the article, searcely seem probable; see Estius im loc. The same observation applies with greater or less foree to every interpr. except ‘the Gospel,’ 76 pia ris miorews, Rom. x. 8, the word of God preached and taught preliminary to baptism (comp. notes ch. i, 13); the omission of the article being either referred to the presence of the prep. (Middleton, Gr. Art. VI. 1), or more probably to the fact that words of similarly definite import (¢. g. vouos, xdpls, K. T. Xd.) are frequently found anarthrous; see Winer, G7. § 19. 3, p. 112. (2) Three constructions obviously present themselves ;—(a) with ayidoy; (b) with 7 NovTp@ Tov vVbaros; (c) with Kaa- ploas, or rather with the whole ex- pression, ka0. T. Nourp. T. V6. Of these (a), though adopted by Jerome, and recently maintained by Riick., Winer 3, xii. 19) refers to words 13] Ne fe aS ‘ ’ ’ +9 : , nN QuTos €avTW évdoeov THY EKKANTLAY, My EXOVTAaY oTLAOY 7 = , ) CG ome putida 4 Te THY ToLOVTwY, GAN’ iva (Gr. § 20. 2, p. 125), and Meyer, is seriously opposed to the order of the words, and (if év be considered simply instrumental) introduces an idea (ay. év pn.) which is scarcely doctrinally tenable: the second (b) is plainly in- consistent with the absence of the article, this being a case which is not referable to any of the three cases noticed on ch. i. 15,—appy- the only ones in which, in constructions like the present, the omission can be justi- fied: —the third (c), though not with- out difficulties, is on the whole fairly satisfactory. According to this view €v pjuwate has neither a purely instru- mental, nor certainly a simple modal force (‘verheissungsweise,’ Harl,), but specifies the necessary accompaniment, that in which the baptismal purifica- tion is vouchsafed (comp. John xv. 3), and without which it is not granted: comp. Heb. ix. 22, & aiwate mavTa kabapiterac k.7.\., where the force of the prep. is somewhat similar. 27. Wwatrapactioy| ‘in order that He might present:’ further and more ultimate purpese of éavrov trapédwKev trép a’ris (ver. 25), the full accom- plishment of which must certainly be referred to 6 aiwy 6 wé\X\wy (August., Est.), not to 6 aidy ovros (Chrys, Beng., Harl.), see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 406 (ed. Burt.). Schoettg. appositely cites the Rabbinical interpr. of Cant. i. 5, TINT) IN TNNY, in which the swarthiness is referred to the Synagogue 17 nda [in hee seculo], the comeliness to it NAN pdyya [in seculo futuro]; see Petersen, von der Kirche, 11. 220. The verb wrapa- oT7o7 is here used as in 2 Cor. xi. 2, of the presentation of the bride to the bridegroom,— not of an offering (Harl.; Qe eg Ve Ce 4] ayia Kat GUW- é Rom. xii. 1), which would here be a reference wholly inappropriate. avros éavta] ‘Himself to Himself ;’ not ‘for Himself,’ 7.e. for His joy and glory (Olsh.), but, with local re- ference, ‘to Himself.’ Christ permits neither attendants nor handmaids to present the Bride: He alone presents, He receives. The reading mapaor. airny éavr@ [ Rec. with DEK; most mss, ; Syr. (both); Chrys., Theod.] is rightly rejected on preponderant evi- dence [ABD!FGLN; 15 mss.; Cla- rom., Vulg., Goth., al.; Greek and Lat. Ff.] by most modern editors. évSoEov thy éexkAnolay] ‘ the Church glorious,’ the tertiary predicate évdogov (Donalds. Gr. § 489) being placed em- phatically forward and receiving its further explanation from the partici- pial clause which follows: so, with a correct observance of the order, Copt., £&th., probably Vulg., Clarom., and all the best medern commentators. py exovrav omldov] ‘not having a spot.’ The word omidos (uacpds, pu- mos, Suid.) is a dls Aeyou. in the N. T. (2 Pet. ii. 13), and belongs to later Greek, the earlier expression being kndls, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 28. Lachm., Tisch., Bruder (Concord.), Meyer, and others, still retain the ac- centuation omid\os. As the iota is short (comp. domtdos, Antiph. ap. Anthol. Vol. vi. 252) the accentuation in the text seems most correct; comp. Arcad. Accent. VI. p. 52 (ed. Barker). puta] ‘a wrinkle:’ puris, » cuved- kuopevn odp& Etym. M. ; derived from PTQ, épiw, see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 317. Rugaand ‘wrinkle’ are probably cognate forms; see ib. p. 314, and comp. Diffenbach, Lex, Vol. 1. p- 236. GAA vay] ‘but in order K 2 132 IWIPO2 E®EZIOY=2. ¢ Y lat 8 A 28 fos. ovTws odeiovaw of avdpes ayaray Tas éavTov A A e ~ , e ° ~ 4A e ~ Yvvarkas ws TA €AUTWY DOWKATA. O ayaT wv TyV EAUTOU that it might be;’ change of construc- tion, as if wa uy éxn had preceded: similar exx. of ‘oratio variata’ are cited by Winer, Gr. $63. Il. I, p. 509. On the true meaning of dyla as ap- plied to the Church, see Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. I. p. 403 (Burt.), Jackson, Creed, XII. 4. 3, and on duw- pos, see notes ch. i. 4. The context might here seem to favour the transla- tion ‘omni macula carens’ (comp. Cant. iv. 7), but it seems more correct to say that the first part of the verse presents the conception of purity, dc. in meta- phorical language, the second in words of simply ethical meaning. ; 28. ovtws] ‘Thus,’ ‘in like man- ner; ‘ita, scilicet uti Christus dilexit ecclesiam quemadmodum jam dixi,’ Corn. a Lap. Even if the reading of the Rec. be retained (ovTws d¢. of dvip. ay. K.T.A.; see below), the reference must still clearly be to cafas kal o Xp. «.7.d. ver. 25—27, not as Est. (comp. De W.) suggests, to the fol- lowing ws; this latter construction being contrary, not necessarily ‘to grammatical law’ (Eadie; for comp. John vii. 46, 1 Cor. iv. 1), but to the natural use of ov7ws, of which ‘non alia est vis quam que nature ejus consentanea est, ut eo confirmentur precedentia ;> Herm. Viger, Append. x. p. 747. In passages like 1 Cor. l.c. there is an obvious emphasis, which would here be out of place. The reading is doubtful, as in addition to the former evidence in favour of Rec. [KL; nearly all mss.; Syr., Arm.; Chrys., Theod., al.] that of B (opeld. Kat of dvdpes) and of % may now be urged for the inversion. The authority for the longer and non-in- verted reading, kal of dvdpes ddeidov- ow, viz. ADEFG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Clem., Lat. Ff. (ed. 2, Lachm.), is not inconsiderable, but may perhaps now be rightly con- sidered inferior to that for the text. Os Ta EavTdOv Topara] ‘as (being) their own bodies ;’ not. ‘wie ihre eigen- en Leiber,’ Meier (comp. Alf.), but ‘als ihre eigenen Leiber,’ Luth., Mey. The context clearly implies that Christ loved the Church not merely just as (comparatively) He loved His own body (scil. ws éavrdév, Schoettg.), but as being His own body, the body of which He is the Head. In the hortatory applica- tion therefore @s must have a similarly semi-argumentative force; otherwise, as Harl. remarks, we should have two comparisons, the one with otrws, the other with ws, which would mar the perspicuity of the passage. In the present view, on the contrary, the dis- tinction is logically preserved: otrws alone introduces the comparison; ws with its regular and proper force marks the aspects (see notes on ver. 22) in which the wives were to be regarded (‘as being, in the light of, their own bodies’), and thus tacitly supplies to the exhortation an argu- ment arising from the acknowledged nature of the case. For a defence of the simple comparative use of ws, see Alf. in loc. 6 ayaTrov K.T.A.] ‘He that loveth his own wife loveth himself ;’ explanation of the preceding — The Apostle’s argument rests on the axiom that a man’s wife is a part of his very self. Husbands are to love them as being thus their love to them is in fact self-love; it is not Kar’ dopey, but kara prow. ws TH EauTov cw. their own bodies: V3 28) D9, “30! 133 “ e A 2) ~ ° 4 , ~ yuvaika éauTov ayaTa: ovdels yao ToTe THY EavTOU 29 , 4 , gTapKa eulonoev, Gra ext pepe kal Oadre avriy, Kabus 4A = 4 4 ° , Kat oO Xpirros THv eKKAnoLaY’ 29. ovSels yap K.7.d.] ‘For no one ever hated; confirmation and proof of the position just laid down, 6 dyamdv x.T.r.: first, it is ultimately based on a general law of nature, ovdels more k.T.X. (‘insitam nobis esse corporis nostri caritatem,’ Senec. Hpist. 14, cited by Grot.); secondly, it is sug- gested by the example of Christ, Kabws kal 6 Xp, x.t.’. The whole argument then seems to run, ‘ Men. ought to love their wives as Christ loves His Church, as being in fact (I might add) their own (éavrav) bodies ; yes, I say the man who loves his wife loves himself (éauvrév); for if he hated her he would hate (according to the axiom in ver. 28) his own flesh, where- as, on the contrary, unless he acts against nature, he nourishes it, even as (to urge the comparison again) Christ nourishes His Church.’ Tv éavTod odpKa] ‘His own flesh.’ This word appears undoubtedly to -have been chosen in preference to o®pua, on account of the allusion to Gen. ii. 23, which is still further sus- tained by the longer reading of ver. 30 and the quotation in ver. 31. GANG extpéper] ‘but nourisheth,’ ‘mi- nisters to its outward growth and development.’ The prep. does not ap- pear intensive (‘valde nutrit,’ Beng.), but marks the evolution and develop- ment produced by the tpé~ew: comp. Xen. (con. XVII. 10, €xrpépew thy viv To orépya eis Kapmov. Kal Oddret] ‘and cherisheth; ‘fovet,’ Vulg., Clarom.,—more derivatively, Deno [et curat] Syr., sim. Aith.- Platt, ‘solicite conservat;’ Meyer e¢ , 3 A ~ OTL MeAn EgMEV TOV 30 maintains the literal meaning, ‘warm- eth’ (comp. Goth. ‘varmeip’), citing Beng., ‘id spectat amictum, ut nutrit victum.’ This seems however here an interpr. far too definite and realistic: Od\rew certainly primarily and pro- perly implies ‘to warm,’ but still may, as its very etymological affinities (@n\7, Odw) suggest, bear the secondary meaning, ‘to cherish,’ the fostering warmth of the breast (comp. Theocr. Idyll. xtv. 38) being the connecting idea; see r Thess. ii, 7, ws éav Tpodpds Oddy Ta EauTas Téxva. Ka0ds Kal K.7T.A.] ‘ven as Christ the Chaureh,’ scil. éxrpéper kal Oaddrret, with general reference to the tender love of Christ towards His Church. Any special applications (‘nutrit eam verbo et Spiritu, vestit virtutibus,’ Grot.) seem doubtful and precarious. The reading of Rec. (6 Kupios thy éxkX.) rests only on D?KL; majority of mss. ; Dam., Cicum., and is rightly rejected by nearly all modern editors. 30. Ori péAy eopév] ‘because we are members ;’ reason why Christ thus nourishes and cherishes His Church. The position of wé\y seems emphatic; ‘members, —not accidental, but in- tegral parts of His body (Mey.), united to Him not only as members of His mystical body, the Church, but by the more mysterious marital relation in which Christ in His natural and now glorified body stands to His Church. On the important dogmatical applica- tion of this passage to the Holy Com- munion, see Waterland, Hucharist, ch. vil. Vol. Iv. p. 600, 608, and comp. J. Johnson, Works, Vol. II. p. 129 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 134 IPO2 E®EZIOY2. , Si! Seen 49: A A Sec en) A , TWUATOS AUTOV, EK THS oTapkos QUTOU KQl €K TWY OoTEWV 30. €k THs capKds avTod, Kal éx Tv ocréwy avtod] Tisch. (ed. 2) and Lachm. omit these words, with ABN!; 17. 67**; Copt., Aith. (both); Method. (2), Ambrst. (Mill, Prolegom. p. 69). The external authorities for their insertion are DEFGKLN’; nearly all mss., and Vv.; Iren., Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. ; Hier., al. (Rec., Scholz, Harl., Mey., De W. (?), Alf., Words.,—to which now may be added Tisch., ed. 7). The preponderance of external authority (owing to the divided nature of the testimony of &) is perhaps still in favour of the text; paradiplomatic considerations (see Pref. to Galat. p. xxii, ed. 3) also suggest the probability of an accidental omission, from the transcriber’s eye having fallen on the third av’rod instead of the first; and lastly, internal consi- derations seem to suggest that the words, if an insertion from the LX X, would have been cited more exactly, while the omission might so easily have arisen from the appy. material conception presented by the clause. we still retain the longer reading. ék THS TapKes K.T.A.] ‘being of His flesh and of His bones; more exact specification of the foregoing words, éx with its primary and proper force pointing to the origin to which we owe our spiritual being; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 16. The true and proper meaning of these profound words has been much obscured by a neglect of their strict reference to the context, and by the substitution of deductions and applications for the simple and grammatical interpretation. We must thus set aside all primary reference to the sacraments (Theod.), to the Holy Communion (Olsh.), to Baptism (comp. Chrys.), and certainly to the crucifixion (‘per corporis ejus et san- guinis pretium redempti,’ Vatabl. ap. Poli Syn.). A reference to the évodp- kwots (Iren. He. v. 2) is plausible, but untenable; for Christ, thus con- sidered, is of our flesh, not we of His, John i. 14; and even if this be ex- plained away (‘quia in hac natura ipse caput est,’ Est., comp. Stier), the reference would have to be extended to all mankind, not, as the context requires, limited to the members of Christ’s Church. The most simple On these grounds and natural view then (comp. Chrys., Beng., Mey.) seems to be this, that the words are cited in substance from Gen. ii. 23, to convey this profound truth,—that our real spiritual being and existence is as truly, as certainly, and as actually (not wozmep, Theod.- Mops., but yvyoiws €& abrov, Chrys.) ‘a true native extract from His own body’ (Hooker), as was the physical derivation of Eve from Adam; see esp. the forcible language of Hooker, Zecl. Pol. v. 56. 7, and comp. Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, -ch. m1. § 2, 3, and the good note of Wordsw. in loc. This is the general truth, which of course admits a forcible secondary application to the sacraments (comp. Kahnis, Abendm. p. 143 sq.): we may truly say with Waterland, ‘the true and firm basis for the economy of man’s salvation is this, that in the sacra- ments we are made and continued members of Christ’s body, of His flesh and of His bones. Our union with the Deity rests entirely in our mystical union with our Lord’s humanity, which is personally united with His divine nature, which is essentially united with God the Father, the head Wa eat. 135 ae ’ ‘ , ’ ” , ‘ QuTOU. GAVYTL TOUVTOU KaTaNeirpet avOpwmos TATEDGa Kal 31 4 A n Mnrépa Kat TpooKkovAAnOyceT at ™ pos THY Yyuvaika avrot, and fountain of all,’ Charge, A.D. 1739, Vol. v. p. 212. These are weighty words. 31. dytl rovtov] ‘ For this cause; évexey Tovrou, Gen. ii. 24. The mean- ing is practically the same: ayv7t passes by a natural transition from its pri- mary idea of local opposition (Xen. Anab, 1V. 7. 6) through that of cownter- change (see Winer, Gi. § 47. a, p. 326) to that of mere ethical relation. It can scarcely be doubted that this verse is nothing more than a free citation from Gen. ii. 24, dv7l taking the place of évexey, and referring to the same fact, the derivation of woman from man, which is clearly presup- posed in the allusions of ver. 30. Meyer with punctilious accuracy re- fers dvti rovrov to the words im- mediately preceding, and gives the passage a directly mystical interpreta- tion in reference to the final and future union of Christ with His Church. Somewhat differently and more pro- bably, Chrys., Theod., Theoph., Jer., refer to Christ’s coming in the flesh : compare Taylor, Serm. Xvi. 1, ‘Christ descended from His Father’s bosom and contracted His divinity with flesh and blood, and married our nature, and we became a church;’ see Beng. To denounce summarily such an interpr. as ‘wild and visionary’ in loc. (Eadie), seems alike rash and incon- siderate. That St Paul adduces the verse as containing a definite alle- gorical meaning, may perhaps be con- sidered doubtful; but that St Paul intended his readers to make some such application, seems to have been the general opinion of the early com- mentators, is by no means incompa- tible with the context, and cannot be confidently denied: see Alf. in loc. Thus then, in a certain sense, we may with Hofmann (Weiss. wu. Erf. Vol. 1. p- 71) recognise in this the first pro- phecy in Scripture; ‘primus vates Adam,’ Jer. kaToNelper K.T.A. | ‘shall a man leave father and mother.’ Mey. presses the tense somewhat un- necessarily, as referring to something yet to come. Even if in the original passage it designate something posi- tively future, there is no reason why in this application and free citation it may not state not only what wl/, but whatever shall and ought to happen: on this ethical force of the future, see Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 250, Thiersch, de Pent. II. 11, p. 158 sq. The longer reading of Rec. Tov rar. avrov kal Thy wnt. is fairly supported [AD*EKLN} (omitting a’7.)&*; most mss.; Syr., Copt., al.; Orig., al.], but is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., Mey., al., as a conformation to the LXX; see especially the critical comment of Origen, cited by Tisch. in loc. TpOTKOAX. Tpds TIV YUV. avt.] ‘shall be closely joined unto his wife: comp. Matth. xix. 5, Ko\An67- ceTat TH yuvatkl avrod, where the dat. is used, but with little difference of meaning. On the close affinity be- tween the dat. and the accus. with eis and mpés, and their interchange in many passages, see Winer, Gr. § 31. 5, p- 190. The reading however is doubtful; Zachm. maintains the dat. with AD! E!FGN! (om. avrov); 3 mss.; Meth., Epiph. (compare 1 Cor. vi. 16); but owing to the fair evidence for the text [BD3EKLN*; nearly all mss.; Orig., Chrys., Theod.], and the distinct notice by Origen (see Tisch. in loc.), the accus. with zpos (Tisch., Mey., al.) is perhaps slightly more probable. 136 IIPOz A o 4 « ou 3 i , 32 Kat EvovTal OL OVO ets GapKa play. E®EZIOY2. 4A TO pvoTnpLoV “A , ° , ra MS \ , 9 \ A 5) ‘ TOUTO Meya ETT, Eyw dé Aéyw els Xpirrov kai es THv 32. TO puvoripiov K.T.A.] ‘This mystery is great, sc, deep.’ explanatory comment on the preceding verse. But what mystery? The answer is not easy, as four antecedents are pos- sible ;—(a) the text immediately pre- ceding; 70 elpnuévor, TO yeypappeévor, Stier, Meyer, comp. Chrys., Theodo- rus;—(b) the whole preceding sub- ject, the strict parallelism between the conjugal relation and that between Christ and His Church ;—(c) the spi- ritual purport, ‘non matrimonium humanum sed ipsa conjunctio Christi et ecclesiz,’ Beng. ;—(d) the simple purport and immediate subject of the text, ‘arctissima illa conjunctio viri et mulieris,’ Est. Of these (a), though not otherwise untenable, involves a meaning of puuoryjpiov which cannot be substantiated by St Paul’s use of the word; wuor. being only used by the Apostle to imply either something not cognizable by (ch. i. 9, iii. 4, and appy. vi. 19), or not fully comprehen- sible by unassisted human reason (1 Cor. xiv. 2, 1 Tim. iii. 9, 16), but not, as here (compare Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. I. p. 783), ‘a passage containing an allegorical import:’ see Tholuck, Rom. xi. 25, and comp. Lobeck, Aglaoph. Vol. 1. p. 85, 89. Of the rest (b) and (c) are less plausible, as in both cases—more especially in the latter—the remark éyw 6é Néyw k.7.X. would seem superfluous and the force of the pronoun obscure. On the whole then (d) seems best to harmonize with the context. Thus then ver. 29 states the exact similarity (ka@ws) of the relationship; ver. 30 the ground of the relation in regard of Christ and the Church; ver. 31 the nature of the conjugal relation, with a probable ap- plication also to Christ; ver. 32 the mystery of that conjugal relation in itself, and still more so in its typical application to Christ and to His Church. It is needless to observe that the words cannot possibly be urged in favour of the sacramental nature of marriage (Concil. Trid. XXIV. init.), but it may fairly be said that the very fact of the comparison (see Olsh.) does place marriage on a far holier and higher basis than modern theories are disposed to admit: see Harl. in loc., and for two good ser- mons on this text, Bp. Taylor, Serm. XVII. XvUI, Vol. 1. p. 705 sq. (Lond. 1836). éy@ St Aéyw] ‘but I am speaking ;? antithetical comment on the foregoing; éy® having no spe- cial reference to his own celibacy (comp. Stier), but, as De W. admits, marking, and that with emphasis, the subjective character of the application and comparison (Winer, Gir. § 22. 6, p- 138, ed. 6), while the slightly op- positive dé contrasts it with any other interpretation that might have been adduced (Mey.): ‘the mystery of this closeness of the conjugal relation is great, but I am myself speaking of it in its still deeper application, in refe- rence to Christ and the Church;’ néya dvTws uvaoTHpLoy, Tews WevTOL els Kpiorov €xhauBdverat, map €uov TodT4, pyow, ws mpopynTiKWs meptl avtod exbér: Theoph. On the general use of \éyw 6é, formula ‘explanandi atque pressius eloquendi ea quze antea obscurius erant dicta,’ see Raphel on 1 Cor. i. 12, and notes on Gal. iv. 1. eis Xp.] ‘in reference to; not ‘of,’ Conyb., still less ‘in Christo,’ Vulg., but ‘in Chris- tum,’ Beza (comp. Alth., Syr.-Phil.), the preposition correctly marking the ethical direction of the speaker’s words; comp. Acta ii. 25, and see Wit42,, 33 V EN 2. exkAnolay. 137 A A ¢ a e 3 4 @ A TAnY Kal vmets of Kal’ Eva ExacTos THY 33 e lal a e 5) , e e if e Oc .e E€QAUTOU Yyuvarka OUTWS ayaTaTw WS EAUTOV, 9 OE yuvy lva poBira Tov avdpa. Children, obey and ho- nour your parents ac- Ta réxva, vrakoveTe Tois Yyovevouw Vi, cording to God’s commandment: fathers, pro- voke not your children, but edueate them holily. Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354, and notes on 2 Thess. i. 11. The prep. is owitted by BK; 10 mss.; Iren., Epiph., Marc., and is bracketed by Lachm., but without sufficient reason, _as the external authorities against it are weak, and the probability of an omission, from not being understood, by no means slight. 33. wArnv] ‘Nevertheless, i.e. not to press the mystical bearings of the subject any further; the particle not being resumptive (Beng., Olsh.), but in accordance with its primary mean- ing, comparative, and thence contrast- ing and slightly adversative; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 725, Donalds. Gr. § 548. 33, and esp. notes on Phil. i. 18. kal duets ot Kad’ eva] ‘Ye also severally; ye also—as well as Christ towards His Church. The plural thus specified by the distributive of kad’ éva, ‘vos singuli’ (comp. 1 Cor, xiv. 27, 31, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. d. b, p. 357), passes easily and naturally into the singular in the concluding member of the sentence. On the strik- ing equivalence of xara with ava in nearly all its meanings (here evinced in the distributive use), see esp. Do- nalds. Cratyl. § 183 sq. Os éavtoy] ‘as himself,’ scil. ‘as being one with himself,’ see notes on ver. 28. a 88 yuvi| K.7.A.] ‘and the wife (I bid) that she fear her husband:’ emphatic specification (with slight contrast) of the duties of the wife; 7 yuvi being a simple and emphatic nominative abso- lute (Mey.; contra Hadie,—but erro- neously), though not of a kind so definitely unsyntactic as Acts vii, 40 and exx. cited by Winer (Gr. § 28. 3, p. 207, ed. 5; see p. 509, ed. 6), and most probably dependent, not on an imper., but on some verb of command which can easily be supplied from the context; see Meyer on 2 Cor, viii. 7, Fritz. Diss. in 2 Cor. p. 126, Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 365 (ed. 5). Alford sup- plies ‘I order,’ or ‘let her see,’ refer- ring to his note on 2 Cor. J. ¢., where I Cor. xvi. 10 is cited as illustrative: this is not fully in point, as the subject of the imperative and the subjunctive is not the same: more pertinent is Soph. Gd. Col. 156, where, as Ellendt cor- rectly observes, ‘ @vAaéar adsignifica- tum habet loquentis consilium; hec tibi dico ne, &e.,’ Lex. Soph, Vol. 1. p. 840. CHAPTER VI. 1. traxovere k.7.A. | ‘obey your parents in the Lord; & Kupiw (Christ,—not God, as Chrys., Theod.; compare ch. iv. 7, v. 21) as usual denoting the sphere to which the action is to be limited (not for xara Kup., Chrys.), and obviously belong- ing, not to Tots yovevouv, nor to Tots you. and to imax. (comp. Orig. Cat.), but simply to the latter,—serving thus to define and characterize the nature and possibly the limits of the obedience ; €v ois dv uh mpookpovons [Kuplw], Chrys. On the more exact nature of these limits (here however perhaps not very defi- nitely hinted at; comp. Alf.), see Tay- lor, Duct. Dub. 11. 5, Rule 1 and 4 sq. The reading is somewhat doubtful, as év Kuplw is omitted by ZLachm. on fair authority [BD!FG; Clarom., Sang., Aug., Boern.; Clem., al.]. The exter- 138 IIPOS E®ESIOY2. e A ’ , a , > , ’ 4 2 UMWY EV Kupi@ TOUTO ya2e €OTLV OLKaLOV. TLUa TOV , 4 A , er t) 4A ) A TATENA TOU KAL THV MNTEPA, NTL ETTLY evTOAY TPOTY ° , ® , We 3 ev erayyeNla, va ev cor YyévnTat Kal Eon Makpoxpovios nal authorities however for its inser- tion [AD?D§EKLN; and Vv.; Chrys. (expressly), Theod. ] seem clearly to predominate, and the nearly all mss. internal arguments are in its favour, as if it had come from Col. ili. 20 it would have been inserted after dicacov: see Meyer, p. 238. TOUTO yap eat Six. ‘for this is right ;’ not merely mpémov, nor merely kata Tov TOU Ocod véuov (Theod.), but ‘in accord- ance with nature’ (réxva...yovetow), and, as the next verse shows, the law of God: vouou mpootdocerar’ Theoph. ; comp. Col. iii. 20. On the position of children in the early church, and the relation such texts bear to infant baptism, see Stier, Reden Jes. Vol. VI. p. 924 sq. 2. tha KT.A.] ‘ Honour thy father ’ specification of the Kal pice: Slkacov, Kal vd TOD and thy mother ; commandment as an additional con- firmation of the foregoing precept, and as supplying the reason on which it was based. Had dikacov referred only to this command, some causal particle would more naturally have been ap- pended. As it stands however, the solemn recitation of the commandment blends the voice of God with that of nature. Hts] ‘the which? the pronoun not having here a strong- ly causal, but rather an explanatory force ; Tpoty év érayyeAla] ‘the first in re- gard of promise,’ scil. ‘as a command of promise;’ comp. Syr. betes wee) [primum quod pr ormititon see notes on (ral. ii. 4, iv. 24. not ometly* with promise,’ Beza, Alf., al., as the prep. here seems naturally used not so much to state the accom- paniment as to specify the exact point in which the predication of mpwrn was to be understood; so rightly Chrys. (ob ry Tage [in regard of order,’ notes on (ral. i. 22] elrev atthny mpw- Tv, GANA TH éwayyeNia), and expressly Winer, (77. § 48. a. obs. p. 349. Meyer cites Diodor. Sic. XTII. 37, &v 6é evye- vela kal moUT@ mporos. Some little difficulty has been found in the use of mpwTn, owing to the 2nd command- ment seeming to involve a kind of promise; see Orig. Cat. If this be considered as not a definite émrayyeNla (Calv.), still mpaéry would seem un- usual, as the fifth commandment would then be the only one which has a pro- mise: nor would the assumption that it is ‘first’ on the second table (not such a recent division as Meyer after Erasm. seems to think, see Philo, de Special. Legg. Vol. 1. p. 300, ed. Mang.) re- lieve the difficulty, as the same objec- tion would still remain. We may perhaps best explain the statement of priority by referring it, not to all other foregoing commands (Harl.), but to all the other Mosaic commands (Mey.) of which the decalogue forms naturally the chief and prominent portion; simply then ‘the first com- mand we meet with which involves a promise.’ It may be observed that the article is not needed with mpros, ordinals being from their na- ture sufficiently definite; comp. Acts xvi. 12, and see Middleton, Greek Art. VI. 3, Pp. 100. 3. va ed cou k.t.Ar.] ‘in order that it may be well with thee; a slightly varied citation from the LX X, Exod. xx. 12, Deut. v. 16, kal wa paKxpoxpdvios yévyn éml THs yas [ris dyabjs, Exod.] 7s Kvpios 6 Oeds wva e0 cor yévnrat Vite, & emt TIS Yijs. 139 Kai of rarépes, wn mapopyiCere Ta 4 , Coen ’ A 5) , DLEEN ’ } , ‘ Texva umov, adda exTpepeTe avTAa eV TaLdELa Kal VvoU- Becia Kupi ou. gov dldwot co. The omission of the latter words can scarcely haye arisen from the Apostle’s belief that his hearers and readers (Gentiles) were so familiar with the rest of the quotation, that it would be unnecessary to cite it (see Mey.); for thus 77s ys must be translated ‘the land’ (of Canaan,— simply and historically, Mey.) and the promise denuded of all its significance to Christian children. It is far more probable (see Kadie) that the omission was intended to generalize the com- mand, and that, not merely ‘ toti genti’ (Beng.), nor in typical ref. to heaven (Hamm., Olsh., see Barrow, Decal. Vol. vi. 524), but simply and plainly, to individuals, subject of course to the conditions which always belong to such temporal promises; see Leigh- ton, Hxpos. of Command, p. 487 (Edinb. 1845). Kal toy pakp. | ‘and (that) thow be long-lived,’ ‘ et sis longevus,’ Vulg. The future is com- monly explained as a lapse into the ‘oratio directa’ (comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. b. 1, p. 258), but is more probably to be regarded as dependent on iva (so Vulg., Aith., Arm., all of which use the subjunct.),—a construction which though not found in Attic Greek (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 630) certainly does occur in the N.T. (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18, Rey. xxii. 14, and see Winer, l.c.), harmonizes perfectly with the classical use of dzws (see the nume- rous exx. cited by Gayler, Partic. Neg. p- 209, sq.), and is here eminently simple and natural; comp. Mey. in loc. Whether however we can here recognise a ‘logical climax’ (Mey.), is doubtful: the future undoubtedly does often express the more lasting and certain result (compare Rev. J. c., where the single act is expressed by the aor. subj., the lasting act by the future); still, as the present formula occurs in substance in Deut. xxii. 7 (Alex.), and might have thence become a known form of expression, it seems better not to press the future further than as representing the temporal evo- lution of the e& yevécOac. 4. Katoi marépes] ‘And ye fathers ; corresponding address to the parents in the persons of those who bore the domestic rule, the marépes: comp. Meyer in loc. Bengel remarks on the presence of the kai here and ver. 9, and its absence in ch. v. 25; ‘ facilius parentes et heri abutuntur potestate sud quam mariti.’ This distinction is perhaps over-pressed: kal here and ver. 9 introduces a marked and quick appeal (see Hartung, Partik. cal, 5.7, Vol. 1. 149), and also marks that the obligation was not all on one side, but that the superior a/so had duties which he owed to the inferior. The duty is then expressed negatively and _posi- tively. pq tapopy(tere] ‘provoke not to wrath ; see Col. iii. 21, ph épebifere Ta Téxva (Rec., Tisch.) : negative side of exhortation (ov« efzrev ayamare a’td, TovTO yap Kal dKkovTwr pvows ériomaGrat’ Chrys.), not with reference to any stronger acts such as by disinheriting, dc. (Chrys.), but, as Alf. rightly suggests, by all the vexa- tious circumstances which may occur in ordinary intercourse; Gepamrevew Kat pn Nutretv €xéXevoe’ Theod. extpéhete] ‘bring up, educate; in an ethical sense, xad@s éxtpéper marip dixawos, Prov. xxiii. 24; frequently so in Plato; comp. Polyb. Hist. 1. 65. 7, éy mawdelas Kal vouos éxTeOpaypevwr (Winer). In ch. v. 29 the reference 140 IIPOZ E®EZIOY2. A a , 5 Oi dott, brakovere Tots KUPLOLS’ “gervantatoney fand Q , 8 , 4 , > KaATa TapKa MeTa poBou KQ@el T POMOu, €V faithfully do your duty to your mas- ters as unto Christ, and ye shall receive your reward: masters, do the like in return. is simply physical, but the force of the compound is the same in both pas- sages; see notes in loc. & tradela Kal vovderiq] ‘in the disci- pline and admonition ; ‘in disciplina et correptione,’ Vulg.; not instrumen- tal, but as usual ‘in the sphere and influence of; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p- 346 note. These two words are not related to one another as the general (ra.d.) to the special (Harl., Mey.), but specify the two methods in the Christian education of children, train- ing by act and discipline, and training by word; so Trench, Synon. § 32, and before him Grot., ‘ aac6. hic significare videtur institutionem per pandas ; vovd. autem est ea institutio que fit verbis.’ This Christian meaning of radevw and ma.dela, ‘per molestias eruditio’? (Au- gust.), seems occasionally faintly hint- ed at in earlier writers; comp. Xen. Mem. I. 3. 5, and Polyb. Hist. 11. 9g. 6, where the adverb a48\a8Gs marks that the madevew was a word that needed limitation. On the latter form voufecta instead of vovférnots, see Moeris, Lew. p- 248 (ed. Koch), Lobeck, Phryn. p- 512, 520. Kvplov] ‘ Of the Lord,’ subjecti,—belonging to the general category of the possessive geni- tive, and specifying the Lord (Christ) as Him by whom the vovdecia and ma.seia were, so to say, prescribed, and by whose Spirit they must be regulated ; so Harl., Olsh., Mey. The gen. objecti ‘about the Lord’ (‘monitis ex verbo Dei petitis,’ Beza), though apparently adopted by all the Greek commentators (comp. Theod. 7a Oeta madevew), seems far less satisfactory. Meyer reads tod Kuplov, but, as it would seem, by accident: there is no trace of such a reading in any of the critical editions. 5. Tots kuplots kata odpKa] ‘your masters according to the flesh; kata odpka here, as in Col. iii. 22 (where it precedes xvup.), serving to define and qualify «vplos, ‘your bodily, earthly masters:’ comp. notes on ch. i. 19, li. 11. Both here and Col. J. ¢. (where the mention of 6 Kvpcos imme- diately follows) the adverbial epithet would seem to have been suggested by the remembrance of the different re- lation they stood in to another Master, TO KaTa mveiua Kal Kara cdpxa Kup. Whether anything consolatory (kara cdpka éotly 7 deomorela, mpdoKatpos Kat Bpaxeta’ Chrys.) or alleviating (‘ma- nere illis nihilominus intactam liber- tatem spiritualem,’ Calv.) is further couched in the addition, is perhaps doubtful (see Harl.), still both, espe- cially the latter, are obviously deduc- tions which must have been, and which the Apostle might possibly have intended to be made. On the stricter but here neglected distinction between Kvptos and deo7dérns, see Trench, Synon. § 28. Lachm. places xara odpxa before xupios with ABN; 10 mss.; Clem., Chrys. (1), Dam., al.,—but such a position is rejected by Tisch. and most recent editors, as so probable a conformation to Col. iii. 22. peta oBov Kal tpdpov] ‘with fear and trembling.’ By comparing 1 Cor. li. 3, 2 Cor. vii. 15, Phil. ii. 12, where the two words are united, it does not seem that there is any allusion to the ‘durior servorum conditio’ (Wolf, Beng., comp. Chrys.), but only to the ‘anxious solicitude’ they ought to feel about the faithful performance of their duties; comp. Hamm. on Phil. ii. 12, where however the idea of razreivo- WEe5s 6. 141 e , ~ , e ~ e “~ “feet a , aTAOTHTL TIS Kapolas ULWY, WS TH Xpicre- bn Kat 6 opOadpodourciay ws avOpwmdperkot, GAN’ we dovrAoL X pis rod, mo.ouvtes TO OeAnua Tov Oeov ex rbvyijs, gpootvn (Hamm.) is not so prominent as that of distrust of their own powers, anxiety that they could not do enough: see notes i loc. év dtAOryTL THs Kapdlas] ‘in single- ness of heart ;’ ‘in simplicitate cordis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr.; which their anxious and _ solicitous obedience was to be shown: it was to be no hypocritical anxiety, but one arising from a sincere and single heart ; Kan@s elrev, ue yap meta . Kal Tp. element in dovAevew, ok é€& edvolas 5é, aXN ws dv é£9° Chrys. The term am\é77s occurs seven times (2 Cor. i. 12 is doubtful) in the N.T., always in St Paul’s Epp., and in all marks that openness and sincerity of heart (not per se ‘libera- lity,’ see the good note of Fritz. Rom. Vol. 111. p. 62) which repudiates duple- city in thought (2 Cor. xi. 3) or action (Rom. xii. 8). It is joined with axakla (Philo, Opif. § 41, p. 38, § 55, p- 61), and dyaGérns (Wisd. i. 1), and is opposed to rokiia (Plato, Rep. 404 E), ToAutpomia (comp. Hipp. Min. 365 B, where Achilles is contrasted with Ulysses), kaxoupyla, and xaxon- Ocia (Theoph., Theod., in loc.); see Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. p. 436, and Trench, Synon. Part m0. § 6; comp. Tittm. Synon. p. 29, and on the scrip- tural aspects of singleness of heart, Beck, Seelenl. 111. § 26, p. 105 sq. 6. pa kat dpBarpoSovrclay] ‘not in the way of eye-service; further spe- cification on the negative side of the preceding év am)ér., the prep. with its usual force designating the rule or ‘normam agendi,’ which in this case they were not to follow; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 358. The word ép0adp06. appears to have been coined by St Paul, being only found here and Col. iii. 22: the adj. é6¢0adud- dovdos occurs in Constitut. Apost. Vol. I. p. 299 A (ed. Cotel.), but in refe- rence to this passage. is well expressed by Clarom., Vulg., ‘non ad oculum servientes’ (comp. The meaning Syr.), the ref. being primarily to the master’s eye (uy povov TwapbyTwv Tar decmorav Kal dpHvTwy adda Kal arédv- twv’ Theoph.; compare Xen. (con. XII. 20); the word therefore meaning generally, as here, 7 ovx €& etAcxpwobs Kapdias mpocpepomevn Oepateia, adda TO oxHaTe Kexpwonevn Theod. The more correct form seems 6¢@@ahuodov- Ma, see L. Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. Vol. v. p. 1088, 2446. avOpwmdperkor] “men-pleasers ;’ 6 Oeds duecképmicev d0T& avOpwrapéckwy’ Ps. lili. 6. Lobeck (Phryn. p. 621) re- marks on the questionable forms evd- peokos, Suodpeckos, but excepts avOpw- TpETKOS. GAN as Sotko. Xp.] ‘but as bondservants of Christ ;? contrasted term to avépw- mdp.; Tks yap Oeot SoddAos wy avOpw- mows apéoxe BovheTar; Tis dé avOpw- Tous apéokwy Oeov divarar elvar dovdos ; Chrys.: comp. ver. 7, where the op- position is more fully seen. Rickert removes the stop after Xp., thus re- garding owiytes as the principal member in the opposition, dodo. Xp. only a subordinate member which gives the reason and foundation of it. This, though obviously harsh, and completely marring the studied an- tithesis between dv@pwmrdpecxo. and dodho Xpiorov, is reintroduced by Tisch. (ed. 7), but properly rejected by other recent editors. | The article before Xpicrod (Rec. with D3EKL ; 142 IIPOZ E®EZIOY2. 7 Mer’ evvolas dovAevoytes ws TH Kupio cat ovk avOpo- most mss.; Chrys., Theod.] is rightly struck out by Lachm., Tisch., al., on preponderant external authority. movovytes K.T.A,] ‘doing the will of God from the soul,’ participial clause defining the manner in which their dovreia to Christ was to be exhibited in action, The qualifying words ékx Yuxjs are prefixed by Syr., Auth.- Platt, Arm., Chrys., and some recent editors and expositors (Lachm., Alf., De W., Harl., al.) to the participial clause which follows, but more natu- rally, and it would seem correctly, con- nected by Clarom. (where é« wWuxfs concludes the orlyos), Copt., ith. - Pol., Syr.-Phil., Auth. (Tisch., Wordsw., Mey., al.), with the present participial clause. Far from there being thus any tautology (De W.), there is rather a gentle climactic explanation of the characteristics of the do9\. Xp.; he does his work heartily, and besides feels a sincere good-will to his mas- ter: comp. Col. iii. 23, éx Wuxfs épyd- gece, which, though claimed by De W. as supporting the other punctua- tion, is surely more in favour of that of the text. On the varied uses of yux7 (here in ref. to the inner prin- ciple of action), see Delitzsch, Psychol. Iv. 6, p. 159 sq. 7. «per evvolas Sovd.] ‘with good will doing service ;’ further specifica- tion of the nature and character of the service; er’ e’volas implying not merely ‘lubenti animo’ (Grinf. N. 7’. Ed. Hell.), but ‘cum benignitate,’ Clarom., ‘cum cogitatione bona,’ Copt., in reference to the well-disposed (‘ well- affected,’ Eadie) mind with which the service was to be performed. Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 489) very appositely cites Xen. con. XU. 5, ovKobv etivovay mpwtov, epnv éyw, dejoee adroy [Tov éritporov| éxew oot Kal Tots cots et veo apkécew dvtl cod mapwy. dvev yap evvolas Th bpedos; K.T.rX. This quotation certainly seems to confirm the distinction made by Harl. (to which Mey. objects), that while éx Wux7js seems to mark the relation of the servant to his work, mer’ evvolas points to his relation to his master: so also the author of the Constit. A post. IV. 22, etvo.ray eiapepérw mpds Tov decrérny’ Vol. 1. p. 302 (ed. Cotel.): see exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. I. p. 228. The Atticists define ety. as both dd Tov welfovos mpos Tov EXdTTova and vice versd, etwévera as only the former, see Thom. Mag. p. 368 (ed. Jacobitz), and exx. in Wetst. in loe. The insertion of ws before 7g Kup. [Rec. omits with D?EKL; mss.; Theod., al.] is supported by preponderant au- thority. 8. iSdres] ‘seeing ye know; cluding participial member, giving the encouraging reason (apddpa Oappety mept THs dmworBqs’ Chrys.) why they were to act with this honesty and dili- gence. The imperatival translation, ‘atque scitote’ (Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p- 491), is not grammatically tenable (comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, p. 313), and mars the logical connexion of the clauses. The translation of participles, © it may be observed, must always be modified by the context; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, p. 307, but correct there what cannot be termed otherwise than the erroneous observation that such participles admit of a translation by means of relatives: the observation so often illustrated in these commenta- ries—that a participle without the article can never be strictly translated as a part. with the article—appears to be of universal application; see > con- ; N74 8,0. 143 ° 07 ° tr) OMT? 4 ay, b) , TOs ELOOTES OTL O €QV TL EKADTOS TOlYTH a aQov 8 b] ‘ b] an c \ ~ ToUTO KouiceTat Tapa Kupiov, etre OovAos e’re éAevOc- pos- 8. 6 édv te Exacros] So Tisch. with KL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), al. ; Chrys. (3), but dvOp. for éx. (2), Theod. (adds jyév), Dam., Theoph., Cicum. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer). The easiest, arid therefore sus- Picious reading, éav moujo. €xacros, is found in & (4 6 édv), while of the invert- ed readings, ék. édv ru is supported by B, and ék. 6 éav by strong external au- thority, viz. by. AE(D'FG dv); many mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.; Bas., al. (Lachm., Riick., Wordsw.); still the internal arguments derived from para- diplomatic (see Pref. to Gal. p. xxii, ed. 3) considerations are so decided that we seem fully authorized in retaining:the reading of Tisch. The example is instructive, as it would seem the numerous variations can all be referred either to (a) correction, or (b) error in transcription, or both united. For example, (a) the tmesis seems to have suggested a correction 6 Tx édy, and then, on ac- count of the juxtaposition of ér 6 71, the further correction of AB, al. Again it is (b) not improbable that owing to homecoteleuton, 6 édy ru was in some mss. accidentally omitted, and that the unintelligible reading 671 ékacros roujon then received various emendations: thus we may account for the insertion of 6 édy ris (1. 27. 31), édv Tus (62. 179), edv Te, (46. 115), 6 édv (23. 47), be- tween 67c and éx., all of which have this value, that they attest the position A e , . ‘ he en - A 5 Kai OL Kuplol, TA QUTA TOLELTE T pos auTous, ce) of €xaor. adopted in the text. esp. Donalds. Gr. § 490. 0 éav tUK.T.A.] ‘whatsoever good thing each man shall have done; éav coa- lescing with the relative and being in such connexions used simply for dy both by writers in the N T., LXX, and date Greek generally. In the pas- sages collected by Viger (Jdiom. vu. 6) from classical authors dy clearly must be written throughout; see Herm. in loc. and Winer, Gr. § 42. 6. obs. p. 277. The relative is separated from re by: a not uncommon ‘tmesis,’ instances of which are cited by Meyer, e.g. Plato, Legg. 1X. 864 B, nv dv Twa kaTaBrdyy, [Lysias] Polystr. p. 160, és dy Tis buds eb 7rov7,—but here some edd. read 6rav. ‘The reading koe?- rat [Rec. with DSEKLN*; most mss. ; Bas., Chrys., Theod.] is rightly re- jected by recent editors, both on pre- ponderant external authority, and as derived from Col. /.c. The vod is also rightly struck out before Kupiov. TOUTO Kop. Tapa Kuplov] ‘this shall he receive (back) from the Lord (Christ) ;’ ‘this, —and fully this,’ expressed more at length Col. iii. 24, 25. The ‘ap- propriative’ middle xkouigferda (see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 432. bb, and § 434, p- 450) refers to the receiving back again, as it were, of a deposit; so that in Kome(rat 6 7dlxyoev, Col. l.c. (comp. 2 Cor. v. 10) there is no brachylogy ; see Winer, (Gr. § 66. 1. b, p. 547, and compare notes in loc. The tense seems obviously to refer to the day of final retribution; émed7 elxéds éote todXovs Tov decTroT av un amelBecOar THs evvolas Tots dovdots, Eker avTOls Uritxvelrac Ti anoBnv’ Cicum. elte SodXos elre €d.] ‘ whether he be bond- slave or free:’ whatever be his social condition here, the future will only regard his moral state; pera Thy év- Tevdev éxdnulay [deceev] ovK ere dov- Nelas duapopav’ Theod. 9. Karoi kipror] ‘dnd ye masters ,;’ 144 IIPOz E®EZIOY®. 8 47 8 3 , Ne eo” 4 SN XM e4 vA QVLEVTES THV amretAny, ELOOTES OTL KAL QAUTWY KQAL UMWY e Peal, ’ ’ t) a Q ’ r) oO Kipros €OTLY EV ovpavols Kal TpotwroAnuryia OUK y+ ) c) cr €oTLY TAP GUTH. 10 To Aorov, évdvvanotcbe év Kupio Put on the panoply of God; arm your- selves against your spiritual foes with all the defensive portions of Christian ar- mour, and the sword of the Spirit. corresponding duties of masters simi- larly enunciated positively and nega- tively (dauévres thy dm.), concluding with a similar participial clause ex- pressing the motive. The negative statement of the duty is omitted in the parallel passage, Col. iv. 1. On the use of kai, see notes on ver. 4. Ta avTa Toveite Tpds adt.] ‘do the same things towards them ;’ ‘ evince in action the same principles and feelings towards them; preserve the jus ana- logum (Caly.) in your relations to them.’ It does not seem necessary to restrict T& av’ra& to per’ evvolas BSov- Aevew (Chrys.), or to moeiy 7d GEN. k.7.X. (Riick.), or on the other hand, to extend it to év am., as well as to the other details (Orig. Cat. ; comp. Eadie) ; the reference being rather to the general expression of feeling, the etvoca which was to mark all their actions, wa Theod., or, as more correctly modified by Stier,—xupievowor; ‘ea que bene- volintie sunt compensate,’ Beng. dviévtes THY dmedyy] ‘giving up your threatening,’ ‘the too habitual threat- ening,’ ‘quemadmodum vulgus domi- norum solet,’ EHrasm. Paraphr. (cited by Meyer): explanatory participial clause (De W., here wholly mis-cited by Eadie), specifying a course of ac- tion, or rather of non-action, in which the feeling was to be particularly ex- hibited. As dzrev\y expresses, by the nature of the case, a certain and single course of action, the article does not appear to be used, as with dévxla, dxoXacla, al., to specify the particular acts (Middleton, Art. v. 1. 1), but to evvotk@s — Deparretowst, Pray that we may be bold. hint at the common occurrence of dmew7, see ib. V. 1. 4. It is thus not necessary to modify the meaning of am. (‘hardness of heart,’ Olsh.): St Paul singles out the prevailing vice and most customary exhibition of bad feeling on the part of the master, and in forbidding this naturally includes every similar form of harshness. elSéres OTL K.T.A.] ‘seeing ye know that both their and your master is in heaven; causal participial member exactly similar to that in ver. 8; see notes in loc. The reading is some- what doubtful: the order in the text is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., and long since by Simon Colinzus (ed. N.'T. 1534) with ABD!N! (éaur.); mss.; Vulg., Goth., Copt., al.; Clem., al. [kal bu. kal adr. is given by LN4 (éaur.); 6 mss. ; al.],—but designated by Mill, Prolegom. p. 115, as ‘argu- tius quam verius.’ This is not a judicious criticism, for the probability of an omission of kal tudv, owing to homeceoteleuton, is far from small, and seems very satisfactorily to account for the various readings; see Meyer in loc. (Crit. Notes), p. 239. TpocwtoAnpia] ‘respect of persons ;’ ‘personarum acceptio,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘ vilja-hatpei,’ Goth. : on the meaning of this word, see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and on the orthography, Tisch. Prole- gom. p. XLVI. to. Td dAourdy] ‘Finally,’ ‘as to what remains for you to do;’ wera 7d Svardéa, pyol, Ta eikdTa TovTO aKé- Aovov kal brddourov? Cicum.: ‘ for- mula concludendi [see Chrys.] et ut ad magnam rem excitandi,’ Beng.; see 2 Waletroy Te \ 9 fq , a 9 , , a Kal €V TH KPaTel THS taKXvOS QUTOU. 145 evolaag0e THy 11 , lod a ~ 4 , e lal lod TAavoTALay TOU Qecou, 7 pos TO dvvacOat ULag OTYVal Cor. xiii. 11, Phil. iii. 1 (see notes), iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1. On the distinc- tion between 76 Nouréy and Tod ourod [adopted here by Zachm. with ABN; 3 mss.; Cyr., Dam.,—evidence ob- viously insufficient], see notes on (al. vi. 17; and between it and 76 péddov (merely ‘in posterum’) the brief dis- tinctions of Tittmann, Synon. p. 175. The insertion of ddeddot pov before évouv. [Rec., Wordsw. with KLN4 (FG, al., Vulg., omit jou) ; most mss. ; Syr., Copt., al. ; Theod., al.] has the further support of A, which adds déed¢gol after ev).,—but is appy. rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., al. on good external authority [BDEN!; Clarom., Sang., Goth., Ath. (both), Arm.; Cyr., al.], and as appy. alien to the style of an Epistle in which the readers do not elsewhere appear so addressed; see Olsh. and Alf. in Joe. éviuvapotaGe] ‘be eN.Z] [corroboremini] Syr.,— a ae strengthened ;’ less definitely, ‘be strong,’ Auth. ; not middle, ‘corroborate vos,’ Pisc., but (as always in the N.T.) passive; comp. Acts ix. 22, Rom. iv. 20, 2 Tim. i. 1, Heb. xi. 34, and see Fritz. Rom. l.c. Vol. I. p. 245. The active occurs in Phil. iv. 13, 1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. iv. 17, in each case in reference to Christ. The simple form [here adopted by B; 17; Orig. Cat.] is only found in Col. i. 11, and Heb. xi. 34 [AD'SN?], see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 605. kal év T@ K.T.A.] Sand in the power of His might ;’ not an év 6a Svoty, Beng., but with a preservation of the proper sense of each substantive, on which comp. notes ch. i. 19. This appended clause (kai) serves to explain and specify the principle in which our strength was to be sought for, and in which it dwelt; comp. 2 Cor. xii. Q, wa éerioxnvacy én Eve h OUvapts TOD Xpicrod. On the familiar ev Kupip (‘in the Lord,’ our only element of spiritual life), see notes ch. iv. T. 11. éySto. tiv tavoTAlav] ‘Put on the whole armour, the panoply.’ The emphasis rests on this latter word (Mey.), as the repetition in ver. 13 still more clearly shows, not on Tot Qeoi (Harl.): ‘significat debere nos omni ex parte instructos esse, ne quid nobis desit,’ Calv.; the term here clearly denoting not merely the ‘armatura,’ Vulg., but the ‘wniversa armatura,’ Beza, the armour in all its parts, of- fensive and defensive; ‘omnia armo- rum genera, quibus totum militis cor- pus tegitur,’ Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. 491; see Judith xiv. 3, wavomNias, compared with ver. 2, Ta oxe’n 7a moeuixd, and comp. wayrTedys mapv- om\la, Plato, Legg. vil. 796 B. It has been doubted whether St Paul is here alluding to the armour of the Hebrew or the Roman soldier; the latter is most probable, but both were substantially the same : see esp. Polyb. Hist. Vi. 23, a good Art. in Kitto, Cyclop. (‘Arms, Armour’), and Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Waffen,’ Vol. 1. p. 667. For a sermon on this text see Latimer, Serm. it. p. 23 (Lond. 1858). Tov Ocod | ‘of God ; ‘que a Deo donan- tur,’ Zanch.; gen. of the sowrce, origin, whence the arms came (Hartung, Casus, p. 23, notes on 1 Thess. i. 6), well expressed by Theod. dzacw 6:a- véwer THY Baciikhny mavrevxlav. apos TO Sivacbar «KT.A.] ‘in order that ye may be able to stand against ;’ object and purpose contemplated in the equipment ; see notes on ch. iii. 4, The verb orfvat, as Raphel (Annot, Vol. II. p. 493) shows, is a L lv. 12. 146 I[PpO= 12 mpos Tas peOodelas Tod dia3ddov- E®EZIOY=. ce b] + (owes OTL OUK E€OTLY ULV e , A a \ ’ c) N \ \ e) , 4 ™aAn Tpos aipa Kat gapka, ada Tpos Tas apxas, military expression, ‘to stand one’s ground,’ opp. to gev-yew; see esp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 301. The second mpos in this connexion has thus the meaning ‘adversus’ (Vulg., Clarom.), with the implied notion of hostility (‘contra’), which is other- wise less usual, unless it is involved in the verb; see Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p- 361 note. Tas pe0odelas Tov SiaB.] ‘the wiles of the Devil,’— or perhaps, as more in harmony with the context, ‘the stratagems’ (Kadie ; peBodevoal éort TO amarjoa Kal OLa hnxavjs édetv’ Chrys.); the plural denoting the various concrete forms of the abstract singular; see notes on Gal. v. 20. On the form pefodlas, which is here very strongly supported [AB'1D'EFGKLN; many mss.], see notes on ch. iv. 14. The only reason for not accepting it is that in cases of apparent dtacism caution is always re- quired in estimating the value of exter- nal evidence. The number of those in S, in this Ep. alone, is very great. 12. Ott ovK toTw ply y Tarn] ‘because our struggle is not,’ ‘the struggle in which we are engaged: ’ reason for the special mention of the peBodelas Tov SiadAov, ver. 11. It is commonly asserted that the metaphor is not here fully sustained, on the ground that ma\7 (rd\)dw) is properly ‘lucta;’ see Plato, Legg. vu. 796 A. As however we find md\n dopés (Kur. Heracl. 160), wddynv plzavtes AOyxns (Lye. Cassand. 1358), it is clear such a usage as the present can be justified: indeed it is not unlikely that the word (an dr. Neydu. in N.T., not found in LXX) was designedly adopted to con- vey the idea of the personal, individu- alizing, nature of the encounter. The reading duty adopted by Lachm. is well supported [BD!FG; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Aug., Boern., Syr., Goth., al. ; Lucif., Ambrst. ], but appy. less probable than jiy [ADP EK LN; nearly all mss.; Vulg., Copt., Syr.- Phil., al.; Clem., Orig., al.], for which it might have been easily substituted as a more individualizing address. mpos aipa Kal cdpKa] ‘against flesh and blood,’ mere feeble man; ov mpos rods TuxdvTas éxouey pynow, ovdé mpos dvOpwmous ouoroTabe’s july Kal ico- duvduous' Theoph.: comp. Polyzenus, Strateg. TT. 11, phn ws modeulors cup- Bdddovres GAN avOpwros alua Kat adpxa éxovor [the exhortation of Cha- brias to his soldiers], and see notes on Gal. i. 16, where the formula is more fully explained. adda] There is here no ground for translating ovx... d\XG ‘non tam...quam ;’ comp. Glass. Philolog. 1. 5. 22, Vol. I. p. 420 sq. (ed. Dathe). The negation and affir- mation are both absolute; ‘non con- tra homines [‘vasa sunt, alius utitur,’ August. ], sed contra dzemones,’ Cornel. a Lap.; see esp. Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, p- 439, where this formula is very satisfactorily discussed, and comp. Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. 1. 6. 2, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 8. In those exx. where the negation cannot from the nature of the case be considered completely absolute, it will be ob- served, as Winer ably shows, that the negation has designedly a rhetorical colouring, which in a faithful and forcible translation ought always to be preserved without any toning down ; see Fritz. Mark, Excurs. Il. p. 773 8q., Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 9, 10. Tpds Tas apxds] ‘against the princi- palities ;’ see esp. notes on ch, i. 21, and observe that the same terms which are there used to denote the classes Wie i 2. 147 \ ‘ a \ , A , 7 pos Tas e£ouc las, Tpos TOvS Koo KoKpaTopas TOU GKO- QA 4 ~ if ° a TOUS TOUTOU, TPOS Ta TVEUMATIKA THs Tovyplas év ToIs and orders of good, are here similarly applied to evil angels and spirits ; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. B, p. 335- Tovs KoopoKpdTopas K.T.A.] ‘the world-rulers of this darkness ;’ those who extend their world-wide way over the present (comp. ch. ii. 1) spiritual and moral darkness; dpa THs vuKros [comp. Wetst.]; ovda- Os, a\\ad THs movnpias’ Chrys., see ch. v. 8. Meyer rightly maintains (against Harless) the full meaning of molov GKOTOUS; KooMoxp., as not merely ‘rulers’ (‘mag- nates,’ A‘th.), ‘fairwuhabandans,’ Goth., but ‘rulers over the world,’ munditenentes, Tertull. (Mare. v. 18), kéomos preserving its natural and pro- per force. So even in the second of the three exx. cited by Schoettg. Hor. Hebr, Vol. 1. p. 790, out of Rab- binical writers (‘qui vocem hance WOWP WMP civitate sua donarunt’), which Harl. here adduces,— ‘Abraham persecutus est quatuor {OI WTP, sc. reges,—the word appears used designedly with a rhetorical force: ex. 3 is perfectly distinct. Further exx. from later writers are cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. I. p. 219. The dogmatical meaning is correctly explained by the Greek commentators: the evil spirits exercise dominion over the xkécpos, not in its mere material nature (ovx) rijs ktlcoews Kpatrovvres, Theoph.), but in its ethical and perhaps intellectual character and relations (ws karaxpa- TOUTES TOV TH KOoMLKA PpovotyTwy, (Ecum.), the depravation of which is expressed by tToU ok. TovTov: see John xvi. 11, 6 dpxwv Tod xk. TovTou: 1 John v. 19, 0K. ddos &v 7H Tlovynps [see notes, ver. 16] Ketrae: 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6 Qeds Tod al@vos To’Tov: comp. John xiv. 30. On the meanings of xdopos, see Bauer, de Regno Divino, Il. 2, 3 (Comment. Theol. Vol. 11. p. 144, 154), and comp. notes on Gal. iv. 3. The insertion of rod aldvos before rovrov [fec. with D'EKLN* (‘sed rursus abstersit’); majority of mss. ; Syr.-Phil. with an ast. ; Orig., Chrys., Theod., al. ] seems clearly explanatory, and is rightly rejected by nearly all modern. editors. TO TVEULG- TUG THS Tovnplas] ‘the spiritual hosts, communities, of wickedness,’ sc. charac- terized by essential zrovnpia, gen. of ‘the characteristic quality ’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115, Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b, p. 211); érendn ydp elor kal of dyyedho mvevmata mpooéOnke THs movnpias’ Theoph., comp. Gicum. i loc. Ta mvevwarixka are not however merely Ta mvevuara (Hlsn. I, comp. Syr., Aith.), but, in accordance with the force of the collective neut. adject. (Bern. Synt. VI. 2, p. 326, Jelf, Gr. § 436. I. 6), denote the bands, hosts, or confraternities of evil spirits: Winer and Meyer aptly cite ra Anorpixd (‘robber-hordes’), Polyzen. Strateg. v. 14. I [rd dot\a, Ta aixuddwra, cited by Mey. after Bernhardy, are not fully appropriate; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 378]; comp. Ta darudvia, and see esp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b. obs. 3, p. 213. The gloss of Auth. (from Tynd.) ‘spiritual wickedness’ does not seem tenable, for if ra mvevyarica be taken as the abstract neuter (so perhaps Copt.,— which adopts the singular mveusariKov) expressive of the proper- ties or attributes (the ‘dynamic neut. adj.’ of Kriiger, Sprachl. § 43. 4. 27; comp. Stier), the meaning must be, not ‘spiritales malignitates,’ Beza, but ‘spiritualia nequitize,’ Vulg., Clarom. (comp. Goth.), ¢.¢. ‘spiritual elements, properties, of wickedness’ (see Jelf, Gr. § 436. obs, 2),—an abstract mean- 1h 2 148 TIPO= E®EZIOY2. 9 , Q lol 9 , 4 , w~ 13 eTovpaviols. ova ToUTO avadaBere THY TavoTALayv TOU ~ e a ’ A ’ ne? an ~ Oecod, tva duvybite avticthvar ev TH HMEpa TH ToVNpG ing which obviously does not harmo- nize with the context; see Meyer in loc. The concrete interpretation, on the other hand, is grammatically cor- rect, and far from unsuitable after the definite Tovs koomoxpdtopas. év tots érovpaviois] ‘in the heavenly regions,’ ‘in the sky or air;’ Dobree, Adv. Vol. 1. p. 874: see ch, i. 20, il. 6. Here again we have at least three interpretations: (a) that of Chrys. and the Greek commentators, who give ra érovp. an ethical reference, ‘heavenly blessings ;’ (b) that of Riick., Matth., Eadie, al., who refer the expression to the scene, the locality of the combat, ‘the celestial spots occupied by the church ;’ (¢) the ancient interpr. (see Jer. in loc.; comp. Tertull. Aare. v. 18, where however the application is too limited), according to which éy Tots ém. is to be joined with Ta mv. ris mov. as specifying the abode or rather haunt of the rd mvevpar.; ‘qui infra celum,’ Alth. (both). Of these (a) is opposed to the previous local interpre- tations of the words, and involves an explan. of év (=t7ép, Chrys., or zrepl, Theod.) wholly untenable; (6) seems vague and not fully intelligible; (c) on the contrary is both grammatically ad- missible (as the clause thus presents a single conception, ‘supernal spirits of evil,’ see notes on ch. i. 18) and exe- getically satisfactory. The haunt of the evil spirits was indirectly specified in ch. ii. 2 as being in the regions Tod dépos; here the latent opposition,— aiuwa kal capé on earth, and ra mrevp. in supernal regions,—suggests a word of greater antithetical force, which still can include the same lexical meaning; comp. Matth. vi. 26, ra As in ch. il. 2 there was no reason for limiting the TeTEWa TOU ovpavod. term to the mere physical atmosphere, so here still less need we adopt any more precise specification of locality ; see notes in loc., and comp. generally Hofm. Schrifth. Vol. I. p. 401 sq. The repetition of mpds before each of the substantives is somewhat of a rhetorical nature, designed to give emphasis to the enumeration; see Winer, Gr. § 50. 7. obs. p. 374. 13. 8a rodto] ‘On this account,’ ‘wherefore:’ since we have such pow- erful adversaries to contend with ; éreton pnot Xaderrol of éxApol’ Gicum. avahdBere] ‘assume,’ ‘take up,’ not necessarily ‘to the field of battle,’ Conyb., but with simple local refer- ence, as opposed to xararlOec@ae ; dvahay8. Tad Orda K.T.r. being the technical expression: see Deut. i. 41, Jer. xlvi. (xxvi.) 3, Judith xiv. 3, 2 Mace. x. 27, xi. 7, and exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 302, Elsner, Obs. Vol. I. p. 231, and Wetst. in loc. év TH Neepa TH wovnpa] ‘in the evil day—of violent temptation,’ Fell, Coce.: judpay movnpay Thy THs wapa- Tdiews tuépay Kael, amd Tov évep- yoovros a’tH diaBddrov 7d dvom.a TeBeEL- xws* Theod. ; Schoettgen compares MY AYWA ‘in hora mala, quando periculum nobis imminet,’ Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 793. The use of tuépa rather than aiéy (Gal. i. 4) is opposed to the interpr. of Chrys., Cicum., Theoph., tov mapdvra Blov gyoi, and the foregoing earnest tone of exhorta- tion to the idea that any consolation (scil. 7d Bpaxd éd7\woe, Theoph., comp. Chrys.) was implied in the use of juépa. Still more untenable is the view of Meyer, that St Paul is here specifying the day when the last great Satanic outbreak was to take place (comp. notes on Gal. i. 4); the Apo WAG ay VA. 149 ,oe ’ A A ) Kal aTavTa KATEPYATAMEVOL OTHVAlL. OTNTE OVY TepiCw= I4 , A O) \ Ge) SL ee 6 , A pe é , ‘ TAMEVOL THY oo cpuv Uua@Y ev "aXy €ld, KAL EVOVTaMEVOL TOV stle has at heart what he knew was much more present and more con- stantly impending; ‘bellum est per- petuum; pugna alio die minus, alio die magis fervet;’ Beng. Gtravta Katepyardpevor] ‘having ac- complished, fully done, all,’ not merely in preparing for the fight (Beng.), but, as orfvac (‘to stand one’s ground’) obviously suggests, im and appertain- ing to the fight; all things that the exigencies of the conflict required. The special interpr. of Gicum. (comp. Chrys.) karepyas.= karatoheujoartes, i.e. ‘having overcome all,’ Auth. Marg. (comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 3 Esdr. iv. 4), though adopted by Harl., is very doubt- ful; for in the first place, the masc. would have seemed more natural than. the neut. dzrayra (Est., contr. De W.); and secondly, though xarepyd¢. occurs 20 times in St Paul’s Epp., it is only in one of two senses, either perjicere (‘notat rem arduam,’ Fritz.), as here, Rom. vii. 18, Phil. ii. 12, al., or per- petrare (‘de rebus que fiunt non ho- neste’), Rom. i. 27, ii. 9, al.: see Fritz. Rom. ii. 9, Vol. I. p. 107, and the nu- merous exx. cited by Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 495 sq. The concluding orjvat is then not ‘stare tanquam tri- umphatores’ (Zanch. ap. Pol. Syn., comp. even Meyer), but as in ver. 11, ‘to stand firm’ (the battle is life-long), ‘ut non cadatis aut loco cedere coga- mini; Est. 14. oryte odv] ‘Stand then,’ not as in ver, 13, i the fight, but, as the context obviously requires, ready for the fight; ‘kampffertig,’ De Wette. The several portions of the ravorNia are then specified in regular order ; Tapadapovvas avtovs Nourdy adTovs Kal Kkabowhige Chrys. tepilwo. tiv dopdy ip.] ‘having girt your loins about; comp. Isaiah xi. 5, éorae di- Kaootvyn efwomevos Thy ooddy avrod, kal d\nOela cinuwévos Tas wAevpas. The remark of Holz., that the aorists are improperly used for presents, is wholly mistaken; the different acts specified by the participles were all completed before the soldier took up his position ; comp. notes on ch. iy. 8. It may be observed that the girdle was no mere ornament (Harl., comp. Eadie), but the first and most necessary part of the equipment; a orparidrys dfw- oTos was, as Meyer observes, a very ‘contradictio in adjecto.” Independ- ently of serving to keep the armour in its proper place, it appears also—ex- cept in the Homeric age, when it formed a part of the cuirass, and in later times, when ornamented ‘ baltei’ came into use (Smith, Dict. of Antiq. Art. ‘Balteus’)—to have been com- monly used to support the sword; see plates in Montfaucon, L’Antig. Hupl. Vol. Iv. 1, p. 19 sq., and Suppl. Vol. Iv. p- 148q., Smith, Dict. Art. ‘Zona,’ and Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Giirtel,’ Vol. I. p. 448. év dAnbeta.] 6 with truth,’ as the girdle which bound all together, and served to make the Chris- tian soldier expedite and unencum- bered for the fight; éy being instru- mental, or perhaps rather semilocal, with a ref, to the cincture and equip- ment; comp. Psalm lxv. 7, mepiefwo- pévos €v Suvacrela, and see Green, Gramm. p. 289. It has been doubted (see Cicum, im loc.) whether by a\70eca is meant what is termed objective truth (a\nea Soyuarwy, Gicum. 1), z.e. ‘the orthodox profession of the Gospel’ (Hamm. on Luke xii. 35), or subjective truth: the latter is most probable, pro- vided it is not unduly limited to mere ‘truthfulness’ (Chrys. 1) or sincerity 150 IITPO= E®EZIOY=. 15 Odpaxa rig Otkatocvvns, Kat UTodnTapevor TOUS Todas ev ec , fo b) , a 3) 2 UA FS 2 16 eTolmacia Tov evayyeNlou TIS eELpyyns’ eT TWATW avaNa- (Calv., Olsh.). It must be taken in its widest sense d\7j0. €v TG ’Ino00, ch. iv. 21, the inward practical acknow- ledgment of the truth as it is in Him; dtvn 5é€ ws mpds Tov Xp. vojoa, Tov dvTws ad\jPeav’ Ccum.; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. tv. 16, Vol. 11. p. 169. THs Sikaroodvys] ‘of righteousness ; gen. of apposition or identity; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470, comp. Scheuerl. Synt. §12. 1, p. 82 : so, simi- larly in regard of sentiment, Isaiah lix. 17, kal €vedvoaro dtxatoctyny ws Odpaka* Wisd. v.19, evdtcerat Odpaxa dikaro- ctvnv. This dicacootvy is not ‘righte- ousness’ in its deeper scriptural sense, scil. by faith in Christ (Harl.), as rioris is mentioned independently in ver. 16, but rather Christian moral rectitude (Mey., Olsh., Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 2, P- 190; Tov KaOodtKdy Kal évdperor Bior, Chrys.), or, more correctly speaking, the righteousness which is the result of the renovation of the heart by the Holy Spirit; see Waterl. Regen. Vol. IV. p. 434. but without grammatical grounds; its insertion is merely due to the common principle of correlation; see Middl. lie Us Tee ip JOe BO 15. wrodnodpevor tos méSas] ‘having shod your feet,’ ‘calceati pedes,’ Vulg., Clarom. It does not seem ne- cessary to refer this specially to the Roman ‘caliga’ (Mey.; see Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. t. 8), as the reference to the Roman soldier, though probable, is not certain: any strong military sandal (Heb. 1IND, Isaiah ix. 4, see Gesen. Lex.s. v.) is perhaps all that is implied ; comp. Lydus, Synt. Sacr. 111. 2, p. 46 sq. év Eropacta] ‘with the readiness ;’ not ‘in preeparationem,’ Clarom., but ‘in preparatione,’ Vulg. (Amit.), Copt.; év being instrumental, Eadie presses the article, or semi-local, as in ver. 14. The some- what peculiar form érowwacia, used principally in the LXX and ecel. writers, denotes properly ‘preparation’ in an active sense (Wisd. xili. 12, ero. Tpophs; Mart. Polye. § 18, doxnoly re kal éroww.); then ‘a state of readiness,’ whether outwardly consid- ered (Joseph. Antig. X. 1. 2, Urmous els €roww. Tapéxev) or inwardly estimated (Hippocr. de Dec. Habitu, Vol. I. p. 74, ed. Kithn; comp. Psalm x. 17, érou, Kapdlas, t.e. TO éwmrapdoKevor, Chrys.); and thence by a conceivable transition (esp. as }'Di] admits both meanings, see Gesen. Lem. s.v.), ‘some- thing fixed, settled’ (comp. Prov. iv. 18 Theod., éromacia nuépas = orabepa peonuBpla), and further even ‘a basis, a foundation.’ Heb. p22 (Danna 7 Theod., 77s pléys airHs Tis éroumaclas avrod' compare Ezra ii. 68, Psalm Ixxxix. 15). This last meaning how- ever may possibly have originated from a misconception of the translator (see Holzh. and Meyer im loc.), but at any rate is very inappropriate in this place. There is then no reason to depart from the more correct meaning, ‘readiness,’ ST os (1D20L, Syr., ‘manvipa,’ Goth.), not however wore ‘preparedness ’ éroluous elyat mpos 70 evaryyédcov (Chrys.), but, as the context and me- taphor suggest, ‘ad militiam, impedi- mentis omnibus soluti,’ Calv. Tod evayy. THs elpyvys] ‘of the Gospel of peace; scil. caused by the evayy. THs eip.; the first gen., evayyedlou, being that of the sowrce or agent (see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126), the second, elpivns, that of the purport and contents: compare ch. i. 13, 70 evayyéX. THs cwrnplas, where see notes, and Bernhardy, Synt. WE 25868 6,797: , \ Q a , ; ~ , , Bovres Tov Oupeov Ths TicTews, ev © OuvycecOe TayTa A , a ~ A , , A 4 Ta BéAy Tov TovypoU Ta TeTUpHMEVa BETA Kat THY 17 Til. 44, p. 161. The sum and sub- stance of the Gospel was 4 elpijv7, Peace, not with one another merely, but with God (Est.), a peace that can only be enjoyed and secured if we war against His enemies: av 7@ diaBdrAw To\eu@uev elpyvevouer mpos Tov Bedy* Chrys. On the different terms with which evayy. is associated in the N.T., see Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. 1v. 8, Vol. 1. p. St 16. éml waco] ‘in addition to all; not, with local ref., ‘super omnibus, queecunque induistis,’ Beng. (comp. Goth. ‘ufar all’), nor, with ethical ref., ‘above all,’ Auth.,—but simply in ref, to the last accompaniment ; comp. Luke iii. 20, rpocéOnxev kal trotro émi maot, and see Winer, G7. § 48. «c, p. 350. Eadie cites Col. iii. 14, ért mace rovros, but neither this passage nor Luke xvi. 26 are strictly similar, as the addition of rovros implies a re- ference to what has preceded, while éri macy is general and unrestricted, and more nearly approaches a ‘ for- mula concludendi ;’ see Harl., and exx. collected by Wetst. on Luke xvi. 26. In both the force of éziis the same, ‘accession,’ ‘superaddition; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 483. aa. The reading év mdow, adopted by Lachm., with BS; 10 mss.; Clarom.; Vule. (appy.); Method., Greg.-Naz.; al., has not sufficient external support, and may have been a correction for the ambiguous él. Tov Oupedv] ‘the shield, ‘scutum, Vulg., Clarom. The term dupéds, as its derivation sug- gests, is properly anything ‘quod vi- cem janue prestat’ (Homer, Od. rx. 240, 313, 340), thence in later writers (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 366) a large oblong or oval shield (oid tis Bipa du- Adtrwv 7d cua’ Theoph.), differing both in form and dimensions from the vound and lighter domls (‘clypeus’): see esp. Polyb. Hist. VI. 23. 2, comp. Lips. ge Milit. Rom. 111. 2, and exx. in Kypke, Elsner, and Alberti tn Joc. Harless doubts whether @upeds was intentionally used instead of dois, and cites the very similar passage, Wisd. Vv. 20,Anwerar domrlba...dacdryTa: it is not however improbable that in the time of St Paul (perhaps 150 years later) the distinction had become more commonly recognized; see Plutarch, Flamin. § 12. THS Tio Tews | ‘of faith ;’ appositional gen. similar to THs Sikacocdvns, ver. 14. év & Suvyjceoe] ‘ with which ye will be able,’ scil. as protected by and under cover of which (comp. ver. 16), or, with a still more definite instrumental force (Goth., Arm.), as specifying the de- fensive implement by which the ex- tinction of the fire-tipt darts will be facilitated and effected; 7 alors ody Tatra oBévyvow Theoph. The future must not be unduly pressed (Mey.) ; it points simply and generally to the time of the contest, whenever that might be: the future is only ‘a con- ditioned present ; see Bernhardy, Synt. Be et BVA TOU TOVypod| ‘the wicked One,’ ‘nequissimi,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; not ‘evil,’ 7d zovnpoy, but in accordance with the individualizing and personal nature of the conflict which the context so forcibly depicts, —the Devil; povov éxetvos movnpds Kar’ é£oxnv Néyerae’ Chrys. de Diab. 11. Vol. 11. p. 309 (ed. Ben. 1834), comp. 2 Thess. iii. 3 and notes, 1 Jobn v. 18, probably Matth. v. 37, John xvii. 15, al., and see Suicer, Zhesawr. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 807, and on the conflict gene- rally, the instructive remarks of Mayer, Hist. Diab. § 7, p. 681 sq. ; comp. also 152 TIIPOZ E®EZIOY=. Tepixe:padalay TOU TwTHplov dcEaa Oe, Kal THY aX a= Reuss, 7héol. Chrét. tv. 20, Vol. I. p. 226 sq. 7a BAY...To aemrup.| ‘the jire-tipt, or fiery, darts ;’ the addition of the epithet serving to mark the fell nature of the attack, and to warn the combatant; 7re7. 58 avra kéxAnxey Sveyelpwy tods oTparTiwras, kal KeNevwv dopares mepippdtrecbac Theod, Allusion is here distinctly made to the mup@épor dicrol, arrows, darts, &c. tipt with some inflammable substance, which were used both by the Hebrews (Psalm vii. 14), Greeks (Herod. vii. 52, Thucyd. 11. 75, Ar- rian, Alex. 11. 18), and Romans (‘ mal- leoli,’ Cicero pro Milone, 24: ‘falarice,’ Livy xxi. 8, were much larger), in sieges, or, under certain circumstances, against the enemy in the field; see Vegetius, de Re Mil. 1v. 18, Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Bogen,’ Vol. I. p. 190. Any reference to ‘poisoned’ darts (Hamm., al.) is not in accordance with the meaning and tense of the part. memTupwmeva. It may be remarked that the art. is not found in BD'FG, and is rejected by Lachm.; in which case memup. will become a ‘tertiary’ predi- cate, and must be translated ‘fire-tipt as they are,’ see esp. Donalds. Gr, § 489 sq., and comp. Winer, Gr. § 20. I. obs. p. 122. It seems however much more probable that the art. was omit- ted by an oversight, than that the transcriber felt any grammat. difficulty, and sought to remedy it by insertion. oBéror] ‘to quench.’ It seems too much to say with Caly., in reference to the metaphor, ‘improprie loquitur.’ That the use of oBécar was suggested by mezup. is not improbable; as how- ever it is certain that the larger shields, which for lightness were made of wood, were covered with hides (uocxelw dép- part, Polyb. Hist. vi. 23. 3, Lips. de Milit. 1. 2) and similar materials designed to prevent the full effect of the Bé\y memup., the particular verb cannot in any way be considered here as inappropriate; comp. Arrian, Alex. 1 Tite 17. Kal tiv «7.A.] Meyer rightly objects to the punctuation of Lachm. and Tisch.:'a comma, or perhaps rather a colon (Wordsw.), is here far more suitable than a period. We have here only one of St Paul’s rapid trans- itions from the participial structure to that of the finite verb; see Col. i. 6, and notes ch, i. 20. ScEao Be] ‘receive,’ as from Him who furnishes the armour (ver. 13), and whose Spirit puts in our hands the sword ; ‘ accipite, oblatam a Domino,’ Beng. The verb is omitted by D!FG; Clarom. ; Cypr., Tertull., al., and converted into défacGa (but perhaps an itacism) by Matth. with AD? (E?) KL; mss.; Cypr. (t),—but in neither case on sufficient external evidence. TOU cwtnplov] ‘of salvation,’ gen. of ap- position, as in ver. 14, 16. The use of this abstract neuter is, with the ex- ception of this place, confined to St Luke (see Luke ii. 30, iii. 6, Acts xxviii. 28), though sufficiently common in the LXX; compare Isaiah lix. 17, epi- ked. owtnpliov,—a passage to which its present occurrence may perhaps be referred. There is no ground for sup- posing that rod ocwr. is masculine (‘salutaris, i.e. Christi,’ Beng.), either here or Acts /.¢., nor can we say with Mey. that 7d cwrnpiov is ‘any ideal possession:’ in t Thess. v. 8, the zrepe- kegalaia is the é\mls cwrnplas, in the present case there is no such limita- tion. Salvation in Christ, as Harl. remarks, forms the subject of faith; in faith (by grace, ch. ii. 5) it is appre- hended, and becomes, in a certain sense, even a present possession; see ake pav tot Ivevuaros, 6 éoriw piua Ocov. 18. 153 dua macys 18 ~ A lat T POTEevKNS Kal OEenTEWS T POTEvyopevot ev TAVTL Kalow ev A ’ IIvevuarti, Kal els avTo aypuTvouvTes ev TATH 7 pooKkap- notes, ch. ii. 8. TOU IIvevparos] ‘of the Spirit,’ sc. given by, supplied by the Spirit; the gen. of the source or origin, as in verse 13, Tiv mTavotX. Tov Oeov. The gen. is clearly not appositional ((Hcum., 1, Theoph. 1, and even Harl., Olsh.), as the explanatory clause would thus be wholly out of place. Still less proba- bly is it a gen. of quality, ) wdxaipa mveviatixy (Chrys. 2), or asimple gen. of possession in reference to the Timww- pytixh éevépyeva (Sever. ap. Cram. Cat.) of the Spirit, both of which seem at variance with the general tenor of the passage, which represents the ‘ arma- tura’ as furnished to us by God. Thus then it is from the Spirit that we re- ceive the sword, that sword being the Word of God, the Gospel (ver. 15), which is the dvvayus Ocod (Rom. i. 16, 1 Cor. i. 18) to every one who be- lieveth; comp. Heb. iv. 12. 18. 8a mdons k.T.A.] ‘with all (every form of) prayer and supplication praying; participial clause expressive of the manner and accompaniments of the action, dependent on the principal imperative o7jre ot, ver. 14 (Mey.), not on the subordinate aor. imper. dé£ac0e, which is only a variation of the participial structure, and with which the idea of duration expressed in mdons and zav7l Kacp would not be consistent. The seeming tautology and an imaginary logical difficulty in mpoce’xec0at Sia dons mpoo. €v ravTl kaip@ have induced Mey. to disconnect dua dons K.T.r. and mpocevxdpevon This, though not inconsistent with the use of dud (‘conditio in qua locatus aliquid facias,’ Fritz. Rom. ii. 27, Vol. I. p- 138), is still neither necessary nor satisfactory: dua mdons x.T.d. simply and correctly denotes the earnest, be- cause varied, character of the prayer (see Theoph.) ; constancy of it (évdehkexés, Theod., comp. Luke xviii. 1, 1 Thess. v. 17, 2 Thess. i. 11); év Ivedmare (see infra) the holy sphere of it. Conyb. (comp. Syr., but not Aith., Syr.-Phil.) trans- lates the part. as a simple imperat., and makes ver. 18 the beginning of a new paragraph; this however cannot be justified; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, Db Bug It has been doubted whether there is here any exact dis- tinction between mpocevxh (dpm) and dénous (3M). Chrys.and Theod., Onn Luma lle) 1, explain Tpoo. as airn- év mavrt xkaip@ the ais dyabay (see Suicer, Thesaw-. s. v. I), déno. as bwrép admradd\ayfs Nurnpadv ixerela (so Grot., as dd Tov deots, but see 2 Cor. i. 11); comp. Orig. de Orat. § 33, Vol. Xv. p. 292 (ed. Lomm.). Alii alia. The most natural and ob- vious distinction is that adopted by nearly all recent commentators, viz. that mpocevx7 is a ‘vocabulum sacrum’ (see Harl.) denoting ‘ prayer’ in gene- ral, precatio; 6énots a ‘vocabulum commune’ denoting a special charac- ter or form of it, ‘ petition,’ rogatio ; see Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol. U1. p. 372, Trench, Synon. Part 1. § 1, and notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1. év TavtTl Katpo| ‘in every season.’ There is no necessity to restrict this to ‘ every fitting season,’ Eadie: the mind of prayer (7d 6uhetv T® Oe, Theoph. on 1 Thess. v. 17) is alluded to as much as the outward act; see Alf. on Luke xviii. 1. év TIvedpare] ‘in the Spirit: certainly not the human spirit (‘cum devoto cordis effectu,’ Est.), nor as in contrast 154 WPO2 E®EZIOY2. A , na 1g Tepyre Kat denre wept TwavTwv Tay aylwv, Kal UTEP 3 ~ 5 a , eet) ’ A , , ’ ELOU, LY MOL 007 Aoyos ev avotEet TOU OTOMATOS Mou EV to BarroNoyeiv (Chrys.), but the Holy Spirit (Jude 20), i whose blessed and indwelling influence, and by whose merciful aid, we are enabled to pray (Rom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6), yea, and who Himself intercedes for us (Rom. viii. 26). els adrd] ‘ for it,’ ‘hereunto:’ scil. 7rd mpoce’xecOar év mavtTl Kapp év Ivetuart. The refer- ence is obviously not to what follows (Holzh.), but to what precedes. It was ‘ for this’ (scarcely more than ‘in re- spect of this,’ Mey.) that the Ephesians were to be watchful; not that all should abide in continual prayer (Olsh., Hazl.), for the prayer for the Apostle (ver. 19) is to be for a different spiri- tual grace, but that they themselves might have that grace (‘ut quotidie oretis,’ Est.), and exercise it in gene- ral, persistent, and appropriate suppli- cations for all saints. The addition of rodro after avré [ Rec. with D?EKL; mss. ; Chrys.-text, Theod., al.] is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., al., with ABD! FG; Clarom., Vulg., Copt., al., as a mere explana- tory addition: ‘av’rés seepius dicitur de eo de quo cummaxime sermo est,’ Kiihn. Xen. Mem. Il. 10. 14, comp. Matth. Gr. § 469. 7. aypuT. év mdoy TpocKapT. K.T.A.] ‘watching in all perseverance and supplication,’ ‘in omni instantid et obsecratione,’ Vulg. ; supplementary clause, specify- ing a particular accompaniment to their prayer and watchfulness in re- gard to themselves, and a particular phase and aspect which it was to as- sume; ‘in praying for themselves they were uniformly to blend petitions for all the saints,’ Eadie: comp. Col. iv. 2, ypnyopodvres év ait (mpocevxy)) év evxaptorig, where év evx. denotes the accompanying act, one of the forms which mrposevxy was to assume. The two substantives mpocxapt. Kal deno., though not merely equivalent to ‘precantes sedulo’ (Syr., comp. Aith.), -still practically amount to a ‘hendiadys.’ According to the regu- lar rule, the substantive which con- tains the ‘accidens’ ought to follow rather than precede (see Winer, de Hy- pall.ct Hendiad. p. 19), still here mpook. so clearly receives its explanation from kal denoe, that the expression, though not a strict and grammatical, is yet a virtual, or what might be termed a contextual év 6d dvotv: see esp. Fritz. Matth. p. 857. notes on Col. iv. 2. 1g. Kal] ‘and, to add a particular case:’ on this use of cal in appending a special example to a general classifi- cation, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388, notes on ch. v. 18, and on Phil. iv. 12. dtp énod] ‘for me,’ ‘in behalf of me.’ Eadie (after Harl.) endeavours to trace a distinction between brép here and mepl ver. 18, as if the former was more special and individualizing, the On mpockapr. comp. latter more general and _ indefinite; ‘soret um Alle, auch fiir mich,’ Harl. This in the present case, where the two prepp. are so contiguous, is plau- sible; but as a general rule little more can be said than that v7rép in its ethi- cal sense perhaps retains some stronger trace of its local meaning than zepl: see notes on Gal. i. 4, on Phil.i.7, and comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 28. 3. tva por $004] ‘that there may be given tome; particular object of the dypurv. év mpookapr., with an included refer- ence to the subject of the prayer; comp. notes on ch. i. 17. The 6007, as its position seems to indicate, is em- phatic; it was a special gift of God, and felt to be so by the Apostle, ‘non WI. 9;. 20: 155 Tappycia yvwpicat TO wvoTIploy Tov evayyEALov, UTEP 20 nitebatur Paulus habitu suo,’ Beng. The reading of Rec. do0ely (which rests only on the authority of a few cursive mss.) would give the purpose a more subjective reference, and re- present the feeling of a more: depen- dent realization ; compare ch. i. 17, and see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 622, Herm. Soph. Flect. 57. év dvolfe Tod ordp. pov] ‘in the opening of my mouth ;’ act in which and occasion at which the gift was to be realized, the connexion clearly being with the preceding (Syr., Chrys., al.), not with the following words (Auth., Kypke), and the meaning not ‘ad a- pertionem,’ z.¢. ‘ut os aperiam’ (Beza), or in passive reference to himself and active to God, ‘ut Deus aperiat os meum’ (comp. Auth.), ze. ‘that my mouth may be opened’ (a Lap., Olsh.; comp. Psalm 1. 17), but simply ‘in the opening of my mouth’ (‘occasione data,’ Grot.), ‘dum os aperio,’ Est. ; so Mey., Eadie, al.; see esp. Fritz. Dissert. 1. ad 2 Cor. p. 99 sq. The expression dvolyew ordua may be briefly noticed. When not specially modified or explained by the context (compare 2 Cor. vi. 11), it does not, on the one hand, appear to have any prelusive reference to the nature or quality of the discourse (ovK dpa éme- Néra daep é\eyev, Chrys., ‘ore semi clauso proferuntur ambigua,’ Calv.), nor, on the other, is it to be considered as merely graphic and unemphatic (Fritz. loc. cit., and on Matth. v. 2), but nearly always appears to specify the solemnity of the act and the occa- sion; comp. Matth. v. 2, Job iii. 1, Dan. x. 16, Acts viii. 32, and appy. xviii. 14 [it was a grave answer before a tribunal], and see Tholuck, Bergpr. p- 60 sq. év Tappyoia yvwplora] ‘with boldness (of speech) to make known,’ ‘cum fiducié notum facere,’ Vulg., Clarom.; specification of the result contemplated in the gift (‘ut mihi contingat Adyos, inde autem nas- catur 76 év mapp. yrwplou,’ Fritz. ad 2 Cor. p. 100), and of the spirit by which it was to be marked. As & dvol&. Tov oTdu. hinted at the solemn and responsible nature of the act, so év app. refers qualitatively to the character and spirit of the preaching ; Odpoos Kal Ndyou xopynylav iva kata TOV Oetov Noyov TANpwaw Tov Spdmov: Theod. On the meaning of zrappyola, see notes on t Tim. iii. 13. TO pver. Tov evayyed.] ‘the mystery of the Gospel.’ The gen. is somewhat differ- ent to 7d puor. Tod OeAnmaros, ch. 1. g; there it was ‘the mystery in the matter of, concerning, the #é\nua,’— gen. objecti; here it is rather ‘the mystery which the evayyéX. has, in- volves,’—gen. subjecti. The distinc- tion between these two forms of gen, is briefly but ably stated by Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7. On the meaning of HuaTnptov, comp. notes on ch. v. 32. The concluding words tod evayyen. are omitted by BFG; Boern.; Tert., Ambrst., and bracketed by Lachm., but rightly retained by Tisch., Alf., Wordsw., on distinctly preponderating evidence, _ 20. vrtp ob] ‘in commodum cujus,’ ‘to preach which.’ The reference of ov is doubtful ; it can however scarcely be ‘to the preceding clause,’ Eadie; for as this involves two moments of thought, év wagp. and yywp., and as av7d would certainly seem to have the same reference as 0, there would be an inevitable tautology in & ard (scil. TO & Tapp. K.T.X.) Tappnoidowmae. The reference must then be either simply to 76 evayyéX. (Harl.) or more probably to 76 puor. Tod evayyer. 156 IIPOZ E®ESIOY2. a , 5 ‘ 4 3 ere 9 ¢ , e Ou m per Bevo eV aduoet, wa €V AUTW TAPPYTLATWULAL ws det me NaARoat. a1 "Iva 0€ Kat tmets etdnre Ta KaT’ eué, ee my state and to comfort you. 21. Kat ters el6.] The reading is somewhat doubtful. The order in the text is adopted with ADEFGS (AD!FGR /5.); Clarom., Vulg., al. ; Theod., Lat. Ff. (Lachm.). In ed. 2 the order eléjre kal tuets was followed with BKL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Basm.; Chrys., Dam., Jer., al. (Zisch., al.), but is now reversed, the newly discovered N appearing to turn the scale. (Mey.), as this was what the Apostle é€yvwpicev, and in the matter of which he prayed for the grace of rappycia. tmperBedw év ddvoa] ‘7 am an am- bassador in a chain, ‘in catena,’ Vulg., Clarom., but {AN a. [in oo x catenis] Syr., and similarly Copt., Goth., Arm. [gabdnok, no sing.]; a noticeable and appy. designedly anti- thetical collocation, ‘I am an am- bassador—in chains ;’ ‘alias legati jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles,’ Wetst., comp. Theoph. doubtful whether any historical allu- sion to a ‘custodia militaris’ (Beza, It seems Grot.; on which see esp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 394, note) is actually in- volved in the present use of the sin- gular; comp. Acts xxviii. 20, 2 Tim. i. 16, Joseph. Antiq. XvIt. 6. 10, and see Paley, Hor. Paul. v1. 5, Wieseler, Synops. p. 420. As the singular is not conclusive, being often used, es- pecially in the case of material ob- jects, in a collective sense (see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 44. 1. 1, Bernhardy, Synt. II. I, p. 58), and as the use of the word in St Paul’s Epp. (here and 2 Tim. i. 16) is confined to the singular, it seems uncritical to press the allusion, though it still may be regarded as by no means improbable: &vovs is used in the singular (els ri d\vow éurlr- Tew), but with the article and in a more general sense, in Polyb. Hist. POOH FY, BY iY VO So Wa... Tappyo.] ‘in order that I may speak boldly ;’ second purpose and object of the dypumv. x.T.X., ver. 18. There seems no reason to depart from the ordinary interpr. ; the second wa k.7.X. is not dependent on pec. év adicer (Beng.), nor subordinate to tva 6007 (Harl.), but co-ordinate with it (comp. Rom. vii. 13, Gal. iii, 14), and in- volves no tautology. The first of the two final sentences relates to the gift of utterance and wap. generally, the second, to the gift of a conditioned mapp.,—scil. ws det we NadAToaL. év atta] ‘in it, ‘therein,’ scil. & TG fuvoT. TOU evayyed.,—‘ occupied with it, engaged in preaching it.’ °Ev here marks, not so much the (official) sphere in which (see Rom. i. 9, ANaTpetw...év T@ evayy.), as the substratum on which ’ the wappyala was to be displayed and exercised ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 12. 6, and notes on Gal. i.24. Itcan scarcely denote the source or ground of the wa#p., Harl.; for,—as 1 Thess. li. 2, émapinovacdueba ev TG OG k.T. \. (cited by Harless) clearly shows —God was the source and causal sphere of the rapp. (see notes in loc.), the Gospel (here ‘the mystery of the Gosp.’) the object in which and about which it was to be manifested: see exx. in Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8. b, p. 212. 21. “Iva 8& Kal tp. elSqre] ‘ But in order that ye also may know ;’ trans- ition by means of the 8& peraBarixoy Nai, 22% 157 , , a , ° ‘ Tl Tpacow, TavTa vpiv yvopice Tvxikos 6 ayamytos adeApos Kat motos diaxovos ev Kupiv, ov ereurba 22 (see notes on Gal. i. 11) to the last and valedictory portion of the Epistle. In the words kal ters the kal is cer- tainly something more than a mere ‘particle of transition’ (Eadie, Ruck.). It indisputably refers to others besides the Ephesians, but who they were cannot be satisfactorily determined. If the Epistle to the Colossians was written first, kal might point to the Colossians (Harl. Hinleit. p. 60, Wig- Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 453, Meyer, Hinleit. p. 17, Wieseler, Synops. p- 432), but as the priority of that Ep., though by no means improbable both from internal (Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 329 Bohn, comp. Schleierm. Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 500) and per- haps external considerations (see Wie- seler, Syn. p. 450 sq), is still very doubtful (see Credner, Hinleit. § 157, Reuss, Gesch. des N.T. § 119), all that can be said is this, viz. that the use of cal is certainly noticeable, and not to be explained away, and that though per se it cannot safely be relied upon as an argument in favour of the priority of the Ep. to the Colossians, it still, on. that hypothesis, admits of an easy and natural explanation. The gers, article by Wiggers above referred to, though in several points far from con- clusive, deserves perusal. wl mpdocw] ‘how I fare; not ‘quid (in carcere) agam’ (Wolf), but simply ‘quid agam,’ Vulg., Clarom.,—in simple explanation of ra kar’ éué: see Arrian, Epict. 1. 19, Tl mpdooer Pyde- kiwv; Ablian, Var. Hist. 1. 35, pero tt mpdtro [6 brd dobevelas KaTadn- Oels}; comp. Hor. Sat. 1. 9. 4. Illus- trations of Ta Kar éué, ‘res meas’ (Phil. i. 12, Col. iv. 7), are cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234: see Wetst. and Kypke. Tuxtkos] Not TuxiKxds(Griesb., Tisch. ed. 7), see Winer, Gr. § 6, p. 49. Tychicus was an *Acvavés, and is mentioned Acts xx. A COlsnivar 7.2) MIMenl ye 2 pbs Ile) 02) Tradition represents him as afterwards bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia, of Colophon, or of Neapolis in Cyprus ; see Acta Sanct. April 29, Vol. III. p. 613. The order yrwpice: bytv, though found in BDEFGN; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Aug., Boern., Goth., al.; Ambrst. (Zachm.), is per- haps rightly reversed by Tisch., Alf., Wordsw., on the evidence of AKL; nearly all mss.; Vulg. (Amit., Demid., —not Fuld.), Syr.-Phil., al.; Chrys., Theod., al.; as being not unlikely a conformation to Col.iv.7. This how- ever is one of those cases in which, until we know more of &, it seems hard to decide. motos] ‘faithful,’ ‘trusty; not d&témicTos, scil. ovdev Wev- ceTat G\Ad mdvra dAnbevoe, Chrys., Beng.; for, as Mey. remarks, he was probably known to the Ephesians (comp. Acts xx. 4), though probably not to the Colossians. dud - Kovos év Kuplo] ‘minister in the Lord,’ Christ was the sphere of his ministra- tions, Christ’s Spirit animated and ac- tuated his labours. It does not seem necessary to refer the term didkovos to any special (‘sacra ordinatione diaco- num fuisse,’ Hst.), or even general office (‘qui Evangelio navat operam,’ Grot.) in relation to the Gospel, but merely in reference to his services to St Paul ; see Col. iv. 7, miaréds Siudkovos xal avvdovdos év Kup., where, as Meyer and De W. observe, the latter term is intended to heighten and dignify the former; comp. also 2 Tim. iv. 11. 22. Sv rena mpds tpas] ‘whom I have sent to you; not ‘I send’ (Wordsw.),—which, though not appy. 158 IIPOZ E®EZIOY2. N Ce 9 OLN lal t ~ “ SCE A Q Tpos vukas €l¢ AVTO TOUTO, iva YYWTE TA TEDL HWY Kat , ‘ U ec ~ TapaxaXeoy Tas Kapolas UMLOV, 23 EKipyvy TOS ader pois Kal ayany mera inconsistent with the usage of the N.T. (see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249), does not seem accordant with the probable circumstances, Tychicus appears to have been sent with Onesimus to Co- lossze on a special mission (Col. iv. 8), of which the Apostle availed himself so far as to send this letter by him; this mission however the Apostle na- turally regards as an act belonging to the past, and so probably uses éreupa in its ordinary sense. els aird totto] ‘for this very purpose, and no other,’ viz. in reference to what follows; not ‘for the same purpose,’ Auth.; comp. Phil. i. 6, Col. iv. 8 and notes in loc. The preposition is some- times omitted; see Plat. Sympos. 204 A, and Stallb. zn loc.; comp. ib. Legg. 11. 686 D, Protag. 310 B. twa yore k.T.d.] ‘in order that ye may know the things concerning us; ob- viously similar in meaning to eidjre ra kat éué, but perhaps with a more inclusive reference both to himself and those with him. Tapakahéon] ‘comfort,’ ‘consoletur,’ Vulg. (comp. Goth. ‘gabvasstjai’), here judiciously changed from the ‘exhorte[n]tur’ of Clarom.; see Col. iv. 8. The subject of the mapdkAnows may have been ‘ne offenderetis in meis vinculis’ (Beng.), or ‘ne animis deficiatis ob meas tri- bulationes’ (Est. ; comp. ch. iii, 13); so also @icum., Theoph.: it is better how- ever, owing to our ignorance of the exact state of the church, to leave the precise reference undefined, and to ex- tend it generally to all particulars in which they needed it. On the mean- ing of the word, see notes on ch. iv. 1, and on 1 Thess. v. It. 23. Hipyvy] ‘Peace,’ simply; not Peace be to the brethren, and grace to all true Christians. Caly., Hamm. (comp. elpynvevere, 2 Cor. xiii. tr), as the Epistle, though efpyvixds (De Wette) in relation to the doctrinal aspects of the union of Jews and Gen- tiles (see ch. ii.), contains no special exhortations on the subject of concord generally. Eipyvn is however no mere parting salutation (comp. notes ch. i. 2, and on Gal. i. 3), but is in effect a valedictory prayer for that yadjvy Kal evdia WuxAs (Orig. Cat.) which was the blessed result of reconciliation with God, and His Spirit’s special gift; see Steiger on t Pet. i. 2, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 200 sq. tots adeddots] ‘the brethren at Ephe-’ sus.’ Wieseler (Synops. p. 444) refers added. specially to the Jewish Chris- tians, rdvtwy to the Gentile Christians. This is surely a very doubtful, and even improbable interpretation ; for is it likely that in an epistle so opposed in its tenor to all national distinctions any such special recognition of their existence would be found? Clearly oi ade\pol can only mean ‘the whole Christian brotherhood.’ ayary pera mlorews| ‘love with faith,’ *concordia,’ ‘peaceableness,’ not dydmrn xal mloris: the Apostle does not simply pray for the presence of each of these graces in his converts, for, as Olsh. correctly observes, he assumed ziotis to be there already; what he prays for is their co-ewistence. As love (not here the divine love, Beng.) is the characteristic of a true faith, the medium by which its energy is displayed (Gal. y. 6), so here faith is represented as the perpetual concomi- tant of a true love. If it had been aydm. ovv wiorer it would rather have conveyed the here scarcely realizable Wits a) 24 159 TlaTews ato QOeou TAT pos Kal Kupiou "Iyncov Xpirrov. ¢ , Q , ~ ) , \ Kd H Xapls META TWAVTWVY TWY AYATWVTOV TOV volov 24. conception of their coherence ; compare ch. iv. 31, mixpla...cdv kaxla [badness of heart was the ‘ fermentum,’ the ac- tive principle]; 1 Cor. x. 13, oly TG Teipacud Kal THv éxBaow [not the one without the other]: see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1. Onthe connexion of love and faith, comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vv. 19, Vol. IL. p. 205; and on the whole verse, a short but not very connected sermon of Augustine, Serm. cLxviI. Vol. v. p. gtr (ed. Migne). 24. “H xdpus] ‘ Grace,’ car’ éfoxip, the grace of God in Jesus Christ (Mey.). The use of the article is in harmony with the immediately preced- ing and succeeding mention of Him through whom 7 xdpis éyévero, John 1, 4% pera TavTwv K.T.A. | ‘with all that love our Lord J.C. second and more comprehensive form of benediction. Meyer compares the similar maledictory form in 1 Cor. xvi. 22. ev dPapola] ‘in incorruption,’ Aan tl» [sine ° 2 corruptione] Syr., ‘in incorruptione,’ Vulg., Copt., rom., Arm., ‘in unriurein,’ Goth., ‘in non-interitu,’ A‘th.-Platt. nexion of this clause and the mean- ing of the words are both somewhat doubtful, and must be noticed sepa- rately. (1) Meaning: excluding all arbitrary interpretations of the prepo- sition, e.g. Urép (Chrys. 2), dd (Theoph.), pera (Theod.), ets (Beza), and all doubt- ful explanations of d¢@apcla, whether temporal (sc. e/s rév aiéva, Matth.), brachylogical (va fwiy éxwow ev ag., ‘incorruptione,’ Cla- The con- Olsh.), abstr. for concrete—really (év . apOdpras, Chrys. 2) or virtually (‘in unverginglichem Wesen,’ Harl.),—we have three probable interpr. ; (a) ethi- cal, ‘sincerity,’ Auth., Chrys., comp. T Pet. iii. 4: (0) quasi-local, in refer- ence to the sphere of the dydm7n, comp. év é€moupavios: (c) simply qualitative, i.e. ‘imperishableness,’ Hcum., Mey., al. To (a) the lexical meaning of the word is seriously opposed: see Meyer. St Paul’s use of a¢@apcia is perhaps rather in favour of (4), as in all the six other passages where it occurs (Tit. ii. 7 [Steph.] is extremely doubtful), a0. refers directly or indirectly to a higher sphere than the present; still as a0. is anarthrous, and the expla- nation difficult unless the unsatisfactory construction (8), see below, be adopted, we decide in favour of (ce), and regard év as marking the manner, or rather conditioning sphere, in which the ac- tion takes place; comp. esp. Tit. iii. 15. (2) Connexion: three constructions have been suggested; (a) with ‘Ino. Xp., scil. ‘Christum immortalem non humilem,’ Wetst. ;—(8) with 7 ydpus, Harl., Stier ;—(y) with dyardévrov, Chrys., Theod. Of these (a) is inad- missible, being exegetically unsatisfac- tory, and, on account of the absence of the artic’e, grammatically suspi- cious; (8) is harsh, especially in a simple benediction, on account of the intercalation of so many words between the nom. and the modal factor of the sentence; (y) is adopted by all the Greek commentators, and seems most simple and satisfactory ; we translate therefore, ‘ grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption, i.e, ina manner and in an element that knows neither change, diminu- tion, nor decay; 7 yap els tov Xp. aydrn ddbapros Kal dpelwros “addov 0€ Kal? Exdoryy émididovca Thy hudpav Bperev elvac* (Hcum. Thus then this 160 IPO E®@®EZIOY2. nuov “Incovy Xpirrov ev ad@Oapoia. significant clause not only defines what the essence of the dyd7v7 is, but indicates that it ought to be perennial, immutable, incorruptible. The con- cluding dui [Rec. with DEKLN?; most Vy. and Ff.] is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., al. [with ABF GN*; 2 mss., Aug., Boern., Amit*., Tol., Basm., Auth.-Pol., and some Ff.], as a liturgical addition. TRANSLATION. NOTICE. HE principles on which this translation is based are explained in the general Preface to the commentary on the Galatians, and in the notice prefixed to the translation of that Epistle. The English Versions with which the translation is compared, and the editions which have been used, are the same as those used in the Translation of the former Epistle, with this exception, that the Version, here used and referred to as the Standard Genevan Version, is not (as before) the Version of the New Testament published in the year 1557 (reprinted in the Hnglish Heaxapla) but the Version of the whole Bible published in the year 1560. This Version differs in many respects from the Version of 1557, and appears alone entitled to be considered as 7'az GENEVAN Version. In the present edition the citations have been carefully verified anew, some additions have been made, and errors, as far as possible, removed. One unimportant change may be specified. It has been suggested that it might be better to change ‘unto’ into ‘to,’ wherever ‘unto’ appears in the Authorized Version as marking a simple dative, and to reserve the former for the trans- lation of prepositions with the accusative. As this is professedly a ‘version for the closet,’ and as rhythm (the usual reason for the interchange in the A.V.) is thus of less consequence, the suggestion has been adopted. THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, I. to the saints which are [in Ephesus], and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. Grace be to you, and peace, 2 from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus 3 Christ, who blessed us with every blessing of the Spirit in the heavenly regions in Christ: even as He chose us 4 Cuaprer I. 1. Of Christ Jesus] Of * Jesus Christ, AUTH. In Ephesus] At Ephesus, AutH. and all the other Vv. 2. And the Lord] Sim. Wict., Cov. Test., RuEM.: and from the Lord, AUTH. and remaining Vy. The prep. in such cases as the present should certainly be omitted, as it tends to make that unity of source from whence the grace and peace come less apparent than it is in the Greek; comp. note on Phil. i. 2 (Transl.). 3. God and the Father] So Wict., Cov. Test., Ruem.: the God and Father, AutH.; God euen the Father, GEN.; God the father, TynD. and remaining Vy. Blessed us| Hath blessed us, Auto. and all the other Vy. The aorist here ought cer- tainly to be maintained in translation, as the allusion is to the past act of the redemption. The idiom of our language frequently interferes with the regular application of the rule, but it is still no less certain that the English preterite is the nearest equivalent of the Greek aor., see Latham, Zngl. Lang. § 360, 361, and compare Scholef. Hints (Pref.), p. xi. It is possible that there are cases when the English present, owing to its expressing an habitual action (Latham, § 573), might seem to correspond to the Greek aor., but as the iterative force of the latter tense, even if admitted (see notes on Gal. v. 24), seems radically to differ from that of the Engl. pres. (the one expressing indefinite recurrence in the past, see Jelf, Gir. § 402. 1, the other indef. recurrence in the present), it will seem best not to venture on any such translation. Every blessing] So Cov. Test.; all maner of... blessinges, Tynp. (blessynge, CRAN., Cov.); al... blessynge Wicu., GEN., BisH., RHEM.: all...blessings, AUTH. Of the Spirit] Spiritual, AUTH. and all the other Vvy.; see notes, The hea- venly regions] Heavenly places, AUTH.: celestials, Rurm. ; heuenli thingis, WICcL. and remaining Vv. 4. Even as] According as, AUTH., TYND., Cov., CRAN., BisH.; as, WICL., M 2 164 EPHESIANS. in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should 5 be holy and blameless before Him; IN LOVE having fore- ordained us for adoption through Jesus Christ into Him- 6 self, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He bestowed 7 grace on us in the beloved; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions, 8 according to the riches of His grace, which He made to Cov. Test., GEN., RHEM.: see note on 1 Thess. i. 5 (Transi.). Chose] So RHEM. : hath chosen, AUTH., WICL., Cov. Test., GEN. ; had chosen, TYND., and remaining Vy. Blameless] Without blame, AutH., TyND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BisH.; without wemme, WIcL.; wnspotted, Cov. Test. ; emma- culate, Roem. The slight change has been made for the sake of retaining the same translation both here and ch. vy. 27. On the distinction between apwmos (‘in quo nihil est quod repre- hendas’) and &eu7zos (‘in quo nihil de- siderari potest’), see Tittm. Synon. p. 29. 5. In love having] AvutH. and all the other Vy. connect ‘in love’ with the preceding verse; see notes. The participle expresses probably a tem- poral relation, ‘after He had, dc.,’ but in so profound a subject it seems best to retain the more undefined transl. of AUTH, Foreordained| Bifore ordeyned, Wict.; ordeyned ... before, Tynpv., Cov., Cran.; predestinated, AvtH, and the remaining Vv. For adoption] Unto the adeption of children, AUTH. ; in to adop. of sones, Wict., RueEem. (vnto the ad.); to be heyres, TYND., CRAN. ; to receaue vs as children, Cov. ; to be adopted, GEN., — a good translation, but perhaps scarcely sufficiently literal. Through] So Tynp. and other Vv.: by, AvrH., Wict., BisH., RHEM. Into Him- self] To himself, AvutTH.; in to him, WICL, ; vnto him silfe, TynvD., CRAN., Gen., BisH., RaemM.; in hymselfe, Cov. Test. Whether we adopt the translation ‘into’ or ‘unto’ matters but little, both approximat‘ng to, but neither fully expressing the meaning of the inclusive e/s, perhaps English idiom (‘adopt into’) is slightly in favour of the former. It seems also best in English, for the sake of perspicuity, to return to the reflexive form: ‘into Him’ (ed. 1), though literal, perhaps may seem ambiguous. 6. Bestowed grace on us| Hath glorified us, Wicu.; hath gratified vs, RueEm.; hath made us accepted, AUTH. and all other Vv. 7. Redemption] Here we must be content to omit (with all the Vv.) the expressive article, our idiom seeming to require some adject., e.g. ‘the promised red.,’ to make the article perfectly intelligible. Of our transgressions] Of sins, AUTH. and all Vv. 8. Which He made to abound toward us] Which grace he shed on us aboundantly, TYND., and sim. Cov.; wher of he hath ministred vnto vs aboundantly, CRAN. ; whereby he hathe bene abundant toward vs, GEN.; wherein he hath abounded toward us, AUTH., BISH. On this clause a friend and accurate scholar has made the observation, that as all verbs of the character of repiccetw may practically be resolved into a ‘verbum faciendi’ with an appended CHApe Tr *5—=re. 165 abound toward us in all wisdom and discernment; having 9 made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself in re- 10 gard of the dispensation of the fulness of times, to gather up again together all things in Christ, the things that are in heaven and the things that ave on earth, even in Him; in whom we were also chosen as //is inheritance, having 11 been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will; that we 12 should be to the praise of His glory, who have before hoped accus. elicited from the verb (‘make an abundance of’), the gen. 7s may here receive a simple explanation with- out reference to the principles of attrac- tion. This remark appears to deserve some consideration. Discernment] Prudence, AuTH., Wict., Cov. (both), Cran., BISH., RHEM.; perceavaunce, TYND. ; Gren. The transl. ‘prudence’ appears to give the word a more decided reference to understanding, practice than the context will admit ; ‘understanding,’ on the other hand, is too abstract, and fails to recognise the distinction between ovveots and gpovnots. Perhaps the transl. in the text, or ‘intelligence,’ as indicating an application and exercise of the ppyy, and a result of (spiritual) copia (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 13), approaches more nearly to the true meaning of the word in this passage. 9g. Purposed| So Wict., TYND., Cov. Test., RHEM.: had purp., AUTH. and the remaining Vv. to. In regard of the disp.| In the disp., AUTH., Cov. Test., GEN., Brsu., RuHEM.; paraphrastically, to have it declared when the tyme were full come, T'YND., CRAN. (was), sim. Cov. The translation in the text, or ‘witha view to’ (see notes), seems to make the meaning a little more distinct than the more usual ‘for.’ To gather up again together] That... he might gather together in one, AUTH., GEN., Bisu.; that he might set vp... perfectly, CRAN., that...shuld be gad- dered ‘togedder, TYND., Cov.; to en- store, WicL.; to set up, Cov. Test. The things that are in heaven and the things that are] Similarly TyNnD., Cov., CRAN., also Cov. Test.: both which are in heaven and which are, AutH., GEN., BisH. (heauens). The repetition which the older translators thus preserve is not without force in this solemn enunciation of the eternal purpose of God. 11. We were also chosen as His in- heritance| Also we have obtained an inheritance, AUTH.; we ben clepid bi sorte, WicL., sim. Cov. Test., RHEM. ; we are made heyres, TYND., CRAN. ; also we are come to the inheritaunce, Cov. ; also we are chosen, GEN., BISH. It may be observed that a/so is omit- ted by Wicu., TyNnD., CRAN. Having been fore-ordained | Being pre- destinated, AUTH., BIsH. (-nate); and were therto predestinate, TYND., CRAN. ; bifor ordeyned, Wict.; predestinate, Cov. Test., RHkm. The simpler trans- lation in the text seems decidedly preferable; see notes on ver. 5. His will] So Wict., RuEM.: his own will, AUTH. and remaining Vv. 12. Have before hoped) First trust- ed, AutH. (hoped, AUTH. marg.), GEN. ; han hopid bifor, Wicu.; afore haue and 166 EPHESIANS. 13 in Christ: in whom ye too, having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,—in whom, I say, hay- ing also believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of 14 promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, tor the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory. 15 For this cause I also, having heard of the faith which is among you in the Lord Jesus, and the love which ye 16 have unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, 17 making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give to hoped, Cov. Test., Ruem. before ; be- fore beleved, TYND., CRAN., BISH. The force of the perf. part. should be retained in transl., especially as this can so easily be done by the inserted ‘have,’ as Cov. Test., RueEM.; the English perfect expresses the past in connexion, by its effects or consequences, with the present: see Latham, Lngl. Lang. § 579 (ed. 3). 13. Ye too, having heard] You also, when you had heard, RuEM., with a similarly suspended member; ye also trusted after that ye heard, &c., AUTH., sim. GEN.; also ye beleued after that ye herde, Cov., sim. Cov, Test.; also we beleue for asmoch as we haue hearde, CRAN.; also ye [hoped] after that ye heard, BisH. TYND. connects, ye also (after that ye hearde...) were sealed. I say, having also| Also after that ye, AvuTH. The change to the particip. structure in both members seems to make the sentence a little more dis- tinct, and to preserve in the latter the close connexion of kal with muicrev- cavTes; see notes. The holy] So all the Vv. except AvuTH., that holy. 14. Which] On the form ‘which,’ see notes on Gal. i. 2 (Trans/.). For] So Cov. Test., CRAN.: until, AvuTH., GEN.; i to, WICL.; unto, Bisa.; to, Ruem. The translation of TrnD. (to redeme) is paraphrastic. 15. Lor this cause| Wherefore, AvutH., TynD., Cov. (both), Cran., Bisa. ; therefore, Wict., GEN., RHEM. The transl. ‘for this cause’ is more consonant with the general style of AuvtH. than the equally literal and correct ‘on this account,’ and so is substituted for it. ‘ Wherefore’ (AvTH.) is rather the transl. of 616. Having heard| After I heard, AvtTH. ; herynge, Wict., Cov. Test., RHEm. ; after that I heard, TYND., CRAN., GEN., Bisu.; 7m so moch as I haue herde, Cov. The faith, &c.| Your faith, AvtH., Wict., RHEM.; the fayth which ye have, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., Brisu. ; your f. whych is, Cov. Test. The love which ye have] Love, AuTH. and the other Vv. except Wict., the love, and Cov., of youre love. 17. Would give] May give, AuTH., Cov. (both), Cran., Bisa.; myght geve, TynD., GEN. The change in the text is made as an attempt to express the conditioned, hoped for, realization (‘would please to give’) expressed by the opt. 6a; comp. Latham, Zngl. Lang. § 592, Wallis, Gramm. Angl. p. 107. Hermann (Soph. Elect. 57) asserts that in German the distinction may be observed by translating the Greek subj. by the German ind. pres., Cuap, I. 13—2I. 167 you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in full knowledge of Him; having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that 18 ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance are among the saints, and what the surpassing greatness of His power is 19 to us-ward who believe, according to the operation of the power of His might, which He wrought in Christ, when 20 He raised Him from the dead,—and He set Him on His right hand in the heavenly regiens, over abeve all Princi- 21 pality, and Power, and Might, and Dominion, yea and the opt. by the German imperf. sub- junctive. The transl. of Tynp., al., though practically preserving the cor- rect shade of meaning, violates the law of ‘the succession of tenses;’ see Latham, Lgl. Lang. § 616. Full knowledge| The knowledge, AUTH, and all the other Vv. (knowynge, Wict.). It may be doubted whether this stronger translation can in all cases be maintained. That there is generally a clear recognition of the in- creased force of the compound may be inferred frem a comparison of the passages in which the simple and com- pound forms are respectively used. Caution however is required in exhibit- ing this in translation, 18. Having the eyes of your heart enlightened] The eyes of your *under- standing being tinlightened, AUTH. ; and lighten the eyes of youre myndes, TynD., Cran. (vnderstondinge, Cov.) ; the eyes of youre harte beynge lyghten- ed, Cov. Test. (myndes, Bisu.); that ye eyes of your end. may be lightened, Gen. ; the etes of your hart illuminated, RueEm., sim. WICL. Are among] Apon TYND., Cov., CRAN.; in, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. It may be observed that Tynp., Cov., GEN., Bisu., similarly insert the auxiliary verb immediately before the prep. (Wict., Coy. Test., RuEmM. before the riches; CRAN. after the glorye), show- ing that they did not consider & rots aylos as merely appended to 77s KAn- povoulas avrov; see notes. 1g. What the...power is] What ts the, &c., AUTH., and the same order is kept by all the other Vv. Surpassing] Excellent, Wich.; passe ing, RHEM.; exceeding, AUTH, and the other Vv. To us-ward} So AutH., TYND., CRAN., BISH.; in to us, WicL.; towarde vs, Coy. (both), GEN., RHEM. Operation] Se RHEM.: working, AUTH. and the remaining Vy.; see notes on ch. iii. 7% The power of His might| His mighty power, AUTH., Cov., GEN., BisH.; the myght of his vertu, Wict.; that his mighty power, TYND., CRAN.; the myght of hys power, Cov. Test., Roem. 20. And He set] And set, AuTH.: the change in the original from the participial structure to that of the aor. indic. is better preserved by inserting the pronoun, On His] So WIct., Tynp., Cov., CRAN., BIsH., RHEM. : at his own, AUTH.; at hys, Cov. Test., GEN. The heavenly regions] The heavenly places, AUTH., GEN., BIsH. (om, the); heuenli thingis, WIcL., Tynp., Cov. (both), Cran. ; celestials, Rue. 21. Over above] Far above, AUTH., GEN., BisH.; aboue, Wick. and the remaining Vy. Yea and] And, 168 EPHESIANS. every name that is named, not only in this world, but also 22 in that which is to come; and put all things under His feet, and gave Him as Head over all things to the church, 23 which indeed is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all with all. Il. And you also being dead by your trespasses and your 2 sins,—wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the empire of the AUTH. ; see notes. 22. Put] Hath put, AvtH., TYND., Coy., Cran., Bisu.; hath he subdued, Cov. Test., RHorEm. (he hath); hathe made...subiect, GEN.; mdde...suget, Wict.,—the only version which omits the auxiliary verb. Gave Him, &c.] Gave him to be the head over all things to, AUTH., BisH.; hath made him aboue all thynges, the heed of, TYND., Cov., Cran.; made hym heade ouer all, Cov. Test.; athe appointed him ouer all things to be the heade to, GEN.; hath made him head ouer al, RHEM. The emphatic position of airdvy in the original should not be left unnoticed. 23. Which indeed] Which, AutH. and the other Vv. except WICL. (that). If the distinction usually made be- tween ‘that’ and ‘ which’ is correct, viz. that the former is restrictive, the latter resumptive (see Brown, Gramm. of Grammars, Il. 5, p. 293, and notes on Col. iii. 1, Transl.), ‘that’ will often be a correct translation of 771s when used differentially (see notes on Gal. iv. 24), @&g. ) mods Aris ev AéXqors xrl¢erac: in the present case however WICctL. is not correct, as 771s appears here to be used explicatively. With all] In all, Autu., Cov. (both), CrAN., BisH., RHEM.; én alle thingis, Wict., TYND., GEN. CuHapter II. 1. Youalso being dead] You hath he quickened who were dead, AvutH. The participle éyras has been differently translated : who were, AUTH. ; that were, TYND., GEN., BisH.; whan ye were, Cov. (both) ; where as ye were, Cran. Of these the last two transla- tions, though more correct in point of grammar than TynD., al., which tacitly supply an article, seem scarcely so satisfactory as the more simple one in the text, esp. if the present verse be compared with verse 5. ‘The part. évras obviously marks the state in which they were at the time when God quickened them. While in verse 5 this is brought prominently forward by the «al, here, on the contrary, the kai is joined with, and gives promi- nence to tuds. In the present case then, a simple indication of their state without any temporal or causal ad- junct, ‘when,’ ‘ whereas,’ dc., seems most suitable to the context, as less calling away the attention from the more emphatic buds. By your] So Ruem.: in, AuTH., TYND., CRAN., GEN., BisH.; thorow, Cov. ; in youre, Wict. ; thorowe your, Cov. Test. Your sins] Sins, AurH. and all the other Vv. (synne, TYND.). 2. Ye once walked] In time past ye walked, AUTH., TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BisH.; ye wandriden sumtyme, Wict. ; ye walked somtyme, Coy. Test. ; sometime you vv., RHEM. Of the empire of | Of the power of, AUTH., Wict., Cov. Test. (om. the), RHEm. ; that ruleth in, TyND., Cov., CRAN., GeEN., BisH. The somewhat modern Coare iy 22-11. 5. 169 air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedi- ence; among whom even we all once had our conversation in 3 the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and we were children by nature—of wrath, even as the rest:—but God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love wherewith He loved us, even while we were tr dead by our trespasses, quickened us together with Christ form of expression in the text seems the only one that exactly represents the view taken in the notes of the col- lective term éfoucias. Of the spirit] So Wict., RHEM.: the spirit, AutH., Tynp., Cov. Test., CRAN., BIsH. ; namely, after y¢ sp., Cov. ; euen the sp., GEN. Sons] So WICL. : children, AutH. and the other Vv. 3. Lven we] Also we, AUTH., WICL., Cov. Test., RHEM.; we also, TYND., Cov., GEN.; we, CRAN., BisH., but see next note. Once had our convers.| Had our convers. in times past, AUTH. ; lyueden sumtyme, WICL. ; had owre conversacion in tyme past, Tywnp., Cov., GEN. (CRAN., BISH. insert also before in); haue led our conuer- sacion somtyme, Cov. Test. ; conuersed sometime, RueM. This lighter transla- tion of woré seems preferable both here and in ver. 2. The order of the Greek would seem to require ‘had our conversation once,’ but this would lead to ambiguity when read in con- nexion with the succeeding words. Doing| So Wict., Coy. Test., RHEM. ; fulfilling, AurH., BisH.; and fullfilled, Tynp., Cran.; and dyd, Cov.; in fuljilling, GEN. Thoughts] So Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.; mind, AvtH. and the remaining Vv. We were] So Wict.: were, AUTH. and all the other Vv. except Cov. Test., were Wwe. Children] The children, AuruH. and all the other Vv. except WICcL., the sones. Children by nature—of wrath] By nature the chil- dren of wrath, AutH., CRAN., GEN., BisH., RHEM., and sim. Cov. Test. ; bi kynde the sones of wraththe, WIct.; naturally the children of wrath, TYND., Cov. All attempts to explain away the simple and ordinary meaning of these words must be, somewhat sum- marily, pronounced to be both futile and untenable. Such a translation as ‘children of impulse’ (Maurice, Unity, p- 538) has only to be noticed to be rejected. The substantive dpy7) is used in thirty-four other places in the N.T., and in none does it appear even to approach to the meaning thus arbi- trarily assigned to it. The rest | So RuEm. : others, AuTH., GEN. ; other men, Wicu.; other, TYND. and the re- maining Vy. 4. Being rich] Who is rich, AUTH. ; that is riche, Wicu.; which is rich, Tynp. and the remaining Vv. Because of...lcve] For, &c., AUTH., Wict., CRAN., BisH., RHEM.; thorow, &e., Tynp., Cov., GEn.: for...loues sake, Cov. Test. 5. While] When, AutH. and all Vv. The change is only made to ex- press more forcibly the existing state ; see notes. By our trespasses] In sins, AUTH., Wict., Cov.; thorow synnes, Cov. Test. The remaining Vv. give what seems the more correct transl. of the dative ; by synne, TYND.; by synnes, CRAN., GEN., BIsH., RHEM. Quickened] So Wict., CRAN., RHEM. : hath quickened, AvutTH, and the re- maining Vy. Have ye been] 170 EPHESIANS. 6 (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with Him, and made us sit with Him in the heavenly regions, 7 in Christ Jesus; that He might shew forth in the ages that are coming the surpassing riches of His grace in 8 kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. For by GRACE have ye been saved through faith; and this cometh not of your- g selves, the gift is Gop’s; not of works, that no man should 10 boast: for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God before prepared that we should walk in them. Ye are, AutH., Cov. Test., GEN., Bisu.; ye ben, WicL.; are ye, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; you are, RuEM. On the simplest practical rule of choosing between ‘am’ and ‘have been’ in the translation of the Greek perf. pass., see notes on Col. i. 16 (Transl.). ‘Are’ might indeed be retained on the ground that ‘am’ with the part. does involve an essentially past element (Latham, Eng. Lang. § 568); still the change seems a little more in harmony with the context. 6. Raised] So Wich. (agenreisid), CRAN., RuEM.; hath raised, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. Up with Hin] So Cov. (both), RHEM. ;: to gidre, WIcL.; vp tog. wyth hym, CRAN.; up together, AuTH. and the remaining Vv. With him (2)] So Cov. (both), RHEM.; together with him, Oran. : together, AUTH. and the remain- ing Vy. In the heavenly regions] In h. places, AuTH.; in the h. places, GEN.; inh. thingis, Wicu., TYND., Cov. (both), BisH. ; amonge them of heauen, Cran.; in the celestials, RHEM. 7. That He might, &c.] So, as to order, Wicu., TyNp., GEN., RHEM.; that in the ages to come, he might, AUTH., and sim. Cov. (both), Cran., BisH. Shew forth] Shew, AvuTH. and all the other Vv. That are coming] Aboue comyng, WICL.; succeding, RaHEM. ; fo come, AUTH. and the other Vy. Surpassing] Plenteuous, WIct.; abundaunte, Cov. Test., RHEM. ; exceeding, AUTH. and the remaining NAG In kindness] So Tynp., Cov., CRAN.: 2m his kindness, AUTH., Bisx.; in goodnes, Wicu., Cov. Test. ; through his kindnes, GEN. ; in bountie, RHEM. In Chr. Jes.] So all the Vv. except AutTH., Cran., BIsH., through Chr, Jes. 8. Have ye been] Are ye, AUTH. : see notes on ver. 5. And this cometh] And this, Wicu.; and that, AutH. and all remaining Vy. It does not seem necessary to change ‘of’ into ‘from,’ the former being frequent- ly a very suitable translation of ék ; see notes on (al. ii, 16. The gift is God’s] It is the gift of God, AvutH. and all the other Vv. The emphasis is maintained, appy. more in accordance with English idiom, by placing the gen. at the end rather than at the beginning. g. That no) So Wict., RHEM.: lest any, AurH. and the remaining Vy. 10. For good works] In g. w., Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.; wnto g. w., AvtTH. and the remaining Vy. Which] Vato the wh., TYND., Cov. (éo0). Before prepared) Hath before ordained, AutH., BisH.; hath ordeyned, WICL., GeEn.; ordeyned vs before, TYND., Cov.; hath prepared, Cov. Test., RuEM. ; ordeyned, CRAN. Cuap. Il. 6—15. Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye, Gentiles in 11 the flesh, who are called the Uncircumcision by the so- called Circumcision, performed by hand in the flesh,— that ye were at that time without Christ, being aliens 12 from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ JESUS ye who once 13 were far off are become nigh by the blood of Christ. For 14 HE is our Peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of the partition—to wit, the enmity—in His 15 11. hat aforetime ye] *That ye being in time past, AuTH. This trans- lation of moré (Coy.) is perhaps a little simpler than that of AuTH. (and remaining Vv. except WICcL., Cov. Test., RHEM., swmtyme), and serves equally well to keep up the antithesis between woré and 7@ kaip@ éxelvw in ver. 12. The so-called] That which is called, AurH. (adding the), Cran., BisH., RHEM., and sim. the remaining Vv. Performed by hand in the flesh | So, as to order, WICL., made bi hond in jfleisch, and sim. Cov. Test., made wyth hande in the fleshe: in the flesh made by hands, AUTH., GEN. (with h.), BisH.; in the jlesshe, which circwmeision is made by hondes, Tynp., CRAN.; after the flesh, whiche circ. is made with the hande, Cov. The transposition in the text seems desirable, as marking that év capxi is not to be closely connected with \eyo- wévns tepcr. (the error of TYND., CRAN., Cov., and sim. remaining Vy.), but rather to be regarded as a separate member qualifying what has preceded, and in more immediate connexion with XElpoTrorjrou: see notes in loc, 12. Yewere at that time] So Tynp., sim. WIcL., RHEM.; ye were, I say, at y* time, GEN. : ye at the same tyme were, Cov.; at that time ye were, AutH., CRAN., BISH. The promise] So Cran., Cov. Test., RaEM. ; biheest WICL.: promise, AUTH, and the remaining Vv. 13. Once] So GEN.: sometimes, AUTH.; sumtyme, Wict., Cov. Test., Cran., Brsu., RuEM.; a whyle agoo, Tynpb. ; afore tyme, Cov. Are become] Are now made, Coy. (both) ; are made, AUTH. and the other Vv. The change however seems desirable, if only to obviate the supposition that éyeynOynre is here used with a passive force; see notes on ch. iii. 7. The aorist cannot be preserved in English when in association with the particle of present time (vuvi); comp. notes on eheiiqs, 14. Made] So Wict.: hath made, AutH. and all the remaining Vv. Broke down] Vnbyndynge, Wict.; hath broken down, AvtTH., TYND., Coy., CRrAN., BrisH.; broken downe, Cov. Test. ; hathe broken, GEn.; dis- soluing, RHEM. The middle wall of the partition] So RuEM.: the mid- dle wall of partition between us, AUTH. ; the myddil walle of a wal with out morter, WichL.; the wall that was a stoppe bitwene vs, TYND., Coy., CRAN., Bis. (mydle wal); the myd wall of y° stoppe, Cov. Test.; the stoppe of the particion wall, GEN. 15. To wit the enmity, &c.] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even, AUTH., and similarly as to connexion the other Vv. except WICL., Cov. Test., 172 16 17 18 oy 20 21 RuEmM., which, as following the Vulg., EPHESIANS. flesh, having abolished the law of commandments ez- pressed in decrees; that He might make the two in Him- self into one new man, so making peace, and might recon- cile again both of us in one body to God by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. And He came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh; since through Him we both in one Spirit have our admission unto the Father. So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow- citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, built up upon the foundation of the apostles and pro- phets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building being fitly framed together comynge, Wich., Cov. Test.; and appy. connect év cap. with ri éxOp., and éy 66yp. with katapy.: see notes. Expressed, &c. ]Contained in ordinances, AutH., BisH.; contayned in the lawe written, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; which standeth in ordinances, GEN.: bi domes, Wict. ; by judgementes, Cov. Test. ; in decrees, RHEM., see previous note. That he might make] So Cov. Test. (that...he myght make); for to make, AuvutTH., TYND., CRAN., GEN., BISH. ; that he make, Wict.; that...he mighte create, Cov. ; that he may cr., RHEM. The two in Himself] So RueEm. ; ij. in hym silf, Wiou.; in hymselfe....two, Cov. Test.; in himself, of twain, AUTH. ; of twayne...in him silfe, TYND., Cov., CraNn., GEN., BISH. Into one] So Wicu., RHEM.; in one, Cov. Test. ; one, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. 16. And might] And that he might, AUTH. Reconcile again] Reconcile, AvutTH. and all the other Vv.; see notes in loc. Both of us| Both, Autu. and all the other Vv. In one body unto God] In one bodye... unto God, Coy. Test. ; in o bodi to god, Wict., RHEM.: wnto God in one body, Autu. and the remaining Vy. 17. And He came and] And he comming he, RHEM.; and came and, Avur#H. and the remaining Vv. And peace to] And *to, AUTH. 18. Since] For, AurH. and all the other Vy. Both in one Spirit] So RueEm.: both...by one Spirit, AUTH., and similarly, as to order, all the re- The only two Vv. that adopt the translation ‘by’ are GEN. and AuTH., all the rest more correctly adopt ‘in.’ Our admission] An access, AUTH.; nyg comynge, WICL. ; an open waye in, TYND. ; intrawnce, Coy.; an intr., Cov. Test., CRAN., GEN., BIsH.; accesse, RHEM. 19. So then] Therfor now, WICtL. ; therfor, Cov. Test.; nov then, RHEM. ; now therefore, AUTH. and remaining Wave Strangers and sojourners| Gestis and straungers, WicL., Cov. (both) ; str. and foreigners, AUTH. and all other Vv. But ye are) So Cov. Test., Wict., RHEM. (you); “but, AutH. and all other Vv. 20. Built wp| Aboue bildid, Wit. ; buylded, Cov. (both); built, RuEm. ; and are built, AUTH. and the other Vv. All the building] So AutH., GeEN., BrsH.; eche bildynge, WICct. ; every bildynge, TynD., Cov. (both); maining Vy. . 21. CHoamsiisao——Iil 6: Lys groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye 22 also are builded together for an habitation of God in the Spirit. For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for IIT. you Gentiles,—if indeed ye have heard of the dispensation 2 of the grace of God which was given me to you-ward; how 3 that BY REVELATION the mystery was made known to me, as I have before written in few words; in accordance with 4 which, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was 5 not made known to the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the same 6 what buyldyng soeuer, CRAN.; al building, RHEM.; see notes. Being filly] Fitly, AutH. 22. Yealso] You also, AUTH. In the Spirit] So Tynp., Cov. ; in the hooli gooste, Wicu., Coy. Test., CRAN. (thorow), RuEM.: through the Sp., AvuTH., Bisu.; by the Sp., GEN. CHAPTER III. 1. Christ Jesus] So Wictu.; Jesus Christ, AurH. and all the other Vv., but without any differ- ence of reading in the Rec. Text. 2. If deed] If, AutH., TYnp., Cran., GeEN., BisH.; if netheless, WIcL.; accordinge as, Cov.; yf so be yet that, Cov. Test. ; if yet, RHEM. Which, &c.] It is nearly impossible (without paraphrase) to imply that ‘which’ refers to ‘grace.’ In the edition of 1611 ‘God’ was followed by a comma, Was given] Is given, AUTH. and all the other Vv. 3. The mystery, &c.| *He made known unto me the mystery, AUTH. Have before written] Wrote afore, AutTH., Cov. Test., CRAN., BISH.; aboue wrote, W1cL.; wrote above, TYND., Cov., GEN.; haue vvritten before, RHEM. 4. In accordance with which] As, Wict.; like as, Cov. Test.; according as, RHEM.; whereby, AUTH. and the Can] May, AvurvH. and all the other Vv., but not cor- rectly; the rule apparently being, ‘may et can potentiam innuunt, cum hoc tamen discrimine, may et might vel de jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate di- cuntur, at can et could de viribus a- gentis;’ Wallis, Gramm. Angl. p. 107. Perceive my understanding] So Cov.: understand my knowledge, AvutH, CRAN., BIsH.; knowe myne vnder- stondynge, TYND., GEN.; undurstonde my prudence, Wiou., Coy. Test. ; wnd. my vvisedom, RHEM. 5. Other generations] So WIct., Cov. Test., RHEM.: other ages, AUTH., GEN., BisH.; tymes passed, TYND., Coy. (past), CRAN. It hath now been] It is now, AUTH. and the other Vv. except RHEM., novv it is. This is a case where the strict translation cannot be maintained: in English the aorist has no connexion with pres. time (Latham, Hng. Lang. § 579), and therefore cannot here properly be con- nected with viv; in Greek this is pos- sible, from the greater temporal lati- tude of the tense; comp. notes on 1 Tim. v. 15 (Transl.). 6. Yo wit, that] Similarly Cov., remaining Vy. 174 EPHESIANS. body, and joint-partakers of the promise, in Christ Jesus, 7 through the Gospel; whereof I became a minister, ac- cording to the gift of the grace of God, which was given 8 to me according to the operation of His power. To me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given,—to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable g riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the dis- pensation of the mystery, which from the ages hath been 10 hid in God, who created ALL THINGS; to the intent that now to the Principalities and the Powers in the heavenly regions might be made known through the church the 1i manifold wisdom of God, according to the purpose of the namely, that; how y*, Cov. Test.: that, AurH. and the remaining Vv. except RHEM. (which is excessively harsh), the Gentils to be. Are] So Wict., Cov. Test.: should be, AurTH. and the remaining Vv. except RuHeEm., to be ; see above. Joint- partakers] Sim, Cov. Test., lyke par- takers: parteneris to gidre, WICL.; comparticipant, Rurm.; partakers, AvTH. and the remaining Vv. The promise] *His promise, AUTH. Christ Jesus] *Christ, AUTH. Through] So Cov. Test.: by the meanes of, TYND., CRAN.; by, AuTH. and the remaining Vv. 7. I became] I was made, AUTH., Bisu.; J am made, Wicu. and all the remaining Vv. Which was given] Whiche is gouun, Wict., Cov. (both), Cran., Bisu., RHEM.; given, Auta. and the remaining Vv. According to (2)] So Cov., Rurm.: by, AvtH., WIcL.; thorow, TYND., GEN.; after, Cov. Test., CRAN., B1sH. Operation] So Ruem.: effectual work- ing, AUTH. ; worchynge, Wicu. and all the remaining Vv. This word is al- ways difficult to translate: ‘ effec- tual working’ is perhaps too strong; ‘working’ alone’ is appy. too weak. Perhaps the term in the text as mark- ing a more formal nature of working is slightly preferable; comp. notes on 2 Thess. ii. 11, where however the present translation would seem less suitable. 8. Was] Js, AurH. and all the other Vv. To preach] So Wict., Coy. Test. ; to euangelize, RHEM.: that I should preach, AuvtH. and all the remaining Vv. The change is made to preserve a similar translation of the two infinitives ; see Scholef, Hints, p. 100. 9. Dispensation] * Fellowship, AUTH. From the ages| Fro worldis, Wict., RueEmM.; sence the worlde beganne, Cov. Test.; from the beginning of the world, AvutH. and the other Vv. All things] *All things by J. C., AUTH. 1o. The powers] Powers, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WICL., RHEM., potestatis. The heavenly regions| Heavenly places, AUTH., GEN.; heuenli thingis, Wict., Cov. Test., Cran., BisH.; heven, Tynp., Cov.; the celestials, RHEM. Might be made known] Might be known, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WIcL., be knowun, and RHEM., may be notified. Through] By, AuTH. and all the other Vv. 11. Purpose of the ages] Eternal CHar, Th 7-18. 175 ages which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord; in whom 12 we have our boldness and our admission, in confidence, through the faith in Him. Wherefore I entreat you not 13 to lose heart in my tribulations for you, seeing it is your glory. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from 14+ whom every race in heaven and on earth is thus named, a5 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His 16 glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts 17 by faith,—ye having been rooted and grounded in love,— 18 that ye may be fully able to comprehend with all saints what zs the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, purpose, AuTH. and the other Vv. ex- cept WICL., bifor ordenaunce of worldis, and RHEM., prefinition of worldes. Made] So Wict., RHEM.; purposed, AuvtTH., TYND.; wrought, CRAN., GEN., Bisu.; hath shewed, Cov. (both). 12. Have our boldness] Have bold- mess, AUTH., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BisuH.; han trist, Wict., Cov. Test., are bolde, TYND.; haue afiance, RHEM. And our admission] And access, AUTH., RHEM.; and nyg comynge, WicL.; to drawe nye, TYND.; and intraunce, Coy. (both), Cran., Gun., Brsx. In confidence} So, as regards the prep., Wict., Cov. (both), Biso., RuEM.: with, AUTH., CRAN., GEN. The words Thy Tpocaywyiy ev memo.ljoe. are joined together by Tynp. and appy. all the Vv. except WIcL., and AUTH. (ed, 1611). 13. J entreat you, &e.] I desire that ye (you, RuEM.) faint not, AUTH. aud the remaining Vy. except WICL., T axe: that ye faile not. Seeing it is} Which is, AuTH. and all the other Vv. 14. The Father] The Father *of our Lord Jesus Christ, AUTH. 15. From] Of, AuTH. and the other Vv. except Tynp., Cov., CRaNn., which paraphrase. Every race| The whole family, AUTH., GEN. ; eche fadirheed, Wict. ; al fatherhode, Cov. Test. ; ald that ys called father, TyND., Cov., Cran.; al the familie, Bisu.; al pa- ternitie, RHEM. On the difficulty of properly translating this clause, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. I. p. 26 (ed. 2). And on earth| And earth, AUTH. Is thus named] Is named, AutH. The word thus is introduced only to make the parono- masia in the original a little more apparent. 16. Through] By, Aur. and all the other Vy. In the inner man] In the former edd. ‘into’ was adopted, as designed to mark that inflowing of spiritual strength which is so clearly implied in the original. It seems how- ever contrary to the idiom of our language, and so has been altered. 17. So that] That, AurH. and the other Vv. except RueEm., Chr. to dvvel. 18. Ye having been...that ye] That ye, WicL., RuEM. (you); that ye (you, Cov. Test.) being, ArH. and the re- maining Vv. May be fully able to| May be able to, AuTH., 176 EPHESIANS. 1g and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled up to all the fulness of God. 20 Now to Him that is able to do beyond all things, abundantly beyond what we ask or think, according to 21 the power that worketh in us, to Him be glory in the church, and in Christ Jesus, to all the generations of the age of the ages. Amen. Ee I exhort you therefore, I the prisoner in the Lord, that ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye were called, 2, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, for- 3 bearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the 4 unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Cov., GEN., RHEM.; moun, WICL., Cov. Test.; myght be able to, TYND., Cran., BrsH. 19. May] So Cov. (both), Gey., RHEM.: might, AUTH., TYND., CRAN., BisH. ; omitted by Wicni. The change is made to avoid the violation of the law of ‘the succession of tenses;’ see Latham, Hngl. Lang. § 616. Up to] In, Wict.; into, Cov. Test. ; nto, RuEM.; with, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. 20. Beyond all things, &c.] Alle thingis more plenteuousli (abundauntly, Cov. Test., RHEM.) thanne, WICL. ; exceeding abundantly above all that, AvtH. and the other Vv. 21. Andin Chr. Jes. |So WIcu., Cov. Test., RHEM.: *by Chr. Jes., AUTH. (Jes. Chr., TYND., CRAN.), GEN., BISH.; which isin Chr. Jes., Cov. To all the generations, &e.] Throughout all ages, world without end, AuTH., BISH.; i to alle the generaciouns of the worldis, Wict.; thorowout all gen. from tyme to tyme, TYND., CRAN.; at all tymes for euer and euer, Cov.; into all gen. of the worlde of worldes, Cov. Test. ; throughout all gen. for euer, GEN.; ento al gen. vvorld vvithout end, RHEM. CHapter IV. 1. J exhort you, &c.] There tis one I therefore the prisoner...beseech you that, AUTH., and in similar order all the other Vv. It seems however de- sirable to maintain the emphatic col- location (‘ad excitandum affectum, quo sit efficacior exhortatio,’ Est.) of the original. There is some variation in the translation of rapaxa\&. The translation in the text is found in Tynp., Cov., Cran., BisH.: beseech, AvutH., Wicu., Cov. Test., RHEM. ; praye, GEN. In the Lord] So Cov. (both), Gen., BisH., RHEM. (our I.) ; of the Lord, Autu.; of the Lordes, Cran.; for the lord, Wicu.; for the lordes sake, TYND. Calling] So WICcL. (clepynge), Cov. (both): voca- tion, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. Were called] Are called, AuTH. and all the other Vv. 3. Giving diligence] Sim. Tynp., Cran. ; bisie, WicL.; beynge carefull, Cov. Test.; careful, RHEM.; endea- vouring, AUTH., GEN., BisH. The present current use of the verb ‘en- deavour’ seems to fall so short-of the real meaning of omovddfew as to war- rant the change in the text, as more clearly indicative of the omovdy and zeal that was evinced in the matter; see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. Il. p. 43. 4. There is, &c.] It can scarcely be Caap. IIT. 19—IV. 12. LAG body, and one Spirit, even as ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who zs over all, and through all, and in all. But to each one of us the grace which he has was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore He saith, When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts to men. Now that He g ascended, what doth it imply but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? H&E THAT DESCENDED, 10 He it is that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. And Himself gave some to be 11 Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, Pastors and Teachers; with a view to the per- 12 fecting of the saints, for the work of ministration, for the Ar MI oO doubted that the AuTH. is right in retaining (after GEN.) this assertory form. Some of the older Vv., WICL., Coy. (both), BrsH., RHEM., supply no- thing; others, TynD., CRAN., supply the participle beynge ; both of which forms fail to convey the force of the original ; see notes. Were called] Are called, AutH. and all the other Vv. 6. Over] So RueEm.: above, AUTH. and all the remaining Vv. In all] In *yow all, AutH. 7. Hach one] Sim. Wict., eche: every one, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. This change seems desirable to avoid a confusion with the usual trans- lation of mavri. The grace which, &c.| 7s given grace, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WICL., grace is gouun. 8. Ascended] Ascended up, AvTH. He gave} *And gave, AUTH. 9. What doth it imply] What is it? AvutH., Wict., Cov. (both), Grn., BisH., RHEM.; what meaneth it? TYND., CRAN. Descended| Descended *first, AUTH. 10. He it is] So WIct.: is the same also, AUTH. ; the same is he...also, Cov. Test. ; the same is also he, RHEM.; is even the same also, TYND., CRAN., BrsH.; is ewen the same, Cov., GEN. Ascended] Ascended up, AUTH. Above] So Cov. (both), CRAN., RHEM.: far above, AUTH. The heavens] So Cov. Test., RHEM.: heavens, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. 11. And Himself] And he, AUTH., Wict., Cov. Test., BisH., RHEM. ; and the very same, TYND., CRAN. ; and y same, Cov.; he therefore, GEN. To be Apostles] So Cov., GEN.: Aposiles, AvutH. and the remaining Vv. The insertion of the words in italics seems necessary to make the sense perfectly clear. 12. With a view to] For, AUTH., Cov. Test., GEN.; to, Wich., CRAN., BisH., Roem. The two remaining Vv., Trynpv. and Cov., here paraphrase. Of ministration] So BisxH., and sim. Cov. Test., of the ministration: of the ministry, AuTH., GEN., RHEM. ; of mynysteri, Wich.; and minystra- cyon, ORAN. TyNnpD. and Cov. para- phrase. The building up] N 178 EPHESIANS. 13 building up of the body of Christ; till we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of 14 the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and borne about by every wind of doctrine, in the sleight of men, in crafti- 15 ness tending to the settled system of Error; but holding the truth may in love grow up into Him in all things, 16 which is the head, even CHRIST: from whom the whole body being fitly framed together and compacted by means The edifying, AuTH. and the other Vv. except Wict., edificacioun, and GEN. the edification. This translation is perhaps slightly preferable to that of AuTH. and to that adopted in ed. 1 (‘edification’), as both verb and sub- stantive are now commonly associated with what is simply instructive or im- proving, without necessarily suggest- ing the wider sense which seems to prevail in the present passage. The article is required by the principles of English idiom, though confessedly thus not in exact harmony with the Greek. 13. All arrive at] All comein, AUTH.; ennen alle in to, Wicu.; all come ento, Cov., (into) Cov. Test., (to) Cran. ; all mete together in, GEN., (in- to) BIsH.; meete al into, RoEM. TYND., inverting the order, every one (in the wnitie...) growe vp unto, &e. The full knowledge] The knowledge, AvutuH.: all the other Vv. omit the article. Full-grown] Perfect, AvtH. and all the other Vv. 14. May no longer be] Henceforth be no more, AUTH. Borne about by] Borun aboute with, Wict.; earyed with, VYND.; carried about with, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. In...in] So Wict., Cov. Test., Bisu., RHEM.: by...and, AuTH., TYND.; thorow...and, Cov.; by...thorow, CRAN. Craftiness] So all Vy. except the fol- lowing: cunning c., AUTH.; sutil witte, Wicu.; sutylte, Cov. Test. Tending, &c.| Whereby they lie in wait to deceive, AuTH., GEN.; to the dis- ceyuynge of errour, Wict.; wherby they laye a wayte for vs to deceave vs, TynD., Cov., Cran. ; to the deceatful- nes of erroure, Cov. Test.; to the laye- ing wayte of deceipt, Bisu.; to the circumuention of errowr, RuEM, It is by no means easy to devise a literal and at the same time perfectly intel- ligible translation of the last clause of this verse. ‘The difficulty ies mainly in the brief and almost elliptical form of expression introduced by the prep.: of the translations that have hitherto been proposed, that in the text, or ‘furthering, promoting the system, dc.’ (but see notes on Phil. iv. 17, Transl.), or more simply, ‘with a view to the system, dc.,’ seems the most suitable. 15. Holding the truth] Speaking the truth, AutTH.; do we truthe...... and, Wict.; let vs folowe the trueth...and, Tynp., Coy., CRAN., GEN.; perfourm- ynge the truth, Cov. Test.; folowing trueth, Bisu.; doing the truth, RHE. May in love] In love, may, AUTH. 16. Being fitly framed together] Fitly joined together, AuTH. It seems de- sirable to retain the same translation Cuap. IV. 13—18. 179 of every joint of the spiritual supply, according to active working in the measure of each single part, promoteth the increase of the body for the building up of itself in love. This then I say, and testify in the Lord, that ye must 17 no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, 18 here and in ch. ii. 21. Compacted | So AutH. The translation of several of the older Vv., knet togedder (TYND., Coy. Test., CRAN., GEN., BISH.), is not unsatisfactory; ‘compacted’ how- ever has the advantage of preserving the ov’y in each verb without repeti- tion, otherwise ‘knit together’ would perhaps have been a more genuinely English translation. By means of, &e.] By that which every joint sup- plicth, AuTH.; bi eche ioynture of ondir seruynge, WIcL.; in every ioint wherwith one ministreth to another, TynD., and similarly Cran. (thorow out euery, &e.); thorow out all y* ioyntes. Wherby one mynistreth vnto another, Cov.; thorowe out euery joynt of sub- ministration, Cov. Test.; by euerie joynt, for the furniture thereof, GEN. ; by every joynt, yeeldyng nourishment, Bisu.; by al iuncture of subministra- tion, RHEM. Active working] The effectual working, AUTH. ; worch- ynge, Wicu.; the operacion, TYND., Cov. (both), CRAN., RHEM.; the effectual power, GEN., Bisa. The addition of the epithet ‘active’ or ‘ vital,’ Alf.,— if in italics (see notes on ch. iii. 7, and on 2 Thess. ii. 11), may perhaps here be rightly admitted as serving slightly to clear up the meaning. Each single] Sim. Wict., eche: every, Aut. and all the remaining Vv. ; see notes on verse 7. Promoteth the increase] Maketh increase, AUTH., Cov. Test., BIsH. ; makith encreesynge, WicL.; receiueth increase, GEN.; maketh the increase, RHEM.; TYND., Coy., Cran., slightly paraphrase. The more modern term ‘promoteth,’ seems admissible as both literal and also tending to clear up the sense. For the building up] Unto the edifying, AutH. It seems desirable, for the sake of uniformity, to preserve the same translation as in ver. 12; the simplest (paraphrastic) translation would be *so as to build itself up in love.’ 17. This then I say] This I say therefore, AuTH. and the other Vy. except Wicu., therfor I seie, and RuEM., this therfore I say. The re- sumptive character of the address is appy- here best preserved by the more literal translation of ody; comp. notes on i Tim. ii. 1. Ye must no longer walk] Ye henceforth walk not, AvutTH., TYND., CRAN., GEN., BISH.; ye walke not now, Wicu., Cov. Test. ; ye walke nomore, Cov. ; nov you vvalke not, RHEM. The Gentiles] So Raem.: The *other Gentiles, AUTH. Also walk] Sim. Cov. Test., also do walke: walk, AuTH. and the other Vy. except RHEM., which inserts also, but before the Gentiles. 18. Being darkened in their understanding] Having the wunder- standing darkened, AutuH.; that han vndirstondynge derkned with derk- nessis, Wi0L.; blynded in their vnd., TyYND., Coy. ; hauynge an und. blynded through darknesse, Cov. Test.; whyle they are blynded in their vnd., CRAN.; hawing their cogitation darkened, GEN. ; N 2 180 EPHESIANS. alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart: 1g who as men past feeling have given THEMSELVES over unto Wantonness, for the working of all manner of un- 20 cleanness in greediness. But YE did not so learn Christ; 21 if indeed ye heard Him and were taught in Hi, as is 22 truth in Jesus, that ye must put off, as concerns your former conversation, the old man, which waxeth corrupt 23 according to the lusts of Deceit, and rather become re- darkened in cogitation, BisH.; hawing their wnd. obscured vvith darkenes, RaEM. Alienated| Being alienated, AvtTH. On account of the absence of évres in the second member, it seems best to omit the part. of the verb substantive. Because of (1)] Through, AvTH. Hardness] So GEN.: blindness, AUTH. and remaining Vy.; see Trench on Auth, Ver, ch, Vil. p. 117. 19. Who as men] Who being, AUTH,, and sim., as to the translation of otrwves, all the other Vv. Wantonness] So Tynv., Coy., CRAN., GEN., BrsH.: lasciviousness, AUTH. ; vnchastite, Wict.; vnclennesse, Cov. Test. ; impudicitie, RuzmM. The ar- ticle joined with it tends almost to personify it, hence the capital in the Text. For the working of | Sim. WIcL., in to the worchynge of ; in the workynge of, Cov. Test.; vnto the operation of, RuEM.: to work, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. All manner of | So Tynp., Coyv., Cran.: all, AUTH. and the remaining Vv.; see notes on ver. 31. Uncleanness| So all Vv. except Cov. Test., fylthynesse. In greediness| In coueitise, Wict.; unto gr., Cov. Test.; unto auarice, RHEM. ; with greediness, AUTH., BIsH.; even with gr., TYND. and remaining Vy. This translation of m\eovefla may be retained if qualified by the remarks in loc., and not understood as indicating a mere general duerpla. The true idea of m\eoveeia is ‘amor habendi:’ the objects to which it is directed will be defined by the context. 20. Did not so learn] Have not so learned, AUTH. and all the other Vv. 21. If indeed] If so be that, AUTH., Cov., CRAN., Bis. ; if netheles, WICL. ; if so be, TYND., GEN.; yf so be yet that, Cov. Test.; if yet, REM. Heard] So Wicu.: have heard, AUTH. and all the remaining Vv. Were taught in Him] Have been taught by him, AutH., GEN.; ben taugte in hym, Wict., TyNnpD., Cov.; be instructe in hym, Cov. Test.; haue bene taught in him, CRAN. and the remaining Vv. As is truth] So Wicu.: even as the tr, ws, TYND., Cov.; as the truth is, AvuTH. and the remaining Vy. 22. That ye must] That ye, AUTH. As concerns your] Concerning the, AUTH. Wasxeth corrupt] Is corrupt, AuTH. and the other Vy. except Cov., marreth himselfe, and RuHEM., is corrupted. Lusts of Deceit] Deceitful lusts, AUTH. ; desiris of errowr, WicL., RHEM.; de- ceavable lustes, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN.; lustes of erroure, Cov. Test., BIsH. 23. And rather] And, AUTH. Become renewed| Be renewed, AuTH. This change is made as an attempt to express the contrast between the pres. Cuar. IV. 19—28. 181 newed by the Spirit of your mind, and put on the new 24 man, which after God’s image hath been created in righte- ousness and holiness of Truth. Wherefore, having put away Falsehood, speak truth 25 each man with his neighbour; because we are members one of another, Be angry, and sin not: let not the sun 26 go down upon your angered mood; nor yet give place to 27 the devil. Let the stealer steal no more: but rather let 28 him labour, working with his own hands the thing that avaveovoOce and the aor. érdtcac0a. By the Spirit] In the spirit, AuTH. and all the other Vy. 24. And put on] So Cov. (both), GEN.: and that ye pul on, AUTH. After God’s image] Sim. Tynp., after the ymage of God: after God, AUTH. and the other Vv, except RHEM., ac- cording to God. The order of the Greek rév kara Qedv Kric. is simi- larly retained by all the Vv. except Wict., Coy. (both), It may be ob- served that the transl. of RHEm., ‘ac- cording to,’ has the advantage of pre- serving the antithesis kara Tas émié. x.T.. (ver. 23), and kara Ocdv, but fails in bringing out clearly the great doctrinal truth appy. implied in the latter words, Hath been created] Is created, AUTH. and (as to the auxiliary) all the other Vv. The transl. ‘hath been,’ is perhaps here slightly preferable to ‘was,’ as the latter tends to throw the xriows fur- ther back than is actually intended ; the ref. being to the new «riots in Christ. Holiness of Truth] So Wict., Cov. Test., Brsx., and sim. RHEM,. (the tr.): true holi- mess, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. except Coy., where it is more cor- rectly, true righteousnes and holynes. 25. Having put away] Putting away, AUTH, False- hood] Lying, AutH. and the other Vv. (lesynge, WICL.). Truth each man] So Wict.; the truth euery man, Coy. Test.; truth euery one, RHEM.; every man the trueth, Coy.; every man truth, AuTH. and the remaining Vy. Because} So Cov. Test., RuEm.; for, AUTH., WicL., GEN.; for as moche as, TYND., Cov., CRAN., BIsH. 26. Be angry] So Tynp., Cov., Cran., GeN., RuEM.; be ye angry, AuTH., Cov. Test., Bisu.; be ye wrooth, WicuL. Angered mood| Wrath, AutH. and all the other Vv. except RuHEM., anger. The change may perhaps be considered scarcely necessary, as the expression has become so familiar: still aapop- yiouos, ‘exacerbatio,’ ‘exasperation,’ cannot strictly be translated ‘ wrath.’ 27. Nor yet] *Neither, AUTH.: see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3 (Transl.), 28. The stealer] Him that stole, AutH., TYND., CRAN., GEN., BISH.; he that stal, Wict., RHEM.; he that hath stollen, Cov.; he y' dyd steale, Cov. Test. The AvrH. in ver. 29 supplies a precedent for this idiomatic translation of the present part. with the article. His own } His, AuTH. and all the other Vv. The thing that is good] The thing which is g., AUTH., CRAN., GEN., BIsH.;. that that is g., WicL.; some g. thinge, TYND.; some good, Cov.;, that whych is g., Cov. Test., Roem. The slight change to ‘that’ is perhaps more cri- 182 EPHESIANS. is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that 29 needeth. Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but whatever is good for edification of the need, 30 that it may minister a blessing to the hearers; and grieve not the holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed for 31 the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away 32 from you, with all malice; tically exact; see Brown, Gram. of Gramm. I. 5, p. 293, and notes on eli) 23° Have whereof to give] So Cov. Test., and very sim. Wicx., h. wherof he schal geue, and RueEM., h. vvhence to giue: geue,CRAN., Bisu.; have to give, AUTH. and re- maining Vy. The slight change is made for the sake of preserving the idea of ‘sharing’ or ‘imparting’ appa- rently conveyed by the compound verb. 29. Speech] So Ruem.; word, WIcL.: communication, AuTH. and the remaining Vv. Whatever is] If ony is, WicL.; yf ony be, Cov. Test.; if there be any, RuEM.; that which is, AUTH, and the remaining Vv. For edification of the need] To the use of edifying, AutTH., GEN.; to edefye with all, when (as oft as, CRAN.) nede ys, TYND., Coy., BisH. On the difficulty of pro- perly translating these words, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. X. p. 178. Minister a blessing to] Geue grace to, Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.; have fa- veour with, TyND.; be gracious to, Cov.; minister grace unto, AUTH. and remaining Vv. 30. In whom] Sim. Wict., RHEM., in whiche: whereby, AuTH.; by whome, TYND., CRAN., GEN., BIsH.; wherwith, Cov.; where in, Cov. Test. Were] Are, AUTH. and all the other Vy. For the] Unto the, AutH. and all the other Vv. except WICL., in the, and Cov. but become kind one to an- Test., agaynst the. 31. All bitterness] So AvutH. It is not always desirable to preserve the more literal transl. of més (‘all manner of’), esp. when it is prefixed to more than one abstract substantive, as it tends to load the sentence without being much more expressive. When the adj. follows, as in ver. 19, the longer translation will often be found more admissible. Wrath] So AvutH., Wict., Cov. Test.: fearsness, TyNnD., Cov., Cran., BIsH.; anger, Grn., Reem. The translation may be retained, whenever @uuos and épy} occur together, as sufficiently exact, provided that by ‘wrath’ we under- stand rather the outbreak (‘excandes- centia,’ Cicero, Tusc. Disput. Iv. 9), by ‘anger’ the more settled and abid- ing habit. It is perhaps doubtful whether ‘wrath’ does not imply a greater permanence than Oupuds; see Cogan on the Passions, I. 1. 2. 3, p. T11; still as @uuds is several times ascribed to God as well as to man, the above seems generally the most proper and satisfactory translation. Malice] So AutH., Wict., Cov. Test., RuHEM.: naughtinesse, BisH.; malici- ousness, TYND. and the remaining Vv. As kaxia points rather to the evil habit of the mind, as distinguished from ovypla, the outcoming of the same (Trench, Synon. § 11),—‘ma- lice,’ which is defined by Crabb (Syn- on. 8.v.) as ‘the essence of badness lying in the heart,’ would appear a Cuap. IV. 290—V. 4. 183 other, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God also in Christ forgave you. Become then followers of God, as beloved children; V. and walk in love, even as Christ also loved us, and gave 2 Himself for us, an offermg and a sacrifice to God, for a savour of sweet smell. But fornication, and all manner of uncleanness or 3 covetousness, let it not be even named among you, as be- cometh saints; and no filthiness, and foolish talking or 4 jesting,—things which are unbecoming,—but rather giving correct translation; see Cogan on the Passions, I. 3. 2. 1, p. 159. 32. But] So Cov. (both): and, AutH., Wict., RHEM.; omitted by TyYND., CRAN., GEN., BISH. Become| Be ye, AutH. and all the other Vv. (om. ye, Cov. Test., RHEM.) ; corresponding to dpOjTrw ap vtpuar, ver. 31. God also | So Cov. Test.; also God, WICct., RueM.; God, AurH. and the remain- ing Vv. In Christ] So Wict., Cov. (both), RHEm.; for Christ's sake, AUTH. and the remain- ing Vv. Forgave] So Wict., Tynp., Gren.: hath forgiven, AutTH, and the remaining Vv. except Ruem., hath pardoned. The aorist seems more exact, as pointing to the past act of God’s mercy and forgive- ness displayed in ‘Christ,’ @e. in giving Him to die for the sins of the world. CHAPTER V. 1. Become then] Be ye therefore, AUTH. (be ye...therfore, Cov.) and the other Vv. except WICL., therfor be ye. TyYND. leaves the ody untranslated. The more literal transl. of ylveobe might perhaps be here dis- pensed with, as necessarily involved in the action implied in pupyrat; as however it seems an echo and resump- tion of the preceding ylvecde (ch. iv. 32), it will be most exact to retain this more literal translation. Beloved] Moost dereworthe, Wick.; most deare, Cov. Test., RuEM.; dear, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. 2. Even as Christ also] As Chr. also, AUTH., RHEM.; as cr., WICL.; lyke as Chr., Cov. Test.; even as Ch., TyND. and remaining Vy.: see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5 (Lransl.). Loved] So Wict., Tynp., Cov., CRAN., RueEM.; hath loved, AutH. and the remaining Vv. Gave] So Wict., Tynp., Cov., Cran.; de- liuered, RueM.; geuen, Cov. Test.; hath given AUTH., GEN., BIsH. A savour of sweet smell] A sweet sinell- ing savour, AUTH., GEN., BIsH.; the odour of swetnesse, WICL.; a swete saver, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; an odoure of swetnesse, Cov. Test., RHEM. 3. All manner of uncleanness] All uncleanness, AUTH.; see notes on ch. iv. 31 (Zransl.). Not be even] Not be once, AUTH., CRAN., GEN., BisuH.; be not once, TYND.; not so much as be, RuEM. Wict. and Coy. (both) leave the cal untranslated. 4. And no...and] Neither...nor, AuvuTH. As several MSS., AD!E!FG; 4 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al. (Lachm., Meyer, al.), read 7}...7, it seems cesir- able to mark in the translation the reading adopted. Or] Nor, AuTH. Jesting] So Aur. and all the other Vv. ex- 184 EPHESIANS. 5 of thanks. For this ye know, being aware that no whore- monger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater, hath an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ 6 and God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these sins cometh the wrath of God upon the 7 sons of disobedience. Do not then become partakers 8 with them. For ye WERE once darkness, but now are ye g light in the Lord: walk as children of light,—for the fruit of the light zs in all goodness and righteousness and And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, 12 but rather even reprove them. For the things which are done by them im secret it is a shame even to speak of. 13 But all these things, when they are reproved, are made manifest BY THE LIGHT; for every thing that is made truth,—proving what is well-pleasing to the Lord. cept Wict., harlotrie, and RHEM., scurrilitie. Things which are unbecoming] Which are not convenient, AUTH. ; that perteyneth not to profiyt, Wict.; which are not comly, TYND., Cov., CRAN., BisH.; which thynges pertayne not to the matter, Cov. Test. ; which are things not comelie, GEN. ; be- ing to no purpose, RHEM. 5. Ye know, being aware] *Ye know, AUTH. An inhe- ritance] Any inheritance, AuTH. and the other Vv. except Wicu., Cov. (both), Ruem., which leaye the sub- stantive without any prefix. Of Christ and God] Of Christ and of God, AuTH. and all the other Vv. 6. These sins] These things, AUTH. Sons] So Wict.: children, AuTH. and the remaining Vv. 7. Donot then become] Sim. RHEM., become not therfore: be not ye therefore, AvuTH., Cov. (both), Cran., BIsH, ; therfor nyle ye be made, Wict.; be not therfore, TYND., GEN.: the in- sertion of ‘ye’ is not in accordance with the original. 8. Once] So TynD., GEN.: some- times, AuTH., BISH.; swntyme, WICL., Coy. (both), CRAN., RHEM. 9g. The light) The *Spirit, AuTH. 10. JWell-pleasing] So Wicu., Cov. Test., RareM.: acceptable, AuTH., Bis. ; pleasinge, TyNp. and the re- maining Vy. 11. But rather even] So Bisu.; similarly, but rather awkwardly, GEN., but even...vather: but rather, AUTH. and remaining Vy. except WICL., but more. 12. For the things, &c.] So, as to order, Wich,, RHEM.: for it is a even to speak of those things are done of them in secret, AvtTH. and, in similar order, the re- maining Vv. : 13. All these] All, AUTH. When they are] So Tynp., Cov., CRAN., GeEN., BisH.: that are, AUTH., WICL., Cov. Test., RHEM. Everything that is made, &e.] whatsoever doth make manifest, is light, AUTH.; al thing that is schewid: is ligt, WIC. ; whatsoever is manifest, that same is light, TyND., Cov., CRAN.; euery thunge y' is manifest, is lyghte, Coy. Test. ; shame which CuHap. V. 5—23. manifest is light. Wherefore He saith, Up! thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee. Take heed then how ye walk with strictness, not as fools, but as wise, buying up for yourselves the oppor- tunity, because the days are evil. For this cause do not be- come unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord 7s. And be not made drunk with wine, wherein is disso- luteness, but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord; for a husband is head of his wife, as Christ also is head of the church; HE is the saviour of the it is light that maketh all things mani- Wucu., RuEM., therfor. 20 21 22, 43 De fest, GEN.; al that whiche dooth make manifest, is light, Bisu.; al that is manifested, is light, RHEM. 14. Up!] So Cov. Test.: rise, Wict., RHEM.; awake, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. Shine upon thee] Lngtne thee, Wicu.; illuminate thee, RueEM.: give thee light, AUTH. and re- maining Vy. 15. Take heed] So all the other Vv. except WICcL. (se ye), RHEM., AUTH., see. How ye] So Coy. (both), Cran.,, RuEmM. (you), sim. Wict. (hou warli ye): that ye, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. With strictness] Circumspectly, AUTH. and the other Vv, except Wict., RHEM., warli (vvarily), 16. Buying up, &c.] Agenbiynge tyme, Wich.; and redeme the tyme, Cov.; avoydyng occasyon, CRAN.; re- deeming the time, AuTH. and remain- ing Vy. 17. For this cause] Wherefore, AutH, and all the other Vv. except not become] Sim. RuEM., become not: be ye not, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. except Wicx., nyle ye be made, and Coy. (both), be not ye. 18, Be not made drunk] Nyle ye be drunken, Wict.; be not dronken, Cov.; be not ye drunken, Cov. Test.; be not drunk, AuTH. and the remain- ing Vy. Dissoluteness] Leccherie, Wicu.; voluptuousnesse, Cov. Test; rioteousnes, RHEM.; excess, AUTH, and the remaining Vy. 19. One another] Yourselves, AUTH, and all the other Vy. 21. Of Christ] Of *God, AutH. 22. Submit yourselves] Italics ; but not so in AuTH. which adopts the in- sertion. 23. A husband] *The husband, AUTH. Head of his] The head of the, AUTH, As Christ also] As Chr., Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.; euen as Chr. also, Cov.; even as Chr., AUTH. and the remaining Vv. He is| *And he is, AUTH. 186 24 25 26 27 28 32 24. EPHESIANS. body. Nevertheless as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the laver of the water in the word, that He might Himself present to Himself the church in glorious beauty, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and blameless. Thus ought husbands to: love their own wives as being their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth. himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as Christ also doth the church: because we are MEMBERS of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall be joimed unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This mystery is a great one; Nevertheless] Therefore, AuTH. Brsu.) himself a glorious Church, and the other Vv. except WICL., Cov. Test., BrsH., RuEM., but. Also be] Be, AUTH. Their husbands] Their *own husbands, AUTH. 26. That he might sanctify it, hav- ing cleansed it] That he might sanctify and cleanse it, AUTH., GEN.; to make it holi, and clensid it, Wict. ; to sancti- jie it, and clensed it, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; to sanctifie it, when he had cleansed |it], BisH.; that he might sanctifie it, cleansing it, Cov. Test., RHEM. By the laver of the water in the word) So RuEem. (of water): with the washing of water by the word, AUTH.; with the waischynge of watir in the word of liif, Wict.; in the fountayne of water thorow the worde, TYND., CRAN.; in the f. of w. by the worde, Cov.; with the f. of w.in the worde of lyfe, Cov. Test.; by the washing of water through y° worde, GEN.; in the fountayne of water in the woorde, BIsH. 27. That He might Himself, &c.] That he might present *it to (vnto, AutH.; to geue the chirche glorious to him silf, Wicu.; to make it vnto him- selfe, a glorious congregacion, TYND., Cov., CRAN., and sim. Coy. Test., that he myght make it, &e. Blameless| Without blemish, AutH.; vndefoulid, Wict., Cov. Test.; vnspotted, RHEM. ; with out blame, TyND. and the re- maining Vy.: see notes on ch. i. 4 (Transl.). 28. Thus ought husbands] So ought men, AUTH. Own wivres...wife] AUTH. omits own. As being] Euen as, Cov.; as AuTH. and all the other Vv. 29. Ever] So Wict., RHEM.: ever yet, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. ex- cept Coy. Test., at ony tyme. Christ also, &c.] *Lhe Lord the Church, AUTH. - 30. Because] So RuEm.: for, AUTH. and the remaining Vy. except WICL., and. 31. Father] * His father, AUTH. 32. This mystery, &e.] This is a great mystery, AUTH., Cov. Test.; this Cuap. V. 24—VI. 6. 187 { however am speaking in reference to Christ and to the church. Nevertheless ye also severally, let each one of 33 you thus love his own wife as himself; and the wife, let her reverence her husband. CHILDREN, obey your parents, in the Lord; for this is VI. right. Honour thy father and thy mother, the which is 2 the first commandment in regard of promise; that it may 3 be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long upon the earth. And ye fathers, provoke not your children to 4 wrath; but brmg them up in the discipline and admoni- tion of the Lord. Bond-servants, obey your masters according to the 5 flesh with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but 6 as bond-servants of Christ; doing the will of God from sacrament is greet, WicL.; this is a great secrete, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BIsH.; this is a great sacr., RHEM. I however am, &c.] Ye T seve, Wicu.; but I say, Cov. Test. ; but I speak, AuTH. and the remaining Vv. in reference to] Concerning, AvTH., GEy.; in, Wict., Cov. Test., RueEm.; bitwene, TynvD.; of, Cov., Cran., GEN., BisH. And to] And, AuTH., Tynp., Cov.; and in, Wict., Cov. Test., RuEm.; and of, CraNn., BisH.; and concerning, GEN. 33. Ye also severally, &c.] Let every one of you in particular, AUTH.; ye alle, eche man, Wicu.; do ye so that every one of you, TYND., Cov., Cran. (om. of you); you also let euery one, Cov. Test.; euerie one of you, do ye so: let euerie one, GEN., so BIsH., adding of you. The slight asyndeton in the original is perhaps best retained. Thus love his own wife as] So love his wife even as, AUTH. The wife, let her reverence] The wife, see that she reverence, AUTH.; let the wyfe se that she feare, TYND., GEN.; let the wyfe feare, Cov. (both), CRAN., RHEM.; [Jet] the wyfe reuerence, BIsH. CuapteR VI. 2. Thy mother] So Wict., Cov. (both), RaEM.: mother, AvTH. and the remaining Vv. The which] Which, AutH., Cov. Test., GeEN., BisH., RHEM.; that, WICL., Tynp., Cov.; the same, CRAN. In regard of promise] With promise, AutH., GEN.; in biheest, Wict.; that hath eny promes, TYND., Cov.; in the promyse, Cov. Test., CRAN., RHEM.; in promise, BISH. 3. And that thou] And thou, AUTH. Upon] On, AUTH. 4. Discipline] So RHEM.; nurture, AutH., Tynp., Cov. (both), CRan.; techynge, WiCL.; imstruction, GEN., Bisu. 5. Bond-servants] Servants, AUTH.: change to maintain the opposition in ver. 8. Obey] So Cov. (both), Bisa., and sim, WICcL. (obeische ye to): be obedient to (al. unto), AUTH. and the remaining Vv. Your] Them that are your, AUTH. 6. Bond-servants] The servants, AUTH. From the soul] From 188 7 EPHESIANS. the soul; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: seeing ye know that whatsoever good thing each man shall do, THIS shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the saine things unto them, giving up your threatening; seeing ye know that both their Master and yours is in Finally, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the power Put on THE WHOLE ARMOUR of God, that ye may be able to stand against the stratagems of the 8 9 heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him. 10 11 of His might. 12 devil: because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but 7 7s against Principalities, against Powers, against the World-Rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly regions. the mynde, Cov. Test.: from the heart, Aut. and the remaining Vy. except Wict., bi discrescioun. 8. Seeing ye know] Knowing, AvTH., WIct. (witynge), Cov. Test., BIsuH., RuEM, ; knowynge this, CRAN.; and re- member, TYND.; and be sure, Cov.; and know ye, GEN. Each man] So WICL.: a@ man, Coy.; euery man, Cov. Test., ew. one, RHEM.; any man, AUTH, and the remaining Vy. Shall do) So Wict., RuEm.: doeth, AuTH. and the remaining Vv. exact ‘shall have done’ is not suffici- ently in accordance with our usual The more mode of expression to make it desirable in translation, except where it is obvi- ously necessary that the relation of time should be very exactly defined. This] So Wiou.: the same, AUTH., Cov. Test., CrAaN.; that, TYND., Bisu.; if, Coy.; that same, GEN. 9g. Giving up your) Forbearing, AvutH.; forgeuynge, Wich.; puttinge awaye, TYND., Cov., Cran., GEN., BIsu. ; remitting, RHEM. know, &c.| Knowing that *your master also is in heaven, neither is there, AUTH, 10. Finally] *Finally my brethren, AUTH. Be strengthened] So Seeing ye RueEm.: be ye stronge, Cov. Test.; be strong, AUTH. and the remaining Vv. except WICL., be ye counfortide. 11. MStratagems|] Wiles, AUTH. ; as- plyngis, Wicu.; crafty assautes, TYND., Cov. ; assaultes, Cov. Test., CRAN., GEN., BisH.; deceites, RuemM. The translation in the text seems better calculated to convey the idea of a fixed and settled plan: see notes on ch. lv. I4. 12. Because our wrestling is not] For our vvrestling is not, RHEM.; for we wrestle not, AUTH. and remaining Vv. except WicL., for why stryuynge is not to us. But it is| But, AUTH. The World-Rulers|] The rulers, AUTH.; governouris, WICL., Cov. Test.; the rulers of the worlde, Coy.; worldy rulars, TYND., CRAN. ; the worldlie gouernours, GEN., BIsH. (omitting the); the rectors, RHEM. Of this darkness] *Of the darkness of this world, AUTH. The spiritual hosts of wickedness] Spiritual wicked- ness, AUTH., BISsH.; spiritual thingis of wickidnesse, Wicu., Cov. Test. (the sp.); spretuall w., TYND.; y° spretes of w., Coy.; spretuall craftynes, CRAN. ; spiritual wickednesses, GEN. ; the spiri- Cuap. VI. 7—10. For this cause take up THE WHOLE ARMOUR of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having fully done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girt your loms about with truth, and having put on the breast- plate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparedness of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, having taken up the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked One; and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; with all prayer and supplication praying always in the Spirit, and watch- ing thereunto, with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints; and im particular for me, that utterance tuals of vv., RHEM. In the hea- 189 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 GEN., BISH.; shood, TYND.; shod vpon venly regions| In high places, AUTH. ; in heuenli thingis, Wict., TyND. ( for), Cov. Test., CRAN.; under the heauen, Coy.; which are in the hie places, GEN. ; in heauenly [places], Bisu.; in the celestials, RHEM. 13. For this cause] So TyNnD., Cov., GEN.: wherefore, AutH., Cov. Test., Cran., BisH.; therfor, Wict., RHEM. Take up| Take, RHEM. ; take ye, WICL., Cov. (both) ; take unto you, AuTH. and the remaining Vy. fully, &e.| Having done all, to stand, AvtH.; wm alle thingis stonde parfigt, WICL. ; to (om. to, Cov., CRAN.) stonde perfect in all thinges, TynD., Cov. Test.; stand in al things perfect, Ruem.; hauing finished all things, stand fast, GEN., BISH. (fo st.). 14. Having girt, &c.| Having your loins girt about, AUTH., BisH. ; and be ye girde aboute youre leendis, WXCct. ; and youre loynes gyrd aboute, TYND., Cov., CRAN. (om. aboute), GEN. ; hawung your loines girded, RHEM. Having put on| Having on, AuTH. and all Vy. except Wict., RueEm., clothid with. 15. Having shod your feet] Your feet shod, AutH., Wict., Cov. Test., Having youre fete, Cov.; hauyng shoes on your fete, CRAN.; hauing your feete shod, RHEM. With the preparedness of | With the preparation of, AuTH,, GEN. ; in the pr. of, BISH.; to the pr. of, RHEM. ; in makynge redi of, Wick. ; with showes prepared by, TYND.; into the preparynge of, Coy. Test. ; that ye maye be prepared for, CRAN. Coy. transposes, with the gospell of peace, that ye maye be prepared. 16. In addition to] Above, AUTH. and the other Vy. except Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM., in. Having taken up| Taking, AvtuH., Cov. Test., Bisx., RueEM. ; take ye, Wiou. ; take to you, Tynp., Cran.; take holde of, Cov.; take, GEN. Wicked One] Sim. RuHEM., most vvicked one: worst, WICL.; moost wicked, Cov. Test.; wicked, Aut. and the remaining Vv. The addition in the text seems desirable as marking the personality of rod movy- pod. 17. Receive] Take, AvrH. and all the other Vv.: Wict., Cov. Test., add ye, and RHEM., vnto you. 18. With all prayer, &e.] Praying always with all prayer, AUTH. All the Saints] So RuEm.: all Saints, 190 20 21 2,2, EPHESIANS. may be GIVEN to me in the opening of my mouth, so that with boldness I may make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in a chain; that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. But that ye also may know my condition, how I fare, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things: whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our affairs, and that he may comfort your hearts. 23 24 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in incor- ruption, Aut. and the remaining Vy. except Wict., alle holt men. 19. And in particular] And, AUTH.: use of kal to add the particular to the general; see Fritz. on Mark, p. 11, 713, and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. In the opening of my mouth] So Cov. Test., RuEM., and WicuL. (omitting the): that Imay open my mouth, AUTH. and the remaining Vv., all of which (so too Cov. Test., RHEM.) except Gun., which leaves it open, connect éy zap- pnola with what precedes; see below. So that with boldness IT may make known] Boldly, to make known, AUTH.; with trist to make knowun, WIict. ; boldly, to vtter, TYND., Cov.; with boldnesse, to declare, Cov. Test.; frely, to vtter, CRAN., Bisu.; boldely to pub- lish, GEN.; vvith confidence, to make knowen, RHEM. 20. In a chain] So AUTH. marg., Wictu.; im thys cheyne, Cov. Test., RuaeEm.: in bonds, Au'rH. and the re- maining Vv. 21. My condition] Sim. Tynp., CRAN. what condicion I am in: my affairs, AUTH., GUN. (mine), BisH.; what thingis ben about me, Wict.; what ce I am in, Coy.; the thynges that THE are aboute me, Cov. Test., RHEM. (om. that are): change merely to avoid the homceoteleuton. How I fare] And how I do, AutH.: all the other Vv., and what I do (om. and, Wicti., Cov. Test., RHEM.): but as either of these might be misunderstood and referred to what the Apostle was actually engaged in (see Wolf in loc.), it seems best, with, Harl., to refer ra kar’ €ué to ‘meine Lage,’ rl mpdoow to ‘mein Befinden.’ The beloved] A beloved, AUTH.; my moost dere, WicuL.; my deare, TYND., Coy., GEN. ; ¥° moost deare, Cov. Test. ; the deare, CRAN.; a deare, BISH.; my deerest, RHEM,: a curious variety of renderings of two simple words. 22. This very] This same, Wict., Ruem. ; the same, AUTH. and all the other Vv. May...may| Might... might, AUTH.: change in accordance with the law of the succession of tenses ; see Latham, Hngl. Lang. $616. 24. In wncorruption] So Wict., RueEmM., and similarly AuTH. marg., with incorruption: insincerity, AUTH., BIsH.; in puernes, TYND.; vunfayned- ly, Cov., CRAN.; syncerely, Cov. Test. ; to [their] «mmortalitie, GEN. END. VD Re @ a eo ay Wh) L.0-45220 sy = ; > a Kiva! Seth.