Eph 2:1-10. A new paragraph begins at this point. This is denied indeed by some, who would connect the καὶ ὑμᾶς of Eph 2:1 immediately with the ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας of Eph 1:19 (Knatchbull), the ἐνήργησεν of Eph 1:20 (Bengel), or the καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν, etc., of Eph 1:22 (Lachm., Harl.). But none of these connections yields a sufficiently clear and harmonious sense. The last, indeed, which proposes to separate Eph 2:1 from Eph 1:23 merely by a comma and which would make the καὶ … συνεζωοποίησεν a statement parallel to the αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν, etc., as well as continuous on it, would require ἡμᾶς rather than ὑμᾶς. All three, too, take seriously from the point and power of the closing verses of chapter 1, which are given in a strain of lofty and majestic affirmation suitable to the winding up of a great argument. We have, therefore, a new section here, in which a particular application is made of what has been affirmed in the preceding paragraph. These first ten verses speak of a further manifestation of that power of God which was seen in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, namely, in the raising of the Ephesians themselves from the death of sin into a new life unto God, and that not of works but of grace.
Eph 2:2. ἐν αἶς ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε: wherein in time past (RV, “aforetime”) ye walked. The αἷς takes the gender of the nearer noun, but refers to both the παραπτώμασι and the ἁμαρτίαις. Trespasses and sins were the domain in which they had their habitual course of life in their former heathen days.-κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου: according to the course (or age) of this world. As the ἐν of the former clause gave the stated sphere within which their pre-Christian life moved, so the κατά of this clause and the next gives the standard to which it conformed and the spirit by which it was ruled. The phrase κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦτον might have sufficed; the fuller form which introduces both αἰὼν and κόσμος is more expressive. The κόσμος is the world as the objective system of things, and that as evil. The αἰών is the world as a world-period-the world as transitory. In such a connection as the present αἰών comes near what we understand by “the spirit of the age,” but is perhaps most happily rendered course, as that word conveys the three ideas of tenor, development, and limited continuance. This course of a world which is evil is itself evil, and to live in accordance with it is to live in trespasses and sins.-κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος: according to the prince of the power of the air. A yet darker colour is now given to the description of the former heathen walk of those addressed. Their life was determined and shaped by the master of all evil, the supreme ruler of all the powers of wickedness. The terms obviously designate Satan, but their precise sense is somewhat difficult to decide. Three different shades of meaning are suggested for ἐξουσία here, viz., (a) supreme right or power, in which case the idea would be the prince to whom belongs the authority of the air; (b) the domain or sphere of authority, as possibly in Col 1:13 (Chrys., Theod., Hofm., Oltr.); (c) authority in the collective sense, the totality of evil powers, all that is known as evil authority. The third sense is supported in some measure by Rom 13:1-2, and is preferred by most. The idea thus becomes “the prince who rules over all that is called authority”. The ἀέρος then is best taken as the gen. of place, denoting the seat of this overlordship of evil. The word ἀήρ cannot be taken as equivalent to mundus (Aquin.) or οὐρανός (Olsh.) or σκότος (Kl.) or πνεῦμα (Hofm.); neither can it express the quality of these evil powers-their incorporeal or aeriform nature (Hahn). In all its other NT occurrences (Act 22:23; 1Co 9:26; 1Co 14:9; 1Th 4:17; Rev 9:2; Rev 16:17) it has the literal sense. It has it here, and it describes these demonic powers as between earth and heaven, in that “supra-terrestrial but subcelestial region (ὁ ὑπουράνιος τόπος, Chrys.) which seems to be, if not the abode, yet the haunt of evil spirits” (Ell.). Thus the prince of evil is described as the Lord-Paramount over all the demonic powers; and these demonic powers, as having their seat in the air, are distinguished from the angels whose abode is in heaven (ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν, Mat 24:36). The Rabbinical literature has many extraordinary and grotesque speculations about the demons as being winged (Talmud, Chagig., 2), as dwelling in the air (R. Bechai, Pent., f. 139, 4), about the souls of devils as dwelling in a firmament under the sphere of the moon (Tuf haarez, f. 9, 2), etc. Such fancies were also entertained by the Greek philosophers, e.g., the Pythagoreans (Diog. Laert., viii. 2). But these have little or no relation to the present passage. In Philo and in the Jewish Pseudepigraphic writings things more akin to it are found. There is, e.g., the description of Beliar as the ἀέριον πνεῦμα (Test. xii. Patr. p. 729); of the “prince of this world” as dwelling in the firmament (Ascens. Isaiah , 10); of the “air” as peopled by souls (Philo, Gig., i. 263). But even these form very partial analogies, and the passages in the Book of Enoch (ch. xv., 10, 11, 12; xvi., 1), which have been taken to refer to the subject, are of uncertain interpretation (cf. Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 84). We have no definite knowledge, therefore, of the origin of this idea. But it seems to have been familiar enough to the readers to require no explanation.-τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦνστος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας: of the spirit that worketh now in the sons of disobedience. How is the gen. τοῦ πνεύματος to be construed? It naturally suggests itself to regard the “spirit” now mentioned as in apposition to the “prince” just described. But to understand the gen. here as continuing the acc. ἄρχοντα (Rück., De Wette, Bleek, etc.) is to take too violent a liberty with grammar. The τοῦ πνεύματος is under the regimen of the ἄρχοντα as the ἐξουσίας is, and it adds something to the idea. The ruler over all that is called authority is also the ruler over this particular spirit. It is objected that the designation of a ruler over a spirit is an anomaly. But we have a parallel in the Pauline description of Christ as Κυρίου πνεύματος (2Co 3:18). The πνεῦμα here is not the spirit or mind of man (which would be inconsistent with the force of the ἐξουσίας), nor is it a collective term equivalent to the ἐξουσία (for its form is against that, as is also the statement of its operation). It is either (a) the evil principle or power that comes into men from Satan, cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου, 1Co 2:12; τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, 1Jn 4:3; ἕτερον πνεῦμα λαμβάνειν, Eph 4:23; or (b) the personal Spirit-that particular Spirit whose domain and work are in evil men. The latter is perhaps to be preferred, as in more definite accordance with the contrast with the Holy Spirit of God which seems to be in view. By ἀπειθεία is meant not merely unbelief but disobedience. Its stated sense in the NT is that of “obstinate opposition to the Divine will” (Thay.-Grimm, sub voce). The term υἱός in its topical sense and followed by the gen. of a thing, expresses what is in intimate relation to the thing, what belongs to it and has it as its innate quality. “Sons of disobedience” are those to whom disobedience is their very nature and essential character, who belong wholly to it. It is a well-known Hebrew idiom, occurring often in the NT, especially in the case of Hebraisms of translation. But the same or similar forms are found now and again in profane Greek, especially in inscriptions and in dignified speech (cf. Plato’s use of ἔκγονος, Phacdr., p. 275 D), the υἱὸς τύχης of the Tragedians, etc.; see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 161-166. The νῦν does not refer to the present in contrast with the future of the Parousia (Olsh.), nor with any other future; nor again is it = “Even now,” which would have been καὶ νῦν. It looks back upon the previous πότε, and contrasts the present working of the πνεῦμα with the past. Once that spirit worked in all those addressed; now it works not in them indeed, but in those given over to disobedience to God’s will. So the lordship belonging to the Prince of evil extends not only over all those malign powers whose seat is in the air, but also and more particularly over that Spirit who operates as an energy of wickedness in the hearts of men opposed to God.
Eph 2:3. ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε: among whom also we all had our life and walk aforetime. The AV gives “also we all”; Tynd., Cov., Gen., “we also had”; Bish., “we all had”; RV, “we also all”. The ἐν οἷς cannot mean “in which trespasses” (so Syr., Jer., Beng., etc.); for the ὑμῶν of Eph 2:1 is against that, and the form would have been ἐν αἷς as ruled by the nearest noun ἁμαρτίαις. It can only refer to the υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπειθείας. The καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες is in contrast with the καὶ ὑμᾶς of Eph 2:1 and the περιεπατήσατε of Eph 2:2. Paul had begun by speaking of the moral condition of these Gentiles before their conversion. He now adds that these Gentiles were in no exceptional position in that respect, but that all, Jews as well as Greeks, Jewish-Christians like himself no less than Gentile Christians like his readers, had been among those who once lived in obstinate disobedience to God. Paul seldom misses the opportunity of declaring the universal sinfulness of men, the dire level of corruptness on which all, however they differed in race or privilege, stood. So here the ἡμεῖς πάντες is best taken in its utmost breadth-not merely “all the Jewish-Christians” (Mey.), but = the whole body of us Christians, Jewish and Gentile alike included. For the περιεπατήσατε of Eph 2:2 we have now ἀνεστράφημεν, “had our conversation” (AV), “conversed” (Rhem.), “lived” (RV). Like the Heb. חָלַךְ it denotes one’s walk, his active, open life, his way of conducting himself.-ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν: in the lusts of our flesh. Definition of the domain or element in which their life once was spent. It kept within the confines of the appetites and impulses proper to fallen human nature or springing from it. The noun ἐπιθυμία has its usual sense of craving, the craving in particular of what is forbidden; σάρξ in like manner has its large, theological sense, human nature as such, in its physical, mental and moral entirety, considered as apart from God and under the dominion of sin.-ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν: doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts. The ποιοῦντες is sufficiently represented by the “doing” of Wycl., Cov., Rhem., RV. The AV and other Versions give “fulfilling”. The word θέλημα is of very rare occurrence, except in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek. It denotes properly the thing willed, but is used also of the Divine purpose (e.g., Eph 1:9), or command (e.g., Eph 5:17), etc. Here, as also in Joh 1:13, it denotes inclination or desire. The pl. διανοιῶν is best rendered “thoughts,” with Wycl., Cov., Rhem. and RV margin; RV text, following the AV and other Versions, gives “mind”. In the LXX the singular represents the OT לֵב, and denotes the mind in the large sense, inclusive of understanding, feeling and desiring. It is only the context that gives it the sense of wicked thoughts. Two sources of evil desire and impulse, therefore, are indicated here, viz., our fallen nature in general and the laboratory of perverted thoughts, impressions, imaginations, volitions, in particular.-καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς: and were children by nature of wrath. “Children,” rather than “the children,” as it is given by AV and all the other old English Versions (except Wycl., who has “the sons”). From what he and his fellow-Christians did in their pre-Christian life, Paul turns now to what they were then. The statement is so constructed as to throw the chief emphasis on the ἧμεν and the ὀργῆς. For ἦμεν the better attested form is ἤμεθα. Some good MSS. and Versions ([133] [134] [135] [136] [137], Syr.-Harcl., Vulg.) read φύσει τέκνα, and that order is accepted by Lachmann, while a place is given it in the margin by Tregelles. The order τέκνα φύσει, however, which is that of [138] [139] [140], Chrys., etc., and both the TR and the RV, is to be preferred. The ἧμεν makes it clear that it is no longer doing (ποιοῦντες) simply that is in view, but being, condition. The τέκνα is the same kind of idiomatic phrase as the former υἱοί, only, if possible, stronger and more significant. It describes those in view as not only worthy of the ὀργή, but actually subject to it, definitely under it. But what is this ὀργή itself? It is not to be identified with punitive righteousness (τιμωρία), punishment (κόλασις), future judgment, or the effect of God’s present judgment of men, but denotes the quality or affectus of wrath. But is it man’s wrath or God’s? The word is certainly used of the passion of wrath in us (Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; Jam 1:19, etc.), and so the whole phrase is understood by some to mean nothing more than that those referred to were given to violent anger or ungovernable impulse (e.g., Maurice, Unity, p. 538). But this would add little or nothing to what was said of the lusts of the flesh and thoughts, and would strip the whole statement of its point, its solemnity, and its universality. It is the Divine wrath that is in view here; as it is, indeed, in thirteen out of twenty occurrences in the Pauline writings, and that, too, whether with or without the definite article or the defining Θεοῦ (cf. Moule, in loc). This holy displeasure of God with sin is not inconsistent with His love, but is the reaction of that love against the denial of its sovereign rights of responsive love. The term φύσις, though it may occasionally be applied to what is habitual or to character as developed, means properly what is innate, implanted, in one by nature, and this with different shades of meaning (cf., e.g., Rom 2:14; Gal 2:15; Gal 4:8, etc.). The clause means, therefore, that in their pre-Christian life those meant by the ἡμεῖς πάντες were in the condition of subjection to the Divine wrath; and that they were so not by deed merely, nor by circumstance, nor by passing into it, but by nature. Their universal sin has been already affirmed. This universal sin is now described as sin by nature. Beyond this Paul does not go in the present passage. But the one is the explanation of the other. Universal sin implies a law of sinning, a sin that is of the nature; and this, again, is the explanation of the fact that all are under the Divine wrath. For the Divine wrath operates only where sin is. Here is the essential meaning of the doctrine of original sin. That it finds any justification here is denied, indeed, by some; even by Meyer, who admits, however, that elsewhere (e.g., in Romans 6) Paul teaches that there is a principle of sin in man by nature, and that man sins actually because of that innate principle. But he argues that it is in virtue not of the principle itself, but of the acts of sin by which that principle expresses itself, that we are in a state of subjection to the Divine wrath. This, however, is to make a nature which originates sinful acts and which does that in the case of all men without exception, itself a neutral thing.
[133] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[134] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[135] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
[136] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[137] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16.
[138] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[139] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[140] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
Eph 2:4. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς, πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει: but God (or, God, however), being rich in mercy. A return is now made to the statement which was interrupted at Eph 2:2. The resumption might have been made by οὖν. The adversative δέ, however, is the more appropriate, as the other side of our case is now to be set forth-the Divine grace which meets the sinful, condemned condition, and which stands over the dark background of our death by sin and our subjection by nature to the Divine wrath. God who is wroth with sin, is a God of grace. His disposition towards those who are dead by trespasses and sins is one of mercy, and this no stinted mercy, but a mercy that is rich, exhaustless (for πλούσιος, πλουτίζειν, etc., cf. 1Co 1:5; 2Co 9:11; 1Ti 6:17-18; Jam 2:5).-διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς: by reason of His great love wherewith He loved us. The use of the cogn. acc. ἣν adds to the force of the idea; cf. the use of the same phrase by our Lord Himself with reference to His Father’s love, Joh 17:26. If mercy is God’s attitude to sinful men, love is His motive in all that He does with them; and as the mercy is “rich” so the love is “great”. With this great love God loved us when He chose us, and it is on account of that love (not “through” it, as Luther puts it) that He acts with us as He does. The ἡμᾶς has the widest sense here-all of us, whether Jew or Gentile.
Eph 2:5. καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν: even when we were dead by our trespasses. The condition of death in which we are by nature is now reaffirmed, and in a still more emphatic way than in Eph 2:1. The καί is not the copula, simply attaching one statement to another (Mey.), nor a mere repetition of the καί of the opening verse, nor = “also,” “also us” collectively (which would require καί ἡμᾶς), but the ascensive καί = even (Syr.-Phil., AV, RV, Ell., etc.). It qualifies the ὄντας (while the νεκροὺς is thrown emphatically forward), and heightens the sense of the greatness of the Divine power-as a power operating on us when we were yet held fast in the state of inexorable death. The τοῖς defines the trespasses as those already mentioned in connection with that state of death, and so has much the sense of “our”.-συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ: quickened us together with the Christ. Some authorities (including B 17, Arm.) insert ἐν before τῷ Χριστῷ; which is favoured so far by Lachm. and gets a place in the margin with WH and RV. But the mass of authorities omit it. The συν-, therefore, of the compound verb refers to the Χριστῷ, and the idea expressed is that of fellowship with Him, not the fellowship or comprehension of Jew and Gentile alike in the Divine act of quickening (Beza). Here again the article probably designates Christ in His official relation to us. The quickening here in view is understood by some (including Meyer) to refer to the first act in the raising of the dead at the great day; the following verbs συνήγειρεν, συνεκάθισεν being similarly understood in the literal sense, as referring proleptically to events that belong to the ultimate future. Thus the standing rather than the moral condition is supposed to be primarily in view, the idea being that when Christ was raised from the dead we also as members of His body were raised in principle with Him, so that the resurrection of the future which we await will be simply the application to the individual of what was accomplished once for all for the whole of His members then. It must be admitted that the analogous passage in Col 2:12-13, which associates the quickening with the forgiveness of trespasses and the blotting out of the hand-writing of ordinances, on the whole favours that interpretation. Looking, however, to the express and particular description of the worldly walk and the conversation in the lusts of the flesh, which is given in Eph 2:2-3, and which seems to explain what is said in Eph 2:1 of the state of being “dead by trespasses and sins”; and having regard also to the application to the moral life which is made in the second half of the Epistle, most interpreters understand the quickening here affirmed to be that of regeneration-the communication of spiritual life.-χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι: by grace have ye been saved. So the RV, while the AV is content with “are ye saved”. The idea is that they were saved and continued to be so. The χάριτι is put emphatically first-“by grace it is that ye have been saved”. The parenthetical mention of grace is in place. Nothing else than grace could give life to the dead, but grace could indeed do even that.
Eph 2:6. καὶ συνήγειρεν: and raised us with Him. That is, to life now, in a present spiritual renewal. The συνήγειρεν expresses the definite idea of resurrection, and primarily that of the physical resurrection. The introduction of this term and the following makes it not improbable that both ideas, that of the present moral resurrection and that of the future bodily resurrection, were in Paul’s mind, and that he did not sharply distinguish between them, but thought of them as one great gift of life.-καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις: and seated us (or, enthroned us) with Him in the heavenlies. Made us sharers with Him in dignity and dominion, so that even now, and in foretaste of our future exaltation, our life and thought are raised to the heavenlies where He reigns. But as Bengel notices, Paul pauses here and does not add the ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ which is said of Christ in Eph 1:20-ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: in Christ Jesus. Not the συνεκάθισεν only, but the whole statement is qualified by this. This quickening, this resurrection, this seating of us with Him take effect in so far as we are in Him as our Representative, having our life and our completeness in our Head.
Eph 2:7. ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις τὸν ὑπερβάλλοντα πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ: that He might shew forth in the ages that are coming the exceeding riches of His grace. For the τὸν ὑπερβάλλοντα πλοῦτον of the TR the neuter form τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος is preferred by most editors (LTTrWHRV). The satisfaction of His love was God’s motive in quickening and raising them. The manifestation of His glory in its surpassing wealth is His final purpose in the same. The verb ἐνδείκνυσθαι occurs eleven times in the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews, and nowhere else in the NT. The active is very rare even in the classics, and is never found in the NT. Hence the ἐνδείξηται is to be taken as a simple active (not as = shew forth for Himself), all the more by reason of the αὐτοῦ. What is meant by the τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις? Some give it the widest possible sense, e.g., per omne vestrum tempus reliquum quum in hac vita tum in futura quoque (Morus), “the successively arriving ages and generations from that time to the second coming of Christ” (Ell.). But it is rather another form of the αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων (Harl., Olsh., Mey., Haupt, etc.), the part. ἐπερχόμενος being used of the future (e.g., Jer. 47:11; Isa 41:4; Isa 41:22-23; Isa 42:23; Luk 21:26; Jam 5:1, etc.), and the future being conceived of as made up of an undefined series of periods. In other cases reduplicated expressions, αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων, etc., are used to express the idea of eternity. God’s purpose, therefore, is that in the eternal future, the future which opens with Christ’s Parousia, and in all the continuing length of that future, the grace of His ways with those once dead in sins should be declared and understood in all the grandeur of its exceeding riches.-ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς: in kindness toward us. The ἐν is taken by some (Mey., etc.) as the instrumental ἐν, “by means of kindness”. It is more natural to give it the proper force of “in,” as defining the way in which the grace showed itself in its surpassing riches. It was in the form of kindness directed towards us. The χρηστότης, which means moral goodness in Rom 3:12, has here the more usual sense of benignity (cf. Rom 2:4; Rom 11:12; 2Co 6:6; Gal 5:22; Col 3:12; Tit 3:4).-ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: in Christ Jesus. Again is Paul careful to remind his readers that all this grace and the manifestation of it in its riches have their ground and reason in Christ.
Eph 2:8. τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι: for by grace have ye been saved. More exactly “by the grace,” i.e., by this grace, the grace already mentioned. Grace is the explanation of their own salvation, and how surpassingly rich the grace must be that could effect that!-διὰ τῆς πίστεως: through faith. That is, by faith as the instrument or means. Paul never says διὰ τὴν πίστιν, as if the faith were the ground or procuring cause of the salvation. It is the χάριτι, not the explanatory πίστεως that has the first place in Paul’s thoughts here.-καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν: and that not of yourselves. That is, not as proceeding from yourselves or of your own performance. The sentence thus beginning with καὶ τοῦτο (cf. Rom 13:11) is not parenthetical, but an integral part of the statement. But to what does the τοῦτο refer? To the πίστεως say some (Chrys., Theod., Jer., Bez., Beng., Bisp., Moule, etc.). The neut. τοῦτο would not be irreconcilable with that. The formula καὶ τοῦτο indeed might rather favour it, as it often adds to the idea to which it is attached. It may also be granted that a peculiarly suitable idea results-the opportune reminder that even their faith, in which at least they might think there was something of their own, has its origin in God’s grace, not in their own effort. But on the other hand the salvation is the main idea in the preceding statement, and it seems best to understand the καὶ τοῦτο as referring to that salvation in its entire compass, and not merely to the one element in it, its instrumental cause, appended by way of explanation. Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον; it is the gift of God. Or, perhaps, “God’s gift it is”. The salvation is not an achievement but a gift, and a gift from none other than God. This declaration of the free, unmerited, conferred nature of the salvation is made the stronger not only by the contrast with the ἐξ ὑμῶν, but by the dropping of any connecting particle.
Eph 2:9. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται: not of works, that no one should glory. The OT protest against glorying in any but the Lord and the prophet’s jealousy for the honour of God (Jer 9:23-24; Isa 42:8; Isa 42:14, etc.) burn with a yet intenser flame in Paul, most of all when he touches the great theme of man’s salvation. That the glory of that salvation belongs wholly to God and in no degree to man, and that it has been so planned and so effected as to take from us all ground for boasting, is enforced on Paul’s hearers again and again, in different connections, with anxious concern and utmost plainness of expression (cf. Rom 3:17; 1Co 1:29; 1Co 4:7; Gal 6:14; Php 3:3, etc.).
Eph 2:10. αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα: for we are His workmanship (or, handiwork). The αὐτοῦ is emphatic-“His handiwork are we”. The word ποίημα occurs only once again in the NT (Rom 1:20, with reference to the works of nature). Here, as the following clause shows, it expresses not appointment to something, but an actual making. The clause gives the reason for the statement that our salvation is not of works. We ourselves are a work, the handiwork of God, made anew by Him, and our salvation, therefore, is due to Him, not to ourselves.-κτισθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς: created in Christ Jesus for good works. Further definition of the ποίημα αὐτοῦ. We are God’s spiritual handiwork, in the sense that we were created by Him, made a new spiritual creature by Him when His grace made us Christians. This new creation was in Christ, so that except by union between Him and us it could not have taken place (Eph 2:15; Eph 4:24; 2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Col 3:10). Also it was with a view to good works, ἐπί being used here (much as in Gal 5:13; 1Th 4:7; 2Ti 2:14) to express object; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 492. We ourselves then having been created anew by God, and good works being the object to which that new creation looked, not the cause that led to it, all must be of grace not of deeds (ἔργων), and there can be no room for boasting.-οἶς προητοίμασεν ὁ Θεὸς: which God afore prepared. The οἶς cannot with any propriety be construed as a masc., “for whom He before appointed” (Erasm.); nor can it well be taken as the dat. of destination, “unto which God prepared us” (Luth., Schenkel, etc.); for that would require the insertion of a ἡμᾶς. Nor, again, can it be taken in the intrans. sense, so as to give the idea “for which God made previous preparation” (Stier); for while ἑτοιμάζειν may be used intransitively (Luk 9:52), the compound verb does not appear to be so used. It is best taken (with the Syr., Goth. and Vulg. Versions and the best exegetes) as a case of attraction-οἵς for ἅ. The προετοιμάζειν is not quite the same as προορίζειν. It means to prepare or place in readiness before, not specifically to foreordain (Aug., Harl.). The προ- describes the preparation as prior to the creation (κτισθέντες). The subjects of the preparation also are the good works themselves, not the ways in which they are to be done. In relation to the question of human merit or glorying, therefore, good works are viewed in two distinct aspects. They are the goal to which God’s new creation of us looked; they are also in God’s eternal plan. Before He created us in Christ by our conversion He had destined these good works and made them ready for us in His purpose and decree. There is the unseen source from which they spring, and there is their final explanation.-ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν: that we should walk in them. God’s purpose in the place which He gave to good works in His decree was that they should actually and habitually be done by us. His final object was to make good works the very element of our life, the domain in which our action should move. That this should be the nature of our walk is implied in our being His handiwork, made anew by Him in Christ; that the good works which form the Divine aim of our life shall be realised is implied in their being designed and made ready for us in God’s decree; and that they are of God’s originating, and not of our own action and merit, is implied in the fact that we had ourselves to be made a new creation in Christ with a view to them.
Eph 2:11-22. The second half of this chapter makes a paragraph by itself. Its subject is the case of those Gentile believers whom Paul has immediately in view-their heathen past and their Christian present. They are reminded of what they once were-outside Christ, outside the special privilege of Israel, without hope, and without God; and of what they have come to be by the power of Christ’s death-placed on an equality with the chosen people, brought nigh to the Father, made part of the household of God and the living temple of the Lord.
Eph 2:12. ὅτι ἧτε ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ: that ye were at that time apart from Christ. The sentence interrupted by the description of those addressed as τὰ ἔθνη κ.τ.λ. is now resumed-Remember, I say, that ye were. The τῷ καιρῷ, corresponding to the previous ποτέ, refers to their pre-Christian days. In such phrases it is usual to insert ἐν (Donald., Greek Gram., p. 487), and it is inserted by the TR (following [149] [150] [151] [152], etc.). But time when is also often enough expressed by the simple dat. (Win.-Moult., pp. 273, 274), and the balance of evidence is largely against the presence of the prep. here. The χωρὶς Χριστοῦ is the predicate to ἦτε, and is not a defining clause = “being at that time without Christ” (De Wette, Bleek). It describes their former condition as one in which they had no connection with Christ; in which respect they were in a position sadly inferior to that of the Jews whose attitude was one of hoping and waiting for Christ, the Messiah. Their apartness from Christ, their lack of all relation to Him-this is the first stroke in the dark picture of their former heathen life, and the four to which the eye is directed in the subsequent clauses all follow from that.-ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ: alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. The alienation is expressed by ἀπαλλοτριοῦσθαι, a strong verb, common enough in classical Greek (at least from Plato’s time), corresponding to the OT זוּר (cf. Psa 58:4), and used again in Eph 4:18; Col 1:21. It does not necessarily imply a lapse from a former condition of attachment or fellowship, but expresses generally the idea of being a stranger as contrasted with one who is at home with a person or an object. The term πολιτεία has two main senses-a state or commonwealth (e.g., 2Ma 4:11; 2Ma 8:17), and citizenship or the rights of a citizen (Act 22:28). The first of these is most in harmony with the theocratic term τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, and so it is understood by most. These Ephesians, therefore, had no part in the theocracy, the OT constitution under which God made Himself known to the Jew and entered into relation with him.-καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας: and strangers from the covenants of the Promise. The τῶν διαθηκῶν is probably the gen. of separation or removal. That idea is usually expressed by a prep., but with verbs like ὑποχωρεῖν, διαφέρειν, ἀποστερεῖσθαι, and with some adjectives, it is also expressed by the simple gen. (Win.-Moult., pp. 243, 244). The word ξένος, which has the particular meaning of one who is not a member of a state or city, is used here in the general sense of foreign to a thing, having no share in it. The διαθῆκαι are the covenants with Abraham and the patriarchs (cf. Wis 18:22; 2Ma 8:15). It is obviously the covenants of Messianic significance that are in view. That the Mosaic Law or the Sinaitic Covenant is not in view seems to follow from the mention of the ἐπαγγελία; for that Covenant was not distinctively of the Promise, but is described by Paul as coming in after it and provisionally (Gal 3:17-19). The ἐπαγγελία is the Promise, the one distinctively so called, the great Messianic Promise given to the fathers of the Hebrew people (Gen 13:15; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8, etc.). The defining τῆς ἐπαγγελίας is attached by some (Rosenmüller, etc.) to the following ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες. But the covenants and the promise are kindred ideas, and make one thought here.-ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες: having no hope. With participles the subjective negative is much more frequently used than οὐ. In cases like the present, where the participle does not belong to the class of those expressing command, purpose, condition or the like, the use of μή is due to the aspect in which the matter in question presents itself to the writer-to the fact, e.g., that he has a genus, not the individual, in view; cf. Ell. on 1Th 2:15, and Win.-Moult., p. 606. The statement here is absolute-ἐλπίδα, not τὴν ἐλπίδα. It is not only that they had not the hope, the Messianic hope which was one of the distinctions of the Israelite, but that they were utterly without hope. Ignorant of the Divine salvation and of Christ in whom it was found, they had nothing to hope for beyond this world.-καὶ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ: and without God in the world. The last element in the darkness and misery of their former life. The adj. ἄθεος, which is never found in the LXX or in the Apocrypha, and only this once in the NT, in classical Greek means impious in the sense of denying or neglecting the gods of the State; but it is also used occasionally in the sense of knowing or worshipping no God (Æl., V. h., 2, 31), or in that of abandoned by God (Soph., Œd. R., 633). Three renderings are possible here-ignorant of God, denying God, forsaken of God. The third is preferred by many (Mey., Ell., etc.), who think that the darkest colour is given to the picture of their old heathen condition by this mention of the fact that they were without the help and protection of God. The first of the three senses, however, seems even more in harmony with the preceding negations. As they were without Christ, and without hope, so were they without God-without the knowledge of the one true and living and thus destitute of any God. So in Gal 4:8 Paul speaks of Gentiles like these as knowing not God and doing service unto them which by nature are no gods. The clause ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ is connected by some with the whole preceding description (Koppe, etc.); by others with the two last sentences in the description-the ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες and the ἄθεοι (Abb.). But it rather makes one idea with the immediately preceding term ἄθεοι. It is difficult to say in what particular sense the κόσμος is used here-whether in the simple, non-ethical sense, or in the deeper sense which it has in John and also at times in some degree in Paul (1Co 1:21; 1Co 6:2; 1Co 11:32; 2Co 7:10). Whichever is preferred-whether “without God in the world of men,” or “without God in this evil world”-an appropriate idea results. But the implied contrast with the previous πολιτεία τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ leads most to decide for the latter. The domain of their life was this present evil world, and in it, alienated as it was from God, they had no God.
[149] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[150] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[151] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.
[152] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
Eph 2:13. νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγγὺς ἐγενηθητε: but now in Christ Jesus ye that aforetime were far off are become nigh. In classical Greek νυνί is used only of time, mostly with present tenses, rarely with the future, and means at this very moment. In the NT it is used mostly of time, but also as a logical particle, bringing a statement to a conclusion, = rebus sic stantibus, as the case stands (Rom 7:17; 1Co 15:20, etc.). Here it has the usual temporal meaning-now as contrasted with the previous period, the καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ. The ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is put emphatically first and is to be connected with the νυνί (Ell., etc.) rather than with the ἐγενήθητε, the point being this-then ye were separate from Christ, but now ye are in Him, united with Him, and so are become nigh. It is difficult, if not impracticable, to discover in each case a reason for the use of Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς instead of the simple Χριστὸς; and the Ἰησοῦ indeed is dropped by some ancient authorities (L., Iren., Orig., Tert., etc.). But the double designation is appropriate here-then they were without Christ, having no part in the Messiah in whom the Jew had hope; now they are in living, present, personal fellowship with the Saviour known among men as Christ Jesus. The μακράν repeats the idea of distance and separation previously expressed by ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι and ξένοι. The expression ἐγγὺς γίνεσθαι, to come or become near, which is common enough in profane Greek, occurs only here in the NT. The order of the TR, ἐγγὺς ἐγενήθητε, is supported by [153] [154] [155] [156], etc.; but ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς is the reading of [157] [158] [159], 17, Vulg., Goth., etc., and is adopted by most (LTTrWHRV). For the designation of the Gentiles as “far off” and the use of the phrase “bring nigh” in the sense of making them members of the theocracy, cf. Isa 57:19; Dan 9:7; and for examples in Jewish literature, see Wetst., in loc.; Schöttg., Horæ Hebr., i., 76. The verses which immediately follow refer to the removal of the ancient barrier between Jew and Gentile. The ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς, however, need not be restricted to that. It is in contrast with the whole previous condition of separation from Christ, with all that that meant with regard to the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants, hope, and God. It is probably to be taken, therefore, in the large sense of being brought into the Kingdom of God, made near to God Himself and so brought to hope and privilege.-ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ: in (or, by) the blood of Christ. On the import of the phrase “the blood of Christ” see under Eph 1:7 above. The ἐν here has much the same sense as the διὰ there. They both express instrumentality. If there is any difference between them it is that διὰ expresses simple, objective, instrumentality, while ἐν denotes what Ell. calls immanent instrumentality, the action of the verb being regarded as existing in the means. See Ell. on the present passage and on 1Th 4:18. There is little to be gained, however, by attempting much finesse in such matters.
[153] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[154] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.
[155] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[156] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[157] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[158] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[159] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
Eph 2:14. αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν: for He is our Peace. As most commentators notice, the emphasis is on the αὐτός-“He and no other”. But there is probably more in it than that. The selection of the abstract εἰρήνη, instead of the simple εἰρηνοποιός, suggests that the point of the αὐτός is not only “He alone,” but “He in His own person”. It is not only that the peace was made by Christ and ranks as His achievement, but that it is so identified with Him that were He away it would also fail,-so dependent on Him that apart from Him we cannot have it. And He is thus for us “the Peace” (ἡ εἰρήνη), Peace in the absolute sense to the exclusion of all other. Peace, the peace of the Messianic age, the peace that is to come by Messiah, is a frequent note in OT prophecy (Isa 9:5-6; Isa 52:7; Isa 53:5; Isa 57:19; Mic 5:5; Hag 2:9; Zec 9:10). Here, as the next sentence shows, the peace especially in view is that between Jew and Gentile,-ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν: who made both one. Not “hath made,” but “made,” with reference to the definite act of His death, as suggested by the ἐν τῷ αἵματι. The ἀμφότερα is the abstract neuter-the two parties or classes. The sing. neut. ἕν (= one thing, one organism) expresses the idea of the unity, the new unity which the two long separate and antagonistic parties became; cf. the ἕν used even of the relation between Christ and God in Joh 10:16, and for the unity here in view, cf. Rom 10:12; 1Co 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11.-καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας: and broke down the middle wall of the partition. The former clause began the explanation of how Christ became our Peace. That explanation is continued in this clause and in the following. The καί, therefore, is epexegetic = to wit, or in that (cf. Win.-Moult., p. 545). The gen. φραγμοῦ is not a mere equivalent to an adject. or a partic., as if = τὸ μεσότοιχον διαφράσσον (Grot., Rosenm., etc.), nor is it the gen. of quality, = “the middle wall whose character it is to divide”; but either (a) the appos. gen. or gen. of identity, = “the middle wall that is (or, consists in) the partition,” or (b) the posses. gen., = “the wall pertaining to the partition”. On the latter view of the gen. the μεσότοιχον (a word found only this once in the NT and of rare occurrence elsewhere) becomes the more definite and specific term, the φραγμός the more general, the former being, indeed, a part of the latter. That is to say, the φραγμός is the whole system of things that kept Jew and Gentile apart, and the μεσότοιχον is the thing in the system that most conspicuously divided them, and that constituted the “enmity,” viz., the Law. It is best, however, to take the terms μεσότοιχον and φραγμός in the simple, literal sense of division and separation, which are not explained to be the Law till the νόμος is actually introduced in the subsequent clause; and, therefore, the former view of the gen. appears to be preferable. It is suggested that what Paul really expresses then is the fact that the legal system, which was meant primarily to protect the Jewish people against the corruption of heathen idolatry, became the bitter root of Jewish exclusiveness in relation to the Gentiles. This is to give the φραγμός here the sense of something that fences in or encloses, which it occasionally has (Soph., Œd. Tyr., 1387). But that is a rare sense, and the idea seems to be simpler. It is doubtful, too, whether Paul had in view here any material partition with which he was familiar. It could scarcely be the veil of the Temple that was rent at the Crucifixion; for that veil did not serve to separate the Gentile from the Jew. It might rather be (as Anselm, Bengel, and many more have thought) the wall or screen that divided the court of the Gentiles from the sanctuary proper, and of which Josephus tells us that it bore an inscription forbidding any Gentile from penetrating further (Jew. Wars, v., 5, 2; vi., 2, 4; Antiq., viii., 3, 2; xv., 11, 5). But even this is questionable, and all the more so as the wall was still standing at the time when this was written. For the use of λύσας cf. Joh 2:19.
Eph 2:15. τὴν ἔχθραν: to wit the enmity. Many (Luth., Calv., De Wette, etc.) take this to be a figure for the Mosaic Law. But the ἔχθρα is in antithesis to the εἰρήνη of Eph 2:14, and the specification of the Law comes in later. It is better, therefore, to take the ἔχθρα here in the abstract sense of hostile, separating feeling. But is it the enmity of Jew and Gentile to God (Chrys., Harl., etc.) or the enmity between Jew and Gentile? The statement of the μεσότοιχον as a mid-wall between τὰ ἀμφότερα decides for the latter. The argument in favour of this view is stronger still when the former view is connected with the idea that the ἔχθρα is the Mosaic Law. For the Mosaic Law could not be said to have been the cause of hostile feeling on the part of Gentiles to God.-ἐν τῇ σαρκί αὐτοῦ: in His flesh. The term σάρξ is taken by some (Stier, etc.) in a sense wide enough to cover Christ’s incarnation and His entire incarnate life. But, apart from other difficulties, this is inconsistent with the definite mention of His blood and His cross. The term refers, therefore, to His death, and means His crucified flesh (cf. Col 1:22). The great difficulty here, however, is the connection. Some attach the phrase immediately to τὴν ἔχθραν (Chrys., etc.), “the enmity which was in His flesh,” as if the idea were “the hatred in the human race generally” or “the national hatred,” the hatred in the Jewish people. But this would require τήν before ἐν σαρκί, and furnishes at best a forced meaning. Most commentators connect it with καταργήσας, supposing it to be put emphatically first. So it is taken, e.g., by Meyer, who makes ἐν σαρκί begin the new clause. The RV takes the same view, but brings the ἔχθραν under the regimen of the καταργήσας-“having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law”. There is much to say in support of this, especially in view of the Pauline statements in Rom 3:21; Rom 10:14; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14, etc. On the other hand there is an awkwardness in bringing in the predication before the verb, and the parallelism is broken (cf. Alf.). It is best, therefore, to attach the ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ to the λύσας (Calv., Rück., Alf., etc.). The form of the sentence is better kept in this way. The appropriateness of the use of λύσας is then seen; for the verb λύειν (= subvert, dissolve), is equally applicable to the μεσότοιχον and to the ἔχθραν, the phrase λύειν ἔχθραν being common in ordinary Greek. On the other hand καταργεῖν is much less applicable to ἔχθραν. So the sense is-“who in His crucified flesh (i.e., by His death on the cross) broke down the middle-wall of the partition, to wit the enmity” (i.e., the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile).-τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας: having abolished (or, in that He abolished) the law of commandments (expressed) in ordinances. Further statement of the way in which Christ by His death on the cross removed the separation and the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile viz., by abrogating the dividing Law itself. The Law is now introduced, and the term ὁ νόμος is to be taken in its full sense, not the ceremonial law only, but the Mosaic Law as a whole, according to the stated use of the phrase. This Law is abolished in the sense of being rendered inoperative (as καταργεῖν means), and it is defined as the Law τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν. What is the point of the definition? The article, which is in place with the ἐντολῶν, is omitted before the δόγμασιν, as the latter makes one idea with the former and further is under the regimen of a prep. (cf. Win.-Moult., pp. 139, 149, 151, 158). The Law is one of “commandments-in-decrees”. What is in view is its character as mandatory, and consisting in a multitude of prescriptions or statutes. It enjoined, and it expressed its injunctions in so many decrees, but it did not enable. The Law was made up of ἐντολαί and these ἐντολαί expressed themselves and operated in the form of δόγματα, ordinances. The word δόγμα in the NT never means anything else than statute, decree, ordinance (cf. Luk 2:1; Act 16:4; Act 17:7; Col 2:14; in Heb 11:23 it is a variant for διάταγμα). Hence it cannot have any such sense here as doctrines, evangelical teaching (Theod.), evangelical precepts (Fritz.), the faith (Chrys.). Some taking the ἐν as the instrumental ἐν make it = “having abolished the law by injunctions” (Syr., Vulg., Arab., Grot., Beng., etc.). But the NT uniformly speaks of the abrogation of the condemning law as being effected by Christ’s death, never by His teaching, or by evangelical precepts. Another turn is given to the sentence by taking ἐν in the sense of “in respect of,” “on the side of” (Harl.), as if the idea were that the abrogation of the Law was limited to its mandatory side,-to the orders contained in it. But this would require τοῖς before the δόγμασιν; nor is it the way of the NT to speak of the Mosaic Law as done away by Christ only on one side.-ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον: that He might create in Himself the two into one new man. Statement of the object of the καταργεῖν. The masc. δύο is introduced now, instead of the ἀμφότερα, with a view to the ἄνθρωπον. One man was to be made out of the two men. The κτίσῃ is better rendered create with the RV than make with the AV. A new creation is in view. For ἐν ἑαυτῷ of the TR (with [160] [161] [162] [163], etc.) αὐτῷ is to be preferred as the reading of [164] [165] [166] [167], etc. (LTTrRV); WH gives αὑτῷ. In either case the sense is “in Himself”; not “by it” (Grot.) as if the reference were to Christ’s doctrine, nor “through Himself” as if it were διʼ αὐτοῦ. The new creation and the new union have their ground and principle in Christ. What was contemplated, too, was not simply the making of one man (ἕνα ἄνθρωπον) where formerly there were two, but the making of one new (καινὸν) man. The result was not that, though the separation between them was removed, the Jew still remained Jew and the Gentile still Gentile. It was something new, the old distinctions between Jew and Gentile being lost in a third order of “man”-the Christian man.-ποιῶν εἰρήνην: making peace. The εἰρήνη is still peace between the estranged Jew and Gentile, and the ποιῶν (pres., not aor.) belongs to the object expressed by the ἵνα. In carrying out that purpose He was to make peace the one with the other.
[160] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[161] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[162] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[163] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[164] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[165] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[166] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[167] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.
Eph 2:16. καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους: and that He might reconcile them both. Further statement of object, the καί continuing and extending it. Only at this point is the prior and larger idea of the reconciliation to God introduced, and even now it is in connection with the idea of the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile. For τοὺς δύο we now have τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους, not “the two” but “both of them together,” unity being the aspect in which they are now presented. The ἀπο- in such compounds has sometimes simply an intensive meaning (ἀποθαρρεῖν, ἀποθαυμάζειν, ἀποκαραδοκεῖν, ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, etc.); sometimes, though less frequently, the sense of again (ἀποδίδωμι, ἀποκαθίστημι, ἀποκατορθόω, ἀποκαταλαμβάνω). It is doubtful which is the force of the ἀπο- here. In the context, it is true, so far as the relations of Jew and Gentile to each other are dealt with, we have simply the idea of a state of separation into two hostile camps giving place to a state of unity. But in the present clause the larger truth of a reconciliation to God is in view, and this favours the idea of a restoration to a condition which had been lost. The form ἀποκαταλλάσσειν occurs in the NT only here and in Col 1:20-21. In the LXX and once in the NT (Mat 5:24) we have also διαλλάττεσθαι. But the two appear to be practically indistinguishable. As derivatives of ἀλλάσσειν they both convey the idea of a change, not primarily in feeling (which is expressed by ἱλάσκεσθαι and its compounds), but in relation, and in mutual relation, on the side of God to man and on the side of man to God (cf. Rom 5:9-11; 2Co 5:18-20).-ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ; in one body through the cross. This cannot refer to Christ’s body (Chrys., Beng., Harl., Hofm.), as if the point were either the reconciliation of two parties by one body, or the one offering of Christ that needed no repetition (Heb 7:27, etc.), or, again, the one sacrifice as contrasted with the multitude of the Levitical oblations. These are ideas alien to the context, and they are the less appropriate because Christ Himself is the subject of the ἀποκαταλλάξῃ. The reference is to the Jews and Gentiles now making one body; cf. the ἒν σῶμα in 1Co 10:17; Eph 4:4; and especially in Col 3:15. His object was to bring the two long-sundered and antagonistic parties as one whole, one great body, into right relation to God by His cross. The διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ belongs rather to the ἀποκαταλλάξῃ than to the following ἀποκτείνας (von Soden).-ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ: having slain the enmity thereby. For ἐν αὐτῷ there is a variant reading ἐν ἑαυτῷ, slenderly supported (F 115, etc.); and some propose ἐν αὑτῷ (von Soden). But this ἐν αὐτῷ refers to the σταυροῦ, and the idea is not that Christ slew the enmity in Himself, but that He did it “by the cross,” or, as some take it (Alf., etc.), “on the cross”. The ἔχθρα here, again, is not the Law itself, nor the enmity of Jew and Gentile to God (though most take it so), but rather the ἔχθρα previously mentioned-the enmity between Jew and Gentile. Further, the ἀποκτείνας which might denote an action coincident with that denoted by the main verb, or might define the way in which the latter was made good, seems to have its proper sense of priority-“after He had killed”. He had first to kill this enmity between the two before He could bring them both into right relations to God in the way indicated, viz., in one body, as one great, united whole.
Eph 2:17. καὶ ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς: and He came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh. The TR reads simply καὶ τοῖς ἐγγύς (with [168] [169], the mass of cursives, the Syr., etc.). The primary uncials and other important authorities ([170] [171] [172] [173] 17, Vulg., etc.) insert εἰρήνην (so LTTrWHRV). The repetition has rhetorical force. The καί, again, does not merely connect this statement with the former. It adds to the thought. Not only did Christ effect the reconciliation, but He also came and preached the glad tidings of it, and that not to one class but to both. The aor. partic. has probably its proper force of priority in relation to the def. aor. εὐηγγελίσατο. The coming in question preceded the preaching. The best rendering, therefore, will be neither “coming” (Eadie), nor “came and preached” (AV and RV), but “having come” (Mey., Ell., etc.). But to what coming does the ἐλθών refer? Not to the incarnation (Chrys., Anselm, Harl., etc.); for the preceding sentences, which speak of His blood and of the peace effected through His cross, make it clear that the time in view is not before the crucifixion but after it. Nor can the reference well be to the event of His Resurrection, nor even to His own direct teaching during the forty days (Beng.). What is in view is rather His coming in His Spirit (cf. Joh 14:18; Act 26:23, etc.). That the idea of His spiritual Advent in the Holy Ghost which is prominent in the Fourth Gospel is not a Johannine idea only, but one entirely consistent with Paul’s teaching, appears from the Pauline doctrine of the dwelling of Christ Himself or His Spirit in the believer (Rom 8:9-10; 2Co 12:17; 2Co 13:5; Gal 2:20); as also from the relation of the Holy Ghost to the Apostle’s preaching (Rom 15:18), etc. The preaching meant by the εὐηγγελίσατο, therefore, is Christ’s mediate preaching through His Apostles and others, especially that declaration of His truth which made these Gentiles Christians. Those “afar off” are mentioned first, as the Gentiles in the persons of these Ephesians and other Asiatics were the writer’s immediate concern.
[168] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[169] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[170] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[171] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[172] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[173] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
Eph 2:18. ὅτι διʼ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα: for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father. Some take ὅτι as = that, the mention of the common access being taken as the contents of the εὐηγγελίσατο. But the subject of the preaching has already been given, viz., εἰρήνη. Hence ὅτι=for, and the verse is a confirmation of the previous statement in the form of an appeal to the experience of those addressed. The fact that we, both of us, are now brought to God through Him is a witness to the truth of what I have just said, viz., that Christ came and preached peace to both. The privilege referred to is a present and continuing privilege (ἔχομεν, not ἐσχήκαμεν as in Rom 5:2)-one to which effect is being given now, viz., τὴν προσαγωγήν, “the introduction,” or “our introduction”. This noun denotes, properly speaking, the act of bringing to one, and then the approach or access (Herod., ii., 58; Xen., Cyr., vii., 5, 45). It is urged by some (Mey., Ell., etc.) that both here and in Rom 5:2 it has the primary trans. sense, and denotes the privilege of being brought to God or introduced to Him. Christ would thus be presented in the character of “Bringer,” perhaps with some allusion to the office of the προσαγωγεύς through whom in Oriental courts one was brought into the royal presence. But the difference in idea between access (πρόσοδος) and “admission” (Ell.) or “bringing” (προσαγωγή) is slight, and there seems sufficient justification for the intrans. sense. The ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, which is strangely taken by some (Anselm, Rosenm.) as = ὁμοθυμαδόν, “with one mind,” obviously refers to the Holy Ghost. That is made clear both by the mention of the coming and preaching in the Spirit, and by the reference both to Christ and to the Father. The ἐν is not = by, but in, with reference to the element in which alone we have the access. As that right is ours only through Christ (διʼ αὐτοῦ), so it is made ours in actual experience only in the Spirit, and Jew and Gentile have it alike because it is one and the same Spirit that works in both. So both have continuous access to God from whom once they were far removed, to Him, too, in the benign character of the Father (τὸν πατέρα) whom they can approach without fear.
Eph 2:19. ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικο: So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners. At this point Paul brings to their conclusion the statements made in Eph 2:14-18, and draws from them the natural, comforting inference. The conclusive ἄρα is one of Paul’s favourable particles. In his writings and in the NT generally it is sometimes placed second in the sentence, and sometimes (contrary to classical use) first. The combination ἄρα οὖν is peculiar to Paul, and takes the first place in the sentence. In this form it has less of the ratiocinative force and more of the collective; cf. Buttm., Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 371; Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 273. ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, a comprehensive expression, including “all who, whether by natural and territorial demarcation, or by the absence of civic privileges, were not citizens” (Ell.). The term πάροικος in ordinary Greek means a neighbour. In the LXX it represents תּוֹשָׁב (nine times) or גֵּר (eleven times). Here it stands for the classical μέτοικος, which never occurs in the NT, is found only once in the LXX (Jer 20:3) and means one who comes from one country or city and settles in another, but does not rank as a πολίτης or ἀστός having the right of citizenship (cf. Act 7:6; Act 7:29; 1Pe 2:11). There is no reference to proselytes in particular (Baumg.).-ἀλλὰ συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων: but fellow-citizens with the saints. Most critical editors (LTTrWHRV) insert ἐστέ after ἀλλά, on the authority of [174] [175] [176] [177] [178], etc. The form συνπολῖται is preferred by Tisch., WH, Ell., Alf., etc. The word belongs mostly to late Greek. The ἁγίων is not to be restricted to Jews, the patriarchs, or OT believers, but is a comprehensive name for Christians, the whole community of believers in Christ without distinction of Jew and Gentile. The Jewish people were once “the saints” of God, and Gentiles stood outside having no part in their πολιτεία. Now all Gentile believers, like these Ephesians, form part of that greater “Israel of God (Gal 6:16) which consists of all Christians, and share in all the rights of such.-καὶ οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ: and of the household of God. So in Gal 6:10, πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως. In Greek writers of the later period οἰκεῖος is used frequently with the gens, of abstract nouns (οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας, ὀλιγαρχίας, etc.) in the general sense of one closely connected with philosophy, etc., but without any specific reference either to the house of God, or to the οἰκεῖοι as forming one family. With the present case, however, it is different. The phrase οἰκεῖοι Θεοῦ naturally suggests the idea of members of God’s household or family (Mey.); cf. 1Ti 3:15; Heb 3:2; Heb 3:5-6; Heb 10:21; 1Pe 4:17.
[174] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[175] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[176] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[177] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[178] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
Eph 2:20. ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ: being built upon the foundation. From the idea of the house or household of God contained in the οἰκεῖοι Paul passes by an easy transition to that of the building of the spiritual οἶκος. The ἐπι- in the comp. verb probably expresses the notion of building up; the second ἐπί with the dative θεμελίῳ, that of resting on the foundation-which also might have been expressed by the gen. The forms ὁ θεμέλιος and τὸ θεμέλιον both occur, the former much more frequently than the latter in Greek literature generally. The latter, however, is found frequently in the LXX, and at least once quite unmistakably in the NT (Act 16:26).-τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν: of the Apostles and Prophets. The omission of τῶν before προφητῶν does not necessarily identify the Apostles and Prophets as one and the same persons (Harl.); cf. Win.-Moult., p. 162. It indicates, however, that they both belong to the same class. The gen. is variously understood as (1) the gen. of apposition = the foundation which is or consists in the Apostles; (2) the gen. of originating cause = the foundation laid by them; (3) the possess. gen. = “the Apostles’ foundation”-in the sense of that on which they built (Anselm, Beza, etc.), or as = that on which they also were built (Alf.). The choice seems to be between (1) and (2). The former has been the view of many from Chrys. down to Von Soden and Abbott, and is favoured so far by Rev 21:14. But the second has the suffrages of the majority of modern exegetes (Rück., Harl., Bleek, Mey., Ell., etc.). It is more in accordance with 1Co 3:10 (although it is the worth of teachers that is immediately in view there), and more especially with Rom 15:20, where the Gospel as preached by Paul appears to be the “foundation”. Here, therefore, it seems best on the whole to understand the Gospel of Christ as preached by the Apostles to be the “foundation” on which their converts were built up into the spiritual house. But who are these προφῆται? The OT prophets, say many (Chrys., Theod., Jer., Calv., Rück., etc.)-a view certainly favoured by the use made of the writings of these prophets in the NT, and by the view given of them as “evangelists before the time” (Moule); cf. Luk 24:25; Act 3:18; Act 3:21; Act 3:24; Act 10:43; Rom 16:26. But the natural order in that case would have been “Prophets and Apostles,” and the previous statements referred clearly to Christian times-to the preaching after Christ’s death. Hence the προφῆται are to be understood as the Christian prophets, of whom large mention is made in the Book of Acts and the Epistles-the NT prophets who in this same Epistle (Eph 3:5) are designated as Christ’s prophets and are named (Eph 4:11) among the gifts of the ascended Lord to His Church. The frequency with which they are referred to (Act 11:28; Act 15:32; 1 Corinthians 14, etc.) and the place assigned to them next to the Apostles (Eph 4:11) show the prominent position they had in the primitive Church. The statements made regarding them in the early non-canonical literature (The Teaching of the Twelve, Clem. Alex., Strom., the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) show how they continued to exist and work beyond the Apostolic Age, and help us to distinguish their ministry as that essentially of teachers and exhorters, whether itinerant or resident, from the essentially missionary ministry of the Apostles. Further the association of these prophets with the Apostles suggests that the latter term is not to be restricted here to the Twelve, but is to be taken as including all those to whom the name “Apostle” is given in the NT.-ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. A few documents, including [179], omit Ἰησοῦ. The Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ of the TR is supported by such authorities as [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]. The best reading, however, is Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, “Christ Jesus,” which is found in [185] [186] [187]-corr., 17, Vulg., Copt., Goth., etc., and is adopted by LTTrWHRV. The word ἀκρογωνιαῖος (cf. the אֶבֶן בִּנָּה of Isa 28:16) is peculiar to biblical and ecclesiastical Greek, and is applied to Christ also in 1Pe 2:6. It denotes the stone placed at the extreme corner, so as to bind the other stones in the building together-the most important stone in the structure, the one on which its stability depended. The αὐτοῦ refers to Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, not to the ἀκρογωνιαίου, nor to the θεμελίῳ (Beng.), the point being that to Christ Himself and none other the building owes its existence, its strength and its increase. He Himself, and neither Apostle nor Prophet, is at once the ultimate foundation (1Co 3:11) and the Head-stone of the Corner. Some have supposed that, the ἀκρογωνιαῖος being the stone inserted between two others to give strength and cohesion to the whole, there is a reference in the phrase to the union of Jew and Gentile. But this is to push the figure too far.
[179] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[180] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[181] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[182] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.
[183] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[184] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[185] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[186] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[187] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
Eph 2:21. ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομὴ συναρμολογουμένη αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Κυρίῳ: in whom each several building (RV text; “every building,” RV marg.), fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord. The relative refers naturally to the nearest subject, what is also the leading subject, Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, not to the ἀκρογωνιαίου, far less to the remoter θεμελίῳ; the ἐν also has its full sense of in, not by or on. That is to say, it is in Christ Jesus, and only by connection with Him, that the οἰκοδομή is what it is here declared to be. The word οἰκοδομή appears to be confined to late Greek, no certain instance of it having been found in classical Greek. It occurs in Diod., Philo, Plut., Joseph., the LXX, Macc., etc. It is used both for οἰκοδόμησις and οἰκοδόμημα. In the NT it has sometimes the literal sense of οἰκοδόμημα (e.g., Mat 24:1; Mar 13:1; 2Co 5:1); and sometimes the figurative sense of edification (Rom 14:19; Rom 15:2; 2Co 13:10; Eph 4:20), or, as here, that of a body of Christian believers. The question of the text here is important. There is considerable support for πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή ([188] [189] [190], Arm., etc.), and it is conceivable that itacism might have caused the omission of the ἡ. But diplomatic evidence is decidedly in favour of πᾶσα οἰκοδομή ([191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197], etc.). Adopting this reading (with LTTrWHRV) we have to ask whether the phrase is to be rendered the whole building or every building. The former rendering is certainly the one that first suggests itself, while the latter seems at first difficult to relate to the context. The former is defended as legitimate by some weighty authorities; e.g., Winer, on the ground that the subject is “the Church of Christ as a whole,” and Ellicott, who takes it to be a case of grammatical laxity. But the distinction between πᾶς with the article and πᾶς without it is so well maintained in the NT that only an absolutely intolerable sense can justify us in departing from it. The only exceptions to the general rule appear to be those that hold good also for ordinary Greek-in general and unqualified statements, with proper names, and with nouns which have acquired so stated a meaning that they can drop the article, etc. (cf. Win.-Moult., p. 138, and especially Buttm., Gram. of N. T. Greek, pp. 119, 120; Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, pp. 161, 162). The present instance does not come within the scope of these exceptions. It is not like πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ (Act 2:36), nor is it really analogous even to such cases as the πᾶσα γῆ of Thucyd., ii., 43, or the πᾶσα ἐπιστολή of Ignat., Eph., 12. Hence the rendering here must be “every building” or “every several building”. The present participle συναρμολογουμένη (the verb occurs in the NT only here and in Eph 4:16, and corresponds to the classical συναρμόζειν) describes the joining together as a process now going on. The pres. αὔξει (a form occurring in the NT only here and in Col 2:19, but common in Soph., Thucyd., Pind., etc.) in like manner expresses what is happening now, or, it may be, what is normal. The phrase νάον ἅγιον is sufficiently rendered “a holy temple” or “sanctuary”. Some (e.g., Mey.), supposing that Paul has the Jewish temple in view and means to say that the Christian Church is now the true Temple of God, the house made His own sanctuary by His dwelling in it, would render it “the holy temple”. The ἐν Κυρίῳ is connected by some (Harl., etc.) immediately with ἅγιον, = a temple that is holy as being in the Lord; by others with ναὸν ἅγιον (Ell.); by others with αὔξει (Mey.). But it really qualifies the whole statement of the joining and growing. All this is in the Lord, i.e., in Christ, as both the context and the general NT application of Κύριος show. The sense of the whole, therefore, is this-in Christ the Lord every several building that goes to make up the ideal Temple of God, every Christian community, the one now addressed not less than others, is at present being surely framed and fitted together, and is growing and harmoniously developing so that it may form part of the great mystical Body of Christ, the vast spiritual fellowship of believers which is God’s true Temple.
[188] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[189] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[190] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[191] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[192] Autograph of the original scribe of א.
[193] Autograph of the original scribe of א.
[194] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[195] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
[196] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[197] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
Eph 2:22. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν πνεύματι: in whom ye also are being built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit. The relative refers again, as in Eph 2:21, to Christ, the Κυρίῳ just named, not to the ναόν. The καί (= also, not even) points to the dignity of the present position-“the exalted nature of the association in which the Ephesians shared” (Ell.). The συνοικοδομεῖσθε is not imper. (Calv.), but indic., the burden of the whole section being what was done for the readers and what was made of them. The συν- in the comp. verb might convey the idea of being built together with others; but, in view of the force of the συναρμολογουμένη it is rather to be understood as denoting the compact connection of one part with another, the orderly conjunction and co-ordination of all the various parts of the οἰκοδομή (Mey., Ell.); cf. the συνέκλεισεν in Gal 3:2. κατοικητήριον is best translated “habitation”. Some draw a distinction between the ναόν as the whole Church and the κατοικητήριον as the individual Christians (Harl.). But the latter phrase simply expresses in another form the same idea as the former. The κατοικητήριον being that of God (τοῦ Θεοῦ), belonging to Him, inhabited by Him, is the same as the ναός. The ἐν πνεύματι is not to be taken as = “in a spiritual manner,” as if in contrast with ἐν σαρκί; nor as making with the noun the idea of “a spiritual house”; but as = in the Holy Spirit, the anarthrous πνεῦμα having often that sense and the similar ἐν Κυρίῳ suggesting it. Nor should the ἐν be rendered “through” (AV) or “by” (Mey.). It is true that the instrumental use of ἐν gives a thoroughly good sense, viz., that we are built together in Christ by the agency of the Holy Spirit-in respect of His dwelling and operating in us. But the idea is rather that of in the Spirit as the element of the life or the condition of the process. The phrase may be connected immediately with the κατοικητήριον as if = “a habitation of God realised in the Spirit,” or it may be construed as a tertiary predication (Ell.) = “and it is in the Spirit”. But it is best taken to qualify the whole statement of the συνοικοδομεῖσθε, = “in Christ as the ground and principle of all ye too are being built together into a habitation of God, and it is by your being in the Spirit that this is taking effect”. Union with Christ, life in the Spirit-this explained what they were; this meant that they, as well as other Christian bodies, were being built up so as to be a habitation of God.
1. And you who were dead. This is anἐπεξεργασία of the former statements, that is, an exposition accompanied by an illustration. (118) To bring home more effectually to the Ephesians the general doctrine of Divine grace, he reminds them of their former condition. This application consists of two parts. “Ye were formerly lost; but now God, by his grace, has rescued you from destruction.” And here we must observe, that, in laboring to give an impressive view of both of these parts, the apostle makes a break in the style by (ὑπερβατὸν) a transposition. There is some perplexity in the language; but, if we attend carefully to what the apostle says about those two parts, the meaning is clear. As to the first, he says that they were dead; and states, at the same time, the cause of the death — trespasses and sins. (119) He does not mean simply that they were in danger of death; but he declares that it was a real and present death under which they labored. As spiritual death is nothing else than the alienation of the soul from God, we are all born as dead men, and we live as dead men, until we are made partakers of the life of Christ, — agreeably to the words of our Lord,
“The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” (Joh 5:25)
The Papists, who are eager to seize every opportunity of undervaluing the grace of God, say, that while we are out of Christ, we are half dead. But we are not at liberty to set aside the declarations of our Lord and of the Apostle Paul, that, while we remain in Adam, we are entirely devoid of life; and that regeneration is a new life of the soul, by which it rises from the dead. Some kind of life, I acknowledge, does remain in us, while we are still at a distance from Christ; for unbelief does not altogether destroy the outward senses, or the will, or the other faculties of the soul. But what has this to do with the kingdom of God? What has it to do with a happy life, so long as every sentiment of the mind, and every act of the will, is death? Let this, then, be held as a fixed principle, that the union of our soul with God is the true and only life; and that out of Christ we are altogether dead, because sin, the cause of death, reigns in us.
(118) “Il expose et esclarcit ce qu’il avoit dit ci-dessus.” “He explains and illustrates what he had formerly said.”
(119) Classical writers employ the same metaphor, to denote not spiritual death, with which they were unacquainted, but the absence of moral principle, or utter ignorance of right and wrong. Thus Epictetus says, νεκρὸς μὲν ὁ παιδευτὴς νεκροὶ δ ᾿ ὑμεῖς ὅτε χορτασθὢτε σήμερον, καθὢσθε κλαίοντες περὶ τὢς αὔριον πόθεν φάγητε. “The instructor is dead, and you are dead. When you are satiated to-day, you sit down and weep about to-morrow, what you shall have to eat.” — Ed.
2. In which for some time ye walked. From the effects or fruits, he draws a proof that sin formerly reigned in them; for, until sin displays itself in outward acts, men are not sufficiently aware of its power. When he adds, according to the course of this world, (120) he intimates that the death which he had mentioned rages in the nature of man, and is a universal disease. He does not mean that course of the world which God has ordained, nor the elements, such as the heaven, and earth, and air, — but the depravity with which we are all infected; so that sin is not peculiar to a few, but pervades the whole world.
According to the prince of the power of the air. He now proceeds farther, and explains the cause of our corruption to be the dominion which the devil exercises over us. A more severe condemnation of mankind could not have been pronounced. What does he leave to us, when he declares us to be the slaves of Satan, and subject to his will, so long as we live out of the kingdom of Christ? Our condition, therefore, though many treat it with ridicule, or, at least, with little disapprobation, may well excite our horror. Where is now the free-will, the guidance of reason, the moral virtue, about which Papists babble to much? What will they find that is pure or holy under the tyranny of the devil? On this subject, indeed, they are extremely cautious, and denounce this doctrine of Paul as a grievous heresy. I maintain, on the contrary, that there is no obscurity in the apostle’s language; and that all men who live according to the world, that is, according to the inclinations of their flesh, are here declared to fight under the reign of Satan.
In accordance with the practice of the inspired writers, the Devil is mentioned in the singular number. As the children of God have one head, so have the wicked; for each of the classes forms a distinct body. By assigning to him the dominion over all wicked beings, ungodliness is represented as an unbroken mass. As to his attributing to the devil power over the air, that will be considered when we come to the sixth chapter. At present, we shall merely advert to the strange absurdity of the Manicheans, in endeavoring to prove from this passage the existence of two principles, as if Satan could do anything without the Divine permission. Paul does not allow him the highest authority, which belongs to the will of God alone, but merely a tyranny which God permits him to exercise. What is Satan but God’s executioner to punish man’s ingratitude? This is implied in Paul’s language, when he represents the success of Satan as confined to unbelievers; for the children of God are thus exempted from his power. If this be true, it follows that Satan does nothing but under the control of a superior: and that he is not (αὐτοκράτωρ) an unlimited monarch.
We may now draw from it also this inference, that ungodly men have no excuse in being driven by Satan to commit all sorts of crimes. Whence comes it that they are subject to his tyranny, but because they are rebels against God? If none are the slaves of Satan, but those who have renounced the service, and refuse to yield to the authority, of God, let them blame themselves, for having so cruel a master.
By the children of disobedience, according to a Hebrew idiom, are meant obstinate persons. Unbelief is always accompanied by disobedience; so that it is the source — the mother of all stubbornness.
(120) “The Greek word αἰών, and likewise the Latin word AEvum, both signify the ‘lip of man’ and from thence, by an easy figure, ‘the manner and custom’ of a person’s living; and therefore it denotes here the corrupt principles and morals, and particularly the idolatrous practices of the Heathen world, with which the Ephesians were as truly chargeable as the rest of mankind, before their conversion to the faith of Christ.” — Chandler.
3. Among whom also we all had our conversation. Lest it should be supposed that what he had now said was a slanderous reproach against the former character of the Ephesians, or that Jewish pride had led him to treat the Gentiles as an inferior race, he associates himself and his countrymen along with them in the general accusation. This is not done in hypocrisy, but in a sincere ascription of glory to God. It may excite wonder, indeed, that he should speak of himself as having walked “in the lusts of the flesh,” while, on other occasions, he boasts that his life had been throughout irreproachable.
“Touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” (Phi 3:6.)
And again,
“Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblamably, we behaved ourselves among you that believe.”
(1. h 2:10)
I reply, the statement applies to all who have not been regenerated by the Spirit of Christ. However praiseworthy, in appearance, the life of some may be, because their lusts do not break out in the sight of men, there is nothing pure or holy which does not proceed from the fountain of all purity.
Fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. To fulfill these desires, is to live according to the guidance of our natural disposition and of our mind. The flesh means here the disposition, or, what is called, the inclination of the nature; and the next expression (τῶν διανοιῶν) means what proceeds from the mind. Now, the mind includes reason, such as it exists in men by nature; so that lusts do not refer exclusively to the lower appetites, or what is called the sensual part of man, but extend to the whole.
And were by nature (121) children of wrath. All men without exception, whether Jews or Gentiles, (Gal 2:15,) are here pronounced to be guilty, until they are redeemed by Christ; so that out of Christ there is no righteousness, no salvation, and, in short, no excellence. Children of wrath are those who are lost, and who deserve eternal death. Wrath means the judgment of God; so that the children of wrath are those who are condemned before God. Such, the apostle tells us, had been the Jews, — such had been all the excellent men that were now in the Church; and they were soby nature, that is, from their very commencement, and from their mother’s womb.
This is a remarkable passage, in opposition to the views of the Pelagians, and of all who deny original sin. What dwells naturally in all is certainly original; but Paul declares that we are all naturally liable to condemnation; therefore sin dwells naturally in us, for God does not condemn the innocent. Pelagians were wont to object, that sin spread from Adam to the whole human race, not by descent, but by imitation. But Paul affirms that we are born with sin, as serpents bring their venom from the womb. Others who think that it is not in reality sin, are not less at variance with Paul’s language; for where condemnation is, there must unquestionably be sin. It is not with blameless men, but with sin, that God is offended. Nor is it wonderful that the depravity which we inherit from our parents is reckoned as sin before God; for the seeds of sin, before they have been openly displayed, are perceived and condemned.
But one question here arises. Why does Paul represent the Jews, equally with others, as subject to wrath and curse, while they were the blessed seed? I answer, they have a common nature. Jews differ from Gentiles in nothing but this, that, through the grace of the promise, God delivers them from destruction; but that is a remedy which came after the disease. Another question is, since God is the Author of nature, how comes it that no blame attaches to God, if we are lost by nature? I answer, there is a twofold nature: the one was produced by God, and the other is the corruption of it. This condemnation therefore which Paul mentions does not proceed from God, but from a depraved nature: for we are not born such as Adam was at first created, we are not
“wholly a right seed, but are turned into the degenerate”
(Jer 2:21)
offspring of a degenerate and sinful man.
(121) “Φύσις, ‘nature,’ in such an idiom, signifies what is essential as opposed to what is accidental, what is innate in contrast with what is acquired. This is its general sense, whatever its specific application. Thus, Φαρμάκου φύσις is the nature of a drug, its color, growth, and potency. Φύσις τοῦ Αἰγύπτου is the nature of the land of Egypt — a phrase referring to no artificial peculiarity, but to results which follow from its physical conformation.” — Eadie.
4. But God, who is rich in mercy. (122) Now follows the second member of the sentence, the substance of which is, that God had delivered the Ephesians from the destruction to which they were formerly liable; but the words which he employs are different. God, who is rich in mercy, hath quickened you together with Christ. The meaning is, that, there is no other life than that which is breathed into us by Christ: so that we begin to live only when we are ingrafted into him, and enjoy the same life with himself. This enables us to see what the apostle formerly meant by death, for that death and this resurrection are brought into contrast. To be made partakers of the life of the Son of God, — to be quickened by one Spirit, is an inestimable privilege.
On this ground he praises the mercy of God, meaning by its riches, that it had been poured out in a singularly large and abundant manner. The whole of our salvation is here ascribed to the mercy of God. But he presently adds, for his great love wherewith he loved us. (123) This is a still more express declaration, that all was owing to undeserved goodness; for he declares that God was moved by this single consideration. “Herein,” says John, “is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us. — We love him because he first loved us.” (1. o 4:10.)
(122) “That is, exceedingly bountiful and liberal in the exercise of mercy. And in this metaphorical sense, the words ‘rich’ and ‘riches’ are used by the best writers. Lucian speaks of πλοῦτος φιλοσοφίας, ‘the riches of philosophy.’ The Roman orator frequently speaks of the ‘riches of the mind,’ by which he means those excellencies of understanding and virtue which are the peculiar ornaments and riches of it. De Orat. I. So the apostle means here the infinite benignity of the Divine Nature, and his unchangeable disposition to be merciful.” — Chandler.
(123) “‘Loving with love,’ increaseth the emphasis and force of the expression. Cicero hath an expression exactly parallel: ‘Cura ut me ames amore illo tuo singulari.’ — Ep. Fam. ‘Be sure you love me with your singular and peculiar love.’ An allowed beauty in a profane author should not be censured as a tautology in a sacred one.” — Chandler.
5. Even when we were dead in sin. These words have the same emphasis as similar expressions in another Epistle.
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died, for the ungodly. — But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
(Rom 5:6.)
Whether the words, by grace ye are saved, have been inserted by another hand, I know not; but, as they are perfectly agreeable to the context, I am quite willing to receive them as written by Paul. They show us that he always feels as if he had not sufficiently proclaimed the riches of Divine grace, and accordingly expresses, by a variety of terms, the same truth, that everything connected with our salvation ought to be ascribed to God as its author. And certainly he who duly weighs the ingratitude of men will not complain that this parenthesis is superfluous.
6. And hath raised us up together. The resurrection and sitting in heaven, which are here mentioned, are not yet seen by mortal eyes. Yet, as if those blessings were presently in our possession, he states that we have received them; and illustrates the change which has taken place in our condition, when we were led from Adam to Christ. It is as if we had been brought from the deepest hell to heaven itself. And certainly, although, as respects ourselves, our salvation is still the object of hope, yet in Christ we already possess a blessed immortality and glory; and therefore, he adds, in Christ Jesus. Hitherto it does not appear in the members, but only in the head; yet, in consequence of the secret union, it belongs truly to the members. Some render it, through Christ; but, for the reason which has been mentioned, it is better to retain the usual rendering, in Christ. We are thus furnished with the richest consolation. Of everything which we now want, we have a sure pledge and foretaste in the person of Christ.
7. That in the ages to come. The final and true cause — the glory of God — is again mentioned, that the Ephesians, by making it the subject of earnest study, might be more fully assured of their salvation. He likewise adds, that it was the design of God to hallow, in all ages, the remembrance of so great goodness. This exhibits still more strongly the hateful character of those by whom the free calling of the Gentiles was attacked; for they were endeavoring instantly to crush that scheme which was destined to be remembered through all ages. But we, too, are instructed by it, that the mercy of God, who was pleased to admit our fathers into the number of his own people, deserves to be held in everlasting remembrance. The calling of the Gentiles is an astonishing work of divine goodness, which ought to be handed down by parents to children, and to their children’s children, that it may never be forgotten or unacknowledged by the sons of men.
The riches of his grace in his kindness. The love of God to us in Christ is here proved, or again declared, to have had its origin in mercy. That he might shew, says he, the exceeding riches of his grace. How? In his kindness towards us, as the tree is known by its fruit. Not only, therefore, does he declare, that the love of God was free, but likewise that God displayed in it the riches, — the extraordinary pre-eminent riches of his grace. It deserves notice, also, that the name ofChrist is repeated; for no grace, no love, must be expected by us from God, except through his mediation.
8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.
Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.
9. Not of works. Instead of what he had said, that their salvation is of grace, he now affirms, that “it is the gift of God.” (124) Instead of what he had said, “ Not of yourselves,” he now says, “ Not of works.” Hence we see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation. In these three phrases, — not of yourselves, — it is the gift of God, — not of works, — he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, that righteousness comes to us from the mercy of God alone, — is offered to us in Christ by the gospel, — and is received by faith alone, without the merit of works.
This passage affords an easy refutation of the idle cavil by which Papists attempt to evade the argument, that we are justified without works. Paul, they tell us, is speaking about ceremonies. But the present question is not confined to one class of works. Nothing can be more clear than this. The whole righteousness of man, which consists in works, — nay, the whole man, and everything that he can call his own, is set aside. We must attend to the contrast between God and man, — between grace and works. Why should God be contrasted with man, if the controversy related to nothing more than ceremonies?
Papists themselves are compelled to own that Paul ascribes to the grace of God the whole glory of our salvation, but endeavor to do away with this admission by another contrivance. This mode of expression, they tell us, is employed, because God bestows the first grace. It is really foolish to imagine that they can succeed in this way, since Paul excludes man and his utmost ability, — not only from the commencement, but throughout, — from the whole work of obtaining salvation.
But it is still more absurd to overlook the apostle’s inference,lest any man should boast. Some room must always remain for man’s boasting, so long as, independently of grace, merits are of any avail. Paul’s doctrine is overthrown, unless the whole praise is rendered to God alone and to his mercy. And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.
(124) “Καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν. It has been not a little debated, among both ancient and modern commentators, to what noun τοῦτο should be referred. Some say, to πίστωες; others, to χάριτι; though on the sense of πίστις they differ in their views. The reference seems, however, to be neither to the one nor to the other, but to the subject of the foregoing clause, salvation by grace, through faith in Christ and his gospel; a view, I find, adopted by Dr. Chandler, Dean Tucker, Dr. Macknight, and Dr. A. Clarke. And to show that this interpretation is not a mere novelty, I need only refer the reader to Theophylact, who thus explains: Οὐ τὴν πίστιν λέγει δῶρον Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθὴναι τοῦτο δῶρόν ἐστι Θεοῦ. ‘He does not say that faith is the gift of God; but to be saved by faith, this is the gift of God.’ Such also is the view adopted by Chrysostom and Theodoret.” — Bloomfield.
10. For we are his work. By setting aside the contrary supposition, he proves his statement, that by grace we are saved, — that we have no remaining works by which we can merit salvation; for all the good works which we possess are the fruit of regeneration. Hence it follows, that works themselves are a part of grace.
When he says, that “we are the work of God,” this does not refer to ordinary creation, by which we are made men. We are declared to be new creatures, because, not by our own power, but by the Spirit of Christ, we have been formed to righteousness. This applies to none but believers. As the descendants of Adam, they were wicked and depraved; but by the grace of Christ, they are spiritually renewed, and become new men. Everything in us, therefore, that is good, is the supernatural gift of God. The context explains his meaning. We are his work, because we have been created, — not in Adam, but in Christ Jesus, — not to every kind of life, but to good works.
What remains now for free-will, if all the good works which proceed from us are acknowledged to have been the gifts of the Spirit of God? Let godly readers weigh carefully the apostle’s words. He does not say that we are assisted by God. He does not say that the will is prepared, and is then left to run by its own strength. He does not say that the power of choosing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we are afterwards left to make our own choice. Such is the idle talk in which those persons who do their utmost to undervalue the grace of God are accustomed to indulge. But the apostle affirms that we are God’s work, and that everything good in us is his creation; by which he means that the whole man is formed by his hand to be good. It is not the mere power of choosing aright, or some indescribable kind of preparation, or even assistance, but the right will itself, which is his workmanship; otherwise Paul’s argument would have no force. He means to prove that man does not in any way procure salvation for himself, but obtains it as a free gift from God. The proof is, that man is nothing but by divine grace. Whoever, then, makes the very smallest claim for man, apart from the grace of God, allows him, to that extent, ability to procure salvation.
Created to good works. They err widely from Paul’s intention, who torture this passage for the purpose of injuring the righteousness of faith. Ashamed to affirm in plain terms, and aware that they could gain nothing by affirming, that we are not justified by faith, they shelter themselves under this kind of subterfuge. “We are justified by faith, because faith, by which we receive the grace of God, is the commencement of righteousness; but we are made righteous by regeneration, because, being renewed by the Spirit of God, we walk in good works.” In this manner they make faith the door by which we enter into righteousness, but imagine that we obtain it by our works, or, at least, they define righteousness to be that uprightness by which a man is formed anew to a holy life. I care not how old this error may be; but they err egregiously who endeavor to support it by this passage.
We must look to Paul’s design. He intends to shew that we have brought nothing to God, by which he might be laid under obligations to us; and he shews that even the good works which we perform have come from God. Hence it follows, that we are nothing, except through the pure exercise of his kindness. Those men, on the other hand, infer that the half of our justification arises from works. But what has this to do with Paul’s intention, or with the subject which he handles? It is one thing to inquire in what righteousness consists, and another thing to follow up the doctrine, that it is not from ourselves, by this argument, that we have no right to claim good works as our own, but have been formed by the Spirit of God, through the grace of Christ, to all that is good. When Paul lays down the cause of justification, he dwells chiefly on this point, that our consciences will never enjoy peace till they rely on the propitiation for sins. Nothing of this sort is even alluded to in the present instance. His whole object is to prove, that,
“by the grace of God, we are all that we are.”
(1. o 15:10)
Which God hath prepared Beware of applying this, as the Pelagians do, to the instruction of the law; as if Paul’s meaning were, that God commands what is just, and lays down a proper rule of life. Instead of this, he follows up the doctrine which he had begun to illustrate, that salvation does not proceed from ourselves. He says, that, before we were born, the good works were prepared by God; meaning, that in our own strength we are not able to lead a holy life, but only so far as we are formed and adapted by the hand of God. Now, if the grace of God came before our performances, all ground of boasting has been taken away. Let us carefully observe the word prepared. On the simple ground of the order of events, Paul rests the proof that, with respect to good works, God owes us nothing. How so? Because they were drawn out of his treasures, in which they had long before been laid up; for whom he called, them he justifies and regenerates.
11. Wherefore remember. The apostle never once loses sight of his subject, marks it out clearly, and pursues it with increasing earnestness. He again exhorts the Ephesians to remember what their character had been before they were called. This consideration was fitted to convince them that they had no reason to be proud. He afterwards points out the method of reconciliation, that they might rest with perfect satisfaction on Christ alone, and not imagine that other aids were necessary. The first clause may be thus summed up: “Remember that, when ye were uncircumcised, ye were aliens from Christ, from the hope of salvation, and from the Church and kingdom of God; so that ye had no friendly intercourse with God.” The second may run thus: “But now ingrafted into Christ, ye are at the same time reconciled to God.” What is implied in both parts of the description, and what effect the remembrance of it was fitted to produce on their minds, has been already considered.
Gentiles in the flesh. He first mentions that they had wanted the marks of God’s people. Circumcision was a token by which the people of God were marked out and distinguished from other men: Uncircumcision was the mark of a profane person. Since, therefore, God usually connects his grace with the sacraments, their want of the sacraments is taken as an evidence that neither were they partakers of his grace. The argument, indeed, does not hold universally, though it does hold as to God’s ordinary dispensations. Hence we find the following language:
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man.”
(Gen 3:22)
Though he had devoured the whole tree, he would not, by merely eating it, have recovered the possession of life; but, by taking away the sign, the Lord took from him also life itself. Uncircumcision is thus held out to the Ephesians as a mark of pollution. By taking from the Ephesians the token of sanctification, he deprives them also of the thing signified.
Some are of opinion, that all these observations are intended to throw contempt on outward circumcision; but this is a mistake. At the same time, I acknowledge, that the qualifying clause, the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, points out a twofold circumcision. The Jews were thus taught that they should no longer indulge in foolish boasting about the literal circumcision. The Ephesians, on the other hand, were instructed to abstain from all scruples on their own account, since the most important privilege—nay, the whole truth expressed by the outward sign—was in their possession. He calls it, Uncircumcision in the flesh, because they bore the mark of their pollution; but, at the same time, he suggests that their uncircumcision was no hinderance to their being spiritually circumcised by Christ.
The words may likewise be read in one clause, Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, or in two clauses: Circumcision in the flesh, meaning that it was carnal;made by hands, meaning that it was done by the hand of man. This kind of circumcision is contrasted with that of the Spirit, or of the heart, (Rom 2:29,) which is also called the circumcision of Christ. (Col 2:11)
By that which is called. Circumcision may be viewed here either as a collective noun for the Jews themselves, or literally for the thing itself; and then the meaning would be, that the Gentiles were called Uncircumcision, because they wanted the sacred symbol, that is, by way of distinction. This latter sense is countenanced by the qualifying phrase; but the substance of the argument is little affected.
12. That at that time ye were without Christ. He now declares that the Ephesians had been excluded, not only from the outward badge, but from everything necessary to the salvation and happiness of men. As Christ is the foundation of hope and of all the promises, he mentions, first of all, that they were without Christ. But for him that is without Christ, there remains nothing but destruction. On Him the commonwealth of Israel was founded; and in whom, but in Himself, could the people of God be collected into one holy society?
A similar observation might be made as to the tables of the promise On one great promise made to Abraham all the others hang, and without it they lose all their value:
“In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”
(Gen 22:18.)
Hence our apostle says elsewhere,
“All the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen.”
(2. o 1:20.)
Take away the covenant of salvation, and there remains no hope. I have translatedτῶν διαθηκῶν by the tables, or, in ordinary legal phrase, the instruments. By solemn ritual did God sanction His covenant with Abraham and his posterity, that he would be their God for ever and ever. (Gen 15:9.) Tables of this covenant were ratified by the hand of Moses, and intrusted, as a peculiar treasure, to the people of Israel, to whom, and not to the Gentiles, “pertain the covenants.” (Rom 9:4.)
And without God in the world. But at no period were the Ephesians, or any other Gentiles, destitute of all religion. Why, then, are they styled (ἄθεοι) Atheists? for (ἄθεος) an Atheist, strictly speaking, is one who does not believe, and who absolutely ridicules, the being of a God. That appellation, certainly, is not usually given to superstitious persons, but to those who have no feeling of religion, and who desire to see it utterly destroyed. I answer, Paul was right in giving them this name, for he treated all the notions entertained respecting false gods as nothing; and with the utmost propriety do godly persons regard all idols as “nothing in the world.” (1. o 8:4.) Those who do not worship the true God, whatever may be the variety of their worship, or the multitude of laborious ceremonies which they perform, are without God: they adore what they know not. (Act 17:23.) Let it be carefully observed, that the Ephesians are not charged with (ἀθεϊσμὸς) Atheism, in the same degree as Diagoras, and others of the same stamp, who were subjected to that reproach. Persons who imagined themselves to be very religious are charged with that crime; for an idol is a forgery, an imposition, not a Divinity.
From what has been said, the conclusion will be easily drawn, that out of Christ there are none but idols. Those who were formerly declared to be without Christ, are now declared to be without God; (125) as John says,
“Whosoever hath not the Son, hath not the Father,”
(1. o 2:23;)
and again,
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.”
(2. o 1:9.)
Let us know, therefore, that all who do not keep this way wander from the true God. We shall next be asked, Did God never reveal himself to any of the Gentiles? I answer, no manifestation of God without Christ was ever made among the Gentiles, any more than among the Jews. It is not to one age only, or to one nation, that the saying of our Lord applies,
“I am the way;” for he adds, “no man cometh
unto the Father but by me.” (Joh 14:6.)
(125) “They either knew him not, or did not worship him as God; they had not avouched, or solemnly owned, or taken him for their God; and, in consequence, were not avouched, were not owned, and blessed, and accepted by him as his peculiar people. This was their condition as Gentiles born.” — Chandler.
13. But now in Christ Jesus. We must either supply the verb, now that ye have been received in Christ Jesus, or connect the word now with the conclusion of the verse, now through the blood of Christ, — which will be a still clearer exposition. In either case, the meaning is, that the Ephesians, who were far off from God and from salvation, had been reconciled to God through Christ, and made nigh by his blood; for the blood of Christ has taken away the enmity which existed between them and God, and from being enemies hath made them sons.
14. For he is our peace. He now includes Jews in the privilege of reconciliation, and shows that, through one Messiah, all are united to God. This consideration was fitted to repress the false confidence of the Jews, who, despising the grace of Christ, boasted that they were the holy people, and chosen inheritance, of God. If Christ is our peace, all who are out of him must be at variance with God. What a beautiful title is this which Christ possesses, — the peace between God and men! Let no one who dwells in Christ entertain a doubt that he is reconciled to God.
Who hath made both one. This distinction was necessary. (126) All intercourse with the Gentiles was held to be inconsistent with their own superior claims. (127) To subdue this pride, he tells them that they and the Gentiles have been united into one body. Put all these things together, and you will frame the following syllogism: If the Jews wish to enjoy peace with God, they must have Christ as their Mediator. But Christ will not be their peace in any other way than by making them one body with the Gentiles. Therefore, unless the Jews admit the Gentiles to fellowship with them, they have no friendship with God.
And breaking down the middle wall of partition. To understand this passage, two things must be observed. The Jews were separated, for a certain time, from the Gentiles, by the appointment of God; and ceremonial observances were the open and avowed symbols of that separation. Passing by the Gentiles, God had chosen the Jews to be a peculiar people to himself. A wide distinction was thus made, when the one class were “fellow-citizens and of the household” (Eph 2:19) of the Church, and the other were foreigners. This is stated in the Song of Moses:
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel: for the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” (Deu 32:8)
Bounds were thus fixed by God to separate one people from the rest; and hence arose the enmity which is here mentioned. A separation is thus made. The Gentiles are set aside. God is pleased to choose and sanctify the Jewish people, by freeing them from the ordinary pollution of mankind. Ceremonial observances were afterwards added, which, like walls, enclosed the inheritance of God, prevented it from being open to all or mixed with other possessions, and thus excluded the Gentiles from the kingdom of God.
But now, the apostle, says, the enmity is removed, and the wall is broken down. By extending the privilege of adoption beyond the limits of Judea, Christ has now made us all to be brethren. And so is fulfilled the prophecy,
“God shall enlarge Japheth,
and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” (Gen 9:27)
(126) “Il estoit necessaire que l’Apostre distinguast ainsi les hommes en deux bandes.” “It was necessary that the apostle should separate men into two classes.”
(127) “Les Juifs estans enflez du privilege que Dieu leur avoit fait, tenoyent les Gentils pour indignes de communiquer avec eux en sorte quelconque.” “The Jews, puffed up with the privilege which God had conferred upon them, reckoned the Gentiles to be unworthy of being admitted to any intercourse whatever.”
15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity. The meaning of Paul’s words is now clear. The middle wall of partition hindered Christ from forming Jews and Gentiles into one body, and therefore the wall has been broken down. The reason why it is broken down is now added — to abolish the enmity, by the flesh of Christ. The Son of God, by assuming a nature common to all, has formed in his own body a perfect unity.
Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What had been metaphorically understood by the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through Christ. What were circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstaining from certain kinds of food, but symbols of sanctification, reminding the Jews that their lot was different from that of other nations; just as the white and the red cross distinguish the French of the present day from the inhabitants of Burgundy. Paul declares not only that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews admitted to the fellowship of grace, so that they no longer differ from each other, but that the mark of difference has been taken away; for ceremonies have been abolished. If two contending nations were brought under the dominion of one prince, he would not only desire that they should live in harmony, but would remove the badges and marks of their former enmity. When an obligation is discharged, the handwriting is destroyed, — a metaphor which Paul employs on this very subject in another Epistle. (128) (Col 2:14.)
Some interpreters, (129) — though, in my opinion, erroneously, — connect the words, in ordinances, with abolished, making the ordinances to be the act of abolishing the ceremonies. This is Paul’s ordinary phrase for describing the ceremonial law, in which the Lord not only enjoined upon the Jews a simple rule of life, but also bound them by various statutes. It is evident, too, that Paul is here treating exclusively of the ceremonial law; for the moral law is not a wall of partition separating us from the Jews, but lays down instructions in which the Jews were not less deeply concerned than ourselves. This passage affords the means of refuting an erroneous view held by some, that circumcision and all the ancient rites, though they are not binding on the Gentiles, are in force at the present day upon the Jews. On this principle there would still be a middle wall of partition between us, which is proved to be false.
That he might make in himself. When the apostle says, in himself, he turns away the Ephesians from viewing the diversity of men, and bids them look for unity nowhere but in Christ. To whatever extent the two might differ in their former condition, in Christ they are become one man. But he emphatically adds, one new man, intimating (what he explains at greater length on another occasion) that
“neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, availeth anything,” (Gal 6:15,)
but that “a new creature” holds the first and the last place. The principle which cements them is spiritual regeneration. If then we are all renewed by Christ, let the Jews no longer congratulate themselves on their ancient condition, but let them be ready to admit that, both in themselves and in others, Christ is all.
(128) ᾿Εν δόγμασι — “Δόγμα is equivalent to the participial form — τὸ δεδογμένον, and has its apparent origin in the common phrases which prefaced a proclamation or statute— ἔδοξε τῷ λαῷ καὶ τὣ βουλὣ. In the New Testament it signifies decree, and is applied (Luk 2:1) to the edict of Caesar, and in Act 17:7, it occurs with a similar reference. But not only does it signify imperial statutes; it is also the name given to the decrees of the ecclesiastical council in Jerusalem. (Act 16:4.) It is found, too, in the parallel passage in Col 2:14. In the Septuagint its meaning is the same; and in the sense first quoted, that of royal mandate, it is frequently used in the book of Daniel.” — Eadie.
(129) Theodoret, Theophylact, and others.
16. And that he might reconcile both. The reconciliation between ourselves which has now been described is not the only advantage which we derive from Christ. We have been brought back into favor with God. The Jews are thus led to consider that they have not less need of a Mediator than the Gentiles. Without this, neither the Law, nor ceremonies, nor their descent from Abraham, nor all their dazzling prerogatives, would be of any avail. We are all sinners; and forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained but through the grace of Christ. He adds, in one body, to inform the Jews, that to cultivate union with the Gentiles will be well-pleasing in the sight of God.
By the cross. The word cross is added, to point out the propitiatory sacrifice. Sin is the cause of enmity between God and us; and, until it is removed, we shall not be restored to the Divine favor. It has been blotted out by the death of Christ, in which he offered himself to the Father as an expiatory victim. There is another reason, indeed, why the cross is mentioned here, as it is through the cross that all ceremonies have been abolished. Accordingly, he adds, slaying the enmity thereby. These words, which unquestionably relate to the cross, may admit of two senses, — either that Christ, by his death, has turned away from us the Father’s anger, or that, having redeemed both Jews and Gentiles, he has brought them back into one flock. The latter appears to be the more probable interpretation, as it agrees with a former clause, abolishing in his flesh the enmity. (Eph 2:15.)
17. And came and preached peace. All that Christ had done towards effecting a reconciliation would have been of no service, if it had not been proclaimed by the gospel; and therefore he adds, that the fruit of this peace has now been offered both to Jews and to Gentiles. Hence it follows, that to save Gentiles as well as Jews was the design of our Savior’s coming, as the preaching of the gospel, which is addressed indiscriminately to both, makes abundantly manifest. The same order is followed in the second Epistle to the Corinthians.
“He hath committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin.” (2. o 5:18.)
Salvation through the death of Christ is first announced, and a description is afterwards given of the manner in which Christ communicates to us himself and the benefit of his death. But here Paul dwells chiefly on this circumstance, that Gentiles are united with Jews in the Kingdom of God. Having already represented Christ as a Savior common to both, he now speaks of them as companions in the gospel. The Jews, though they possessed the law, needed the gospel also; and God had bestowed upon the Gentiles equal grace. Those therefore whom
“God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
(Mat 19:6.)
No reference to distance of place is conveyed by the words afar off and nigh. The Jews, in respect of the covenant, were nigh to God. The Gentiles, so long as they had no promise of salvation, were afar off — were banished from the kingdom of God.
And preached peace; not indeed by his own lips, but by the apostles. It was necessary that Christ should rise from the dead, before the Gentiles were called to the fellowship of grace. Hence that saying of our Lord,
“I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
(Mat 15:24.)
The apostles were forbidden, while he was still in the world, to carry their first embassy to the Gentiles.
“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans, enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mat 10:5,)
His apostles were afterwards employed as trumpets for proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles. What they did, not only in his name, and by his command, but as it were in his own person, is justly ascribed to none other than himself. We too speak as if Christ himself exhorted you by us. (2. o 5:20) The faith of the gospel would be weak indeed, were we to look no higher than to men. Its whole authority is derived from viewing men as God’s instruments, and hearing Christ speak to us by their mouth. Observe here, the gospel is the message of peace, by which God declares himself to be reconciled to us, and makes known his paternal love. Take away the gospel, and war and enmity continue to subsist between God and men; and, on the other hand, the native tendency of the gospel is, to give peace and calmness to the conscience, which would otherwise be tormented by distressing alarm.
18. For through him we both have access. This is an argument from the fact, that we are permitted to draw near to God. But it may be viewed also as an announcement of peace; for wicked men, lulled into a profound sleep, sometimes deceive themselves by false notions of peace, but are never at rest, except when they have learned to forget the Divine judgment, and to keep themselves at the greatest possible distance from God. It was necessary, therefore, to explain the true nature of evangelical peace, which is widely different from a stupefied conscience, from false confidence, from proud boasting, from ignorance of our own wretchedness. It is a settled composure, which leads us not to dread, but to desire and seek, the face of God. Now, it is Christ who opens the door to us, yea, who is himself the door. (Joh 10:9.) As this is a double door thrown open for the admission both of Jews and Gentiles, we are led to view God as exhibiting to both his fatherly kindness. He adds,by one Spirit; who leads and guides us to Christ, and “by whom we cry, Abba, Father,” (Rom 8:15,) for hence arises the boldness of approach. Jews had various means of drawing near to God; now all have but one way, to be led by the Spirit of God.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers. The Ephesians are now exclusively addressed. They were formerly strangers from the covenants of promise, but their condition was now changed. They were foreigners, but God had made them citizens of his church. The high value of that honor which God had been pleased to bestow upon them, is expressed in a variety of language. They are first called fellow-citizens with the saints, — next, of the household of God, — and lastly, stones properly fitted into the building of the temple of the Lord. The first appellation is taken from the comparison of the church to a state, which occurs very frequently in Scripture. Those who were formerly profane, and utterly unworthy to associate with godly persons, have been raised to distinguished honor in being admitted to be members of the same community with Abraham, — with all the holy patriarchs, and prophets, and kings, — nay, with the angels themselves. To be of the household of God, which is the second comparison, suggests equally exalted views of their present condition. God has admitted them into his own family; for the church is God’s house.
20. And are built. The third comparison illustrates the manner in which the Ephesians, and all other Christians are admitted to the honor of being fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God. They are built on the foundation, — they are founded on the doctrine, of the apostles and prophets. We are thus enabled to distinguish between a true and a false church. This is of the greatest importance; for the tendency to error is always strong, and the consequences of mistake are dangerous in the extreme. No churches boast more loudly of the name than those which bear a false and empty title; as may be seen in our own times. To guard us against mistake, the mark of a true church is pointed out.
Foundation, in this passage, unquestionably means doctrine; for no mention is made of patriarchs or pious kings, but only of those who held the office of teachers, and whom God had appointed to superintend the edification of his church. It is laid down by Paul, that the faith of the church ought to be founded on this doctrine. What opinion, then, must we form of those who rest entirely on the contrivances of men, and yet accuse us of revolt, because we embrace the pure doctrine of God? But the manner in which it is founded deserves inquiry; for, in the strict sense of the term, Christ is the only foundation. He alone supports the whole church. He alone is the rule and standard of faith. But Christ is actually the foundation on which the church is built by the preaching of doctrine; and, on this account, the prophets and apostles are called builders. (1. o 3:10.) Nothing else, Paul tells us, was ever intended by the prophets and apostles, than to found a church on Christ.
We shall find this to be true, if we begin with Moses; for “Christ is the end of the law,” (Rom 10:4,) and the sum of the gospel. Let us remember, therefore, that if we wish to be reckoned among believers, we must place our reliance on no other: if we wish to make sure progress in the knowledge of the Scriptures, to him our whole attention must be directed. The same lesson is taught, when we consult the word of God as contained in the writings of the prophets and apostles. To shew us how we ought to combine them, their harmony is pointed out; for they have a common foundation, and labor jointly in building the temple of God. Though the apostles have become our teachers, the instruction of the prophets has not been rendered superfluous; but one and the same object is promoted by both.
I have been led to make this remark by the conduct of the Marcionites in ancient times, who expunged the word prophets from this passage; and by that of certain fanatics in the present day, who, following their footsteps, exclaim loudly that we have nothing to do with the law and the prophets, because the gospel has put an end to their authority. The Holy Spirit everywhere declares, that he has spoken to us by the mouth of the prophets, and demands that we shall listen to him in their writings. This is of no small consequence for maintaining the authority of our faith. All the servants of God, from first to last, are so perfectly agreed, that their harmony is in itself a clear demonstration that it is one God who speaks in them all. The commencement of our religion must be traced to the creation of the world. In vain do Papists, Mahometans, and other sects, boast of their antiquity, while they are mere counterfeits of the true, the pure religion.
Jesus Christ, himself is the chief corner-stone (130) Those who transfer this honor to Peter, and maintain that on him the church is founded, are so void of shame, as to attempt to justify their error by quoting this passage. They hold out that Christ is called the chief corner-stone, by comparison with others; and that there are many stones on which the church is founded. But this difficulty is easily solved. Various metaphors are employed by the apostles according to the diversity of circumstances, but still with the same meaning. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul lays down an incontestable proposition, that “no other foundation can be laid.” (1. o 3:11.) He does not therefore mean, that Christ is merely a corner, or a part of the foundation; for then he would contradict himself. What then? He means that Jews and Gentiles were two separate walls, but are formed into one spiritual building. Christ is placed in the middle of the corner for the purpose of uniting both, and this is the force of the metaphor. What is immediately added shews sufficiently that he is very far from limiting Christ to any one part of the building.
(130) According to that ancient prophecy, (Psa 118:22,) ‘the stone, which the builders refused, is become the head-stone of the corner.’ The strength of buildings lies in their angles; and the corner-stone is that which unites and compacts the different sides of them; the chief cornerstone is that which is laid at the foundation, upon which the whole angle of the building rests, and which therefore is the principal support and tie of the whole edifice.” — Chandler.
21. In whom all the building groweth. If this be true, what will become of Peter? When Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, speaks of Christ as a “Foundation,” he does not mean that the church is begun by him and completed by others, but draws a distinction arising out of a comparison of his own labors with those of other men. It had been his duty to found the church at Corinth, and to leave to his successors the completion of the building.
“According to the grace of God which is given to me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth on it.” (1. o 3:10.)
With respect to the present passage, he conveys the instruction, that all who are fitly framed together in Christ are the temple of the Lord. There is first required a fitting together, that believers may embrace and accommodate themselves to each other by mutual intercourse; otherwise there would not be a building, but a confused mass. The chief part of the symmetry consists in unity of faith. Next follows progress, or increase. Those who are not united in faith and love, so as to grow in the Lord, belong to a profane building, which has nothing in common with the temple of the Lord.
Groweth unto an holy temple. Individual believers are at other times called “temples of the Holy Ghost,” (1. o 6:19; 2. o 6:16,) but here all are said to constitute one temple. In both cases the metaphor is just and appropriate. When God dwells in each of us, it is his will that we should embrace all in holy unity, and that thus he should form one temple out of many. Each person, when viewed separately, is a temple, but, when joined to others, becomes a stone of a temple; and this view is given for the sake of recommending the unity of the church.
22. In whom ye also are builded together, or in whom also Be Ye Builded together. The termination of the Greek verb, συνοικοδομεῖσθε, like that of the Latin, cooedificamini, does not enable us to determine whether it is in the imperative or indicative mood. The context will admit either, but I prefer the latter sense. It is, I think, an exhortation to the Ephesians to grow more and more in the faith of Christ, after having been once founded in it, and thus to form a part of that new temple of God, the building of which through the gospel was then in progress in every part of the world.
Through the Spirit. This is again repeated for two reasons: first, to remind them that all human exertions are of no avail without the operation of the Spirit; and secondly, to point out the superiority of the spiritual building to all Jewish and outward services.
