EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
CHAPTER I.
THE SALUTATION, VS. 1. 2.—THANKSGIVING FOR THE
BLESSINGS OF REDEMPTION, VS. 3-14.—PRAYER THAT THE EPHESIANS MIGHT INCREASE IN
THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THOSE BLESSINGS, VS. 15-21.
THE SALUTATION.
1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the
saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2. grace be to you, and peace from God our Father,
and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
COMMENTARY.
V. 1. An apostle of Jesus Christ.—The word apostle
is used in three senses in the New Testament. 1. In its primary sense of messenger,
John 13, 16 (the messenger), he that is
sent is not greater than he that sent him.
Phil. 2, 25, your messenger. 2
Cor. 8, 23, messengers of the churches.
Ἀπόστολος ἐκκλησιῶν; τουτέστιν, says Chrysostom,
ὑπὸ ἐκκλησιῶν πεμφθέντες. Theophylact adds
καὶ χειροτονηθέντες. 2. In the sense
of missionaries, men sent by the church to preach the Gospel.—In this sense Paul
and Barnabas are called apostles,
Acts 14, 4. 14; and probably Andronicus
and Junias, Rom. 16, 7. 3. In the sense
of plenipotentiaries of Christ; men whom he personally selected and sent forth invested
with full authority to teach and rule in his name. In this sense it is always used
when "the apostles," "the twelve," or "the apostles of the Lord," are spoken of
as a well-known, definite class. They were appointed as witnesses of Christ’s miracles,
doctrines, resurrection; and therefore it was necessary that they should not only
have seen him after his resurrection, but that their knowledge of the Gospel should
be immediately from Christ, John 15, 26.
Acts 1, 22. 2, 32.
3, 15. 13, 31.
26, 16. 1 Cor. 9, 1.
Gal. 1, 12. They were not confined to any one field but had a general
jurisdiction over the churches, as is manifest from their epistles.—To qualify
them for this office of authoritatively teaching, organizing, and governing the
church, they were rendered infallible by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and
their divine mission was confirmed by miraculous powers.—Their authority therefore
rested first on their commission, and secondly on their inspiration. Hence it is
evident that none can have the authority of an apostle who has not apostolic gifts.
In this respect Romanists are consistent, for they claim infallibility for those
whom they regard as the official successors of the apostles. They are, however,
inconsistent with their own theory, and at variance with the Scripture, in making
this infallibility the
prerogative of the prelates in their collective capacity, instead of claiming it
for each individual bishop.
Διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, by
the will of God. There are two ideas included in this phrase. 1. That the apostleship
was a gift, or grace from God, Rom. 1, 5.
Eph. 3, 7. 8. 2. That the
commission or authority of the apostles was immediately from God. Paul in
Gal. 1, 1, as well as in other passages, asserts that apostleship was
neither derived from men nor conveyed through the instrumentality of men, but conferred
directly by God through Christ.
To the saints which are at Ephesus. The Israelites, under
the old dispensation, were called saints, because separated from other nations and
consecrated to God. In the New Testament the word is applied to believers, not merely
as externally consecrated, but as reconciled to God and inwardly purified. The word
ἁγιάζειν signifies to cleanse, either
from guilt by a propitiatory sacrifice, as in Heb.
2, 11. 10, 10. 14, or
from inward pollution, and also to consecrate. Hence the
ἅγιοι, saints, are those who are cleansed
by the blood of Christ, and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and thus separated
from the world and consecrated to God. On the words, which are at Ephesus,
see the Introduction.
And to the faithful in Christ Jesus. The word
πιστός, faithful, may mean preserving
faith, worthy of faith, or exercising faith. In the last sense, which is its meaning
here, it is equivalent to believing. The faithful, therefore, are believers.
In Christ, belongs
equally to the two preceding clauses: τοῖς ἁγίοις—καιὶ
πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, ‘To the saints and faithful who are in Christ Jesus.’
Those whom he calls saints he also calls faithful;
Ergo, says Calvin, nemo fidelis, nisi qui etiam sanctus: et nemo rursum sanctus,
nisi qui fidelis. No one is a believer who is not holy; and no one is
holy who is not a believer.
V. 2. Contains the usual apostolic benediction. Paul prays that
grace and peace may be granted to his readers. Grace is unmerited favour; and the
grace or favour of God is the source of all good. Peace, according to the usage
of the corresponding Hebrew word, means well-being in general. It comprehends all
blessings flowing from the goodness of God. The apostle prays to Christ, and seeks
from him blessings which God only can bestow. Christ therefore was to him the object
of habitual worship. He lived in communion with Christ as a divine person, the ground
of his confidence and the source of all good.
God is our Father: 1. As He is the author of our being; 2. As
we were formed in his likeness. He as a spirit is the Father of spirits. 3. As we
are born again by his Spirit and adopted into his family. It is in reference to
the last-mentioned relationship that the expression is. almost always used in the
New Testament. Those who are the children of God are such by regeneration and adoption.
Jesus Christ is our supreme and absolute Lord and proprietor.
The word κύριος is indeed used in Scripture
in the sense of master, and as a mere honorary title
as in English Master or Sir. But, on the other hand, it is the translation of Adonai,
supreme Lord, an incommunicable name of God, and the substitute for Jehovah, a name
the Jews would not pronounce. It is in this sense that Christ is, The Lord, The
Lord of Lords, The Lord God; Lord in that sense in which God alone can be Lord—having
a dominion of which divine perfection is the only adequate or possible foundation.
This is the reason why no one can call him Lord, but by the Holy Ghost,
1 Cor. 12, 3. It is a confession which implies the apprehension of the
glory of God as it shines in Him. It is an acknowledgment that he is God manifested
in the flesh. Blessed are all they who make this acknowledgment with sincerity;
for flesh and blood cannot reveal the truth therein confessed, but the Father who
is in heaven.
SECTION II.—Vs.
3-14.
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places
in Christ:
4. according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. having predestinated us; unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath
made us accepted in the, beloved.
7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness
of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8. wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence;
9. having made known unto us the mystery of his will,
according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself;
10. that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might
gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which
are on earth;
11. even in him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance,
being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after
the counsel of his own will;
12. that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first
trusted in Christ.
13. In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed ye
were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14. which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption
of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
ANALYSIS.
The apostle blesses God for the spiritual gifts bestowed upon
his people, v. 3. Of these the first
in order and the source of all the others, is election,
v. 4. This election is, 1st. Of individuals. 2d. In Christ; 3d. It is
from eternity. 4th. It is to holiness, and to the dignity of sons of God. 5th. It
is founded on the sovereign pleasure of God,
vs. 4. 5. 6th. Its final object is the glory of God, or the manifestation
of his grace, v. 6.
The second blessing here mentioned is actual redemption through
the blood of Christ; the free remission of sins according to the riches of his grace,
vs. 7. 8.
The third blessing is the revelation of the divine purpose in
relation to the economy of redemption; which has for its object the reduction of
all things to a harmonious whole under Jesus Christ,
vs. 9. 10.
Through this Redeemer, the Jewish Christians who had long looked
for the Messiah are, agreeably to the divine purpose, made the heirs of God,
vs. 11. 12. The Gentile converts are partakers of the same inheritance;
because, having believed in Christ, they are assured of their redemption by the
possession of the Holy Spirit, the pledge of the inheritance until its actual and
complete enjoyment, vs. 13. 14.
COMMENTARY.
V. 3. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς;,
Blessed be God. The word εὐλογεῖν, like
its English equivalent, to bless, signifies to praise, as when we bless God; to
pray for blessings, as when we bless others; and to bestow blessings, as when God
blesses us. Blessed be God who hath blessed us, is then the expression of thanksgiving
and praise to God on account of those peculiar benefits which we receive from him
through Christ.
God is here designated as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. That is, he is at once God and Father, sustaining both these relations to
Christ. Our Saviour used a similar form of expression, when he said, ‘I ascend unto
my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.’
John 20, 17. The God in whom the Israelites trusted was the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob; their covenant God. This designation served to remind the ancient
people of God of his promise to their fathers, and of their peculiar consequent
relationship to him. The God in whom we are
called upon to trust, and to whom we are to look as the source of all good, is not
the absolute Jehovah, nor the God who stood in a special relation to the Israelites;
but the God of redemption; the God whom the Lord Jesus revealed, whose will he came
to accomplish, and who was his Father. It is this relationship which is the ground
of our confidence. It is because God has sent the Lord Jesus into the world, because
He spared not his own Son, that he is our God and Father, or that we have access
to him as such.
It is this reconciled God, the God of the covenant of grace,
ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ,
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings. The past tense, hath
blessed, is used because the apostle contemplates his readers as actually redeemed,
and in present possession of the unspeakable blessings which Christ has procured.
These blessings are spiritual not merely because they pertain to the soul,
but because derived from the Holy Spirit, whose presence and influence are the great
blessing purchased by Christ.
"In heavenly places." The words
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις may be rendered either
in or with heavenly things, or in heavenly places, i.
e. in heaven. If the former method be adopted the sense is, ‘Hath blessed
us with all spiritual blessings, i. e. with heavenly things.’ The words
however occur five times in this epistle and always elsewhere in a local sense.
See v. 20.
2, 6. 3, 10.
6, 12, which therefore should be preferred here. They are to be connected
with the immediately preceding word, ‘Blessings in heaven.’
The meaning is that these blessings pertain to that heavenly state into which the
believer is introduced. Here on earth he is, as the apostle says, in
ch. 2, 6, ‘in heavenly places.’ He is a citizen of heaven, Phil. 3, 10.
The word heaven, in Scripture, is not confined in its application to the place or
state of future blessedness, but sometimes is nearly equivalent to ‘kingdom of heaven.’
The old writers, therefore, were accustomed to distinguish between the
coelum gloriae, the heaven of glory;
coelum naturae, the visible heavens, and
coelum gratiae, the heaven of grace here on earth. These
blessings connected with this heavenly state, are conferred upon believers in
Christ. It is as they are in him, and in virtue of that union that they are
partakers of these benefits.
V. 4. All these blessings have their source in the electing love
of God. πυλεγήσας—καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς,
he blessed us—because he chose us. Καθὼς,
according as, or, inasmuch as, because, see
John 17, 2. Rom. 1, 28.
1 Cor. 1, 6. Election is the cause or source of all subsequent benefits.
He hath chosen us. By us is not meant the apostle
alone, because there is nothing in the context to indicate or justify this restriction.
The blessings consequent on the election here spoken of, are in no sense peculiar
to the apostle. Neither does the word refer to any external community or society
as such. It is not us Ephesians, as Ephesians, nor us Corinthians, nor us Romans,
as formerly the Jews were chosen by a national election. But it is us believers,
scattered here
and there. It is those who are the actual recipients of the blessings
spoken of, viz. holiness, sonship, remission of sins, and eternal life.
We are said to be chosen in Him; an expression which is
variously explained. Some refer the pronoun to God, ‘chosen us in himself;’ which
is contrary not only to the context but to the signification of the words
ἐν αὐτῷ, which is the received text. Others
say the meaning is, ‘He hath chosen us because we are in him.’ The foresight of
our faith or union with Christ, being the ground of this election. This however
cannot be admitted. 1. Because faith, or a living union with Christ, is the very
blessing to which we are chosen. 2. Because it introduces into the passage more
than the words express. 3. Because in this immediate connection, as well as elsewhere,
the ground of this election is declared to be the good pleasure of God.—A third
interpretation also supposes an ellipsis. The full expression would be:
εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ, Chosen us to
be in Him; in ipso, videlicet adoptandos, as Beza
explains it. The objection to this is that it introduces more than the words contain,
and that the end to which we are chosen is expressed in the following clause,
εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους. It is best therefore
to take the words as they stand, and to inquire in what sense our election is in
Christ. The purpose of election is very comprehensive. It is the purpose of God
to bring his people to holiness, sonship, and eternal glory. He never intended to
do this irrespective of Christ. On the contrary it was his purpose,
as revealed in Scripture, to bring his people to these exalted privileges through
a Redeemer. It was in Christ as their head and representative they were chosen to
holiness and eternal life, and therefore in virtue of what he was to do in their
behalf. There is a federal union with Christ which is antecedent to all actual union,
and is the source of it. God gave a people to his Son in the covenant of redemption.
Those included in that covenant, and because they are included in it—in other words,
because they are in Christ as their head and representative—receive in time the
gift of the Holy Spirit and all other benefits of redemption. Their voluntary union
with Christ by faith, is not the ground of their federal union, but, on the contrary,
their federal union is the ground of their voluntary union. It is, therefore, in
Christ, i. e. as united to him in the covenant of redemption, that
the people of God are elected to eternal life and to all the blessings therewith
connected. Much in the same sense the Israelites are said to have been chosen in
Abraham. Their relation to Abraham and God’s covenant with him, were the ground
and reason of all the peculiar blessings they enjoyed. So our covenant union with
Christ is the ground of all the benefits which we as the people of God possess or
hope for. We were chosen in Christ, as the Jews were chosen in Abraham. The same
truth is expressed in 3, 11, where
it is said that the carrying out or application of the plan of redemption is "according
to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
God purposed to save men in Christ, He elected them in him to salvation.
Again, this election is from eternity. He chose us
πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, before the foundation
of the world. Comp. 2 Thess. 2, 13.
Matt. 25, 34. As our idea of time arises from the perception of motion
or consciousness of succession, the natural expression for eternity is’ before time,’
before the existence of creatures who exist in time. Hence what has been from eternity
is said in Scriptures to have been before the world was,
John 17, 24.
1 Pet. 1, 20; or before the ages,
1 Cor. 2, 7. 2 Tim. 1, 9.
"The grace given us in Christ Jesus πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
before the world began."—There seem to be two things intended by this reference
to the eternity of the divine purpose. The one is, to represent God as doing every
thing in time according to a preconceived plan; or as working all things after the
counsel of his own will. From eternity the whole scheme of redemption with all its
details and in all its results lay matured in the divine mind. Hence every thing
is certain. There is no possibility either of failure or of any change of purpose.
The eternity of God’s purpose is, therefore, a strong ground of confidence and comfort.
The other is, to express the sovereignty of the divine purpose. The grace was given
to us before we existed, before the world began, and of course before we had done
any good or evil. It was, therefore, not for works of righteousness which we have
done, but according to his mercy he saved us. If the one aspect of the truth
that God chose us before the foundation of the world, is adapted to produce confidence;
the other aspect is no less adapted to produce humility.
This election is to holiness. We are chosen
εἶναι ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ,
to be holy and without blame before him. These words admit of two interpretations.
They may be understood to refer to our justification, or to our sanctification.
They express either that freedom from guilt and blame in the sight of God, which
is the proximate effect of the death of Christ; or that subjective purification
of the soul which is its indirect, but certain effect produced by the Holy Spirit
which his death secures for his people. The words admit of either interpretation;
because ἁγιάζειν, as remarked above on
v. 1, often means to cleanse from guilt, to atone for; and
ἅγιος means clean from guilt, atoned for;
and ἄμωμος may mean free from any ground
of blame; unsträflich (not deserving of punishment),
as Luther renders it. In favour of this interpretation it is urged, first, that
it is unscriptural as well as contrary to experience, to make perfect purity and
freedom from all blemish, the end of election. There is little force in this argument,
because the end of election is not fully attained in this life. It might as well
be said that the υἱοθεσία (the adoption
of sons), to which in v. 5 we are
said to be predestinated, includes nothing more than what is experienced in this
world. Besides, in 5, 27, it is said,
Christ gave lhimself for the cnhurch,’ That he might present it to himself a glorious
church, not having spot or wrinkle, or ally such thing,
but (ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος) that it should
be holy and without blemish." This certainly is descriptive of a degree of inward
purity not attained by the church militant. Comp.
Col. 1, 22. Secondly, it is urged that the whole context treats of the
effect of the ἱλαστήριον or propitiatory sacrifice
of Christ, and therefore these words must be understood of justification, because
sanctification is not the effect of a sacrifice. But the Scriptures often speak
of the remote, as well as of the immediate end of Christ’s death. We are reconciled
to God by the death of his Son in order that we should be holy. Propitiation is
in order to holiness. Therefore, it is said, "He gave himself for us that he might
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify us unto himself a people zealous of good
works." Titus 2, 14. In many other passages
sanctification is said to be the end for which Christ died. There is nothing in
the context, therefore, which requires us to depart from the ordinary interpretation
of this passage. If the words ἐν ἀγάπῃ
(in love) are to be connected with the preceding clause, it is decisive as
to its meaning ‘We are chosen to be holy and without blame in love.’ It is a state
of moral excellence which consists in love. That is, it is no mere external consecration
to God, as was the case with the Jews, nor any mere ceremonial freedom from blemish,
to which we are elected. This is altogether the most natural connection of the words,
from which no one would have thought of departing, had it not been assumed that
the words "holy and without blame" refer to sacrificial purification. To connect
ἐν ἀγάπῃ, with
ἐξελέξατο, would give the sense, ‘Hath chosen
us in love;’ but this the position of the words forbids. To connect them with
προορίσας, which follows, would give the sense,
‘In love having predestinated us.’ But this also is unnatural; and besides, the
word predestinated has its limitation or explanation in the following clause,
"according to the good pleasure of his will.’ It would be tautological to say: ‘He
hath predestinated us in love according to the good pleasure of his will." The majority
of commentators, therefore, adopt the construction followed by our translators.
If election is to holiness as the apostle here teaches, it follows,
first, that individuals, and not communities or nations, are the objects of election;
secondly, that holiness in no form can be the ground of election. If men are chosen
to be holy, they cannot be chosen because they are holy. And, thirdly, it follows
that holiness is the only evidence of election. For one who lives in sin to claim
to be elected unto holiness, is a contradiction.
V. 5. The apostle says, God hath chosen us to holiness, having
predestinated us to sonship; that is, because he has thus predestinated us. Holiness,
therefore, must be a necessary condition or prerequisite for the sonship here spoken
of. Sonship in reference to God includes—1. Participation of his nature, or conformity
to his image. 2. The enjoyment of his favour, or being the special objects of his
love. 3. Heirship, or a participation of the glory and blessedness of God.
Sometimes one and sometimes another of these ideas is the most prominent. In the
present case it is the second and third. God having predestinated his people to
the high dignity and glory of sons of God, elected them to holiness, without which
that dignity could neither be possessed nor enjoyed. It is through Jesus Christ,
that we are made the sons of God. As many as received him, to them gave he the power
to become the sons of God. John 1, 12.
For we are all the children of God by faith of Jesus Christ.
Gal. 3, 26. Christ has purchased this dignity for his people. He died
for them on condition that they should be the sons of God, restored to their Father’s
family and reinstated in all the privileges of this divine relationship.
The words εἰς αὑτόν, to
himself, in the clause, ‘Predestinated us to sonship by Jesus Christ to himself,’
are somewhat difficult. The text, in the first place, is uncertain. Some editors
read εἰς αὑτόν, unto himself, and
others εἰς αὐτόν, unto him. In either
case, however, the reference is to God. They admit of three explanations. 1. They
may limit or explain the word sonship. ‘Sonship unto himself,’ i. e.
sons in relation to God. 2. They may express the design of this adoption. ‘Sonship
for himself,’ i. e. for his benefit or glory. This assumes that
εἰς is here equivalent to the dative. 3. They
may be connected immediately with the words Jesus Christ. ‘Through Jesus Christ
to himself,’ i. e. to be brought to him by Jesus Christ. The first
is generally preferred, because it
gives a good sense, and is consistent with the force of the preposition.
The ground of this predestination and of the election founded
upon it, is expressed by the clause, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν
τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, according to the good pleasure of his will.
The word εὐδοκία means either benevolence,
favour, as in Luke 2, 14; or good
pleasure, free or sovereign purpose, as in
Matt. 11, 26; and Luke 10, 21.
Phil. 2, 13. The meaning therefore may be either: ‘according to his benevolent
will,’ or ‘according to his sovereign will,’ i. e. his good pleasure.
The latter is to be preferred. 1. Because it agrees better with the usage of the
word in the N. T. In Matt. 11, 26,
ὅτι οὕτως ἐγένετο εὐδοκία ἔμπροσθέν σου
means, ‘Because thus it seemed good in thy sight.’ In
Luke 10, 21, the same words occur in the same sense. In
Phil. 2, 13, ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας
means, ‘Of good pleasure.’ 2. The words εὐδοκία
τοῦ θελήματος naturally mean voluntas liberrima, beneplacitum,
sovereign purpose; to make them mean benevolent will, is contrary
to scriptural usage. 3. In this connection it is not the predestinated that are
the objects of εὐδοκία, but the act of predestination
itself. God chose to have that purpose. It seemed good to him. 4. The expressions,
"purpose of his will," " counsel of his will,"
v. 11, are used interchangeably with that in the text, and determine
its meaning. 5. The analogy of Scripture is in favour of this interpretation, because
the ground of election is always said to be the good pleasure of God.
V. 6. The final end of election is the glory of God. He has predestinated
us to sonship, εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ,
to the praise of the glory of his grace. That is, in order that in the exaltation
and blessedness of his people, matter for celebrating his grace might be abundantly
afforded. It is worthy of remark that here, as in
2, 7. 1 Cor. 1, 27-29,
and elsewhere, the specific design of redemption and of the mode in which its blessings
are dispensed, is declared to be the manifestation of the grace or unmerited
favour of God. Nothing therefore can be more foreign to the nature of the Gospel
than the doctrine of merit in any form. It is uncongenial with that great scheme
of mercy whose principal design is to exhibit the grace of God.
It is to weaken the language of the apostle to make
δόξης a mere qualification either of
ἔπαινον (praise), or of
χάριτος (grace). It is neither glorious praise,
nor glorious grace, but to the praise of the glory of his grace. The glory
of grace, is the divine excellence of that attribute manifested as an object
of admiration. The glory of God is the manifested excellence of God, and the glory
of any one of his attributes, is the manifestation of that attribute as an object
of praise. The design of redemption, therefore, is to exhibit the grace of God in
such a conspicuous manner as to fill all hearts with wonder and all lips with praise.
Wherein he hath made us accepted. The Text in this clause
is uncertain. Some MSS. have ἐν ᾗς which is
the common text; and others ἧς. Mill, Griesbach,
Lachmann, Rückert adopt the latter; Knapp, Scholz, Harless, De Wette the former.
If the genitive be preferred, ἧς is for
ἥν, and the phrase
χάριν χαριτοῦν would be analogous to others
of frequent occurrence, as κλῆσιν καλεῖν, ἀγάπην ἀγαπᾶν.
This clause admits of two interpretations. The word
χαριτόω, agreeably to the analogy of words
of the same formation, signifies to impart χάρις
grace. The literal rendering therefore of the words
ἐν ᾗ (χάριτι) ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς would be,
with which grace he has graced us, or conferred grace upon us. But as grace
sometimes means a disposition and sometimes a gift, the sense may be either, ‘Wherein
(i. e. in the exercise of which) he has been gracious towards us;’
or, ‘With which he has made us gracious or well pleasing.’ In the former case, grace
refers to the goodness or unmerited favour of God exercised towards us; in the latter,
to the sanctifying effect produced on us. It is the grace by which he has sanctified
or rendered us gracious (in the subjective sense of that word) in his sight. The
Greek and Romish interpreters prefer the latter interpretation; the great body of
Protestant commentators the former. The reasons in favour of the former are, 1.
The word grace in the context is used in the sense of kind disposition on
the part of God, and not in the sense of a gift. 2. The verb in the only other case
where it occurs in the New Testament, is used in the sense of showing favour.
Luke 1, 28: "Hail, thou favoured one!" 3. The parallel passage and analogous
expression 2, 4 is in favour of this
interpretation. There it is said, "His great love wherewith he hath loved
us," and here the same idea is expressed by saying, ‘His grace wherein he favoured
us, or which he has exercised towards us.’ 4. The whole context demands this interpretation.
The apostle is speaking of the love or grace of God as manifested in our redemption.
He has predestinated us to the adoption of sons to the praise of the glory of his
grace; which grace he has exercised towards us, in the remission of sins. The same
idea is expressed 2, 7, where it is
said, God hath quickened is, that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding
riches of his grace in his kindness towards us, through Jesus Christ. "To make accepted,"
therefore, here means, to accept, to treat with favour; or rather, such is the meaning
of the apostle’s language; gratia amplexus est, as
the word is rendered by Bengel. To which agrees the explanation of Beza:
gratis nos sibi acceptos effecit.
This grace is exercised towards us in the Beloved. In ourselves
we are unworthy. All kindness towards us is of the nature of grace. Christ is the
beloved for his own sake; and it is to us only as in him and for his sake that the
grace of God is manifested. This is a truth which the apostle keeps constantly in
view, 2, 5.
6. 7.
V. 7. In whom we have redemption. In whom, i. e.
not in ourselves. We are not self-redeemed. Christ is our Redeemer. The word
redemption, ἀπολύτρωσις, sometimes means
deliverance in the general, without reference to the mode in which it is accomplished.
When used of the work of Christ it is always
to be understood in its strict sense, viz. deliverance by ransom; because this particular
mode of redemption is always either expressed or implied. We are redeemed neither
by power, nor truth, but by blood; that is, by the sacrificial death of the Lord
Jesus. A sacrifice is a ransom, as to its effect. It delivers those for whom it
is offered and accepted. The words διὰ τοῦ αἵματος
αὐτοῦ, by his blood, are explanatory of the words in whom.
In whom, i. e. by means of his blood. They serve to explain the method
in which Christ redeems.
The redemption of which the apostle here speaks is not the inward
deliverance from sin, but it is an outward work, viz. the forgiveness of sins,
as the words τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων
necessarily mean. It is true this is not the whole of redemption, but it is all
the sacred writer here brings into view, because forgiveness is the immediate end
of expiation. Though this clause is in apposition with the preceding, it is by no
means coextensive with it. So in Rom. 8, 23,
where believers are said to be waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption
of the body, the two clauses are not coextensive in meaning. The redemption of the
body does not exhaust the idea of adoption. Neither in this passage does the forgiveness
of sin exhaust the idea of redemption. This passage is often quoted in controversy
to prove that justification is merely pardon.
This redemption is not only gratuitous, but it is, in all its
circumstances, an exhibition and therefore a
proof of the riches of his grace. The word
πλοῦτος riches in such connections is a favorite one with the apostle,
who speaks of the riches of glory, the riches of wisdom, and the exceeding riches
of grace It is the overflowing abundance of unmerited love. inexhaustible in God
and freely accessible through Christ. There is, therefore, nothing incompatible
between redemption, i. e. deliverance on the ground of a ransom (or
a complete satisfaction to justice), and grace. The grace consists —1. In providing
this satisfaction and in accepting it in behalf of sinners. 2. In accepting those
who are entirely destitute of merit. 3. In bestowing this redemption and all its
benefits without regard to the comparative goodness of men. It is not because one
is wiser, better, or more noble than others, that he is made a partaker of this
grace; but God chooses the foolish, the ignorant, and those who are of no account,
that they who glory may glory only in the Lord.
V. 8. Wherein he hath abounded towards us,
ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. As the word
περισσεύω is both transitive and intransitive,
the clause may be rendered as above, ἧς being
for ᾗ; or, which he has caused to abound
towards us, ἧς being for
ἥν. The sense is the same; but as the attraction
of the dative is very rare, the latter explanation is to be preferred. We are redeemed
according to the riches of that grace, which God has so freely exercised towards
us.
In all wisdom and prudence,
ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει. These words
admit of a threefold connection
and explanation. 1. They may be connected with the preceding verb and qualify the
action of God therein expressed. God, in the exercise of wisdom and prudence, has
abounded in grace towards us. 2. They may be connected with the following clause:
‘In all wisdom and prudence making known, &c.’ 3. They may be connected with the
preceding relative pronoun. ‘Which (grace) in connection with, or together with,
all wisdom and prudence he has caused to abound.’ That is, the grace manifested
by God and received by us, is received in connection with the divine wisdom or knowledge
of which the subsequent clause goes on to speak. This last explanation seems decidedly
preferable because the terms here used, particularly the word
φρόνησις prudence, is not in its ordinary
sense properly referable to God. Cicero de Off. 1. 43. Prudentia
enim, quam Graeci φρόνησιν dicunt, est rerum
expetendarum fugiendarumque scientia. And because the sense afforded by the
third mentioned interpretation is so appropriate to the context and so agreeable
to other passages of Scripture. The apostle often celebrates the goodness of God
in communicating to men the true wisdom; not the wisdom of this world, nor of the
princes of this world, but the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom,
which God ordained before the world to our glory. See
1 Cor. 1, 17 to the end, and the whole second chapter of that epistle.—Similar
modes of expression are common with the apostle. As here he speaks of grace being
given (ἐν) in connection with wisdom,
so in v. 17 he prays that the Ephesians may
receive wisdom (ἐν) in connection with
the knowledge of himself.
The wisdom then which the apostle says God has communicated to
us, is the divine wisdom in the Gospel, the mystery of redemption, which had been
hid for ages in God, but which he has now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets
by the Spirit. See the glorious doxology for this revelation contained in
Rom. 16, 25-27. Indeed this whole Epistle to the Ephesians is a thanksgiving
to God for the communication of this mysterious wisdom. Mysterious, not so much
in the sense of incomprehensible, as in that of undiscoverable by human reason,
and a matter of divine revelation. With wisdom the apostle connects
φρόνησις, which is here used much in the same
sense as σύνεσις in
Col. 1, 9, ‘That ye may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all
wisdom and spiritual understanding.’ The verb
φρονέω is used for any mental exercise or state
whether of the understanding or of the feelings. In the New Testament it is commonly
employed to express a state of the affections, or rather, of the whole soul, as
in Mark 8, 33, "Thou savourest not the
things which be of God." Rom. 8, 5, "To
mind the things of the flesh."
Col. 3, 2, "Set your affections on
things above," &c. &c. Hence its derivative φρόνημα
is used not only for thought, but more generally for a state of mind, what is in
the mind or soul, including the affections as well as the understanding. Hence we
have such expressions as φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός
a carnal state of mind; and φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος
a state of mind produced
by the Spirit. The word φρόνησις
is equally comprehensive. It is not confined to strictly intellectual exercises,
but expresses also those of the affections. In other words, when used in reference
to spiritual things, it includes all that is meant by spiritual discernment. It
is the apprehension of the spiritual excellence of the things of God, and the answering
affection towards them. It is not therefore a mere outward revelation of which the
apostle here speaks. The wisdom and understanding which God has so abundantly communicated,
includes both the objective revelation and the subjective apprehension of it. This
is the third great blessing of which the context treats. The first is election;
the second redemption; the third is this revelation both outward and inward. The
first is the work of God, the everlasting Father; the second the work of tile Son;
and the third the work of the Holy Spirit, who thus applies to believers the redemption
purchased by Christ.
V. 9. God has caused this wisdom to abound, or has communicated
it, having made known unto us the mystery of his will,
γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ.
In other words, by the revelation of the Gospel. The word
μυστήριον, mystery, means a secret,
something into which we must be initiated; something, which being undiscoverable
by us, can be known only as it is revealed. In this sense the Gospel is a mystery;
and any fact or truth, however simple in itself, in the New Testament sense of the
word, is a mystery, if it lies beyond the reach of our powers. Comp.
Rom. 16, 25.
1 Cor. 2, 7-10. Eph. 3, 9.
Col. 1, 26. For the same reason any doctrine imperfectly revealed is
a mystery. It remains in a measure secret. Thus in the fifth chapter of this epistle
Paul calls the union of Christ and believers a great mystery; and in
1 Tim. 3, 16 he calls the manifestation of God in the flesh, the great
mystery of godliness.
In the present case the mystery of his will means his
secret purpose; that purpose of redemption, which having been hid for ages,
he has now graciously revealed.
According to his good pleasure,
κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ.
There are three interpretations of this clause. The first is to make it qualify
the word will. ‘His will which was according to his good pleasure;’
i. e. his kind and sovereign will. But this is forbidden by the absence of
the connecting article in the Greek, and also by the following clause. The second
interpretation connects this clause with the beginning of the verse, ‘Having, according
to his good pleasure, made known the mystery of his will.’ The sense in this case
is good, but this interpretation supposes the relative which, in the following clause,
to refer to the mystery of his will, which its grammatical form in the Greek forbids.
Which (ἣν) must refer to good pleasure (εὐδοκία).
The third explanation, which alone seems consistent with the context, supposes
εὐδοκία to mean here not benevolence,
but kind intention, or, sovereign purpose. The sense then is: ‘Having
made known the mystery of his will, according to his
kind intention or purpose (viz. of redemption) which he had purposed in himself.’
Instead of in himself, many commentators read in him, referring to Christ.
But this would introduce tautology into the passage. The apostle would then say:
‘Which he purposed in Christ, to bring together in Christ.’
V. 10. This verse is beset with difficulties. The general sense
seems to be this: The purpose spoken of in the preceding verse had reference to
the scheme of redemption; the design of which is to unite all the subjects of redemption,
as one harmonious body, under Jesus Christ.
Εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος
τῶν καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι, κτλ. The first question relates to the connection
with what precedes. This is indicated by the preposition
εἰς, which does not here mean in, as
though the sense were, He purposed in, or during, the dispensation, &c.; much less
until; but as to, in reference to. The purpose which God has revealed
relates to the economy here spoken of. The second question is, what is here the
meaning of the word οἰκονομία? The word has
two general senses in the New Testament. When used in reference to one in authority,
it means plan, scheme, or economy. When spoken of one under authority, it means
an office, stewardship, or administration of such office. In this latter sense Paul
speaks of an οἰκονομία as having been committed
unto him. As the business of a steward is to administer, or dispense, so the apostle
was a steward of the mysteries of God. It was his office to dispense to others the
truths which God had revealed to him. Many take the word in the latter sense here.
The meaning would then be: ‘In reference to the administration of the fulness of
times, i. e. the last times, or Messianic period; the times which yet
remain.’ The former sense of the word however is much better suited to the context.
The apostle is speaking of God’s purpose, of what He intended to do. It was a purpose
having reference to a plan or economy of his own; an economy here designated as
that of the fulness of times. This phrase does not indicate a protracted
period—the times which remain—but the termination of the times; the end of
the preceding and commencement of the new dispensation. The prophets being ignorant
of the time of the Messiah’s advent, predicted his coming when the time determined
by God should be accomplished. Hence the expressions, "end of the ages,"
1 Cor. 10, 11; "end of days," Heb. 1,
1; "fulness of the time," Gal. 4, 4;
and here, "the fulness of times," are all used to designate the time of Christ’s
advent. By the economy of the fulness of times is therefore to be understood,
that economy which was to be clearly revealed and carried out when the fulness of
time had come.
The infinitive ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι,
to bring together in one, may be referred either to the immediately preceding
clause: ‘The plan of the fulness of times to bring together in one;’ or to the preceding
verse: ‘The purpose which he purposed (in reference to the economy of the fulness
of times), to gather together in one.’ The sense is substantially the same. The
verb
κεφαλαιόω means
summatim colligere, ἀνακεφαλαιόω,
summatim recolligere. In the New Testament it means
either: 1. To reduce to one sum, i. e. to sum up, to recapitulate.
Rom. 13, 9: ‘All the commands are summed up in, or under, one precept.’
2. To unite under one head; or, 3. To renew. Many of the Fathers adopt the last
signification in this place, and consider this passage as parallel with
Rom. 8, 19-22. Through Christ God purposes to restore or renovate all
things; to effect a παλιγγενεσία or regeneration
of the universe, i. e. of the whole creation which now groans under
the burden of corruption. This sense of the word however is remote. The first and
second meanings just mentioned differ but little. They both include the idea expressed
in our version, that of regathering together in one, the force of
ἀνά, iterum,
being retained. Beza explains the word: partes disjectas et divulsas
in unum, corpus conjungere.—The purpose of God, which he has been pleased
to reveal, and which was hidden for ages, is his intention to reunite all things
as one harmonious whole under Jesus Christ.
The words τὰ πάντα,
all things, are explained by the following clause:
τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
both which are in heaven and which are on earth. The totality here referred
to includes every thing in heaven and on earth, which the nature of the subject
spoken of admits of being comprehended. There is nothing to limit these comprehensive
terms, but the nature of the union to which the apostle refers. As, therefore, the
Scriptures speak of the whole universe,
material and rational, as being placed under Jesus Christ; as they speak especially
of all orders of intelligent creatures being subject to him; as they teach the union
of the long disjected members of the human family, the Jews and Gentiles, in one
body in Christ, of which union this epistle says so much and in such exalted strains;
and as finally they speak of the union of the saints of all ages and nations, of
those now in heaven and of those now on earth, in one great family above; the words,
ALL THINGS, are very variously explained. 1. Some understand
them to include the whole creation, material and spiritual, and apply the passage
to the final restoration of all things; or to that redemption of the creature from
the bondage of corruption of which the apostle speaks in
Rom. 8, 19-22. 2. Others restrict the "all things" to all intelligent
creatures—good and bad, angels and men—fallen spirits and the finally impenitent.
In this view the reduction to unity, here spoken of, is understood by the advocates
of the restoration of all things to the favour of God, to refer to the destruction
of all sin and the banishment of all misery from the universe. But those who believe
that the Scriptures teach that the fallen angels and the finally impenitent among
men, are not to be restored to holiness and happiness, and who give the phrase "all
things " the wide sense just mentioned, understand the apostle to refer to the final
triumph of Christ over all his enemies, of which he speaks in
1 Cor. 15, 23-28. All things in heaven above, in the earth beneath, and
in the waters under the earth, are to be made subject
to Christ; but this subjection will be either voluntary or coerced. The good will
joyfully acknowledge his supremacy; the evil he will restrain and confine, that
they no longer trouble or pervert his people. 3. Others again understand the words
under consideration, of all good angels and men. The inhabitants of heaven, or the
angels, and the inhabitants of the earth, or the saints, are to be united as a harmonious
whole under Jesus Christ. 4. The words are restricted to the members of the human
family; and the distinction between those in heaven and those on earth, is supposed
to refer to the Jews and Gentiles, who, having been so long separated, are under
the Gospel and by the redemption of Christ, united in one body in him. The Jews
are said to be in heaven because in the kingdom of heaven, or the theocracy; and
the Gentiles are said to be on earth, or in the world as distinguished from the
church. 5. The words may be confined to the people of God, the redeemed from among
men, some of whom are now in heaven and others are still on earth. The whole body
of the redeemed are to be gathered together in one, so that there shall be one fold
and one shepherd. The form of expression is analogous to
Eph. 3, 15, where the apostle speaks of the whole family in heaven and
earth.
The decision which of these several interpretations is to be adopted,
depends mainly on the nature of the union here spoken of, and on the means by which
it is accomplished. If the union is merely a union under a triumphant king, effected
by his power converting
some and coercing others, then of course we must understand the passage as referring
to all intelligent creatures. But if the union spoken of be a union with God, involving
conformity to his image and the enjoyment of his favour, and effected by the redemption
of Christ, then the terms here employed must be restricted 1o the subjects of redemption.
And then if the Scriptures teach that all men and even fallen angels are redeemed
by Christ, and restored to the favour of God, they must be included in the all things
in heaven and earth here spoken of. If the Scriptures teach that good angels are
the subjects of redemption, then they must be comprehended ill the scope of this
passage.CALVIN thinks there is a sense in which good
angels may be said to be redeemed by Christ. On this passage, he says:
Nihil tamen impedit, quominus angelos quoque dicamus recollectos
fuisse, non ex dissipatione, sed primum. ut perfecte et solide adhereant Deo; deinde
ut perpetuum statum retineant . . . . Quis neget, tam angelos quam homines, in firmum
ordinem Christo gratia fuisse redactos? homines enim perditi erant, angeli vero
non erant extra periculum. Again, on the parallel passage in Colossians,
he says: Duabus de causis angelos quoque oportuit cum Deo pacificari,
nam quam creaturae sint extra lapsus periculum non erant, non nisi Christi gratia
fuissent confirmati . . . . Deinde in hac ipsa obedientia, quam præstant Deo, non
est tam exquisita perfectio, ut Deo omni ex parte et extra veniam satisfaciat.
But if the doctrine of the Bible be, that only a certain portion of the human family
are redeemed and saved by the blood of Christ, then to them alone can the passage
be understood to refer. In order therefore to establish the correctness of the fifth
interpretation mentioned above, all that is necessary is to prove, first, that the
passage
speaks of that union which is effected by the redemption of Christ; and secondly,
that the church alone is the subject of redemption.
That the passage does speak of that union which is effected by
redemption, may be argued —1. From the context. Paul, as we have seen, gives thanks
first for the election of God’s people; secondly, for their actual redemption; thirdly,
for the revelation of the gracious purpose of God relative to their redemption.
It is of the redemption of the elect, therefore, that the whole context treats.
2. Secondly, the union here spoken of is an union in Christ. God has purposed "to
gather together all things in Christ." The things in heaven and the things on earth
are to be united in Him. But believers alone, the members of his body, are ever
said to be in Christ. It is not true that angels good or bad, or the whole mass
of mankind are in Him in any scriptural sense of that expression. 3. The word here
used expresses directly or indirectly the idea of the union of all things under
Christ as their head. Christ is not the head of angels, nor of the material universe
in the sense in which the context here demands. He is the head of his body,
i. e. his church. It is therefore only of the redemption of the church
of which this passage can be understood. 4. The obviously parallel passage in
Colossians 1, 20 seems decisive on this point. It is there said: "It
pleased the Father . . . . having made peace through the blood of his cross,
by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they
be things in earth, or
things in heaven." From this passage it is plain that the union to be effected is
a reconciliation, which implies previous alienation, and a reconciliation effected
by the blood of the cross. It is, therefore, not a union of subjection merely to
the same Lord, but it is one effected by the blood of Christ, and consequently the
passage can be understood only of the subjects of redemption.
That the church or people of God, excluding angels good or bad,
and the finally impenitent among men, are alone the subjects of redemption, is proved,
as to evil angels and impenitent men, by the numerous passages of Scripture which
speak of their final destruction; and as to good angels, by the entire silence of
Scripture as to their being redeemed by Christ, and by the nature of the work itself.
Redemption, in the scriptural sense, is deliverance from sin and misery, and therefore
cannot be predicated of those angels who kept their first estate.
These considerations exclude all the interpretations above enumerated
except the fourth and fifth. The fourth, which supposes the passage to refer to
the union of the Jews and Gentiles, is excluded by its opposition to the uniform
language of Scripture. The Jews are never designated as ‘inhabitants of heaven.’
It is in violation of all usage, therefore, to suppose they are here indicated by
that phrase. Nothing therefore remains but the assumption that the apostle refers
to the union of all the people of God, i. e. of all the redeemed, in
one body under Jesus Christ their head.
They are to be constituted an everlasting kingdom; or, according to another symbol—a
living temple, of which Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone.
V. 11. God having formed and revealed the purpose of gathering
the redeemed as one body in Christ, it is in the execution of this purpose, the
apostle says: ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν,
in whom we also have obtained an inheritance. By we, in this clause,
is to be understood neither the apostle individually, nor believers indiscriminately,
but we, who first hoped in Christ; we as contrasted with you also
in v. 13; you who were formerly Gentiles
in the flesh, 2, 11. It is, therefore,
the Jewish Christians to whom this clause refers.
Have obtained an inheritance. The word
κληρόω, means to cast lots, to distribute
by lot, to choose by lot, and in the middle voice, to obtain by lot or
inheritance, or simply, to obtain. There are three interpretations
of the word ἐκληρώθημεν in this passage,
all consistent with its signification and usage. 1. Some prefer the sense to
choose: ‘In whom we also were chosen, as it were, by lot, i. e.
freely.’ The Vulgate translates the passage: Sorte vocati sumus;
and Erasmus: Sorte electi sumus. 2. As in the Old Testament
the people of God are called his inheritance, many suppose the apostle has reference
to that usage and meant to say: ‘In whom we have become the inheritance of God.’
3. The majority of commentators prefer the interpretation adopted in our version:
‘In whom we have obtained an inheritance.’ This view is sustained by the following
considerations. 1. Though the verb is in the
passive, the above rendering may be justified either by the remark of Grotius: as
the active form signifies to give a possession, the passive may signify to accept
it;His words are: κληροῦν,
dicitur, qui alteri dat possessionem, κληροῦσθαι,
qui eam accipit. or by a reference to that usage of the passive voice
illustrated in such passages as Rom. 3, 2.
Gal. 2, 7. With verbs, which in the active have the accusative and dative,
in the passive construction what was in the dative, becomes the nominative. Hence
ἐκληρώθημεν is the same as
ἐκλήρωσε ἡμῖν κληρονομίαν; just as
πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγελιον is equivalent to
ἐπίστευσέ μοι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. 2. The inheritance
of which the apostle speaks in the context, as in
vs. 14 and 18, is that which believers enjoy. They are not themselves
the inheritance, they are the heirs. Therefore in this place it is more natural
to understand him as referring to what believers attain in Christ, than to their
becoming the inheritance of God. As the Israelites of old obtained an inheritance
in the promised land, so those in Christ become partakers of that heavenly inheritance
which he has secured for them. To this analogy such frequent reference is made in
Scripture as to leave little doubt as to the meaning of this passage. 3. The parallel
passage in Col. 1, 12, also serves
to determine the sense of the clause under consideration. What is there expressed
by saying: ‘Hath made us partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;’ is
here expressed by saying: ‘We have obtained an inheritance.’
Καὶ,
also, belongs to the verb and not to the pronoun implied in
the form of the verb. The sense is not we also, i. e. we as
well as other; but, ‘we have also obtained an inheritance.’ We have not only been
made partakers of the knowledge of redemption, but are actually heirs of its blessings.
There are two sentiments with which the mind of the apostle was
thoroughly imbued. The one is, a sense of the absolute supremacy of God, and the
other a corresponding sense of the dependence of man and the consequent conviction
of the entirely gratuitous nature of all the benefits of redemption. To these sentiments
he seldom fails to give expression on any fit occasion. In the present instance
having said we have in Christ obtained a glorious inheritance, the question suggests
itself, Why? His answer is: Having been predestinated according to the purpose
of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. It is neither
by chance nor by our own desert or efforts, that we, and not others, have been thus
highly favoured. It has been brought about according to the purpose and by the efficiency
of God. What has happened He predetermined should occur; and to his "working" the
event is to be exclusively referred. We are said to be predestinated,
κατὰ πρόθεσιν, according to the purpose
of God. In v. 5 the same thing
is expressed by saying: ‘We were predestinated according to the good pleasure of
his will;’ and in Rom. 8, 28, by saying:
‘We are called according to his purpose.’ Two things are included in these forms
of expression.
1st. That what occurs was foreseen and foreordained. The plan of God embraced and
ordered the events here referred to. 2d. That the ground or reason of these occurrences
is to be sought in God, in the determination of his will. This however is not a
singular case. The bringing certain persons to the enjoyment of the inheritance
purchased by Christ, is not the only thing foreordained by God and brought about
by his efficiency, and, therefore, the apostle generalizes the truth here expressed,
by saying: ‘We are predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will.’ Every thing is comprehended in
his purpose, and every thing is ordered by his efficient control. That control,
however, is exercised in accordance with the nature of his creatures, so that no
violence is done to the constitution which he has given them. He is glorified, and
his purposes are accomplished without any injustice or violence.
The counsel of his will,
κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, means the counsel which has its
origin in his will; neither suggested by others, nor determined by any thing out
of himself. It is therefore equivalent to his sovereign will.
V. 12. That we should be to the praise of his glory,
εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς, εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ,
that is, that we should be the means of causing his divine majesty or excellence
to be praised. Here, as in v. 6, the
glory of God is declared to be the design of the plan of redemption and of every
thing connected with
its administration. The persons here spoken of are described as
τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, those
who first hoped in Christ. That is, who hoped in him of old, or before his advent;
or, who hoped in him before others, mentioned in
v. 13, had heard of him. In either case it designates not the first converts
to Christianity, but the Jews who, before the Gentiles, had the Messiah as the object
of their hopes. The form of expression here used (ἐλπίζειν
ἐν), does not mean simply to expect, but to place one’s hope or confidence
in any one. Comp. 1 Cor. 15, 19.
It is not, therefore, the Jews as such, but the believing Jews, who are here spoken
of as in Christ the partakers of the inheritance which he has purchased.
The construction of these several clauses adopted in the foregoing
exposition is that which takes them in their natural order, and gives a sense consistent
with the usage of the words and agreeable to the analogy of Scripture. The first
clause of this verse is made to depend upon the last clause of
v. 11: ‘Having predestinated us to be the praise of his glory;’ and the
last clause, ‘Who first hoped in Christ,’ is merely explanatory of the class of
persons spoken of. The whole then hangs naturally together: ‘We have obtained an
inheritance, having been predestinated to be the praise of his glory, we, who first
hoped in Christ.’ There are, however, two other modes of construction possible.
The one connects the beginning of v. 12
with the first clause of v. 11, and
renders ἐκληρώθημεν, we have attained.
The sense would then be, ‘We have
attained, or, it has happened unto us to be to the praise of his glory.’ This however
not only unnaturally dissevers contiguous clauses, but assigns to
ἐκληρώθημεν a weakened sense inconsistent with
the Scripture usage of that and its cognate words. A second method connects the
last clause of the 12th verse with the second clause of the 11th.—‘Having predestinated
us to be the first who hoped in Christ.’ But this also rends the clauses apart,
and does not express a sense so suitable to the context. It is saying much more,
and much more in the way of an explanation of the fact affirmed in the first clause
of v. 11, to say, ‘We were predestinated
to be the praise of God’s glory;’ than to say, ‘We were predestinated to be the
first who hoped in Christ.’ The majority of commentators therefore take the clauses
as they stand, and as they are concatenated in our version.
V. 13. The apostle having in
v. 10 declared that the purpose of God is to bring all the subjects of
redemption into one harmonious body, says in
v. 11 that this purpose is realized in the conversion of the Jewish Christians,
and he here adds that another class, viz. the Gentile Christians, to whom his epistle
is specially addressed, are comprehended in the same purpose. The first clause,
ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς, is elliptical. In whom
ye also, after that ye heard, &c. There are therefore several modes of construction
possible. 1. Our translators borrow the verb ἡλπίκατε
from the immediately preceding clause.—‘We, who first trusted in Christ,
in whom ye also trusted.’ But the preceding
clause is merely subordinate and explanatory, and does not express the main idea
of the context. This construction also overlooks the obvious antithesis between
the we of the 11th verse and the you of this clause. 2. Others supply
simply the verb are. ‘In whom you also are.’ This is better, but it is liable
to the latter objection just mentioned. 3. Others make you the nominative
to the verb were sealed in the following clause.—‘In whom you also (having
heard, &c.) were sealed.’ But this requires the clauses to be broken by a parenthesis.
It supposes also the construction to be irregular, for the words in whom also
are repeated before the verb ye were sealed. The passage according to this
construction would read, ‘In whom ye also—, in whom also ye were sealed.’ Besides,
the sealing is not the first benefit the Gentile Christians received. They were
first brought into union with Christ and made partakers of his inheritance and then
sealed. 4. It is therefore more consistent not only with the drift of the whole
passage, and with the relation between this verse and
verse 11, but also with the construction of this and the following verse
to supply the word ἐκληρώθητε, have obtained
an inheritance. Every thing is thus natural. In
v. 11, the apostle says, ‘In whom we have obtained an inheritance;’ and
here, ‘In whom ye also have obtained an inheritance.’ Both Jews and Gentiles are
by the mediation of Christ, and in union with him, brought to be partakers of the
benefits of that plan of mercy which God had purposed in himself, and which he has
now revealed for the salvation of men.
The clause that follows expresses the means by which the Gentile
Christians were brought to be partakers of this inheritance.—‘In whom ye also have
obtained an inheritance, ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον
τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ εὐαγγ. τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, having heard the word
of truth, the gospel of your salvation.’ The latter of these expressions is
explanatory of the former. By the word of truth, is to be understood, the Gospel.
The word of truth does not mean simply true doctrine; but that word which
is truth, or in which divine or saving truth is.
Col. 1, 5. 2 Cor. 6, 7.
The gospel of your salvation, is the gospel concerning your salvation; or
rather, the gospel which saves you. It is that gospel which is, as is said
Rom. 1, 16, the power of God unto salvation. As it was by hearing this
gospel the Gentiles in the days of the apostle were brought to be partakers of the
inheritance of God, so it is by the same means men are to be saved now and in all
coming ages until the consummation. It is by the word of truth, and not truth in
general, but by that truth which constitutes the glad news of salvation.
In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed. This
is more than a translation, it is an exposition of the original,
ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε. There
are three interpretations of this clause possible, of which our translators have
chosen the best. The relative (ἐν ᾧ) may be
referred to the word gospel. ‘In which having believed;’ or it may be referred
to Christ and connected with the following participle, ‘In whom having believed;’
or it may be taken as in
our version, by itself, ‘In whom, i. e. united to whom after that ye
believed, ye were sealed.’ This is to be preferred not only because the other construction
is unusual (i. e. it is rare that πιστεύειν
is followed by ἐν), but because the words,
in whom, occur so frequently in the context in the same sense with that here
given to them. In Christ, the Gentile Christians had obtained an inheritance, and
in him also, they were sealed—after having believed. Whatever is meant by sealing,
it is something which follows faith.
There are several purposes for which a seal is used. 1. To authenticate
or confirm as genuine and true. 2. To mark as one’s property. 3. To render secure.
In all these senses believers are sealed. They are authenticated as the true children
of God; they have the witness within themselves,
1 John 5, 10. Rom. 8, 16.
5, 5. They are thus assured of their reconciliation
and acceptance. They are moreover marked as belonging to God,
Rev. 7, 3; that is, they are indicated to others, by the seal impressed
upon them, as his chosen ones. And thirdly, they are sealed unto salvation;
i. e. they are rendered certain of being saved. The sealing of God
secures their safety. Thus believers are said
Eph. 4, 30, "to be sealed unto the day of redemption;" and in
2 Cor. 1, 21, the apostle says: "Now he which establisheth us with you
in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who also hath sealed us, and given us the
earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." The sealing then of which this passage speaks
answers all these ends. It assures of the favour
of God; it indicates those who belong to him; and it renders their salvation certain.
This sealing is by the Holy Spirit of promise. That is,
by the Spirit who was promised; or who comes in virtue of the promise. This promise
was given frequently through the ancient prophets, who predicted that when the Messiah
came and in virtue of his mediation, God would pour his Spirit on all flesh. Christ
when on earth frequently repeated this promise; assuring his disciples that when
he had gone to the Father, he would send them the Comforter, even the Spirit of
truth, to abide with them for ever. After his resurrection he commanded the apostles
to abide in Jerusalem until they had received "the promise of the Father,"
Acts 1, 4; meaning thereby the gift of the Holy Ghost. In
Gal. 3, 14, it is said to be the end for which Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, that we should receive the promise of the Spirit. This then
is the great gift which Christ secures for his people; the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit, as the source of truth, holiness, consolation, and eternal life.
V. 14. This Spirit is ὁ ἀῤῥαβὼν
τῆς κληρονομίας ἡμῶν, the earnest of our inheritance. It is at once
the foretaste and the pledge of all that is laid up for the believer in heaven.
The word ἀῤῥαβὼν is a Hebrew term which passed
first into the Greek and then into the Latin vocabulary, retaining its original
sense. It means first, a part of the price of any thing purchased, paid, as a security
for the full payment, and then more generally a pledge. It occurs three times in
reference
to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, 2
Cor. 1, 22. 5, 5; and
in the passage before us. In the same sense the Scriptures speak of "the first fruits
of the Spirit," Rom. 8, 23. Those influences
of the Spirit which believers now enjoy are at once a prelibation or antepast of
future blessedness, the same in kind though immeasurably less in degree; and a pledge
of the certain enjoyment of that blessedness. Just as the first fruits were a part
of the harvest, and an earnest of its ingathering. It is because the Spirit is an
earnest of our inheritance, that his indwelling is a seal. It assures those in whom
he dwells of their salvation, and renders that salvation certain. Hence it is a
most precious gift to be most religiously cherished.
Until the redemption of the purchased possession,
εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως. It is
doubtful whether these words should be connected with the preceding clause or with
the words were sealed in the 13th verse. Our translators have adopted the
former method. ‘The Spirit is an earnest until the redemption,’ &c. The latter,
however, is perhaps on the whole preferable. ‘Ye were sealed until, or in reference
to, the redemption,’ &c. This view is sustained by a comparison with
4, 30, where it is said: ‘Ye were sealed unto the day of redemption.’
The word redemption, in its Christian sense, sometimes means that
deliverance from the curse of the law and restoration to the favour of God, of which
believers are in this life the subjects. Sometimes it refers to that final deliverance
from all evil, which is
to take a place at the second advent of Christ. Thus in
Luke 21, 28, "They shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory; . . . . then lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."
Rom. 8, 23. Eph. 4, 30.
There can be no doubt that it here refers to this final deliverance.
The word rendered purchased possession, is
περιποίησις; which means either the act
of acquiring, or, the thing acquired. If the former signification be
adopted here, the word can only be taken as a participial qualification of the preceding
word. ‘The redemption of acquisition,’ for ‘acquired or purchased redemption.’ But
this is unnatural. Redemption in itself includes the idea of purchased deliverance.
‘Purchased redemption’ is therefore tautological. If the word be taken for ‘the
thing acquired,’ then it may refer to heaven, or the inheritance here spoken of.
But heaven is never said to be redeemed. It is therefore most naturally understood
of God’s people. They are his possession, his peculium. They
are in 1 Pet. 2, 9 called
λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, a peculiar people.
And in Mal. 3, 17 it is said, They shall
be to me for a possession, ἔσονταί μοι εἰς περιποίησιν.
Comp.
Acts 20, 28,
ἐκκλησία ἣν περιεποιήσατο. This interpretation
is, therefore, peculiarly suited to the scriptural usage, and the sense is perfectly
appropriate. Ye are sealed, says the apostle, until the redemption of God’s peculiar
people; i. e. unto the great day of redemption spoken of in
4, 30.
Unto the praise of his glory, i. e. that his
glory or
excellence should be praised. Comp. vs. 6 and
12. This is the end both of the final redemption and of the present acceptance
of believers. This clause, therefore, is to be referred to the whole of the preceding
passage. Ye have received an inheritance, have been sealed, and have received the
Holy Spirit as an earnest, in order that God may be glorified. This is the last
and highest end of redemption.
SECTION III.—Vs.
15-23.
15. Wherefore
I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the
saints,
16. cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you
in my prayers;
17. that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,
may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18. the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that
ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory
of his inheritance in the saints,
19. and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward
who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20. which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the
dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21. far above all principality, and power, and might, and
dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in
that which is to come:
22.and hath put all things under his feet, and gave
him to be the head over all things to his church:
23. which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all
in all.
ANALYSIS.
Having in the preceding Section unfolded the nature of those blessings
of which the Ephesians had
become partakers, the apostle gives thanks to God for their conversion, and assures
them of their interest in his prayers, vs.
15. 16. He prays that God would give them that wisdom and knowledge of
himself of which the Spirit is the author, v.
17; that their eyes might be enlightened properly to apprehend the nature
and value of that hope which is founded in the call of God; and the glory of the
inheritance to be enjoyed among the saints, v.
18; and the greatness of that power which had been already exercised
in their conversion, v. 19. The power
which effected their spiritual resurrection, was the same as that which raised Christ
from the dead, and exalted him above all created beings and associated him in the
glory and dominion of God, vs. 20. 21.
To him all things are made subject, and he is constituted the supreme head of the
church, which is his body, the fulness or complement of the mystical person of him
who fills the universe with his presence and power,
vs. 22. 23.
COMMENTARY.
V. 15. Wherefore. This word is to be referred either to
the whole preceding paragraph, or specially to
v. 13. ‘Because you Ephesians, you Gentile Christians, have obtained
a portion in this inheritance, and, after having believed, have been sealed with
the Holy Spirit of promise, &c.’—‘I also, i. e. as well as
others, and especially yourselves.’ The Ephesians might well be expected to be filled
with gratitude for their conversion.
The apostle assures them he joins them in their perpetual thanksgiving over this
glorious event.
Having heard of your faith in the lord Jesus. As Paul was
the founder of the church in Ephesus, and had laboured long in that city, it has
always excited remark that he should speak of having heard of their faith, as though
he had no personal acquaintance with them. This form of expression is one of the
reasons why many have adopted the opinion, as mentioned in the Introduction, that
this epistle was addressed not to the Ephesians alone or principally, but to all
the churches in the western part of Asia Minor. It is, however, not unnatural that
the apostle should speak thus of so large and constantly changing a congregation,
after having been for a time absent from them. Besides, the expression need mean
nothing more than that he continued to hear of their good estate. The two leading
graces of the Christian character are faith and love—faith in Christ and love to
the brethren. Of these, therefore, the apostle here speaks. Your faith;
τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν, which either means
the faith which is with you; or as our version renders the words, your
faith. Comp. in the Greek Acts 17, 28.
18, 15. Faith in the Lord Jesus, i. e. faith or trust
which has its ground in him. For examples of the construction of
πίστις with ἐν,
see Gal. 3, 26.
Col. 1, 4. 1 Tim. 1, 14.
3, 13. 2 Tim. 1, 13.
3, 15. Comp. Mark 1, 15, and
in the Septuagint Jer. 12, 6.
Ps. 78, 22. This construction, though comparatively rare, is not to be
denied, nor are forced interpretations of passages
where it occurs to be justified, in order to get rid of it.
In the Old Testament the phrases, the Lord said, the Lord did,
our Lord, and the like, are of constant occurrence; and are used only, in this general
way, of the Supreme God. We never hear of the Lord, nor our Lord, when reference
is had to Moses or any other of the prophets. In the New Testament, however, what
is so common in the Old Testament in reference to God, is no less common in reference
to Christ. He is the Lord; the Lord Jesus; our Lord, &c. &c. It is this constant
mode of speaking, together with the exhibition of his divine excellence, and holding
him up as the object of faith and love, even more than any particular declaration,
which conveys to the Christian reader the conviction of his true divinity. His being
the object of faith and the ground of trust to immortal beings, is irreconcilable
with any other assumption than that he is the true God and eternal life.
And love towards all the saints, i. e. towards
those who are saints; those who have been cleansed, separated from the world, and
consecrated to God. This love is founded upon the character and relations of its
objects as the people of God, and therefore it embraces all the saints.
V. 16. I cease not giving thanks for you, making mention of
you, &c. This does not mean, ‘praying I give thanks;’ but two things are mentioned—constant
thanksgiving on their account, and intercession.
V. 17. The burden of his prayer is contained in this
and the verses following. The object of his prayer, or the person to whom it is
addressed, is designated, first, as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,
i. e. the God, whose work Christ came to do, by whom he was sent, of
whom he testified and to whom he has gone;—and secondly,
ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, the Father of glory.
This designation is variously explained. By glory many of the Fathers understood
the divine nature of Christ, and remarked that Paul here calls God, the God of Christ
as a man, but his Father as God.So BENGEL, who explains
the expression thus: Pater gloriae, infinitae illius, quae refulget
in facie Christi; immo gloriae quae est ipse filius Dei. This interpretation
of the phrase ‘Father of glory,’ is without the least support from the analogy of
Scripture. It means either, the source or author of glory; or the possessor of glory,
i. e. who is glorious. Comp. Acts 7, 1.
1 Cor. 2, 8, "Lord of glory." James 2,
1, and in Ps. 24, 7, "the king
of glory."
There are three leading petitions expressed in the prayer here
recorded. First, for adequate knowledge of divine truth. Second, for due appreciation
of the future blessedness of the saints. Third, for a proper understanding of what
they themselves had already experienced in their conversion.
His first prayer is thus expressed: That he may give unto you
the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of him. By
πνεῦμα σοφίας, the Spirit of wisdom,
is to be understood the Holy Spirit, the author of wisdom, and not merely a state
of mind,
which consists in wisdom. It is true the word spirit is sometimes used in periphrases
expressive of mental acts or states. As in
1 Cor. 4, 21, "spirit of meekness;" and
2 Cor. 4, 13, "The same spirit of faith," i. e. the same
confidence. But in the present case the former interpretation is to be preferred.
1. Because the Holy Spirit is so constantly recognized as the source of all right
knowledge; and 2. Because the analogy of Scripture is in favour of this view of
the passage. In such passages as the following the word spirit evidently is to be
understood of the Holy Spirit. John 15, 26,
"Spirit of truth;" Rom. 8, 15, "Spirit
of adoption;" comp.
Gal. 4, 6, "God sent forth the Spirit
of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
1 Thess. 1, 6, "Joy of the Holy Spirit."
Rom. 15, 30, "Love of the Spirit."
Gal. 5, 5, "We by the Spirit wait," &c. The Holy Spirit is the author
of that wisdom of which the apostle speaks so fully in
1 Cor. 2, 6-10; and which he describes, first negatively as not of this
world, and then affirmatively, as the hidden wisdom of God, which he had revealed,
by the Spirit, for our glory. It is the whole system of divine truth, which constitutes
the Gospel. Those who have this wisdom are the wise. There is a twofold revelation
of this wisdom, the one outward, by inspiration, or through inspired men; the other
inward, by spiritual illumination. Of both these the apostle speaks in
1 Cor. 2, 10-16, and both are here brought into view. Comp.
Phil. 3, 15. By ἀποκαλυψις,
revelation, therefore, in this passage is not to be understood, the
knowledge of future events, nor the prophetic gift, nor inspiration. It is something
which all believers need and for which they should pray. It is that manifestation
of the nature or excellence of the things of God, which the Spirit makes to all
who are spiritually enlightened, and of which our Saviour spoke, when he said in
reference to believers, They shall all be taught of God.
In the knowledge of him. The pronoun him refers
not to Christ, but to God the immediate subject in this context. The word
ἐπίγνωσις here rendered knowledge means
accurate and certain, and especially, experimental knowledge; as in
Rom. 3, 20, "By the law is the knowledge (the conviction) of sin."
Eph. 4, 13. Phil. 1, 9.
1 Tim. 2, 4. The word expresses adequate and proper knowledge, the precise
nature of which depends on the object known. The phrase is
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, which some render as though
εἰς with the accusative were used—unto knowledge,
i. e. so as to know. Others connect these words with those which precede,
and translate, ‘wisdom in knowledge,’ i. e. wisdom consisting in knowledge.
Others again connect them with the following clause, ‘Through knowledge your eyes
being enlightened.’ The simplest method is to refer them to what precedes.’ May
give you wisdom together with the knowledge of himself.’ Comp.
v. 8, and Phil. 1, 9,
"That your love may abound in, i. e. together with, knowledge." The
apostle’s prayer is for the Holy Spirit to dwell in them, as the author of divine
wisdom, and as the revealer of the
things of God, which insight into the things of the Spirit, is connected with that
knowledge of God in which eternal life essentially consists.
V. 18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened.
Instead of διανοίας understanding, the
great majority of ancient manuscripts and versions read
καρδίας head, which is no doubt the
true reading. The word heart in Scripture is often used as we use the word
soul, to designate the whole spiritual nature in man.
Rom. 1, 21. 2 Cor. 4, 6.
This clause πεφωτισμένους τοὺς
ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, may either be taken absolutely as our translators
have understood it—or considered as in apposition and explanatory of what precedes.
‘That he may give you the spirit of wisdom, &c., eyes enlightened, &c.’ This latter
mode of explanation is the one commonly adopted. The effect of the gift of the spirit
of wisdom is this illumination, not of the speculative understanding merely, but
of the whole soul. For light and knowledge in Scripture often include the ideas
of holiness and happiness, as well as that of intellectual apprehension. Comp. such
passages as John 8, 12, "Light of life."
Acts 26, 18, "To turn from darkness to light."
Eph. 5, 8, "Ye were.sometime darkness,
but now are ye light in the Lord." Believers, therefore, are called "children of
the light."
Luke 16, 8.
1 Thess. 5, 5.
The residue of this verse εἰς τὸ
εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς, κτλ. contains a second petition. Having prayed that the
Ephesians might be enlightened in the knowledge of
God and of divine things, the apostle here prays, as the effect of that illumination,
that they may have a proper appreciation of the inheritance to which they have attained.
That ye may know what is the hope of his calling,
i. e. the hope of which his calling is the source; or to which he has called
you. The vocation here spoken of is not merely the external call of the Gospel,
but the effectual call of God by the Spirit, to which the word
κλῆσις in the epistles of Paul always refers.
The word hope is by many here understood objectively for the things hoped
for; as in Rom. 8, 24, and
Col. 1, 5, "The hope laid up for you in heaven." It is then identical
with the inheritance mentioned in the latter part of the verse. This, however, is
a reason against that interpretation. There are two things which the apostle mentions
and which he desires they may know. First, the nature and value of the hope which
they are now, on the call of God, authorized to indulge; and secondly, the glory
of the inheritance in reserve for them. It is better, therefore, to take the word
in its ordinary subjective sense. It is a great thing to know, or estimate aright
the value of a well founded hope of salvation.
And what the riches of the glory of his inheritance,
καὶ τίς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ,
i. e. what is the abundance and greatness of the excellence of that
inheritance of which God is the author. The apostle labours here, and still more
in the following verses, for language to express the greatness of his conceptions.
This inheritance is not only divine as having God for its author; but it is a glorious
inheritance; and not simply glorious, but the glory of it is inconceivably great.
In the saints, ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις.
These words admit of different constructions, but the most natural is to refer them
to the immediately preceding clause, His inheritance in the saints;
i. e. which is to be enjoyed among them. Comp.
Acts 20, 32, and 26, 18, "An
inheritance among them that are sanctified."
Col. 1, 12, "Partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light." It
was one part of the peculiar blessedness of the Gentile Christians, who had been
strangers and foreigners, that they were become fellow-citizens of the saints. It
was therefore an exaltation of the inheritance, now set before them, to call it
the inheritance prepared for the saints, or peculiar people of God.
V. 19. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to
us-ward who believe. This is the third petition in the apostle’s prayer. He
prays that his readers may have right apprehensions of the greatness of the change
which they had experienced. It was no mere moral reformation effected by rational
considerations; nor was it a self-wrought change, but one due to the almighty power
of God. Grotius indeed, and commentators of that class, understand the passage to
refer to the exertion of the power of God in the future resurrection and salvation
of believers. But 1. It evidently refers to the past and not to the future. It is
something which believers, as believers, had already experienced
that he wished them to understand. 2. The apostle never compares the salvation of
believers with the resurrection of Christ, whereas the analogy between his natural
resurrection and the spiritual resurrection of his people, is one to which he often
refers. 3. This is the analogy which he insists upon in this immediate connection.
As God raised Christ from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heavenly
places; so you, that were dead in sins, hath he quickened and raised you up together
in him. This analogy is the very thing he would have them understand. They had undergone
a great change; they had been brought to life; they had been raised from the dead
by the same almighty power which wrought in Christ. There was as great a difference
between their present and their former condition, as between Christ in the tomb
and Christ at the right hand of God. This was something which they ought to know.
4. The parallel passage in Col. 2, 12,
seems decisive of this interpretation. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also
ye are risen with him through faith of the operation of God, who raised him from
the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." In this
passage it cannot be doubted that the apostle compares the spiritual resurrection
of believers with the resurrection of Christ, and refers both events to the operation
of God, or to the divine power. Such also is doubtless the meaning of the passage
before us; and in this interpretation there has
been a remarkable coincidence of judgment among commentators. Chrysostom says: "The
conversion of souls is more wonderful than the resurrection of the dead." Oecumenius
remarks on this passage: "To raise us from spiritual death is an exercise of the
same power that raised Christ from natural death." Calvin says, "Some (i.
e. Stulti homines) regard the language of the apostle
in this passage as frigid hyperbole, but those who are properly exercised find nothing
here beyond the truth." He adds: "Lest believers should be cast down under a sense
of their unworthiness, the apostle recalls them to a consideration of the power
of God; as though he had said, their regeneration is a work of God, and no common
work, but one in which his almighty power is wonderfully displayed." Luther, in
reference to the parallel passage in Colossians, uses the following language: "Faith
is no such easy matter as our opposers imagine, when they say, ‘Believe, Believe,
how easy is it to believe.’ Neither is it a mere human work, which I can perform
for myself, but it is a divine power in the heart, by which we are new born, and
whereby we are able to overcome the mighty power of the Devil and of death; as Paul
says to the Colossians, ‘In whom ye are raised up again through the faith which
God works."’
It is then a great truth which the apostle here teaches. He prays
that his readers may properly understand τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον
μέγεθος τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. The conversion of the soul is not a small
matter; nor is it a work effected by any human power. It is a resurrection
due to the exceeding greatness of the power of God.
According to the working of his mighty power,
κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ κράτους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ.
The original here offers a remarkable accumulation of words.—‘According to the
energy of the might of his power.’ Ἰσχύς, κράτος,
ἐνέργεια; Robur, Potential, Efficacia. The
first is inherent strength; the second power; the third the exercise or efficiency
of that strength. Or, as Calvin says, The first is the root, the second the tree,
the third the fruit. Whatever be the precise distinction in the signification of
the words, their accumulation expresses the highest form of power. It was nothing
short of the omnipotence of God to which the effect here spoken of is due. No created
power can raise the dead, or quicken those dead in trespasses and sins.
The connection of this clause is somewhat doubtful. It may be
referred to the words exceeding greatness of his power, i. e.
κατὰ ἐνέργειαν may be referred to
τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος, κτλ. The sense would
then be—‘That ye may know the exceeding greatness of his power, to us-ward that
believe, which was, according to, or like, the working of his mighty power
which wrought in Christ.’ Or, πιστεύοντας κατὰ ἐνέργειαν
may be connected, ‘Who believe in virtue of the working of his mighty power.’ In
the one case this clause is a mere illustration or amplification of the idea of
the divine power of which believers are the subject. In the other, it expresses
more definitely the reason why the power
which they had experienced was to be considered so great, viz., because their faith
was due to the same energy that raised Christ from the dead. In either case the
doctrinal import of the passage is the same. The considerations in favour of the
latter mode of construction are: 1. The position of the clauses. According to this
interpretation they are taken just as they stand. ‘Us who believe in virtue of (κατά)
the working, &c.’ 2. The frequency with which the apostle uses the preposition
κατά in the sense thus given to it. In
ch. 3, 7, he says, ‘his conversion and vocation were (κατά)
in virtue of the working of God’s power.’ See also
3, 20.
1 Cor. 12, 8.
Phil. 3, 21. Christ will fashion our bodies (κατά)
‘in virtue of the energy whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself.’
Col. 1, 29. 2 Thess. 2, 9.
To say, therefore, ‘we believe in virtue of, &c.,’ is in accordance with a usage
familiar to this apostle. 3. The parallel passage in
Col. 2, 12, expresses the same idea. There the phrase is
πίστις τὢν ἐνεργείας, faith of the operation
of God, i. e. which he operates; here it is
πίστις κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, faith in virtue
of the operation,. The analogy between the expressions is so striking, that the
one explains and authenticates the other.
The prayer recorded in these verses is a very comprehensive one.
In praying that the Ephesians might be enlightened with spiritual apprehensions
of the truth, the apostle prays for their sanctification. In praying that they might
have just conceptions of the inheritance to which they were called, he prayed that
they might be elevated above the world. And in praying that they might know the
exceeding greatness of the power exercised in their conversion, he prayed that they
might be at once humble and confident; humble, in view of the death of sin from
which they had been raised; and confident, in view of the omnipotence of that God
who had begun their salvation.
V. 20. Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the
dead, ἣν ἐνήργησεν, κτλ. There are two
things evidently intended in these words. First, that the power which raises the
believer from spiritual death, is the same as that which raised Christ from the,
grave. And secondly, that there is a striking analogy between these events and an
intimate connection between them. The one was not only the symbol, but the pledge
and procuring cause of the other. The resurrection of Christ is both the type and
the cause of the spiritual resurrection of his people, as well of their future rising
from the grave in his glorious likeness. On this analogy and connection the apostle
speaks at large in Rom. 6, 1-10, and
also in the following chapters of this epistle. As often therefore as the believer
contemplates Christ as risen and seated at the right hand of God, he has at once
an illustration of the change which has been effected in his own spiritual state,
and a pledge that the work commenced in regeneration shall be consummated in glory.
And caused him to sit at his own right hand in the heavenly
places. Kings place at their right hand those whom they design to honour, or
whom they associate
with themselves in dominion. No creature can be thus associated in honour and authority
with God, and therefore to none of the angels hath he ever said: Sit thou at my
right hand. Heb. 1, 13. That divine
honour and authority are expressed by sitting at the right hand of God, is further
evident from those passages which speak of the extent of that dominion and of the
nature of that honour to which the exalted Redeemer is entitled. It is an universal
dominion. Matt. 28, 18.
Phil. 2, 9. 1 Pet. 3, 22;
and it is such honour as is due to God alone. John
5, 23.
V. 21. The immediate subject of discourse in this chapter is the
blessings of redemption conferred on believers. The resurrection and exaltation
of Christ are introduced incidentally by way of illustration. The apostle dwells
for a moment on the nature of this exaltation, and on the relation of Christ, at
the right hand of God, to his church, and then, at the beginning of the following
chapter, reverts to his main topic.
The subject of the exaltation here spoken of is not the Logos,
but Christ; the Theanthropos, or God-man. The possession of divine perfections was
the necessary condition of this exaltation because, as just remarked, the nature
and extent of the dominion granted to him, demand such perfections. It is a dominion
not only absolutely universal, but it extends over the heart and conscience, and
requires the obedience not only of the outward conduct but of the inward life, which
is due to God alone. We therefore find the divine nature of Christ presented in
the Scriptures as the reason of his
being invested with this peculiar dominion. Thus in the second Psalm, it is said,
"Thou art my Son; ask of me, I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance.
&c." That is, because thou art my son, ask and I will give thee this dominion. And
in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, it is said, The Son, being the
brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding
all things by the word of his power, is set down at the right hand of the majesty
on high. That is, because he is of the same nature with the Father and possesses
the same almighty power, he is associated with him in his dominion. While the divine
nature of Christ is the necessary condition of his exaltation, his mediatorial work
is the immediate ground of the Theanthropos, God manifested in the flesh, being
invested with this universal dominion. This is expressly asserted, as in
Phil. 2, 9. Though equal with God, he humbled himself to become obedient
unto death, wherefore also God hath highly exalted him.
In illustration of the exaltation of Christ mentioned in
v. 20, the apostle here says, He is seated
ὑπὲρ ἄνω, up above, high above all principality,
and power, and might, and dominion. That these terms refer to angels is plain
from the context, and from such passages as Rom.
8, 38.
Col. 1, 16.
Eph. 3, 10. 6, 12. Where
angels are either expressly named, or the powers spoken of are said to be in heaven,
or they are opposed to "flesh and blood," i. e. man, as a different
order of beings. The origin of the application of these terms
to angels cannot be historically traced. The names themselves suggest the reason
of their use. Angels are called principalities, powers and dominions, either because
of their exalted nature; or because through them God exercises his power and dominion;
or because of their relation to each other. It is possible indeed that Paul had
a polemic object in the use of these terms. This epistle and especially that to
the Colossians, contain many intimations that the emanation theory, which afterwards
assumed the form of Gnosticism, had already made its appearance in Asia Minor. And
as the advocates of that theory used these terms to designate the different effluxes
from the central Being, Paul may have borrowed their phraseology in order to refute
their doctrine. Be this as it may, the obvious meaning of the passage is that Christ
is exalted above all created beings.
And every name, i. e., as the connection shows,
every name of excellence or honour, that is named. That is, above
every creature bearing such name as prince, potentate, ruler, or whatever other
title there may be.
Not only in this world, but also in that which is to come,
ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι.
That is, not only in this age, but in the age to come. The words may have the general
sense of, here or hereafter; as in Matt.
12, 32. According to Jewish usage, they designate the period before and
the period after the advent of the Messiah. To this, however, there is no reference
in the context. As in Matthew these words are used to express in the strongest terms
that the sin
against the Holy Ghost can never be forgiven; so here they are intended to add universality
to the preceding negation. There is no name here or hereafter, in this world or
in the next, over which Christ is not highly exalted.
V. 22. And hath put all things under his feet. Christ is
not only exalted above all creatures, but he has dominion over them; all are placed
in absolute subjection to him. They are under his feet. This passage is a quotation
from
Ps. 8, 7. It is applied to Christ by this
same apostle in 1 Cor. 15, 27,
and Heb. 2, 8. In both of these passages
the word all is pressed to the full extent of its meaning. It is made to include
all creatures, all capable of subjection; all beings save God alone, are made subject
to man in the person of Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords, and King of kings.
There are two principles on which the application of this passage
of Ps. 8 to Christ may be explained. The
one is that the Psalm is a prophetic exhibition of the goodness of God to Christ,
and of the dominion to be given to him. There is nothing, however, in the contents
of the Psalm to favour the assumption of its having special reference to the Messiah.
The other principle admits the reference of the Psalm to men generally, but assumes
its full meaning to be what the apostle here declares it to be, viz., that the dominion
which belongs to man is nothing less than universal. But this dominion is realized
only in the Man Christ Jesus, and in those who are associated with him in his kingdom.
This latter mode of explanation
satisfies all the exigencies both of the original Psalm and of the passages where
it is quoted in the New Testament.
And gave him to be head over all things to the church,
καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ.
This may mean either, he gave him to the church as her head; or, he constituted
him head for the church. The former is more consistent with the meaning of the verb
δίδωμι. It may, however, also signify to constitute;
see
4, 11, and compare
1 Cor. 12, 28. In either case, Christ is declared to be head not of the
universe, but of the church. This being admitted,
ὑπὲρ πάντα may be taken in immediate connection with
κεφαλήν, head over all, i. e.
supreme head. This does not mean head over all the members of the church, as the
Vulgate translates: caput super omnem ecclesiam; for
πάντα and ἐκκλησίᾳ
are not grammatically connected; but simply supreme head. Or we may adopt the interpretation
of Chrysostom: τὸν ὀντα ὑπὲρ πάντα τὰ ὀρώμενα καὶ
τὰ νοούμενα Χριστόν, "Him, who is over all things visible and invisible,
he gave to the church as her head." This gives a good sense, but supposes an unnatural
trajection of the words. Luther also transposes the words: Und hat
ihn gesetzt zum Haupt der Gemeinde über alles. So does De Wette:
Und ihn gesetzet über alles zum Haupte der Gemeinde, And
placed him over all as head of the church. In all these interpretations the
main idea is retained; viz. that Christ is the head of the church. As in
Col. 2, 10, it is said Christ is ἡ κεφαλὴ
πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας,
the head of all principality and power, in the sense of supreme ruler; and
as here in the immediately preceding context he is said to be exalted over all principality
and power, and in the following context he is said to be the head of the church,
which is his body, the two ideas may be here combined. ‘Him he gave as head over
all things, as head to his church.’—This is Meyer’s interpretation. He, the exalted
Saviour, the incarnate Son of God, seated as head of the universe, is made head
of his church. This view of the passage has the advantage of giving
πάντα the same reference here that it has in
the preceding verse. All things are placed under his feet, and he head over
all things, is head of the church.
The sense in which Christ is the head of the church, is that he
is the source of its life, its supreme ruler, ever present with it, sympathizing
with it, and loving it as a man loves his own flesh. See
4, 15. 16. 5, 23. 29.
Rom. 12, 5. 1 Cor. 12, 27.
Intimate union, dependence, and community of life, are the main ideas expressed
by this figure.
V. 23. Which is his body. This is the radical, orI formative
idea of the church. From this idea are to be developed its nature, its attributes,
and its prerogatives. It is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, that constitutes
the church his body. And, therefore, those only in whom the Spirit dwells are constituent
members of the true church. But the Spirit does not dwell in church officers, nor
especially in prelates, as such; nor in the baptized, as such; nor in the mere external
professors of the true religion; but in true believers, who therefore constitute
that church which is the body of Christ, and to which its attributes and prerogatives
belong.
The main question which this verse presents for consideration
is: In what sense is the church the fulness of Christ? There are, however, two other
points which must be previously determined. In the first place, it is the church,
and not Christ to whom the word fulness here refers. Some commentators adopt the
following interpretation of the passage: ‘Christ, the supreme head to the church
(which is his body), the fulness, i. e. Christ is the fulness, of him
that filleth all in all.’ But 1. This interpretation violates the grammatical construction
of the passage. 2. It rends the clauses very unnaturally asunder. 3. It assumes
that the last clause of the verse, viz. ‘who fills all in all,’ refers to God, whereas
it refers to Christ. 4. The sense thus obtained is unscriptural. The fulness of
the Godhead is said to be in Christ; but Christ is never said to be the fulness
of God.
In the second place, the church is here declared to be the fulness
of Christ, and not the fulness of God.—Some commentators understand the passage
thus: ‘The church, which is the body of Christ, is the fulness of him who fills
all in all, i. e. of God.’ But to this it is objected, 1. That the
construction of the passage requires that the last clause in the verse be referred
to Christ; and 2. This interpretation supposes the word
πλήρωμα fulness, to mean multitude.’The
multitude
belonging to him who fills all in all.’ But this is a signification which the word
never has in itself, but only in virtue of the word with which it is at times connected.
The expression πλήρωμα τῆς πόλεως may be freely
rendered, the multitude of the city, because that which fills a city is a
multitude. But this does not prove that the word πλήρωμα
itself signifies a multitude. There is no good reason then for departing from the
ordinary interpretation, according to which, the church is declared to be the fulness
of Christ.
There are two opinions as to the meaning of this phrase, between
which commentators are principally divided. First, the church may be called the
fulness of Christ, because it is filled by him. As the body is filled, or pervaded
by the soul, so the church is filled by the Spirit of Christ. Or, as God of old
dwelt in the temple, and filled it with his glory, so Christ now dwells in his church
and fills it with his presence. The sense is then good and scriptural. ‘The church
is filled by him, who fills all in all.’ Or secondly, the church is the fulness
of Christ, because it fills him, i. e. completes his mystical person.
He is the head, the church is the body. It is the complement, or that which completes,
or renders whole. As both these interpretations give a sense that is scriptural
and consistent with the context, the choice between them must be decided principally
by the New Testament usage of the word πλήρωμα.
The former interpretation supposes the word to have a passive signification—that
which is filled. But in every other case in which it occurs in the New
Testament, it is used actively—that which does fill.
Matt. 9, 16, The piece put into an old
garment is called its fulness, i. e. ‘that which is put in to fill
it up.’ Mark 6, 43, The fragments which
filled the baskets, are called their fulness. John
1, 16, ‘Of his fulness,’ means the plenitude of grace and truth that
is in him. Gal. 4, 4, The fulness of
the time, is that which renders full the specified time.
Col. 2, 9, The fulness of the Godhead, is all that is in the Godhead.
Eph. 3, 19, The fulness of God, is that of which God is full—the plenitude
of divine perfections.
1 Cor. 10, 26, The fulness of
the earth, is that which fills the earth. The common usage of the word in the New
Testament is therefore clearly in favour of its being taken in an active sense here.
The church is the fulness of Christ—in that it is the complement of his mystic
person. He is the head, the church is his body.
In favour of the other interpretation it may be urged,—1. That
πλήρωμα has in the Classics, in Philo, in
the writings of the Gnostics, at times, a passive sense. 2. The meaning thus afforded
is preferable. It is a more scriptural and more intelligible statement, to say that
Christ fills his church, as the soul pervades the body—or as the glory of the Lord
filled the temple, than to say that the church in any sense fills Christ. 3.
Πλήρωμα must be taken in a sense which suits
the participle πληρουμένου; ‘the church is
filled by him who fills all things.’ The second and third of these reasons are so
strong as to give this interpretation the preference in the minds of those to whom
the usus
loquendi of the New Testament is not an insuperable objection.
That filleth all in all,
τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου. This clause, as before remarked, refers
to Christ, as the construction obviously demands. The participle
πληρουμένου is by almost all commentators
assumed to have in this case an active signification. This assumption is justified
by the exigency of the place, and by the fact that in common Greek the passive forms
of this verb are at times used in an active sense. That there is no such case in
the New Testament, is not therefore a sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary
interpretation.
The expression, τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι,
all in all, or, all with all, does not mean all the church in all
its members, or with all grace, but the universe in all its parts. There is nothing
in the context to restrict or limit τὰ πάντα.
The words must have the latitude here which belongs to them in the preceding verses.
The analogy of Scripture is in favour of this interpretation. God’s relation to
the world, or totality of things external to himself, is elsewhere expressed in
the same terms. Jer. 23, 24, " Do
not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord." Comp.
1 Kings 8, 27.
Ps. 139, 7. In the New Testament Christ is set forth as creating, sustaining,
and pervading the universe. Col. 1, 16. 17.
Heb. 1, 3. Eph. 4, 10.
This, therefore, determines the sense in which he is here said to fill all things.
It is not that he replenishes all his people with his grace; but that he fills heaven
and earth with his presence.
There is no place where he is not. There is no creature from which
he is absent. By him all things consist; they are upheld by his presence in them
and with them. The union, therefore, which the church sustains, and which is the
source of its life and blessedness, is not with a mere creature, but with Christ,
God manifested in the flesh, who pervades and governs all things by his omnipresent
power. The source of life, therefore, to the church is inexhaustible and immortal.
CHAPTER II.
THE APOSTLE CONTRASTS THE SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE
EPHESIANS BEFORE THEIR CONVERSION, WITH THAT INTO WHICH THEY HAD BEEN INTRODUCED
BY THE GRACE OF GOD, VS. 1-10.—HE CONTRASTS THEIR PREVIOUS CONDITION AS ALIENS,
WITH THAT OF FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SAINTS AND MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF GOD, VS.
11-22.
SECTION I.—Vs. 1-10.
And you
hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
2. wherein in time past ye walked according to the course
of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that
now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3. among whom also we all had our conversation in times past
in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind;
and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith
he loved us,
5. even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together
with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6. and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together
in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7. that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches
of his grace in his kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus.
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9. not of works, lest any man should boast.
10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
ANALYSIS.
There are three principal topics treated of in this Section. First,
the spiritual state of the Ephesians before their conversion. Second, the change
which God had wrought in them. Third, the design for which that change had been
effected.
I. The state of the Ephesians before their conversion, and the
natural state of men universally, is one of spiritual death, which includes—1. A
state of sin. 2. A state of subjection to Satan and to our own corrupt affections.
3. A state of condemnation, vs. 1-3.
II. The change which they had experienced was a spiritual resurrection;
concerning which the apostle teaches—1. That God is its author. 2. That it is a
work of love and grace. 3. That it was through Christ, or in virtue of union with
him. 4. That it involves great exaltation, even an association with Christ in his
glory, vs. 4-6.
III. The design of this dispensation is the manifestation through
all coming ages of the grace of God. It is a manifestation of grace—1. Because salvation
in general is of grace. 2.. Because the fact that the Ephesian Christians believed
or accepted of this salvation was due not to themselves but to God. Faith is his
gift. 3. Because good works are the fruits not of nature, but of grace. We are created
unto good works.
COMMENTARY.
V. 1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses
and sins. There is an intimate connection between this clause and the preceding
paragraph. In v. 19 of the first chapter
the apostle prays that the Ephesians might duly appreciate the greatness of that
power which had been exercised in their conversion. It was to be known from its
effects. It was that power which was exercised in the resurrection and exaltation
of Christ, and which had wrought an analogous change in them. The same power which
quickened Christ has quickened you. The conjunction
καί therefore is not to be rendered also,
"you also," you as well as others. It serves to connect this clause with what precedes.
‘God raised Christ from the dead, and he has given life to you dead in trespasses
and sins.’
The grammatical construction of these words is doubtful. Some
connect them immediately with the last clause of the first chapter.—‘Who fills all
in all and you also,’ i. e. ὑμᾶς
is made to depend on πληρουμένου. This, however,
to make any tolerable sense, supposes the preceding clause to have a meaning which
the words will not bear. Others refer the beginning of this verse to the
20th ver.
of the preceding chapter or at least borrow from that verse the verb required to
complete the sense in this. ‘God raised Christ, and he has raised you,
ἐγείρας τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ ὑμᾶς ἤγειρε. There
is indeed this association of ideas, but the two passages are not grammatically
thus related. The first
seven verses of this chapter form one sentence, which is so long and complicated
that the apostle is forced, before getting to the end of it, slightly to vary the
construction; a thing of very frequent occurrence in his writings. He dwells so
long in vs. 2, 3, 4, on the natural
state of the Ephesians, that he is obliged in
v. 5, to repeat substantially the beginning of
v. 1, in order to complete the sentence there commenced. ‘You dead on
account of sin,—wherein ye walked according to the course of the world, subject
to Satan, associated with the children of disobedience, among whom we also had our
conversation, and were the children of wrath even as others—us, dead on account
of trespasses hath God quickened.’ This is the way the passage stands. It is plain,
therefore, that the sentence begun in the first verse, is resumed with slight variation
in the fifth. This is the view taken by our translators, who borrow from the fifth
verse the verb ἐζωοποίησε necessary to complete
the sense of the first.
Paul describes his readers before their conversion as dead. In
Scripture the word life is the term commonly used to express a state of union with
God, and death a state of alienation from him. Life, therefore, includes holiness,
happiness and activity; and death, corruption, misery and helplessness. All the
higher forms of life are wanting in those spiritually dead; they are secluded from
all the sources of true blessedness, and they are beyond the reach of any help from
creatures. They are dead.
The English version renders the clause,
τοῖς παραπτώμασι
καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις, ‘dead in trespasses and sins.’ But there
is no preposition in the original text, and therefore, the great majority of commentators
consider the apostle as assigning the cause, and not describing the nature of this
death, ‘Dead on account of trespasses and sins.’Dicit mortuos
fuisse: et simul exprimit mortis causam; nempe peccata.—CALVIN.
The former of these words is generally considered as referring to outward transgressions,
the latter is more indefinite, and includes all sinful manifestations of
ἁμαρτία, i. e. of sin considered
as an inherent principle."The word ἁμαρτίαι,"
says HARLESS, "has, according to the metonymical use of
the plurals of abstract nouns, a different sense from the singular; viz. manifestations
of sin, undetermined however, whether by word or deed or some other way. The assertion
of David Schulz that ἁμαρτία never expresses
a condition, but always an act, deserves no refutation, as such refutation
may be found in any grammar."
V. 2. Wherein in time past ye walked. Their former condition,
briefly described in the first verse, as a state, of spiritual death, is in this
and the verses following. more particularly characterized. They walked in sin. They
were daily conversant with it, and devoted to it. They were surrounded by it, and
clothed with it. They lived according to the course of this world. In this
clause we have not only the character of their life stated, but the governing principle
which controlled their conduct. They lived according to, and under the control of,
the spirit of the world. The expression τὸν αἰῶνα
τοῦ κόσμου does not elsewhere occur, and is variously explained.
The most common interpretation assumes that the word
αἰών is here used in its classical, rather
than its Jewish sense. It is referred to the old verb
ἄω, to breathe, and hence means,
breath, vital principle, life, life-time, and then duration indefinitely.
According to the life of this world, therefore, means ‘according to the ruling
principle, or spirit of the world.’ This is substantially the sense expressed in
our version, and is much to be preferred to any other interpretation. In all such
forms of speech the depravity of men is taken for granted. To live after the manner
of men, or according to the spirit of the world, is to live wickedly, which of course
implies that men are wicked; that such is the character of the race in the sight
of God.
Others, adhering to the New Testament sense of the
αἰών, translate this clause thus: according
to the age of this world, i. e. in a way suited to the present
age of the world, as it is now, compared to what it is to be when Christ comes.
Others again give αἰών a Gnostic sense—according
to the Eon of this world, i. e. the devil. To this Meyer objects:
1. That it is more than doubtful whether any distinct reference to nascent Gnosticism
is to be found in this epistle; and 2. That such a designation of Satan would have
been unintelligible to all classes of readers.
This subjection to sin is, at the same time, a subjection to Satan,
and therefore the apostle adds, κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα
τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, according to the prince of the power of the
air. In 2 Cor. 4, 4, Satan is
called the god, and in John 12, 31, the
prince, of this world.
He is said to be the prince of the demons.
Matt. 9, 34. A kingdom is ascribed to
him, which is called the kingdom of darkness. All wicked men and evil spirits are
his subjects, and are led captive by him at his will. It is according to this ruler
of the darkness of this world, agreeably to his will and under his control, that
the Ephesians lived before their conversion. Though there is perfect unanimity among
commentators, that the phrase τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας
is a designation of Satan, there is much difference of opinion as to the precise
import of the terms. First, the genitive, ἐξουσίας,
may be taken as qualifying the preceding noun—‘Prince of the power,’ for ‘powerful
prince,’ or, ‘prince to whom power belongs.’ Or, secondly,
ἐξουσία may be taken metonymically for those
over whom power is exercised, i. e. kingdom, as it is used in
Col. 1, 13. Or, thirdly, it may designate those to whom power belongs,
as in the preceding ch. v. 21. ‘All
principality and power’ there means, all those who have dominion and power. This
last mentioned explanation is the one generally preferred, because most in accordance
with Paul’s use of the word, and because the sense thus obtained is so suited to
the context and the analogy of Scripture. Satan is the prince of the powers of the
air, i. e. of those evil spirits, who are elsewhere spoken of as subject
to his dominion.
Of the air. The word ἀήρ
signifies either the atmosphere, or darkness. The whole phrase, therefore, may mean
either, the powers who dwell in the air, or the powers of darkness. In favour of
the former explanation
is the common meaning of the word, and the undoubted fact that both among the Greeks
and Jews it was the current opinion of that age that our atmosphere was the special
abode of spirits. In favour of the latter, it may be urged that the Scriptures nowhere
else recognize or sanction the doctrine that the air is the dwelling place of spirits.
That opinion, therefore, in the negative sense at least, is unscriptural,
i. e. has no scriptural basis, unless in this place. And secondly, the word
σκότος, darkness, is so often used just
as ἀήρ is here employed, as to create a strong
presumption that the latter was meant to convey the same meaning as the former.
Thus, "the power of darkness," Luke 22, 53;
"the rulers of darkness," Eph. 6, 12;
"the kingdom of darkness," Col. 1, 13,
are all scriptural expressions, and are all used to designate the kingdom of Satan.
Thirdly, this signification of the word is not without the authority of usage. The
word properly, especially in the earlier writers, means the lower, obscure, misty
atmosphere, as opposed to αἰθήρ, the pure air.
Hence it means obscurity, darkness, whatever hides from sight.
There is a third interpretation of this phrase, which retains
the common meaning of the word, but makes it express the nature and not the abode
of the powers spoken of. ‘Of the earth’ may mean earthy; so ‘of the air’
may mean aerial. These demons do not belong to our earth, they have not a corporeal
nature; they belong to a different and higher order of beings. They are aerial or
spiritual. This passage is thus brought
into accordance with what is said in Eph. 6,
12. Evil spirits are there said to be ‘in heavenly places,’ i.
e. in heaven. That is, they do not belong to this earth; they are heavenly
in their nature, as spirits without the trammels of flesh and blood. Such at least
is one interpretation of Eph. 6, 12.
By powers of the air, according to this view, we are to understand, unearthly, superhuman,
incorporeal, spiritual beings over whom Satan reigns. This interpretation seems
to have been the one generally adopted in the early church.
The spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience,
τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος, κτλ. This
again is a difficult clause. Our version assumes that the word
πνεύματος, spirit, is in apposition
with the word ἄρχοντα, prince. ‘The
prince of the power of the air, i. e. the spirit, who now
works in the children of disobedience.’ The objection to this is that
πνεύματος is in the genitive and
ἄρχοντα in the accusative. This interpretation
therefore cannot be adopted without assuming an unusual grammatical irregularity.
Others prefer taking πνεύματος as in apposition
to ἐξουσίας. The sense is then either:
‘Prince of the power of the air, i. e. prince of the spirit,
i. e. spirits, who now work;’ or, ‘Prince of the spirit, which controls the
children of disobedience.’ The former of these expositions gives a good sense. Satan
is the prince of those spirits who are represented in Scripture as constantly engaged
in leading men into sin. But it does violence to the text, as there is no other
case where the singular πνεῦμα is thus used
collectively for the plural. To the
latter interpretation it may be objected that the sense thus obtained is feeble
and obscure, if the word spirit is made to mean ‘disposition of men;’ which,
to say the least, is a very vague and indefinite expression, and furnishes no proper
parallelism to the preceding clause "powers of the air." But by spirit may be meant
the evil principle which works in mankind. Compare
1 Cor. 2, 12. Luther and Calvin both give the same interpretation that
is adopted by our translators. Beza, Bengel, and most of the moderns make spirit
mean the spirit of the world as opposed to the Spirit of God.
The phrase children of disobedience (ἐν
τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας) does not mean disobedient children—for that
would imply that those thus designated were represented as the children of God,
or children of men, who were disobedient. The word children expresses their
relation, so to speak, to disobedience, which is the source of their distinctive
character. The word son is often used in Scripture to express the idea of derivation
or dependence in any form. Thus the ’sons of famine’ are the famished; the ’sons
of Belial’ are the worthless; the ’sons of disobedience’ are the disobedient. The
word ἀπείθεια means, unwillingness to be persuaded,
and is expressive either of disobedience in general, or of unbelief which is only
one form of disobedience. In this case the general sense is to be preferred, for
the persons spoken of are not characterized as unbelievers, or as obstinately rejecting
the gospel, but as disobedient or wicked. The fact asserted in this clause, viz.,
that Satan and evil spirits work in men,
or influence their opinions, feelings and conduct, is often elsewhere taught in
Scripture. Matt. 13, 38.
John 12, 31; 8, 44.
Acts 26, 18.
2 Cor. 4, 4. The fact is all that
concerns us, we need not understand how they exert this influence. We do not know
how the intercourse of disembodied spirits is conducted, and therefore cannot tell
how such spirits have access to our minds to control their operations. The influence,
whatever it is, and however effectual it may be, does not destroy our freedom of
action, any more than the influence of one man over his fellows. Still it is an
influence greatly to be dreaded. These spirits of wickedness are represented as
far more formidable adversaries than those who are clothed in flesh and blood. Blessed
are those for whom Christ prays, as he did for Peter, when he sees them surrounded
by the wiles of the devil.
V. 3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times
past. It appears not only from ch. 1:
11, 13, and from the connection in this place, but still more clearly
from v. 11
and those following, in this chapter, that by you in this whole epistle,
the apostle means Gentiles; and by we, when the pronouns are contrasted as
here, the Jews. The spiritual condition of the Ephesians before their conversion
was not peculiar to them as Ephesians or as heathen. All men, Jews and Gentiles,
are by nature in the same state. Whatever differences of individual character, whatever
superiority of one age or nation over another may exist, these are but subordinate
diversities. There is
as to the main point, as this apostle elsewhere teaches. no difference; for all
have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is also no essential difference
as to the way in which different communities or individuals manifest the depravity
common to them all. There is very great difference as to the degree and the grossness
of such manifestations, but in all the two comprehensive forms under which the corruption
of our nature reveals itself, "the desires of the flesh and of the mind," are clearly
exhibited. The apostle therefore does not hesitate to associate his countrymen with
the Gentiles in this description of their moral condition, although the former were
in many respects so superior to the latter. Nay, he does not hesitate to include
himself, though he was before his conversion as ‘touching the righteousness which
is of the law blameless.’ All men, whatever their outward conduct may be, in their
natural state have "a carnal mind" as opposed to "a spiritual mind." See
Rom. 8, 5-7. They are all governed by the things which are seen and temporal,
instead of those which are not seen and eternal. Paul therefore says of himself
and fellow Jews that they all had their conversation among the children of disobedience.
They were not separated from them as a distinct and superior class, but were associated
with them, congenial in character and life.
Wherein this congeniality consisted is stated in the following
clauses. As the Gentiles so also the Jews had their conversation, i. e.
they lived in the lusts of the flesh. The word
ἐπιθυμία, lust, means strong desire,
whether good or bad. In Scripture most commonly it is taken in a bad sense, and
means inordinate desire of any kind. The ‘lusts of the flesh’ are those irregular
desires which have their origin in the flesh. By the flesh, however, is not to be
understood merely our sensuous nature, but our whole nature considered as corrupt.
The scriptural usage of the word σάρξ is very
extensive. It means the material flesh, then that which is external, then that which
is governed by what is material, and in so far sinful; then that which is sinful
without that limitation; whatever is opposed to the Spirit, and in view of all these
senses it means mankind. See Phil. 3, 4,
where the apostle includes under the word flesh, his descent from the Hebrews, his
circumcision, and his legal righteousness. Gal.
3, 3. 5, 19-21. In this
latter passage, envy, hatred, heresy, are included among the works of the flesh,
as well as revellings and drunkenness. It depends on the immediate context whether
the word, in any given place, is to be understood of our whole nature considered
as corrupt, or only of the sensuous or animal part of that nature. When it stands
opposed to what is divine, it means what is human and corrupt; when used in opposition
to what is intellectual or spiritual in our nature, it means what is sensuous. In
the present case it is to be taken in its wide sense because there is nothing to
limit it, and because in the following clause it is defined as including both,—"the
desires of the flesh (in the restricted sense of the word) and of the mind." The
word θελήματα rendered desires, means
rather
behests, commands. The things done were those which the flesh and the mind
willed to be done. They were the governing principles to whose will obedience was
rendered. Διανοία, mind, is used here
for the whole thinking and sentient principle, so far as distinguished from the
animal principle. Frequently it means the intellect, here it refers more to the
affections. Comp. Col. 1, 21, "Enemies
in your mind." Lev. 19, 7, "Thou shalt
not hate thy brother in thy mind." Numbers 15,
39, "Follow not after your own minds." Jews and Gentiles, all men, therefore,
are represented in their natural state as under the control of evil. They fulfil
the commands of the flesh and of the mind.
And were by nature the children of wrath even as others,
καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς. The expression
" \children of wrath," agreeably to a Hebrew idiom above referred to, means ‘the
objects of wrath,’ obnoxious to punishment. Compare
Deut. 25, 2, ’son of stripes,’ one to be beaten.
1 Sam. 20, 31. 2 Sam. 12, 5,
’son of death,’ one certainly to die. The idea of worthiness is not included in
the expression, though often implied in the context. The phrase ’son of death,’
means one who is to die, whether justly or unjustly. So ‘children of wrath,’ means
simply ‘the objects of wrath.’ But as the wrath spoken of is the displeasure of
God, of course the idea of ill-desert is necessarily implied.
The word φύσις in signification
and usage corresponds very nearly to our word nature. When used, as in this case,
to indicate the source or origin of any
thing in the character or condition, it always expresses what is natural or innate,
as opposed to what is made, taught, superinduced, or in any way incidental or acquired.
This general idea is of course variously modified by the nature of the thing spoken
of. Thus when the apostle says, Gal. 2, 15,
ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, we by nature Jews,
he means Jews by birth, in opposition to profession. In
Gal. 4, 8, it is said of the heathen deities that they are not by nature
gods, they are such only by appointment, or in virtue of the opinions of men. In
Rom. 2, 13, men are said to do by nature the things of the law,
i. e. the source of these moral acts is to be sought in their natural
constitution, not in the instruction or example of others. In
Rom. 2, 27, uncircumcision is said to be by nature, i. e.
natural, not acquired. This usage is common in the classic writers. Thus Plato,
de Legibus, lib. 10, says, ‘Some teach that the gods are
οὑ φύσει, ἀλλὰ τισὶ νόμοις,’ i. e.
that they owe their divinity not to nature but to certain laws. Afterwards he says,
‘Some things are right by nature, others by law.’ In another place, he says, of
certain persons, ‘They were φύσει barbarians,
νόμῳ Greeks;’ by birth barbarians, but by
law Greeks. In these writers the expressions, ‘by nature selfish,’ ‘by nature swift
to anger,’ ‘by nature avaricious,’ &c., are of very frequent occurrence. In all
such cases the general sense is the same. The thing predicated is affirmed to be
natural. It is referred to the natural constitution or condition as opposed to what
is acquired. According to this uniform usage the expression, ‘We
were by nature the children of wrath,’ can only mean, ‘We were born in that condition.’
It was something natural. We did not become the children of wrath, but were already
such as we were born.
In this interpretation commentators of all classes agree.
RUECKERT, one of the ablest and most untrammelled of the
recent German commentators, says: "It is perfectly evident from
Rom. 5, 12-20, that Paul was far from being opposed to the view expressed
in Ps. 51, 7, that men are born sinners;
and as we interpret for no system, so we will not attempt to deny that the thought,’
we were born children of wrath,’ i. e. such as we were from our birth
we were exposed to the divine wrath, is the true sense of the words."
HARLESS, a commentator of higher order,
says: " Unless we choose to explain the word φύσει
in a senseless and inconsistent manner, we can account for its use only by admitting
that Paul proceeds on the assumption of an enmity to God at present natural and
indwelling. And since such a native condition is not a fatuity, we can properly
acknowledge no other explanation of the fact here incidentally mentioned, than that
which in perfect consistency with the whole apostolic system of doctrine, is given
in Rom. 5th."
The simple fact is asserted, not the reason of it. It is by nature, not on account
of nature that we are here declared to be the children of wrath. The Scriptures
do indeed teach the doctrine of inherent, hereditary depravity, and that that depravity
is of the nature of sin, and therefore justly exposes us to the divine displeasure.
And this doctrine may be fairly implied in the text, but it is not asserted. In
other words, φύσις does not mean natural
depravity, and the dative (φύσει) does
not here mean on account of. The assertion is that men are born in a state
of condemnation, and not that their nature is the ground of that condemnation. This
is, indeed, an old and widely extended interpretation;
but it does violence to the force of the word
φύσις, which means simply nature, and
not either holy or corrupt nature. The idea of moral character may be implied in
the context, but is not expressed by the word. When we say, ‘a man is by nature
kind,’ it is indeed implied that his nature is benevolent, but nature does not signify
‘natural benevolence.’ Thus when it is said, men are ‘by nature corrupt,’ or, ‘by
nature the children of wrath,’ all that is asserted is that they are born in that
condition.
Others take φύσις to mean
in this place simply disposition, character, inward state of mind; very much as
we often use the word heart. According to this view, the word means not
quod nascenti inest, sed quod consuetudo in naturam vertit.
The sense then is: ‘We, as well as others are, as to our inward disposition or state
of mind, children of wrath.’ All the expressions quoted by Clericus and other advocates
of this interpretation, are really proofs that the word
φύσις has not the signification which they
assign to it. When it is said that Barbarians are by nature rapacious, the Syrians
by nature fickle, the Lacedemonians taciturn, more is meant than that such is the
actual character of these people. The characteristic trait asserted of them is referred
to what is innate or natural. In other words φύσις
does not mean, in such cases, simply disposition, but innate disposition.
Still more remote from the proper meaning of the terms is the
interpretation which renders φύσει truly,
really. This is substituting an idea implied in the
context for the signification of the word. When Paul says, the heathen deities are
not by nature gods, he does indeed say they are not really gods; but this
does not prove that by nature means truly.
Another exposition of this passage is, that the apostle here refers
to the incidental cause of our being the children of wrath. Our exposure to the
divine displeasure is due to our nature, because that nature being what it is, filled
with various active principles innocent or indifferent, leads us into sin, and we
thus become children of wrath. It is not by nature, but durch
Entwickelung natürlicher Disposition, ‘through the development of natural
disposition,’ as Meyer expresses this idea. This is a theological hypothesis rather
than an interpretation. When it is said men are by nature desirous of truth, by
nature honest, by nature cruel, more is affirmed than that they become such, under
the influence of natural principles of which these characteristics cannot be predicated.
The very reverse is the thing asserted. It is affirmed that love of truth, honesty,
or cruelty are attributes of the nature of those spoken of. In like manner when
it is said, ‘We are by nature the children of wrath,’ the very thing denied is,
that we become such by a process of development. The assertion is that we are such
by nature, as we were born. The truth here taught, therefore, is that which is so
clearly presented in other parts of Scripture, and so fully confirmed by the history
of the world and faith of the church, viz. that mankind as a race are fallen; they
had their probation in Adam,
and therefore are born in a state of condemnation. They need redemption from the
moment of their birth; and therefore the seal of redemption is applied to them in
baptism, which otherwise would be a senseless ceremony.
V. 4. The apostle having thus described the natural state of men,
in this and the following verses, unfolds the manner in which those to whom he wrote
had been delivered from that dreadful condition. It was by a spiritual resurrection.
God, and not themselves, was the author of the change. It was not to be referred
to any goodness in them, but to the abounding love of God. The objects of this love
were not Jews in distinction from the Gentiles, nor the Gentiles as such, nor men
in general, but us, i. e. Christians, the actual subjects of the life-giving
power here spoken of. All this is included in this verse.
Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς, but God,
i. e. notwithstanding our guilt and corruption, God, being rich
in mercy, πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει,
i. e. because he is rich in mercy. Ἔλεος
is, ipsum miseris succurrendi studium,’ the desire
to succour the miserable;’ οἰκτιρμός is
pity. Love is more than either. It was not merely mercy which
has all the miserable for its object; but love which has definite individual
persons for its objects, which constrained this intervention of God for our salvation.
Therefore the apostle adds, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην
αὐτοῦ. Διά is not to be rendered
through, but on account of. It was to satisfy his love, that he raised
us from the death of sin.
V. 5. Καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς.
The conjunction καὶdoes not serve merely to
resume the connection; nor is it to be referred to
ἡμᾶς, us also, us as well as others; but it belongs to the participle.—‘And
being,’ i. e. even when we were dead in trespasses. Notwithstanding
our low, and apparently helpless condition, God interfered for our recovery.
Συνεζωοποίησε τῷ Χριστῷ,
he quickened us together with Christ. Ζωοποιεῖν
means, to make alive, to impart life. In the New Testament it is almost always used
of the communication of the life of which Christ is the author. It either comprehends
every thing which is included in salvation, the communication of life in its widest
scriptural sense; or it expresses some one point or moment in this general life-giving
process. As the death from which the Christian is delivered includes condemnation
(judicial death), pollution, and misery; so the life which he receives comprehends
forgiveness (justification), regeneration, and blessedness. Thus in
2 Cor. 2, 12. 13, the apostle says, "And you being dead in your sins
and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses." As, however, in the passage before us, the words "hath
raised us up," and "hath made us to sit in heavenly places," are connected with
the word "he hath quickened," the latter must be limited to the commencement of
this work of restoration. That is, it here expresses deliverance from death and
the imparting of life, and not the whole work of salvation.
We are said to be ‘quickened together with Christ.’ This does
not mean merely that we are quickened as he was, that there is an analogy between
his resurrection from the grave, and our spiritual resurrection; but the truth here
taught is that which is presented in Rom. 6, 6.
8. Gal. 2, 19. 20.
2 Cor. 5, 14.
1 Cor. 15, 22. 23, and in many other passages, viz. that in virtue of
the union, covenant and vital, between Christ and his people, his death was their
death, his life is their life, and his exaltation is theirs. Hence all the verbs
used in this connection, συνεζωοποίησε, συνήγειρε,
συνεκάθισε, are in the past tense. They express what has already taken place,
not what is future; not what is merely in prospect. The resurrection, the quickening
and raising up of Christ’s people were in an important sense accomplished, when
he rose from the dead and sat down at the right hand of God.
Εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ζῆ, καὶ ἡμεῖς, is the pregnant
comment of Chrysostom. The life of the whole body is in the head, and therefore
when the head rose, the body rose. Each in his order however; first Christ, and
then they that are Christ’s.
The apostle says, by way of parenthesis, by grace are ye saved.
The gratuitous nature of salvation is one of the most prominent ideas of the context
and of the epistle. The state of men was one of helplessness and ill-desert. Their
deliverance from that state is due to the power and the unmerited love of God. They
neither deserved to be saved, nor could they redeem themselves. This truth is so
important and enters so
deeply into the very nature of the Gospel, that Paul brings it forward on every
fit occasion. And if the mode in which le speaks of our deliverance, does not of
itself show it to be gratuitous, he introduces the declaration parenthetically,
lest it should be for a moment forgotten.
V. 6. And hath raised us up and caused us to sit together in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is an amplification of what precedes.
In its widest sense the life, which in v. 5
is said to be given to us, includes the exaltation expressed in this verse. It is,
therefore, only by way of amplification that the apostle, after saying we are made
partakers of the life of Christ, adds that we are raised up and enthroned with him
in heaven. To understand this we must know what is here meant by "heavenly places,"
and in what sense believers are now the subjects of the exaltation here spoken of.
Throughout this epistle the expression "heavenly places" means heaven. But the latter
phrase has in Scripture a wide application. It means not only the atmospheric heavens
in which the clouds have their habitation; and the stellar heavens in which the
sun, moon and stars dwell; and the third heavens, i. e. the place where
God specially manifests his presence and where the glorified body of Christ now
is, but also the state into which believers are introduced by their regeneration.
In this last sense it coincides with one of the meanings of the phrase "kingdom
of heaven." It is that state of purity, exaltation and favour with God, into which
his children are even in this world introduced.
The opposite state is called "the kingdom of Satan;" and hence men are said to
be translated from "the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son."
It is in this sense of the word that we are said,
Phil. 3, 20, to be the citizens of heaven. We, if Christians, belong
not to the earth, but heaven; we are within the pale of God’s kingdom; we are under
its laws; we have in Christ a title to its privileges and blessings, and possess,
alas! in what humnble measure, its spirit. Though we occupy the lowest place of
this kingdom, the mere suburbs of the heavenly city, still we are in it. The language
of the apostle in the context will appear the less strange, if we apprehend aright
the greatness of the change which believers, even in this life, experience. They
are freed from the condemnation of the law, from the dominion of Satan, from the
lethargy and pollution of spiritual death; they are reconciled to God, made partakers
of his Spirit, as the principle of everlasting life; they are adopted into his family
and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God both in this life and
in that which is to come. This is a change worthy of being expressed by saying:
"He hath quickened us, and raised us up, and made us to sit together with Christ
in heavenly places."—All this is in Christ. It is in virtue of their union with
Christ that believers are partakers of his life and exaltation. They are to reign
with him. The blessings then of which tile apostle here speaks, are represented
as already conferred for two reasons: first, because they are in a measure already
enjoyed; and secondly, because
the continuance and consummation of these blessings are rendered certain by the
nature of the union between Christ and his people. In him they are already raised
from the dead and seated at the right hand of God.
V. 7. Why has God done all this? Why from eternity has he chosen
us to be holy before him in love? Why has he made us accepted in the Beloved? Why
when dead in trespasses and sins hath he quickened us, raised us up and made us
to sit together in heavenly places in Christ? The answer to these questions is given
in this verse. It was, in order that, in the ages to come, he might show the
exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus,
ἵνα ἐνδείξηται—τον πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος—ἐν χρηστότητι
ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς. The manifestation of the grace of God, i. e. of
his unmerited love, is declared to be the specific object of redemption. From this
it follows that whatever clouds the grace of God, or clashes with the gratuitous
nature of the blessings promised in the gospel, must be inconsistent with its nature
and design. If the salvation of sinners be intended as an exhibition of the grace
of God, it must of necessity be gratuitous.
The words, in the ages to come,
ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις, are by
many understood to refer to the future generations in this world;
secula, aetates seu tempora inde ab apostolicis illis ad finem mundi
secuturas, as Wolf expresses it. Calvin, who understands the apostle to refer
specially to the calling of the Gentiles in the preceding verses, gives the same
explanation.
Gentium vocatio mirabile est divinae bonitatis opus, quod filiis
parentes et avi nepotibus tradere per manus debent, ut nunquam ex hominum animis
silentio deleatur. As however there is nothing in the context to restrict
the language of the apostle to the Gentiles, so there is nothing to limit the general
expression ages to come to the present life. Others, restricting verse 6th to the
resurrection of the body, which is to take place at the second advent of Christ,
understand the phrase in question to mean the ‘world to come,’ or the period subsequent
to Christ’s second coming. Then, when the saints are raised up in glory, and not
before, will the kindness of God towards them be revealed. But the preceding verse
does not refer exclusively to the final resurrection of the dead, and therefore
this phrase does not designate the period subsequent to that event. It is better
therefore to take it without limitation, for all future time.
The simplest construction of the passage supposes that
ἐν χρηστότητι is to be connected with
ἐνδείξηται;
ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς with χρηστότητι, and
ἐν Χριστῷ with the words immediately preceding.
God’s grace is manifested through his kindness towards us, and that kindness is
exercised through Christ and for his sake. The ground of this goodness is not in
us but in Christ, and hence its character as grace, or unmerited favour.
Vs. 8, 9. These verses confirm the preceding declaration. The
manifestation of the grace of God is the great end of redemption. This is plain,
for salvation
is entirely of grace. Ye are saved by grace; ye are saved by faith and not by works;
and even faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. We have then here a
manifold assertion, affirmative and negative, of the gratuitous nature of salvation.
It is not only said in general, ‘ye are saved by grace,’ but further that salvation
is by faith, i. e. by simply receiving or apprehending the offered
blessing. From the very nature of faith, as an act of assent and trust, it excludes
the idea of merit. If by faith, it is of grace; if of works, it is of debt; as the
apostle argues in Rom. 4, 4. 5. Faith,
therefore, is the mere causa apprehendens, the simple
act of accepting, and not the ground on which salvation is bestowed. Not of works.
The apostle says works, without qualification or limitation. It is not, therefore,
ceremonial, as distinguished from good works; or legal, as distinguished from evangelical
or gracious works; but works of all kinds as distinguished from faith, which are
excluded. Salvation is in no sense, and in no degree, of works; for to him that
worketh the reward is a matter of debt. But salvation is of grace and therefore
not of works lest any man should boast. That the guilty should stand before God
with self-complacency, and refer his salvation in any measure to his own merit,
is so abhorrent to all right feeling that Paul assumes it (Rom.
4, 2) as an intuitive truth, that no man can boast before God. And to
all who have any proper sense of the holiness of God and of the evil of sin, it
is an intuition; and therefore a gratuitous salvation, a salvation which excludes
with
works all ground of boasting, is the only salvation suited to the relation of guilty
men to God.
The only point in the interpretation of these verses of any doubt,
relates to the second clause. What is said to be the gift of God? Is it salvation,
or faith? The words καὶ τοῦτο only serve to
render more proninent the matter referred to. Compare
Rom. 13, 11. 1 Cor. 6, 6.
Phil. 1, 28. Heb. 11, 12.
They may relate to faith (τὸ πιστεύειν), or
to the salvation spoken of (σεσωσμένους εἶναι).
Beza, following the fathers, prefers the former reference; Calvin, with most of
the modern commentators, the latter. The reasons in favour of the former interpretation
are, 1. It best suits the design of the passage. The object of the apostle is to
show the gratuitous nature of salvation. This is most effectually done by saying,
‘Ye are not only saved by faith in opposition to works, but your very faith is not
of yourselves, it is the gift of God.’ 2. The other interpretation makes the passage
tautological. To say: ‘Ye are saved by faith; not of yourselves; your salvation
is the gift of God; it is not of works,’ is saying the same thing over and over
without any progress. Whereas to say: ‘Ye are saved through faith (and that not
of yourselves it is the gift of God), not of works,’ is not repetitious; the parenthetical
clause instead of being redundant does good service and greatly increases the force
of the passage. 3. According to this interpretation the antithesis between faith
and works, so common in Paul’s writings, is preserved. ‘Ye are saved by faith, not
by works, lest any man should
boast.’ The middle clause of the verse is therefore parenthetical, and refers not
to the main idea ye are saved, but to the subordinate one through faith,
and is designed to show how entirely salvation is of grace, since even faith by
which we apprehend the offered mercy, is the gift of God. 4. The analogy of Scripture
is in favor of this view of the passage, in so far that elsewhere faith is represented
as the gift of God. 1 Cor. 1, 26-31.
Eph. 1, 19. Col. 2, 12,
et passim.
V. 10. That salvation is thus entirely the work of God, and that
good works cannot be the ground of our acceptance with him, is proved in this verse—1st.
By showing that we are God’s workmanship. He, and not ourselves, has made us what
we are. And 2d. By the consideration that we are created unto good works. As the
fact that men are elected unto holiness, proves that holiness is not the ground
of their election; so their being created unto good works shows that good works
are not the ground on which they are made the subjects of this new creation, which
is itself incipient salvation.
Αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα.
The position of the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence renders it emphatic.
His workmanship are we. He has made us Christians. Our faith is not of ourselves.
It is of God that we are in Christ Jesus. The sense in which we are the workmanship
of God is explained in the following clause, created in Christ Jesus; for
if any man is in Christ he is a new creature. Union with him is a source of a new
life, and a life unto holiness; and therefore it is said created unto good works.
Holiness
is the end of redemption, for Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works.
Titus 2, 14. Those therefore who live in sin are not the subjects of
this redemption.
Οἱ̂ς προητοίμασε, is variously
interpreted. The verb signifies properly to prepare beforehand. As this previous
preparation may be in the mind, in the form of a purpose, the word is often used
in the sense of preordaining, or appointing. Compare
Gen. 24, 14.
Matt. 25, 34.
1 Cor. 2, 9.
Rom. 9, 23. This however is rather the
idea expressed in the context than the proper signification of the word. The relative
is by Bengel and others connected, agreeably to a common Hebrew idiom, with the
following pronoun, οἷς οἐν αὐτοῖς, in
which, and the verb taken absolutely. The sense then is,’ In which God has preordained
that we should walk.’ By the great majority of commentators
οἷς is taken for
ἅ, by the common attraction, ‘which God had
prepared beforehand, in order that we should walk in them.’ Before our new creation
these works were in the purpose of God prepared to be our attendants, in the midst
of which we should walk. A third interpretation supposes
οἷς to be used as a proper dative, and supposes
ἡμᾶς as the object of the verb. ‘To which God
has predestined us, that we should walk in them.’ The second of these explanations
is obviously the most natural.
Thus has the apostle in this paragraph clearly taught that the
natural state of man is one of condemnation and spiritual death; that from that
condition
believers are delivered by the grace of God in Christ Jesus; and the design of this
deliverance is the manifestation, through all coming ages, of the exceeding riches
of his grace.
SECTION II.—Vs. 11-22.
11.
11. Wherefore remember,
that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision
by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world;
13. but now, in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometimes were far off,
are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath
broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15. having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even
the law of commandments contained in ordinances: for to make in himself of twain
one new man, so making peace;
16. and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body
by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17. and came and preached peace to you which were afar off,
and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have an access by one Spirit unto
the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth
unto a holy temple in the Lord:
22. in whom ye also are builded together, for a habitation
of God through the Spirit.
ANALYSIS.
In the preceding paragraph the apostle had set forth—1. The moral
and spiritual condition of the
Ephesians by nature. 2. The spiritual renovation and exaltation which they had experienced.
3. The design of God in this dispensation. In this paragraph he exhibits the corresponding
change in their relations. In doing this he sets forth:—
I. Their former relation—1st. To the church as foreigners and
aliens. 2d. To God as those who were far off, without any saving knowledge of him,
or interest in his promises, vs. 11. 12.
II. The means by which this alienation from God and the church
had been removed, viz. by the blood of Christ. His death had a twofold effect.—l.
By satisfying the demands of justice, it secured reconciliation with God. 2. By
abolishing the law in the form of the Mosaic institutions, it removed the wall of
partition between the Jews and Gentiles. A twofold reconciliation was thus effected;
the Jews and Gentiles are united in one body, and both are reconciled to God,
vs. 13-18.
III. In consequence of this twofold reconciliation, the Ephesians
were intimately united with God and his people. This idea is set forth under a threefold
figure.—1. They are represented as fellow-citizens of the saints. 2. They are members
of the family of God. 3. They are constituent portions of that temple in which God
dwells by his Spirit, vs. 19-22.
The idea of the church which underlies this paragraph, is that
which is every where presented in the New Testament. The church is the body of Christ.
It consists of those in whom he dwells by his Spirit.
To be alien from the church, therefore, is to be an alien from God. It is to be
without Christ and without hope. The church of which this is said is not the nominal,
external, visible church as such, but the true people of God. As, however, the Scriptures
always speak of men according to their profession, calling those who profess faith,
believers, and those who confess Christ, Christians; so they speak of the visible
church as the true church, and predicate of the former what is true only of the
latter. The Gentiles while aliens from the church were without Christ, without God,
and without hope; when amalgamated with the church they became the habitation of
God through the Spirit. Such many of them truly were, such they all professed to
be, and they are therefore addressed in that character. But union with the visible
church no more made them real partakers of the Spirit of Christ, than the profession
of faith made them living believers.
COMMENTARY.
V. 11. Wherefore remember, i. e. since God
has done such great things for you, call to mind your former condition, as a motive
both for humility and gratitude. That ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,
ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, i. e. uncircumcised
heathen. This gives in a word the description of their former state. All that follows,
in this and the succeeding verse, is but amplification of this idea. The words
in the flesh, do not mean origine carnali, natalibus,
by birth; nor as to
external condition, which would imply that spiritually, or as to their internal
state, they were not heathen. The context shows that it refers to circumcision,
which being a sign in the flesh, is designated with sufficient clearness by the
expression in the text. As circumcision was a rite of divine appointment, and the
seal of God’s covenant with his people, to be uncircumcised was a great misfortune.
It showed that those in that condition were without God and without hope. The apostle
therefore adds, as explanatory of the preceding phrase,
οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία, who are called
Uncircumcision. This implied that they did not belong to the covenant people
of God; and in the lips of the Jews it was expressive of a self-righteous abhorrence
of the Gentiles as unclean and profane. This feeling on their part arose from their
supposing that the mere outward rite of circumcision conveyed holiness and secured
the favour of God. As the apostle knew that the circumcision of the flesh was in
itself of no avail, and as he was far from sympathizing in the contemptuous feeling
which the Jews entertained for the Gentiles, he tacitly reproves this spirit by
designating the former as the so called circumcision in the flesh, made with
hands. This is a description of the Israel κατὰ
σάρκα, the external people of God, who were Jews outwardly, but who were
destitute of the true circumcision which was of the heart. They were the concision,
as the apostle elsewhere says, we are the circumcision, which worship God in the
Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
Phil.
3, 3. The Jews were a striking illustration of the effect
of ascribing to external rites objective power, and regarding them as conveying
grace and securing the favour of God, irrespective of the subjective state of the
recipient. This doctrine rendered them proud, self-righteous, malignant, and contemptuous,
and led them to regard religion as an external service compatible with unholiness
of heart and life. This doctrine the apostle every where repudiates and denounces
as fatal. And therefore in this connection, while speaking of the real advantage
of circumcision, and of the covenant union with God of which it was the seal, he
was careful to indicate clearly that it was not the circumcision in the flesh, made
with hands, which secured the blessings of which he speaks. Compare
Rom. 2, 25-29. 1 Cor. 7, 19.
Phil. 3, 3-6. Col. 2, 11.
V. 12. The sentence begun in
verse 11 is here resumed. Remember, ὅτι
ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, that at that time ye were without
Christ. This means more than that they were as heathen, destitute of the knowledge
and expectation of the Messiah. As Christ is the only redeemer of men, and the only
mediator between God and man, to be without Christ, was to be without redemption
and without access to God. To possess Christ, to be in Him, is the sum of all blessedness;
to be without Christ includes all evil.
What follows is a confirmation of what precedes. They were without
Christ because aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. The idea of separation
and estrangement is strongly expressed by the word
ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι.
They stood as ἄλλοι, as others, distinguished
as a separate class from the people of God. The word
πολιτεία means—1. Citizenship. 2. The order
or constitution of the state. 3. The community or state itself. The last signification
best suits the connection. Ἰσραήλ means the
theocratical people; and πολιτεία τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
is that community or commonwealth which was Israel. This includes the other senses,
for in being aliens from the community of God’s people, they were of course destitute
of citizenship among them, and outside of the theocratical constitution.
And strangers from the covenants of promise,
καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.
The word covenants is in the plural because God entered repeatedly into covenant
with his people. It is called a covenant of promise, or rather of the promise,
because the promise of redemption was connected therewith. That the promise meant
is that great promise of a redeemer made to Abraham, and so often afterwards repeated,
is plain not only from the context, but from other passages of Scripture. "The promise
made to the fathers," says the apostle, in Acts 13,
32, "hath God fulfilled in that lie hath raised up Jesus." Comp.
Rom. 4, 14-16. Gal. 3, 16.
As the heathen were not included in the covenant God made with his people, they
had no interest. in the promise, the execution of which that covenant secured. Their
condition was therefore most deplorable. They were without hope—ἐλπίδα
μὴ ἔχοντες, not having hope. They had nothing to hope, because
shut out of the covenant of promise. The promise of God is the only foundation of
hope, and therefore those to whom there is no promise, have no hope. And having
no hope of redemption, the great blessing promised, they were, in the widest sense
of the word, hopeless. They were moreover without God,
ἄθεοι. This may mean that they were atheists,
in so far that they were destitute of the knowledge of the true God, and served
those who by nature were no gods. Jehovah was not their God; they had no interest
in him, they were without him. This includes the idea that they were forsaken of
him—he had left them in the world. They stood outside of that community
which belonged to God, who knew and worshipped him, to whom his promises were made,
and in the midst of whom he dwelt. In every point, therefore, their condition as
heathen afforded a melancholy contrast to that of the true people of God, and to
that into which they had been introduced by the Gospel. Their alienation from the
theocracy or church involved in it, or implied, a like alienation from God and his
covenant.
V. 13. But now in Christ Jesus, i. e. in virtue
of union with Christ; ὑμεῖς οἱ τοτε ὄντες μακρὰν,
ἐγγὺς ἐγενήθητε, ye who sometime were afar of, are made nigh.
As under the old dispensation God dwelt in the temple, those living near his abode
and having access to him, were his people. Israel was near; the Gentiles were afar
off. They lived at a distance, and had no liberty of access to the place where God
revealed his presence. Hence in the prophets, as in
Isaiah 49, 1.
57, 19, by those near
are meant the Jews, and by those afar off the Gentiles. This form of expression
passed over to the New Testament writers. Acts 2,
39, "The promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are
far off." Eph. 2, 17, "Preached peace
to you that were far off, and to them that were nigh." Among the later Jews the
act of receiving a proselyte, was called "making him nigh."The Rabbins said:
Quicunque gentilem appropinquare facit, et proselytum facit, idem
est ac si ipsum creasset. WETSTEIN. As being
far from God included both separation from his people, and spiritual distance or
alienation from himself; so to be brought nigh includes both introduction into the
church and reconciliation with God. And these two ideas are clearly presented and
intended by the apostle in this whole context. This twofold reconciliation is effected,
ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, by the blood
of Christ. This clause is explanatory of the words at the beginning of the verse.
‘In Christ Jesus, i. e. by the blood of Christ, ye are made nigh.’
Without shedding of blood there is no remission and no reconciliation of sinners
with God. When Moses ratified the covenant between God and his people, "He took
the blood of calves and of goats and sprinkled both the book and all the people,
saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined unto you. It was
necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these;
but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."
Heb. 9, 19-23. As under
the typical and ritual economy of the Old Testament the people were brought externally
nigh to God, by the blood of calves and goats, through which temporal redemption
was effected and the theocratical covenant was ratified; so we are brought spiritually
nigh to God by the blood of Christ, who has obtained eternal redemption for us,
being once offered to bear the sins of many, and to ratify by his death the covenant
of God with all his people, whether Jews or Gentiles.
Vs. 14. 15. These verses contain a confirmation and illustration
of what precedes. ‘Ye who were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace. He has effected the twofold reconciliation above referred
to.’ This he has accomplished by abolishing the law. The law, however, is viewed
in a twofold aspect in this connection. First, it was that original covenant of
works, demanding perfect obedience, whose conditions must be satisfied in order
to the reconciliation of men with God. Christ by being made under the law,
Gal. 4, 4, and fulfilling all righteousness, has redeemed those who were
under the law. He delivered them from the obligation of fulfilling its demands as
the condition of their justification before God. In this sense they are not under
the law. Comp. Rom. 6, 14.
7, 4. 6.
Gal. 5, 18.
Col. 2, 14. But secondly, as Christ abolished the law as a covenant of
works by fulfilling its conditions, so he abolished the Mosaic law by fulfilling
all its types and shadows. He was the end of the law in both these aspects, and
therefore, it ceased to bind the people of God in either of
these forms. Of this doctrine the whole of the New Testament is full. The epistles
especially are in large measure devoted to proving that believers are not under
the law in either of these senses, but under grace. Thus it is that Christ is our
peace. The abolition of the law as a covenant of works reconciles us to God; the
abolition of the Mosaic law removes the wall between the Jews and Gentiles. This
is what is here taught. By abolishing the law of commandments, i. e.
the law in both its forms, the apostle says, Christ has, first, of the twain made
one new man, v. 15; and secondly,
he has reconciled both unto God in one body by the cross,
v. 16.
Though the general sense of this passage is plain, there is no
little diversity as to the details of the interpretation. The Greek is printed for
the convenience of the reader. Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν
ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν, καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ
λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι
καταργήσας. Our translators, by assuming that
ἔχθραν depends on
καταργήσας, and of course that
νόμον is in apposition with it, have in a
great measure determined thereby the interpretation of the whole passage. The words
μεσότοιχον,
ἔχθραν, and νόμον must all refer
to the same thing. The sense would then be, ‘For he is our peace, having made the
two one by having destroyed the middle wall of partition, that is, by having destroyed,
by his flesh, the enmity, viz., the law of commandments with ordinances.’ The preferable
construction is to make ἔχθραν depend on
λύσας. It is
then in apposition with μεσότοιχον, but not
with νόμον; and
καταργήσας τὸν νόμον, instead of being a mere
repetition of λύσας τὸ μεσότοιχον, is an
independent clause explaining the manner in which the reconciliation of the Jews
and Gentiles had been effected. The passage then means, ‘He is our peace because
he has made the two one by removing the enmity or middle wall which divided the
Jews and Gentiles, and this was done by abolishing the law.’ The reconciliation
itself is expressed by saying, ‘He made the two one, having removed the wall or
enmity between them.’ The mode in which this was done, is expressed by saying, ‘He
abolished the law.’
In the phrase μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ,
middle wall of partition, the latter noun is explanatory of the former,
i. e. φραγμοῦ is the genitive
of apposition. The middle wall which consisted in the hedge, which separated the
two parties. What that hedge was is immediately expressed by the word
ἔχθραν. It was the enmity subsisting between
them. ‘Having removed the middle wall, i. e. the enmity, or their mutual
hatred.’ By enmity, therefore, is not to be understood the law, as the cause
of this alienation, but the alienation itself; because in what follows the removal
of the enmity and the abolition of the law are distinguished from each other, the
latter being the means of accomplishing the former.
That ἔχθραν is to be connected
with λύσας and not, as our translation assumes,
with καταργήσας, is argued first from the
position of the words, which favours this construction;
secondly, because the expression λύειν ἔχθραν
is common, and καταργεῖν ἔχθραν never occurs;
and thirdly, because the sense demands this construction, inasmuch as the ambiguous
phrase middle wall of partition thus receives its needed explanation. The apostle
first states, what it was that divided the Jews and Gentiles, viz., their mutual
hatred, and then how that hatred had been removed.
The words ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ,
are not to be connected with λύσας. That is,
the apostle does not mean to say that Christ has removed the enmity between the
Jews and Gentiles by his flesh. They are to be connected with the following
participle (καταργήσας). "Having by his flesh,
i. e. by his death, abolished the law." This is the great truth which
Paul had to teach. Christ by his death has freed us from the law. We are no longer
under the law but under grace. Rom. 6, 14.
We are no longer required to seek salvation on the ground of obedience to the law,
which says: "Do this, and live," and "Cursed is every one that continueth not in
all things written in the book of the law to do them." Christ has freed us from
the law as a covenant of works, by being himself made subject to it,
Gal. 4, 5; by bearing its penalty,
Gal. 3, 13; by his body, Rom. 7, 4;
by the body of his flesh, Col. 1, 22;
by his cross, Col. 2, 14. In this
connection the expressions, "by the blood of Christ,"
v. 13; "by his flesh," v. 14;
by his cross," all mean the same thing. They are but different modes of expressing
his sacrificial, or atoning death, by which the law was satisfied and our reconciliation
to God is effected. The "abolishing," therefore, of which the apostle speaks, does
not consist in setting the law aside, or suspending it by a sovereign, executive
act. It is a causing it to cease; or rendering it no longer binding by satisfying
its demands, so that we are judicially free from it; free not by the act of a sovereign
but by the sentence of a judge; not by mere pardon, but by justification. Who is
he that condemns, when God justifies? Rom. 8, 34.
The law which Christ has thus abolished is called "the law of commandments in ordinances."
This may mean the law of commandments with ordinances-referring to the two classes
of laws (ἐντολή and
δόγμα), moral and positive; or it may refer
to the form in which the precepts are presented in the law, as positive statutes,
or commands, τῶν ἐντολῶν giving the contents
of the law, and ἐν δόγμασι the form. The
idea probably is that the law in all its compass, and in all its forms, so far as
it was a covenant prescribing the conditions of salvation, is abolished. The law
of which the apostle here speaks is not exclusively the Mosaic law. It is so described
in various parallel passages, as holy, just and good, as taking cognizance of the
inward feelings, as to make it evident it is the law of God in its widest sense.
It is the law which binds the heathen and which is written on their hearts. It is
the law fiom which the death of Christ redeems men. But redemption is not mere deliverance
from Judaism, and therefore the law from which we are freed by the death of Christ
is not merely the law of Moses. Deliverance
from the Mosaic institutions could not have the effects ascribed to the freedom
from the law of which Paul speaks. It could not secure reconciliation to God, justification,
and holiness, all of which, according to the apostle, flow from the redemption effected
by Christ. The antithetical ideas always presented in Paul’s writings, on this subject,
are the law and grace, the law and tile gospel, the system which says: "Do and live,"—and
the system which says: "Believe and live;"—as, however, the form in which the law
was ever present to the minds of the early Christians was that contained in the
Mosaic institutions; as all, who in that day were legalists, were Judaizers, and
as the Mosaic economy was included in the law which Christ abolished, in many cases
(as in the passage before us), special reference is had to the law in that particular
form. But in teaching that men cannot be saved by obedience to the law of Moses,
Paul taught that we cannot be saved by obedience to the law in any form. Or rather,
by teaching that salvation is not of works of any kind, but of grace and through
faith, he teaches it is not by the specific, ceremonial works enjoined in the law
of Moses.
It is objected to the above interpretation of this passage, which
is the common one, that in order to justify connecting
ἐν δόγμασι with
ἐντολῶν (the law of commandments in ordinances),
the article should be used. It is therefore urged that
ἐν δόγμασι must be connected with
καταργήσας and the passage read, "having abolished
by doctrine the law of commandments." To
this, however, it is answered—1. That the connecting article is frequently omitted
in cases where the qualifying word is intimately connected with the word to be qualified,
so as to form one idea with it. See Eph. 2, 11.
2 Cor. 7, 7.
Col. 1, 4. 2. That
καταργήσας has its qualifying clause in the
words ἐν τῇ σαρκί. It would be incongruous
to say that Christ abolished the law by his death, by doctrine. 3. The word
δόγμα never means doctrine in the New
Testament, and therefore cannot have that meaning, here. 4. And finally the sense
is bad, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture. The law was not abolished by
Christ as a teacher; but by Christ as a sacrifice. It was not by his doctrine, but
by his blood, his body, his death, his cross, that our deliverance from the law
was effected. The doctrine of the passage, therefore, is that the middle wall of
partition between the Jews and Gentiles, consisting in their mutual enmity, has
been removed by Christ’s having, through his death, abolished the law in all its
forms, as a rule of justification, and thus, opening one new way of access to God,
common to Jews and Gentiles.
The design of Christ in thus abolishing the law was two-fold.
First, the union of the Jews and Gentiles in one holy, Catholic church. And, Secondly,
the reconciliation of both to God. The former is expressed, by saying: "In order
that he might create the two, in himself, one new man, making peace." The two,
τοὺς δύο, are of course the two spoken of
above, the Jews and Gentiles. They were separate, hostile bodies, alike
dead in trespasses and sins, equally the children of wrath. They are created anew,
so as to become one body of which Christ is the head. And, therefore, it is said,
ἐν ἑαυτῷ, in himself, i. e.
in virtue of union with him. Union with Christ being the condition at once of their
unity and of their holiness. They are created εἰς
ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. They are one, and they are new, i. e.
renewed. Καινός means newly made, uninjured
by decay or use; and in a moral sense renewed, pure. See
4, 24. 2 Cor. 5, 17.
Gal. 6. 15. Col. 3, 10.
Making peace, ποιῶν εἰρήνην. The present
participle is here used, because the effect or operation is a continuous one. The
union or peace which flows from the abrogation of the law by the death of Christ,
is progressive, so far as it is inward or subjective. The outward work is done.
The long feud in the human family. is healed. The distinction between Jew and Gentile
is abolished. All the exclusive privileges of the former are abrogated. The wall
which had so long shut out the nations is removed. There is now one fold and one
shepherd. Since the abrogation of the law there is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for all believers are
one in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3, 28.
V. 16. The second part of Christ’s purpose is expressed in this
verse. It was that he might reconcile (ἀποκαταλλάξῃ)
the two, united in one body, unto God, by means of the cross, having thereby slain
the enmity. The end effected was reconciliation with God;—the subjects of this
reconciliation are the church, the one
body into which Jews and Gentiles are merged (so that the one is
σύσσωμα with the other,
Eph. 3, 6); the means of this reconciliation is the cross, because the
crucifixion of our Lord removes the enmity which prevented the reconciliation here
spoken of.
To reconcile is to effect peace and union between parties
previously at variance. Neither the English nor Greek terms (διαλλάσσειν,
καταλλάσσειν) indicate whether the change effected is mutual or only on one
side. A child is reconciled to an offended father who receives him into favour,
though the father’s feelings only have been changed. Whether the reconciliation
effected by Christ between man and God results from an inward change in men, or
from the propitiation of God—or whether both ideas are to be included, is determined
not by the signification of the word, but by the context and the analogy of Scripture.
When Christ is said to reconcile men to God, the meaning is that he propitiated
God, satisfied the demands of his justice, and thus rendered it possible that he
might be just and yet justify the ungodly. This is plain, because the reconciliation
is always said to be effected by the death, the blood, the cross of Christ; and
the proximate design of a sacrifice is to propitiate God, and not to convert the
offerer or him for whom the offering is made. What in one place is expressed by
saying Christ reconciled us to God, is in another place expressed by saying, he
was a propitiation, or made propitiation for our sins.
The subjects of this reconciliation are the Jews and
Gentiles united in one body, i. e. the church —τοὺς
ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι. His death had not reference to one class
to the exclusion of the other. It was designed to bring unto God, the whole number
of the redeemed, whether Jews or Gentiles, as one living body, filled with his Spirit
as well as washed in his blood.
Many commentators understand the words "in one body" to refer
to Christ’s own body, and the words "by the cross," at the close of the sentence,
to be merely explanatory. The sense would then be, "That he might reconcile both
unto God, by one body, i. e. by the one offering of himself,
i. e. by his cross." The obvious objection to this interpretation is, that
"one body" cannot naturally be explained to mean " one offering of his body." Besides
this, the passage, vs. 13-16, would
then repeat five times the idea: the sacrifice of Christ reconciled us to God. The
natural opposition between "the two" and "the one body," favours the
common interpretation. Christ created the two into one new man, and as thus united
in one body, he reconciled both unto God.
The means by which this reconciliation was effected is the cross—because
on it he slew the enmity which separated us from God. The latter clause of the verse
is therefore explanatory of what precedes. ‘He reconciled both to God, having, by
the cross, slain the enmity.’ The enmity in this place, as in
v. 15, many understand to be the enmity
between the Jews and Gentiles, and make the apostle say: ‘Christ by his
crucifixion has destroyed the enmity between the Jews and Gentiles and then reconciled
them thus united in one body to God.’ It is urged in favour of this interpretation
that it is unnatural to make the word enmity in this verse and in
verse 15
refer to different things. The great doctrine in the whole context is the unity
of all believers, and therefore, that is to be kept in view. It is the enmity between
the Jews and Gentiles and their union of which the apostle is treating. But that
idea had just before been expressed. It is perfectly pertinent to the apostle’s
object to show that the union between the Jews and Gentiles was effected by the
reconciliation of both, by his atoning death, to God. The former flows from the
latter. In this connection the words "having slain the enmity on it," serve to explain
the declaration that the cross of Christ reconciles us to God. His death satisfied
justice, it propitiated God, i. e. removed his wrath, or his enmity
to sinners; not hatred, for God is love, but the calm and holy purpose to punish
them for their sins. This view is sustained by the constantly recurring representations
of Scripture. In Col. 1, 20-22,
we have a passage which is exactly parallel to the one before us. It is there said,
that God, having made peace by the blood of the cross, reconciled by Christ all
things unto himself, and "you," the apostle adds, "that were sometime alienated
and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the
body of his flesh through death." Here it is obvious that the peace intended is
peace between God and man.
So too in Col. 2, 13. 14, it is
said: "You being dead . . . hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven
you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."
Here again the reconciliation is between man and God; the means, the cross—the
mode, the abrogation or satisfaction of the law. The epistles to the Ephesians and
to the Colossians are so much a reflection the one of the other, that they serve
for mutual illustration. As there can be no doubt as to what Paul meant in the passages
addressed to the Colossians, they serve to determine his meaning in the parallel
passages to the Ephesians. The context, so far from opposing, favours the interpretation
given above. Reconciliation involves the removal of enmity; the reconciliation is
to God, therefore the enmity is that which subsisted between God and man—the peace
announced in consequence of this reconciliation,
verse 17, is peace with God; it consists
in the liberty of access to him spoken of in
verse 18. Thus all is natural in the relation of the several clauses
to each other.
V. 17. And having come, he preached peace, for you afar of,
and peaceThe repetition of εἰρήνην
before τοῖς ἐγγύς, has in its favour many of
the oldest MSS. and versions, and is adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, and others.
for those near. The connection is not with
verse 14, but with verses 14-16.
Christ having effected peace, announced it. This is the burden of the Gospel, Peace
on earth, and good-will toward
man. God is reconciled. Being justified by faith we have peace with God. Christ
having redeemed us from the curse of the law; having reconciled us to God by his
death, came and preached peace. To what preaching does the apostle refer? Some say
to Christ’s personal preaching while here on earth. Having come, i. e.
in the flesh, he preached. This supposes the connection is not with what immediately
precedes, but with verse 14.—‘He
is our peace, and having come into the world he preached peace.’ But this breaks
the concatenation of the ideas. The reconciliation is represented as preceding the
annunciation of it. Having died, he came and preached. The preaching is, therefore,
the annunciation of the favour of God, made by Christ, either in person, or through
his apostles and his Spirit. Having come, ἐλθών,
is not redundant, nor does it refer to his coming into the world, but to that reappearing
which took place after his resurrection, which was temporarily in person and continuous
in his Spirit. He is with the church always, even to the end of the world; and it
is his annunciation of peace which is made, by the word and Spirit, through the
church. The peace meant, according to one interpretation, is peace between Jews
and Gentiles, according to another, peace with God. The decision between the two
depends on the view taken of the context. If the interpretation given above of the
preceding verses be correct, then the peace here mentioned can only be peace with
God. The dative ὑμῖν does not depend immediately
on the verb, and point out the
object to which the preaching was directed. It indicates those for whose benefit
this peace has been procured. Christ announced that peace with God had, by the cross,
been secured for those afar off, viz. the Gentiles. as well as for the Jews, or
those who were nigh.
V. 18. The proof that peace has thus been obtained for both is,
that both have equally free access to God. The ὅτι
at the beginning of the verse is not to be rendered that, as indicating the
nature of the peace; but since, as introducing the evidence that such peace
was procured. That evidence is found in the fact that we have access to God. Had
not his wrath been removed,
Rom. 5, 10, the enmity been slain, we
could have no access to the divine presence. And since Gentiles have as free access
to God as the Jews, and upon the same terms and in the same way, it follows that
the peace procured by the death of Christ, was designed for the one class as well
as for the other.
Access is not mere liberty of approach; it is
προσαγωγή, introduction. Christ did
not die simply to open the way of access to God, but actually to introduce us into
his presence and favour. This all Scripture teaches, and this the context demands.
Those for whom the death of Christ has procured peace, are declared in what follows
to be fellow-citizens of the saints; members of the family of God, constituent parts
of that temple in which God dwells by his Spirit. It is a real not a mere potential
redemption and reconciliation which the blood of Christ effects. He died, the just
for the unjust, to bring us nigh unto God. This introduction
into a state of grace, Rom. 5, 3, is not
identical with the peace procured by Christ, but the effect or sequence of it. Having
made propitiation, or secured peace, he introduces us as our mediator and advocate
into the divine presence.
As to this access we are taught that it is —1. To the Father.
2. It is through Christ. 3. It is by the Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity as
involved in the whole scheme of redemption, evidently underlies the representation
contained in this passage. In the plan of salvation as revealed in Scripture, the
Father represents the Godhead, or God absolutely. He gave a people to the Son, sent
the Son for their redemption, and the Spirit to apply to them that redemption. Hence,
in the beginning of this epistle, it is said that God as the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, chose us before
the foundation of the world to be holy, having predestinated us to be his children.
He, therefore, has made us acceptable in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption
through his blood. It is the Father, therefore, as the apostle says, who has made
known to us his purpose to reconcile all things unto himself by Jesus Christ. Thus
also in Col. 1, 19. 20, it is
said it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell, and having made
peace through the blood of the cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself.
In 1 Cor. 8, 6, it is said there
is to us one God even the Father, by whom are all things, and we in him; and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by
him. This representation will be recognized as pervading the Scripture. It is the
Father as representing the Godhead, to whom we are said to be reconciled, to be
brought near, into whose family we are adopted, and of whose glory we are heirs.
Secondly, this access is through Christ. This means, 1st, as explained
in the context, by his blood, his flesh, his cross. That is, it is by his vicarious
death. It is by his dying, the just for the unjust, that he brings us near to God.
2. It is by his intercession, for he has not only died for us, but he has passed
through the heavens there to appear before God for us. It is, therefore, through
him, as our mediator, intercessor, introducer, forerunner, that we draw near to
God. This is a truth so plainly impressed on the Scriptures and so graven on the
hearts of believers, that it gives form to all our modes of approach to the throne
of God. It is in the name of Christ, all our praises, thanksgivings, confessions,
and prayers are offered, and for his sake alone do we hope to find them accepted.
Thirdly, this access to the Father is by the Spirit. The inward
change by which we are enabled to believe in Christ, the feelings of desire, reverence,
filial confidence which are essential to our communion with God, are the fruits
of the Spirit. Hence we are said to be drawn or led by the Spirit, and the Spirit
also as well as Christ is called our advocate, or paraclete; and God, it is said,
because we are sons, hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying,
Abba, Father, Gal. 4, 6. The words
ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, by one
spirit, are not to be understood as expressing the inward concord or fellowship
of the Jews and Gentiles in drawing near to God, nor simply that we are influenced
by a common spirit of life, but the words are to be understood of the Holy Ghost.—1.
Because the word πνεῦμα, without as well as
with the article so generally refers to the Spirit in the New Testament. 2. Because
the obvious reference to the Trinity in the passage, ("to the Father, through Christ,
by the Spirit,") demands this interpretation. And 3. Because the same office is
elsewhere characteristically referred to the Spirit. The other interpretations are
included in this. If Jews and Gentiles are led by the Spirit to draw near to God,
it follows that they come with one heart; and are animated by one principle of life.
The preposition ἐν may be taken instrumentally,
and rendered by, as in the following verse. Or it may mean in communion
with. The Holy Ghost is designated here as one Spirit, in opposition to the
two classes, Jews and Gentiles. Both have access by one and the same Spirit. The
two, therefore, are not only one body as stated in
verse 16, but they are inhabited and controlled by one Spirit. Thus in
1 Cor. 12, 11, "one and the self-same Spirit," is said to divide to every
man severally as he wills; and in verse 12,
it is, "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." Thus has the divine purpose
of which the apostle spoke in the first chapter—his purpose to unite all his people
in one harmonious body—been consummated. Christ by his cross has reconciled them,
both Jews and Gentiles, unto God; the distinction
between the two classes is abolished; united in one body, filled and guided by one
Spirit, they draw near to God as his common children.
V. 19. The consequences of this reconciliation are that the Gentiles
are now fellow-citizens of the saints, members of the family of God, and part of
that temple in which God dwells by his Spirit. Formerly they were
ξένοι, strangers, now they are
συμπολῖται, fellow-citizens. Formerly
the Gentiles stood in the same relation to the theocracy or commonwealth of Israel,
that we do to a foreign State. They had no share in its privileges, no participation
in its blessings. Now they are "fellow-citizens of the saints." By saints
are not to be understood the Jews, nor the ancient patriarchs, but the people of
God. Christians have become, under the new dispensation, what the Jews once were,
viz. saints, men selected and separated from the world, and consecrated to God as
his peculiar people. They now constitute the theocracy—which is no longer confined
to any one people or country, but embraces all in every country who have access
to God by Christ Jesus. In this spiritual kingdom the Gentiles have now the right
of citizenship. They are on terms of perfect equality with all other members of
that kingdom. And that kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. The same terms of admission
are required, and neither more nor less, for membership in that kingdom, and for
admission into heaven; all who enter the one enter the other; the one is but the
infancy of the other; we are now, says Paul, the citizens of heaven. It is not,
therefore,
to the participation of the privileges of the old, external, visible theocracy,
nor simply to the pale of the visible Christian church, that the apostle here welcomes
his Gentile brethren, but to the spiritual Israel, the communion of saints; to citizenship
in that kingdom of which Christ is king, and membership in that body of which he
is the head. It is only a change of illustration without any essential change of
sense, when the apostle adds, they are no longer πάροικοι
but οἰκεῖοι. The family is a much more intimate
brotherhood than the State. The relation to a father is much more sacred and tender
than that which we bear to a civil ruler; and therefore, there is an advance in
this clause beyond what is said in the former. If in the former we are said to be
fellow-citizens with the saints, here we are said to be the children of God; whose
character and privileges belong to all those in whom God dwells by his Spirit.
V. 20. As οἶκος means both
a family and a house, the apostle passes from the one figure to the other. The Gentiles
are members of the family of God, and they are parts of his house. They are built,
ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν,
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.
That the prophets here mentioned are those of the new dispensation,
is evident—first from the position of the terms. It would more naturally be prophets
and apostles if the Old Testament prophets had been intended. As God has set in
the church, ‘first apostles,
and second, prophets,’ it is obvious that these are the classes of teachers here
referred to. 2. The statement here made that the apostles and prophets are, or have
laid, the foundation of that house of which the Gentiles are a part, is more obviously
true of the New, than of the Old Testament prophets. 3. The passage in
ch. 3, 5, in which it is said, "The mystery of Christ is now revealed
to holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit," is also strongly in favour of this
interpretation.
On account of the omission of the article before
προφητῶν some render the clause thus: ‘The
apostle-prophets—or apostles who are prophets.’ But this is unnecessary, because
the repetition of the article is often dispensed with, when the connected nouns
belong to one category, and constitute one class. Both apostles and prophets belong
to the class of Christian teachers. This interpretation is not only unnecessary,
it is also improbable; because apostles and prophets were not identical. There were
many prophets who were not apostles. The latter were the immediate messengers of
Christ, invested with infallible authority as teachers, and supreme power as rulers
in his church. The prophets were a class of teachers who spoke by inspiration as
the Spirit from time to time directed.
The principal difference of opinion as to the interpretation of
this clause, is whether "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" means the
foundation which they constitute—or, which they laid. In favour of the latter view,
it is urged that Christ, and not the apostles, is the foundation of the church;
that Paul, 1 Cor. 3,
10, speaks of himself as having laid the foundation, and
not as being part of it; and that it is derogatory to Christ to associate him with
the apostles on terms of such apparent equality, he being one part and they another
of the foundation. On the other hand, however, it may be said, that there is a true
and obvious sense in which the apostles are the foundation of the church; secondly,
they are expressly so called in Scripture—as in
Rev. 21, 14, besides the disputed passage,
Matt. 16, 18; and thirdly, the figure here demands this interpretation.
In this particular passage Christ is the corner stone, the apostles the foundation,
believers the edifice. The corner stone is distinguished from the foundation. To
express the idea that the church rests on Christ, he is sometimes called the foundation
and sometimes the corner stone of the building; but where he is called the one,
he is not represented as the other. This representation no more implies the equality
of Christ and the apostles, than believers being represented as constituting with
him one building, implies their equality with him.
As the corner stone of a building is that which unites and sustains
two walls, many suppose that the union and common dependence on Christ of the Jews
and Gentiles, are intended in the application of this term to the Redeemer. But
as the same figure is used where no such reference can be assumed, it is more natural
to understand the apostle as expressing the general idea that the whole church rests
on Christ. This Isaiah predicted should be the case, when he represents
Jehovah as saying: "Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone,
a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste."
Isaiah 28, 16. Ps. 118, 22.
Matt. 21, 42.
Acts 4, 11.
1 Cor. 3, 11.
1 Pet. 2, 6-8.
V. 21. Christ being the corner stone, every thing depends on union
with him. Therefore the apostle adds, "In whom all the building fitly framed together
groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." Christ is the principle at once of support
and of growth. He not only sustains the building, but carries it on to its consummation.
The words ἐν are not to be rendered, on
which, referring to the foundation, but, in whom, referring to Christ.
Union with him is the sole essential condition of our being parts of that living
temple of which he is the corner stone.
The words πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή,
even without the article, which, because wanting in the oldest manuscripts, many
critics omit, must here mean "the whole," and not "every building." It would destroy
the whole consistency of the figure to represent "every congregation," as a temple
by itself resting on Christ as the corner stone. Christ has but one body, and there
is but one temple composed of Jews and Gentiles, in which God dwells by his Spirit.
All the parts of this temple are "fitly framed together,"
συναρμολογουμένη. Intimate union by faith
with Christ is the necessary condition of the increase spoken of immediately afterwards.
The building however is not only thus united with the corner stone, but
the several parts one with another, so as to constitute a well compacted whole.
This union, as appears from the nature of the building, is not external and visible,
as a worldly kingdom under one visible head, but spiritual.
"Groweth unto a holy temple," αὔξει
εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον, i. e. increases so as to become a holy temple.
A temple is a building in which God dwells. Such a temple is holy, as sacred to
him. It belongs to him, is consecrated to his use, and can neither be appropriated
by any other, nor used for any thing but his service, without profanation. This
is true of the church as a whole, and of all its constituent members. The money-changers
of the world cannot, with impunity, make the church a place of traffic, or employ
it in any way to answer their sordid or secular ends. The church does not belong
to the state, and cannot lawfully be controlled by it. It is "sacred," set apart
for God. It is his house in which he alone has any authority.
The words ἐν Κυρίῳ,
in the Lord, at the end of this verse, admit of different constructions. They
may be connected with the word temple immediately preceding, and be taken
as equivalent to the genitive ‘Temple in the Lord,’ for ‘Temple of the Lord.’ But
as the word Lord must refer to Christ, and as the temple is the house of God, this
explanation produces confusion. They may be connected with the word holy;
‘holy in the Lord,’ i. e. holy in virtue of union with the Lord, which
gives a very good sense. Or they may be referred to the verb, ‘Grows by,’ or better,
‘in union
with the Lord.’ This has in its favour the parallel passage,
4, 16. The church compacted together in him, grows in him, in virtue
of that union, into a holy temple.
V. 22. What was said of the whole body of believers, is here affirmed
of the Ephesian Christians. "In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation
of God through the Spirit." Builded together,
συνοικοδομεῖσθε, may mean either, ‘you together
with other believers;’ or, ‘you severally are all united in this building.’ The
former appears more consistent with the context. Habitation of God,
κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, is only an equivalent
expression to the phrase "holy temple" of the preceding verse. There seems to be
no sufficient reason, for considering that the κατοικητήριον
of this verse refers to individual believers, and
ναος ἅγιος in the preceding, to the united body. So that the sense were,
‘God, by dwelling in each of you by his Spirit, makes you collectively his temple.’
This confuses the whole figure. The two verses are parallel. The whole building
grows to a holy temple. And you Ephesians are builded together with other believers
so as to form with them this habitation of God.
The words ἐν πνεύματι,
at the end of the verse, are variously explained. Some make them qualify adjectively
the preceding word.’ Habitation in the Spirit,’ for ‘Spiritual habitation.’ Others
express the sense paraphrastically, thus: ‘Habitation of God in virtue of the indwelling
of the Spirit.’ This is in accordance
with other passages in which the church is called the temple of God because he dwells
therein by the Spirit. The Spirit being a divine person, his presence is the presence
of God. Finally, the words may be connected with the verb, and the preposition have
an instrumental force. ‘Ye are builded by the Spirit into an habitation of God.’
This is perhaps the best explanation. The church increases in the Lord,
v. 21, and is builded by the Spirit,
v. 22. It is in union with the one, and by the agency of the other this
glorious work is carried on.
CHAPTER III.
THE NATURE AND DESIGN OF PAUL’S COMMISSION, VS.
1-13 —HIS PRAYER FOR THE EPHESIANS, VS. 14-21.
SECTION I.—Vs. 1-13.
1. For this
cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2. if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:
3. how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery,
as I wrote afore in few words;
4. whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in
the mystery of Christ,
5. which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of
men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6. that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same
body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7. whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of
the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this
grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches
of Christ;
9. and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all
things by Jesus Christ:
10. to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers
in heavenly places might be
known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11. according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in
Christ Jesus our Lord:
12. in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by
the faith of him.
13. Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations
for you, which is your glory.
ANALYSIS.
The office which Paul had received was that of an apostle to the
Gentiles,
vs. 1-2. For this office he was qualified
by direct revelation from Jesus Christ, concerning the purpose of redemption, of
his knowledge of which the preceding portions of his epistle, were sufficient evidence,
vs. 3, 4. The special truth, now more plainly revealed than ever before,
was the union of the Gentiles with the Jews as joint partakers of the promise of
redemption, by means of the gospel,
vs. 5, 6. As the gospel is the means
of bringing the Gentiles to this fellowship with the saints, Paul was, by the special
grace and almighty power of God, converted and made a minister of the gospel,
vs. 7, 8. The object of his ministry was to make known the unsearchable
riches of Christ, and enlighten men as to the purpose of redemption which had from
eternity been hid in the divine mind,
v. 9. And the object or design of redemption
itself is the manifestation of the wisdom of God to principalities and powers in
heaven, v. 10. This glorious purpose
has been executed in Christ, in whom we as redeemed have free access to God. Afflictions
endured in such a cause were no ground of depression, but rather of glory,
vs. 11-13.
COMMENTARY.
V. 1. For this cause, i. e. because you Gentiles
are fellow-citizens of the saints, and specially because you Ephesians are included
in the temple of God.
As there is no verb of which the words,
ἐγὼ Παῦλος, I Paul, are the nominative,
there is great diversity of opinion as to the proper construction of the passage.
The most common view is that the sentence here begun is recommenced and finished
in v. 14, where the words, "For this
cause" are repeated. The apostle intended saying at the beginning of the chapter
what he says in v. 14. "For this cause,
I Paul, bow my knees," i. e. ‘because you Ephesians have been brought
to God, I pray for your confirmation and growth in grace.’
Others supply simply the substantive verb (εἰμὶ).
‘For this cause I am the prisoner of Jesus Christ.’ But in this case to say the
least, the article (ὁ δέσμιος) before the
predicate is unnecessary. Others make the clause, the prisoner of Christ, to be
in apposition to I Paul, and supply the predicate I am a prisoner.
The sense would then be, ‘I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, am a prisoner, and
in bonds for you Gentiles.’ This is better than any of the various modes of explanation
which have been proposed, except the one first mentioned, which gives a far better
sense. It is far more elevated and more in keeping with Paul’s character, for him
to say, ‘Because you are now part of God’s spiritual temple, I pray for your confirmation
and growth;’ than, ‘Because you are introduced into
the communion of saints, I am a prisoner of Jesus Christ.’
The expression, ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, the prisoner of Christ, does not mean prisoner on account
of Christ. Those for whom he suffered bonds are immediately afterwards said
to be the Gentiles. It means Christ’s prisoner. As he was Christ’s servant, apostle,
and minister, so he was Christ’s prisoner. In all his relations he belonged to Christ.
He was a prisoner, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν,
for you Gentiles. It was preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles which brought
down upon him the hatred of his countrymen, and led them to accuse him before the
Roman magistrates, and to his being sent a prisoner to Rome.
V. 2. This verse is connected with the immediately preceding words.—‘My
apostolic mission is to the Gentiles; I am a prisoner for your sake, since ye have
heard of the office which God has given me for your benefit.’ The word
εἴγε rendered in our version by if,
does not necessarily express doubt. Paul knew that the Ephesians were aware that
he was an apostle to the Gentiles. The word is often used where the thing spoken
of is taken for granted.
Eph. 4, 21.
2 Cor. 5, 3. In such cases, it may properly be rendered, since, inasmuch
as. It is only a more refined or delicate form of assertion. It is unnecessary,
therefore, to assume either that this epistle was not addressed to the Ephesians
particularly; or that ἀκούει9ν is to be taken
in the sense of bene intelligere (if so be ye have well understood);
or that Paul, when preaching at Ephesus, had
preserved silence on his apostleship. He speaks of himself as a prisoner for their
sake, inasmuch as they had heard he was the apostle to the Gentiles. The expression,
dispensation of the grace given unto me, is the designation of his office.
It was an οἰκονομία, a stewardship.
A stewardship of the grace given, τῆς χάριτος τῆς
δοθείσης, means either a stewardship which is a grace, or favour, or which
flows from grace, i. e. was graciously conferred. Compare
verse 8, in which he says, "To me was this grace given." Not unfrequently
the office itself is called χάρις, a grace
or favour. Rom. 12, 3.
15, 15.
1 Cor. 3, 10.
Gal. 2, 9. Paul esteemed the office of a messenger of Christ as a manifestation
of the undeserved kindness of God towards him, and he always speaks of it with gratitude
and humility. It was not its honours, nor its authority, much less any emolument
connected with it, which gave it value in his eyes; but the privilege which it involved
of preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ.
Instead of understanding οἰκονομία
in the sense above given, of office, it may refer to the act of God, and
be rendered, dispensation. ‘If, or since, ye have heard how God dispensed
the grace given unto me,’ i. e. if ye understand the nature of the
gift I have received. In Col. 1, 25,
Paul speaks of the οἰκονομία as given; here
it is χάρις which is said to be given. In both
cases the general idea is the same, the form alone is different. His office and
the grace therewith connected, including all the gifts ordinary and extraordinary,
which went to make him an apostle, were both
an οἰκονομία and a
χάρις. The apostleship was not a mere office
like that of a prelate or prince, conferring certain rights and powers; it was an
inward grace, including plenary and infallible knowledge. You could no more appoint
a man an apostle, than you could appoint him a saint. Neither inspiration nor holiness
come by appointment. An apostle without inspiration is as much a solecism as a saint
without holiness. Rome, here as every where, retains the semblance without the reality;
the form without the power. She has apostles without inspiration, the office without
the grace of which the office was but the expression. Thus she feeds herself and
her children upon ashes.
To you-ward. Paul’s mission was to the Gentiles. It was
in special reference to them that he had received his commission and the gifts therewith
connected. When Christ appeared to him on his journey to Damascus, he said to him,
"I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and witness
both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will
appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom
now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and
from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and
inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Acts 26, 16-18. Here we have an authentic account of Paul’s mission.
He was appointed a witness of what had been and of
what should be made known to him by revelation, He was sent to the Gentiles, to
turn them from Satan to God in order that they might be saved.
V. 3. How that by revelation was made known unto me, &c.
This clause is connected with what precedes and explains it.—‘Ye have heard of
the grace which I have received, i. e. ye have heard how that by revelation
was made known to me.’ Κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν,
after the manner of a revelation, i. e.
δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως,
Gal. 1, 12. He was not indebted for
his knowledge of the Gospel to the instructions of others, as he proves in his epistle
to the Galatians by a long induction of facts in his history. This was one of the
indispensable qualifications for the apostleship. As the apostles were witnesses,
their knowledge must be direct and not founded on hearsay. The thing made known
was a "mystery;" i. e. a secret, something undiscoverable by human
reason, the knowledge of which could only be attained by revelation. This revelation
was a grace or favour conferred on the apostle himself.
The mystery of which he here speaks is that of which the preceding
chapters treat, viz. the union of the Gentiles with the Jews. Of that subject he
had just written briefly; ἐν ὀλίγῳ,
with little, i. e. few words.
V. 4. By reading what he had written, they could judge of his
knowledge of the mystery of Christ. πρὸς ὃ,
according to which. What he had written might be taken as the standard or
evidence of his knowledge. Mystery of Christ, may mean the mystery
or revelation concerning Christ; or of which he is the author (i. e.
of the secret purpose of redemption), or which is Christ. Christ himself is the
great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh. He is the revelation of the
μυστήριων or secret purpose of God, which had
been hid for ages. Thus the apostle in writing to the Colossians says: "God would
make known the riches of the glory of the mystery among the Gentiles; which (i.
e. the mystery) is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
Col. 1, 27.
What Paul had written respecting the calling of the Gentiles in
the preceding chapter, was an indication of his knowledge of the whole plan of salvation—here
designated as "the mystery of Christ," which includes far more than the truth that
the Gentiles were fellow-citizens of the saints. It has the same extensive meaning
in Col. 4, 3, where Paul prays that
God would open a door of utterance for him "to speak the mystery of Christ." This
verse is, therefore, virtually a parenthesis, in so far as the relative
ὅ at the beginning of the next verse refers
to the word μυστήριων in
v. 3; or if referred to that word as used in
v. 4, it is to it as including the more limited idea expressed in
v. 3.
V. 5. God by revelation had made known to Paul a mystery, or purpose,
which was not revealed as it now was to the apostles. That the Gentiles were
to partake of the blessings of the Messiah’s reign, and to be united as one body
with the Jews in his kingdom, is not only frequently predicted by the ancient prophets,
but Paul himself repeatedly and at length quotes
their declarations on this point to prove that what he taught was in accordance
with the Old Testament; see
Rom. 9, 25-33. The emphasis must,
therefore, be laid on the word as. This doctrine was not formerly revealed as,
i. e. not so fully or so clearly as under the Gospel.
The common text reads ἐν ἑτέραις
γενεαῖς, in other generations. But most editors, on the authority of the
older MSS., omit the preposition. Still the great majority of commentators interpret
the above phrase as determining the time, and render it, during other ages.
To this, however, it is objected that γενεά
never means, an age in the sense of period of time, but always a generation,
the men of any age, those living in any one period. If this objection is valid
γενεαῖς must be taken as the simple dative,
and υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων be regarded as explanatory.
The passage would then read, "Which was not made known to other generations,
i. e. to the sons of men," &c. But in
Acts 14, 16.
15, 21, and especially in
Col. 1, 26
(ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν),
γενεά is most naturally taken in the sense
of age, or period of duration. In the same sense it is used in the Septuagint,
Ps. 72, 5.
102, 25.
Is. 51, 8.
As it is now revealed to his holy apostles and to the prophets
by the Spirit, ὡς νῦν ἀποκαλύφθη . . . . ἐν
πνεύματι. The apostles and prophets of the new dispensation were the only
classes of inspired men; the former being the permanent, the latter the occasional
organs of the Spirit. They therefore were the only
recipients of direct revelations. They are here called holy in the sense of sacred,
consecrated. They were men set apart for the peculiar service of God. In the
same sense the prophets of the old economy are called holy.
Luke 1, 70. 2 Peter 1, 21.
The pronoun his in connection with apostles may refer to God as the author
of the revelation spoken of, or to Christ whose messengers the apostles were. ‘My
knowledge of the mystery of Christ, which, in former ages, was not made known, as
it is now revealed to his apostles,’ &c. By the Spirit, i. e.
revealed by the Spirit. Πνεύματι, though without
the article, refers to the Holy Spirit, the immediate author of these divine communications.
It follows from the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches the identity
as to substance of the Father, Son, and Spirit, that the act of the one is the act
of the others. Paul, therefore, refers the revelations which he received sometimes
to God, as in verse 3; sometimes to
Christ as in Gal. 1, 12; sometimes
to the Spirit.
V. 6. The mystery made known to the apostles and prophets of the
new dispensation, was εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα,
κτλ., i. e. that the Gentiles are, in point of right and fact,
fellow-heirs, of the same body, and partakers of this promise. The form in which
the calling of the Gentiles was predicted in the Old Testament led to the general
impression that they were to partake of the blessings of the Messiah’s reign by
becoming Jews, by being as proselytes merged into the old theocracy, which was to
remain in all its
peculiarities. It seems never to have entered into any human mind until the day
of Pentecost, that the theocracy itself was to be abolished, and a new form of religion
was to be introduced, designed and adapted equally for all mankind, under which
the distinction between Jew and Gentile was to be done away. It was this catholicity
of the Gospel which was the expanding and elevating revelation made to the apostles,
and which raised them from sectarians to Christians.
The Gentiles are fellow-heirs. They have the same right
to the inheritance as the Jews. The inheritance is all the benefits of the covenant
of grace; the knowledge of the truth, all church privileges, justification, adoption,
and sanctification; the indwelling of the Spirit, and life everlasting; an inheritance
so great that simply to comprehend it requires divine assistance, and elevates the
soul to the confines of heaven. Hence Paul prays (1,
17. 18), that God would give the Ephesians the Spirit of revelation that
they might know what is the riches of the glory of the inheritance to which they
had been called.
They are σύσσωμα;
i. e. they are constituent portions of the body of Christ; as nearly related
to him, and as much partakers of his life as their Jewish brethren. The hand is
not in the body by permission of the eye, nor the eye by permission of the hand.
Neither is the Gentile in the church by courtesy of the Jews, nor the Jew by courtesy
of the Gentiles. They are one body.
What in the preceding terms is presented figuratively
is expressed literally, when it is added, they are partakers of his (God’s)
promise. The promise is the promise of redemption; the promise made to our
first parents, repeated to Abraham, and which forms the burden of all the Old Testament
predictions.
Gal. 3, 14.
19. 22, 29.
The only essential and indispensable condition of participation
in the benefits of redemption is union with Christ. The Gentiles are fellow-heirs,
and of the same body and partakers of the promise, says the apostle, in Christ,
i. e. in virtue of their union with him. And this union is effected
or brought about, by the Gospel. It is not by birth nor by any outward rite,
nor by union with any external body, but by the Gospel, received and appropriated
by faith, that we are united to Christ, and thus made heirs of God. This verse teaches
therefore—1. The nature of the blessings of which the Gentiles are partakers, viz.
the inheritance promised to the people of God. 2. The condition on which that participation
is suspended, viz. union with Christ; and 3. The means by which that union is effected,
viz. the Gospel. Hence the apostle enlarges on the dignity and importance of preaching
the Gospel. This is the subject of the verses which follow.
V. 7. Of which (Gospel) I was made a minister; a
διάκονος, a runner, servant, minister.
Minister of the Gospel, means one whose business it is to preach the Gospel. This
is his service; the work for which he is engaged, and to which he is bound to devote
himself. There are two things which Paul here and in the verse
following says in reference to his introduction into the ministry; first, it was
a great favour; and secondly, it involved the exercise of divine power.
He was made a minister, κατὰ τὴν
δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ, according to the gift of the grace of God
given to him. According to the common text (δωρεὰν—δοθεῖσαν),
the gift was given. "The gift of the grace of God," may mean the gracious
gift, i. e. the gift due to the grace of God; or, the gift which is
the grace of God; so that the χάρις, grace,
as Paul often calls his apostleship, is the thing given. In either way the gift
referred to was his vocation to be an apostle. That he who was a persecutor and
blasphemer should be called to be an apostle, was in his view a wonderful display
of the grace of God.
The gift in question was given,
κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, by the effectual working
of his (God’s) power. Paul’s vocation as an apostle involved his conversion,
and his conversion was the effect of the power of God. This refers to the nature
of the work, and not to its mere circumstances. It was not the blinding light, nor
the fearful voice, which he refers to the power of God, but the inward change, by
which he, a malignant opposer of Christ, was instantly converted into an obedient
servant. The regeneration of the soul is classed among the mighty works of God,
due to the exceeding greatness of his power. See
ch. 1, 19.
V. 8. To me, adds the apostle, who am less than the least of
all saints, is this grace given, that I should
preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ.
By the word saints is to be understood not the apostles, but the
people of God, who are "called to be saints,"
1 Cor. 1, 7. Rom. 1, 7.
Less than the least, ἐλαχιστοτέρος, a
comparative formed from a superlative. It was not merely the sense of his sinfulness
in general, which weighed so heavily on the apostle’s conscience. It was the sin
of persecuting Christ, which he could never forgive himself. As soon as God revealed
his Son in him, and he apprehended the infinite excellence and love of Christ, the
sin of rejecting and blaspheming such a Saviour appeared so great that all other
sins seemed as comparatively nothing. Paul’s experience in this matter is the type
of the experience of other Christians. It is the sin of unbelief; the sin of rejecting
Christ, of which, agreeably to our Saviour’s own declaration, the Holy Spirit is
sent to convince the world. John 16, 9.
To one thus guilty it was a great favour to be allowed to preach
Christ. The expression τὸν ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, unsearchable riches of Christ; riches which cannot be traced;
past finding out, may mean either the riches or blessings which Christ bestows,
or the riches which he possesses. Both ideas may be included, though the latter
is doubtless the more prominent. The unsearchable riches of Christ, are the fulness
of the Godhead, the plenitude of all divine glories and perfections which dwell
in him; the fulness of grace to pardon, to sanctify and save; every
thing in short, which renders him the satisfying portion of the soul.
V. 9. It was Paul’s first duty to preach the unsearchable riches
of Christ among the Gentiles, for he was especially the "apostle of the Gentiles."
But his, duty was not confined to them. He was commissioned both to preach to the
Gentiles, and to make all see, &c. This is the common interpretation of the
passage. Others, however, insist that the all is here limited by the context
to the Gentiles. But the force of and, which marks the accession of a new
idea, is thus in a great measure lost. And the following verse favours the widest
latitude that can be given to the words in question.
The word φωτίζειν properly
means, to shine, as any luminous body does, and then to illuminate,
to impart light to, as a candle does to those on whom it shines, and as God does
to the minds of men, and as the Gospel does, which is as a light shining in a dark
place, and hence the apostle, 2 Cor. 4, 4,
speaks of the φωτισμὸς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
Utitur apta similitudine, says Calvin, quum dicit,
φωτίσαι πάντας, quasi plena luce effulgeat
Dei gratia in suo apostolatu. The Church is compared to a candlestick, and
ministers to stars. Their office is to dispense light. The light imparted by the
Gospel was knowledge, and hence to illuminate is, in fact, to teach; which is the
idea the word is intended here to express.
The thing taught was, ἡ οἰκονομία
τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου, the economy of the mystery which
from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God. The common text in
this clause reads κονομία, fellowship,
but all the corrected editions of the New Testament, on the authority of the ancient
MSS., read οἰκονομία, plan, or,
economy. The mystery or secret, is not the simple purpose to call the Gentiles
into the church, but the mystery of redemption. This mystery,
ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, from ages, from
the beginning of time, had been hid in God. Compare
Rom. 16, 25, "The mystery which was
kept secret since the world began." 1 Cor.
2, 7, "The wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God ordained
before the world." Col. 1, 26, "The
mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations." In all these places
the mystery spoken of is God’s purpose of redemption, formed in the counsels of
eternity, impenetrably hidden from the view of men until revealed in his own time.
It was this plan of redemption thus formed, thus long concealed, but now made known
through the Gospel, that Paul was sent to bear as a guiding and saving light to
all men.
Who created all things by Jesus Christ. The words
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, (by Jesus Christ,)
being wanting in the great majority of oldest MSS., are generally regarded as spurious.
The all things here referred to are by some restricted to every thing pertaining
to the Gospel dispensation. For this interpretation there is no necessity in the
context; and it is contrary to the common usage and force of the terms. There must
be some stringent necessity to justify making "creator
of all things," mean "author of the new dispensation." Others restrict the terms
to all men: ‘He who created all men now calls all.’Unus Deus omnes populos
condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se vocat. BEZA.
This however is arbitrary and uncalled for. The words are to be taken in their natural
sense, as referring to the universe. It was in the bosom of the Creator of all things
that this purpose of redemption so long lay hid. The reference to God as creator
in this connection, may be accounted for as merely an expression of reverence. We
often call God the Infinite, the Almighty, the Creator, &c., without intending any
special reference of the titles to the subject about which we may be speaking. So
Paul often calls God, blessed, without any special reason for the appellation.
Some however think that in the present case the apostle uses this expression in
confirmation of his declaration that the plan of redemption was from ages hid in
God—for he who created all things must be supposed to have included redemption
in his original purpose. Others suppose the association of the ideas is—he who
created, redeems—the same God who made the universe has formed the plan of redemption.
None but the creator can be a redeemer.
V. 10. To the intent that now might be made known,
ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν. If this clause depend
on the immediately preceding, then the apostle teaches that creation is in order
to redemption. God created all things in order that by the church might be made
known his
manifold wisdom. This is the supralapsarian view of the order of the divine purposes,
and as it is the only passage in Scripture which is adduced as directly asserting
that theory, its proper interpretation is of special interest. It is objected to
the construction just mentioned—1. That the passage would then teach a doctrine
foreign to the New Testament, viz. that God created the universe in order to display
his glory in the salvation and perdition of men; which supposes the decree to save
to precede the decree to create, and the decree to permit the fall of men. 2. Apart
from the doctrinal objections to this theory, this connection of the clauses is
unnatural, because the words ‘who created all things,’ is entirely subordinate and
unessential, and therefore not the proper point of connection for the main idea
in the whole context. That clause might be omitted without materially affecting
the sense of the passage. 3. The apostle is speaking of his conversion and call
to the apostleship. To him was the grace given to preach the unsearchable riches
of Christ, and teach all men the economy of redemption, in order that through
the church might be made known the manifold wisdom of God. It is only thus that
the connection of this verse with the main idea of the context is preserved. It
is not the design of creation, but the design of the revelation of the mystery of
redemption of which he is here speaking. 4. This interpretation is further sustained
by the force of the particle now as here used. Now stands opposed
to ‘hid from ages.’ God sent Paul to preach the Gospel, in order that what
had been so long hid might now be made known. It was the design of preaching the
Gospel, and not the design of creation of which the apostle had occasion to speak.
The natural connection of ἵνα, therefore,
is with the verbs εὐαγγελίσασθαι and
φωτίσαι, which express the main idea in the
context. "Paul," says Olshausen, "contrasts the greatness of his vocation with his
personal nothingness, and he therefore traces the design of his mission through
different steps. First, he says, he had to preach to the heathen; then, to enlighten
all men concerning the mystery of redemption, and both, in order to manifest even
to angels the infinite wisdom of God."
The Bible clearly teaches not only that the angels take a deep
interest in the work of redemption, but that their knowledge and blessedness are
increased by the exhibition of the glory of God in the salvation of men.
The expression, ἡ πολυποίκιλος
σοφία, "manifold wisdom," refers to the various aspects under which the
wisdom of God is displayed in redemption; in reconciling justice and mercy; in exalting
the unworthy while it effectually humbles them; in the person of the Redeemer, in
his work; in the operations of the Holy Spirit; in the varied dispensations of the
old and new economy, and in the whole conduct of the work of mercy and in its glorious
consummation. It is by the church redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified
by his Spirit, that to all orders of intelligent beings is to be made, through all
coming ages, the brightest
display of the divine perfections. It is ταῖς ἀρχαῖς
καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις that this exhibition of the
manifold wisdom of God is to be made διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας.
This gives us our highest conception of the dignity of the church. The works of
God manifest his glory by being what they are. It is because the universe is so
vast, the heavens so glorious, the earth so beautiful and teeming, that they reveal
the boundless affluence of their maker. If then it is through the church God designs
specially to manifest to the highest order of intelligence, his infinite power,
grace and wisdom, the church in her consummation must be the most glorious of his
works. Hence preaching the Gospel, the appointed means to this consummate end, was
regarded by Paul as so great a favour. To me, less than the least, was this grace
given.
V. 11. This exhibition of the manifold wisdom of God was contemplated
in the original conception of the plan of redemption; for the apostle adds, it was
according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων, purpose formed
in eternity—which existed through all past ages—not, purpose concerning the ages,
or different periods of the world. Compare 2 Tim.
1, 9, πρόθεσιν—πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων.
The words ἡν ἐποίησε may be rendered either,
as by our translators, which he purposed, or, which he executed. The
latter method is preferred by the majority of commentators, as better suited to
the context, and especially to the words in Christ Jesus our Lord, as the
title Christ Jesus always refers to the historical
Christ, the incarnate Son of God. The purpose cf God to make provision for the redemption
of men has been fulfilled in the incarnation and death of his Son.
V. 12. Hence, as the consequence of this accomplished work, we
have, in him, τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ προσαγωγὴν ἐν
πεποιθήσει, boldness and access with confidence, i. e.
free and unrestricted access to God, as children to a father. We come with the assurance
of being accepted, because our confidence does not rest on our own merit, but on
the infinite merit of an infinite Saviour. It is in Him we have this liberty.
We have this free access to God; we believers; not any particular
class, a priesthood among Christians to whom alone access is permitted, but all
believers without any priestly intervention, other than that of one great High Priest
who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God.
Παῤῥησία as used in Scripture, is not merely
freespokenness, nor yet simple frankness, but fearlessness,
freedom from apprehension of rejection or of evil. It is this Christ has procured
for us. Even the vilest may, in Christ, approach the infinitely holy, who is a consuming
fire, with fearlessness. Nothing short of an infinite Saviour could effect such
a redemption. The accumulation of substantives in this sentence, boldness, access,
confidence, shows that there was no word which could express what Paul felt
in view of the complete reconciliation of men to God through Jesus Christ.
We have this free access to God with full confidence of acceptance
through faith of Him, i. e. by
faith in Christ. This is explanatory of the first clause of the verse,
ἐν ᾧ—διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, in whom,
i. e. by faith of Him; faith of which he is the object. Comp.
2, 13. It is the discovery of the dignity of his person, confidence in
the efficacy of his blood, and assurance of his love, all of which are included,
more or less consciously, in faith, that enables us joyfully to draw near to God.
This is the great question which every sinner needs to have answered.—How may I
come to God with the assurance of acceptance? The answer given by the apostle and
confirmed by the experience of the saints of all ages is, ‘By faith in Jesus Christ.’
It is because men rely on some other means of access, either bringing some worthless
bribe in their hands, or trusting to some other mediator, priestly or saintly, that
so many fail who seek to enter God’s presence.
V. 13. Wherefore, i. e. because we have this
access to God, the sum of all good, we ought to be superior to all the afflictions
of this life, and maintain habitually a joyful spirit. Being the subjects of such
a redemption and having this liberty of access to God, believers ought not to be
discouraged by all the apparently adverse circumstances attending the propagation
of the Gospel. As neither the object of the verb αἰτοῦμαι,
nor the subject of the verb ἐκκακεῖν is expressed,
this verse admits of different explanations. It may mean, ‘I pray you that
you faint not;’ or, ‘I pray God that I faint not;’ or, ‘I pray
God that ye faint not.’ Whether the object of the verb be "God,"
or "you,"
it is hard to decide; as it would be alike appropriate and agreeable to usage to
say, ‘I pray God,’ or, ‘I pray you,’ i. e. I beseech you not to be
discouraged. The latter is on the whole to be preferred, as there is nothing in
the context to suggest God as the object of address, and as the verb
αἰτεῖν, though properly signifying simply to
ask, whether of God or man, is often used in a stronger sense, to require,
or demand, Luke 23, 23.
Acts 25, 3. 15. Paul might well require of the Ephesians, in view of
the glories of the redemption of which they had become partakers, not to be discouraged.
As to the second point, viz. the subject of the verb
ἐκκακεῖν, there is less room to doubt. It is
far more in keeping with the whole tone of the passage, that Paul should refer to
their fainting than to his own. There was far more danger of the former than of
the latter. And what follows ("which is your glory"), is a motive by which his exhortation
to them is enforced.
The relative ἥτις, in the
next clause, admits of a twofold reference. It may relate
θλίψεσι, afflictions; or to
μὴ ἐκκακεῖν, not fainting. In the
one case the sense would be: ‘The afflictions which I suffer for you instead of
being a ground of discouragement are a glory to you.’ In the other: ‘Not fainting
is an honour to you.’ The latter is flat, it amounts to nothing in such a context.
It is perfectly in keeping with the heroic character of the apostle, who himself
gloried ix his afflictions, and with the elevated tone of feeling pervading the
context, that he should represent the
afflictions which he endured for the Gentiles as an honour and not as a disgrace
and a cause of despondency.
SECTION II.—Vs. 14-21.
14. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ,
15. of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16. that he would grant you, according to the riches of his
glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17. that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith: that ye,
being rooted and grounded in love,
18. may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the
breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19. and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge,
that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above
all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21. unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout
all ages, world without end. Amen.
ANALYSIS.
The prayer of the apostle is addressed to the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who is also in him our Father. He offers but one petition, viz. that
his readers might be strengthened by the Holy Ghost in the inner man; or that Christ
might dwell in their hearts by faith. The consequence of this would be, that they
would be confirmed in love, and thus enabled in some measure to comprehend the infinite
love of Christ, which would enlarge their capacity unto the fulness of God; that
is, ultimately render them, in their measure, as full of holiness and blessedness,
as God is in his.
COMMENTARY.
V. 14. This verse resumes the connection interrupted in verse
1st. The prayer which the apostle there commenced, he here begins anew. For this
cause, τούτου χάριν, repeated from
v. 1, and therefore the connection is the same here as there, i.
e. because you Ephesians are made partakers of the redemption purchased by
Christ. I bow my knees. The posture of prayer, for prayer itself. Unto
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.The MSS. A. B. C. 17.
67, the Coptic-Ethiopic, and Vulgate versions, and many of the Fathers omit the
words τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. As however important external authorities
and the context are in their favour, the majority of recent editions and commentators
retain them. The peculiar Christian designation of
God, as expressing the covenant relation in which he stands to believers. It is
because he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our incarnate God and Saviour,
that he is our Father, and accessible to us in prayer. We can approach him acceptably
in no other character than as the God who sent the Lord Jesus to be our propitiation
and mediator. It is therefore by faith in him as reconciled, that we address him
as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
V. 15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.
The word πατρία is a collective term for the descendants of the same father, immediate
or remote. In Luke 2, 4, we read of the house and family
of David, and in Acts 3, 25, of all the families of the earth. The
most important question here is, whether πᾶσα πατριά is to be rendered
every family,
or, the whole family. In favour of the latter are the considerations that the omission
of the article, which usage doubtless demands, is not unfrequent where either the
substantive has acquired the character of a proper name, or where the context is
so clear as to prevent mistake. (See Winer’s Gram. p. 131.) And secondly, the sense
is better suited to the whole context. If Paul intended to refer to the various
orders of angels, and the various classes of men, as must be his meaning if πᾶσα πατριά is rendered
every family, then he contemplates God as the universal Father,
and all rational creatures as his children. But the whole drift of the passage shows
that it is not God in his relation as creator, but God in his relation as a spiritual
father—who is here contemplated. He is addressed as the "Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ," and therefore our Father. It is plain therefore that those who are here
contemplated as children, are those who are by Jesus Christ brought into this relation
to God. Consequently the word πατριά cannot include any but the subjects of redemption.
The whole family in heaven therefore cannot mean the angels, but the redeemed already
saved, and the family on earth, the company of believers still living.
As children
derive their name from their father and their relation to him is thereby determined,
so the apostle says, the whole family of God derive their
name from him and are known and recognized as his children.
V. 16. This verse contains the apostle’s prayer in behalf of the Ephesians. He prays
that God, according to the riches of his glory, would strengthen them with might
by his Spirit in the inner man.
The riches of his glory, πλοῦτος τῇς δόξης, means
the plenitude of divine perfection. It is not his power to the exclusion of his
mercy, nor his mercy to the exclusion of his power, but it is every thing in God
that renders him glorious, the proper object of adoration. The apostle prays that
God would deal with his people according to that plenitude of grace and power, which
constitutes his glory and makes him to his creatures the source of all good.
δυνάμει κραταιωθῆναι.
Δυνάμει may be rendered adverbially, "powerfully strengthened,"
or it may be rendered as to power, indicating the principle which was to be confirmed
or strengthened; or, "with power," as expressing the gift to be communicated. They
were to receive power communicated through the Holy Spirit. This is to be preferred,
because the subject of this invigorating influence is not any one principle, but
the whole " inner man."
There are two interpretations of the phrase
κραταιωθῆναι εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον, to be strengthened as to the inner man, the choice between
which must depend on the analogy of Scripture. According to one theory of human
nature, the higher powers of the soul, the reason, the mind, the spirit, the inner
man, retain their
integrity since the fall, but in themselves are too weak to gain
the victory over the animal or lower principles of our nature, designated as the
flesh, or outward man. There is a perpetual struggle, even before regeneration,
between the good and evil principles in man, between the reason, or πνεῦμα, and
the flesh, or σάρξ. The former being the weaker needs to be strengthened by the
divine Spirit. "The inner man," says Meyer, " is the νοῦς, the rational moral
Ego, the rational soul of man which harmonizes with the divine will, but needs to
be strengthened by the Spirit of God (δυνάμει κραταιωθη̂ναι διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος),
in order not to be overcome by the sinful lusts of the σάρξ, whose animating or
life principle is the ψυχή, the animal soul." This is the theory of semi-Pelagianism,
embodied and developed in the theology of the church of Rome. The opposite, or Augustinian
theory, adopted by the Lutheran and Reformed churches, is that of total depravity,
i. e. that the whole soul, the higher, as well as lower powers of our
nature, are the seat and subject of original sin, and that the natural man is thereby
disabled and made opposite to all spiritual good. Consequently the conflict of which
the Scriptures speak is not between the higher and lower powers of our nature,—but
between nature and what is not nature, between the old and new man. The new principle
is something supernatural communicated by the Spirit of God. The classical passages
of Scripture relating to this subject, are Rom. 7, 14-25. 1 Cor. 2, 14. 15. Gal.
5, 17-26. In none of these passages does πνεῦμα designate the reason as
opposed to the sensual principle, but the Spirit of God
as dwelling in the renewed soul and giving it its own character, and therefore also
its own name. It is the soul as the subject of divine influence, or as the dwelling
place of the Holy Ghost, that is called Spirit. By the "inner man," therefore,
in this passage is not to be understood the soul as opposed to the body, or the
rational, as distinguished from the sensual principle; but the interior principle
of spiritual life, the product of the almighty power of the Spirit of God—as is
clearly taught in ch. 1, 19 of this epistle. Even in 2 Cor. 4, 16, where the apostle
says: "Though our outward man perish, our inward man is renewed day by day," the
meaning is the same. That language could not be used of an unrenewed man. It does
not mean simply that though the body was wasted, the mind was constantly refreshed.
The inner man that was renewed day by day was the renewed or spiritual man; the
soul as the organ and temple of the Spirit of God.
V. 17. That Christ may dwell
in yours hearts by faith, κατοικῆσαι τὸν
Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν
ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν.
Christ dwells in his people—he dwells in their hearts; he dwells in them
through faith. These are the truths contained in this passage.
As to the first,
viz. the indwelling of Christ, it does not differ from what is expressed in the
preceding verse, further than as indicating the source or nature of that spiritual
strength of which that verse speaks. When Paul prayed that his readers might be
strengthened in the inner man, he prayed that Christ might dwell in.
them. The omnipresent and infinite God is said to dwell wherever
he specially and permanently manifests his presence. Thus he is said to dwell in
heaven, Ps. 123, 1; to dwell among the children of Israel, Numb. 35, 34; in Zion,
Ps. 9, 11; with him that is of an humble and contrite spirit, Is. 57, 11; and in
his people, 2 Cor. 6, 16. Sometimes it is God who is said to dwell in the hearts
of his people, sometimes the Spirit of God, sometimes, as in Rom. 8, 9, it is the
Spirit of Christ; and sometimes, as Rom. 8, 10, and in the passage before us, it
is Christ himself. These varying modes of expression find their solution in the
doctrine of the Trinity. In virtue of the unity of the divine substance, he that
had seen the Son, hath seen the Father also; he that hath the Son hath the Father;
where the Spirit of God is, there God is; and where the Spirit of Christ is, there
Christ is. The passage in Rom. 8, 9. 10 is specially instructive. The apostle there
says, "The Spirit of God dwelleth in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of his; and if Christ be in you, &c." From this it is plain that
Christ’s being in us, means that we have his Spirit; and to have his Spirit means
that the Spirit of God dwells in us. When, therefore, the apostle speaks of Christ
dwelling in our hearts, he refers to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, for Christ
dwells in his people by his Spirit. They thus become partakers of his life, so that
it is Christ that liveth in them, Gal. 2, 20. This is the true and abiding source
of spiritual strength and of all other manifestations of the divine life.
Christ is said to dwell in ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, the hearts
of his people. The two common figurative senses of the word heart in Scripture,
are, the feelings as distinguished from the understanding, and the whole soul, including
the intellect and affections. It is in this latter sense the Scriptures speak of
an understanding heart, 1 Kings 3, 9. 12. Prov. 8, 5; and of the thoughts, devices
and counsels of the heart. Judges 5, 15. Prov. 19, 21; 20, 5. According to the Bible
religion is not a form of feeling to the exclusion of the intellect, nor a form
of knowledge to the exclusion of the feelings. Christ dwells in the heart, in the
comprehensive sense of the word. He is the source of spiritual life to the whole
soul; of spiritual knowledge as well as of spiritual affections.
By faith, διὰ τῆς πίστεως,
by means of faith. There are two essential conditions of this indwelling
of Christ; a rational nature, and, so far as adults are concerned, faith. The former
is necessarily presupposed in all communion with God. But it is not with every rational
nature that God enters into fellowship. The indwelling of Christ includes more than
the communion of spirit with spirit. It implies congeniality. This faith produces
or involves; because it includes spiritual apprehension—the perception of the truth
and excellence of "the things of the Spirit;" and because it works by love; it
manifests itself in the exercise of complacency, desire and delight. The most beautiful
object might be in the apartment of a blind man, and he not be sensible of its presence;
or if by any means
made aware of its nearness, he could have no delight in its beauty.
Christ dwells in us by faith, because it is by faith we perceive his presence, his
excellence, and his glory, and because it is by faith we appropriate and reciprocate
the manifestations of his love. Faith is to this spiritual communion, what esteem
and affection are to the fellowships of domestic life.
V. 18. The construction of
the clause, ἐν ἀγάπῃ
ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ
τεθεμελιωμένοι ἵνα, κτλ., is a matter
of doubt. By many of the older and later commentators, it is connected with the
preceding clause. The sense would then be: ‘That thus Christ may dwell in the hearts
of you, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἐῤῥιζωμένοι, rooted and grounded in love.’ This
supposes the grammatical construction to be irregular, as
ἐῤῥιζ does not agree
with ὑμῶν. The only reason urged for this interpretation is, that as Paul contemplates
his readers as regenerated, he could not pray that Christ should dwell in their
hearts, for such indwelling is inseparable from the new-birth which they already
enjoyed. To pray for the indwelling of Christ would be to pray for their regeneration.
The inward sense, therefore, despite the grammatical form of the words, requires
such a construction as shall harmonize with that idea. Paul prays, not that Christ
may dwell in their hearts, but that he may dwell in their hearts as confirmed in
love. It is not, therefore, for the indwelling of Christ, but for their confirmation
in love, for which he prays. There does not seem to be much force in this reasoning.
The indwelling of Christ, is a thing of degrees. God manifests
himself more fully and uniformly in the hearts of his
people at one time than at another. Any Christian may pray for the presence of God,
and what is his indwelling but the manifestation of his presence? The majority of
commentators, therefore, assuming merely a trajection of the particle ἵνα (comp.
Acts 19, 4. Gal. 2, 10. 2 Thess. 2, 7), connect the clause in question with what
follows; in order that, being rooted and grounded in love, ye may understand, &c.
The effect of the inward strengthening by the Spirit, or of the indwelling of Christ,
is this confirmation of love; and the effect of the confirmation of love, is ability
to comprehend (in our measure) the love of Christ.
The love in which we are to be
rooted is not the love of God or of Christ toward us, but either brotherly love
or love as a Christian grace without determining its object. It is that love which
flows from faith, and of which both God and the brethren are the objects. It is
for the increase and ascendency of this grace through the indwelling of Christ,
till it sustains and strengthens the whole inner man, so that the believer may stand
as a well-rooted tree or as a well-founded building, that the apostle here prays.
ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσθαι,
may be fully able (as the ἐκ is intensive)
to comprehend.
Without being strengthened by the Spirit in the inner man, without the indwelling
of Christ, without being rooted and grounded in love, it is impossible to have any
adequate apprehension of the gospel or of the love of Christ therein revealed. The
apostle therefore prays that his
readers may be thus strengthened, in order that, with all saints,
they may be able to comprehend the truth of which he speaks. The knowledge in question
is peculiar to the holy, i. e. the saints. It is a spiritual knowledge,
both because of its origin and of its nature. It is derived from the Spirit, and
it consists in those views which none but the spiritual can experience. The object
of this knowledge is infinite. "It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper
than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and
broader than the sea?" Job 11, 8. 9. This language is used to express the infinitude
of God. The apostle employs a similar mode of representation to indicate the boundless
nature of the object of the believer’s knowledge. To know what is infinite, and
which therefore passes knowledge, can only mean to have some due appreciation of
its nature, and of the fact that it is infinite. It is only thus that we can know
space, immensity, eternity or God. Paul therefore would have us understand that
the subject of which he speaks has a length and breadth, a depth and height, which
pass all understanding. But what is this immeasurable theme? The answers given to
this question are too numerous to be detailed. The main point is, whether the additional
particular indicated by τέ, in the phrase γνῶναι τε, is to be sought in the difference
between καταλαβέσθαι and γνῶναι (between comprehending and knowing), or in the
difference of the objects. In the former case, the sense of the passage would be:
'That
ye may comprehend and know the
length and breadth, the depth and height of the love of
Christ which passes knowledge.’ Just as we would say, ‘That ye may know and feel.’
In knowing, according to Scriptural usage, the idea of experimental knowledge, or
knowledge united with appropriate feeling, may well be included. This is the simpler
explanation and gives a very good sense. According to the other view, the meaning
is: ‘That ye may comprehend the length and breadth, the depth and height of—and
also know the love of Christ;’ something different from the love of Christ, being
the object intended in the first clause. The great body of commentators, who adopt
this view, suppose the reference is to the economy of redemption spoken of in v.
9. Paul prays that his hearers may comprehend the immensity of that plan of mercy,
and know the love of Christ. Others refer to the manifold wisdom displayed in the
salvation of men. Others to the unsearchable riches of Christ. All these subjects
are indeed spoken of in the preceding context; but not in the prayer. At v. 14,
there is such a change of the subject and in the progress of the discourse, as to
make it harsh to go back of that verse to seek for an object. It is more natural
to look for it in the following clause, where one is found which makes further search
unnecessary. It is the love of Christ, i. e. his love to us which passes
knowledge. It is infinite; not only because it inheres in an infinite subject, but
because the condescension and sufferings to which it led, and the blessings which
it secures for its objects, are beyond our comprehension. This love of Christ, though
it surpasses the power of our understanding to comprehend, is still
a subject of experimental knowledge. We may know how excellent, how wonderful, how
free, how disinterested, how long-suffering, how manifold and constant, it is, and
that it is infinite. And this is the highest and most sanctifying of all knowledge.
Those who thus know the love of Christ towards them, purify themselves even as he
is pure.
That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. The words,
εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, are not properly translated,
with all the fulness of
God; but unto the complete fulness of God. That is the standard which is to be reached.
Πλήρωμα may have its ordinary signification, ‘that by which any thing is filled,’—or
its secondary meaning, abundance, as we would say, ‘the fulness of a
stream.' If the latter sense of the word be retained,
Θεοῦ is the genitive of the object,—and ‘the
fulness of God’ is that fulness, or plenitude which flows from him, and which he
communicates. If the former and ordinary sense be adhered to, then
Θεοῦ is the genitive
of the subject, and the ‘fulness of God’ is that fulness of which God is full. It
is the plenitude of the divine perfection, as in Col. 2, 9, where the fulness of
the Godhead is said to dwell in Christ bodily. The majority of commentators take
the phrase here in the same general sense. The fulness of God is that excellence,
says Chrysostom, of which God himself is full. The expression is then parallel to
that in Matt. 5, 48, "Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
And the truth presented
is the same substantially as that in Eph. 4, 13,
"Until we all come—unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness
of Christ;" and 1 Cor. 13, 12, "Then shall I know even as also I am known." Absolute
perfection is the standard to which the believer is to attain. He is predestinated
to be conformed to the image of the Son of God, Rom. 8, 29. He is to be perfect
as man, as God is perfect as God; and the perfection of man consists in his being
full of God; God dwelling in him so as absolutely to control all his cognitions,
feelings, and outward actions. This is expressed in Theodoret’s interpretation of
the phrase in question: ἵνα τελείως αὐτὸν
ἔνοικον δέξησθε.
If, however, the other view
be adopted the result is nearly the same. "The fulness of God," is then the abundance
of gifts and grace which flows from God; and the meaning of the whole clause is: ‘That ye may be filled until the whole plenitude of the divine beneficence has passed
over to you.’ The end contemplated is the reception of the
donorum plenitudo, or
the donorum Dei perfectio. "He who has Christ," says Calvin, "’ has every thing
that is required to our perfection in God, for this is what is meant by the fulness
of God."
In favour, however, of the former view is the ordinary meaning of the word πλήρωμα, the meaning of the phrase fulness of God, in other passages, the analogy
of Scripture as exhibited in the parallel passages above quoted, and the simplicity
of the interpretation,
no paraphrase being necessary to bring out the sense. We are to grow
to the stature of Christ; to be perfect as our Father is perfect; to be filled unto
the measure of the fulness of God. When we are thus filled the distance between
us and God will still be infinite. This is the culminating point of the apostle’s
prayer. He prays that they may be strengthened in order to comprehend the infinite
love of Christ; and that they might comprehend the love of Christ, in order that
they might be filled unto the measure of God’s fulness.
Vs. 20, 21. Paul’s prayer had apparently reached a height beyond
which neither faith, nor hope, nor even imagination could go, and yet he is not
satisfied. An immensity still lay beyond. God was able to do not only what he had
asked, but infinitely more than he knew how either to ask or think. Having exhausted
all the forms of prayer, he casts himself on the infinitude of God, in full confidence
that he can and will do all that omnipotence itself can effect. His power, not our
prayers nor our highest conceptions, is the measure of the apostle’s anticipations
and desires. This idea he weaves into a doxology, which has in it more of heaven
than of earth.
There are two forms of expression here united; Paul says,
τῷ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι δύναμένῳ, to him
who is able to do more than, all things; and as though this were not enough,
he adds, ὑπερ εκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν,
exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think. God is not only unlimited
in himself,
but is unrestricted by our prayers or knowledge. No definite bounds, therefore,
can be set to what they may expect in whom, Christ dwells, and who are the objects
of his infinite love.
Κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην
ἐν ἡμῖν, according to the power that worketh in us. The infinite
power of God from which so much may be expected, is the same of which we are now
the subjects. It is that power which wrought in Christ when it raised him from the
dead, and set him at the right hand of God, ch.
1, 19-20; and which has wrought an analogous change in the believer in
raising him from the death of sin, and making him to sit in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus; and which still sustains and carries on the work of salvation in the soul.
The past is a foretaste and pledge of the future. Those who have been raised from
the dead, who have been transformed by the renewing of their minds, translated from
the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, and in whom God himself
dwells by his Spirit, having already experienced a change which nothing but omnipotence
could effect, may well join in the doxology to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly
above all we can ask or think.
The glory; ἡ δόξα
is either the glory that is due, or the glory which God has. To give glory to God,
is either to praise him, or to reveal his glory, i. e. cause it to be seen and acknowledged.
Thus the doxology, To Him be glory—may mean either, ‘Let Him be praised;’ or, ‘Let
His glory be acknowledged.’
In the church by Christ Jesus.The Text here varies
considerably. The Uncial MSS., A and C, several of the later ones, the Coptic and
Vulgate, Jerome and Pelagius read, ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; D, F, G invert the order and read,
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. The
majority of editors retain the common Text. The original is,
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, which
Luther renders, in the church which is in Christ, i. e. the
Christian church. This interpretation is adopted by several modern commentators.
But in that case the article τῇ before
ἐν Χριστῷ. ought not to be omitted. Besides,
as the Christian church is the only church which could be thought of, the addition
of the words in Christ would be unnecessary. The ordinary interpretation,
therefore, is to be preferred. Glory is to be rendered to God in the church, and
in and through Christ Jesus, as her head and representative. The church is
the company of the redeemed here and in heaven; which constitutes one body through
which God is to manifest his manifold wisdom, and which is through all ages to ascribe
unto him glory, honour, and dominion.
The idea of eternity or of endless duration is variously expressed
in Scripture. Sometimes eternity is conceived of as one, and the singular
αἴων is used; sometimes as an endless succession
of periods or ages, and then the plural αἰῶνες
is used. Thus εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, to eternity,
and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, or
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, to the ages
indefinitely, i. e. endless ages, alike mean, for ever. So
βασιλεὺς τοῦ αἰῶνος, king of eternity,
and βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, king of endless
ages,
both mean the king eternal. The peculiarity of the case before us is, that
the apostle combines these two forms: εἰς πάσας
τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, to all the generations of an eternity
of ages. This is in keeping with the cumulative character of the whole context.
Finding no ordinary forms of expression suited to his demands, the apostle heaps
together terms of the largest import to give some vent to thoughts and aspirations
which he felt to be unutterable. These things belong to the
στεναγμοὶ ἀλαλήτοι of which he speaks in
Rom. 8, 26.
CHAPTER IV.
AN EXHORTATION TO UNITY, VS. 1-16.—AN EXHORTATION TO HOLINESS AND TO SPECIFIC
VIRTUES, VS. 17-32.
SECTION I.—Vs. 1-16.
1. I therefore,
the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith
ye are called,
2. with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing
one another in love;
3. endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond
of peace.
4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are
called in one hope of your calling;
5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. one God and Father of all, who is above 7. all,
and through all, and in you all.
7. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the
measure of the gift of Christ.
8. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led
captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended
first into the lower parts of the earth?
10. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far
above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12. for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ;
13. till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14. that we henceforth be no more children, tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of
men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive:
15. but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in
all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16. from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted
by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body untc the edifying of itself
in love.
ANALYSIS.
The apostle exhorts his readers to walk worthy of their vocation.
Such a walk should be characterized by humility, meekness, long-suffering, and zeal
to promote spiritual unity and peace, vs. 1-3.
The church is one because it is one body, has one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, and one God and Father who is over, through, and in all its
members, vs. 4-6. This unity, however,
is consistent with great diversity of gifts, which Christ distributes according
to his own will, v. 7. This is confirmed
by a passage from the Psalms which speaks of the Messiah as giving gifts to men;
which passage it is shown must refer to Christ, since it speaks of a divine person
ascending to heaven, which necessarily implies a preceding descent to the earth,
vs. 9-10. The gifts which Christ bestows on his church are the various
classes of ministers, apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors who are teachers.
v. 11. The design of the ministry is the
edification of the church, and to bring all its members to unity of faith and knowledge,
and to the full stature of Christ; that they should no longer have the instability
of children, but be a firm, compact, and growing body in living union with Christ
its head, vs. 12-16.
COMMENTARY.
V. 1. Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ
δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ. The exhortation is a general one; it flows from the
preceding doctrines, and is enforced by the authority, and the sufferings of him
who gave it. As you are partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, "I therefore
beseech you." I the prisoner, not of, but in the Lord,
ἐν Κυρίῳ. He was a prisoner because he was
in the Lord and for his sake. It was as a Christian and in the cause of Christ he
suffered bonds. Compare the frequently occurring expressions,
συνεργὸς ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀγαπητὸς ἐν Κυρίῳ, δόκιμος ἐν
Χριστῷ, ἐκλεκτὸς ἐν Κυρίῳ. He speaks as a prisoner not to excite sympathy,
not merely to add weight to his exhortation, but rather as exulting that he was
counted worthy to suffer for Christ’s sake. This is in accordance with the beautiful
remark of Theodoret: τοῖς διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν δεσμοῖς
ἐναβρύνεται μᾶλλον ἤ βασιλεὺς διαδήματι, he glories in his chains more
than a king in his diadem. ‘I, the martyr Paul, the crowned apostle, exhort
you,’ &c. All is thus in keeping with the elevated tone of feeling which marks the
preceding passage.
The exhortation is, ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι
τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε, to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they
were called. That vocation was to sonship; ch. 1,
5. This includes three things—holiness, exaltation, and unity. They
were called to be conformed to the image of Christ, to share in his exaltation and
glory, and to constitute one family as all are the children of God. A conversation
becoming such a vocation, therefore, should be characterized by holiness, humility,
and mutual forbearance and brotherly love. The apostle, therefore, immediately adds,
with all lowliness and meekness. Undeserved honour always produces these
effects upon the ingenuous. To be raised from the depths of degradation and misery
and made the sons of God, and thus exalted to an inconceivable elevation and dignity,
does and must produce humility and meekness. Where these effects are not found,
we may conclude the exaltation has not taken place. Lowliness of mind,
ταπεινοφροσύνης, includes a low estimate of
one’s self, founded on the consciousness of guilt and weakness, and a consequent
disposition to be low, unnoticed, and unpraised. It stands opposed not only to self-complacency
and self-conceit, but also to self-exaltation, and setting one’s self up to attract
the honour which comes from men. This is taught in
Rom. 12, 16, where τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες,
seeking high things, is opposed to the lowliness of mind here inculcated.
There is a natural connection between humility and meekness, and therefore they
are here jcined together as in so many other places.
Πραότης is softness, mildness,
gentleness, which when united with strength, is one of the loveliest attributes
of our nature. The blessed Saviour says of himself, "I am meek (πρᾶος)
and lowly in heart," Matt. 11, 29; and
the apostle speaks of "the gentleness of Christ,"
2 Cor. 10, 1. Meekness is that unresisting, uncomplaining disposition
of mind, which enables us to bear without irritation or resentment the faults and
injuries of others. It is the disposition of which the lamb, dumb before the shearers,
is the symbol, and which was one of the most wonderful of all the virtues of the
Son of God. The most exalted of all beings was the gentlest.
The third associated virtue which becomes the vocation wherewith
we are called, is long-suffering; μακροθυμία,
a disposition which leads to the suppression of anger,
2 Cor. 6, 6.
Gal. 3, 22.
Col. 3, 12; to deferring the infliction of punishment, and is therefore
often attributed to God, Rom. 2, 4; 9, 22.
1 Pet. 3, 10; and to patient forbearance towards our fellow men,
2 Tim. 4, 2. 1 Tim. 1, 16. It
is explained by what follows, forbearing one another in love. Or, rather,
the three virtues, humility, meekness, and long-suffering, are all illustrated and
manifested in this mutual forbearance. Ἀνέχω,
is to restrain, ἀνέχομαι to restrain
oneself, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ,
therefore, means restraining yourselves in reference to each other in love.
Let love induce you to be forbearing towards each other.
The construction of the passage adopted by our translators is
preferable to either connecting μετὰ μακροθ.
with ἀνεχ. "with long-suffering forbearing,"
or
detaching ἐν ἀγάπῃ from this clause and
connecting it with the following one, so as to read
ἐν ἀγάπῃ σπουδάζοντες. The participle
σπουδάζοντες is of course connected with what
precedes. They were to walk worthy of their vocation, forbearing one another, endeavouring
to keep the unity of the Spirit. Of the phrase unity of the spirit, there
are three interpretations. 1. Ecclesiastical unity, so Grotius:
unitatem ecclesiae, quod est corpus spirituale. Instead of that discordance
manifested in the church of Corinth, for example, not only in their division into
parties, but in the conflict of "spirits," or contentions among those endowed with
spiritual gifts, the apostle would have the Ephesians manifest in the church that
they were animated by one spirit. But this is foreign not only to the simple meaning
of the terms, but also to the context. 2. The word spirit is assumed to refer to
the human spirit, and the unity of the spirit to mean, concordia
animorum, or harmony. 3. The only interpretation in accordance with the
ordinary usage of the words and with the context, is that which makes the phrase
in question mean that unity of which the Spirit is the author. Every where the indwelling
of the Holy Ghost is said to be the principle of unity in the body of Christ. This
unity may be promoted or disturbed. The exhortation is that the greatest zeal should
be exercised in its preservation; and the means by which it is to be preserved is
the bond of peace. That is, that bond which, is peace. The peace which results
from love, humility, meekness, and mutual forbearance, is essential to the
union and communion of the members of Christ’s body, which is the fruit and evidence
of the Spirit’s presence. As hatred, pride and contention among Christians cause
the Spirit to withdraw from them, so love and peace secure his presence. And as
his presence is the condition and source of all good, and his absence the source
of all evil, the importance of the duty enjoined cannot be over-estimated. Our Lord
said: "Blessed are the peace-makers." Blessed are those who endeavour to preserve
among the discordant elements of the church, including as it does men of different
nations, manners, names and denominations, that peace which is the condition of
the Spirit’s presence. The apostle labours in this, as in his other epistles, to
bring the Jewish and Gentile Christians to this spirit of mutual forbearance, and
to convince them that we are all one in Christ Jesus.O si
animis nostris insideret haec cogitatio, hanc legem nobis esse propositam, ut non
magis dissidere inter se possint filii Dei, quam regnum coelorum dividi, quanto
in colenda fraterna benevolentia essemus cautiores? quanto nobis horrori essent
omnes simultates, si reputaremus, ut decet, eos omnes se alienare a regno Dei, qui
a fratribus se disjungunt? sed nescio qui fit, ut secure nos esse filios Dei gloriemur,
mutuae inter nos fraternitatis obliti. Discamus itaque ex Paulo, ejusdem hereditatis
minime esse capaces, nisi qui unum corpus sunt et unus spiritus.—CALVIN.
As in Col. 3, 14, love
is said to be "the bond of perfectness," many commentators understand "the bond
of peace" in this passage to be love. So Bengel: Vinculum quo
pax retinetur est ipse amor. But as the passages are not really parallel,
and as in Colossians
love is mentioned and here it is not; and as the sense is simple and good without
any deviation from the plain meaning of the words, the great majority of interpreters
adopt the view given above.
V. 4. Having urged the duty of preserving unity, the apostle proceeds
to state both its nature and grounds. It is a unity which arises from the fact—there
is and can be but one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
and one God.
One body, ἓν σῶμα.
This is not an exhortation, but a declaration. The meaning is not, Let us be united
in one body, or in soul and body; but, as the context requires, it is a simple declaration.
There is one body, viz. one mystical body of Christ. All believers are in Christ;
they are all his members; they constitute not many, much less conflicting bodies,
but one. "We, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
Rom. 12, 5. 1 Cor. 10, 17; 12,
27. In ch. 1, 23, the church
is said "to be his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." As all true
believers are members of this body, and as all are not included in any one external
organization, it is obvious that the one body of which the apostle speaks, is not
one outward visible society, but a spiritual body of which Christ is the head and
all the renewed are members. The relation, therefore, in which believers stand to
each other, is that which subsists between the several members of the human body.
A want of sympathy is evidence of want of membership.
One spirit, ἓν πνεῦμα.
This again does not mean
one heart. It is not an exhortation to unanimity of feeling, or a declaration
that such unanimity exists, Quasi diceret, nos penitus corpore
et anima, non ex parte duntaxat, debere esse unitos. The context and
the analogy of Scripture, as a comparison of parallel passages would evince, prove
that by spirit is meant the Holy Spirit. As there is one body, so there is
one Spirit, which is the life of that body and dwells in all its members. "By one
Spirit," says the apostle, "are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one
Spirit."
1 Cor. 12, 13. Of all believers, he says, " The Spirit of God dwelleth
in you." 1 Cor. 3, 16; 6, 19.
Rom. 8, 9. 11. There is no doctrine of Scripture more plainly revealed
than that the Spirit of God dwells in all believers, and that his presence is the
ultimate ground of their unity as the body of Christ. As the human body is one because
pervaded by one soul; so the body of Christ is one because it is pervaded by one
and the same Spirit, who dwelling in all is a common principle of life. All sins
against unity, are, therefore, sins against the Holy Ghost. They dissever that which
he binds together. Our relation to Christ as members of his body; and our relation
to the Holy Spirit who is our life, demands of us that we love our brethren and
live at peace with them.
Even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.
καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως
ὑμῶν. Inasmuch as. That is, believers are one body and have
one spirit, because they have one hope. The fact that they all have the same high
destiny, and are filled with the same expectations, proves that they are one. The
unity of their hope is another evidence and element of the communion of saints.
The Holy Ghost dwelling in them gives rise to the same aspirations, to the same
anticipations of the same glorious inheritance, to a participation of which they
had been called. The word hope is sometimes used for the things hoped for, as when
the apostle speaks of the hope laid up in heaven. Col.
1, 5. See also
Titus 2, 13.
Heb. 6, 18. Most frequently of course it has its subjective sense, viz.
the expectation of future good. There is no reason for departing from that sense
here, though the other is intimately allied with it, and is necessarily implied.
It is because the object is the same, that the expectation is the same. Hope
of your calling, is the hope which flows from your vocation. The inward, effectual
call of the Holy Spirit gives rise to this hope for two reasons. First, because
their call is to the inheritance of the saints in light. They naturally hope to
obtain what they are invited to receive. They are invited to reconciliation and
fellowship with God, and therefore they hope for his salvation; and in the second
place, the nature of this call makes it productive of hope. It is at once an earnest
and a foretaste of their future inheritance. See ch.
1, 14, and 1 Cor. 1, 22. It
assures the believer of his interest in the blessings of redemption,
Rom. 8, 16; and as a drop of water makes the thirsty traveller long for
the flowing stream, so the first fruits
of the Spirit, his first sanctifying operations on the heart, cause it to thirst
after God. Ps. 42, 1. 2. Hope includes
both expectation and desire, and therefore the inward work of the Spirit being of
the nature both of an earnest and a foretaste, it necessarily produces hope.
Another ground of the unity of the church is, that all its members
have ONE LORD. Lordship includes the ideas of possession
and authority. A lord, in proper sense, is both owner and sovereign. When used in
reference to God or Christ, the word expresses these ideas in the highest degree.
Christ is THE LORD, i. e. omnium
rerum summus dominus et possessor. He is our Lord, i. e. our rightful owner
and absolute sovereign. This proprietorship and sovereignty pertain to the soul
and to the body. We are not our own, and should glorify him in our body and spirit
which are his. Our reason is subject to his teaching, our conscience to his commands,
our hearts and lives to his control. We are his slaves. And herein consists our
liberty. It is the felix necessitas boni of which
Augustin speaks. It is analogous to absolute subjection to truth and holiness, only
it is to a person who is infinite in knowledge and in excellence. This lordship
over us belongs to Christ not merely as God, or as the Logos, but as the Theanthropos.
It is founded not simply on his divinity, but also and specially on the work of
redemption. We are his because he has bought us with his own most precious blood.
1 Cor. 6, 20. 1 Pet. 1, 1. For
this end he both died and rose again, that he might
be Lord both of dead and of living. Rom. 14, 9.
Such being the nature and the grounds of the sovereignty of Christ, it necessarily
binds together his people. The slaves of one master and the subjects of the same
sovereign are intimately united among themselves, although the ownership and authority
are merely external. But when, as in our relation to Christ, the proprietorship
and sovereignty are absolute, extending to the soul as well as to the body, the
union is unspeakably more intimate. Loyalty to a common Lord and master animates
with one spirit all the followers of Christ.
One faith. This is the fifth bond of union enumerated by
the apostle. Many commentators deny that the word
πίστις is ever used for the object of faith, or the things believed; they
therefore deny that one faith here means one creed. But as this interpretation
is in accordance with the general usage of language, and as there are so many cases
in which the objective sense of the word is best suited to the context, there seems
to be no sufficient reason for refusing to admit it. In
Gal. 1, 23, Paul says, "He preached the faith;" in
Acts 6, 7, men, it is said, "were obedient to the faith." The apostle
Jude speaks of "the faith once delivered to the saints." In these and in many other
instances the objective sense is the natural one. In many cases both senses of the
word may be united. It may be said of speculative believers that they have one faith,
so far as they profess the same creed, however they may differ in their real convictions.
All the members
of the Church of England have one faith, because they all profess to adopt the Thirty-Nine
Articles, although the greatest diversity of doctrine prevails among them. But true
believers have one faith, not only because they profess the same creed, but also
because they really and inwardly embrace it. Their union, therefore, is not merely
an external union, but inward and spiritual. They have the same faith objectively
and subjectively. This unity of faith is not perfect. That, as the apostle tells
us in a subsequent part of this chapter, is the goal towards which the church contends.
Perfect unity in faith implies perfect knowledge and perfect holiness. It is only
as to fundamental doe trines, those necessary to piety and therefore necessary to
salvation, that this unity can be affirmed of the whole church as it now exists
on earth. Within these limits all the true people of God are united. They all receive
the Scriptures as the word of God, and acknowledge themselves subject to their teachings.
They all recognize and worship the Lord Jesus as the Son of God. They all trust
to his blood for redemption and to his Spirit for sanctification.
One baptism. Under the old dispensation when a Gentile
became a Jew, he professed to accede to the covenant which God had made with his
people, and he received the sign of circumcision not only as a badge of discipleship
but as the seal of the covenant. All the circumcised therefore were
foederati, men bound together by the bonds of a covenant
which united them to the same God and to each other. So under
the new dispensation the baptized are foederati; men
bound together in covenant with Christ and with each other. There is but one baptism.
All the baptized make the same profession, accept the same covenant, and are consecrated
to the same Lord and Redeemer. They are, therefore, one body. " For as many as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus." Gal. 3, 27. 28.
V. 6. One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through
all and in us all, εἷς Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων,
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡμῖν. As the church is
one because pervaded by one Spirit, and because it is owned and governed by one
Lord, so it is one because it has one God and Father; one glorious Being to whom
it sustains the twofold relation of creature and child. This God is not merely
over us, as afar off, but through all and in us all, i. e. pervading and
filling all with his sustaining and life-giving presence. There are many passages
to which the doctrine of the Trinity gives a sacred rhythm, though the doctrine
itself is not directly asserted. It is so here. There is one Spirit, one Lord, one
God and Father. The unity of the church is founded on this doctrine. It is one because
there is to us one God the Father, one Lord, one Spirit. It is a truly mystical
union; not a mere union of opinion, of interest, or of feeling; but something supernatural
arising from a common principle of life. This life is not the natural
life which belongs to us as creatures; nor intellectual: which belongs to us as
rational beings; but it is spiritual life, called elsewhere the life of God in the
soul. And as this life is common, on the one hand, to Christ and all his members—and
on the other, to Christ and God, this union of the church is not only with Christ,
but with the Triune God. Therefore in Scripture it is said that tile Spirit dwells
in believers, that Christ dwells in them, and that God dwells in them. And, therefore,
also our Lord prays for his people, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."
John 17, 21.
It is obvious from the whole connection that the word
πάντων ("of all," and "through all"), is not
neuter. The apostle does not refer to the dominion of God over the universe, or
to his providential agency throughout all nature. Neither is the reference to his
dominion over rational creatures or over mankind. It is the relation of God to the
church, of which the whole passage treats. God as Father is over all its members,
through them all and in them all. The church is a habitation of God through the
Spirit. It is his temple in which he dwells and which is pervaded in all its parts
by his presence. The preposition διά, therefore,
does not here express instrumentality, but diffusion. It is not that God operates
"through all" (διὰ πάντων), but that he pervades
all and abides in all. This is the climax. To be filled with God; to be pervaded
by his presence, and controlled by him, is to attain the summit of all created excellence,
blessedness and glory.
V. 7. This unity of the church, although it involves the essential
equality of all believers, is still consistent with great diversity as to gifts,
influence, and honour. According to the apostle’s favourite illustration, it is
like the human body, which is composed of many members with different functions.
It is not all eye nor all ear. This diversity of gifts is not only consistent with
unity, but is essential to it. The body is not one member but many. In every organism
a diversity of parts is necessary to the unity of the whole. If all were one member,
asks the apostle, where were the body? Summa praesentis loci est,
says Calvin, quod Deus in neininem omnia contulerit; sed quisque certam mensuram
receperit; ut alii aliis indigeant et in commune conferendo quod singulis datum
est, alii alios mutuo juvent. The position, moreover, of each member in the
body, is not determined by itself, but by God. The eye does not make itself the
eye, nor the ear, the ear. It is thus in the church. The different positions, gifts,
and functions of its members, are determined not by themselves but by Christ. All
this is taught by the apostle when he says, "But (i. e. notwithstanding the unity
of the church) unto every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of
the gift of Christ." There is this diversity of gifts, and the distribution of these
gifts is in the hand of Christ. The grace here spoken of includes the inward
spiritual gift, and the influence, function or office, as the case might be, flowing
from it. Some were apostles, some prophets, some evangelists. The grace which
made them such, was the inward gift and the outward office.
The giver is Christ; he is the source of the spiritual influence
conferring power, and the official appointment conferring authority. He, therefore,
is God, because the source of the inward life of the church and of its authority
and that of its officers. He is sovereign in the distribution of his gifts. They
are distributed, κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, according to the measure of the gift of Christ; that is,
as he sees fit to give. The rule is not our merit, or our previous capacity, nor
our asking, but his own good pleasure. Paul was made an apostle, who before was
a blasphemer and injurious. The duty, as the apostle teaches, which arises from
all this is, that every one should be contented with the position assigned him;
neither envying those above, nor despising those below him. To refuse to occupy
the position assigned us in the church, is to refuse to belong to it at all. If
the foot refuses to be the foot, it does not become the hand, but is cut off and
perishes. Sympathy is the law of every body having a common life. If one member
suffers, all suffer; and if one rejoices, all rejoice. We can tell, therefore, whether
we belong to the body of Christ, by ascertaining whether we have this contentment
with our lot, and this sympathy with our fellow members.
V. 8. The position which the preceding verse assigns to the Lord
Jesus as the source of all life and power in the church, is so exalted, that the
apostle interrupts himself to show that this representation is in accordance with
what the Scriptures had already taught on this subject. The seventh verse speaks
of Christ
giving gifts. As this was his office, the Scriptures speak of him as a conqueror
laden with spoils, enriched by his victories, and giving gifts to men. That the
Psalmist had reference to the Messiah, is evident, because the passage speaks of
his ascending. But for a divine person to ascend to heaven, supposes a previous
descent to the earth. It was the Son of God, the Messiah, who descended, and therefore
it was the Son of God who ascended, and who is represented by the sacred writer
as enriched by his triumphant work on earth, and distributing the fruits of his
conquest as he pleased. This seems to be the general sense of the passage in the
connection, although it is replete with difficulties. The great truth is, that Christ’s
exaltation is the reward of his humiliation. By his obedience and sufferings he
conquered the Prince of this world, he redeemed his people, and obtained the right
to bestow upon them all needed good. He is exalted to give the Holy Ghost, and all
his gifts and graces, to grant repentance and remission of sins. This great truth
is foreshadowed and foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. Wherefore he saith,
διὸ λέγει, i. e. God, or the Scriptures.
"Having ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."
That is, what I have said respecting Christ being the distributor of spiritual gifts,
is in accordance with the prophetic declaration, that the ascended Messiah should
give gifts to men. The Messiah is represented by the Psalmist as a conqueror, leading
captives in triumph, and laden with spoils which he distributes to his followers.
Thus Christ conquered. He destroyed him that hath the power of death, i. e. the
devil. He delivered those who through the fear of death were subject to bondage.
Heb. 2, 15. Having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show
of them openly, triumphing over them. Col. 2. 15.
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace; but when a stronger
than he cometh upon him, and overcometh him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein
he trusted, and divideth his spoil. Luke, 11,
21. 22. Such is the familiar mode of representation respecting the work
of Christ. He conquered Satan. He led captivity captive. The abstract is for the
concrete—captivity for captives—αἰχμαλωσία
for αἰχμάλωτοι as
συμμαχία for
σύμμαχοι. Compare Judges 5, 12,
"Awake, awake, Deborah, awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity
captive, thou son of Abinoam." These captives thus led in triumph may be either
the enemies of Christ, Satan, sin, and death, which is the last enemy which shall
be destroyed; or his people, redeemed by his power and subdued by his grace. The
former is perhaps the more consistent with the figure, and with the parallel passages
quoted above. Both are true; that is, it is true that Christ has conquered Satan,
and leads him captive; and it is also true that he redeems his people and subdues
them to himself, and leads them as willing captives. They are made willing, in the
day of his power. Calvin, therefore, unites both representations:
Neque enim Satanam modo et peccatum et mortem totosque inferos
prostravit, sed ex rebellibus quotidie facit sibi obsequentem populum, quum verbo
suo carnis nostræ lasciviam domat; rursus hostes suos, h. e. impios omnes quasi
ferreis catenis continet constrictos, dum illorum furorem cohibet sua virtute, ne
plus valeant, quam illis concedit. This clause of the quotation is, however,
entirely subordinate. The stress lies on the last clause, "He gave gifts to men."
There are two serious difficulties connected with this citation.
The first is, that the quotation does not agree with the original. In the
Ps. 68, 18, the passage is, "Thou hast received gifts among men." Paul
has it, "He gave gifts to man." To get over this difficulty some have supposed that
the apostle does not quote the Psalm, but some Hymn which the Ephesians were in
the habit of using. But this is not only contrary to the uniform usage of the New
Testament writers, but also to the whole context, for the apostle argues from the
passage quoted as of divine authority. Others have assumed an error in the Hebrew
text. Rationalists say it is a misquotation from failure of memory. Others argue
that the word לָקַח, used by the Psalmist,
means to give as well as to take. Or, at least, it often means to bring;
and therefore, the original passage may be translated, "Thou hast brought gifts
among men;" the sense of which is, ‘Thou hast given gifts to men.’ The difference
is thus reduced to a mere verbal alteration, the sense remaining the same. It is
a strong confirmation of this view that the Chaldee Paraphrase expresses the same
sense: dedisti dona filiis hominum.
Dr. Addison Alexander in his comment on Ps. 68, 18
remarks, "To receive gifts on the one hand and bestow gifts on the
other are correlative ideas and expressions, so that Paul, in applying this description
of a theocratic triumph to the conquests of our Saviour, substitutes one of these
expressions for the other." This is perhaps the most natural solution. The divine
writers of the New Testament, filled with the same Spirit, which moved the ancient
prophets, are not tied to the mere form, but frequently give the general sense of
the passages which they quote. A conqueror always distributes the spoils he takes.
He receives to give. And, therefore, in depicting the Messiah as a conqueror, it
is perfectly immaterial whether it is said, He received gifts, or, He gave gifts.
The sense is the same. He is a conqueror laden with spoils, and able to enrich his
followers.
The second difficulty connected with this quotation is that
Ps. 68 is not Messianic. It does not refer to the Messiah, but to the
triumphs of God over his enemies. Yet the apostle not only applies it to Christ,
but argues to prove that it must refer to him. This difficulty finds its solution
in three principles which are applicable not only to this, but also to many similar
passages. The first is the typical character of the old dispensation. It was a shadow
of good things to come. There was not only a striking analogy between the experience
of the ancient people of God, in their descent into Egypt, their deliverance from
the house of bond. age, their journey through the wilderness, and their
entrance into Canaan, and the experience of the church, but this analogy was a designed
prefiguration—God’s dealings as the head of the ancient theocracy, were typical
of his dealings with the church. His delivering his people, his conquering their
enemies, and his enriching his followers with their spoil, were all adumbrations
of the higher work of Christ. As the passover was both commemorative of the deliverance
out of Egypt and typical of the redemption effected by Christ; so, many of the descriptions
of the works and triumphs of God under the old economy are both historical and prophetic.
Thus the Psalm quoted by the apostle is a history of the conquests of God over the
enemies of his ancient people, and a prophecy of the conquests of the Messiah.
The second principle applicable to this and similar cases, is
the identity of the Logos or Son manifested in the flesh under the new dispensation
with the manifested Jehovah of the old economy. Hence what is said of the one, is
properly assumed to be said of the other. Therefore, as Moses says Jehovah led his
people through the wilderness, Paul says Christ led them.
1 Cor. 10, 4. As Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah in the temple, John
says he saw the glory of Christ. John 12, 41.
As it is written in the prophets, "As I live, saith Jehovah, every knee shall bow
to me, and every tongue shall confess to God," Is.
45, 23, Paul says, this proves that we must all stand before the judgment
seat of Christ.
Rom. 14, 10. 11. What in
Ps. 102, 25, &c., is said of God as creator, and as eternal and immutable,
is in Hebrews 1, 10, applied to Christ.
On the same principle what is said in Ps. 68, 18,
of Jehovah as ascending to heaven and leading captivity captive, is here said to
refer to Christ.
There is still a third principle to be taken into consideration.
Many of the historical and prophetic descriptions of the Old Testament are not exhausted
by any one application or fulfilment. The promise that Japheth should dwell in the
tents of Shem, was fulfilled every time the descendants of the former were made
to share in the blessings temporal or spiritual of the latter. The predictions of
Isaiah of the redemption of Israel were not exhausted by the deliverance of the
people of God from the Babylonish captivity, but had a direct reference to the higher
redemption to be effected by Christ. The glowing descriptions of the blessings consequent
on the advent of the Messiah, relate not merely to the consequences of his first
advent, but to all that is to follow his coming the second time without sin unto
salvation. The prediction that every knee shall bow to God and every tongue confess
to him, is a prediction not only of the universal prevalence of the true religion;
but also, as the apostle teaches, of a general judgment at the last day. In like
manner, what the Old Testament says of Jehovah descending and ascending, of his
conquering his enemies and enriching his people, is not exhausted by his figurative
descending to manifest his power, nor by such conspicuous theophanies as occurred
on Sinai and in the Temple, or in the triumphs recorded in the Hebrew
Scriptures, but refer also to his personal advent in the flesh, to his ascension
and his spiritual triumphs. It is, therefore, in perfect accordance with the whole
analogy of Scripture, that the apostle applies what is said of Jehovah in
Ps. 68 as a conqueror, to the work of the Lord Jesus, who, as God manifested
in the flesh, ascended on high leading captivity captive and giving gifts unto men.
Vs. 9. 10. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also
descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same
also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
The obvious design of these verses is to show that the passage
quoted from the Psalmist refers to Christ. The proof lies in the fact that ascension
in the case of a divine person, a giver of spiritual gifts to men, implies a previous
descent. It was Christ who descended, and therefore, it is Christ who ascended.
It is true the Old Testament often speaks of God’s descending, and therefore, they
may speak of his ascending. But according to the apostle, the divine person intended
in those representations was the Son, and no previous descent or ascent, no previous
triumph over his enemies, included all that the Spirit of prophecy intended by such
representations. And, therefore, the Psalmist must be understood as having included
in the scope of his language the most conspicuous and illustrious of God’s condescensions
and exaltations. All other comings were but typical of his coming in the flesh,
and all ascensions were typical of his ascension from the grave.
The apostle, therefore, here teaches that God, the subject of
the sixty-eighth Psalm, descended "into the lower parts of the earth;" that "he
ascended up above all heavens," and that this was with the design "that he might
fill all things."
The Hebrew phrase תַחְתִּיוׄת אֶרֶץ
to which the apostle’s τὰ κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς,
(the lower parts of the earth,) answers, is used for the earth in opposition to
heaven, Is. 44, 23; probably for the grave
in Ps. 63, 10; as a poetical designation
for the womb in Ps. 139, 15; and for Hades
or the invisible world, Ez. 32, 24. Perhaps
the majority of commentators take this last to be the meaning of the passage before
us. They suppose the reference is to the desensus ad inferos,
or to Christ’s "descending into hell." But in the first place this idea is entirely
foreign to the meaning of the passage in the Psalm on which the apostle is commenting.
In the second place, there as here, the only descent of which the context speaks
is opposed to the ascending to heaven. ‘He that ascended to heaven is he who first
descended to earth.’ In the third place, this is the opposition so often expressed
in other places and in other forms of expression, as in
John 3, 13, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven."
John 6, 38, "I came down from heaven."
John 8, 14, "I know whence I came and whither I go."
John 16, 28, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world;
again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." The expression of the apostle therefore
means, "the lower parts, viz. the earth." The genitive
τῆς γῆς is the common genitive of apposition.
Compare Acts 2, 19, where the heaven above
is opposed to the earth beneath; and John 8, 23.
He that descended to earth, who assumed our nature, is the same
also that ascended up far above all heavens.
Ὑπεράνω, longe supra,
expressing the highest exaltation. As the Hebrew word for heaven is in the plural
form, the New Testament writers often use the plural even when the heavens are considered
as one, as in the phrase βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.
But often there is a reference to a plurality of heavens, as when the expression
"all heavens" is used. The Jews reckoned seven heavens, and Paul,
2 Cor. 12, 2, speaks of the third heavens; the atmosphere, the region
of the stars, and above all the abode of God. Above all heavens plainly means
above the whole universe; above all that is created visible and invisible; above
thrones, principalities, and powers. All things, all created things, are subject
to the ascended Redeemer.
He is thus exalted, ἵνα πληρώσῃ
τὰ πάντα, that he might fill all things. As the word
πληρόω signifies to fill, to fulfil, to
render perfect, and to accomplish, these words may mean—1. That he might
fill all things, i. e. the universe with his presence and power. 2. That he might
fulfil all the predictions and promises of God respecting his kingdom. 3. That he
might render all perfect, replete with grace and goodness. 4. That he might accomplish
all things necessary to the consummation of his work. The first interpretation
is greatly to be preferred. Τὰ πάντα properly
means the universe; and if taken to mean any thing else, it must be because the
context demands it, which is not the case here. Secondly, this passage is evidently
parallel with ch. 1, 21, where also it is
said of Christ as exalted, that "he fills the universe in all its parts." Thirdly,
the analogy of Scripture is in favour of this interpretation. The omnipresence and
universal dominion of God are elsewhere expressed in a similar way. "Do I not fill
heaven and earth, saith the Lord." Jer. 23, 24.
The same grand idea is expressed in Matt. 28, 18,
"All power is given unto me in heaven and upon earth;" and in
Phil. 2, 9. 10, and in many other places. It is not of the ubiquity of
Christ’s body of which the apostle speaks, as the Lutherans contend, but of the
universal presence and power of the ascended Son of God. It is God clothed in our
nature, who now exercises this universal dominion; and, therefore, the apostle may
well say of Christ, as the incarnate God, that he gives gifts unto men.
V. 11. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκε,
and He gave. He, the ascended Saviour, to whom all power and all resources
have been given—he gave, some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers. These were among the gifts which Christ gave his
church; which, though implying diversity of grace and office, were necessary to
its unity as an organized whole. These offices are mentioned in the order of their
importance. First the apostles the immediate messengers of Christ, the witnesses
for him,
of his doctrines, his miracles, and of his resurrection; infallible as teachers
and absolute as rulers in virtue of the gift of inspiration and. of their commission.
No man, therefore, could be an apostle unless—1. He was immediately appointed by
Christ. 2. Unless he had seen him after his resurrection and had received the knowledge
of the Gospel by immediate revelation. 3. Unless he was rendered infallible by the
gift of inspiration. These things constituted the office and were essential to its
authority. Those who without these gifts and qualifications claimed the office,
are called "false apostles."
2. Prophets. A prophet is one who speaks for another, spokesman,
as Aaron was the prophet of Moses. Those whom God made his organs in speaking to
men were prophets, whether their communications were doctrinal, preceptive, or prophetic
in the restricted sense of the term. Every one who spoke by inspiration, was a prophet.
The prophets of the New Testament differed from the apostles, in that their inspiration
was occasional, and therefore their authority as teachers subordinate. The nature
of their office is fully taught in
1 Cor. 14, 1-40. As the gift of infallibility
was essential to the apostolic office, so the gift of occasional inspiration was
essential to the prophetic office. It is inconceivable that God should invest any
set of men with the authority claimed and exercised by the apostles and prophets
of the New Testament, requiring all men to believe their doctrines and submit to
their authority, on the pain of perdition, without giving the
inward gifts qualifying them for their work. This is clearly stated by Calvin in
his comment on this verse; to a certain difficulty, he says, "Respondeo,
quoties a Deo vocati sunt homines, dona necessarie conjuncta esse officiis; neque
enim Deus, apostolos aut pastores instituendo, larvam illis duntaxat imponit; sed
dotibus etiam instruit, sine quibus rite functionem sibi injunctam obire nequennt.
Quisquis ergo Dei auctoritate constituitur apostolus, non inani et nudo titulo,
sed mandato simul et facultate praeditus est."
And some, evangelists. There are two views of the nature
of the office of the evangelists. Some regard them as vicars of the apostles—men
commissioned by them for a definite purpose and clothed with special powers for
the time being, analogous to the apostolic vicars of the Romanists; or to the temporary
superintendents appointed after the Reformation in the Scottish church, clothed
for a limited time and for a definite purpose with presbyterial powers, i. e. to
a certain extent, with the powers of a presbytery, the power tc ordain, install
and depose. Evangelists in this sense were temporary officers. This view of the
nature of the office prevailed at the time of the Reformation.CALVIN
in his comment on this verse, says: Apostolis proximi erant Evangelistae,
et munus affine habebant; tantum gradu dignitatis erant dispares; ex quo genere
erant Timotheus et similes. Nam quum in salutationibus illum sibi adjungit Paulus,
non tamen facit in apostolatu socium, sed nomen hoc peculiariter sibi vindicat.
Ergo, secundum Apostolos, istorum subsidiaria opera usus est Dominus.—And in his
Institutes IV, 3, 4, he says: Per Evangelistas eos intelligo, qui quum in dignitate
apostolis minores, officio tamen proximi erant, adeoque vices eorum gerebant. Quales
fuerunt, Lucas, Timotheus, Titus, et reliqui similes.
According to the other view, the evangelists were itinerant preachers,
οἱ περιΐοντες ἐκήρυττον, as Theodoret and other
early writers describe them. They were properly missionaries sent to preach the
Gospel where it had not been previously known. This is the commonly received view,
in favour of which may be urged—1. The signification of the word, which in itself
means nothing more than preacher of the Gospel. 2. Philip was an evangelist, but
was in no sense a vicar of the apostles; and when Timothy was exhorted to do the
work of an evangelist, the exhortation was simply to be a faithful preacher of the
Gospel. Acts 21, 8;
Eph. 4, 11; and
2 Tim. 4, 5, are the only passages in which the word occurs, and in no
one of them does the connection or any other consideration demand any other meaning
than the one commonly assigned to it. 3. Εὐαγγέλισθαι
and διδάσκειν are both used to express the
act of making known the Gospel; but when as here, the
εὐαγγελιστής is distinguished fromr the
διδάσκαλος, the only point of distinction implied
or admissible is between one who makes known the Gospel where it had not been heard,
and an instructor of those already Christians. The use of
εὐαγγέλισθαι in such passages as
Acts 8, 4; 14, 7; 1 Cor. 1, 17,
and 2 Cor. 10, 16, serves to confirm the
commonly received opinion that an evangeli1st is one who makes known the Gospel.
That Timothy and Titus were in some sense apostolic
vicars, i. e. men clothed with special powers for a special purpose and for a limited
time, may be admitted, but this does not determine the nature of the office of an
evangelist. They exercised these powers not as evangelists, but as delegates or
commissioners.
And some pastors and teachers,
τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους. According
to one interpretation we have here two distinct offices—that of pastor and that
of teacher. The latter, says Calvin, "had nothing to do with discipline, nor with
the administration of the sacraments, nor with admonitions or exhortations, but
simply with the interpretation of Scripture." Institutes IV, 3, 4. All this is inferred
from the meaning of the word teacher. There is no evidence from Scripture
that there was a set of men authorized to teach but not authorized to exhort. The
thing is well nigh impossible. The one function includes the other. The man who
teaches duty and the grounds of it, does at the same time admonish and exhort. It
was however on the ground of this unnatural interpretation that the Westminster
Directory made teachers a distinct and permanent class of
jure divino officers in the church. The Puritans in New England endeavoured
to reduce the theory to practice, and appointed doctors as distinct from
preachers. But the attempt proved to be a failure. The two functions could not be
kept separate. The whole theory rested on a false interpretation of Scripture. The
absence of the article before διδασκάλους
proves that the apostle intended to designate the same persons as at once pastors
and teachers. The former term designates
them as ἐπίσκοποι, overseers, the latter
as instructors. Every pastor or bishop was required to be apt to teach. This interpretation
is given by Augustin and Jerome; the latter of whom says: Non enim
ait: alios autem pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut
qui pastor est, esse debeat et magister. In this interpretation the modern
commentators almost without exception concur. It is true the article is at times
omitted between two substantives referring to different classes, where the two constitute
one order—as in Mark 15, 1,
μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ γραμματέων, because
the elders and scribes formed one body. But in such an enumeration as that contained
in this verse, τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας,
τοὺ δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας, the laws of the language require
τοὺς δὲ διδασκάλους, had the apostle intended
to distinguish the διδάσκαλοι from the
ποιμένες. Pastors and teachers, therefore,
must be taken as a two-fold designation of the same officers, who were at once the
guides and instructors of the people.
V. 12. Having mentioned the officers Christ gave his church, the
apostle states the end for which this gift was conferred—it was
πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων, εἰς ἔργον
διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, for the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Both the meaning of the words and the relation of the several
clauses in this verse, are doubtful. The word καταρτισμός,
rendered perfecting, admits of different
interpretations. The root ἄρω, means to unite
or bind together. Hence ἄρτιος signifies united,
complete, perfect; and the verb καταρτίζω is
literally to mend, Matt. 4, 21;
to reduce to order, to render complete, or perfect,
Luke 6, 40; 2 Cor. 13, 11;
to prepare or render fit for use, Heb. 10,
5; 13, 21. The substantive may express the action of the verb in the
various modifications of its meaning. Hence it has been rendered here-1. To the
completion of the saints, i. e. of their number. 2. To their renewing or restoration.
3. To their reduction to order and union as one body. 4. To their preparation (for
service). 5. To their perfecting. This last is to be preferred because agreeable
to the frequent use of the verb by this apostle, and because it gives the sense
best suited to the context.
The word διακόνια, service,
may express that service which one man renders to another—Luke
10, 40, "with much serving;" or specially the service rendered
to Christians, 1 Cor. 16, 15, "addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints;" or the official service of the
ministry. Hence the phrase εἰς ἔργον διακονίας
may mean ‘to the work of mutual service or kind offices,’ or to the work of the
ministry—in the official sense. The latter is the common interpretation, and is
to be preferred not only on account of the more frequent use of the word in that
sense, but also on account of the connection, as here the apostle is speaking of
the different classes of ministers of the word.
The principal difficulty connected with this verse concerns the
relation of its several clauses. 1. Some
propose to invert the first and second so that the sense would be, ‘Christ appointed
the apostles, &c., for the work of the ministry, the design of which is the perfecting
of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ.’ But although the sense is
thus good and pertinent, the transposition is arbitrary. 2. Others regard the clauses
as coordinate. ‘These officers were given for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ.’ To this is objected
the change in the prepositions (πρὸς, εἰς—εἰς),
and the incongruity of the thoughts—the expressions not being parallel. 3. The
two latter clauses may be made subordinate to the first. ‘Christ has appointed the
ministry with the view of preparing the saints, for the work of serving one another,’
(compare εἰς διακονιαν τοῖς ἁγίοις,
1 Cor. 16, 15,) and for the edification
of his body. This however assumes διακονία
to have a sense unsuited to the context. 4. Others make the two clauses with
εἰς explanatory of the first clause, ‘Christ
appointed these officers for the preparation of the saints, some for the work of
the ministry, and some for the edifying of his body.’ But this is inconsistent with
the structure of the passage. It would require the introduction of
τοὺς μὲν—τοὺς δὲ, ’some, for this, and some,
for that.’ 5. Others again, give the sense thus, ‘For the sake of perfecting the
saints, Christ appointed these officers to the work of the ministry, to the edification
of his body.’ The first clause πρὸς κατ. expresses
the remote, εἰς—εἰς the immediate end of the
appointment in question. The "work of the ministry" is that work
which the ministry perform, viz. the edifying of the body of Christ. This last view
is perhaps the best.
"He could not," says Calvin, "exalt more highly the ministry of
the Word, than by attributing to it this effect. For what higher work can there
be than to build up the church that it may reach its perfection? They therefore
are insane, who neglecting this means hope to be perfect in Christ, as is the case
with fanatics, who pretend to secret revelations of the Spirit; and the proud, who
content themselves with the private reading of the Scripture, and imagine they do
not need the ministry of the church." If Christ has appointed the ministry for the
edification of his body, it is in vain to expect that end to be accomplished in
any other way.
V. 13. The ministry is not a temporary institution, it is to continue
until the church has reached the goal of its high calling. This does not prove that
all the offices mentioned above are permanent. By common consent the prophets were
temporary officers. It is the ministry and not those particular offices, that is
to continue. The goal of the church is here described in three equivalent forms—1.
Unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God. 2. A perfect man. 3. The measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ.
1. Till we all come to the unity, &c.,
μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες. The all
here mentioned is not all men, but all the people of Christ. The reference is not
to the confluence of nations from all parts of the earth, but to the body of Christ,
the company of saints of
which the context speaks. The church is tending to the goal indicated.The
ministry is to continue until καταντήσωμεν
we (all) shall have attained to unity of faith. Our version
has in unity, but the Greek is εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα,
and therefore should be rendered, to or unto, just as in the following
clauses, εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον and
εἰς μέτρον, κτλ. The unity of faith is the
end to which all are to attain. The genitive υἱοῦ
τοῦ Θεοῦ belongs equally to πίστις and
ἐπιγνωσις. The Son of God is the object both
of the faith and of the knowledge here spoken of. Many commentators understand knowledge
and faith as equivalent, and therefore make the latter member of the clause explanatory
of the former: ‘to the unity of the faith, that is, to the knowledge of the Son
of God.’ But this overlooks the καὶ. The apostle
says, "faith and knowledge." Thus distinguishing the one from the other.
And they are in fact different, however intimately related, and however often the
one term may be used for the other. Faith is a form of knowledge, and therefore
may be expressed by that word. But knowledge is not a form of faith, and therefore
cannot be expressed by it. Knowledge is an element of faith; but faith, in its distinctive
sense, is not an element of knowledge. The Greek word here used is not
γνῶσις but ἐπιγνωσις.
We have no word to express the distinction as the Germans have in their
Kennen and Erkennen. It is not merely
cognition but recognition. Faith and knowledge, πίστις and ἐπιγνωσις, express or comprehend
all the elements of that state of mind of which the Son of God, God manifested in
the flesh, who loved us and gave himself for us, who died on Calvary and is now
enthroned in heaven, is the object. A state of mind which includes the apprehension
of his glory, the appropriation of his love, as well as confidence and devotion.
This state of mind is in itself eternal life. It includes excellence, blessedness,
and the highest form of activity, i. e. the highest exercise of our highest powers.
We are like him when we see him. Perfect knowledge is perfect holiness. Therefore
when the whole church has come to this perfect knowledge which excludes all diversity,
then it has reached the end. Then it will bear the image of the heavenly.
The object of faith and knowledge is the Son of God. This
designation of our Lord declares him to be of the same nature with the Father, possessing
the same attributes and entitled to the same honour. Were this not the case the
knowledge of Christ as the Son of God, could not be eternal life; it could not fill,
enlarge, sanctify, and render blessed the soul; nor constitute the goal of our high
calling; the full perfection of our nature.
It has excited surprise that the apostle should here present unity
of faith as the goal of perfection, whereas in ver.
6, Christians are said now to have "one faith," as they have one Lord
and one baptism. Some endeavour to get over this difficulty by laying the emphasis
upon all. The progress of the church consists in bringing all to this
state of unity. But Paul includes all in
his assertion in ver. 6. And
if the "one faith" of that verse, and "unity of faith" here are the same, then the
starting-point and the goal of the church are identical. Others say that "the unity
of faith and knowledge" means not that all should be united in faith and knowledge,
but that all should attain that state in which faith and knowledge are identified—faith
is to be lost in knowledge. The unity, therefore, here intended, is unity between
faith and knowledge, and not the unity of believers. But this is evidently unnatural.
"We all come to unity," can only mean, " we are all united." There is no
real difficulty in the case. Unity is a matter of degrees. The church is now and
ever has been one body, but how imperfect is their union! Our Lord’s praying that
his people may be one, does not prove that they are not now one. It is here as in
other cases. Holiness is the beginning and holiness is the end. We must be holy
to belong to the church, and yet holiness is the ultimate perfection of the church.
The unity of faith is now confined to the first principles; the unity of faith contemplated
in this place is that perfect unity which implies perfect knowledge and perfect
holiness.
Unto a perfect man, εἰς
ἄνδρα τέλειον. This clause is explanatory of the former and determines
its meaning. Perfection is the end; perfect manhood.
Τέλειος signifies ad finem
perductus; when used of a man, it means an adult, one who has reached
the end of his development as a man. When applied to a Christian it means one who
has reached the end of his development
as a Christian, Heb. 12, 23; and the church
is perfect when it has reached the end of its development and stands complete in
glory. In 1 Cor. 13, 10,
τὸ τέλειον stands opposed to
τὸ ἐκ μέρους, and there as here indicates the
state which is to be attained hereafter when we shall know even as we are known.
The standard of perfection for the church is complete conformity to Christ. It is
to attain εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ. These words are explanatory of the preceding. The church becomes
adult, a perfect man, when it reaches the fulness of Christ. However these words
may be explained in detail, this is the general idea. Whether
ἡλικία means stature or age
depends upon the context. Most commentators prefer the latter signification here,
because τέλειος in the preceding clause means
adult, in reference to age rather than to stature, and
νήπιος in the following verse means a child
as to age and not as to size.
If the phrase "fulness of Christ," be explained according to the
analogy of the phrases " fulness of God," " fulness of the Godhead," &c., it must
mean the plenitude of excellence which Christ possesses or which he bestows. And
the " age of the fulness of Christ," means the age at which the fulness of Christ
is attained. Compare 3, 19, where believers
ars said to be filled unto the fulness of God.
If, however, reference is had to the analogy of such expressions
as "fulness of the blessing of the Gospel," Rom. 15,
29, which means ‘the full or abundant blessing,’ then the passage before
us means ‘the full age
(or stature) of Christ.’ The church is to become a perfect man, i. e. it is to attain
the measure of the full maturity of Christ. In other words, it is to be completely
conformed to him, perfect as he is perfect. This interpretation, which supposes
πληρώματος to qualify adjectively
ἡλικίας, is in accordance with a familiar
characteristic of Paul’s style, who frequently connects three genitives in this
way, the one governing the others, where one is to be taken adjectively. See
Col. 1, 13, εἰς βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς
ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, "Son of his love," for ‘his beloved Son;’ "age of fulness,"
for ‘full age.’ Col. 2, 2. 18.
2 Thess. 1, 9.
Commentators are much divided on the question whether the goal,
the terminus ad quem of the church’s progress here
spoken of, is to be attained in this world or the next. Those who say it is to be
attained here, rely principally on the following verse: ‘We are to become men
in order that we should be no longer children,’ &c. To determine this question
it would seem to be enough to state what the contemplated consummation is. It is
perfection, and perfection of the whole church. We are to become perfect men, we
are to attain complete conformity to Christ; and we are all to reach this high standard.
The Bible, however, never represents the consummation of the church as occurring
in this life. Christ gave himself for the church that he might present it to himself
a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, but this presentation is not to take
place until he comes a second time to be glorified in the saints and admired in
all them that
believe. The context instead of forbidding, demands this view of the apostle’s meaning.
It would be incongruous to say we must reach perfection in order to grow. But it
is not incongruous to say that perfection is made the goal in order that we may
constantly strive after it.
V. 14. What has been said may be sufficient to indicate the connection
between this and the preceding verses, as indicated by
ἵνα (in order that). This and the
following verses are not subordinate to the 13th,
as though the sense were, ‘we are to reach perfection in order to grow,’—but they
are coördinate—all relating to the design of the ministry mentioned in
v. 12. Between the full maturity aimed at, and our present state is the
period of growth—and Christ appointed the ministry to bring the church to that end,
in order that we should be no longer children but make constant progress. This intermediate
design is expressed negatively in this verse and affirmatively in the
15th and 16th. We are not to
continue children, v. 13, but constantly
to advance toward maturity, vs. 15. 16.
The characteristic of children here presented is their instability and their liability
to be deceived and led astray. The former is expressed by comparing them to a ship
without a rudder, tossed to and fro by the waves, and driven about by every wind—κλυδωνιζόμενοι
καὶ περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ—or to two unstable things, a restless
wave, and something driven by the wind. In the use of much the same figure the apostle
in
Heb. 13, 9 exhorts believers not "to be
carried away with diverse and
strange doctrines." And the apostle James compares the unstable to "a wave of the
sea driven with the wind and tossed," 1, 6.
One of the principal elements of the perfection spoken of in
v. 13, is stability in the truth; and, therefore, the state of imperfection
as contrasted with it is described as one of instability and liability to be driven
about by every wind of doctrine.
Children are not only unstable but easily deceived. They are an
easy prey to the artful and designing. The apostle therefore adds:
ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, through
(ἐν being instrumental) the artifice of
men. Κυβεία from
κυβος (cube, die) means dice-playing;
in which there are many arts of deception, and therefore the word is used for craft
or deceit. It is explained by the following phrase,
ἐν πανουργίᾳ πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλάνης,
which, according to Luther’s version, means Tauscherei damit sie
uns erschleichen zu verfuhren, the cunning with which they track us to
mislead. The artifice (κυβεία) is that
craft which is used by seducers or errorists. The preposition
πρὸς may mean according to. ‘Cunning
according to the craft which error uses; or which is characteristic of error.’ Or
it may agreeably to its common force indicate direction or tendency. ‘The cunning
which is directed to the craft of error, i. e. that craft which is designed to seduce.’
The sense is the same. The word μεθοδεία occurs
only here and in 6, 11—where in the plural
form it is rendered wiles; "the wiles of the devil." It is derived from
μεθοδεύω (μετὰ
ὁδός), to follow any one, to track him, as a wild animal its prey.
Hence the substantive means
the cunning or craft used by those who wish to entrap or capture.
There are two things in this connection which can hardly escape
notice. The one is the high estimate the apostle places on truth; and the other
is the evil of error. Holiness without the knowledge and belief of the truth, is
impossible; perfect holiness implies, as v. 13
teaches, perfect knowledge. Error, therefore, is evil. Religious error springs from
moral evil and produces it. "False teachers" are in Scripture always spoken of as
bad, as selfish, malignant, or deceitful. This principle furnishes incidentally
one of the surest of the criteria of truth. Those doctrines which the good hold,
which are dear to the spiritual, to the humble and the holy, and true. This is the
only real authority which belongs to tradition. In this passage the apostle attributes
departure from the truth to the cunning and deceit which are characteristic of error,
or of false teachers. In Rom. 16,17. 18;
2 Cor. 2, 17; 11, 13; Gal. 2, 4;
Col. 2, 8. 18, the same character is given of those who seduce men from
the faith. Error, therefore, can never be harmless, nor false teachers innocent.
Two considerations however should secure moderation and meekness in applying these
principles. The one is, that though error implies sin, orthodoxy does not always
imply holiness. It is possible "to hold the truth in unrighteousness;" to have speculative
faith without love. The character most offensive to God and man is that of a malignant
zealot for the truth. The other consideration is, that men are often much better
than their creed.
That is, the doctrines on which they live are much nearer the truth, than those
which they profess. They deceive themselves by attaching wrong meaning to words,
and seem to reject truth when in fact they only reject their own misconceptions.
It is a common remark that men’s prayers are more orthodox than their creeds.
V. 15. These remarks are not foreign to the subject; for the apostle,
while condemning all instability with regard to faith, and while denouncing the
craft of false teachers, immediately adds the injunction to adhere to the truth
in love. It is not mere stability in sound doctrine, but faith as combined with
love that he requires. The only saving, salutary faith is such as works by love
and purifies the heart.
Ἀληθεύοντες δὲ ἐν ἀγάπῃ
our version renders "but speaking the truth in love." But this does not suit the
context. This clause stands opposed to what is said in
verse 14. We are not to be children driven about by every wind of doctrine,
but we are to be steadfast in professing and believing the truth. This interpretation
which is demanded by the connection is justified by the usage of the word
ἀληθεύειν, which means not only to speak
the truth, but also to be ἀληθής in the
sense of being open, upright, truthful, adhering to the truth. And the truth here
contemplated is the truth of God, the truth of the Gospel, which we are to profess
and abide by. The words ἐν ἀγάπῃ are commonly
and properly connected with ἀληθεύοντες,
"professing the truth in love." They may however be connected with the
following word, so as to give the sense, "let us increase in love." But this leaves
the participle too naked, and is not indicated by the position of the words. Besides,
in the next verse, which is part of the same sentence, we have
αὔξησιν ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν, εν ἀγάπῃ,
which would be a needless repetition of the same idea.
We are "to grow up into (rather unto) him,"
εἰς αὐτόν. This is to be explained by a reference
to the expressions εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον
ἡλικίας, κτλ. in v. 13. These are
different forms of expressing the idea that conformity to Christ is the end to be
attained. We are to grow so as to be conformed to him,
τὰ πάντα, as to all things. Him, "who
is the head, viz. Christ." We are to be conformed to our head—because he is our
head, i. e. because of the intimate union between him and us. The slight confusion
in the metaphor which presents Christ as the model to which we are to be conformed,
and the head with whose life we are to be pervaded, is no serious objection to this
interpretation, which is demanded by the context.
V. 16. From whom the whole body fitly joined together, and
compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working
in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself
in love. The church is Christ’s body; he is the head. The body grows. Concerning
this growth the apostle says—1. It is from him, (ἐξ
οὗ). He is the causal source, from whom all life and power are derived. 2.
It depends on the intimate union of all the parts of the body with the head by means
of appropriate
bonds. 3. It is symmetrical. 4. It is a growth in love. Such is the general meaning
of this passage; though there is much diversity of opinion as to the meaning of
some of the terms employed, and as to the relation of the several clauses.
First as to the meaning of the words:
Συναρμολογέω (ἁρμός
and λέγω) to bind together the several parts
of any thing. It is used of a building
2, 21, and of the human body. In both cases
there is a union of parts fitted to each other. It is peculiarly appropriate here,
as the church is compared to the body composed of many members intimately connected.
Συμβιβάζω, to bring together, to convene,
to join; figuratively, to combine mentally. It is properly used of bringing
persons together, so as to reconcile them, or to unite them in friendship. It therefore
serves to explain the preceding term. The church is figuratively a body composed
of many joints or members; and literally, it is a company of believers intimately
united with each other. Hence the apostle uses both terms in reference to it.
Ἁφή (ἁπτώ)
properly means touch, the sense of touch. Hence metonymically feeling.
Therefore διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς ἐπιχορηγίας may
mean, ‘by every feeling, or experience of aid.’ The word however is sometimes used
in the sense of band or joint. The parallel passage in
Col. 2, 19, διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων,
by joints and bands, seems to be decisive for that sense here. The word
ἐπιχορηγία (χορηγέω,
χορός, ἄγω), supply, aid, has no difficulty in itself. The only question
is what aid or contribution is meant, and what is the force of the genitive. The
word
may refer to the mutual assistance furnished each other by the constituent members
of the body. Thus Luther, who paraphrases the clause in question,—durch
alle Gelenke, dadurch eins dem andern Handreichung thut—by every joint
whereby one member aids another. Or it may refer to the supplies of vital influence
received from Christ the head. "Through every joint of supply," then means, through
every joint or band which is the means of supply. The parallel passage in
Col. 2, 19, is in favour of the latter view. There it is said:
τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν ἐπιχορηγούμενον,
the body receiving nourishment or supplies through the joints or bands. The
nourishing and sustaining influence, the ἐπιχορηγία,
is certainly in this case that which flows from Christ, and therefore the same interpretation
should be given to the passage before us. As to the force of the case, it is by
some taken as the genitive of apposition. "Joint or band of supply," would then
mean, the band which is a supply. The divine influence furnished by Christ
is the bond by which the members of his body are united. This is true, but in
Col. 2, 19, which, being the plainer passage, must be our guide in interpreting
this, the supply is said to be διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν,
through the joints. Here, therefore, the parallel phrase,
διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας, must mean,
‘through every joint for supply;’ that is, which is the means or channel of the
divine influence. There is an obvious distinction between "the bands" and "the aid"
here spoken of. The latter is the divine life or Holy Spirit communicated to all
parts of the church; the former (the ἁφαά)
are the various spiritual gifts and offices which are made the channels or means
of this divine communication.
The second point to be considered is the relation of the several
clauses in this passage. The clause διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς,
κτλ. may be connected with the last clause of the verse,
αὔξησιν ποιεῖται. The sense would then be,
‘The body by means of every joint of supply makes increase of itself.’ This sense
is correct and suited to the context. This however is not the most natural construction.
The relative position of the members of the sentence is in favour of referring this
clause to the preceding participles. ‘The body joined together and united by means
of every joint of supply.’ The parallel passage in Colossians determines this to
be the apostle’s meaning. He there refers the union of the body, and not its growth,
to the bands (ἁφαί) of which he speaks. He
describes the body as συμβιβαζόμενον διὰ τῶν ἁφῶγ,
and therefore here συμβιβ. διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς,
which are in juxtaposition, should go together.
The clause, "according to the effectual working in the measure
of every part," admits of three constructions. It may be connected with the
preceding participles—"joined together by every joint of supply according to the
working, &c., συμβιβ. διὰ—κατὰ. Or it may be
connected with the preceding words, ἐπιχορηγίας
κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν,—‘the supply is according to the working of each particular
part.’ Or thirdly, it may be connected with αὔξησιν
ποιεῖται; the increase is according to the working, &c. It is hard to decide
between
these two latter methods. In favour of the second is the position of the words—and
also the congruity of the figure. It is more natural to say that the divine influence
is according to the working of every part, i. e. according to its capacity and function;
than to say, "the growth is according to the working, &c." The increase of the body
is due to the living influence which pervades it, and not to the efficiency of the
several members. In either case, however, the idea of symmetrical development is
included.
The body—maketh increase of the body, i. e. of itself.
The substantive is repeated on account of the length of the sentence. This increase
is an edification in love, i. e. connected with love. That is the element in which
the progress of the church to its consummation is effected.
As then the human body, bound together by the vital influence
derived from the head through appropriate channels and distributed to every member
and organ according to its function, constantly advances to maturity; so the church,
united as one body by the divine influence flowing from Christ its head through
appropriate channels, and distributed to every member according to his peculiar
capacity and function, continually advances towards perfection. And as in the human
body no one member, whether hand or foot, can live and grow unless in union with
the body; so union with the mystical body of Christ is the indispensable condition
of growth in every individual believer. Faltitur ergo siquis seorsum
crescere appetit.—CALVIN.
And further, as in the human body there are certain channels through which the vital
influence flows from the head to the members, and which are necessary to its communication;
so also there are certain divinely appointed means for the distribution of the Holy
Spirit from Christ to the several members of his body. What these channels of divine
influence are, by which the church is sustained and carried forward, is clearly
stated in v. 11, where the apostle says,
"Christ gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints." It is, therefore, through
the ministry of the word that the divine influence flows from Christ the head to
all the members of his body, so that where that ministry fails the divine influence
fails. This does not mean that the ministry as men or as officers are the channels
of the Spirit to the members of the church, so that without their ministerial intervention
no man is made a partaker of the Holy Ghost. But it means that the ministry as dispensers
of the truth are thus the channels of divine communication. By the gifts of revelation
and inspiration, Christ constituted some apostles and some prophets for the communication
and record of his truth; and by the inward call of his Spirit he makes some evangelists
and some pastors for its constant proclamation and inculcation. And it is only (so
far as adults are concerned) in connection with the truth, as thus revealed and
preached, that the Holy Ghost is communicated. The ministry, therefore, apostles,
prophets, evangelists and teachers, were given
for the edification of the church, by the communication of that truth in connection
with which alone the Holy Ghost is given.
All this Rome perverts. She says that prelates, whom she calls
apostles, are the channels of the Holy Spirit, first to the priests and then to
the people; and that this communication, is not by the truth, but tactual, by the
laying on of hands. No one therefore can be united to Christ except through them,
or live except as in communion with them. Thus error is always the caricature of
truth.
SECTION II.—Vs. 17-32.—C.
V. 1-2.
17. This I
say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other
Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 having the understanding darkened, being alienated from
the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness
of their heart:
19. who, being past feeling, have given themselves over unto
lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20. But ye have not so learned Christ;
21. if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught
by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22. that ye put off concerning the former conversation the
old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23. and be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24. and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created
in righteousness and true holiness.
25. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with
his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon
your wrath:
27. neither give place to the devil.
28. Let him that stole, steal no more: but rather let him
labour, working with his hands the thing which is, good, that he may
have to give to him that needeth.
29. Let no corrupt communication
proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying,
that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30. And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are
sealed unto the day of redemption.
31. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour,
and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32. and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving
one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.
CH. V. 1. Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children;
2. and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath
given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling
savour.
ANALYSIS.
This Section contains first a general exhortation to holiness,
vs. 17-24; and secondly, injunctions
in respect to specific duties, vs. 25-ch. V. 2.
The exhortation to holiness is, agreeably to the apostle’s manner, first in the
negative form not to walk as the heathen do, vs.
17-19, and secondly, positive, to walk as Christ had taught them,
vs. 20-24. The heathen walk in the vanity of their mind, i. e. in a state
of moral and spiritual fatuity, not knowing what they are about, nor whither they
are going, v. 17; because they are in mental
darkness, and are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in
them, and through the hardness of their hearts, v.
18; as is evinced by their giving themselves up to uncleanness and avarice,
v. 19. The Christian walk is the opposite of this—because believers have
been taught. Instead of ignorance, truth dwells in them, enlightening and purifying.
Hence they are led to put off the old man—and to put on the new man,
which is more and more conformed to the image of God,
vs. 20-24. Therefore, they must avoid lying and speak the truth,
v. 25; abstain from anger and guard against giving Satan any advantage,
vs. 26. 27. Avoid theft, and be diligent and liberal,
v. 28. Avoid all corrupting language, but let their conversation be edifying,
so as not to grieve the Holy Spirit, vs. 29. 30.
Instead of malicious feelings, they should exercise and manifest such as are mild,
benevolent, and forgiving, being in this matter the followers of God,
vs. 31—ch. V. 2.
COMMENTARY.
V. 17. The apostle, having in the preceding section taught that
Christ had destined his church to perfect conformity to himself, and made provision
for that end, as a natural consequence, solemnly enjoins on those who profess to
be Christians to live in accordance with this high vocation. "This therefore
I say and testify in the Lord, that he henceforth walk not as the other Gentiles
walk, in the vanity of their mind." To testify, in this case, is solemnly
to enjoin, as a man does who calls upon God to bear witness to the truth and importance
of what he says. Μαρτυρέω is to act as a witness,
and μαρτύρομαι to invoke as a witness. The
latter is the word here used. In the Lord, means in communion with the Lord.
Paul speaks as one who had access to the mind of Christ, knew his will, and could
therefore speak in his name. The exhortation is, not to walk as the Gentiles
do. To walk, in Scripture language,
includes all the manifestations of life, inward and outward, seen and unseen. It
does not express merely the outward, visible deportment. Men are said to walk with
God, which refers to the secret fellowship of the soul with its Maker, more than
to the outward life. So here the walk, which the apostle enjoins us to avoid, is
not only the visible deportment characteristic of the Gentiles, but also the inward
life of which the outward deportment is the manifestation.
They walk "in the vanity of their mind." The language of the New
Testament being the language of Jews, is more or less modified by Hebrew usage.
And the usage of Hebrew words is of course modified by the philosophy and theology
of the people who employed them. There are two principles which have had an obvious
influence on the meaning of a large class of Hebrew words, and therefore on the
meaning of the Greek terms which answer to them. The one is the unity of the soul
which forbids any such marked distinction between its cognitive and emotional faculties,
i. e. between the understanding and the heart, as is assumed in our philosophy,
and therefore is impressed on our language. In Hebrew the same word designates what
we commonly distinguish as separate faculties. The Scriptures speak of an "understanding
heart," and of "the desires of the understanding," as well as of "the thoughts of
the heart." They recognize that there is an element of feeling in our cognitions
and an element of intelligence in our feelings. The idea that the heart may be depraved
and the intellect unaffected
is, according to the anthropology of the Bible, as incongruous, as that one part
of the soul should be happy and another miserable, one faculty saved and another
lost.
Another principle nearly allied to the former is the moral and
spiritual excellence of truth. Truth is not merely speculative, the object of cognition.
It has moral beauty. In scriptural language, therefore, knowledge includes love;
wisdom includes goodness; folly includes sin; the wise are holy, fools are wicked.
Truth and holiness are united as light and heat in the same ray. There cannot be
the one without the other. To know God is eternal life; to be without the knowledge
of God is to be utterly depraved. Saints are the children of light; the wicked are
the children of darkness. To be enlightened is to be renewed; to be blinded is to
be reprobated. Such is the constant representation of Scripture.
The νοῦς, mind, therefore,
in the passage before us, does not refer to the intellect to the exclusion of the
feelings, nor to the feelings to the exclusion of the intellect. It includes both;
the reason, the understanding, the conscience, the affections are all comprehended
by the term. Sometimes one and sometimes another of these modes of spiritual activity
is specially referred to, but in the present case the whole soul is intended. The
word ματαιότης, vanity, according to
the scriptural usage just referred to, includes moral as well as intellectual worthlessness,
or fatuity. It is of all that is comprehended under the word
νοῦς, the
understanding and the heart, that this vanity is predicated. Every thing included
in the following verses respecting the blindness and depravity of the heathen is
therefore comprehended in the word vanity.
V. 18. Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from
the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness
of their heart. This verse at once explains and confirms the preceding statement.
The heathen walk in vanity, i. e. in intellectual and moral darkness, because their
understanding is darkened, and because they are alienated from the life of God.
The word διανοία, understanding,
in the first clause, means a thinking through; the mind (quatenus
intelligit, appetit et sentit) as opposed to the body; an act of the mind,
a thought, purpose, or disposition; the intelligence as opposed to the feelings.
We are required to love God, ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ,
with the whole mind; men are said to be enemies, τῇ
διανοίᾳ, Col. 1, 21, as to their
state of mind, and proud τῇ διανοίᾳ τῆς καρδίας
αὐτῶν. The apostle Peter exhorts us "to gird up the loins of the mind;"
and speaks of our "pure mind." And the apostle John says: " God has given us
διανοίαν that we may know." The word is opposed
σάρξ in Eph. 2,
3, and to καρδία in
Matt. 22, 37,
Heb. 8, 10 and elsewhere. It depends therefore on the connection whether
the word is to be understood of the whole soul, or of the intelligence, or of the
disposition. In this case it means the intelligence; because it is distinguished
from νοῦς in the preceding verse, and from
καρδία in the last clause of this one.
"Alienated from the life of God," means strangers to that life.
"The life of God," means the life of which God is the author. It is spiritual life.
That is, the life of which the indwelling Spirit is the principle or source.
"Vitam Dei," says Beza, "appellat vitam illam, qua Deus vivit in
suis." Comp.
3, 16, 17, and the remarks on that
passage.
In the last clause of the verse
πώρωσις is rendered blindness, it more properly means hardness.
It does not come from πωρός, blind,
but from πῶρος a peculiar kind of stone, and
then any thing hard or callous. The verb πωρόω
is rendered to harden, Mark 6, 52; 8,
17; John 12, 40, and in all
these passages it is used of the heart. So in Rom.
11, 7, "the rest were hardened." The noun is rendered "hardness" in
Mark 3, 5, and "blindness" in Rom. 11,
25. This is easily accounted for, as the verb is often used in reference
to the eyes when covered with an opaque hardened film, and hence
πεπώρωται is the same at times with
τετύφλωται. The phrase, therefore,
πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας, may be rendered either
blindness or hardness of the heart. The latter is the proper meaning,
unless the other be required by the context, which is not the case in the present
instance.
The principal difficulty in this verse concerns the relation of
its several clauses. First, the participle ὄντες
may be connected with the second clause, so as to read, "Dark as to the understanding,
being (ὄντες)
alienated from the life of God." This is the view taken by our translators, which
supposes that the first clause merely expresses a characteristic of the heathen,
for which the second assigns the reason. ‘They are darkened, because alienated.’
But this is not consistent with the relation of this verse to the preceding. ‘The
heathen walk in vanity because darkened,’ &c. Besides, according to the apostle,
the heathen are not in darkness because alienated from the life of God, but they
are alienated from that life because of their ignorance. Secondly, the four clauses
included in the verse may be considered as so related that the first is connected
with the third, and the second with the fourth. The passage would then read, ‘Having
the understanding darkened on account of the ignorance that is in them; alienated
from the life of God on account of the hardness of their hearts.’ But this unnaturally
dissociates the clauses, contrary to one of the most marked peculiarities of the
apostle’s style; whose sentences are like the links of a chain, one depending on
another in regular succession. This mode of construction also makes ignorance the
cause of the darkness, whereas it is the effect. A man’s being enveloped in darkness
is the cause of his not seeing, but his not seeing is not the cause of the darkness.
Idiocy is the cause of ignorance and not the reverse. The apostle conceives of the
heathen as men whose minds are impaired or darkened, and therefore they are ignorant.
Thirdly, the clauses may be taken as they stand, ὄντες
being connected with the first clause. ‘The heathen
walk in vanity, being (i. e. because they are) darkened as to the understanding,
alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, through the
hardness of their heart.’ Darkness of mind is the cause of ignorance, ignorance
and consequent obduracy of heart are the cause of alienation from God. This is both
the logical and theological order of sequence. The soul in its natural state cannot
discern the things of God—therefore it does not know them, therefore the heart
is hard and therefore it is destitute of holiness. This is what the apostle teaches
in 1 Cor. 2, 14-16. The blind cannot
see; therefore they are ignorant of the beauty of creation, therefore they are destitute
of delight in its glories. You cannot heal them by light. The eye must first be
opened. Then comes vision, and then joy and love. This view of the passage is in
accordance with the analogy of Scripture; which constantly represents regeneration
as necessary to spiritual discernment, and spiritual discernment as necessary to
holy affections. Therefore the apostle says of the heathen that their understanding
is darkened, a film is over their eyes, and they are alienated from God because
of the ignorance consequent on their mental blindness.
V. 19. Who, not the simple relative, but
οἵτινες, such as who. The practical
proof of their being in the state described is to be found in the fact that being
without feeling they give themselves over to the sins mentioned.
Ἀπηλγηκότες, no longer susceptible of pain.
Conscience ceases to upbraid or to restrain them. They,
therefore, give themselves up to excess, to practise all kinds of uncleanness,
ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, with greediness, i.
e. insatiably. The parallel passage, 2 Pet. 2, 14,
"Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin," would favour this
interpretation so far as the idea is concerned. But the word
πλεονεξία always elsewhere means, covetousness;
a desire to have more. And as this gives a good sense it is not right to
depart from the established meaning. Ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ,
therefore, means with, i. e. together with, covetousness. The heathen give themselves
up to uncleanness and covetousness. These two vices are elsewhere thus associated,
as in ch. 5, 3. 5, "Let not uncleanness
or covetousness be named among you." "No unclean person, nor covetous man, &c."
See also Col. 3, 5.
Rom. 1, 29. 1 Cor. 5, 10. Here
as in Rom. 1, 24, immorality is connected
with impiety as its inevitable consequence. Men in their folly think that morality
may be preserved without religion, and even that morality is religion; but reason,
experience and Scripture all prove that if men do not love and fear God they give
themselves up to vice in some form, and commonly either to uncleanness or avarice.
There is a two-fold reason for this; one is the nature of the soul which has no
independent source of goodness in itself, so that if it turns from God it sinks
into pollution, and the other is the punitive justice of God. He abandons those
who abandon him. In Rom. 1, 24 and elsewhere,
it is said ‘God gives the impious up to uncleanness;’ here it is said, they give
themselves up. These are only
different forms of the same truth. Men are restrained from evil by the hand of God,
if he relaxes his hold they rush spontaneously to destruction. All systems of education,
all projects of reform in social or political life, not founded in religion, are,
according to the doctrine of this passage and of all Scripture, sure to lead to
destruction.
V. 20. But ye have not so learned Christ. That is, your
knowledge of Christ has not led you to live as the heathen. As we are said to learn
a thing, but never to learn a person, the expression
μανθάνειν τὸν Χριστόν, is without example.
But as the Scriptures speak of preaching Christ, which does not mean merely to preach
his doctrines, but to preach Christ himself, to set him forth as the object of supreme
love and confidence, so "to learn Christ" does not mean merely, to learn his doctrines,
but to attain the knowledge of Christ as the Son of God, God in our nature, the
Holy one of God, the Saviour from sin, whom to know is holiness and life. Any one
who has thus learned Christ cannot live in darkness and sin. Such knowledge is in
its very nature light. Where it enters, the mind is irradiated, refined, and purified.
Nihil ergo de Christo didicit qui nihil vita ab infidelibus differt;
neque eninm a mortificatione carnis separari potest Christi cognitio.—CALVIN.
V. 21. If so be ye have heard him. "To hear him does not
mean to hear about him. This the apostle in writing to Christians could not express
in a hypothetical form. He knew that the Ephesian Christians had
heard about Christ. To hear, in this connection, implies intelligence and obedience,
as in the frequently occurring phrase, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear;"
and "To-day if ye will hear his voice, &c.," and in a multitude of other cases.
To hear the voice of God or of Christ, therefore, is not merely to perceive with
the outward ear but to receive with the understanding and the heart. The particle
εἴγε, if indeed, does not express
doubt; but ‘if, as I take for granted.’ The apostle assumes that they were obedient
to the truth. ‘Ye have not so learned Christ as to allow of your living as do the
Gentiles, if, as I take for granted, you have really heard his voice and have been
taught by him. Ἐν αὐτῷ, however, does
not properly mean by him, but ‘in communion with him.’ ‘Ye have been taught in him,
inasmuch as truth is in Jesus, to put off the old man.’ The knowledge of Christ,
hearing him, union with him, his inward teaching, are necessarily connected with
the mortification of sin.
The clause καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια
ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, rendered in our version as the truth is in Jesus, is
variously explained. The interpretation intimated above supposes
καθώς, to have its frequent causal sense;
since, inasmuch as; and truth to mean moral truth, or excellence.
This sense it very often has. It frequently means true religion, and is used antithetically
to unrighteousness, as in Rom. 2, 8. The
principle here involved is, that knowledge of God is inconsistent with a life of
sin, because knowledge implies love, and God is holy. To know him, therefore, is
to love holiness. The apostle’s
argument is: ‘If you know Christ you will forsake sin, because he is holy—truth,
i. e. moral excellence is in him. If you have been taught any thing in virtue of
your communion with him, you have been taught to put off the old man.’
Another interpretation supposes
καθώς to mean as, expressing the manner. ‘If ye have been taught
as the truth is in Jesus,’ i. e. correctly taught. But this requires the article
even in English—the truth, meaning the definite system of truth which Jesus
taught. In the Greek, however, the article necessary to give colour to this interpretation
is wanting. Besides, the expression "the truth is in Jesus" is obscure and unscriptural,
if truth be taken to mean true doctrine. And more than this, this interpretation
supposes there may be a true and false teaching by, or in communion with, Christ.
This cannot be. The apostle’s hypothesis is, not whether Christ has taught them
correctly, but whether he has taught them at all.
A third interpretation makes the following infinitive the subject
of the sentence; ‘Truth in Jesus is, to put off the old man.’ The meaning of the
whole passage would then be, ‘If you know Christ ye cannot live as the heathen,
for truth in Jesus is to put away sin,’ i. e. true fellowship with Christ is to
put off, &c. But this violates the natural construction of the passage, according
to which the infinitive ἀποθέσθαι depends
on ἐδιδάχθητε, ‘Ye have been taught to put
off, &c.’ And the expression, ‘It is truth in Jesus to put away sin’ is in itself
awkward and obscure. The first mentioned
interpretation, therefore, is on the whole to be preferred.
V. 22. Sanctification includes dying to sin, or mortification
of the flesh, and living to righteousness; or as it is here expressed, putting off
the old man and putting on the new man. The obvious allusion is to a change of clothing.
To put off, is to renounce, to remove from us, as garments which are laid aside.
To put on, is to adopt, to make our own. We are called upon to put off the works
of darkness,
Rom. 13, 12, to put away lying,
Eph. 4, 25; to put off anger, wrath, malice, &c.,
Col. 3, 8; to lay aside all filthiness,
James 1, 21. On the other hand, we are called upon to put on the Lord
Jesus Christ, Rom. 13, 14,
Gal. 3, 27; the armour of light,
Rom. 13, 12; bowels of mercy,
Col. 3, 12; and men are said to be clothed with power from on high,
Luke 24, 49; with immortality or incorruption, &c.,
1 Cor. 15, 53. As a man’s clothes are what strike the eye—so these expressions
are used in reference to the whole phenomenal life—all those acts and attributes
by which the interior life of the soul is manifested;—and not only that, but also
the inherent principle itself whence these acts flow. For here we are said to put
off the old man, that is, our corrupt nature, which is old or original as
opposed to the new man or principle of spiritual life. Comp.
Col. 3, 9, "Lie not one to another, seeing you have put off the old man
with his deeds." Rom. 6, 6, "Knowing this,
that our old man is crucified with him." What is here called "the old man " Paul
elsewhere calls himself, as in Rom.
7, 14, "I am carnal," "In me there dwelleth no good thing,"
v. 18; or, "law in the members," v. 23;
or "the flesh" as opposed to the spirit, as in Gal.
5, 16. 17. This evil principle or nature is called old because it precedes
what is new, and because it is corrupt. And it is called "man," because it is ourselves.
We are to be changed—and not merely our acts. We are to crucify ourselves. This
original principle of evil is not destroyed in regeneration, but is to be daily
mortified, in the conflicts of a whole life.
The connection, as intimated above, is with the former clause
of v. 21,ἐδιδάχθητε—ἀποθέσθαι
ὑμᾶς. When the subject of the infinitive in such construction is the same
with that of the governing verb, it is usually not expressed. The presence of
ὑμᾶς therefore in the text is urged as a fatal
objection to this construction. A reference, however, to
Luke 20, 20,
Rom. 2, 19,
Phil. 3, 13, will show that this rule has its exceptions.
The intervening clause, κατὰ τὴν
προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν, concerning the former conversation, belongs
to the verb and not to the following noun. The meaning is not, ‘the old man as to
the former conversation,’ (which would require τὸν
κατὰ τὴν προτ. κτλ.); but, ‘put away as concerns the former conversation
the old man.’ It is not the old nature as to its former manifestations only that
is to be put away, but the old principle entirely. And as that was formerly dominant,
the apostle says, as to your former manner of life, put off the old man.
"Which is corrupt," φθειρόμενον;
"which tends to destruction." This latter rendering is to be preferred, because
the epithet old includes the idea of corruption. It would be, therefore, tautological
to say, ‘the corrupt man which is corrupt.’ It is the old man or corrupt nature
which tends to perdition (qui tendit ad exitium.—GROTIUS),
which is to be laid aside, or continually mortified.
It tends to destruction, κατὰ τὰς
ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης, according to the deceitful lusts, or as
ἀπάτης has the article and therefore is not
so properly a mere qualifying genitive—the lusts which deceit has. The apostle
says, Rom. 7, 11, sin deceived him, and
Heb. 3, 11, speaks of "the deceitfulness of sin." It is indwelling sin
itself which deceives by means of those desires which tend to destruction.
V. 23. In this and the following verse we have the positive part
of sanctification which is expressed by "renewing" and "putting on the new man."
The verb ἀνανεοῦσθαι, to be made new,
is passive. This renewal is always represented as the work of God. "We are his workmanship
created in Christ Jesus unto good works," ch. 2, 10.
It is therefore called "a renewing of the Holy Ghost."
Titus 3, 5. Both these phrases "to be renewed" and "to put on the new
man" may express either the instantaneous act of regeneration, or the gradual work
of sanctification. Thus in Rom. 12, 2, we
are exhorted "not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing
of the mind." So in this place, and in the parallel passage in
Col. 3,
9. 10, these terms express the whole process by which the soul is restored
to the image of God. It is a process of renewal from the beginning to the end. The
apostle says, "his inner man is renewed day by day."
2 Cor. 4, 16.
The distinction between νέος,
young, new as to origin; and καινός,
fresh, bright, unused, new as to natue or character, is generally preserved
in the New Testament. Thus i n Matt 9, 17,
οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς, recent,
or newly made wine into fresh bottles. Μνημεῖον καινὸν,
new sepulchre, i. e. one which had not been used, however long it may have
been prepared. Hence καινός, is an epithet
of excellence. In the passage "Until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God,"
Mark 14, 25, the word is καινόν,
not νέον. The same idea is implied in all the
expressions, new creature, new heavens, new commandment, new name, new Jerusalem,
&c., &c. In all these cases the word is καινός.
The same distinction properly belongs to the derivatives of these words;
ἀνανεόω is to make
νέος, and ἀνακαινίζο,
ἀνακαινόω, is to make καινός. Hence
when reference is had to the renewal of the soul, which is a change for the better,
the words used are always the derivatives of καινός,
except in this passage. See Rom. 12, 2;
2 Cor. 4, 16; Col. 3, 10;
Tit. 3, 5. Still as what is νέος
is also καινός; as freshness, vigour and beauty
are the attributes of youth, the same thing may be designated by either term. The
soul as renewed is, therefore, called in this passage
καινὸς ἄνθρωπος and
νέος ἄνθρωπος in
Col. 3, 10; and the spiritual change
which in Col. 3, 10, is expressed by
ἀνακαινόω, and in
Rom. 12, 2, and
Tit. 3, 5, by ἀνακαίνωσις, is here
expressed by ἀνανεόω.
The subject of this renewal, that as to which men are to be made
new, is expressed in the clause τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς
ὑμῶν, i. e. as to the spirit of your mind. This combination is unexampled.
Grotius says: Spiritus mentis est ipsa mens; as Augustin
before him had said: Spiritum mentis dicere voluit eum spiritum,
quae mens vocatur. But here spirit and mind are distinguished. The spirit
of a man is not that spirit which is a man; but which man has. Others take the word
spirit here to be temper, disposition. "Renewed as to the temper of your mind."
This is a very unusual, if not doubtful meaning of the word in the New Testament.
Others, again, say that the word spirit means the Holy Spirit, and that the passage
should be rendered, "by the Spirit which is in your mind." But this is impossible.
The "spirit of the mind" is here as plainly distinguished from the Spirit of God
as in Rom. 8, 16, where the Spirit of God
is said to bear witness with our spirit.
It may be remarked in reference to this phrase:—1. That although
the passage in Rom. 12, 2, "renewal of your
mind," obviously expresses the same general idea as is here expressed by saying,
" renewed as to the spirit of the mind," it does not follow that "mind" and "spirit
of the mind," mean exactly the same thing. The one expression is general, the other
precise and definite. 2. The words πνεῦμα, νοῦς, καρδία,
ψυχή,
spirit, mind, heart, soul, are used in Scripture both for the whole immaterial
and immortal element of our nature, that in which our personality resides; and also
for that element under some one of its modes of manifestation, sometimes for one
mode and sometimes for another; as νοῦς sometimes
designates the soul as intelligent and sometimes the soul as feeling. 3. Though
this is true, yet predominantly one of these terms designates one, and another a
different mode of manifestation; as νοῦς the
understanding, καρδία the feelings,
ψυχή the seat of sensation. 4. Of these terms
πνεῦμα is the highest. It means breath, wind,
invisible power, life. The idea of power cannot be separated from the term;
τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζῳοποιοῦν.
John 6, 63. It is, therefore, applied to
God, to the Holy Ghost, to angels, to Satan, to demons, to the soul of man. The
"spirit of the world," 1 Cor. 2, 12, is
the controlling, animating principle of the world, that which makes it what it is.
The spirit of the mind therefore is its interior life; that of which the
νοῦς, καρδία, ψυχή are the modes of manifestation.
That, therefore, which needs to be renewed, is not merely outward habits or modes
of life; not merely transient tempers or dispositions, but the interior principle
of life which lies back of all that is outward, phenomenal, or transient.
V. 24. Καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν
ἄνθρωπον, and that ye put on the new man. As we are called to put
off our corrupt nature as a ragged and filthy garment, so we are required to put
on our new nature as a garment of light. And as the former was personified as
an old man, decrepit, deformed, and tending to corruption, so the latter is personified
as a new man, fresh, beautiful, and vigorous, like God, for it is
τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα, κτλ., after
God created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. In the parallel passage
it is said to be renewed "after the image of God,"
Col. 3, 10. "After God," therefore, means after his image. That in which
this image consists is said to be righteousness and holiness. The former of these
words, δικαιοσύνη, when it stands alone often
includes all the forms of moral excellence; but when associated with
ὁσιότης, the one means rectitude, the being
or doing right; and the other, holiness. The one renders us just to our neighbours;
the other, pious towards God. The two substantives are united in
Luke 1, 75; the adjectives, just and holy, in
Tit. 1, 8; and the adverbs, holily and justly, in
1 Thess. 2, 10. The Greeks made the same
distinction, πρὸς θεοὺς ὅσιον καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δίκαιόν
ἐστι. In our version this clause is rendered, "in righteousness and true
holiness;" but the word ἀληθείας stands in
the same relation to both nouns, and if taken as a mere qualifying genitive the
translation should be, "in true righteousness and holiness." Most modern commentators,
however, consider "the truth" here as opposed to "the deceit" spoken
of in verse 22. "Righteousness and holiness
of the truth" would then mean that righteousness and holiness which the truth has,
or which the truth produces. If the principle of indwelling sin is there personified
as ἀπάτη, deceit, producing and exercising
those lusts
which lead to destruction; the principle of spiritual life is here personified as
ἀλήθεια, truth, which produces righteousness
and holiness. Truth is spiritual knowledge, that knowledge which is eternal life,
which not only illuminates the understanding but sanctifies the heart. The Holy
Ghost is called the Spirit of truth as the author of this divine illumination which
irradiates the whole soul. This truth came by Jesus Christ,
John 1, 17. He is the truth and the life,
John 14, 6. We are made free by the truth, and sanctified by the truth.
The Gospel is called the word of truth, as the objective revelation of that divine
knowledge which subjectively is the principle of spiritual life. Taking the word
in this sense, the passage is brought into nearer coincidence with the parallel
passage in Col. 3, 10. Here the image of
God is said to consist in righteousness and holiness of the truth; there it is said
to consist in knowledge. "The new man is renewed unto knowledge after the image
of him that created him." These passages differ only in that the one is more concise
than the other. Knowledge (the ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ Θεοῦ)
includes righteousness, holiness, and truth. Nothing, therefore, can be more contrary
to Scripture than to undervalue divine truth, and to regard doctrines as matters
pertaining merely to the speculative understanding. Righteousness and holiness,
morality and religion, are the products of the truth, without which they cannot
exist.
This passage is of special doctrinal importance, as teaching us
the true nature of the image of God in
which man was originally created. That image did not consist merely in man’s rational
nature, nor in his immortality, nor in his dominion, but specially in that righteousness
and holiness, that rectitude in all his principles, and that susceptibility of devout
affections which are inseparable from the possession of the truth, or true knowledge
of God. This is the scriptural view of the original state of man, or of original
righteousness, as opposed, on the one hand, to the Pelagian theory that man was
created without moral character; and on the other, to the Romish doctrine, that
original righteousness was a supernatural endowment not belonging to man’s nature.
Knowledge, and consequently righteousness and holiness, were immanent or concreated
in the first man, in the same sense as were his sense of beauty and susceptibility
of impression from the external world. He opened his eyes and saw what was visible,
and perceived its beauty; he turned his mind on God, perceived his glory, and was
filled with all holy affections.
V. 25. Having enforced the general duty of holiness, or of being
conformed to the image of God, the apostle insists on specific duties. It will be
observed that in almost every case there is first a negative, then a positive statement
of the duty, and then a motive. Thus here: lie not, but speak truth, for ye are
members one of another. Wherefore, i. e. on the ground of the general obligation
to be conformed to the divine image, putting away lying, as one part of the
filthy garments belonging to the old man; speak every man truth with
his neighbour. A neighbour, ὁ πλησίον,
the Scripture teaches us, is any one near to us, a fellow man of any creed or nation;
and to all such we are bound to speak the truth. But the context shows that Paul
is here speaking to Christians, and the motive by which the duty is enforced shows
that by neighbour he here means a fellow-Christian, as in
Rom. 15, 2. The motive in question is the intimate relation in which
believers stand to each other. They are all members of the same body intimately
united, as he taught in verse 16, with each
other and with Christ their common head. As it would be unnatural and absurd for
the hand to deceive the foot, or the eye the ear, so there is a violation of the
very law of their union for one Christian to deceive another. It is characteristic
of the apostle and of the Scriptures generally, to enforce moral duties by religious
considerations. This method, while it presents the higher and peculiar ground of
obligation, is not intended to exclude other grounds. The obligation of veracity
rests on the intrinsic excellence of truth, on the command of God, and on the rights
of our fellow men. They have the same right that we should not deceive them as that
we should not defraud them. But all this does not hinder that the duty should be
enforced by a reference to the peculiar relation of believers as united by the indwelling
of the Holy Spirit into the mystical body of Christ.
Vs. 26. 27. His next exhortation has reference to anger; with
regard to which he teaches —1. Not to allow anger to be an occasion of sin. 2. Not
to cherish
it. 3. Not to give Satan any advantage over us when we are angry.
The words ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε,
be ye angry and sin not, are borrowed from the Septuagint version of
Ps. 4, 5, and admit of different interpretations. 1. As the original
text in Ps. 4, 5, admits of
being rendered Rage and sin not, i. e. do not sin by ragingSee
Dr. J. A. Alexander’s Commentary on the Psalms.—so the words of the apostle
may mean, do not commit the sin of being angry. To this it is objected, that it
makes the negative qualify both verbs, while it belongs really only to the latter.
It is not necessary to assume that the apostle uses these words in the precise sense
of the original text; for the New Testament writers often give the sense of an Old
Testament passage with a modification of the words, or they use the same words with
a modification of the sense. This is not properly a quotation; it is not cited as
something the Psalmist said, but the words are used to express Paul’s own idea.
In Rom. 10, 18, "Their sound is gone into
all the earth," we have the language of the 19th
Ps. but not an expression of the sense of the Psalmist. 2. Others make
the ‘first imperative in this clause permissive and the second commanding, ‘Be angry
and (but) do not sin.’ 3. Or the first is conditional, ‘if angry, sin not.’ That
is, sin not in anger; let not your anger be an occasion of sin. Repress it and bring
it under control that it may not hurry you into the commission of sin. The meaning
is the same as would be expressed
by saying, ὀργίζόμενοὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε,
being angry sin not. This is perhaps the most satisfactory view of the passage.
It is indeed objected that the apostle is here speaking of sins, and that in
v. 31, he forbids all anger, and therefore any interpretation which assumes
that anger is not itself a sin is inadmissible. But it is certain that all anger
is not sinful. Christ himself, it is said, regarded the perverse Jews "with anger."
Mark 3, 5. The same generic feeling, if mingled with holy affections,
or in a holy mind, is virtuous; if mingled with malice it is sinful. Both feelings,
or both combinations of feeling, are expressed in Scripture by the term anger. Nothing
in itself sinful can be attributed to God, but anger is attributed to him.
Verse 31 is not inconsistent with this interpretation, for there the
context shows the apostle speaks of malicious anger—just as "all hatred" means
all malice, and not the hatred of evil.
Let not the sun go down upon your wrath. The word is here
παροργισμός, paroxysm or excitement.
Anger even when justifiable is not to be cherished. The wise man says: "Anger resteth
in the bosom of fools."
Eccl. 7, 9.
Neither give place to the devil.—"So give place to"
is to get out of the way of, to allow free scope to; and therefore to give an occasion
or advantage to any one. We are neither to cherish anger, nor are we to allow Satan
to take advantage of our being angry. Anger when cherished gives the Tempter great
power over us, as it furnishes a motive to yield to his evil suggestions.
The word διάβολος is rendered by Luther,
Lästerer, slanderer. It is used as an adjective in
that sense in 1 Tim. 3, 11;
2 Tim. 3, 3, and Tit. 2, 3,
but with the article (ὁ διάβολος) it always
means Satan—the great accuser—the prince of the demons or fallen angels, who is
the great opposer of God and seducer of men against whose wiles we are commanded
to be constantly on our guard.
V. 28. The next exhortation relates to theft—we are not to steal—but
to labour, that we may not only honestly support ourselves, but be able also to
give to those who need.
The word ὁ κλέπτων does
not mean one who stole, but one who steals, the thief. But how, it is asked, could
the apostle assume that there were thieves in the Ephesian church, especially as
he is addressing those who had been renewed, and whom he is exhorting to live agreeably
to their new nature? To get over this difficulty Calvin says, Paul does not refer
merely to such thefts as the civil law punishes, but to all unjust acquisition.
And Jerome says, Ephesios monet, ne sub occasione emolumenti furti
crimen incurrant, furtum nominans, omne quod alterius damno quaeritur. This
enlargement of the idea of theft, though it transcends the limits assigned the offence
in human laws, does not go beyond the law of God. As the command, "Thou shalt do
no murder," includes the prohibition of malice; so the command, "Thou shalt not
steal," forbids every thing that doth or may unjustly hinder our neighbour’s wealth
or outward estate. It is very certain that many
things tolerated by the customs of men; many modes of getting the property of others
into our own possession practised even by those professing to be Christians, are
in the light of the divine law only different forms of theft, and will be revealed
as such in the judgment of the last day. The spirit of the apostle’s command no
doubt includes all the forms of dishonesty. Still it may be questioned if this principle
gives the true explanation of the passage. Others say, that as in the Corinthian
church fornication and even incest was tolerated, See
1 Cor. 6, 1-6,—it is not incredible that
theft should be disregarded in the church of Ephesus, or at least not visited with
discipline. It is however probable that our version, which agrees with the Vulgate
and with Luther’s translation, expresses the true sense. Not that
ὁ κλέπτων means the same with
ὁ κλέψας, but as "murderer" means one guilty
of murder, however penitent, so "thief" may. mean one guilty of theft. Certain inmates
of the prisons are called thieves because of their past, and not because of their
present conduct.
The positive part of the apostle’s injunction is, instead of sustaining
himself unjustly on the labour of others, let him labour, working with his hands
the thing that is good. As he used his hands to steal, let him use them in doing
what is right—i. e. in honest labour. Paul elsewhere lays down the general principle,
"if any would not work neither should he eat." 2
Thess. 3, 10. No one is entitled to be supported by others, who is able
to support himself. This is one great principle
of scriptural economics. Another, however, no less important is, that those who
cannot work are entitled to aid—and therefore the apostle adds as a motive why the
strong should labour—that they may have to contribute to him that hath need.
No man liveth for himself; and no man should labour for himself alone, but with
the definite object to be able to assist others. Christian principles, if fairly
carried out, would speedily banish pauperism and other cognate evils from our modern
civilization.
Vs. 29, 30—Forbid corrupt communication—enjoin profitable discourse,
assign as a motive the good of others and reverence for the Holy Spirit.
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.
Πᾶς λόγος σαπρός, any foul word. The
word σαπρός means literally putrid,
and then figuratively offensive and injurious. But that which is good to the
use of edifying, ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν,
adapted to edification. The words οἰκοδομὴν
τῆς χρείας, edification of the necessity, means the edification the
necessity calls for—or which is suited to the occasion. This is the common and
satisfactory interpretation. Our version "to the use of edifying"—transposes
the words. That it may give grace to the hearers. The phrase
χάριν διδόναι, to give grace, is one
of frequent occurrence, and always means—to confer a favour—i. e. to give pleasure
or profit. There is no necessity for departing from this sense here. The meaning
is, ‘that it may benefit the hearers.’ And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God,
i. e. by such corrupt language. Under the head of
πᾶς
λόγος σαπρος the apostle includes, as appears from
Col. 3, 8, all irreligious, malicious and impure language, which not
only injures others, but grieves the Holy Spirit. As a temple is sacred, and every
thing that profanes it is an offence to God, so the indwelling of the Holy Ghost
in the people of God is made the reason why we should treat them with reverence,
as this apostle teaches when he says, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God,
him will God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
1 Cor. 3, 16. 17. To pollute, therefore, the souls of believers by suggesting
irreligious or impure thoughts to them, is a profanation of the temple of God and
an offence to the Holy Ghost. This is one phase of the truth here presented. Another,
and the one more immediately intended in this clause is, that the blessed Spirit
who condescends to dwell in our own hearts is grieved and offended whenever we thus
sin. Thus in 1 Cor. 6, 19, Paul says, "What!
know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which
ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" Reverence, therefore, for the Holy Spirit
who dwells in others, and for that same Spirit as dwelling in ourselves, should
prevent our ever giving utterance to a corrupting thought. The Spirit, says the
apostle, is grieved. Not only is his holiness offended, but his love is wounded.
If any thing can add to the guilt of such conduct, it is its ingratitude, for it
is by him, as the apostle adds, We are sealed unto the day of
redemption. His indwelling certifies that we are the children of God, and
secures our final salvation. See 1, 13.
To grieve Him, therefore, is to wound him on whom our salvation depends. Though
he will not finally withdraw from those in whom he dwells, yet when grieved he withholds
the manifestations of his presence. And a disregard for those manifestations is
proof that we have not the Spirit of Christ and are none of his.
The apostle next exhorts his readers to put away all malicious
and revengeful feelings, to be kind and forgiving. This exhortation is enforced
by the consideration of the mercy of God, and the great love of Christ,
vs. 31-ch. V. 2.
V. 31. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor,
and evil speaking, be put away from you. These are intimately related evils.
Bitterness, a word transferred from the sphere of sensations to that of the
mind. The adjective πικρός means sharp, as
an arrow, then pungent to the taste, disagreeable, and then venomous. The poisonous
water given to the woman suspected of adultery, Numbers
5, 18, is called the "bitter water." The word bitterness, therefore,
in its figurative sense means what is corroding, as grief, or any thing which acts
on the mind as poison does on the body, or on the minds of others as venom does
on their bodies. The venom of the serpent lies harmless in his fang; but all evil
feelings are poison to the subject of them as well as venom to their object. The
command, therefore, to lay aside all bitterness, is a command
to lay aside every thing which corrodes our own minds or wounds the feelings of
others. Under this head are the particulars which follow, viz. wrath;
θυμός, (from
θύω, to burn,) means the mind itself as the seat of passions and desires—then
the mind in the commotion of passion. Ὀργή,
anger, is the passion itself, i. e. the manifestation of
θυμός, as clamor and evil speaking are the
outward expression of anger. The context shows that
βλασφημία is neither blasphemy as directed
against God, nor merely slander as directed against men; but any form of speech
springing from anger, and adapted either to wound or to injure others. With all
malice. Κακία is a general term for
badness or depravity of any kind. Here the context shows that it means
malevolence, the desire to injure. We are to lay aside not only wrath and
anger but all other forms of malevolent feeling.
V. 32. Exhortation to the opposite virtues. We are required to
be χρηστοί. The word properly means useful;
then disposed to do good. Thus God is said to be χρηστός,
kind or benignant, to the unthankful and the evil,
Luke 6, 35. Tender-hearted, εὔσπλαγχνοι,
which in the parallel passage, Col. 3, 12,
is expressed by "bowels of compassion." That is, pity, compassion towards the suffering.
Forgiving one another, χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς.
The verb means to give as a matter of favour, then to forgive, to pardon freely.
Even as, i. e. because God in Christ hath freely forgiven you. This
is the motive which should constrain us to forgive others. God’s forgiveness towards
us is free; it precedes
even our repentance and is the cause of it. It is exercised notwithstanding the
number, the enormity and the long continuance of our transgressions. He forgives
us far more than we can ever be called upon to. forgive others. God forgives us
in Christ. Out of Christ he is, in virtue of his holiness and justice, a
consuming fire; but in him, he is long-suffering, abundant in mercy, and ready to
forgive.
Vs. 1. 2. As God has placed us under so great obligation, "be
ye, therefore, imitators of God." The exhortation is enlarged. We are not only to
imitate God in being forgiving, but also as becomes dear children, by walking
in love. As God is love, and as we by regeneration and adoption are his children,
we are bound to exercise love habitually. Our whole walk should be characterized
by it. As Christ also hath loved us. This is the reason why we should love
one another. We should be like Christ, which is being like God, for Christ is God.
The apostle makes no distinction between our being the objects of God’s love and
our being the objects of the love of Christ. We are to be imitators of God in love,
for Christ hath loved us. And given himself for us. Here as elsewhere the
great evidence of divine love is the death of Christ. See ver. 25.
ch. 3, 19. John 15, 13. "Greater
love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Gal. 2, 20, "Who loved me and gave himself for me."
1 John 3, 16, "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he
laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the
brethren." Christ’s death was for us as a sacrifice, and therefore, from
the nature of the transaction, in our place. Whether the idea of substitution be
expressed by ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν depends on the context
rather than on the force of the preposition. To die for any one, may mean either
for his benefit or in his stead, as the connection demands. Christ gave himself,
as an offering and a sacrifice, προσφορὰν
καὶ θυσίαν; the latter term explains the former. Any thing presented to
God was a προσφορά, but
θυσία was something slain. The addition of
that term, therefore, determines the nature of the offering. This is elsewhere determined
by the nature of the thing offered, as in Heb. 10,
10, "the offering of the body of Christ;" or, "himself,"
Heb. 9, 14. 25; by the effects ascribed to it, viz. expiation of guilt
and the propitiation of God, which are the appropriate effects of a sin-offering;
see Heb. 2, 17; 10, 10. 14;
Rom. 3, 25; 5, 9. 10: by explanatory expressions, "the one offering of
Christ" is declared to be μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίαν,
Heb. 10, 12; "a sacrifice for sin," and
προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας,
Heb. 10, 18;
ἀντίλυτρον, and
λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, as in
1 Tim. 2, 6. Matt. 20, 28;
it is called a propitiation, Rom. 3, 25,
as well as a ransom. Christ himself, therefore, is called the Lamb of God who bore
our sins; his blood is the object of faith or ground of confidence, by which, as
the blood of a sacrifice, we are redeemed, 1 Pet.
1, 18. 19. He saves us as a priest does, i. e. by a sacrifice. Every
victim ever slain on Pagan altars was a declaration of the necessity for such a
sacrifice; all the blood
shed on Jewish altars was a prophecy and promise of propitiation by the blood of
Christ; and the whole New Testament is the record of the Son of God offering himself
up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. This, according to the faith of the
church universal, is the sum of the Gospel—the incarnation and death of the eternal
Son of God as a propitiation for sin. There can, therefore, be no doubt as to the
sense in which the apostle here declares Christ to be an offering and a sacrifice.
There is some doubt as to the construction of the words, "to God."
They may be connected with what precedes, "He gave himself as a sacrifice to God;"
or with the following clause, "For a sweet savour to God," i. e. acceptable to him.
The sense of the whole would then be, ‘He gave himself,
παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν, (unto death,
εἰς θάνατον,) an offering and sacrifice well
pleasing to God.’ The reasons in favour of this construction are—1. That
παραδιδόναι means properly to deliver up to
the power of any one, and is not the suitable or common term to express the idea
of presenting as a sacrifice. The word almost always used in such cases is
προσφέρειν, to bring near to, to offer.
2. With Paul the favourite construction of παραδιδόναι
is with εἰς and not with the dative. 3. In
Hebrew, from which the phrase εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας
here used is borrowed, the expression is רֵיחַ־נִיחֹחַ
לַיהוָה, (a sweet smelling savour to Jehovah), which the Septuagint
render, ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας τῷ Κυρίῳ. It is not probable
in using so familiar a scriptural phrase Paul would depart from the common
construction. The Hebrew phrase properly means a savour of rest; that is, one which
composes, pacifies, or pleases. The last is what the Greek expresses, and therefore
the equivalent expression is εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ,
well pleasing to God.
Rom. 12, 1.
Phil. 4, 18. It was in the exercise of the highest conceivable love,
which ought to influence all our conduct, that Christ delivered himself unto death,
an offering and sacrifice well pleasing unto God.
CHAPTER V.
SPECIFIC EXHORTATIONS, VS. 3-20.—RELATIVE DUTIES OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES, vs.
21-33.
SECTION I.—Vs. 3-20.
3. But fornication,
and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as
becometh saints;
4. neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which
are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person,
nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God.
6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of
these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8. For ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light
in the Lord: walk as children of light;
9. (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness,
and truth;)
10. proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
but rather reprove them.
12. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which
are done of them in secret.
13. But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by
the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
14. Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise
from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
15. See that ye walk circumspectly; not as fools, but as wise,
16. redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the
will of the Lord is.
18. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be
filled with the Spirit;
19. speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20. giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
ANALYSIS.
It becomes saints to avoid not only the sins of uncleanness and
covetousness, but also all impropriety of conduct and frivolity of language,
vs. 3-4. Because uncleanness and covetousness not only exclude from heaven,
but, whatever errorists may say, bring down the wrath of God,
vs. 5-6. Christians, therefore, should not participate in those sins,
seeing they have been divinely enlightened and made the recipients of that light
whose fruits are goodness, righteousness and truth. They are bound to exemplify
this in their conduct, avoiding and reproving the deeds of darkness,
vs. 7-10. Those deeds are too shameful to be named; still they may be
corrected by the power of that light which it is the prerogative of believers to
disseminate. Therefore the Scriptures speak of the light which flows from Christ
as reaching even to the dead, vs. 12-14.
Christians therefore should be wise, making the most of every occasion for good,
in the midst of the evils by which they are surrounded,
vs. 13-16. They should seek exhilaration not from wine, but from the
Holy
Spirit, and give expression to their gladness in psalms and hymns, praising and
thanking God through Jesus Christ, vs. 17-20.
COMMENTARY.
V. 3. But fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness,
let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
In the preceding section the apostle had spoken of sins against
our neighbour; here from v. 3 to v. 20
he dwells principally on sins against ourselves. Not only fornication, but every
thing of the same nature, or that leads to it, is to be avoided—and not only avoided,
but not even named among believers. The inconsistency of all such sins with the
character of Christians, as saints, men selected from the world and consecrated
to God, is such as should forbid the very mention of them in a Christian society.
With the sins of uncleanness the apostle here, as in the preceding chapter,
v. 19, connects πλεονεξία, covetousness.
The word is to be taken in its ordinary sense, as there is nothing in the context
to justify any departure from it. The assumption that sins of sensuality are alone
mentioned in this and the following verse, leads to very forced interpretations
of several of the terms employed.
V. 4. Neither filthiness. The word
αἰσχρότης, is not simply obscenity,
but whatever is morally hateful. The adjective αἰσχρος
means deformed, revolting, what excites disgust, physical or moral. It is
the opposite of καλός, which means both beautiful
and good; and
hence τὸ καλόν καὶ τὸ αἰσχρόν, means virtue
and vice, The substantive is equally comprehensive, and includes whatever
is vile or disgusting in speech or conduct. Lesser evils are expressed by the words
μωρολογία and
εὐτραπελία, foolish talking and jesting. The former means such talk
as is characteristic of fools, i. e. frivolous and senseless. The latter, according
to its etymology and early usage, means urbanity, politeness. Naturally enough
however the word came to have a bad sense, as the adjective
εὐτράπελος, what turns easily, as the
wind, when applied to language or speech, means not only adroit, skilful, agreeable,
witty, but also flippant, satirical, scurrilous. Hence the substantive is used for
jesting and scurrility. The former sense is best suited to this passage,
because it is connected with foolish talking, and because the apostle says of both
simply that they are not convenient, not becoming or suitable. This is too
mild a form of expression to be used either of αἰσχρότης
(filthiness) or of εὐτραπελία in the worse
sense of those terms. Paul says, these things (foolish talking and jesting) do not
become Christians; οὐκ ἀνήκοντα, what
does not pertain to any one, or, to his office. Foolish talking and jesting
are not the ways in which Christian cheerfulness should express itself, but rather
giving of thanks. Religion is the source of joy and gladness, but its joy
is expressed in a religious way, in thanksgiving and praise.
V. 5. The apostle reverts to what he said in
v. 3. and enforces the exhortation there given. "For this ye
know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." The form of expression
is peculiar, ἴστεThe common text has
ἐστε, but the evidence in favour of
ἴστε is so strong that it is adopted by all
recent editors. γινώσκοντες, ye
know knowing. Many refer this to the familiar Hebrew idiom, in which the infinitive
and finite tense of a verb are thus joined, which in Greek and English is imitated
by uniting the participle and verb; as "dying thou shalt die," "multiplying I will
multiply," "blessing I will bless," &c. But in all these cases the infinitive and
finite tense are different forms of the same verb. Here we have different words.
The preferable interpretation is to refer ἴστε
to what precedes in v. 3, and
γινώσκοντες to what follows: ‘This ye know,
viz., that such vices should not be named among you, knowing that no one who indulges
in them, &c.’
Covetous man who is an idolater. The words
ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης are by many referred
to all the preceding nouns, so that the fornicator, the unclean person, and the
covetous man, are all alike declared to be idolaters. This is possible so far as
the grammatical construction is concerned; but it is not natural, and not consistent
with the parallel passage in Col. 3, 5, where
the apostle singles out covetousness from a list of sins, and says, ‘It is idolatry.’
This too has its foundation both in nature and in Scripture. The analogy between
this supreme love of riches, this service of Mammon
and idolatry, is more obvious and more distinctly recognized in Scripture than between
idolatry and any other of the sins mentioned. It is well that this should be understood,
that men should know, that the most common of all sins, is the most heinous in the
sight of God. For idolatry, which consists in putting the creature in the place
of God, is every where in his word denounced as the greatest of all sins in his
sight. The fact that it is compatible with outward decorum and with the respect
of men, does not alter its nature. It is the permanent and controlling principle
of an irreligious heart and life, turning the soul away from God. There is no cure
for this destructive love of money, but using it for other than selfish purposes.
Riches, therefore, must ruin their possessor, unless he employs them for the good
of others and for the glory of God.
It is of the covetous man no less than of the fornicator, the
apostle says, he has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. That is, in that kingdom
which Christ came to establish—which consists of all the redeemed, washed in his
blood, sanctified by his Spirit, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment
of God to all eternity. This kingdom is sometimes called the kingdom of Christ,
and sometimes the kingdom of God; for where Christ reigns, God reigns. Here it is
designated the βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ,
that is, of him who is at once Χριστός and
Θεός; Christ and God. This is certainly the
most natural interpretation. As every one admits that
τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί means "to
him who is at once God and Father." There is no reason why the same rule should
not be applied in this case. Compare Titus 2, 13.
This view of the passage, which makes it a direct assertion of the divinity of our
Lord, is strenuously insisted upon by some of the most eminent of modern interpreters,
as Harless and Rückert, the one orthodox and the other rationalistic. Others, however,
say that Christ here designates the Redeemer, and God, the divine
Being; and that the kingdom is called not only the kingdom of Christ, but also the
kingdom of God. This is the view more commonly adopted, though in violation of a
general rule of grammar, the article being omitted before
Θεοῦ. If, in
Titus 2, 13, ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ
μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, means that Jesus Christ is
at once the great God and our Saviour, and Winer admits (Gram. p. 148) that it is
for doctrinal reasons only he dissents from that interpretation; then there can
be no reasonable doubt in the present case, where the form of expression is so similar,
the writer being the same, that the idea is the same. If it were a rare or uncertain
thing for Paul to recognize Christ as God, it would be wrong to press rules of grammar
to make him teach that doctrine. But since every page almost of his epistles teems
with evidence that Christ was his God, it is wrong to depart from those rules in
order to prevent his teaching it.
V. 6. It is not only among the heathen, but among the mass of
men in all ages and nations, a common thing to extenuate the particular sins to
which the
apostle here refers. It is urged that they have their origin in the very constitution
of our nature; that they are not malignant; that they may co-exist with amiable
tempers; and that they are not hurtful to others, that no one is the worse for them
if no one knows them, &c. Paul, therefore, cautions his readers in every age of
the church, not to be deceived by such vain words; assuring them that for these
things (for fornication and covetousness), the wrath of God cometh on the children
of disobedience. With vain words, κενοῖς λόγοις.
Κενός means empty.
Κενοὶ λόγοι, therefore, are empty words; words
which contain no truth, and are therefore both false and fallacious, as those will
find who trust to them. The wrath of God. This expression is a fearful one,
because the wrath of man is the disposition to inflict evil, limited by man’s feebleness;
whereas the wrath of God is the determination to punish in a being without limit
either as to his presence or power. This wrath, the apostle says, cometh
on the children of disobedience. The present is either for the certain future, ‘will
assuredly come;’ or it has its proper force. The wrath of God against these sins
is now manifested in his dealings with those who commit them. He withdraws from
them his Spirit, and finally gives them up to a reprobate mind. On the phrase "children
of disobedience," see ch. 2, 2.
V. 7. Such being the determination of God to punish the unclean
and the covetous, the apostle says, "Be ye not therefore partakers with them." That
is, be not their associates in these sins, which of necessity
would expose you to the penalty threatened against them.
V. 8. This is enforced by a reference to their conversion from
a previous state of sin and misery to one of holiness and blessedness. For ye
were sometime darkness. As light stands for knowledge, and as knowledge,
in the scriptural sense of the word, produces holiness, and holiness happiness;
so darkness stands for ignorance, such ignorance as inevitably produces sin,
and sin misery. Therefore, the expression, "ye were darkness," means, ye were ignorant,
polluted, and wretched. But now ye are light in the Lord, i. e. in virtue
of union with the Lord, ye are enlightened, sanctified, and blessed. Walk as
children of the light, i. e. as the children of holiness and truth. " Children
of light," means enlightened; as ‘children of famine,’ means the ‘famished;’
see ch. 2, 2. The exhortation is that they
should walk in a way consistent with their character as men illuminated and sanctified
by their union with the Lord Jesus.
V. 9. For the fruit of light,The common text has
here πνεύματος instead of
φωτός. The latter reading is now universally
adopted as the correct one on the authority not only of the MSS. but of the context.
i. e. the fruit or effect of divine illumination is in all, i. e. consists in all
the forms of goodness, righteousness, and truth. Goodness,
ἀγαθωσύνῃ, is that which makes a man
ἀγαθός, good; and righteousness,
δικαιοσύνη, is that which makes a man
δίκαιος, righteous. These Greek words
differ very
much as the corresponding English terms do. Goodness is benevolence and beneficence;
righteousness is adherence to the rule of right. Yet both are used for moral excellence
in general. The evil and the good, included all classes of the vicious and the virtuous.
Good works are works of any kind which are morally excellent. When however
the words are contrasted as in Rom. 5, 7,
or distinguished as in Rom. 7, 12, good
means benevolent or beneficent; and righteous, just or upright. Goodness
is that quality which adapts a thing to the end for which it was designed, and renders
it serviceable. Hence we speak of a good tree, of good soil, as well as of a good
man. Righteousness can properly be predicated only of persons or of what
is susceptible of moral character; as it means conformity to law; or if predicated
of the law itself, it means conformity to the nature of God, the ultimate standard
of rectitude. Truth, here means religious or moral truth, or religion itself.
The fruits of light, therefore, are all the forms of piety and virtue.
V. 10. Verse 9 is a parenthesis,
as the 10th verse is grammatically connected with the 8th. "Walk as children of
the light, proving, &c.," περιπατεῖτε—δοκιμάζοντες.
Δοκιμάζειν is to try, to put to the test, to
examine; then to judge or estimate; and then to approve. Thus it is said, "The fire
shall try every man’s work;" God is said "To try the heart;" we are said "To be
renewed so as to prove the will of God," Rom. 12, 2,
that is, to examine and determine what the will of God is. And so in this passage
believers are required
to walk as children of light, examining and determining what is acceptable to the
Lord. They are to regulate their conduct by a regard to what is well pleasing to
Him. That is the ultimate standard of judging whether any thing is right or wrong,
worthy or unworthy of those who have been enlightened from above.
The word LORD is in the New Testament
so predominantly used to designate the Lord Jesus Christ, that it is always to be
referred to him unless the context forbids it. Here the context so far from forbidding,
requires such reference. For in the former part of the sentence Lord evidently
designates Christ. "Ye are light in the Lord, therefore, walk as children of the
light, proving what is acceptable to the Lord." This, therefore, is one of the numerous
passages in the New Testament, in which Christ is recognized as the Lord of the
conscience, whose will is to us the ultimate standard of right and wrong, and to
whom we are responsible for all our inward and outward acts. It is thus that the
sacred writers show that Christ was their God, in whose presence they constantly
lived, whose favour they constantly sought, and on whom all their religious affections
terminated. He was not merely the God of their theology, but of their religion.
V. 11. The apostle having in the previous verse insisted on the
duty of Christians of so walking as to show by their works that they were the subjects
of divine illumination, adds here a statement of their duty in reference to the
sins of those still in darkness. Those
sins he calls "the unfruitful works of darkness." By unfruitful is meant not merely
barren or worthless, but positively evil. For in a moral subject the
negation of good is evil. Works of darkness are those works which spring
from darkness, i. e. from ignorance of God; as "works of light" are those works
which light or divine knowledge produces.
The duty of Christians in reference to the works of darkness is
twofold; first, to have no communion with them; and secondly, to reprove them. The
former is expressed by the words μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε,
have not fellowship with them. Those who have things in common; who are congenial;
who have the same views, feelings, and interests; and who therefore delight in each
other’s society, are said to be in fellowship. In this sense believers have fellowship
with God and with each other. So we are said to have fellowship in any thing which
we delight in and partake of. To have fellowship with the works of darkness, therefore,
is to delight in them and to participate in them. All such association is forbidden
as inconsistent with the character of the children of light. Our second duty is
to reprove them. Ἐλέγχεινis not simply
to reprove in the sense of admonishing or rebuking. It means to convince by evidence.
It expresses the effect of illumination by which the true nature of any thing is
revealed. When the Spirit is said to reprove men of sin, it means that he sheds
such light upon their sins as to reveal their true character, and to produce the
consequent consciousness of guilt and pollution. In
Paul says the effect of intelligible preaching of the Gospel is conviction—which
is explained by saying "the secrets of the heart are revealed." The duty, therefore,
here enjoined is to shed light on these works of darkness; to exhibit them in their
true nature as vile and destructive. By this method they are corrected; as is more
fully taught in the following verses. The ethics as well as the theology of the
Bible are founded on the principle, that knowledge and holiness, ignorance and sin,
are inseparable. If you impart knowledge you secure holiness; and if you render
ignorant you deprave. This of course is not true of secular knowledge—i. e. of
the knowledge of other than religious subjects; nor is it true of mere speculative
knowledge of religious truth. It is true only of that knowledge which the Scriptures
call spiritual discernment. Of that knowledge, however, intellectual cognition is
an essential element. And so far as human agency in the production of the conviction
of sin is concerned, it is limited to holding forth the word of life; or letting
the light of divine truth shine into the darkened minds of men, and upon their evil
deeds.
V. 12. These works of darkness should be thus reproved, "for it
is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." There
are two reasons why sins are called works of darkness. The first and principal one
is, as before remarked, because they spring from darkness or ignorance of God; and
the second is, because they are committed in darkness. They shun the light. The
exceeding turpitude of these
sins the apostle gives as the reason why they should be reproved.
V. 13. Vile however as those sins are, they are capable of being
corrected. They are not beyond cure. Reprove them. Let in the light of divine truth
upon them, and they will be corrected or healed. For the truth is divinely efficacious.
It is the organon of God; that through which he exerts his power in the sanctification
and salvation of men. Such seems to be the general meaning of this difficult verse.
It is connected with the preceding verse, and is designed to enforce
the command, ἐλέγχετε, reprove. ‘Reprove
the things done in secret by the wicked—for though they are too bad to be even
named, yet being reproved, they are made manifest by the light, and thereby corrected,
for every thing made manifest, i. e. revealed in its true nature by divine light,
becomes light; that is, is reformed.’ This interpretation gives a simple and consistent
sense, assumes no unusual signification of the terms employed, nor any forced construction,
and is suited to the context. It supposes—1. That
τὰ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα refers to τὰ κρυφῇ
γινόμενα of v. 12. The things done
in secret are the all things, which being reproved, are manifested. 2. The words
ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός are not to be connected with
ἐλεγχόμενα, as though the sense were, ‘being
reproved by the light;’ but with φανεροῦται,
so that the sense is, ‘are made manifest by the light.’ This construction is required
by the following clause. 3. φανερούμενον,
is passive, and not middle with an active sense. The
meaning is, ‘Whatever is manifested;’ not ‘whatever makes manifest.’ As the word
φανεροῦται just before is passive, it is unnatural
to make φανερούμενον active. Besides, the
apostle is not speaking of the nature of spiritual light, but of its effects. It
illuminates or turns into light all it touches, or wherever it penetrates.
If φανερούμενον be taken
as active, as is done by Calvin and many others, and by our translators, the sense
would be, ‘Reprove these things; it is your office to do so, for you are light,
and light is that which makes manifest.’ This however is not what Paul says. He
does not say ‘Reprove evil, for you are light,’ but, ‘Reprove evil, for evil when
reproved by light is manifest, and when manifest, it is light,’ that is, it is changed
into light, or corrected. In v. 8, he had
said, "Ye are light;" so here he says, what is illuminated by the truth becomes
light. The sense is the same in both cases. The penetration of spiritual light,
or divine truth, carries with it such power, that it illuminates and sanctifies
all in whom it dwells. Hence the apostle elsewhere prays that the word of God may
dwell in the hearts of believers in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. According
to the apostle, the relation between truth and holiness is analogous to that between
light and vision. Light cannot create the eye, or give to a blind eye the power
of vision. But it is essential to its exercise. Wherever it penetrates, it dissipates
darkness and brings every thing into view—and causes it to produce its appropriate
effect. So truth cannot regenerate, or impart the principle of spiritual life.
But it is essential to all holy exercises. And wherever the truth penetrates, it
dissipates the clouds of error, and brings every thing to view, so that when spiritually
discerned it produces its proper effect on the soul. Truth being thus essential,
it is the duty of Christians to bring it to bear upon all those who are ignorant
and on all the works of darkness.
V. 14. As light is thus efficacious, and as it is accessible,
or may be obtained, therefore the Scriptures call even upon the sleeping and the
dead to arise and meet its life-giving beams. Διὸ
λέγει, scil. ἡ γραφή. As this formula
of quotation is never used in the New Testament except when citations are made from
the Old Testament, it cannot properly be assumed that the apostle here quotes some
Christian hymn with which the believers in Ephesus were familiar; or some apocryphal
book; or some inspired book no longer extant. We must understand him either as referring
to many exhortations of the Old Testament Scriptures, the substance of which he
condenses in the few words here used; or as giving the spirit of some one passage,
though not its words. Both these methods of explanation may be sustained by appeal
to similar passages. The apostles in quoting the Old Testament sometimes combined
several passages in the same quotation—and sometimes give as the teaching of the
prophets what is nowhere taught or asserted in express terms, but is abundantly
or clearly implied in what they say. At other times again, the reference is obviously
to some one passage, and yet neither the Hebrew nor Septuagint
is accurately followed, but the general idea is reproduced. We without the authority
and divine guidance of the apostles deal in the same way with the word of God, of
which almost every sermon would furnish examples. It is generally assumed that Paul
here refers to Is. 60, 1, "Arise, shine;
for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." Or, as De
Wette renders it; "Auf, werde licht, denn es kommt dein Licht, und
die Herrlichkeit Jehovah’s gehet iiber dir auf." Up, become light; for
thy light comes, and the glory of Jehovah riseth over thee. The analogy between
this passage and the quotation of the apostle is plain. There are in both—1. The
call to those who are asleep or dead to rise. 2. To receive the light. 3. The promise
that Jehovah, Lord, or Christ, equivalent terms in the mind of the apostle, would
give them light. There can, therefore, be little doubt that it was the language
of Isaiah Paul intended in substance to quote. Beza thinks that
Is. 26, 19, "Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust," &c., is to be
included in the reference; and others join Is. 9, 2,
"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in
the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." It is true that
in these, as well as in other passages, the power of light, i. e. of divine truth,
its advent in the person of Christ, and the call to those who are in darkness to
accept it, are included. But the probability is that
Is. 60, 1, was the passage most distinctly in the apostle’s
Those asleep and the dead are in darkness, and therefore those
involved in spiritual darkness are addressed as sleeping. The light which comes
from Christ has power to reach even the dead—as our Lord, in the use of another
figure, says, "The hour is coming, and now is, that the dead shall hear the voice
of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live,"
John 5, 25. This does not mean that the dead must be revived before they
hear the voice of the Son of God, but his voice causes them to hear and live. So
the passage before us does not mean that those asleep must arise from the dead and
come to Christ for light; but that the light which Christ sheds around him, has
power to awake the sleeping dead. Thus the passage is a confirmation of what is
said in the preceding verse, viz., that every thing made manifest by the light,
is light.
V. 15. If this verse be considered as connected inferentially
by οὖν with the preceding, then the association
of ideas is: ‘If believers are bound to dispel the darkness from the hearts and
lives of others, how careful should they be not to be dark themselves, i. e. they
should walk as wise men.’ This however seems forced. The exhortation contained in
this and the following verse is most naturally connected with that contained in
verses 10 and 11. Believers as children of light are required to have
no fellowship with the works of darkness, but rather to reprove them; see therefore,
i. e. take heed therefore, πῶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖτε,
that ye walk circumspectly. Πῶς, however,
does not mean that, though often used where
ὅτι or ἵνα
might be
employed. It here as elsewhere means how, in what manner. "See in what manner
ye render your deportment accurate." Ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν
is to walk strictly by rule, so as not to deviate by a hair’s breadth. Not as
unwise, but as wise. Paul often uses the word
σοφία for divine truth. The σοφοί are
those who possess this truth, which he had before called light, and the
ἄσοφοι are those who have it not. So that
wise and unwise are here equivalent to the enlightened and
those in darkness. His exhortation, therefore, is that believers should carefully
deport themselves not as the heathen and unrenewed, who have not the divine light
of which he had been speaking, but as those who are enlightened from above and are
therefore wise.
V. 16. Ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν καιρόν,
redeeming the time. This is one manifestation of wisdom, one method in which
their Christian character as the children of light should be exhibited. The words
have been variously explained:—1. Making use of, availing yourselves of the occasion
for doing good, not allowing it to pass unimproved. 2. Buying back the time, redeeming
it, as it were, from Satan or from the world. 3. Making the most of time, i. e.
using it to the best advantage. 4. Adapting yourselves to the occasion, &c. The
decision between these different views depends partly on the sense to be given to
ἐξαγοραζόμενοι, and partly on the question
whether καιρός is to be taken in its proper
sense, opportunity, appropriate time; or in the general sense of
χρόνος, time. The words
αγοράζειν and
ἐξαγοράζειν, have in common the idea of
acquiring by purchase. The latter in virtue of the force of the
ἐκ properly means to purchase back, or tc make
free by purchase. But it is also used in the sense of the simple verb, as in
Daniel 2, 8, whence the expression in the text is probably derived. There,
according to the Septuagint, the king said to the Chaldeans, who declined to interpret
his dream until they knew what it was, οἶδα ἐγὼ ὅτι
καιρὸν ὑμεῖς ἐξαγοράζετε, "I know you wish to gain time." This sense
of the verb suits the passage before us. Then if καιρός
means here what it does in almost every other passage, where it occurs in the New
Testament, the most natural interpretation of the clause is, "availing yourselves
of the occasion," i. e. improving every opportunity for good. If
καιρός be taken for
χρόνος, which is barely admissible, the sense
would be, " making the most of time," i. e. rescuing it from waste or abuse. Both
of these interpretations are good and suited to the following clause, because
the days are evil. Πονηρός, evil,
may be taken either in a physical or moral sense. The patriarch said, "Few and evil
have the days of the years of my life been;" Gen. 47,
9. The moral sense of the word, however, is better suited to the context.
Evil days, mean days in which sin abounds. It is parallel to the expressions, "evil
generation," Matt. 12, 39; and "evil world,"
Gal. 1, 4. Because sin abounds is a good reason why Christians should
seize upon every opportunity to do good; and also why they should make the most
of time. So that this clause suits either of the interpretations of the first part
of the
verse. That καιρός properly and commonly means
opportunity, or suitable time, is a strong reason for preferring the
former of the two interpretations mentioned. The same exhortation and in the same
connection is found in Col. 4, 5. Here the
apostle says, "See that ye walk as wise men, redeeming the time;" there, "Walk in
wisdom, redeeming the time." So that this right use of time, or this seizing on
every opportunity for doing good, is in both places represented as the evidence
and effect of wisdom, i. e. of divine truth, which is the wisdom of God, which he
has revealed, 1 Cor. 2, 6-13.
V. 17. Therefore, i. e. either because the days are evil;
or, because ye are bound to walk as wise men. The latter mode of connection is to
be preferred, because the reference is to the main idea of the preceding
verses 15 and 16, and not to a subordinate clause. Be ye not,
ἄφρονες, senseless, unthinking, trifling.
Comp. Luke 11, 40, "Ye fools (ye unthinking
ones), did not he that made that which is without, make that which is within also;"
also Luke 12, 20;
1 Cor. 15, 36; 2 Cor. 11, 16,
&c. In all these cases ἄφρων means one who
does not make a right use of his understanding; who does not see things in their
true light, or estimate them according to their relative importance. It is here
opposed to συνιέντες. ‘Be ye not senseless,
undiscriminating between what is true and false, right and wrong, important and
unimportant, but understanding, i. e. discerning what the will of the Lord is.’
That is, seeing things as he sees them, and making his will
or judgment the standard of yours, and the rule of your conduct. The will of the
Lord is the will of Christ. That Lord here means Christ, is plain not only from
the general usage of the New Testament, so often referred to, but also from the
constant use of the word in this chapter as a designation of the Redeemer. Here
again, therefore, the divinity of Christ is seen to be a practical doctrine entering
into the daily religious life of the believer. His will is the rule of truth and
duty.
V. 18. And (especially) be not drunk with wine.
This is an ἀφρόσυνη, a want of sense, especially
inconsistent with the intelligence of the true believer. The man who has a right
discernment will not seek refreshment or excitement from wine, but from the Holy
Spirit. Therefore the apostle adds, but be filled with the Spirit. In drunkenness,
he says, there is ἀσωτία, revelry, debauchery,
riot, whatever tends to destruction; for the word is derived from
ἄσωτος, which means, what cannot be saved,
one given up to a destructive course of life. Comp.
Tit. 1, 6. 1 Pet. 4, 4. Men are
said to be filled with wine when completely under its influence; so they are said
to be filled with the Spirit, when he controls all their thoughts, feelings, words,
and actions. The expression is a common one in Scripture. Of our Lord himself it
was said, "He was full of the Holy Ghost," Luke 4,
1; so of Stephen that "he was full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,"
Acts 6, 5; and of Barnabas,
Acts 11, 24, &c. To the Christian, therefore,
the source of strength and joy is not
wine, but the blessed Spirit of God. And as drunkenness produces rioting and debauchery,
so the Holy Spirit produces a joy which expresses itself in psalms, and hymns, and
spiritual songs. Quid gignit ebrietas? dissolutam proterviam, ut
quasi excusso freno indecenter homines exultent. Quid spiritualis laetitia, quum
ea perfusi sumus? hymnos, psalmos, laudes Dei, gratiarum actiones. Hi sunt vere
jucundi fructus et delectabiles. CALVIN.
V. 19. Λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς
(i. e. ἀλλήλοις, as in
4, 32, and elsewhere), speaking to each other, not to yourselves.
Compare Col. 3, 16, where it is,
διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυτούς, teaching
and admonishing one another. "Speaking to each other," signifies the interchange
of thoughts and feelings expressed in the psalms and hymns employed. This is supposed
to refer to responsive singing, in the private assemblies and public worship of
Christians, to which the well-known passage of Pliny: Carmen
Christo quasi Deo dicunt secum invicem, seems also to refer. Whether
the passage refers to the responsive method of singing or not, which is somewhat
doubtful from the parallel passage in Colossians (where Paul speaks of their teaching
one another), it at least proves that singing was from the beginning a part of Christian
worship, and that not only psalms but hymns also were employed.
The early usage of the words ψαλμός,
ὕμνος, ῷδή, appears to have been as loose as that of the corresponding
English terms, psalm, hymn, song, is with us. A psalm was a hymn, and a hymn
a song. Still there
was a distinction between them as there is still. A psalm was, agreeably to the
etymology of the word ψαλμός, a song designed
to be sung with the accompaniment of instrumental music. 2. It was one of the sacred
poems contained in the book of Psalms, as in Acts
13, 33, ἐν τῷ ψαλμῳ τῷ δευτέρῳ,
in the second Psalm; and
Acts 1, 20, ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν,
in the book of Psalms. 3. Any sacred poem formed on the model of the Old
Testament Psalms, as in 1 Cor. 14, 26,
where ψαλμόν appears to mean such a song given
by inspiration, and not one of the psalms of David. A Hymn was a song of
praise to God; a divine song. ARRIAN, Exped. Alex. 4,
ὔμνοι μὲν ἐς τοὺς θεοὺς ποιοῦνται, ἔπαινοι δὲ ἐς ἀνθρώπους.
AMMON. de differ. vocbl. ὁ
μὲν γὰρ ὕμνος ἔστι θεῶν, τὸ δὲ ἐγκώμιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. PHAVOR.
ὕμνος· ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ᾠδή. Such being the general
meaning of the word, Josephus uses it of those Psalms which were songs of praise
to God: ὁ Δαυΐδος ᾠδὰς εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ ὕμνους συνετάξατο,
Ant. 7. 12, 3. Psalms and hymns then, as now, were religious songs;
ὠδαί were religious or secular, and therefore
those here intended are described as spiritual. This may mean either inspired,
i. e. derived from the Spirit; or expressing spiritual thoughts and feelings. This
latter is the more probable; as not only inspired men are said to be filled with
the Spirit, but all those who in their ordinary thoughts and feelings are governed
by the Holy Ghost.
Singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord. If
this clause be considered as coordinate with the
preceding, then it refers to a different kind of singing. The former expressed by
λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς is singing audibly, the
latter by ᾄδοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ is the music
of the heart, the rhythm of the affections not clothed in words. In favour of this
view, which is adopted by several of the best modern commentators, as Harless, Rückert,
Olshausen, and Meyer, it is urged that the apostle says,
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν and not simply
ἐκ καρδίας, from the heart; and that
the pronoun ὑμῶν, your, would be unnecessary,
had he meant only that the singing was to be cordial. Besides, the singing here
referred to is that of those filled with the Spirit, and therefore the caution that
it should not be a mere lip service is out of place. Notwithstanding these reasons,
the great majority of commentators make this clause subordinate to the preceding
and descriptive of the kind of singing required, "You are to commence with each
in Psalms and Hymns, singing in your heart." Comp. Rom.
1, 9, where the apostle says: ᾧ λατρεύω
(not ἐκ πνεύματος but)
ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου, whom I
serve in my
spirit, and 1 Cor. 14, 15. There is
no sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary view of the passage.
ᾄδοντες καὶ
ψάλλοντες,
singing and making melody, are two forms of expressing the same thing. The
latter term is the more comprehensive; as αἴδειν
is to make music with the voice; ψάλλειν,
to make music in any way; literally, to play on a stringed instrument; then,
to sing in concert with such an instrument; then, to sing or chant. See
1 Cor. 14, 15; James 5, 13;
Rom. 15, 9.
To the Lord, i. e. to Christ. In the parallel passage:
Col. 3, 16, it is to God. In either form the idea is the same.
In worshipping Christ we worship God. God in Christ, however, is the definite, special
object of Christian worship, to whom the heart when filled with the Spirit instinctively
turns. This special worship of Christ is neither inconsistent with the worship of
the Father, nor is it ever dissociated from it. The one runs into the other. And
V. 20. Therefore the apostle connects the two; "Be ye filled with
the Spirit, singing hymns to Christ, and giving thanks to God even the Father."
The Spirit dictates the one as naturally as the other. We are to give thanks
always. It is not a duty to be performed once for all, nor merely when new mercies
are received; but always, because we are under obligation for blessings temporal
and spiritual already received, which calls for perpetual acknowledgment. We are
to give thanks for all things; afflictions as well as for our joys, say the
ancient commentators. This is not in the text, though Paul, as we learn from other
passages, gloried in his afflictions. Here the words are limited by the context,
for all our mercies. In the name of the Lord Jesus. The apostles preached
in the name of the Lord Jesus; they wrought miracles in his name; believers are
commanded to pray in his name; to give thanks in his name, and to do all things
in his name. In all these cases the general idea is that expressed by [Bengel:
ut perinde sit, ac si Christus faciat. What we do in the
name of Christ we do by his authority, and
relying on him for success. Christ gives us access to the Father;
we come to God through him; he gives the right to come, and it is on him we depend
for acceptance when we come. Τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί,
God even the Father, i. e. to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This
is the covenant title of God under the new dispensation, and presents the only ground
on which he can be approached as our Father.
SECTION II.—Vs. 17-33.
21. Submitting yourselves
one to another in the fear of God.
22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ
is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so
let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it;
26. that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing
of water by the word:
27. that he might present it to himself a glorious church,
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies.
He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth
and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ
and the church.
33. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love
his wife even as himself: and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
ANALYSIS.
The apostle enjoins mutual obedience as a Christian duty,
v. 21. Under this head he treats of the
relative duties of husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants.
The remainder of this chapter is devoted to the duties of husbands and wives. As
the conjugal relation is analogous to that which Christ sustains to the church,
the one serves to illustrate the others. The apostle, therefore, combines the two
subjects throughout the paragraph.
Wives should be subject to their husbands as the church is to
Christ. 1. The motive to this subject is a regard to the Lord,
v. 22. 2. The ground of it is, that the husband is the head of the wife,
as Christ is the head of the church, v. 23.
3. This subjection is not confined to any one sphere, but extends to all,
v. 24.
Husbands should love their wives. 1. The measure of this love
is Christ’s love for the church for whose redemption he died,
vs. 25-27. 2. The ground of love is in both cases the same—the wife
is flesh of her husband’s flesh, and bone of his bone. So the church is flesh of
Christ’s flesh and bone of his bone. Husband and wife are one flesh; so are Christ
and the church. What is true of the one is true of the other,
vs. 29-31. 3. The union between Christ and his church is indeed of a
higher order than that between husband and wife—nevertheless the analogy between.
the two cases is such as to render it obligatory on the husband
to love his wife as being himself, and on the wife to reverence her husband,
vs. 32-33.
COMMENTARY.
V. 21. That a new paragraph begins with this verse is generally
conceded. First, because the preceding exhortations are evidently brought to a close
in v. 20—with the words to God even
the Father. And secondly, because the command to be obedient one to another,
amplified through this chapter and part of the next, does not naturally cohere with
what precedes. This being the case, the participle
ὑποτασσόμενοι being obedient, with which this verse begins, cannot
be explained by referring it to the verb πληροῦσθε
in v. 18. The sense would then be, ‘Be filled
with the Spirit—submitting yourselves one to another.’ This construction of the
passage for the reasons just stated is rejected by most commentators. Others take
the participle for the imperative and render the words, ‘Be subject one to another.’
But this is contrary to the usage of the language. The most common explanation is
to connect this verse with the following, ‘Being subject one to another (as ye are
bound to be), ye wives be subject to your husbands.’ From the general obligation
to obedience follows the special obligation of wives, children, and servants, as
explained in what follows.
This command to submit one to another is found in other passages
of the New Testament, as in 1 Pet. 5, 5,
"All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility."
Rom. 12, 10. Phil. 2. 3. The
scriptural
doctrine on this subject is that men are not isolated individuals, each one independent
of all others. No man liveth for himself and no man dieth for himself. The essential
equality of men and their mutual dependence lay the foundation for the obligation
of mutual subjection. The apostle however is here speaking of the duties of Christians.
It is, therefore, the Christian duty of mutual submission of which this passage
treats. It not only forbids pride and all assumption of superiority, but enjoins
mutual subjection, the subjection of a part to the whole, and of each one to those
of his fellow believers with whom he is specially connected. Every Christian is
responsible for his faith and conduct to his brethren in the Lord, because he constitutes
with them one body having a common faith and a common life. The independency of
one Christian of all others, or of one Christian society of all similar societies,
is inconsistent with the relation in which believers stand to each other, and with
the express commands of Scripture.
We are to be thus subject one to another
ἐν φοβῷ Χριστοῦ.The common text reads
Θεοῦ, but the authority of the MSS. and versions
is so decidedly in favour of Χριστοῦ that it
is now universally adopted. This may mean either that the fear of Christ,
at whose bar we are to stand in judgment, should constrain us to this mutual subjection;
or that the duty should be religiously performed. The motive should be reverence
for Christ, a regard for his will and for
his glory. It is in this way all social duties, even the most humiliating, are raised
into the sphere of religion, and rendered consistent with the highest elevation
and liberty. This idea is specially insisted upon by the apostle when he comes to
speak of the duty of servants to their masters. It ought not to escape the reader’s
notice that the relation in which this and similar passages suppose us to stand
to Christ, is such as we can sustain to no other than to a divine person. He to
whom we are responsible for all our conduct, and reverence for whom is the great
motive to the performance of duty, is God.
V. 22. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto
the Lord. The general duty of mutual submission includes the specific duty of
wives to be subject to their husbands, and this leads the apostle to speak of the
relative duties of husbands and wives. And as the marriage relation is analogous
to the relation. between Christ and his church, he is thus led to illustrate the
one by the other. As the relation is the same, the duties flowing from it are the
same; obedience on the part of the wife, and love on the part of the husband. The
apostle teaches the nature, the ground, and the extent of the obedience due from
the wife to the husband.
As to the nature of it, it is religious. It is
ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, as to the Lord. The
ὡς, as, does not express similarity,
as though the obedience of the wife to her husband was to be as devout and as unconditional
as that which she is bound to render to the Lord. But
her obedience to her husband is to be regarded as part of her obedience to the Lord.
See 6, 5. 6. It terminates on him, and
therefore is religious, because determined by religious motives and directed towards
the object of the religious affections. This makes the burden light and the yoke
easy. For every service which the believer renders to Christ, is rendered with alacrity
and joy.
V. 23. But although the obedience of the wife to the husband is
of the nature of a religious duty because determined by religious motives, it has
in common with all other commands of God, a foundation in nature. The apostle, therefore,
says, wives are to be obedient to their husbands, because the husband is the
head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. The ground of the
obligation, therefore, as it exists in nature, is the eminency of the husband; his
superiority in those attributes which enable and entitle him to command. Ile is
larger, stronger, bolder; has more of those mental and moral qualities which are
required in a leader. This is just as plain from history as that iron is heavier
than water. The man, therefore, in this aspect, as qualified and entitled to command,
is said to be the image and glory of God, 1 Cor. 11,
7; for, as the apostle adds in that connection, the man was not made
out of the woman, but the woman out of the man; neither was the man created for
the woman, but the woman for the man. This superiority of the man, in the respects
mentioned, thus taught in Scripture, founded in nature, and proved by all experience,
cannot
be denied or disregarded without destroying society and degrading both men and women;
making the one effeminate and the other masculine. The superiority of the man, however,
is not only consistent with the mutual dependence of the sexes, and their essential
equality of nature, and in the kingdom of God, but also with the inferiority of
men to women in other qualities than those which entitle to authority. The scriptural
doctrine, while it lays the foundation for order in requiring wives to obey their
husbands, at the same time exalts the wife to be the companion and ministering angel
to the husband. The man, therefore, so far as this particular point is concerned,
stands in the same relation to his wife, that Christ does to the church. There is
however a relation which Christ bears to his church, which finds no analogy in that
of the husband to the wife. Christ is not only the head of the church, but he is
its Saviour, καὶ αὐτός ἐστι σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος.
Why the apostle added these words is not easy to determine. Perhaps it was to mark
the distinction between the cases otherwise so analogous. Perhaps it was, as many
suppose, to suggest to husbands their obligation to provide for the safety and happiness
of their wives. Because Christ is the head of the church, he is its Saviour; therefore
as the husband is the head of the wife, he should not only rule, but protect and
bless.Sicuti Christus ecclesiae suae praeest in ejus salutem,
ita nihil esso mulieri utilius nec magis salubre, quam ut marito subsit. Perire
igitur affectant quae renuunt subjectionem, sub qua salvae esse poterant.—CALVIN.
The most probable explanation is, that as the apostle’s design is not merely to
teach the nature of the relation between husband and wife, but also that between
Christ and the church, the clause in question is added for that purpose, without
any bearing on the conjugal relation. This clause is not in apposition with the
preceding, but is an independent proposition. Christ is the head of the church;
and he is the Saviour of his body.
V. 24. But, ἀλλὰ, i. e.
notwithstanding there is this peculiarity in the relation of Christ to the church
which has no parallel in the relation of the wife to the husband, ‘nevertheless,
as the husband is the head of the wife, let the wife be subject to her husband in
every thing, even as the church is subject to Christ her head.’ Our translators
give ἀλλὰ here a syllogistic force and render
it, therefore, as though it introduced the conclusion from the preceding
argument. But this is contrary to the common use of the particle and is unnecessary,
as its ordinary meaning gives a good sense.
As verse 22 teaches the
nature of the subjection of the wife to her husband, and
verse 23 its ground, this verse teaches its extent. She is to be subject
ἐν παντί, in every thing. That is,
the subjection is not limited to any one sphere or department of the social life,
but extends to all. The wife is not subject as to some things, and independent as
to others, but she is subject as to all. This of course does not mean that the authority
of the husband is unlimited. It teaches its extent, not its degree. It extends over
all departments,
but is limited in all; first, by the nature of the relation; and secondly, by the
higher authority of God. No superior, whether master, parent, husband or magistrate,
can make it obligatory on us either to do what God forbids, or not to do what God
commands. So long as our allegiance to God is preserved, and obedience to man is
made part of our obedience to him, we retain our liberty and our integrity.
V. 25. As the peculiar duty of the wife is submission, the special
duty of the husband is love. With regard to this the apostle teaches its measure
and its ground. As to its measure it should be analogous to the love which Christ
bears to his church. Its ground is the intimate and mysterious union which subsists
between a man and his wife.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church
and gave himself for it. Husbands should love their wives,
καθώς, even as, i. e. both because and
as. As their relation to their wives is analogous to that of Christ to his church,
it imposes the obligation to love them as he loves the church. But Christ so loved
the church as to die for it. Husbands, therefore, should be willing to die for their
wives. This seems to be the natural import of the passage, and is the interpretation
commonly given to it. It has also its foundation in nature. Christ’s love is held
up as an example and a rule. His love is indeed elsewhere declared to be infinite.
We cannot love as he loved, in any other sense than that in which we can be merciful
as our Father in heaven is merciful. Nevertheless, it cannot be
doubted that true conjugal love will ever lead the husband to sacrifice himself
for his wife.The idea that all love, and therefore all holiness, is benevolence,
and is proportioned to the capacity of its object, is one of those absurdities into
which men inevitably fall when they give themselves up to the guidance of the speculative
understanding, and disregard the teachings of the heart and of the conscience. A
mother loves her infant, in every true sense of the word love: a hundred fold more
than she loves a stranger, though he may be the greatest man who ever lived.
Vs. 26. 27. As the apostle unites with his design of teaching
the duties arising from the conjugal relation, the purpose to illustrate the nature
of the union between Christ and his church, these verses relate to the latter point
and not to the former. They set forth the design of Christ’s death. Its remote design
was to gain the church for himself as an object of delight. Its proximate design
was to prepare it for that high destiny. These ideas are presented figuratively.
The church is regarded as the bride of Christ. This is designed to teach—1. That
it is an object of a peculiar and exclusive love. As the love which a bridegroom
has for his bride is such as he has for no one else; so the love which Christ has
for his church is such as he has for no other order of creatures in the universe,
however exalted. 2. As the bride belongs exclusively to her husband, so the church
belongs exclusively to Christ. It sustains a relation to him which it sustains to
no other being, and in which no other being participates. 3. This relation is not
only peculiar and exclusive, but the union between Christ and his church is
more intimate than any which subsists between him and any other order of creatures.
We are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones. 4. The church is the special object
of delight to Christ. It is said of Zion, "As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall thy God rejoice over thee," Is. 62, 5.
He is to present it to himself as his own peculiar joy. Such being the high destiny
of the church, the proximate end of Christ’s death was to purify, adorn, and render
it glorious, that it might be prepared to sit with him on his throne. She is to
be as a bride adorned for her husband. These are not imaginations, nor exaggerations,
nor empty figures; but simple, scriptural, sanctifying, and saving truths. And what
is true of the church collectively, is true of its members severally. Each is the
object of Christ’s peculiar love. Each sustains to him this peculiar, exclusive,
and intimate relation. Each is the object in which he thus delights, and each is
to be made perfectly holy, without spot, and glorious.
Though the general sense of this passage is thus plain, there
is no little difficulty attending the interpretation of its details. Christ, it
is said, gave himself for the church, ἵνα αὐτὴν
ἁγιάσῃ, which Calvin renders, Ut segregaret eam sibi,
that he might separate it for himself; which, he says, is done by the remission
of sin, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Though the verb
ἁγιάζειν has this sense, yet as in Paul’s writings
it is commonly used to express cleansing from pollution, and as this sense best
suits the context, it is generally
preferred. The design of Christ’s death was to make his people holy. It accomplishes
this end by reconciling them to God, and by securing for them the gift of the Holy
Ghost. Thus in Gal. 3, 13. 14, it is
said, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit."
With regard to the next clause,
καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος, having cleansed (or cleansing)
it with the washing of water, we must inquire—1. What is intended by
λουτρὸν τοῦ ὕδατος. 2. What is meant by
καθαρίσας; and 3. In what relation this clause
stands to the preceding. Does "the washing of water" here mean baptism, or a washing
which is analogous to a washing with water? The latter interpretation is admissible.
The apostle may mean nothing more than a spiritual lustration. In
Ez. 16, 9, speaking of Israel, God said, "Then washed I thee with water;
yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil."
And in
36, 25, " Then will I sprinkle clean water
upon you, and ye shall be clean." Also in Heb. 10,
22, it is said, "Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance
of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed
with pure water." In all these cases washing with water is a figurative expression
for spiritual purification. Commentators, however, almost without exception understand
the expression in the text to refer to baptism. The great majority of them, with
Calvin and other of the Reformers, do not even discuss the question. or seem to
admit any other
interpretation to be possible. The same view is taken by all the modern exegetical
writers. This unanimity of opinion is itself almost decisive. Nothing short of a
stringent necessity can justify any one in setting forth an interpretation opposed
to this common consent of Christians. No such necessity here exists. Baptism is
a washing with water. It was the washing with water with which Paul’s readers as
Christians were familiar, and which could not fail to occur to them as the washing
intended. Besides, nothing more is here attributed to baptism than is attributed
to it in many other passages of the word of God. Compare particularly
Acts 22, 16, "Arise, be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου." There can
be little doubt, therefore, that by "the washing with water," the apostle meant
baptism.
As to the meaning of the participle
καθαρίσας, there is more doubt. The verb signifies
to cleanse either literally, ceremonially, or figuratively. As the Scriptures speak
of a twofold purification from sin, one from guilt by expiation, the other from
pollution by the Spirit, and as καθαρίζειν
is used in reference to both, the question is, which is here intended. Does the
apostle speak of pardon, or of sanctification as effected by this washing with water?
The word expresses sacrificial purification. Heb.
9, 22. 23. 1 John 1, 7, "The
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin."
Heb. 9, 14; comp.
Heb. 1, 3, "Having by himself made purification of our sin." In favour
of taking it in this sense here, is the fact that baptism is
elsewhere connected with the remission of sin; as in
Acts 22, 16, and Acts 2, 38,
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission
of sins." The meaning of the word, however, depends upon its relation to the preceding
clause. Καθαρίσας may be connected with
ἁγιάσῃ, and taken in the same tense with
it. It then expresses the mode in which Christ cleanses his church. ‘He gave himself
for it that he might cleanse it, purifying it by the washing of water.’ In this
case, if ἁγιάσῃ expresses moral purification
or sanctification, so must καθαρίσας. But
if this participle be taken in the past tense, according to its form, then it must
express something which precedes sanctification. The meaning would then be, ‘Christ
gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify it, having purified it
by the washing with water.’Participium Graecum
καθαρίσας est praeteriti temporis, ac si dicas:
Postquam mundarit. Verum quia apud Latinos nullum est tale participium activum,
malui tempus negligere, quam vertendo Mundatum pervertere quod erat longe majoris
momenti, nempe ut soli Deo relinquatur mundandi officium. In this case
καθαρίσας must refer to expiation or sacrificial
purification, i. e. to washing away of guilt. The context is in favour of this view,
and so is the analogy of Scripture. The Bible always represents remission of sin
or the removal of guilt as preceding sanctification. We are pardoned and reconciled
to God, in order that we may be made holy. Christ, therefore, having by his blood
cleansed his church from guilt, sanctifies or renders it holy. In
either view we are said to be cleansed (whether from guilt or from pollution). by
baptism. What does this mean? How does baptism in either of these senses wash away
sin? The Protestant and scriptural answer to this question is, that baptism cleanses
from sin just as the word does. We are said to be saved by the truth, to be begotten
by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. This does not mean—1. That there is
any inherent, much less magic, power in the word of God as heard or read to produce
these effects. 2. Nor that the word always and every where, when rightly presented,
thus sanctifies and saves, so that all who hear are partakers of these benefits.
3. Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God is so tied to the word as never to operate
savingly on the heart except in connection with it. For infants may be subjects
of regeneration, though incapable of receiving the truth. In like manner when the
Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin,
Acts 22, 16; or as uniting us to Christ,
Gal. 3, 27; or as making Christ’s death our death,
Rom. 6, 4; Col. 2, 12; or as
saving us, 1 Pet. 3, 21; they do not teach-i.
That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce
these effects; nor 2. That these effects always attend its right administration;
nor 3. That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel
through which he communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all the unbaptized
perish. These three propositions, all of which Romanism and Ritualism affirm, are
contrary to the express declarations of Scripture and to universal
experience. Multitudes of the baptized are unholy many of the unbaptized are sanctified
and saved.
How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to
Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism
in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits
of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect
these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit
works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the
blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the
word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism; though baptism without
faith is as of little effect as is the word of God to unbelievers. The scriptural
doctrine concerning baptism, according to the Reformed churches is—1. That it is
a divine institution. 2. That it is one of the conditions of salvation. "Whosoever
believes and is baptized shall be saved," Mark 16,
16. It has, however, the necessity of precept, not the necessity of a
means sine qua non. It is in this respect analogous
to confession. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation," Rom. 10, 10.
And also to circumcision. God said, "The uncircumcised male child —should be cut
off from his people," Gen. 17, 14. Yet
children dying before the eighth day were surely not cut off from heaven. And the
apostle teaches that if an uncircumcised man kept the law,
his uncircumcision was counted to him for circumcision,"
Rom. 3, 26. 3. Baptism is a means of grace,
that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, not upon
all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor is it designed as the ordinary means
of regeneration. Faith and repentance are the gifts of the Spirit and fruits of
regeneration, and yet they are required as conditions of baptism. Consequently the
Scriptures contemplate regeneration as preceding baptism. But if faith, to which
all the benefits of redemption are promised, precedes baptism, how can those benefits
be said to be conferred, in any case, through baptism? Just as a father may give
an estate to his son, and afterwards convey it to him formally by a deed. Besides,
the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the
merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed
and appropriated on every new act of faith, and on every new believing reception
of the sacraments. The sinner coming to baptism in the exercise of repentance and
faith, takes God the Father to be his Father; God the Son, to be his Saviour; and
God the Holy Ghost to be his Sanctifier, and his word to be the rule of his faith
and practice. The administrator then, in the name and by the authority of God, washes
him with water as a sign of the cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ, and of
sanctification by the Holy Spirit; and as a seal to God’s promise to grant him those
blessings on the condition of the repentance and faith thus publicly avowed.
Whatever he may have experienced or enjoyed before) this is the public conveyance
to him of the benefits of the covenant, and his inauguration into the number of
the redeemed. If he is sincere in his part of the service, baptism really applies
to him the blessings of which it is the symbol. 4. Infants are baptized on the faith
of their parents. And their baptism secures to them all the benefits of the covenant
of grace, provided they ratify that covenant by faith; just as circumcision secured
the benefits of the theocracy, provided those circumcised in infancy kept the law.
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is, the doctrine that inward spiritual
renovation always attends baptism rightly administered to the unresisting, and that
regeneration is never effected without it, is contrary to Scripture, subversive
of evangelical religion, and opposed to universal experience. It is, moreover, utterly
irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Reformed churches. For that doctrine teaches
that all the regenerated are saved. "Whom God calls them he also glorifies,"
Rom. 8, 30. It is, however, plain from Scripture, and in accordance with
the faith of the universal church, that multitudes of the baptized perish. The baptized,
therefore, as such, are not the regenerated.
The foregoing remarks are intended to show in what sense the Reformed
understand this and similar declarations of Scripture. Christ purifies his church
by baptism. That is the initiatory rite; which signifies, seals, and applies to
believers all the benefits of
the Redeemer’s death. The apostle is speaking of the church, the body and bride
of Christ, and of the effect of baptism on those who constitute that church, not
of its effect on those who are not included in the covenant and are aliens from
the commonwealth of Israel.Quod Baptismo nos ablui docet Paulus,
ideo est, quod illic nobis ablutionem nostram testatur Deus, et simul efficit quod
figurat. Nisi enim conjuncta esset rei veritas, aut exhibitio, quod idem est, impropria
haec loqutio esset. Baptismus est lavacrum animae. Interea cavendum, ne quod unius
Dei est, vel ad signum, vel ad ministrum transferatur; hoc est, ut minister censetur
ablutionis auctor, ut aqua putetur animae sordes purgare; quod nonnisi Christi sanguini
convenit. Denique cavendum, ne ulla fiduciae nostrae portio vel in elemento, vel
in homine haereat. Quando hic demum veruns ac rectus sacramenti usus est, recta
nos ad Christum manu ducere, et in ipso sistere. Quod autem aliqui in hoc baptismi
elogio magis extenuando sudant, ne signo nimium tribuatur, si vocetur animae lavacrum;
perperam faciunt. Nam primum apostolus non docet signum esse, quod mundet sed asserit
solius Dei esse opus. Est ergo Deus qui mundat; nec transferri hoc honoris ad signum
fas est, aut signo communicari. Verum signo Deum tanquam organo uti, non est absurdum;
non quia virtus Dei inclusa sit in signo, sed quia nobis eam pro imbecilitatis nostrae
captu tali adminiculo distribuat. Id quosdam male habet, quia putant Spiritui sancto
auferri, quod est ejus proprium et quod illi scriptura passim vindicat. Sed falluntur;
nam ita Deus per signum agit, ut tota signi efficacia nihilominus a Spiritu suo
pendeat. Ita nihil plus signo tribuitur, quam ut sit inferius organum, et quidem
a seipso inutile, nisi quatenus aliunde vim suam mutuatur. Quod praeterea verentur
ne libertas Dei sit alligatur, frivolum est. Neque enim affixa est signis Dei gratia,
quin citra adminiculum signi libere eam distribuat, si velit, deinde multi signum
recipiunt, qui tamen gratiae non fiunt participes, quia signum omnibus est commune,
hoc est, bonis indifferenter ac malis; Spiritus autem nonnisi electis confertur;
acqui signum, ut diximus, absque Spiritu est inefficax.
CALVIN.
There is one other remark suggested by this passage. The turning
point in the discussion between Baptists and Paedobaptists, so far as the mode of
baptism is concerned, is, whether it is in its essential nature an immersion, or
a washing. If the former, then there is but one mode in which it can be administered.
If the latter, it may be administered in any mode by which washing can be effected,
either by sprinkling, affusion, or immersion. In the passage before us, it is said
to be a "washing with water."
The principal exegetical difficulty in this verse is the explanation
of the words ἐν ῥήματι, by the word.
Ῥῆμα is used not only for any particular dictum,
whether command, promise, or prophecy, but also for the word of God collectively,
and that either with or without the article; Rom.
10, 8. 17. Eph. 6, 17. These
words may be connected, as is commonly done, with the preceding clause, ‘washing
of water.’ The idea then is that this washing with water is connected with the word.
It is not an ordinary ablution, but one connected with the word of God. This is
considered a description of baptism, which is by that connection distinguished from
all other washings. By the word may then be understood either, the formula
of baptism, or the promise of remission of sins and regeneration of which baptism
is the sign and seal, and which is the special object of faith to the recipient
of the sacrament. Luther’s translation is, "Durch das Wasserbad
im Wort;" according to the saying of Augustine, which he often quotes, accedit verbum ad elementum et
fit sacramentum. To this interpretation it is objected, first,
that if ῥῆμα be made to mean any thing more
than the word of God in general, whether the command to baptize, or the promise,
or the formula of baptism, it must have the article. It should be, with the word.
But the article is wanting in the Greek. Secondly, the obscurity of the expression,
"washing of water with the word," or, "baptism with the word." Thirdly, that in
order to justify the connection in question, the passage should read,
τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος τῷ, or
τοῦ ἐν ῥήματι. Had Paul thus written there
would, indeed, be no question as to the connection intended, but the exceptions
to the rule requiring the connecting article in such cases, are very numerous in
Paul’s writings. Still its absence is certainly in favour of seeking another construction,
if such can be found. Others connect the words ἐν
ῥήματι with καθαρίσας, and make them
explanatory of the preceding clause, ‘Having purified it by the washing of water,
i. e. having purified it by the word.’ But this is certainly unnatural, first because
καθαρίσας has in
τῷ λουτρῷ, κτλ., its limitation; and secondly,
because the phrase "washing with water," needs no explanation. The third method
of explanation is to connect the words with ἁγιάσῃ,
‘Christ cleansed his church, by the word, having purified it with the washing of
water.’ The sense is thus good. In John 17, 17,
our Lord prays, "Sanctify them by thy truth;" and every where in Scripture the word
of God is represented as the great means of sanctification. This interpretation
is adopted by many
of the best expositors, as Rückert, Meyer, and Winer The position of the words,
however, is so decidedly in favour of the first mentioned explanation, that it has
commanded the assent of the great body of interpreters.
V. 27. The ultimate end for which Christ gave himself for the
church, and for which he sanctifies it, is to present it to himself, i. e. to gain
it for himself as his peculiar possession. There are two questions raised by commentators
as to this verse. The first concerns the nature of the metaphor here employed; and
the second, the time contemplated in which Christ is thus to present the church
to himself. Some, although very few, argue from the character of the epithets,
without spot and blameless, here applied to the church, that the figure is
derived from law of sacrifices. Christ is to present the church to himself as an
offering without defect. But 1. This is entirely out of keeping with the whole context,
which has reference to the conjugal relation, and is intended to illustrate the
union between Christ and the church, by a reference to that between the bridegroom
and the bride. 2. The comparison of the church to an offering is not only out of
keeping with the context, but with the whole current of scriptural representation.
Whereas the comparison of it to a bride is appropriate and familiar. 3. The epithets
in question, though often used in reference to sacrifices, are not only appropriate,
but are actually employed to express personal or corporeal beauty, which is here
the symbol of inward purity.
A larger number of commentators take the ground that the end contemplated
in this verse is accomplished in the present life. In other words, that the state
of the church here described is one attained in this world. Of those who take this
view, some, as the ancient Pelagians, interpret the passage as teaching that perfect
holiness is not only attainable, but is actually attained by believers before death.
Others do not understand the passage as speaking of holiness, but of propitiation,
which is effected once for all. In this view it is parallel to
Heb. 10, 10, where we are said to be "sanctified
by the offering of the body of Christ once for all;" and
ver. 14, where it is said, "By the one offering up of himself he hath
for ever perfected them that are sanctified." Both of these passages in Hebrews
evidently refer to the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice, and they undoubtedly prove,
what no one questions, that the words ἁγιάζειν
and καθαρίζειν here used, may express sacrificial
purification or expiation. But this is far from proving that these words, and especially
the former, are to be so taken here. To sanctify is colmmonly, in Scripture language,
to make spiritually holy, and this sense is far better suited to the context than
any other meaning of the word. But if the design of Christ’s death as here expressed
is to render his church perfectly holy, then there can be no debate as to the time
when this end is to be accomplished. For even should it be granted, that here and
there one among the multitude of believers does attain perfection in this life,
of which neither Scripture nor experience affords any example,
still this cannot be affirmed of the whole body of believers. The great majority
of commentators, therefore, from Augustin down to the present time, understand the
apostle as stating what is to take place when Christ comes the second time to be
admired in all them that believe. It is then, when the dead are raised in the likeness
of the Son of God, and when those who shall be alive shall be changed—when this
corruption shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality—it
is then that the church shall be "as a bride prepared for her husband,"
Rev. 21, 2, and
19, 7-9.
Ἵνα παραστήσῃ depends upon
what immediately precedes: "having purified it that he might present it,"
i. e. cause it to stand before or near him as a bride. So the apostle writing to
the Corinthians says, he had "espoused them to one husband,
παρθενὸν ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ, to
present you as a chaste virgin unto Christ." Here the figure is somewhat different.
Christ presents the church to himself, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷThe
common Text reads αὐτὴν instead of
αὐτὸς. The latter reading on the authority
of the MSS. ABDFG, has, since Griesbach, been almost universally adopted.
he and no other, to himself. He does it. He gave himself for it. He
sanctifies it. He, before the assembled universe, places by his side the bride purchased
with his blood. He presents it to himself a glorious church. That is glorious
which excites admiration. The church is to be an object of admiration to all intelligent
beings, because of its freedom from all defect, and because of its
absolute perfection. It is to be conformed to the glorified humanity of the Son
of God, in the presence of which the disciples on the mount became as dead men,
and from the clear manifestation of which, when Christ comes the second time, the
heavens and the earth are to flee away. God has predestined his people to be conformed
to the image of his Son. And when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we
shall see him as he is, 1 John 3, 2. The
figure is preserved in the description here given of the glory of the consummated
church. It is to be as a faultless bride; perfect in beauty and splendidly adorned.
She is to be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, i. e. without any
thing to mar her beauty, free from every indication of age, faultless and immortal.
What is thus expressed figuratively is expressed literally in the last clause of
the verse, that it should be holy and without blame,
ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος.
Compare
1, 4, where it is said God hath chosen us,
εἶναι ἁγιους
καὶ ἀμώμους. It is, therefore,
the original purpose of election formed before the foundation of the world, that
is to be fulfilled in this consummation of the church.
V. 28. So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies.
This does not mean that men ought to love their wives so as they love their
own bodies; as though the particles so and as,
οὕτως and ὡς,
stood related to each other. Οὕτως, so,
at the beginning of the verse, refers to the preceding representation. As Christ
loves the church and gave himself for it, and as the church is his body, so,
in like manner and agreeably
to the analogous relation between them, husbands should love their wives as, i.
e. as being, or because they are, their own bodies. Christ loves his church because
it is his body. Husbands should love their wives because they are their bodies.
Ὡς, as, before the latter member of the sentence
is not comparative, but argumentative. It does not indicate the measure of the husband’s
love, as though the meaning were, he should love his wife as much as he loves his
own body. But it indicates the nature of the relation which is the ground of his
love. He should love his wife, because she is his body.
How is this to be understood? In what sense does the apostle say
that the wife is the body of the husband, or, in the following verse, that they
are one flesh? It is plain—1. That this does not refer to any material identification.
When Adam said of Eve, "This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,"
Gen. 2, 23, reference was no doubt had to her being formed out of his
substance. But as these terms are used to express the relation of all wives to their
husbands, they must have some other meaning than sameness of substance. 2. It is
also plain that these terms are not to be understood in any sense inconsistent with
the separate subsistence of husband and wife as distinct persons. The consciousness
of the one is not the consciousness of the other. 3. It is further plain that the
marriage relation is not essential to the completeness or perfection of our nature,
in all states of its existence. It is to cease at the resurrection. In the future
state
men are to be, in this respect, like the angels of God, neither marrying nor given
in marriage. 4. On the other hand the marriage union is not merely one of interests
and feeling. Husbands and wives are in such. a sense one, that the husband is the
complement of the wife and the wife of the husband. The marriage relation is necessary
to the completeness of our nature and to its full development in the present state.
Some indeed, as Paul, may attain a higher degree of perfection in celibacy than
in marriage. But this arises from some peculiarity of character or circumstances.
There are faculties and virtues, excellencies and feelings, which are latent until
developed in the conjugal relation. The Romish doctrine, therefore, which degrades
marriage as a state less holy than celibacy, is contrary to nature and the word
of God. 5. Besides this oneness between husband and wife arising from the original
constitution of their nature, rendering the one necessary as the completion of the
other, there is doubtless a oneness of life involved in our Lord’s declaration,
"They are no more twain, but one flesh," which no one can understand.
Such being the nature of marriage, it follows:—1. That it is
a union for life between one man and one woman; and consequently that bigamy, polygamy,
and voluntary divorce are all inconsistent with its nature. 2. That it must be entered
into freely and cordially by the parties, i. e. with the conviction that the one
is suited to the other, so that they may complement each other, and become one in
the scriptural
sense of those words. All coercion on the part of parents, therefore, is contrary
to the nature of the relation; and all marriages of mere convenience are opposed
to the design of the institution. 3. The State can neither make nor dissolve the
marriage tie. It may enact laws regulating the mode in which it shall be solemnized
and authenticated, and determining its civil effects. It may shield a wife from
ill-usage from her husband, as it may remove a child from the custody of an incompetent
or cruel parent. When the union is in fact dissolved by the operation of the divine
law, the State may ascertain and declare the fact, and free the parties from the
civil obligation of the contract. But it is impossible that the State should have
authority to dissolve a union constituted by God, the duties and continuance of
which are determined by his law. 4. According to the Scriptures, as interpreted
by Protestant churches, nothing but the death of one of the parties, or adultery,
or wilful desertion, can dissolve the marriage contract. When either of the last
mentioned causes of dissolution is judicially ascertained and declared, the injured
party is free to contract a new marriage.
It is of vital importance to the best interests of society that
the true doctrine of marriage, as taught in this passage and in other portions of
God’s word, should be known and regarded. The highest social duty of a husband is
to love his wife; and a duty which he cannot neglect without entailing great injury
on his own soul as well as misery on his household. The greatest
social crime, next to murder, which any one can commit, is to seduce the affections
of a wife from her husband, or of a husband from his wife. And one of the greatest
evils which civil authorities can inflict on society, is the dissolution of the
marriage contract (so far as it is a civil contract, for further the civil authority
cannot go), on other than scriptural grounds. The same remark may be made in reference
to all laws which tend to make those two whom God has pronounced one, by giving
to the wife the right to carry on business, contract debts, hold property, sue and
be sued, in her own name. This is attempting to correct one class of evils at the
cost of incurring others a hundred-fold greater. The word of God is the only sure
guide of legislative action as well as of individual conduct.
If, as the Scriptures teach, husband and wife are one, he that
loveth his wife loveth himself, for she is himself. This is the language of
God, originally recorded in Gen. 2, 24,
and repeated by our Lord, Matt. 19, 4-6,
who after citing the passage in Genesis, adds, "Wherefore they are no more twain,
but one flesh." Calvin, in his comment on the passage in Matthew, says,
Hoc autem axioma sumit Christus, Ab initio Deus marem adjunxit feminae,
ut duo efficerent integrum hominem. Ergo qui uxorem repudiat, quasi dimidiam sui
partem a seipso avellit. Hoc autem minime patitur natura, ut corpus suum quispiam
discerpat. Neither God by the mouth of Moses, nor our Lord says simply that
husband and wife ought to be,
but that they are one. It is not a duty, but a fact which they announce. So also
it is a fact which the apostle declares when he says, "He that loves his wife loves
himself."
V. 29. Conjugal love, therefore, is as much a dictate of nature
as self-love; and it is just as unnatural for a man to hate his wife, as it would
be for him to hate himself, or his own body. A man may have a body which does not
altogether suit him. Ile may wish it were handsomer, healthier, stronger, or more
active. Still it is his body, it is himself; and he nourisheth it and cherishes
it as tenderly as though it were the best and loveliest man ever had. So a man may
have a wife whom he could wish to be better, or more beautiful, or more agreeable;
still she is his wife, and by the constitution of nature and ordinance of God, a
part of himself. In neglecting or ill-using her he violates the laws of nature as
well as the law of God. It is thus Paul presents the matter. If the husband and
wife are one flesh, the husband must love his wife, "for no man ever yet
hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it."
Ἐκτρέφειν is properly to nourish up),
to train up by nurture, as a parent a child; comp. 6,
4. Θάλπειν is, to warm m,
to cherish as a mother does an infant in her bosom. Both terms express tenderness
and solicitude, and therefore both are suited to express the care with which every
man provides for the wants and comfort of his own body.
Καθὼς καὶ, even as also,
Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Christ the church,
i. e. Christ also nourishes and
cherishes the church as a man does his own body. The relation between a man and
his wife is analogous to that between a man and his own body. And the relation between
Christ and his church is analogous to that between a husband and his wife; therefore
Christ nourishes and cherishes the church as man does his own body.
V. 30. This verse assigns the reason of the preceding declaration.
Christ acts towards his church as a man does towards his body, for we are members
of his body. This might mean simply that we stand to him in the same intimate
and vital union, that a man’s body sustains to the man himself. But the meaning
is rendered more definite by the words which follow,
ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ;These
words are omitted in MSS. A B 17, and in the Coptic and Ethiopic versions, and are
left out of the text by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The other Uncial MSS., the Syriac
version, the Fathers, are in their favour. They are required by the context, and
their omission is easily accounted for. Even Mill and Griesbach retain them, as
do all other editors, and the commentators almost without exception.
not members of, but derived from, and partakers of, his flesh and his bones.
This is the signification of the words, whatever their meaning may be.
Ἐκ expresses derivation and participation.
This is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible. The doctrine which it teaches
is declared by the apostle, in a following verse, to be a great mystery. Any explanation,
therefore, which dispels that mystery, and makes the6 doctrine taught perfectly
intelligible, must be false. All that can properly be
attempted is to guard against false interpretations, and leave the matter just where
the apostle leaves it, as something to be believed and reverenced but not understood.
The lowest explanation of the passage before us is that which
departs entirely from the signification of the words, and supposes that the apostle
intended to teach nothing at all as to the nature of our union with Christ, but
simply to affirm the fact. Husbands and wives are intimately united, and so are
Christ and his church. This is no explanation at all. It is simply saying that the
apostle meant nothing, or nothing specific, by what he says. The Scriptures teach
in general terms that Christ and his people are one. When our Lord says they are
one as the vine and its branches are one, he teaches something more than the mere
fact of union between himself and his people. So, too, when the apostle says the
union in question is analogous to that between Adam and his posterity, he teaches
not only the fact but also one aspect of its nature. In like manner, when he illustrates
it by a reference to the conjugal relation, and says that the point of analogy is
that as Eve was formed out of the flesh and bone of Adam, so we are partakers of
the flesh and bones of Christ, it is impossible that nothing more should be meant
than that we are united to him.
A second interpretation takes the words figuratively, and supposes
the apostle meant that as Eve derived her physical existence from Adam, so we derive
our spiritual existence from Christ. This interpretation
has many advocates from Chrysostom downwards, but it is liable to the same
objection as the preceding. It refuses to admit what the apostle asserts. He
says not merely that we derive our life from Christ, which is true; but also
that we derive our life from his flesh, and are partakers of it. This must mean
something more specific than simply that Christ is the author of our life, and
that he lives in us.Diese
Form des Ausdrucks ist Reminiscenz von Gen. 2, 23, wo Adam die Entstehung der Eva
aus seinem Gebeinen und aus seinem Fleische ausspricht, welcher Entstehung das genetische
Verhältniss der Christen zu Christo analog ist, naturlich nicht physich, sondern
im geistlichen, mystischen Sinne, in so fern die christliche Dasein und Wesen der
Christen, aus Christo originirt, in Christo sein Principium essendi hat, wie physicher
Weise Eva aus Adam herrührte. MEYER.
A third view of the passage assumes that the reference is to the
incarnation. We are partakers of the flesh of Christ because we have the same human
nature which he assumed. In Heb. 2, 10, it is said, "Both he that sanctifieth and
they who are sanctified are all of one," i. e. of one nature; and in ver. 14, "
Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself
likewise took part of the same." These and similar passages do indeed prove that
one of the essential elements of the union with Christ is this community of nature.
And it is also true that the more specific union indicated in the text presupposes
and rests upon the fact of the incarnation. But the incarnation cannot be what Paul
here refers to. The incarnation consists in the eternal Son of God taking
to himself a true body and a reasonable soul; but the union here
spoken of arises from our participation of Christ’s body; that is, of his flesh
and of his bones. It is not his taking our flesh and blood, but our partaking of
his, after he had assumed them, that is here asserted. Besides, so far as the mere
assumption of human nature is concerned, it is a bond of union between Christ and
the whole human race; whereas the apostle is here speaking of a union with Christ
peculiar to his people.
Fourth; Romanists, Lutherans, and the elder Calvinists,
as Calvin himself and Beza, seek a solution of this passage in the Lord’s Supper.
As in that ordinance we are said to partake of the body and blood of Christ, it
is assumed that the union here spoken of is that which is thereby effected. We are
"one flesh" with him, because we partake of his flesh. This of course is differently
understood according to the different views entertained of that sacrament. Romanists,
believing that by the act of consecration the whole substance of the bread is transmuted
into the substance of Christ’s body, which is received by the communicant, of course
believe that in the most literal sense of the words, we are flesh of his flesh.
Lutherans, although they believe that the bread remains bread in the Eucharist after
consecration, yet as they hold that the true body of Christ is locally present in,
with and under the bread, and is received by the mouth, come to the same conclusion
as to the nature of the union thereby effected. Partaking literally of Christ’s
flesh, Christians are literally of one flesh with him. Calvin
did not hold that Christ’s body was locally present in the Lord’s Supper, nor that
it was received by the mouth, nor that it was received in any sense by unbelievers.
Ife did hold, however, that the substance of Christ’s glorified body, as enthroned
in heaven, was in some miraculous way communicated to believers together with the
bread in that ordinance. He, therefore, understands the apostle as here referring
to that fact, and asserting that we are members of Christ’s body because the substance
of his body is in the Eucharist communicated to us.
Dicit nos esse ejus membra,
ex carne et ossibus. Primum non est hyperbolica loquutio, sed simplex; deinde non
tantum significat Christum esse naturae nostrae participem, sed altius quiddam exprimere
voluit,
καὶ ἐμφατικώτερον. Refert enim Mosis verba, Gen. 2, 24. Quis ergo exit
sensus? quemadmodum Heva ex Adae mariti sui substantia formata est, ut esset quasi
pars illius; ita nos ut simus vera Christi membra, substantiae ejus communicatione
nos coalescere in unum corpus. Denique eam nostri, cum Christo unionem hic Paulus
describit, cujus in sacra coena symbolum et pignus nobis datur . . . Paulus nos ex
membris et ossibus Christi esse testatur. Miramur ergo si corpus suum in coena fruendum
nobis exhibet, ut sit nobis vitae aeternae alimentum? ita ostendimus nullam nos
in coena repraesentationem docere, nisi cujus effectus et veritas hic a Paulo praedicatur. CALVIN.
On the following verse, he says, Totum autem ex eo pendet quod uxor ex carne
et ex ossibus viri formata est. Eadem ergo unionis ratio inter nos et Christum,
quod se quodammodo in nos transfundit. Neque enim ossa sumus ex ossibus ejus, et
caro ex carne, quia ipse nobiscum est homo; sed quia Spiritus sui virtute nos in
corpus suum inserit, ut vitam ex eo hauriamus.
There are two objections to
these interpretations:—1. That, according to the common belief of the Reformed churches, the Bible teaches no such doctrine
concerning the Lord’s Supper, as either of these several views of the passage supposes.
2. That there is not only no allusion to the Lord’s Supper in the whole context,
but the terms here employed are never used in Scripture when treating of that ordinance.
"Body and blood" are the sacramental words always used, and never " flesh and bones."
The reference is to the creation of woman and to the marriage relation, and not
to the Eucharist.
Fifth; The advocates of that philosophical form of theology of
which Schleiermacher was the founder, understand the passage before us to teach
that we are partakers of the theanthropic life of Christ. The leading idea of that
system, so far as the person of Christ is concerned, is the denial of all dualism.
He has but one life. That life is not human, and not divine, but divine and human,
or human made divine. Neither is there any dualism as to soul and body. These are
the same life under different manifestations. To partake of Christ, is to partake
of his life. To partake of his life, is to partake of his theanthropic nature. To
partake of his theanthropic nature, is to partake of his human, as well as of his
divine nature; and to partake of his human nature is to partake of his body as well
as of his soul and divinity. We partake of the theanthropic nature of Christ, as
we partake of the corrupt human nature of Adam. The life of Adam is the general
life of his race, manifested in the individuals composing that race. The theanthropic
life
of Christ is the general life of the church, manifested in
its members. The church is the development of Christ, as the human race is the development
of Adam; or as the oak or forest is the development of an acorn. As, therefore,
we are said to be flesh of Adam’s flesh and bone of his bones, in the same sense
and with the same propriety, are we said to be flesh of Christ’s flesh and bone
of his bones.OLSHAUSEN, in his comment on this verse, says:
Nicht die geistige Geburt ist es zunächst, von der hier die Rede ist, die
leibliche
Seite wird hier und v. 31, zu ausdrücklich hervorgehoben; es ist die Selbstmittheilung
seines göttlich-menschlichen Wesens, wodurch Christus uns zu seinem Fleisch und
Bein macht, er giebt den Seinigen sein Fleisch zu essen, sein Blut zu trinken. On
the following verse he remarks: Wie wir zu v. 30, sahen, dass die Gläubigen von
Christi Fleisch und Bein sind, weil sie seiner verklärten Leiblichkeit theilhaftig
wurden; so ist hier auch die σάρξ μία mit Beziehung
auf die Mittheilung des Fleisehes
und Blutes Christi an seine Gläubiger zu verstehen. Dies sein göttlich-menschliches
Wesen theilt der Erlöser zwar auch im Glauben mit (John 6, 45) aber die intensiveste,
concentrirteste Mittheilung desselben erfolgt im heiligen Abendmahl. The correctness of this explanation depends on the correctness of
the system on which it is founded. As a theology, that system is a revival of the
Sabellian and Eutychian heresies; and as a philosophy, it is in the last resort
pantheistic. It makes the life of God and the life of man identical. God lives only
in his creatures.
Sixth; We must content ourselves with briefly stating what the
apostle affirms, guarding against a perversion of his language, and making some
approximation to its meaning without pretending to dissipate the mystery which he
teaches us rests upon the subject.
The text asserts—1. That we are members of Christ, s body. 2. That
we are partakers of his flesh and of his bones, in such a sense that our relation
to Christ is analogous to Eve’s relation to Adam.
The three general interpretations
of the passage are, First, That as Eve derived her physical life from Adam, so we
derive our spiritual life from Christ. This says too little, as it leaves out of
view the specific affirmation of the text. Second, That as Eve was formed out of
the substance of Adam’s body, so we are partakers of the substance of Christ’s body.
This is Calvin’s interpretation, which includes the views given by Romanists, by
Lutherans, and Transcendentalists. This goes beyond the declaration of the text,
and imposes a meaning upon it inconsistent with the analogy of Scripture. The third
interpretation takes a middle ground, and understands the apostle to teach, that
as Eve derived her life from the body of Adam, so we derive our life from
the
body of Christ, and as she was partaker of Adam’s life, so we are partakers of
the life of Christ. The doctrine taught, therefore, is not community of substance
between Christ and his people, but community of life, and that the source of life
to his people is Christ’s flesh.
In support of this interpretation it may be urged:
1. That it leaves the passage in its integrity. It neither explains it away, nor
does it make it assert more than the words necessarily imply. The doctrine taught
remains a great mystery, as the apostle declares it to be. 2. It takes the terms
employed in their ordinary
and natural sense. To partake of one’s flesh and blood. does
not, in ordinary life nor according to scriptural usage, mean to partake of his
substance, but it does mean to partake of his life. The substance of which the body
of any adult is composed is derived exclusively from his food and from the atmosphere.
A few years after the formation of Eve not a particle of Adam’s body entered into
the composition of her frame; and yet she was then as truly as at the beginning,
bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, because derived from him and partaker of
his life. For the same reasons and in the same sense we are said to be flesh of
Adam’s flesh and bone of his bones, although in no sense partakers of the substance
of his body. In like manner nothing is more common than to speak of the blood of
a father flowing in the veins of his descendants, and of their being his flesh.
This means, and can only mean, that they are partakers of his life. There is no
community of substance possible in the case. What life is no man knows. But we know
that it is not matter; and, therefore, there may be community of life, where there
is no community of substance. There is a form of life peculiar to nations, tribes,
families, and individuals; and this peculiar type is transmitted from generation
to generation, modifying the personal appearance, the physical constitution, and
the character of those who inherit it. When we speak of the blood of the Hapsburghs,
or of the Bourbons, it is this family type that is intended and nothing material.
The present Emperor of Austria derives his
peculiar type of physical life from the head of his race, but not
one particle of the substance of his body. Husband and wife are in Scripture declared
to be one flesh. But here again it is not identity of substance, but community of
life that is intended. As, therefore, participation of one’s flesh does not in other
connections, mean participation of his substance, it cannot be fairly understood
in that sense when spoken of our relation to Christ. And as in all analogous cases
it does express derivation or community of life, it must be so understood here.
3. It is clearly taught in Scripture that the union with Christ here described is
essential to salvation. It is also clearly taught in the word of God, and held by
all Protestants, though not by Romanists, that believers under the Old Dispensation
were fully saved. Whatever, therefore, is the nature of the union with Christ here
taught, it must be such as is common to believers who lived before and to those
who live after the advent of Christ. It is possible that the saints under the Old
Dispensation should have derived their life from the body of Christ, as he was the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, but it is not possible that they could
be partakers of the substance of his body, or of his glorified humanity. The passage
before us, therefore, cannot teach any such community of substance.
4. The community
of life with Christ and derivation of life from his flesh, which is the doctrine
this interpretation supposes the passage before us to teach,
is a doctrine elsewhere taught in Scripture. We are not
only said to be saved by his body, Rom. 7, 4; by his blood, Eph. 2, 13; by his flesh,
2, 15; by the body of his flesh, Col. 1, 22; but his flesh is said to be our life,
and participation of it is said to be the source of eternal life. "Except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." John 6, 53. 54.
The union,
therefore, between Christ and his people is mysterious. It may be illustrated, but
cannot be fully explained. It is analogous to the union between husband and wife,
who are declared to be one flesh to express their community of life; and especially
to the union between Adam and Eve because she derived her life from his flesh. As
the relations are thus analogous, what is said of the one may be said of the other.
To prove this, and to justify the use of the language which he had employed, the
apostle cites the language of God in Gen. 2, 24. Ver. 31.
For this cause shall a
man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two
shall be one flesh. That is, because the relation between husband and wife is more
intimate than any other, even than that between parents and children; therefore
a man shall consider all other relations subordinate to that which he sustains to
his wife, with whom he is connected in the bonds of a common life. As the Scripture
speaks in such terms of the conjugal relation, the apostle was justified in using
the same terms of the union between
Christ and his people. They also are one flesh because they have
a common life, and because his people derive their life from his flesh as Eve derived
hers from the flesh of Adam.
The principal difficulty here relates to the connection.
The passage stands thus: ‘We are members of Christ’s body, of his flesh, and of
his bones. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined
to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.’ There is an apparent incongruity
between the premises and the conclusion. How does our being members of Christ’s
body, prove that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife?
There are three methods of getting over this difficulty. First, some assume that
there is no connection between the two verses, but that the 31st refers back to
the 28th. The sense would then be, ‘A man should love his wife, because she is his
body. For this cause, a man should leave his father and cleave to his wife,’ &c.
This method of solution is inconsistent both with what precedes and with what follows.
It does not agree with what precedes, because the words, of his flesh, &c., in ver.
30, referring to Christ, form part of the passage in Genesis, the continuation of
which is given in ver. 31. If the one refers to Christ, the other must. It contradicts
what follows; for in ver. 32, the main idea contained in ver. 31 (they shall be
one flesh), is expressly said to be affirmed in reference to Christ and the church.
The second method of explanation assumes an immediate
connection between the two verses 30 and 31, and understands
the whole of the latter to refer to the relation between Christ and his church.
It then may be explained either in reference to the present, or the future. If to
the present, the sense would be, ‘We are members of Christ’s body, and,
therefore,
he left his Father and all dear to him in heaven that he might be united to his
people.’ But how is it possible that the words, "a man shall leave his father and
mother," can mean Christ left God and heaven? If the passage be understood in reference
to the future, the meaning will be, ‘We are members of Christ’s body, and
therefore
hereafter when he comes the second time, he will leave his Father’s throne, and
take his church as his bride.’Deshalb, weil wir Glieder Christi, von seinem Fleisch und von seinem Beinen sind,
wird verlassen ein Mensch (d. i. Christus, bei der Parusie) seinen Vater und
seine Mutter (d. i. nach der mystischen Deutung Pauli: er wird seinen Sitz zur Rechten
Gottes verlassen) und vereiniget werden mit seinem Weibe (mit der Gemeinde),
und
(und dann) werden die Zwei (der Mann und die Frau, d. i. der herabgestiegene Christus
und die Gemeinde) zu Einem Fleische sein (Eine ethische Person ausmachen).
MEYER. But this view not only does the same violence to
the meaning of the words, but is in direct contradiction to the whole context. Paul
does not say that hereafter the church shall be united to Christ as his bride, but
that his people are now members of his body, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his
bones.
The third explanation assumes that the first part of the verse has no reference
to Christ and the church, and that the passage is quoted from Genesis solely for
the sake of the last words, they shall be one flesh. The meaning
and the connection then are, ‘As Eve was formed out of the body of Adam, and therefore,
it is said, a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh. So, since we are members of Christ’s body,
therefore,
Christ and his church are one flesh.’ This view is, 1. In entire accordance with
the context. 2. It avoids the forced and unnatural interpretations which are unavoidable
if the former part of the 31st verse be understood in reference to Christ. 3. It
satisfies the demands of the 32d verse, which asserts that the words
one flesh do
refer to Christ and the church. And 4. It is in accordance with the usage of the
apostles in quoting the language of the Old Testament. They often recite a passage
of Scripture as it stands in the Old Testament, for the sake of some one clause
or expression in it, without intending to apply to the case before them, any other
portion of the passage quoted. In Heb. 2, 13, the whole stress and argument rest
on the single word children; see also Gal. 3, 16. Very frequently the particles
indicating the grammatical or logical connection of the passage in its position
in the Old Testament, are included in the quotation, although entirely unsuited
to the connection in which the passage is introduced. This is so frequently done
as to be almost the rule. It is, therefore, not an arbitrary proceeding to make
the last words of this verse refer to Christ, while the former part of it is made
to refer to the context of the passage as it stands in Genesis.
V. 32. Τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν,
this mystery is great.
The word mystery does not refer to the passage in Gen. 2, 24, as though the apostle
intended to say that that passage had a mystical sense which he had just unfolded
by applying it to the relation between Christ and his church. It is the union between
Christ and his people. the fact that they are one flesh, he declares to be a great
mystery. The word μυστήριον is used here, as it is every where else, for something
hidden, something beyond the reach of human knowledge. Whether its being thus hidden
arises from its lying in the future, or because of being imperfectly revealed,
or because it is in its own nature incomprehensible, must be determined by the connection.
In this place the last is probably the idea intended. The thing itself is beyond
our comprehension. The Vulgate renders this passage, sacramentum hoc magnum est.
The Latin word sacramentum, besides its usual classical sense, ‘a sacred deposit,’
was often used to signify any thing sacred, or which had a hidden import. In this
latter sense it agrees in meaning with the word
μυστήριον, which also is used
to designate something the meaning of which is hidden. Hence in the Vulgate it
is often translated as it is here. In the Latin church the word
sacramentum, however,
gradually changed its meaning. Instead of being applied to every thing having a
sacred or secret meaning, it was confined to those rites or acts which were assumed
to have the power of conferring grace. This is the Romish idea of a sacrament. The
Papal theologians
taking the word in this sense here, and understanding the apostle to refer to
marriage, quote this passage in proof that matrimony is a sacrament. The answer
to this argument is obvious. In the first place, it is not marriage, but the
union between Christ and his church, that Paul declares to be a
μυστήριον,
and the Vulgate a sacramentum. And in the second place, neither the Greek nor
Latin term means a sacrament in the Romish sense of the word. The Vulgate translates
1 Tim. 3, 16, magnum est pietatis sacramentum, which no Romanist understands
as teaching that the manifestation of God in the flesh is a sacrament in the ecclesiastical
meaning of the term.
V. 33. The relation of this verse to what precedes, as indicated
by πλὴν, admits of two explanations. That particle is used at the beginning of a
clause, after an interruption, to introduce the resumption of the main subject.
It may be so here. The principal object of the whole paragraph from v. 21, is to
unfold the true nature of the conjugal relation and its duties. With this was connected
an exposition of the analogous relation between Christ and the church. This latter
point in verses 30. 31, is the only
one brought into view. Here the apostle reverts
to the main subject. But, to resume my subject, let every one of you in particular
so love his wife even as himself. This explanation is the one commonly adopted.
Πλήν, however, may mean, nevertheless, as it is rendered in our version, and this
verse be connected with the 32d. ‘The relation between Christ and the church is a
great
mystery; nevertheless, do you also love your wives.’ That
is, although there is something in the relation between Christ and the church which
infinitely transcends the conjugal relation, nevertheless there is sufficient analogy
between the cases, to render it obligatory on husbands to love their wives as Christ
loves his church. This view of the connection is to be preferred, especially because
of the words καὶ ὑμεῖς, you also, which evidently suppose the reference is to what
immediately precedes.
Ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, you severally,
ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν,
let each one so love his wife as himself. The
construction varies; the verb
ἀγαπάτω
being made to agree with
ἕκαστος, instead
of ὑμεῖς the real subject. The meaning is the same as in ver. 28. The husband is
to love his wife as being himself. In the next clause
(ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν
ἄνδρα),
ἡ δὲ γυνὴ is the nominative absolute, and
ἵνα depends on a verb understood.
But as to the woman, let her see, that she reverence her husband. The word
φοβέω
may express the emotion of fear in all its modifications and in all its degrees
from simple respect, through reverence, up to adoration, according to its
object. It is, however, in all its degrees an acknowledgment of superiority. The
sentiments, therefore, which lie at the foundation of the marriage relation,
which arise out of the constitution of nature, which are required by the command
of God, and are essential to the happiness and well-being of the parties,
are, on the part of the husband, that form of love which leads
him to cherish and protect his wife as being himself, and on the part of the woman,
that sense of his superiority out of which trust and obedience involuntarily flow.
CHAPTER VI.
RELATIVE DUTIES OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN AND OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS,
VS. 1-9.—EXHORTATIONS AND DIRECTIONS AS TO THE SPIRITUAL CONFLICT, vs. 10-20.—CONCLUSION, VS. 21-24.
SECTION I.—Vs. 1-9.
1. Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this
is right.
2. Honour thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with
promise,)
3. that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
4. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord.
5. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart,
as unto Christ;
6. not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ,
doing the will of God from the heart;
7. with good will doing service, as to
the Lord, and not to men:
8. knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the
same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
9. And, ye masters,
do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also
is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
ANALYSIS.
Children should obey their parents. This obedience should
be in the Lord, determined and regulated by a regard to Christ, v. 1. The ground
of the obligation is—1. It is itself right. 2. It is enforced by an express command
in the decalogue, to which a special promise is annexed, vs. 1-3.
Parents should
do nothing to cherish evil feelings in the minds of their children, but bring them
up in the discipline of Christianity, vs. 4, 5.
Servants should be obedient to their
masters. This obedience should be rendered—1. With solicitude. 2. with singleness
of mind. 3. As part of their obedience to Christ, v. 5. Therefore, not only when
observed by men or from the desire to please men, but as serving Christ and desiring
to please him; rendering their services with readiness as to the Lord and not to
men; because they know that at his bar all men, whether bond or free, shall be treated
according to their works, vs. 6-8.
Masters are to act on the same principles of
regard to the authority of Christ, and of their responsibility to him in their conduct
towards their slaves, avoiding all harshness, because master and slave have a common
Master in heaven; with whom there is no respect of persons, v. 8.
COMMENTARY.
V. 1. Children, obey your parents. The nature or character of this obedience, is
expressed by the words,
in the Lord. It should be religious; arising out of the conviction
that such obedience is the will of the Lord. This makes it a higher service than
if rendered from fear or from mere natural affection. It secures its being prompt,
cordial and universal. That
Κύριος here refers to Christ is plain from the whole
context. In the preceding chapter, v. 21, we have the general exhortation under
which this special direction to children is included, and the obedience there required
is to be rendered in the fear of Christ. In the following verses also
Κύριος constantly
has this reference, and therefore must have it here. The ground of the obligation
to filial obedience is expressed in the words, for this is right. It is not because
of the personal character of the parent, nor because of his kindness, nor on the
ground of expediency, but because it is right; an obligation arising out of the
nature of the relation between parents and children, and which must exist wherever
the relation itself exists.
V. 2. This consideration is enforced by a reference
to the express command of God. The duty is so important as to be included in that
brief summary of the moral law given by God on Mount Sinai. It was engraven by the
finger of God on the tables of stone, Honour thy father and thy mother. Any flagrant
breach of this command was, according to the Mosaic law, punished with death. To
honour is to reverence; and, therefore, the command has reference to the inward
feeling as well as to the outward conduct. This precept is said to be
πρώτη, ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ. This may mean,
it is the first commandment in the decalogue which has a specific
promise attached; for the promise connected with the second commandment does not
relate to the observance of that particular precept, but to keeping God’s covenant.
Or it may mean that it is the first commandment of the second table of the law,
and has a promise annexed; or,
πρώτη
may be taken here as in Mark 12, 28. 30,
in the sense of chief, i. e. the first in importance. The sense would then be, ‘Honour
thy father and mother; this is the prime commandment, the first in importance among
those relating to our social duties; and it has the specific promise annexed. It
shall be well with thee on the earth.’ This view of the passage is on the whole
to be preferred. It is not likely that Paul would call this "the first commandment
with promise," when it is in fact the only command in the decalogue which has any
specific promise annexed to it. And to say that it is the first in order of arrangement
in the second table of the law, not only adds nothing to its importance, but supposes
the apostle to refer to a distinction between the two tables of the decalogue, not
elsewhere recognized in Scripture.
The promise itself has a theocratical form in
the Old Testament. That is, it has specific reference to prosperity and length of
days in the land which God had given to his people as their inheritance. The apostle
generalizes it by leaving out the concluding words, and makes it a promise not confined
to one land or people, but to obedient children every where. If it be asked whether
obedient children are in fact thus distinguished
by long life and prosperity? The answer is, that this, like all other
such promises, is a revelation of a general purpose of God, and makes known what
will be the usual course of his providence. That some obedient children are unfortunate
and short lived, is no more inconsistent with this promise, than that some diligent
men are poor, is inconsistent with the declaration, ‘The hand of the diligent maketh
rich.’ Diligence, as a general rule, does secure riches; and obedient children,
as a general rule, are prosperous and happy. The general promise is fulfilled to
individuals, just so far "as it shall serve for God’s glory, and their own good."
V. 4. The duty of parents, who are here represented by the father, is stated in
a negative and positive form. And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.
This is what they are not to do. They are not to excite the bad passions of their
children by severity, injustice, partiality, or unreasonable exercise of authority.
A parent had better sow tares in a field from which he expects to derive food for
himself and family, than by his own ill conduct nurture evil in the heart of his
child. The positive part of parental duty is expressed in the comprehensive direction,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ Κυρίου, i. e. educate them, bring
them up, developing all their powers by (ἐν instrumental) the instruction and admonition
of the Lord.
Παιδείᾳ is a comprehensive word; it means the
training or education
of a child, including the whole process of instruction and discipline.
Νουθεσίᾳ,
from νουθετέω
(νοῦς, τίθημι) to put in mind, is included under the more general
term, and is correctly rendered admonition. It is the act of reminding
one of his faults or duties. Children are not to be allowed to grow up without care
or control. They are to be instructed, disciplined, and admonished, so that they
be brought to knowledge, self-control, and obedience. This whole process of education
is to be religious, and not only religious, but Christian. It is the nurture and
admonition of the Lord, which is the appointed and the only effectual means of attaining
the end of education. Where this means is neglected or any other substituted in
its place, the result must be disastrous failure. The moral and religious element
of our nature is just as essential and as universal as the intellectual. Religion
therefore is as necessary to the development of the mind as knowledge. And as Christianity
is the only true religion, and God in Christ the only true God, the only possible
means of profitable education is the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is,
the whole process of instruction and discipline must be that which he prescribes,
and which he administers, so that his authority should be brought into constant
and immediate contact with the mind, heart and conscience of the child. It will
not do for the parent to present himself as the ultimate end, the source of knowledge
and possessor of authority to determine truth and duty. This would be to give his
child a mere human development. Nor will it do for him to urge and communicate every
thing on the abstract ground of reason; for that would be to merge his child in
nature. It is only by making God,
God in Christ, the teacher and ruler, on whose authority every thing
is to be believed and in obedience to whose will every thing is to be done, that
the ends of education can possibly be attained. It is infinite folly in men to assume
to be wiser than God, or to attempt to accomplish an end by other means than those
which he has appointed.
V. 5. The five following verses treat of the relative duties
of masters and servants.
Δοῦλος and
κύριος are here relative terms, although in
Greek the antithetical term to δοῦλος is commonly
δεσπότης, as in 1 Tim. 6, 1;
Titus 2, 9; compare also 1 Pet. 2, 18.
Δοῦλος, from
δέω, to bind, means a bondman,
or slave, as distinguished from a hired servant, who was called μίσθιος or
μισθωτός.
That such is its meaning here is plain not only from the common usage of the word,
but also from the antithesis between δοῦλος and
ἐλεύθερος, bond and free, in v.
8.
Κύριος, means
possessor, owner, master. It implies the relation which a man may
bear both to persons and things. The nature of that relation, or the kind and degree
of authority involved in it, however, is not determined by the word, but in each
case by the context. It is evident both from the meaning of the terms here used,
and from the known historical fact that slavery prevailed throughout the Roman empire
during the apostolic age, that this and other passages of the New Testament refer
to that institution. It is dealt with precisely as despotism in the State is dealt
with. It is neither enjoined nor forbidden. It is simply assumed to be lawful, so
that a Christian may consistently
be an autocrat in the State, or a master of slaves. In this view the
scriptural doctrine on this subject, differs on the one hand, from the doctrine
that slave-holding is in itself sinful, on the ground that one man cannot lawfully
possess or exercise the rights and authority over his fellow-men, which are involved
in the relation of a master to his slaves. This of necessity leads to setting up
a rule of faith and practice higher than the Scriptures, and thus tends to destroy
their authority. It leads to uncharitable feelings and to unrighteous judgments,
as well as to unwarrantable measures for abating the evil. On the other hand, the
scriptural doctrine is opposed to the opinion that slavery is in itself a desirable
institution, and as such to be cherished and perpetuated. This leads to results
no less deplorable than the other error. As slavery is founded on the inferiority
of one class of society to another, the opinion that it ought to be cherished naturally
leads to the adoption of means to increase or to perpetuate that inferiority, by
preventing the improvement of the subject class. It presents also a strong temptation
to deny the common brotherhood of men, and to regard the enslaved as belonging to
an inferior race. The great mistake of those who adopt the former error, is—1. That
they assume the right of property in the master to extend to more than the services
of the slave. The only right of property possible in the case is a right to use
the slave as a man possessing the same nature with his master, and may, by the law
of God and the constitution of things, be properly used.
And 2. The confounding slave-laws with slavery, which is as
unreasonable as to confound despotism as a form of civil government, with the laws
of any particular despotic state. Those laws may be good or bad. Their being bad,
as they too often are, does not prove either in the case of despotism or slavery
that the institution itself is contrary to the divine law. The mistake of those
who hold the other extreme opinion on this subject, so far as the Bible is concerned,
is that what the Scriptures tolerate as lawful under given circumstances, may be
cherished and rendered perpetual. This is as unreasonable, as to maintain that children
should, if possible, always remain minors.
The Bible method of dealing with this
and similar institutions is to enforce, on all concerned, the great principles of
moral obligation—assured that those principles, if allowed free scope, will put
an end to all evils both in the political and social relations of men. The apostle,
therefore, without either denouncing or commending slavery, simply inculcates on
master and slave their appropriate duty. On the slave he enjoins the duty of obedience.
In the expression, masters, according to the flesh, there is evidently an implied
reference to a higher authority. It limits the authority of the master to what is
external; the soul being left free. The slave has two masters; the one
κατὰ σάρκα,
the other κατὰ πνεῦμα. The one, man; the other, Christ. The directions here
given relate to their duty to the former. As to the nature of the obedience required,
the apostle teaches—1. That it should be rendered
μετὰ
φόβου καὶ τρόμου,
with fear and trembling, i. e. with conscientious
solicitude. That nothing servile is intended by these terms is plain from the context,
and from a comparison with other passages in which the same expression is used.
It is not the fear of man, but the reverential fear of God of which the apostle
speaks, as what follows clearly proves. In 1 Cor. 2, 3, Paul tells the Corinthians
that he came among them "with fear and trembling;" and in 2 Cor. 7, 15, he speaks
of their having received Titus, "with fear and trembling;" and in Phil. 2, 12,
he exhorts believers to work out their salvation "with fear and trembling." In all
of these cases solicitude to do what is right is all the terms imply.
2. This obedience
is to be rendered
ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας, with simplicity of heart, i. e.
with singleness of mind—meaning just what we appear to mean. It is opposed to hypocrisy,
false pretence, deceit and cunning. Compare Rom. 12, 8; 2 Cor. 8, 2; 9, 11. The
word
ἁπλότης signifies
singleness, from ἁπλόος, one-fold, as opposed to
διπλόος, two-fold, or, double. The thing enjoined is, therefore, the opposite of double-mindedness.
3. This obedience is to be rendered
ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ, as to Christ. Slaves were to regard
their obedience to their masters as part of their obedience to Christ. This would
give it the character of a religious service, because the motive is regard to divine
authority, and its object is a divine person. It thus ceases to be servile, and
becomes consistent with the highest mental elevation and spiritual freedom.
V. 6. The apostle explains in the two following verses what
he means by simplicity of heart, or sincere obedience. It is not eye-service. That
is, such service as is rendered only when the eye of the master sees what is done;
as though the only object were to please men. Servants are required to act as the
δοῦλοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the slaves of Christ, whose eyes are every where; and, therefore,
if their desire is to please him, they must be as faithful in their master’s absence
as in his presence.
Ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, doing the will of God. This is
descriptive of the servants of Christ, in opposition to men-pleasers. They act from
a regard to the will of God, and from a desire to please him,—ἐκ ψυχῆς,
ex animo,
from the soul. Sometimes ψυχή means the seat of the desires and affections, and
then agrees in sense with καρδία. Sometimes the two are distinguished, as in Mark
12, 30, " with all the heart (καρδία,) and with all the soul (ψυχή)." Here the sense
is, that the principle of obedience is nothing external, but is within. It is an
obedience which springs from the soul—the whole inner man. These words are commonly
and most naturally connected with the preceding clause; ‘doing the will of the Lord
from the soul.’ By many commentators and editors they are connected with what follows, ‘from
the soul, with good will, doing service.’ This gives δουλεύοντες two nearly equivalent
qualifying clauses, and leaves the preceding participle ποιου̂ντες without any.
V. 7. The whole character of the obedience of the slave is summed up in this verse,
δουλεύοντες, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις,
doing service, to the Lord and not to men.
This, as the Scriptures teach, is not peculiar to the obedience of the slave to
his master, but applies to all other cases in which obedience is required from one
man to another. It applies to children in relation to their parents, wives to husbands,
people to magistrates. Those invested with lawful authority are the representatives
of God. The powers (i. e. those invested with authority) are ordained by God; and
therefore all obedience rendered to them out of regard to his will, is obedience
to Him. And as obedience to God is rendered to one infinitely true and good, it
is even more elevating than obedience to truth and goodness. Foreign as all this
is to the proud and rebellious heart of man, which spurns all superiority and authority,
it is daily illustrated by the cheerful and patient submission of the people of
God even to the capricious and unreasonable exercise of the authority of those to
whom God has placed them in subjection. It is to be remarked that the apostle presents
this principle not merely in a religious, but a Christian form. We are required
to do service, as to the Lord, and not to men. It is to Christ, God manifested in
the flesh; to him, who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal
with God, but humbled himself, taking on him the condition of a slave,
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών; it is to this infinitely exalted and infinitely condescending Saviour,
who came not to be served, but to serve, that the obedience of every Christian,
whether servant, child, wife, or subject, is really and consciously rendered.
Thus the most galling yoke is made easy, and the heaviest burden light.
The words μετ᾽ εὐνοίας qualify
δουλευόντες, with a willing mind doing service.
This stands opposed to the sullenness and inward indignation with which a service
extorted by fear of punishment is often rendered. No service rendered to Christ
can be of that character. It is rendered with alacrity and cheerfulness.
V. 8. This
verse presents for the encouragement of the slave, the elevating truth that all
men stand on a level before the bar of Christ. In him and before him, there is neither
Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, but so far as these external distinctions
are concerned, all are alike. The apostle, therefore, says to slaves, render this
cheerful obedience, εἰδότες knowing, i. e. because ye know,
that whatsoever good
thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or
free. In this world some men are masters and some are slaves. In the next, these
distinctions will cease. There the question will be, not, Who is the master? and,
Who the slave? but who has done the will of God? In this clause
ὅ ἐάν τι is for
ὅ, τι ἐάν,
as it is in Col. 3, 23,
ἐάν being for
ἄν. Κομίζομαι is to receive for one
self, to receive back as a recompense. 2 Cor. 5, 10. At the bar of Christ and from
his hands every man shall receive according to his works, whether bond or free.
V. 9. Having enjoined on slaves their peculiar duties, the apostle turns to masters.
Καὶ οἱ κύριοι, and ye masters.
The force of καὶ here is—‘Not slaves only
have their duties; you masters have your peculiar obligations.’ The
duty of masters is expressed by the comprehensive words,
τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς, do the same things towards them.
This does not refer exclusively to μετ᾽ εὐνοίας
in the preceding clause, as though the sense were, ‘As slaves are to obey
with kind feeling, so masters are to rule in the same temper.’ The reference is
more general. Masters are to act towards their slaves with the same regard to the
will of God, with the same recognition of the authority of Christ, with the same
sincerity and good feeling which had been enjoined on the slaves themselves. Masters
and slaves are men and brethren, the same great principles of moral and religious
obligation govern both classes. In the parallel passage, Col. 4, 1, the expression
is, οἱ κύριοι, τὸ δίκαιον,
καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε,
ye masters,
give unto your servants that which is just and equal. That is, act towards them
on the principles of justice and equity. Justice requires that all their rights,
as men, as husbands, and as parents should be regarded. And these rights are not
to be determined by the civil law, but by the law of God. "As the laws," says Calvin,
"gave great license to masters, many assumed that every thing was lawful which the
civil statute allowed; and such was their severity that the Roman emperors were
obliged to restrain their tyranny. But although no edicts of princes interposed
in behalf of the slave, God concedes nothing to the master beyond what the law of
love allows." Paul requires for slaves not only what is
strictly just, but τὴν ἰσότητα. What is that? Literally, it is
equality.
This is not only its signification, but its meaning. Slaves are to be treated by
their masters on the principles of equality. Not that they are to be equal with
their masters in authority, or station, or circumstances; but they are to be treated
as having, as men, as husbands, and as parents, equal rights with their masters.
It is just as great a sin to deprive a slave of’ the just recompense for his labour,
or to keep him in ignorance, or to take from him his wife or child, as it is to
act thus towards a free man. This is the equality which the law of God demands,
and on this principle the final judgment is to be administered. Christ will punish
the master for defrauding the slave as severely as he will punish the slave for
robbing his master. The same penalty will be inflicted for the violation of the
conjugal or parental rights of the one as of the other. For, as the apostle adds,
there is no respect of persons with him. At his bar the question will be, ‘What
was done?’ not ‘Who did it?’ Paul carries this so far as to apply the principle
not only to the acts, but to the temper of masters. They are not only to act towards
their slaves on the principles of justice and equity, but are to avoid threatening.Minarum enim et omnis atrocitatis
hoc initium est, quod servos domini, quasi sua tantum causa natos, nihilo pluris
faciunt quam pecudes. Ergo sub una specie vetat ne contumeliose et atrociter tracteatur.—CALVIN.
This includes all manifestations of contempt and ill-temper, or undue severity.
All this is enforced by the consideration that masters
have a master in heaven to whom they are responsible for their treatment
of their slaves. The common text has here the reading
καὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ὁ κύριός—your
master. Lackman, Rüickert, Harless, Meyer and others adopt the reading
αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν,
of them and of you, i. e. your common master as in heaven.
It is thus that
the Holy Spirit deals with slavery. Slaves are not commanded to refuse to be slaves,
to break their bonds and repudiate the authority of their masters. They are required
to obey with alacrity and with a sincere desire to do their duty to their masters,
as part of their duty to Christ. Masters are not commanded as an immediate and imperative
duty to emancipate their slaves, but to treat them according to the principles of
justice and equity. It is not to be expected that men of the world will act in conformity
with the Gospel in this, any more than in other respects. But believers will. And
the result of such obedience if it could become general would be, that first the
evils of slavery, and then slavery itself, would pass away as naturally and as healthfully
as children cease to be minors.
SECTION II.—Vs. 10-24.
10. Finally, my brethren,
be strong in the Lord, and in tile power of his might.
11. Put on the whole armour
of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12. For we
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness
in high places.
13. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be
able
to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14. Stand
therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate
of righteousness;
15. and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16. above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all
the fiery darts of the wicked.
17. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword
of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18. praying always with all prayer and
supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication
for all saints;
19. and for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may
open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20. for which I am
an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
21. But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother
and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things:
22. whom
I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and
that
he might comfort your hearts.
23. Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith
from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
24. Grace be with all them that love
our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.
ANALYSIS.
Directions in reference to the
spiritual conflict. As such a conflict is inevitable, the believer should—1. Muster
strength for the struggle. 2. He should seek that strength from Christ. 3. Since
his enemies are not human but superhuman, Satan and all the powers of darkness,
the believer needs not only more than human strength, but also divine armour. He
should, therefore, take the panoply of God, that he may be bile to stand in the
evil day. That panoply consists—1. In the knowledge and reception of the truth. 2. In the righteousness
of Christ. 3. In the alacrity which flows from the peace of the Gospel. 4. In the
consciousness of salvation. 5. In faith. 6. In the word of God, which is the sword
of the Spirit.
To obtain strength to use this armour aright, and to secure victory
for ourselves and for the army of which we are a part, we should pray. These prayers
should be—1. Of all kinds. 2. On every occasion. 3. Importunate and persevering.
4. By the aid of the Holy Spirit. 5. For all saints.
Believing in the efficacy of
such prayers, the apostle begs the Ephesian believers to pray for him, that God
would enable him to preach the Gospel in a suitable manner.
To relieve their anxiety
he had sent Tychicus to inform them of his circumstances and of his health.
He invokes
the Father and Son to bestow upon the brethren the blessings of divine peace and
love united with faith; and implores the special favour of God for all who love
the Lord Jesus Christ with a love that cannot die.
COMMENTARY.
V. 10. Though the
redemption purchased by Christ, as described in this epistle, is so complete and
so free, yet between the beginning and the consummation of the work there is a protracted
conflict. This is not a figure of speech. It is something real and arduous. Salvation,
however gratuitous, is not to be obtained
without great effort. The Christian conflict is not only real, it
is difficult and dangerous. It is one in which true believers are often grievously
wounded; and multitudes of reputed believers entirely succumb. It is one also in
which great mistakes are often committed and serious loss incurred from ignorance
of its nature, and of the appropriate means for carrying it on. Men are apt to regard
it as a mere moral conflict between reason and conscience on the one side, and evil
passions on the other. They therefore rely on their own strength, and upon the resources
of nature for success. Against these mistakes the apostle warns his readers. He
teaches that every thing pertaining to it is supernatural. The source of strength
is not in nature. The conflict is not between the good and bad principles of our
nature. He shows that we belong to a spiritual, as well as to a natural world, and
are engaged in a combat in which the higher powers of the universe are involved;
and that this conflict, on the issue of which our salvation depends, is not to be
carried on with straws picked up by the wayside. As we have superhuman enemies to
contend with, we need not only superhuman strength, but divine armour and arms.
The weapons of our warfare are not natural, but divine.
Finally, my brethren, be
strong in the Lord,
τὸ λοιπὸν,
ἀδελφοί μου, ἐνδυναμοῦσθε ἐν Κυρίῳ. He concludes
his epistle so full of elevated views, and so rich in disclosures of the mysteries
of redemption, with directions as to the struggle necessary to secure salvation.
His first exhortation is to muster strength for
the inevitable conflict, and to seek that strength from the right
source. We are to be strong in the Lord. As a branch separated from the vine, or
as a limb severed from the body, so is a Christian separated from Christ. He, therefore,
who rushes into this conflict without thinking of Christ, without putting his trust
in him, and without continually looking to him for strength and regarding himself
as a member of his body, deriving all life and vigour from him, is demented. He
knows not what he is doing. He has not strength even to reach the field. With him
the whole conflict is a sham. The words
καὶ ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ mean,
in the vigour derived from his strength. The vigour of a man’s arm is derived from
the strength of his body. It is only as members of Christ’s body that we have either
life or power. It is not we that live, but Christ that liveth in us; and the strength
which we have is not our own but his. When we are weak, then are we strong. When
most empty of self, we are most full of God.
V. 11. The second direction has reference
to the arms requisite for the successful conduct of this conflict;
ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, put on the whole armour of God.
Πανοπλίαν,
panoply, includes
both the defensive and offensive armour of the soldier. The believer has not only
to defend himself, but also to attack his spiritual enemies; and the latter is as
necessary to his safety as the former. It will not do for him to act only on the
defensive, he must endeavour to subdue as well as to resist. How this is to be
done, the following portion of the chapter teaches. The armour of
God, means that armour which God has provided and which he gives. We are thus taught
from the outset, that as the strength which we need is not from ourselves, so neither
are the means of offence or defence. Nor are they means of man’s devising. This
is a truth which has been overlooked in all ages of the church, to the lamentable
injury of the people of God. Instead of relying on the arms which God has provided,
men have always been disposed to trust to those which they provide for themselves
or which have been prescribed by others. Seclusion from the world (i. e. flight
rather than conflict), ascetic and ritual observances, invocation of saints and
angels, and especially, celibacy, voluntary poverty, and monastic obedience, constitute
the panoply which false religion has substituted for the armour of God. Of this
fatal mistake, manifested from the beginning, the apostle treats at length in his
Epistle to the Colossians, 2, 18-23. He there exhorts his hearers, not to allow
any one, puffed up with carnal wisdom, and neglecting Christ, the only source of
life and strength, to despoil them of their reward, through false humility and the
worship of angels, commanding not to touch, or taste, or handle this or that, which
methods of overcoming evil have indeed the appearance of wisdom, in humility, will-worship,
and neglect of the body, but not the reality, and only serve to satisfy the flesh.
They increase the evil which they are professedly designed to overcome. A more accurate
description could not be given historically,
than is here given prophetically, of the means substituted by carnal
wisdom for the armour of God. Calling on saints and angels, humility in the sense
of self-degradation, or submitting our will to human authority, neglecting the body,
or ascetic observances, abstaining from things lawful, uncommanded rites and ordinances,
observing months and days-these are the arms with which the church in her apostasy
has arrayed her children for this warfare. These are by name enumerated and condemned
by the apostle, who directs us to clothe ourselves with the panoply of God, which
he proceeds to describe in detail.
Πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι ὑμᾶς στη̂ναι πρὸς
τὰς μεθοδείας τοῦ διαβόλου. This divine armour is necessary to enable us
to stand against the wiles
of the devil. If our adversary was a man, and possessed nothing beyond human strength,
ingenuity, and cunning, we might defend ourselves by human means. But as we have
to contend with Satan, we need the armour of God. One part of the Bible of course
supposes every other part to be true. If it is not true that there is such a being
as Satan, or that he possesses great power and intelligence, or that he has access
to the minds of men and exerts his power for their destruction; if all this is obsolete,
then there is no real necessity for supernatural power or for supernatural means
of defence. If Satan and satanic influence are fables or figures, then all the rest
of the representations concerning this spiritual conflict is empty metaphor. But
if one part of this representation is literally true, the other has a corresponding
depth and reality of meaning. If Satan is really the prince of the
powers of darkness, ruler and god of this world; if he is the author of physical
and moral evil; the great enemy of God, of Christ and of his people, full of cunning
and malice; if he is constantly seeking whom he may destroy, seducing men into sin,
blinding their minds and suggesting evil and sceptical thoughts; if all this is
true, then to be ignorant of it, or to deny it, or to enter on this conflict as
though it were merely a struggle between the good and bad principles in our own
hearts, is to rush blindfold to destruction.
V. 12. This is the point on which the
apostle most earnestly insists. He would awaken his readers to a due sense of the
power of the adversaries with whom they are to contend. He lifts the vail and discloses
to them the spiritual world; the hosts of the kingdom of darkness. We have to stand
against the wiles of the devil,
ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ
πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα,
because our conflict is not with flesh and blood, i. e. with men. The word
πάλη means a wrestling. The apostle either changes the figure immediately, or
he uses the word here in a more general sense. The latter is the more probable.
"Flesh and blood" does not here or any where else, mean our corrupt nature, as
flesh by itself so often means; but men. So in Gal. 1, 16, "I conferred not with
flesh and blood," means, ‘I did not consult with man.’ The apostle after his conversion
sought no instruction or counsel from man; all his knowledge of the Gospel was received
by immediate revelation.
Our conflict is not with man, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness
in high places. The signification of the terms here used, the context, and the analogy
of Scripture, render it certain that the reference is to evil spirits. They are
called in Scripture δαιμόνια, demons, who are declared to be fallen angels, 2 Pet.
2, 4; Jude 6, and are now subject to Satan their prince. They are called
ἀρχαί,
princes, those who are first or high in rank; and
ἐξουσίαι, potentates, those invested
with authority. These terms have probably reference to the relation of the spirits
among themselves. The designation κοσμοκράτορες,
rulers of the world, expresses
the power or authority which they exercise over the world. The κόσμος i. e. mankind,
is subject to them; comp. 2 Cor. 4, 4; John 16, 11. The word is properly used only
of those rulers whose dominion was universal. And in this sense the Jews called
the angel of death κοσμοκράτωρ. In the following clause
τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, of the darkness of this world; the words
τοῦ αἰῶνος, on the authority of
the best manuscripts, are generally omitted. The sense is substantially the same
whichever reading be adopted. These evil spirits are the rulers of this darkness.
The meaning either is, that they reign over the existing state of ignorance and
alienation from God; i. e. the world in its apostasy is subject to their control;
or this darkness is equivalent to kingdom of darkness. Rulers of the kingdom of
darkness, which includes in it, according to the scriptural
doctrine, the world as distinguished from the true people of God.
The word
σκότος
is used elsewhere, the abstract for the concrete, for those in
darkness, i. e. for those who belong to, or constitute the kingdom of darkness,
Luke 22, 53; Col. 1, 13. Our conflict, therefore, is with the potentates who are
rulers of the kingdom of darkness as it now is.
They are further called
τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, spiritual wickedness, as the phrase is rendered in our version.
But this cannot be its meaning; it is not wickedness in the abstract, but wicked
spirits, the context and the force of the words themselves show to be intended.
Beza and others understand the words as equivalent to
πνευματικαὶ πονηρίαι, spirtual wickednesses.
This would give a good sense. As these spirits are called
ἀρχαί and
ἐξουσίαι, so they may be called
πονηρίαι. But
τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας
cannot be resolved into πνευματικαὶ πονηρίαι.
Τὰ πνευματικὰ is equivalent
to
τὰ πνεύματα, as in so many other cases the neuter adjective in the singular
or plural is used substantively, as τὸ ἱππικόν, the cavalry;
τὰ αἰχμάλωτα, the
captivity, i. e. captives. Spirits of wickedness then means wicked spirits. The
beings whom the apostle in the preceding clauses describes as principalities, powers,
and rulers, he here calls wicked spirits, to express their character and nature.
The principal difficulty in this verse concerns the words
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.
A very large class of commentators, ancient and modern, connect them with the beginning
of the verse, and translate, "our conflict is
for heavenly things;" heaven is the prize for which we contend. There
are two objections to this interpretation, which are generally considered decisive,
although the sense is good and appropriate. The one is, that
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις
always in this Epistle means heaven; and the other is that
ἐν does not mean for.
The connection is with the preceding clause. These wicked spirits are said to be
in heaven. But what does that mean? Many say that heaven here means our atmosphere,
which is assumed to be the dwelling-place of evil spirits; see 2, 2. But
ἐν ἐπουράνια
is not elsewhere in this Epistle used for the atmospheric heavens; neither do the
Scriptures give any countenance to the popular opinion of the ancient world, that
the air is the region of spirits; nor does this idea harmonize with the context.
It is no exaltation of the power of these spirits to refer to them as dwelling in
our atmosphere. The whole context, however, shows that the design of the apostle
is to present the formidable character of our adversaries in the most impressive
point of view. Others suppose that Paul means to refer to the former, and not to
the present residence of these exalted beings. They are fallen angels, who once
dwelt in heaven. But this is obviously inconsistent with the natural meaning of
his words. He speaks of them as in heaven. It is better to take the word heaven
in a wide sense. It is very often used antithetically to the word earth. ‘Heaven
and earth,’ include the whole universe. Those who do not belong to the earth belong
to heaven. All intelligent beings
are terrestrial or celestial. Of the latter class some are good and
some are bad, as of the angels some are holy and some unholy. These principalities
and potentates, these rulers and spirits of wickedness, are not earthly magnates,
they belong to the order of celestial intelligences, and therefore are the more
to be dreaded, and something more than human strength and earthly armour is required
for the conflict to which the apostle refers. This indicates the connection with
the following verse.
V. 13. Wherefore, i. e. because you have such formidable enemies,
and because the conflict is inevitable,
ἀναλάβετε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
not only arm yourselves, but take the panoply of God; no other is adequate to the emergency.
Ἵνα δυνηθῆτε ἀντιστῆναι ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾷ τῇ πονηρᾷ,
in order that ye may
be able to withstand, i. e. successfully to resist, in the evil day. The evil day
is the day of trial. Ps. 41, 2, "The
Lord will deliver him in the time of trouble;" or as it is in the Sept.
ἐν ἡμερᾷ πονηρᾷ; and Ps. 49, 5, " Wherefore should I
fear in the days of evil;" Sept.
ἐν ἡμερᾷ πονηρᾷ. The day here referred to is
the definite day when the enemies previously mentioned shall make their assault.
This however is not to be understood with special, much less with exclusive, reference
to the last great conflict with the powers of darkness which is to take place before
the second advent. The whole exhortation has reference to the present duty of believers.
They are at once to assume their armour, and be always prepared for the attacks
of their formidable enemies.
Καὶ ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι στῆναι,
and having done all to stand.
This is understood by many to refer to the preparation for conflict. Having made
every preparation, stand ready for the assault. But that idea is included in the
former part of the verse. Others take κατεργάζεσθαι in the sense of
debellare,
vincere; having overcome all opposition, or conquered all, stand. The ordinary sense
of the word includes that idea. ‘Having done all that pertains to the combat, to
stand;’ i. e. That you may be able, after the conflict is over, to maintain your
ground as victors.
V. 14. With the flowing garments of the East, the first thing
to be done in preparing for any active work, was to gird the loins. The apostle
therefore says,
στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ,
stand
therefore having your loins girt about with truth. By truth, here is not to be understood
divine truth as objectively revealed, i. e. the word of God; for that is mentioned
in the following verse as the sword. Nor does it mean sincerity of mind, for that
is a natural virtue, and does not belong to the armour of God; which according to
the context consists of supernatural gifts and graces. But it means truth subjectively
considered; that is, the knowledge and belief of the truth. This is the first and
indispensable qualification for a Christian soldier. To enter on this spiritual
conflict ignorant or doubting, would be to enter battle blind and lame. As the girdle
gives strength and freedom of action, and therefore confidence, so does the truth
when spiritually apprehended and believed. Let not
any one imagine that he is prepared to withstand the assaults of the
powers of darkness, if his mind is stored with his own theories or with the speculations
of other men. Nothing but the truth of God clearly understood and cordially embraced
will enable him to keep his feet for a moment, before these celestial potentates.
Reason, tradition, speculative conviction, dead orthodoxy, are a girdle of spider-webs.
They give way at the first onset. Truth alone, as abiding in the mind in the form
of divine knowledge, can give strength or confidence even in the ordinary conflicts
of the Christian life, much more in any really "evil day."
Καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης,
and having put on the breast-plate of righteousness. The
θώραξ
was
the "armour covering the body from the neck to the thighs, consisting of two parts,
one covering the front and the other the back." A warrior without his
θώραξ
was
naked, exposed to every thrust of his enemy, and even to every casual dart. In such
a state flight or death is inevitable. What is that righteousness, which in the
spiritual armour answers to the cuirass? Many say it is our own righteousness, integrity,
or rectitude of mind. But this is no protection. It cannot resist the accusations
of conscience, the whispers of despondency, the power of temptation, much less the
severity of the law, or the assaults of Satan. What Paul desired for himself was
not to have on his own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God by faith;
Phil. 3, 8. 9. And this, doubtless, is the righteousness which he here urges believers
to
put on as a breast-plate. It is an infinitely perfect righteousness,
consisting in the obedience and sufferings of the Son of God, which satisfies all
the demands of the divine law and justice; and which is a sure defence against all
assaults whether from within or from without. As in no case in this connection does
the apostle refer to any merely moral virtue as constituting the armour of the Christian,
so neither does he here. This is the less probable, inasmuch as righteousness in
the subjective sense, is included in the idea expressed by the word truth in the
preceding clause. It is the spirit of the context which determines the meaning to
be put on the terms here used. For although righteousness is used so frequently
by the apostle for the righteousness of God by faith, yet in itself it may of course
express personal rectitude or justice. In Is. 59, 17, Jehovah is described as putting
"on righteousness as a breast-plate, and a helmet of salvation on his head;" as
in Is. 11, 5, it is said of the Messiah, "righteousness shall be the girdle of
his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins."
V. 15. In ancient warfare
which was in a large measure carried on by hand-to-hand combats, swiftness of foot
was one of the most important qualifications for a good soldier. To this the apostle
refers when he exhorts his readers to have their feet shod,
ἐν ἑτοιμασίᾳ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς εἰρήνης,
with the preparation of the gospel of peace. According to one explanation
εὐαγγελίου
is the genitive of apposition, and the Gospel is the
ἑτοιμασία
with
which the Christian
is to be shod. Then the idea is either that the Gospel is something
firm on which we can rest with confidence; or it is something that gives alacrity,
adding as it were wings to the feet. Others take
εὐαγγελίου
as the genitive of the object, and
ἑτοιμασία
for readiness or alacrity. The sense would then be, ‘Your feet shod with alacrity for the Gospel,’ i. e. for its defence or propagation. The
simplest interpretation and that best suited to the context, is that
εὐαγγελίου
is the genitive of the source, and the sense is, ‘Your feet shod with the alacrity
which the Gospel of peace gives.’ As the Gospel secures our peace with God, and
gives the assurance of his favour, it produces that joyful alacrity of mind which
is essential to success in the spiritual conflict. All doubt tends to weakness,
and despair is death.
V. 16. Ἐν πᾶσιν, in addition to all; not above all as of
greatest importance. Besides the portions of armour already mentioned, they were
to take τὸν θυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως, the shield of faith.
Θυρεός, literally, a door, and then a large oblong shield, like a door. Being four feet long by two and a half
broad, it completely covered the body, and was essential to the safety of the combatant.
Hence the appropriateness of the apostle's metaphor. Such a protection, and thus
essential, is faith. The more various the uses of a shield, the more suitable is
the illustration. The faith here intended is that by which we are justified, and
reconciled to God through the blood of Christ. It is that faith of which Christ
is the object; which receives him
as the Son of God and the Saviour of men. It is the faith which is
the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen; which at
once apprehends or discerns, and receives the things of the Spirit. it overcomes
the world, as is proved by so many examples in the twelfth chapter of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Faith being in itself so mighty, and having from the beginning proved
itself so efficacious, the apostle adds,
ἐν ᾧ δυνήσεσθε πάντα τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι,
whereby ye shall be able to quench all the fiery
darts of the evil one. The obvious allusion here is to those missiles employed in
ancient warfare, around which combustible materials were bound, which were ignited
and projected against the enemy. Reference to these fiery darts is made in Ps. 7,
13, "He will make his arrows burning arrows;" see Alexander on
the Psalms. These darts are said to be
τοῦ πονηροῦ, not of the wicked, as the words are translated
in the English Version, but of the evil one, i. e. of the devil. Comp. Matt. 13,
19. 38. In the latter passage ὁ πονηρός is explained in ver. 39,
ὁ διάβολος. See
also 1 John 2, 13; 3, 12; 5, 18, and other passages. As burning arrows not only
pierced but set on fire what they pierced, they were doubly dangerous. They serve
here therefore as the symbol of the fierce onsets of Satan. He showers arrows of
fire on the soul of the believer; who, if unprotected by the shield of faith, would
soon perish. It is a common experience of the people of God that at times horrible
thoughts, unholy, blasphemous, skeptical, malignant,
crowd upon the mind, which cannot be accounted for on any ordinary
law of mental action, and which cannot be dislodged. They stick like burning arrows;
and fill the soul with agony. They can be quenched only by faith; by calling on
Christ for help. These, however, are not the only kind of fiery darts; nor are they
the most dangerous. There are others which enkindle passion, inflame ambition, excite
cupidity, pride, discontent, or vanity; producing a flame which our deceitful heart
is not so prompt to extinguish, and which is often allowed to burn until it produces
great injury and even destruction. Against these most dangerous weapons of the evil
one, the only protection is faith. It is only by looking to Christ and earnestly
invoking his interposition in our behalf that we can resist these insidious assaults,
which inflame evil without the warning of pain. The reference of the passage, however,
is not to be confined to any particular forms of temptation. The allusion is general
to all those attacks of Satan, by which the peace and safety of the believer are
specially endangered.
V. 17. The most ornamental part of ancient armour, and scarcely
less important than the breast-plate or the shield, was the helmet. The Christian,
therefore, is exhorted to take
τὴν περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου, the helmet of
salvation. According to the analogy of the preceding expressions, "the breast-plate
of righteousness," and "shield of faith," salvation is itself the helmet. That which
adorns and protects the Christian, which enables him to hold up his head with confidence
and joy, is the fact that he is saved. He is one of the redeemed,
translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. If still
under condemnation, if still estranged from God, a foreigner and alien, without
God and without Christ, he could have no courage to enter into this conflict. It
is because he is a fellow-citizen of the saints, a child of God, a partaker of the
salvation of the Gospel, that he can face even the most potent enemies with confidence,
knowing that he shall be brought off more than conqueror through him that loved
him; Rom. 8, 37. When in
1 Thess. 5, 8, the apostle speaks of the hope of salvation
as the Christian’s helmet, he presents the same idea in a different form. The latter
passage does not authorize us to understand, in this place, "helmet of salvation"
as a figurative designation of hope. The two passages though alike are not identical.
In the one salvation is said to be our helmet, in the other, hope; just as in one
place "faith and love" are said to be our breast-plate, and in another, righteousness.
The armour hitherto mentioned is defensive. The only offensive weapon of the Christian
is "the sword of the Spirit." Here τοῦ πνεύματος cannot be the genitive of apposition.
The Spirit is not the sword; this would be incongruous, as the sword is something
which the soldier wields, but the Christian cannot thus control the Spirit. Besides,
the explanation immediately follows, which is the word of God. "The sword of the
Spirit" means the sword which the Spirit gives. By the ῥη̂μα Θεοῦ is not to be
understood the divine precepts,
nor the threatenings of God against his enemies. There is nothing
to limit the expression. It is that which God has spoken, his word, the Bible. This
is sharper than any two-edged sword. It is the wisdom of God and the power of God.
It has a self-evidencing light. It commends itself to the reason and conscience.
It has the power not only of truth, but of divine truth. Our Lord promised to give
to his disciples a word and wisdom which all their adversaries should not be able
to gainsay or resist. In opposition to all error, to all false philosophy, to all
false principles of morals, to all the sophistries of vice, to all the suggestions
of the devil, the sole, simple, and sufficient answer is the word of God. This puts
to flight all the powers of darkness. The Christian finds this to be true in his
individual experience. It dissipates his doubts; it drives away his fears; it delivers
him from the power of Satan. It is also the experience of the church collective.
All her triumphs over sin and error have been effected by the word of God. So long
as she uses this and relies on it alone, she goes on conquering; but when any thing
else, be it reason, science, tradition, or the commandments of men, is allowed to
take its place or to share its office, then the church, or the Christian, is at
the mercy of the adversary. Hoc signo vinces—the apostle may be understood to say
to every believer and to the whole church.
V. 18. It is not armour or weapons which
make the warrior. There must be courage and strength; and even then he often needs
help. As the Christian
has no resources of strength in himself, and can succeed only as
aided from above, the apostle urges the duty of prayer. The believer is—1. To avail
himself of all kinds of prayer. 2. He is to pray on every suitable occasion. 3.
He is to pray in the Spirit. 4. He is to be alert and persevering in the discharge
of this duty. 5. He is to pray for all the saints; and the Ephesians were urged
by the apostle to pray for him.
The connection of this verse is with στῆτε οὖν
of ver. 14. "Stand, therefore, with all prayer and supplication, praying on every
occasion, in the Spirit."
Διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως, may be connected
with the following participle προσευχόμενοι, as has been done by our translators,
who render the passage, "praying with all prayer and supplication." But this renders
the passage tautological. Others take this clause by itself, and understand
διά
as expressing the condition or circumstances. ‘Stand, therefore, with all prayer,
praying at all times,’ &c. As to the difference between προσευχή and
δέησις, prayer
and supplication, some say that the former has for its object the attaining of good;
the latter, the avoidance of evil or deliverance from it. The usage of the words
does not sustain that view. The more common opinion is that the distinction is twofold;
first, that προσευχή is addressed only to God, whereas
δέησις may be addressed
to men; and secondly, that the former includes all address to God, while the latter
is limited to petition. The expression all prayer, means all kinds of prayer, oral
and mental, ejaculatory and formal. The prayers which
Paul would have the Christian warrior use, are not merely those of
the closet and of stated seasons, but also those habitual and occasional aspirations,
and outgoings of the heart after God, which a constant sense of his nearness and
a constant sense of our necessity must produce.
Not only must all kinds of prayer
be used, but believers should pray ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ,
on every occasion; on every
emergency. This constancy in prayer is commanded by our Lord, Luke 18, 1, "Men
ought always to pray and not to faint." In 1 Thess. 5, 17, the apostle exhorts believers
to "pray without ceasing." It is obvious, therefore, that prayer includes all converse
with God, and is the expression of all our feelings and desires which terminate
in him. In the scriptural sense of the term, therefore, it is possible that a man
should pray almost literally without ceasing.
The third direction is, to pray
ἐν πνεύματι. This does not mean inwardly, or,
with the heart; non voce tantum, sed
et animo, as Grotius explains it; but it means under the influence of the Spirit,
and with his assistance, whose gracious office it is to teach us how to pray, and
to make intercessions for us with groanings that cannot be uttered; Rom. 8, 26.
The fourth direction has reference to alertness and perseverance in prayer;
εἰς αὖτὸ τοῦτο ἀγρυπνοῦντες, watching unto this very thing. This very thing is that
of which he had been speaking, viz. praying in the Spirit. It was in reference to
that duty they were to be wakeful and
vigilant, not allowing themselves to become weary or negligent.
Ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει καὶ δεήσει περὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων,
with all perseverance
and supplication, for all saints. "Perseverance and supplication" amounts to persevering
or importunate supplication. In Rom. 12, 12, the expression is,
τῷ προσευχῇ προσκαρτεροῦντες, continuing instant in prayer. This persevering supplication is to be offered
for
all the saints. The conflict of which the apostle has been speaking is not merely
a single combat between the individual Christian and Satan, but also a war between
the people of God and the powers of darkness. No soldier entering battle prays for
himself alone, but for all his fellow-soldiers also. They form one army, and the
success of one is the success of all. In like manner Christians are united as one
army, and therefore have a common cause; and each must pray for all. Such is the
communion of saints, as set forth in this Epistle and in other parts of Scripture,
that they can no more fail to take this interest in each other’s welfare, than the
hand can fail to sympathize with the foot.
V. 19. The importance which the apostle
attributed to intercessory prayer and his faith in its efficacy are evident from
the frequency with which he enjoins the duty, and from the earnestness with which
he solicits such prayers in his own behalf. What the apostle wishes the Ephesians
to pray for, was not any temporal blessing, not even his deliverance from bonds,
that he might be at liberty more freely to preach the Gospel, but that God would
enable him to preach with the
freedom and boldness with which he ought to preach;
ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός
μου ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ
γνωρίσαι, κτλ. Our
translators have paraphrased this clause thus, that utterance may be given me, that
I may open my mouth boldly to make known, &c. The literal translation is,
that utterance
may be given me in opening my mouth, with boldness to make known, &c. What Paul
desired was divine assistance in preaching. He begs his reader to pray
ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος, that the power of speech, or freedom of utterance, might be given to him,
when he opened his mouth. Paul says, 2 Cor. 11, 6, that he was
ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ,
rude in speech. The word
λόγος itself has at times the metonymical sense here given
to it, and therefore
ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός is most naturally taken without emphasis
as equivalent to, when I open my mouth, i. e. when called upon to speak. Calvin
and many others lay the principal stress on those words, and make with opening of
the mouth equivalent to with open mouth, pleno ore et intrepida lingua, as Calvin
expresses it. Os opertum cupit, quod erumpet in liquidam et firmam confessionem.
Ore enim semiclauso proferuntur ambigua et perplexa responsa. This,
however, is to anticipate what is expressed by
ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι. Others connect
both ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός
and
ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ with
γνωρίσαι, ‘to make known with
the opening of the mouth, with boldness the mystery,’ &c. This is the construction
which our translators seemed to have assumed. But this is very unnatural, from the
position of the words and relation
of the clauses.
Παῤῥησία
(πᾶν ῥῆσις), the speaking out all, freespokenness.
Here the dative with
ἐν may be taken adverbially, freely, boldly; keeping nothing
back, but making an open, undisguised declaration of the Gospel. This includes,
however, the idea of frankness and boldness of spirit, of which this unrestrained
declaration of the truth is the expression. Μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
mystery of
the Gospel; the Gospel itself is the mystery, or divine revelation. It is that system
of truth which had been kept secret with God, but which is now revealed unto our
glory; 1 Cor. 2, 7.
V. 20. Ὑπὲρ οὗ, for the sake of which Gospel,
πρεσβεύων ἐν ἁλύσει εἰμί, I am an ambassador in bonds. An ambassador is one through whom a
sovereign speaks. "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you
by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead be ye reconciled with God;" 2 Cor. 5, 20. The
apostles, as sent by Christ with authority to speak in his name, and to negotiate
with men, proposing the terms of reconciliation and urging their acceptance, were
in an eminent sense his ambassadors. As all ministers are sent by Christ and are
commissioned by him to propose the terms of salvation, they too are entitled to
the same honourable designation. Paul was an ambassador in bonds, and yet he did
not lose his courage but preached with as much boldness as ever.
Ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παῤῥησιάσωμαι,
that therein 1 may speak boldly. This may be taken as depending on
ἵνα δοθῇ of
ver. 19. The sense would then be, ‘That
utterance may be given to me—that I may speak boldly.’
But the preceding
ἐν παῥῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι depends on
ἵνα δοθῇ. The two clauses are
rather parallel. Paul desired that the Ephesians should pray, ‘That utterance should
be given him—that is, that he might preach boldly;’
ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι, as I ought
to speak. It becomes the man who is an ambassador of God, to speak with boldness,
assured of the truth and importance of the message which he has to deliver. That
even Paul should solicit the prayers of Christians that he might be able to preach
the Gospel aright, shows the sense he had at once of the difficulty and of the importance
of the work.
V. 21. In conclusion the apostle informs the Ephesians that he had
sent Tychicus to them to relieve their anxiety concerning him;
ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς, but that ye also may know, i. e. you as well as other Christian friends
who had manifested solicitude about me in my bonds;
τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, the things which
concern me, i. e. my circumstances;
τί πράσσω; not what I do, for that they knew
already; but how I do. His health as well as his situation was a matter of anxiety
to his friends. Tychicus shalt make all known to you;
ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ
πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν κυρίῳ; this admits of a twofold interpretation. It may mean
that Tychicus was Paul’s
διάκονος, servant as well as his brother. This view is
commended, though not adopted by Calvin, and is advocated by many of the best commentators,
on the ground that it is most natural that the two words
ἀδελφὸς and
διάκονος
should have the same
reference, "my beloved brother and faithful servant;"’ and that
in so many other places Paul speaks of those who attended him and in various forms
served him. The words
ἐν κυρίῳ, according to this view, belong equally to both
words. He was a brother as well as a servant in the Lord, i. e. a Christian brother
and servant. It is more common, however, to understand the apostle as commending
Tychicus as a faithful minister of the Gospel. In Col. 4, 7, he is called a fellow-servant,
which favours the assumption that he was a fellow-labourer in the ministry. He
is mentioned in Acts 20, 4; 2 Tim. 4, 12;
Tit. 3, 12. None of these passages, however, throws any light on his relation to
the apostle further than that he was one of his attendants. As, however, in the
next verse Paul says he had sent him not only that they might know his affairs,
but also,
παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, that he might
comfort your hearts; the
probability is altogether in favour of his being a minister of Christ, who could communicate to the Ephesians not only the consolation of favourable intelligence
concerning Paul, but the higher consolations of the Gospel.
V. 23. Εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς,
peace be to the brethren. This is the usual form of salutation or benediction.
It is not concord, but all the fruits of χάρις
or favour of God.
Καὶ ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως, this does not mean
love together with faith, as though two distinct blessings
were intended; but rather love united with faith. Faith they had; Paul’s prayer
was that love might be connected with it. The love intended must be brotherly
love. These blessings are sought
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The
Father and Son are united as objects of worship and the source of spiritual and
saving blessing. He from whom Paul sought these blessings, is he to whom those who
need them must look in order to obtain them.
V. 24. True to the last, as a needle
to the pole, the apostle turns to Christ, and implores the divine favour on all
who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. The words
ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ rendered in
sincerity, are so understood by Erasmus and Calvin, and by many others. There is
however great diversity of opinion as to their true meaning.
Ἀφθαρσία signifies
incorruption, as in 1 Cor. 15, 53. 54,
δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν
τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν,
for this corruptible must put on incorruption. Hence it means immortality as in
Rom. 2, 7; 2 Tim. 1, 10. Some connect these words with
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
Christ
in immortality, i. e. Christ glorified. Others connect them with χάρις and give
ἐν the force of εἰς;
'grace unto immortality, or to eternity; everlasting grace.’
Others adopting the same construction, render the passage, ‘grace with immortality,
i. e. eternal life.’ The only natural construction is with ἀγαπώντων then the
meaning is either that expressed in our Version, "Who love our Lord Jesus Christ
in sincerity;" or, ‘with constancy;' that is, with a deathless or immortal love.
In either case, the general idea is the same. The divine favour rests on those to
whom the Lord Jesus is the supreme
object of love. In 1 Cor. 16, 22, Paul says, "If
any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." These passages,
though so dissimilar, both teach that love to Christ is the indispensable condition
of salvation. There must be an adequate reason for this. Want of love for Christ
must deserve final perdition, and love to him must include preparation for heaven.
This of necessity supposes Christ to be God. Want of love to him must imply enmity
to God. It is all a delusion for any one to think he can love the Infinite Spirit
as manifested in nature, or in the Scriptures, if he does not recognize and love
that same God in the clearest revelation of his character, in his most definite
personal manifestation, and in his most intimate relation to us, as partaking our
nature, loving us, and giving himself for us. Love to Christ includes adoring admiration
of his person, desire for his presence, zeal for his glory, and devotion to his
service. It need not be ecstatic, but it must be controlling.
THE END,