Eph 6:1. Ἐν κυρίῳ] characterizes the obedience as Christian, the activity of which moves in Christ, with whom the Christian withal stands in communion of life. The reference to God (“praeter naturae legem … Dei quoque auctoritate sancitum docent,” Calvin; comp. Wolf) is already refuted by the very ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ, Eph 4:21, placed at the head of all these precepts, as also by the standing formula itself (comp. Col 3:20).
δίκαιον] right, i.e. κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμον, Theodoret. Comp. Col 4:1; Php 1:7; Php 4:8; 2Th 1:6; Luk 12:57.
In favour of infant baptism, i.e. in favour of the view that the children of Christians were as early as that time baptized, nothing at all follows from the exhortation of the apostle to the children (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 192). The children of Christians were, through their fellowship of life with their Christian parents, even without baptism ἅγιοι (see on 1Co 7:14; Act 16:15), and had to render to their parents obedience ἐν κυρίῳ.
Eph 6:2. The frame of mind towards the parents, from which the ὑπακούειν just demanded of the children must proceed, is the τιμᾶν. Hence Paul continues, and that in the express hallowed words of the fourth commandment: τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου κ.τ.λ. (Exo 20:12; Deu 5:16). And as he had before subjoined the general motive of morality τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι δίκαιον, so he now subjoins the particular incitement ἥτις ἐστιν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελ., so that the relation as well of the two precepts themselves, as of their motives, Eph 6:1-2, is climactic, and ἥτις … ἐπαγγελίᾳ can by no means be a parenthesis (Griesbach, Rückert, and others).
ἥτις] utpote quae, specifies a reason. See on Eph 3:13.
ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελ.] The article is not necessary with the πρώτη, which is in itself defining, or with the ordinal numbers generally (Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 35). Comp. Act 16:12; Php 1:12, al. And the statement that the commandment first as to number in the Decalogue has a promise, is not inconsistent with the facts, since the promise, Exo 20:6, Deu 5:10, is a general one, having reference to the commandments as a whole. Just as little is it to be objected that no further commandment with a promise follows in the Decalogue; for Paul says πρώτη, having before his mind not only the Decalogue, but also the entire series of all the divine precepts, which begins with the Decalogue. Among the commandments, which God has given at the time of the Mosaic legislation and in all the subsequent period, the commandment: “Honour father and mother,” is the first which is given with a promise. The apparent objection is thus removed in a simple manner by our taking ἐντολή as divine commandment in general, and not restricting it to the sense “commandment in the Decalogue.” If Paul had had merely the Decalogue in mind, he must have written: the only commandment.[293] For the assumption that “it is the first, not with regard to those which follow, but to those which have preceded” (Harless), would not even be necessarily resorted to, if it were really established-which, however, is assumed entirely without proof-that Paul had taken into account merely the ten commandments, seeing that he and every one of his readers knew that no other commandment of the ten had a promise. From the arbitrary presupposition, that merely the Decalogue was taken into account, it followed of necessity in the case of other expositors, either that they restricted ἐντολή simply to the commandments of the second table[294] (Ambrosiaster, Zachariae, Michaelis, the latter misconstruing the absence of the article before ἐντολὴ πρώτη as favouring his view), in connection with which Holzhausen even maintained that ἐντολή never denotes a commandment in reference to God (see Mat 22:36; Mat 22:38; Mar 12:28); or else that they tampered with the numerical sense of πρώτη, and made out of it a very important, a chief commandment (Koppe, Morus, Flatt, Matthies, Meier). What a feeble motive would thus result! and πρώτη would in fact mean the most important, which, however, the fifth commandment is not (Mat 22:38; Rom 13:9-10; Gal 5:14). Further, the proposal of Erasmus, that πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελ. should be held to apply to the definite promise of Eph 6:3, mention of which first occurs in the fifth commandment, is not worthy of attention (Harless), but erroneous; because the same promise occurs after the fifth commandment only with a general reference to the commandments as a whole (Deu 5:33; Deu 6:2), as it has also occurred even before the fifth commandment in such a general form (Deu 4:40); and because, besides, ἐπαγγ. could not but have the article.
ἐν ἐπαγγελ.] is to be closely attached to πρώτη, as expressing that, wherein this commandment is the first, the point in which the predicate pertains to it. Comp. Diodor. xii. 37: ἐν δὲ εὐγενείᾳ καὶ πλούτῳ πρῶτος, Soph. O. R. 33: πρῶτος ἐν συμφοραῖς. In point of promise it is the first (οὐ τῇ τάξει, Chrysostom).
[293] According to Bleek, Paul had not at the moment the form of the following commandments of the Decalogue definitely before his mind. But with such inadvertence no one is less to be charged than Paul.
[294] In opposition to this, Erasmus aptly remarks: “Haec distinctio non est fundata in s. literis, sed est commentum recentiorum theologorum.” In general it is to be observed that, according to Philo and Josephus, each of the two tables contained five commandments, not, as Augustine (whom Luther followed) supposed, the first three, and the second seven,-and thus two sacred numbers, in which case, moreover, there was found in the first table a reference to the Trinity.
Eph 6:3. After Paul has just said: “the first commandment with promise,” he now adduces the definite promise, on account of which this predicate pertains to that commandment, and that according to the LXX. of Exo 20:12, Deu 5:16, with immaterial variation (LXX.: καὶ ἵνα μακροχρ. γένῃ ἐπὶ τ. γ.), and with omission of the more precise designation of Palestine, which in the LXX. follows after γῆς. This omission, however, was not occasioned by the circumstance that the promise was to bear upon long life in general (Calvin, Koppe, Rückert, Matthies, Schenkel, and many), in which case, indeed, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς might also have been left out; but Paul could so fully presuppose acquaintance with the complete words of the promise, that with the mere ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς enough was said to preclude any misunderstanding which should depart from the original sense: in the land, i.e. Palestine. So, namely, in accordance with the sense of the original text well known to the readers, is ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς to be understood, not as “upon earth;” for the promise is here adduced historically. Hence its original sense is not at all to be altered or spiritualized, or to be taken conditionally, as e.g. was done by Zanchius: if the promise is not fulfilled simpliciter, yet it is fulfilled commutations in majus; or by Calovius: “Promissiones temporales cum conditions intelligendae, quantum sc. temporalia illa nobis salutaria fore Deus censuerit;” comp. also Estius, who at the same time remarks (so again typically Olshausen, comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that the land of Canaan prefigures the kingdom of heaven (comp. Mat 5:5), and the long life everlasting blessedness. Nor is it to be said, with Bengel, Morus, Stolz, Rosenmüller, Flatt, and Harless, that the earthly blessing is promised not to the individual, but to the people. For in the summons “thou shalt” in the Decalogue, although the latter on the whole (as a whole) is directed to the people, the individual is withal addressed, as is evident from the very commandments in which the neighbour is mentioned, and as is the view underlying all the N.T. citations from the Decalogue-law, Mat 15:4; Mat 5:21; Mat 5:27; Rom 7:7; Rom 13:9.
εὖ σοι γένηται] Comp. Gen 2:13; Deu 4:40; Sir 1:13. A Greek would employ εὖ πάσχειν, εὖ πράττειν, or the like, or even ἀγαθά σοι γένηται.
καὶ ἔσῃ κ.τ.λ.] is regarded by Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 361], and de Wette (comp. already Erasmus), not as dependent upon ἵνα, but as a direct continuation of the discourse. But this expedient is unnecessary, inasmuch as ἵνα with the future actually occurs in the case of Paul (see on 1Co 9:18; Gal 2:4); and is, moreover, here out of place, since there is not any direct continuation of the discourse in those passages of the O. T., the sense of which Paul reproduces. At Rev 22:14 also the future and subjunctive are interchanged after ἵνα, as also in classical writers the same variation after ὅπως is well known (see on the erroneous canon Dawesianus, Bremi, in Schaef. Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 277; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 335 f.; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 184 [E. T. 213]). And how aptly do the two modes of construction here suit the sense, so that γένηται expresses the pure becoming realized, and ἔσῃ μακροχρόν. the certain emergence and continued subsistence (Kühner, II. p. 491). The change is a logical climax.
Eph 6:4. The duty of fathers, negative and positive.
καὶ οἱ πατέρες] and ye fathers, so that καί quickly subjoins. Comp. Eph 6:9. Paul does not address the mothers, not because he is thinking of the training of grown-up children (so quite arbitrarily Olshausen), nor on account of an Oriental depreciation of the mothers (Rückert), in opposition to which view-even apart from passages like Pro 14:1; Pro 31:10 ff.-the whole teaching of the apostle concerning the relation of husband and wife in marriage (Eph 5:25 ff.) is decisive; but because the husband, as the head of the wife, has, even in the bringing up of children the rule, and the wives join in prosecuting the work of training ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (Eph 5:22 ff.).
μὴ παροργίζετε] by injustice, harshness, hastiness of temper, undue severity, and the like, whereby the children are irritated against the fathers; at Col 3:21 there is subjoined as motive ἵνα μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν.
ἐκτρέφετε] not as at Eph 5:29, but of the bringing up, and that on its moral side. Pro 23:24; 1Ma 6:15; 1Ma 6:55; Plato, Gorg. p. 471 C; Polyb. vi. 6. 2. See Wyttenbach, ad Plut. de educ. p. 66; Lennep. ad Phalar, p. 350b.
ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου] ἐν denotes the regulative element, in which the training is to take place. Comp. Polyb. i. 65. 7: τῶν ἐν παιδείαις κ. νόμοις κ. πολιτικοῖς ἔθεσιν ἐκτεθραμμένων. Hence: in the Lord’s training and correction. παιδεία is the general term, the training of children as a whole, and νουθεσία is the special one, the reproof aiming at amendment, whether this admonition take place by means of words (νουθετικοὶ λόγοι, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 21) or of actual punishments (οἱ μὲν ῥάβδοι νουθετοῦσι κ.τ.λ., Plut. Quaest. Rom. p. 283). See Gellius, vi. 4; Kypke, Obss. ad 1 Thess. v. 14. With regard to the form, in place of which the better Greek has νουθέτησις, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. κυρίου means neither to the Lord (Luther), nor according to the doctrine of Christ (Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Menochius, Estius, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosenmüller, Bisping, and others, including Holzhausen, who, however, takes κυρ. of God), nor worthily of the Lord (Matthies), or the like; but it is the genitive subjecti, so that the Lord Himself is conceived as exercising the training and reproof, in so far, namely, as Christ by His Spirit impels and governs the fathers therein. Comp. Soph. Electr. 335: ἅπαντα γάρ σοι ταʼ μὰ νουθετήματα κείνης διδακτὰ, κοὐδὲν ἐκ σαυτῆς λέγεις. Rückert is unable to come to a decision, and doubts whether Paul himself had a distinct idea before his mind.
Eph 6:5. On Eph 6:5-9, comp. Col 3:22 to Col 4:1.
Here, too, there is doubtless no approval, but at the same time no disapproval of the existing slavery in itself, which-in accordance with the apostolic view of a Christian’s position (Gal 3:28; 1Co 7:22; comp. Tit 2:9 f.; 1Pe 2:18)-like every other outward relation of life, ought not to affect spiritual freedom and Christian unity; hence at 1Co 7:21 it is expressly prescribed that the slave is to remain in his position (comp. Ignat. ad Polyc. 4; Constitt. Apost. iv. 12, vii. 13; viii. 32, 2 f.), as, indeed. Paul even sent back Onesimus after his conversion to his master, without requiring of the latter his manumission.[295]
τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα] to those, who in a merely human relation are your rulers, i.e. your human masters, whose slaves you are as regards outward temporal position in life, by way of distinction from the higher divine master, Christ; hence also τοῖς κυρ. κ. σ. stands without repetition of the article, combined into one idea; comp. on Eph 2:11. As Paul immediately after makes mention of the higher master Christ (ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ), it was very natural for him, in view of the twofold and very diverse relation of masters which was now present to his mind, to add κατὰ σάρκα, in the use of which any special set purpose cannot be made good. This in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, who find in it a consolatory allusion to the δεσποτεία πρόσκαιρος; in opposition to Calvin, who supposes a softening of the relation to be conveyed in this expression, as being one that leaves the spiritual freedom untouched (comp. Beza, Zanchius, Grotius, Flatt, and others); and in opposition to Harless, who finds in the predicate the thought that, although in another domain they are free, yet in earthly relations they had masters.
μετὰ φόβου κ. τρόμ.] i.e. with that zeal, which is ever keenly apprehensive of not doing enough. Comp. on 1Co 2:3; 2Co 7:15; Php 2:12.
ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδ. ὑμ.] State of heart, in which the obedience with fear and trembling is to take place; it is to be no hypocritical one, in which we are otherwise minded than we outwardly seem, but an upright, inwardly true one, without duplicity of disposition and act. Comp. Rom 12:8; 2Co 8:2; 2Co 9:11; Jam 1:5. In Philo joined with ἀκακία. See Loesner, Obss. p. 262. Oecumenius well observes: ἔνι γὰρ καὶ μετὰ φόβου κ. τρόμου δουλεύειν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐξ εὐνοίας ἀλλὰ κακούργως.
ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ] as to Christ, so that you regard your obedience to your masters as rendered to Christ (comp. Eph 5:22). See Eph 6:6. An allusion to reward (Theodoret) is imported.
[295] The reforming efficacy of the gospel addresses itself to knowledge and feeling, out of which, and so out of the inner life of faith, the alterations of the outward forms and relations of life gradually take shape with moral necessity by way of consequence; as history, too, has shown, which, when it has developed itself in a revolutionary manner, has either violently precipitated, or forsaken, or inverted that course, or else in its necessary development has encountered such hindrances as disowned the influence of this necessary development, and yet could not arrest it. “Civitates malis studiis malis que doctrinis repente evertuntur,” Cic. Leg. ii. 15. 39. It is not, however, to be overlooked that by the apostle’s mode of regarding the relation of freedom and slavery which he found existing, the slavery introduced by Christians, the enslaving of free men, the slave trade, etc., are by no means justified-rather are these things impossible, where the knowledge and feeling, that spring from evangelical faith, are the principles which shape the life and the forms assumed by it.
Eph 6:6-7. The ἐν ἁπλότητι … Χριστῷ just spoken of is now more precisely described.
μὴ κατʼ ὀφθαλμ. ὡς ἀνθρ.] not after an eye-serving manner as men-pleasers. The word ὀφθαλμοδουλεία occurs nowhere else than here and Col 3:3, but its meaning is, from its composition, clear. Comp. ὀφθαλμόδουλος in the Constitt. Apost. iv. 12. 2. It is the service which is rendered to the eyes of the master, but in which the aim is merely to acquire the semblance of fidelity, inasmuch as one makes himself thus noticeable when seen by the master, but is in reality not such, acting, on the contrary, otherwise when his back is turned. Theodoret: τὴν οὐκ ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας προσφερομένην θεραπείαν, ἀλλὰ τῷ σχήματι κεχρωσμένην.
ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι] Comp. Psa 53:5; Psalt. Sal. iv. 8. 10, in Fabric. Cod. Pseud, i. p. 929; and see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 621. The men whom such slaves endeavour to please are just their masters, and the fault of this behaviour lies in the fact that such endeavour is not conditioned by the higher point of view of serving Christ and doing the will of God, but has as its aim simply human approbation. Even of slaves Mat 6:24 holds good. Comp. Gal 1:10.
ἀλλʼ ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ, ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς] but as slaves of Christ, in that ye do the will of God from the heart. The contrast lies in δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ (comp. Eph 6:7), and ποιοῦντες κ.τ.λ. is a modal definition of this their service, whereupon there follows in Eph 6:7 yet a second modal definition. Now to be a slave of Christ and not to do the will of God, and that indeed ex animo (from a genuine impulse of the soul), would be a contradiction, seeing that God is the Father of Christ, has sent Christ, and is the Head of Christ (1Co 11:3; 1Co 3:23). According to Rückert, ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ is subordinate, and ποιοῦντες τ. θέλ. τ. Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς forms the contrast: “but doing as Christ’s servants the will of God from the heart.” But after ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, comp. with Eph 6:5, this subordination of ὡς δοῦλοι Χρ. is altogether arbitrary and opposed to the context. ἐκ ψυχῆς is no doubt attached to what follows by Syriac, Chrysostom, Jerome, Bengel, Koppe, Knapp, Lachmann, Harless, de Wette; but μετʼ εὐνοίας (comp. Xen. Oec. xii. 5. 7), since it expresses the well-meaning disposition, already in fact includes in itself the sense of ἐκ ψυχῆς (ex animi sententia, Col 3:23; Mar 12:30; Mar 12:33; Luk 10:27; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 6. 3; Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 43; Nicarch. epigr. 2; Theocr. Idyll, iii. 35); and it is arbitrary to assume, with Harless, that ἐκ ψ. expresses the relation of the true servant to his service, and μετʼ εὐνοίας his relation to his master.
ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ] sc. δουλεύοντες, as to the Lord, the true mode of regarding his service as rendered to Christ.
καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρ.] Comp. on Gal 1:1.
Eph 6:8. Εἰδότες] Incitement to the mode of service demanded, Eph 6:5-7 : since ye know that whatever good thing each one shall have done, he shall bear off this (the good done) from the Lord, whether he be slave or free.
ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος] ἐάν in the relative clause with the subjunctive instead of ἄν (Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 63 [E. T. 72]), and τί separated from ὅς, as in Plato, Legg. ix. p. 864 E: ἣν ἄν τινα καταβλάψῃ, Lys. p. 160: ὃς ἄν τις ὑμᾶς εὖ ποιῇ.
τοῦτο κομ.] Expression of entirely adequate recompense. See on 2Co 5:10.
παρὰ κυρίου] from Christ, at the judgment.
εἴτε δοῦλος, εἴτε ἐλεύθ.] ἔδειξε τῷ παρόντι βίῳ πεπωρισμένην τὴν δουλείαν καὶ δεσποτείαν, μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐκδημίαν οὐκ ἔτι δουλείας καὶ δεσποτείας, ἀλλʼ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας ἐσομένην διαφοράν, Theodoret. It is evident, we may add, from our passage that Paul did not think of a ceasing of slavery among Christians before the Parousia,-a view which was very naturally connected with the conception of the nearness of the latter, which did not admit of his looking forth upon the development of centuries.
τὰ αὐτά] the same. The master, namely, who treats his servants μετʼ εὐνοίας, does essentially (measured by the disposition as the inner essence of the act) the same thing towards the slaves as the slave serving μετʼ εὐνοίας does towards his master.
ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλ.] Negative modal definition of the τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς, especially to be laid to heart in the circumstances by the masters. By ἀνιέντες may be denoted either the abating, or the entire leaving off, giving up, of the threatening. In the former sense (Wis 16:24) it has been taken by Erasmus (“minus feroces minusque minabundi”), Vatablus, Zeger; but certainly the latter sense alone (comp. Thucyd. iii. 10. Ephesians 2 : ἔχθραν ἀνιέντας) is appropriate to the τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε; especially as τὴν ἀπειλήν (with the article) denotes not threatening in general, but the threatening, namely, “quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet” (Erasmus, Paraphr.).
εἰδότες] specifying a motive, as in Eph 6:8. Comp. Col 4:1; Barnab. 19; Constitt, ap. vii. 13. Inasmuch, namely, as they know that He, who is Lord as well of the slaves as of the masters (καὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν, see the critical remarks), is in heaven (the exalted Christ), and with Him is no partiality, so that He gives to the master as such no preference over the slave as such: how should they not cease to comport themselves with their threatening, as though Christ were not the Lord of both in heaven-in heaven, whence at the judgment He will, without partiality, alike sustain the injured rights of the slaves, and punish the unchristian threatening of the masters, which, instead of operating by moral means, only terrifies by rude authority. Comp. Seneca, Thyest. 607:
“Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae
Jus dedit magnum necis atque vitae
Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus.
Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit,
Major hoc vobis dominus minatur;
Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.”
As to the notion of προσωποληψία, see on Gal 2:6.
Eph 6:10.[296] After this special table of domestic duties laid down since v. 21, now follows, in a full energetic effusion down to Eph 6:20, a general final exhortation, winding up the whole paraenetic portion of the Epistle (Eph 4:1 ff.).
τὸ λοιπόν] as concerns the rest, namely, what you have still to do in addition to what has been hitherto mentioned. Comp. 2Co 13:11; Php 3:1; Php 4:8; 1Th 4:1; 2Th 3:1.
ἐνδυναμοῦσθε ἐν κυρίῳ] denotes the Christian strengthening, which cannot subsist outside of Christ, but only in Him as the life-element of the Christian (Php 4:13). As to ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι, to become strong, gain strength, which is not a middle (“corroborate vos,” Piscator), see on Rom 4:20.
καὶ ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ] and by means of the might of His strength, which might, namely, must produce the strengthening in you. As to the respective notions, see on Eph 1:19. The καί is not explicative, but annexes to the element, in which the strengthening is to take place, the effective principle of it (2Co 12:9). “Domini virtus nostra est,” Bengel.
[296] On vv. 10-17, see Winzer, Leipz. Pfingstprogramm, 1840.
Eph 6:11. What they are to do in order to become thus strong, in connection with which the figurative discourse represents the readers as warriors (comp. 2Co 10:4; 1Th 5:8; Rom 6:13; Rom 6:23; Rom 13:12; 1Ti 1:18; 1Ti 6:12; 2Ti 4:7). The more familiar, however, this figure was to the apostle, the more freely and independently is it here carried out, although (comp. on τοῦ σωτηρίου, Eph 6:17) a reminiscence of Isa 59:17 (comp. Wis 5:17 ff., and thereon Grimm, Handb. p. 119 f.) underlies it.[297]
τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ] τὴν πανοπλ. has the emphasis. In the very fact that not merely single pieces of the armour (Luther: harness), but the whole armour of God is put on (“ne quid nobis desit,” Calvin), resides the capacity of resistance to the devil. If τοῦ Θεοῦ had the emphasis (Harless), there must have been a contrast to other spiritual weapons (for that no material, actual weapons were meant, was self-evident). Rightly, therefore, have most expositors kept by the literal meaning of πανοπλία, complete suit of armour of the heavy-armed soldier, ὁπλίτης (see Herod, i. 60; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 796 B; Bos, Exercitt. p. 192; Ottii Spicileg. p. 409); and the assertion (recently by Harless) that it here is equivalent generally to armatura (Vulgate, which was justly censured by Beza), is arbitrary and contrary to linguistic usage; even in Jdt 14:3, 2Ma 3:25, the notion of the complete equipment is to be adhered to.[298] According to Polybius, vi. 23. 2 ff., there belong to the Roman ΠΑΝΟΠΛΊΑ shield, sword, greaves, spear, breastplate, helmet. But the circumstance that in the detailed carrying out of the figure, Eph 6:13 ff., not all these parts are mentioned (the spear is wanting), and withal some portions are brought in (girdle, military sandals) which did not belong exclusively to the equipment of the heavy-armed soldier, but to military equipment in general, can, least of all in the case of Paul, occasion surprise or betray a special set purpose. Whether, we may add, the apostle thought of a Jewish or a Roman warrior is, doubtless, substantially in itself a matter of indifference, since the kinds of armour in the two cases were in general the same (see Keil, Arch. § 158); but the latter supposition is the most natural, inasmuch as the Roman soldiery wielded the power in all the provinces, Paul himself was surrounded by Roman soldiery, and for most Gentile readers in a non-Jewish province the term πανοπλία could not but call up the thought of the Roman soldier. Even though Paul had, as we must suppose, the recollection of Isa 59:17 when he was employing such figurative language, this did not prevent his transferring the prophetic reminiscence to the conception of a Roman warrior (in opposition to Harless).
τοῦ Θεοῦ] genitivus auctoris: the πανοπλία, which comes from God, which God furnishes. Sense without the figure: “appropriate to yourselves all the means of defence and offence which God bestows, in order to be in a position to withstand the machinations of the devil.”
στῆναι πρός] stand one’s ground against; a military expression in keeping with the figure. See Kypke, II. p. 301. Comp. Thucyd. v. 104, and Poppo’s note thereon. The same thing is implied by στῆναι, with the dative, Hom. Il. xxi. 600. Comp. ἀντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ, Jam 4:7.
ΤᾺς ΜΕΘΟΔ.] See on Eph 4:14. The plural denotes the concrete manifestations, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 11. Luther aptly renders: the wily assaults.
τοῦ διαβόλου] “principis hostium, qui Eph 6:12 ostenduntur,” Bengel.
[297] According to de Wette, we have here “a playful imitation in detail of 1Th 5:8, in which use is made of Isa 59:17 (perhaps also of Wis 5:17 ff.).” An unwarranted judgment, inasmuch as Paul himself could here carry out more comprehensively his figure elsewhere thrown out in only a few outlines, and this he has done worthily and without attempt at play. An imitator, on the other hand, would here have assigned no other signification to the pieces of armour mentioned 1Th 5:3 than they bear in that place.
[298] Of the manner in which Paul himself wore and wielded the πανοπλία τοῦ Θεοῦ, his whole labours and each one of his Epistles afford the most brilliant evidence; the latter especially in such outbursts as Rom 8:31 ff.; 2Co 4:4 ff., 2Co 4:11; 2Co 4:13 ff. Comp. also 2Co 10:4 f.
Eph 6:12. I am warranted in saying πρὸς τὰς μεθοδ. τοῦ διαβόλου; for we have not the wrestling with feeble men, but we have to contend with the diabolic powers. This contrast Paul expresses descriptively, and with what rhetorical power and swelling fulness! Observe, moreover, that the conflict to which Paul here refers is, according to Eph 6:13, still future; but it is by ἔστιν realized as present.
οὐκ … ἀλλά] The negation is not non tam, or non tantum (Cajetanus, Vatablus, Grotius, and others), but absolute (Winer, p. 439 ff. [E. T. 622]); since the conflict on the part of our opponents is one excited and waged not by men, but by the devilish powers (though these make use of men too as organs of their hostility to the kingdom of God).[299]
ἡ πάλη] The article denotes generically the kind of conflict, which does not take place in the case of the Christians (ἡμῖν); they have not the wrestling with blood and flesh. Nothing else, namely, than lucta, a wrestling, is the meaning of the πάλη (Hom. Il. xxiii. 635, 700 ff.; Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 27; Plat. Legg. vii. 795 D; and Ast, ad Legg. p. 378), a word occurring only here in the N.T., and evidently one specially chosen by the apostle (who elsewhere employs ἀγών or ΜΆΧΗ), with the view of bringing out the more strongly in connection with ΠΡῸς ΑἿΜΑ ΚΑῚ ΣΆΡΚ. the contrast between this less perilous form of contest and that which follows. Now, as the notion of the ΠΆΛΗ is not appropriate to the actual conflict of the Christians ΠΡῸς ΤᾺς ἈΡΧΆς Κ.Τ.Λ., because it is not in keeping either with the ΠΑΝΟΠΛΊΑ in general or with its several constituent parts afterwards mentioned Eph 6:14 ff., but serves only to express what the Christian conflict is not; after ἀλλά we have not mentally to supply again Ἡ ΠΆΛΗ, but rather the general notion of kindred signification ἡ μάχη, or ΜΑΧΕΤΈΟΝ,[300] as frequently with Greek writers (see Döderlein, de brachyl. in his Reden u. Aufs. ii. p. 269 ff. Krüger, Regist. zu Thucyd., p. 318), and in the N.T. (Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 336 [E. T. 392]) we have to derive from a preceding special notion an analogous more general one. What we have to sustain, Paul would say, is not the (less perilous) wrestling contest with blood and flesh, but we have to contend with the powers and authorities, etc. We have accordingly neither to say that with πάλη Paul only lighted in passing on another metaphor (my own former view), nor to suppose (the usual opinion) that he employed πάλη in the general sense of certamen, which, however, is only done in isolated poetic passages (Lycophr. 124, 1358), and hence we have the less reason to overlook the designed choice of the expression in our passage, or to depart from its proper signification.
πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα] i.e. against feeble men, just as Gal 1:16. Only here and Heb 2:14 (Lachmann, Tischendorf) does αἷμα stand first, which, however, is to be regarded as accidental. Matthies (so already Prudentius, Jerome, Cajetanus) understands the lusts and desires having their root in one’s own sensuous individuality; but this idea must have been expressed by πρὸς τὴν σάρκα alone without αἷμα (Gal 5:17; Gal 5:24, al.), and is, moreover, at variance with the context, since the contrast is not with enemies outside of us, but with superhuman and superterrestrial enemies.
πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς] This, as well as the following πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, designates the demons, and that according to their classes (analogous to the classes of angels),[301] of which the ἀρχαί seem to be of higher rank than the ἐξουσίαι (see on Eph 1:21), in which designation there is at the same time given the token of their power, and this their power is then in the two following clauses (πρὸς τοὺς … ἐπουρανίοις) characterized with regard to its sphere and to its ethical quality.[302] The exploded views, according to which human potentates of different kinds were supposed to be denoted by ἀρχ., ἐξουσ. κ.τ.λ., may be seen in Wolf.
πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτ. τοῦ σκότ. τούτου] i.e. against the rulers of the world, whose domain is the present darkness. The σκότος τοῦτο is the existing, present darkness, which, namely, is characteristic of the αἰὼν οὗτος, and from which only believers are delivered, inasmuch as they have become φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ, τέκνα τοῦ φωτός (Eph 4:8-9), being translated out of the domain opposed to divine truth into the possession of the same, and thus becoming themselves ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ (Php 2:15). The reading τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου is a correct gloss. This pre-Messianic darkness is the element adverse to God, in which the sway of the world-ruling demons has its essence and operation, and without which their dominion would not take place. The devils are called κοσμοκράτορες (comp. Orph. H. viii. 11, xi. 11), because their dominion extends over the whole world, inasmuch as all men (the believers alone excepted, Eph 2:2) are subject to them. Thus Satan is called ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 2Co 4:4, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, Joh 12:31; Joh 16:11 (comp. Joh 14:30), and of the world it is said that ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ Πονηρῷ κεῖται, 1Jn 5:19. The Rabbins, too, adopted the word קזמוקרטור, and employed it sometimes of kings, while they also say of the angel of death that God has made him κοσμοκράτωρ. See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 790; Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud, p. 2006 f.; Wetstein, p. 259. Later also the Gnostics called the devil by this name (Iren. i. 1), and in the Testamentum Salomonis (Fabricius, Pseudepigr. i. p. 1047) the demons say to Solomon: ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα, οἱ κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. The opinion that the compound has been weakened into the general signification rulers (Harless) is not susceptible of proof, and not to be supported by such Rabbinical passages as Bresh. rabba, sect. 58 f., 57. Ephesians 1 : “Abrahamus persecutus quatuor κοσμοκράτορας,” where κοσμοκράτ. denotes the category of the kings, and this chosen designation has the aim of glorifying. See also, in opposition to this alleged weakening, Shir. R. 3, Ephesians 4 : “Tres reges κοσμοκράτορες: dominantes ab extremitate mundi ad extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnezar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar.”
ΠΡῸς ΤᾺ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚᾺ Τῆς ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑς] against the spirit-hosts of wickedness. The adjective neuter, singular or plural, is collective, comprehending the beings in question according to their qualitative category as a corporate body, like τὸ πολιτικόν, the burgess-body (Herod. vii. 103); τὸ ἱππικόν, the cavalry (Rev 9:16); τὰ ληστρικά, the robbers (Polyaen. v. 14, 141), τὰ δοῦλα, τὰ αἰχμάλωτα κ.τ.λ. See Bernhardy, p. 326. Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 299], correctly compares τὰ δαιμόνια according to its original adjectival nature.
Τῆς ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑς] genitivus qualitatis, characterizing the spirit-hosts meant; ἐπειδὴ γάρ εἰσι καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι πνεύματα, προσέθηκε τῆς πονηρίας, Theodoret. Moral wickedness is their essential quality; hence the devil is pre-eminently ὁ πονηρός. The explanation spirituales nequitias (Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Clarius, Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and others) is impossible, since, if ΤᾺ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΆ expressed the quality substantively and raised it to the position of subject (see Matthiae, p. 994; Kühner, II. p. 122), we should have to analyse it as: the spiritual nature, or the spiritual part, the spiritual side of wickedness, all of which are unsuitable to the context.
ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἘΠΟΥΡΑΝΊΟΙς] Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Castalio, Camerarius, Heinsius, Clarius, Calovius, Glass, Witsius, Wolf, Morus, Flatt, and others incorrectly render: for the heavenly possessions, so that it would indicate the object of the conflict, and ἐν would stand for ὑπέρ or διά. Against this view we may urge not the order of the words, since in fact this element pushed on to the end would be brought out with emphasis (Kühner, II. p. 625), but certainly the ἘΝ, which does not mean on account of,[303] and τὰ ἐπουράνια, which in our Epistle is always meant in a local sense (see on Eph 1:3). The view of Matthies is also incorrect, that it denotes the place where of the conflict: “in the kingdom of heaven, in which the Christians, as received into that kingdom, are also constantly contending against the enemies of God.” τὰ ἐπουράνια does not signify the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Matthies, but the heavenly regions, heaven. Rückert, too, is incorrect, who likewise understands the place where of the conflict, holding that the contest is to be sustained, as not with flesh and blood, so also not upon the same solid ground, but away in the air, and is thus most strictly mars iniquus. Apart from the oddness of this thought, according to it the contrast would in fact be one not of terrestrial and superterrestrial locality, but of solid ground and baseless air, so that Paul in employing ἐν τοῖς ἐπουραν. would have selected a quite inappropriate designation, and must have said ἐν τῷ ἀέρι. Baumgarten-Crusius gives us the choice between two incorrect interpretations: the kingdom of spirits, to which the kingdom of Christ too belongs, or the affairs of that kingdom. The correct connection is with τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, so that it expresses the seat of the evil spirits. So Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Vatablus, Estius, Grotius, Erasmus Schmid, Bengel, Koppe, and many, including Usteri, Meier, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek. This “in the heavenly regions” is not, however, in accordance with the context, to be understood of the abode of God, of Christ, and of the angels (Eph 3:10);[304] but, according to the popular view (comp. Mat 6:26)-in virtue of the flexible character of the conception “heaven,” which embraces very different degrees of height (compare the conception of the seven heavens, 2Co 12:2)-of the superterrestrial regions, which, although still pertaining to the domain of the earth’s atmosphere, yet relatively appear as heaven, so that in substance τὰ ἐπουράνια here denotes the same as ὁ ἀήρ, by which at Eph 2:2 the domain of the Satanic kingdom is accurately and properly designated.[305] This passage serves as a guide to the import of ours, which is wrongly denied by Hahn (Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 336 f.) on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of ἀήρ, Eph 2:2. According to the Rabbins, too, the lower of the seven heavens still fall within the region of the atmosphere. See Wetstein, ad 2Co 12:2. And the reason why Paul does not here say ἐν τῷ ἀέρι is, that he wishes to bring out as strongly as possible the superhuman and superterrestrial nature of the hostile spirits, for which purpose to name the air as the place of their dwelling might be less appropriate than to speak of the heavenly regions, an expression which entirely accords with the lively colouring of his picture.[306] Semler and Storr, ignoring this significant bearing and suitableness of the expression, have arbitrarily imported a formerly, as though the previous abode of the demons had any connection with the matter! Schenkel has even imported the irony of a paradox, which has the design of making the assumption of divine power and glory on the part of the demons ridiculous, as though anything of the sort were at all in keeping with the whole profound seriousness of our passage, or could have been recognised by any reader whatever! Hofmann finally (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 455) has, after a rationalizing fashion, transformed the simple direct statement of place into the thought: “not limited to this or that locality of the earthly world, but overruling the same, as the heavens encircle the earth.” The thought of this turn so easily made Paul would have known how to express-even though he had but said: τὰ ὄντα ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, or more clearly: τὰ ὄντα πανταχοῦ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν. The absence of a connective article is not at all opposed to our interpretation, since τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις might the more be combined into one idea, as it was the counterpart of such spirits upon earth. Comp. τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, 1Ti 6:17, and see on Eph 2:11, Eph 3:10.
The πρός, four times occurring after ἀλλά, has rhetorical emphasis, as it needed to be used but once. Comp. Dem. 842, 7: πρὸς παίδων, πρὸς γυναικῶν, πρὸς τῶν ὄντων ὑμῖν ἀγαθῶν, Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 524]; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 341 [E. T. 398].
As at Eph 2:2, so here also, Gnosticism is found by Baur in expression and conception, because, forsooth, Marcion and the Valentinians designated the devil as the κοσμοκράτωρ, and the demoniac powers as τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας (Iren. i. 5. 4, i. 28. 2). This is the inverting method of critical procedure.
[299] Comp. already Augustine, De verbo Dom. 8: “Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, i.e. adversus homines, quos videtis saevire in nos. Vasa sunt, alius utitur; organa sunt, alius tangit.”
[301] “As every kingdom as such is inwardly organised, so also is the kingdom of the evil spirits,” Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 347.
[302] Observe how in our passage every word rises up as a witness against all attempts to make of the devil a mere abstraction, a personified cosmic principle, and the like. Beyschlag too, Christol. d. N.T. p. 244 f., contests, without, however, at the time entering into a detailed argument, the personality of Satan, as of the world of angels and spirits in general, and regards him as the vital principle of matter, the self-seeking of nature, etc.
[303] Where it is rendered so according to the approximate sense, the analysis follows another course. See on Mat 6:7; Joh 16:30; Act 7:29; 2Co 9:4.
[304] In opposition to Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 345.
[305] Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. III. p. 309 f. Prudentius has already, Hamartigenia, S13 ff., in a poetic paraphrase of our passage, correctly apprehended the meaning:-
[306] Entirely uncalled for, therefore, and less in keeping with the colouring of the passage, would be the alteration already discussed in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 94, whereby, namely, τίνες had changed the ἐπουρανίοις into ὑπουρανίοις-a conjecture approved by Erasmus, Beza, and Grundling (in Wolf). Luther, who translates “under the heaven,” probably did so, not as taking ἐν for ὑπό,-like Alting subsequently (in Wolf),-but by way of explanation. Already in Homer οὐρανός is, as is well known, employed of the higher region of air (under the firmament). See Nägelsbach, Hom. Theol. p. 19.
“Sed cum spiritibus tenebrosis nocte dieque
Congredimur, quorum dominatibus humidus iste
Et pigris densus nebulis obtemperat aër.
Scilicet hoc medium coelum inter et infima terrae,
Quod patet ac vacuo nubes suspendit hiatu,
Frena potestatum variarum sustinet ac sub
Principe Belial rectoribus horret iniquis.
His conluctamur praedonibus, ut sacra nobis
Oris apostolici testis sententia prodit.”
Comp. Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 144.
According to Ascens. Isaiah 10, it is the Jirmamentum, in which the devil dwells.
Eph 6:13. Διὰ τοῦτο] because we have to fight against these powers.
ἀναλάβετε] the usual word for the taking up of armour. See Kypke and Wetstein. The opposite: κατατίθημι.
ἀντιστῆναι] namely, the assaults of the demons.
ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ πονηρᾷ] The evil day means here, according to the context, neither the present life (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, who at the same time believed βραχὺν τὸν τοῦ πολεμοῦ καιρόν to be hinted at), nor the day of death (Erasmus Schmid), nor the day of judgment (Jerome); nor yet, as most expositors suppose, in general the day of conflict and of peril, which the devil prepares for us (so also Rückert, Harless, Matthies, Meier, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek), for every day was such, whereas the evil day here manifestly appears as a peculiar and still future day, for the conflict of which the readers were to arm themselves. Hence also not: every day, on which the devil has special power (Bengel, Zachariae, Olshausen); but the emphatic designation ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ πονηρά could suggest to the reader only a single, κατʼ ἐξοχήν morally evil, day well known to him, and that is the day in which the Satanic power (ὁ Πονηρός) puts forth its last and greatest outbreak, which last outbreak of the anti-Christian kingdom Paul expected shortly before the Parousia (see Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 348 ff.). Comp. also the ἐνεστὼς αἰὼν πονηρός, Gal 1:4, and the remark thereon.
καὶ ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι στῆναι] This στῆναι corresponds to the preceding ἀντιστῆναι, of which it is the result; and in the midst, between ἀντιστῆναι and στῆναι, lies ἅπαντα κατεργασ.: “to withstand in the evil day, and, after you shall have accomplished all things, to stand.” The latter expression is the designation of the victor, who, after the fight is finished, is not laid prostrate, or put to flight, but stands. Comp. Xen. Anab. i. 10. 1. What is meant by ἅπαντα, is necessarily yielded by the connection, namely, everything which belongs to the conflict in question, the whole work of the combat in all its parts and actions. The κατεργάζεσθαι retains its ordinary signification peragere, conficere, consummare (comp. van Hengel, ad Rom. I. p. 205), and is not, with Oecumenius, Theophylact, Camerarius, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Kypke, Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, and others, to be taken in the sense of debellare, overpower, in which sense it is, like the German abthun and niedermachen and the Latin conficere, usual enough (see Kypke, II. p. 301), but is never so employed by Paul-frequently as the word occurs with him-or elsewhere in the N.T., and here would only be required by the text, if ἅπαντας were the reading.[307] De Wette objects to our interpretation as being tame. This, however, it is not, and the less so, because κατεργάζεσθαι is the characteristic word for a great and difficult work (Herod. v. 24; Plato, Legg. iii. p. 686 E, al.; and see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 107), and ἅπαντα also is purposely chosen (all without exception; see Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 339). To be rejected also is the construction of Erasmus, Beza (who proposes this explanation alongside of the rendering prostratis, and is inclined to regard it as the better one), Calixtus, Morus, Rosenmüller, and others: “omnibus rebus probe comparatis ad pugnam” (Bengel). This would be παρασκευασάμενοι (1Co 14:8), and what a redundant thought would thus result, especially since ΣΤῆΝΑΙ would then be not at all different from ἈΝΤΙΣΤῆΝΑΙ! Lastly, the translation of the Vulgate, which is best attested critically: in omnibus perfecti (comp. Lucifer, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius), is not to be regarded, with Estius, as the sense of our reading, but expresses the reading κατειργασμένοι, which is, moreover, to be found in a vitiated form (ΚΑΤΕΡΓΑΣΜΈΝΟΙ) in codex A. Erasmus conjectured a corruption of the Latin codices.
[307] Koppe felt this, hence he viewed ἅπαντα as masculine, in accordance with Kypke’s proposal! Even in those passages which Kypke adduces for κατεργάζεσθαι πάντα, instead of κατεργ. πάντας, πάντα is to be left in the neuter sense, and κατεργ. is to complete, to execute. Freely, but correctly in accordance with the sense, Luther renders: “that ye may perform all well, and keep the field.”
Eph 6:14. In what manner they accordingly, clad conformably to the preceding requirement in the πανοπλία τοῦ Θεοῦ, are to stand forth.
στῆτε] is not again, like the preceding στῆναι, the standing of the victor, but the standing forth of the man ready for the combat. Besides Isa 59:17, Wis 5:17 ff., see also Rabbinical passages for the figurative reference of particular weapons to the means of spiritual conflict, in Schoettgen, Horae, p. 791 f.
περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφύν] having your loins girt about. Comp. Isa 11:5. For the singular τ. ὀσφ., comp. Eur. Electr. 454: ταχυπόρος πόδα, and see Elmsley, ad Eur. Med. 1077. The girdle or belt (ζωστήρ, covering the loins and the part of the body below the breastplate, also called ζώνη, Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 177, not to be confounded with ζῶμα, the lower part of the coat of mail) is first mentioned by the apostle, because to have put on this was the first and most essential requirement of the warrior standing armed ready for the fight; to speak of a well-equipped warrior without a girdle is a contradictio in adjecto, for it was just the girdle which produced the free bearing and movement and the necessary attitude of the warrior. Hence it is not to be assumed, with Harless, that Paul thought of the girdle as an ornament. Comp. 1Pe 1:13.
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ] instrumental. With truth they are to be girt about, i.e. truth is to be their girdle. Comp. Isa 11:5. As for the actual warrior the whole aptus habitus for the combat (this is the tertium comparationis) would be wanting in the absence of the girdle; so also for the spiritual warrior, if he is not furnished with truth. From this it is at once clear that ἀλήθεια is not to be taken objectively, of the gospel, which, on the contrary, is only designated later, Eph 6:17, by ῥῆμα Θεοῦ; but subjectively, of truth as inward property, i.e. harmony of knowledge with the objective truth given in the gospel. The explanation sincerity (Calvin, Boyd, Estius, Olshausen, Bisping, and others) is, as expressive only of a single virtue, according to the context too narrow (compare the following δικαιοσύνη, πίστις κ.τ.λ.), and the notion, moreover, would merge into that of the following δικαιοσύνη, an objection which applies likewise to the explanation Christian integrity (Morus, Winzer).
τὴν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσ.] Genitivus appositionis; comp. 1Th 5:8; Wis 5:19; Soph. O. R. 170: φροντίδος ἔγχος. As the actual warrior has protected the breast, when he “θώρηκα περὶ στήθεσσιν ἔδυνεν” (Hom. Il. iii. 332), so with you δικαιοσύνη is to be that, which renders your breast (heart and will) inaccessible to the hostile influences of the demons. δικαιοσύνη is here Christian moral rectitude (Rom 6:13), inasmuch as, justified through faith, we are dead to sin and live ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς (Rom 6:4). Harless and Winzer understand the righteousness by faith, by which, however, inasmuch as this righteousness is given with faith, the θυρεὸς τῆς πίστεως, subsequently singled out quite specially, is anticipated. As previously the intellectual rectitude of the Christian was denoted by ἀλήθεια, so here his moral rectitude by δικαιοσύνη.
Eph 6:15. And the service which the ὑποδήματα, the military sandals, Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 14 [Josephus, B. J. vi. 1. 8] (caligae, compare the Heb. סְאוֹן, Isa 9:4; see Gesenius, Thes. II. 932; Bynaeus, de calc. Hebr. p. 83 f.), render to the actual warrior, enabling him, namely, to advance against the enemy with agile and sure step, the ἑτοιμασία τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς εἰρήνης is to render to you spiritual warriors, inasmuch as by virtue of it you march briskly and firmly against the Satanic powers.
ὑποδησάμενοι κ.τ.λ.] having your feet underbound with the preparedness of the gospel of peace. ἐν does not stand for εἰς (Vulgate, Erasmus, Vatablus, and others), but is instrumental, as in Eph 6:14, so that the ἑτοιμασία is conceived of as the foot-clothing itself. Beza well remarks: “non enim vult nos docere dumtaxat, oportere nos esse calceatos, sed calceos etiam, ut ita loquar, nobis praebet.”
ἑτοιμασία (with classical writers ἑτοιμότης, Dem. 1268, 7, but see also Hippocr. p. 24, 47) is preparedness,[308] whether it be an outward standing ready (Josephus, Antt. x. 1. Ephesians 2 : δισχιλίους ἐκ τῆς ἐμοὶ παρούσης ἵππους εἰς ἑτοιμασίαν ὑμῖν παρέχειν ἕτοιμος εἰμι), or an inward being ready, promptitudo animi. So LXX. Psa 10:17, comp. ἑτοίμη ἡ καρδία, Psa 57:7; Psa 112:7, where the LXX. indicate the notion of a prepared mind, which is expressed in Hebrew by forms of the stem כּוּן, by the use of ἑτοιμασία and ἕτοιμος, following the signification of making ready, adjusting, which כּוּן has in all the conjugations of it which occur (Deu 32:6; Psa 8:4; Gen 43:16; Pro 19:29; Neh 8:10; Psa 14:5), alongside of the signification of laying down, establishing, from which the former one is derived. Hence the LXX. translate מָכוֹן too (foundation, as Psa 89:15) by ἑτοιμασία; not as though in their usage ἑτοιμασία signified foundation, which it never does, but because they understood מָכוֹן in the sense of ἑτοιμασία. So Ezr 2:68, where the house of God is to be erected upon τὴν ἑτοιμασίαν αὐτοῦ, upon the preparation thereof, i.e. upon the foundation already lying prepared. So also Ezr 3:3; Psa 89:15; Dan 11:20-21. Wrongly, therefore, have Wolf (after the older expositors), Bengel, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Bleek, and others, explained ἑτοιμασία by fundamentum or firmitas; so that Paul is supposed to indicate “vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem adeo ipsam, certam illam quidem et fundamento, cui insistere possis, similem,” Koppe. This is not only contrary to linguistic usage (see above), but also opposed to the context, since the notion does not suit the figurative conception of putting on shoes (ὑποδησάμ.). It is the readiness, the ready mind; not, however, for the proclamation of the gospel (so, in some instances with a reference to Isa 52:7, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Erasmus Schmid, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, Calixtus, Michaelis, and others, including Rückert, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius),-since, in fact, Paul is speaking to fellow-Christians, not to fellow-teachers,-but the promptitudo-and that for the conflict in question-which the gospel bestows, which is produced by means of it. So Oecumenius (who has this interpretation alongside the former one), Calvin, Castalio, and others, including Matthies, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, Winzer, de Wette, Schenkel. The explanation of Schleusner: “instar pedum armaturae sit vobis doctrina salutaris … quae vobis semper in promptu sit,” is to be rejected on account of Eph 6:17, according to which the gospel is the sword.
τῆς εἰρήνης] Subject-matter of the gospel, and that purposely designated in harmony with the context. For the gospel proclaims peace κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. peace with God, Rom 5:1, Php 1:20, and produces precisely thereby the inner consecration of courageous readiness for the conflict in question (Rom 8:31; Rom 8:38-39). At variance with the context, Erasmus, Paraphr., makes it: “evangelium, quod non tumultu, sed tolerantia tranquillitateque defenditur;” and Michaelis holds: the peace between Jews and Gentiles is meant. If, however, it is taken, with Koppe and Morus, in accordance with the more extended sense of שָׁלוֹם (comp. Rom 10:15), the salvation-bringing (rather: the salvation-proclaiming, comp. Eph 1:13) gospel, this is done without any justification from the text, and to the injury of the special colouring of the several particulars. Winzer, finally, contrary to the unity of the sense, combines peace with God and everlasting salvation.
[308] In Wis 13:12 it means making ready (food). The Vulg. translates it in our passage in praeparatione (comp. Artemid. ii. 57).
Eph 6:16. Ἐπὶ πᾶσιν] not: before all things (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, and others), but: in addition to all. Comp. Luk 3:20; Polyb. vi. 23. 12: ἐπὶ δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις προσεπικοσμοῦνται πτερίνῳ στεφάνῳ. See Wetstein, ad Luc. xvi. 26; Matthiae, p. 1371. By the three pieces previously mentioned, Eph 6:14-15 (which were all made fast to the body), the body is clothed upon for warlike purposes; what is still wanting, and must be added to all that has preceded, is shield, helmet, sword, Eph 6:16-17.
τὸν θυρεόν] θυρεός, which Polybius mentions and more fully describes as the first part of the Roman πανοπλία (Eph 6:23; Eph 6:22 ff.), is, with Homer, that which is placed in front of the doorway and blocks the entrance (Od. ix. 240, 313); and only with later writers (Plutarch, Strabo, etc.) is the shield (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 336, and Wetstein, ad loc), and that the scutum, the large shield, 4 feet in length and 2½ feet in width, as distinguished from the small round buckler, clypeus, ἀσπίς. See Lipsius, de milit. Rom. iii. 2, ed. Plant. 1614, p. 106 ff.; Alberti and Kypke in loc.; Ottii Spicileg. p. 409 f. Comp. the Homeric σάκος and the Hebrew צִנָּה. Paul does not say ἀσπίς, because he is representing the Christian warrior as heavy-armed.
τῆς πίστεως] Genitivus appositionis, as τῆς δικαιοσύνης, Eph 6:14. The faith, however, is not the faith of miracles (Chrysostom), but the fides salvifica (Eph 2:8), by which the Christian is assured of the forgiveness of his sins on account of the sacrificial death of Christ, and at the same time is assured of the Messianic blessedness (Eph 1:7, Eph 2:5 ff., Eph 3:12), has the Holy Spirit as the earnest of everlasting life (Eph 1:13-14), and consequently has Christ in the heart (Eph 2:17; Gal 2:20), and as child of God (Eph 1:5; Rom 8:15 f.; Gal 4:5 ff.) under the government of grace (Rom 8:14) belongs so wholly to God (Rom 6:11; comp. 1Jn 3:7 ff.), that he cannot be separated by anything from the love of God towards him (Rom 8:38); and on his part is consecrated only to the service of God (Eph 1:4; Rom 7:4; Rom 7:6; Rom 6:22), and hence through God carries off the victory over the power of Satan opposed to God (Rom 16:20; 2Th 3:3). Only wavering faith is accessible to the devil (2Co 11:3; comp. 1Pe 5:8-9).
ἐν ᾧ] by means of which, i.e. by holding it in front.
δυνήσεσθε] for the conflict in question is future. See on Eph 6:12-13.
τοῦ πονηροῦ] of the morally evil one κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. the devil; 2Th 3:3; Mat 5:37; Mat 6:13; Mat 13:19; Mat 13:38; Joh 17:15; 1Jn 5:19.
τὰ[309] πεπυρωμένα] those set on fire, the burning ones. Comp. Apollod. Bibl. ii. 5. 2; Leo, Tact. xv. 27, ed. Heyn.; also πυρφόροι ὀϊστοί in Thucyd. ii. 75. 4; βέλη πυρφόρα, Diod. xx. 96; Zosim. Hist. p. 256, 2. The malleoli are meant, i.e. arrows tipped with inflammable material (tow, pitch) and shot off after being kindled, which, known also to the Hebrews (see expositors on Psa 7:14), were in use among the Greeks and Romans, and are to be distinguished from the javelins of the same kind (falaricae, see Vegetius, iv. 8). For the description of the malleoli, see Ammian. Marcell. xxiii. 4; and see, in general, Lydius, Agonist. p. 45, de re mil. p. 119, 315; Spanheim, ad Julian. Orat. p. 193. Poisoned arrows (od. i. 260 f.; Virg. Aen. ix. 773; Psa 38:3; Job 6:4; and see Lyd. de re mil. p. 118) are not meant (as supposed by Boyd, Hammond, Bochart), since these are not on fire (πεπυρωμένα), but excite a fire (inflammation). The aim of the predicate, we may add, is to present in strong colours the hostile and destructive character of the Satanic assaults; but more special explanations of its import, such as of the burning desires excited by Satan (Chrysostom, Theophylact; comp. Oecumenius), or of doubts and of the anguish of despair (Boyd), are inappropriate; and the more so, inasmuch as in the whole context the apostle is speaking of diabolic assaults in general, not of particular kinds thereof.
σβέσαι] The shields of the Greeks and Romans were as a rule of wood, with a thick coating of leather (Hom. Il. v. 452; Herod, vii. 91; Polyb. l.c.; Plin. viii. 39; and see, in general, Lipsius, de milit. Rom. iii. 2, p. 109 ff.). So Paul conceives of faith under the figure of such a shield, which not only prevents the missiles from injuring the warrior, but also by reason of its coating brings it about that these do not set on fire the wood of the shield, but must needs be themselves extinguished, so that thus the warrior, by holding the shield in front of him, can quench the fiery arrows.
[309] The article implies that Satan discharges other arrows besides burning ones. See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 6. 1.
Eph 6:17. We have to prefix not a full stop, as is done by Lachmann and Tischendorf, seeing that Eph 6:18 has reference to the whole from στῆτε onward, Eph 6:14-17 (see on Eph 6:18), but only a comma. Paul, namely, passes over from the participial construction into that of the verbum finitum, as at Eph 1:20,-a change to which he was drawn by the increasing vivacity of his figurative conception, which, moreover, induced him now to prefix the object (περικεφαλαίαν and μάχαιραν, Eph 6:17).
In natural sequence he brings forward first the taking of the helmet, and then that of the sword; because the left hand already grasps the shield (Eph 6:16), and thus after the taking of the sword there is no hand free.
τοῦ σωτηρίου] again genitive of apposition. The salvation, i.e. the salvation κατʼ ἐξοχήν the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, of which the Christian is partaker (before the Parousia, as an ideal possession, Rom 8:24[310]), serves, appropriated in his consciousness, to protect him against the assaults of the devil aimed at his everlasting life, like the helmet, which defends the warrior from deadly wounds on the head. As to the Roman helmets, see Lipsius, de milit. Rom. iii. 5, p. 122 ff. For the use of σωτήριον as a substantive, comp. Luk 2:20; Luk 3:6; Act 28:28; frequently met with in the classics and the LXX.; see Schleusner, Thes. sub voce. Neither Christ Himself (Theodoret, Bengel) nor the gospel (Holzhausen) is meant. It is true that the word σωτήριον is not elsewhere used by Paul; but here it is explained as a reminiscence from the LXX. Isa 59:17.
ΔΈΞΑΣΘΕ] receive, namely, from God (Eph 6:13), who offers you this helmet.
τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος] The genitive cannot here be appositional (in opposition to Harless, Olshausen, Schenkel, and older expositors), since there follows the explanation ὅ ἐστι ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, from which it is clear that the sword of the Spirit is not the Spirit itself, but something distinct therefrom, namely, the word of God (comp. Heb 4:12). Comp. also Bleek. If Paul had wished to designate the Spirit itself as sword, the explanation ὅ ἐστι ῥῆμα Θεοῦ would have been inappropriate, inasmuch as the word of God and the Holy Spirit are different things;[311] in Romans, too, πνεῦμα means nothing else than the Holy Spirit. The ΜΆΧΑΙΡΑ ΤΟῦ ΠΝΕΎΜ. is the sword, which the Holy Spirit furnishes (comp. τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Eph 6:11; Eph 6:13), and this sword is the word of God, the gospel (comp. on Eph 5:26), the contents of which the Spirit brings vividly to the consciousness of the Christian, in order that he may defend himself by the divine power of the gospel (Rom 1:16) against the assaults of the diabolic powers, and may vanquish them, as the warrior wards off and vanquishes the enemy with the sword. Limitations of the ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, either to the commandments of God (Flatt), or to the divine threatenings against the enemies of the Christians (Koppe), are as arbitrary and inappropriate as is the explaining τοῦ πνεύματος of the human spirit (Morus, Rosenmüller), or by πνευματικήν (Grotius, Michaelis, and others; comp. already Chrysostom and Erasmus), which, according to Grotius, is to serve “molliendis translationibus,” but yet would have again to be explained by τοῦ πνεύματος in the sense of the Holy Spirit.
ὅ ἐστι] applying, according to the ordinary attraction, to ΤῊΝ ΜΆΧΑΙΡΑΝ. Olshausen, in accordance with his erroneous conception of ΤΟῦ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς, refers it to the latter. So already Basil, contr. Eunom. 11, who proves from our passage that not only the Son, but also the Spirit is the Word!
[310] Hence Paul in 1Th 5:8 says: περικεφαλαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας, which, however, does not justify in our passage the explanation hope of salvation, given to it by Cajetanus, Calvin, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, Grotius, Calixtus, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Meier, Winzer, and others.
[311] It is true Olshausen observes that the Word as to its inner essence is Spirit, as the efflux of God the Spirit. But that is a quid pro quo; for the word would not here be termed Spirit (as Joh 6:63), but the Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit Himself. A like quid pro quo is made by Schenkel, namely, that the word of God is the most adequate expression of the absolute Spirit (Joh 4:24).
REMARK ON Eph 6:14-17.
In the exposition of these several portions of the armour of the spiritual warrior, it is just as unwarrantable to press the comparisons, by pursuing the points of comparison into such particular details as it may please us to select from the various uses of the pieces of armour in question (an error which several of the older expositors committed),-whereby free room is given for the play of subjectivity, and the vivid objective delineation of the apostle’s figure is arbitrarily broken up,-as it is, on the other hand, arbitrary to disregard the differences in the figures derived from military equipment, and to say: “universa potius armorum notio tenenda est” (Winzer, l.c. p. 14; comp. Moras, Rosenmüller, and others). The essential characteristic-the specific main point-whereby the pieces named are distinguished from each other in respect of that for which they serve, must be furnished by the nature of the comparison with the respective means of spiritual conflict; so that Paul must have been conscious why he here designated, e.g., δικαιοσύνη as the breastplate, faith as the shield, etc., namely, inasmuch as he looked at the former really from the point of view of the essential destination of the breastplate, the latter from that of the essential destination of the shield, etc. Otherwise his representation would be a play of figures, of which the separate images, so different in themselves, would have no basis in the conception of what is represented. To this there is nothing opposed in the fact that here δικαιοσύνη appears as the breastplate, while at 1Th 5:8 it is faith and love which so appear; for the figurative mode of regarding the subject can by no means, with a mind so many-sided, rich, and versatile as that of St. Paul, be so stereotyped that the very same thing which he has here viewed under the figure of the protecting breastplate, must have presented itself another time under this very same figure. Thus, e.g., there appears to him, as an offering well-pleasing to God, at one time Christ (Eph 5:2), at another the gifts of love received (Php 4:18), at another time the bodies of Christians (Rom 12:1); under the figure of the seed-corn, at one time the body becoming buried (1Co 15:36 f.), at another time the moral conduct (Gal 6:7); under the figure of the leaven, once moral corruption (1Co 5:6), another time doctrinal corruption (Gal 5:9); under the figure of clothing which is put on, once the new man (Eph 4:24), another time Christ (Gal 3:27), at another time the body (2Co 5:3), and other similar instances.
Eph 6:18. After Paul has, Eph 6:14-17, placed before his readers in what armour they are to stand forth, he shows yet further how this standing ready for the combat must be combined with prayer: “with prayer and entreaty of every kind, praying at each moment in virtue of the Spirit.” These are two parallel specifications of mode, whereof the second more precisely defines the first, and which stand in grammatical and logical connection with στῆτε οὖν, Eph 6:14; not with the intervening δέξασθε, Eph 6:17, which rather is itself subordinate to the στῆτε, and only by a deviation from the construction has come to be expressed in the imperative instead of the participle, wherefore στῆτε οὖν remains the precept ruling the whole description, Eph 6:14-17. Should we join them to δέξασθε, neither πάσης nor ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ would be appropriate to this momentary act; for we would, in fact, be told not how the sword of the Spirit should be handled (Olshausen; comp. Harless: “the temper in which they are to wield such weapons”), but how it should be taken! An imperative signification (Bleek) the participle has not.
διὰ πάσης προσευχ. κ. δεήσ.] is to be taken by itself, not to be joined to the following προσευχόμ. (so usually, as also by Rückert, Matthies, Harless, Bleek; not Meier and Baumgarten-Crusius), since otherwise a tautological redundancy of expression would arise (not to be confounded with the mode of expression προσευχῇ προσεύχεσθαι, Jam 5:17),-arbitrarily conjectured by de Wette to have been occasioned by Php 4:6,-and because it is an impossibility to pray διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ.[312] διά here denotes “conditionem, in qua locatus aliquid vel facias vel patiaris,” Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 138; Winer, p. 339 [E. T. 453], i.e. while ye employ every kind of prayer and entreaty, omit no sort of prayer and entreaty. Those who join with προσευχόμ. take διά as by means of. But see above. The expression πάσης προσευχ. receives its elucidation from the following ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, inasmuch as to different circumstances of the time different kinds of prayer, as respects contents and form, are appropriate. προσευχή and δέησις are distinguished not so, that the former applies to the obtaining of a blessing, the latter to the averting of an evil (Grotius and many)-a meaning which, quite without proof from the linguistic usage of the single words, is derived merely from the combination of the two; but rather as prayer and entreaty, of which only the former has the sacred character and may be of any tenor; the latter, on the other hand, may be addressed not merely to God, as here, but also to men, and is supplicatory in tenor. See Harless on the passage, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 372 f.
ἐν παντί καιρῷ] at every season, not merely under special circumstances and on particular occasions. Comp. Luk 21:36. It is the ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθαι, 1Th 5:17; 1Th 2:13; 1Th 1:3; Rom 1:9.
ἐν πνεύματι] understood of the human spirit (Rom 8:10), would denote the heartfelt prayer in contrast to the mere utterance of the lips (Castalio, Zanchius, Erasmus Schmid, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, and others). But this contrast was so obvious of itself, that such a description of prayer would be quite out of place in the flow of the passage before us, accumulating, as it does, simply elements that are specifically Christian. The Holy Spirit is meant (Eph 6:17), by virtue of whom the Christian is to pray. See Rom 8:15; Rom 8:26; Gal 4:6.
καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρυπν. κ.τ.λ.] attaches to the general προσευχόμενοι ἐν π. κ. ἐν πν. something special, namely, intercession, and that for all Christians, and in particular for the apostle himself: and in that ye on this behalf are watchful in every kind of perseverance and entreaty for all saints and for me, etc. According to de Wette, εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρ. is to be held as still belonging to the general exhortation to prayer, and ἐν π. προσκαρτ. κ.τ.λ. to be the addition of a special element, like ἐν εὐχαρ., Col 4:2. But how idly would κ. εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρ. then be used, seeing that the continual praying is already before so urgently expressed! Moreover, καί betrays the transition to a new element of prayer.
εἰς αὐτό] in reference thereto, on behalf of this, namely, of the προσεύχεσθαι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν πνεύματι just required. By αὐτό, namely, is denoted that which is just being spoken of, and it is distinguished from αὐτὸ τοῦτο (the Recepta) only in this respect, that the latter (comp. on Rom 9:17) designates the subject in question at the same time demonstratively, and so still more definitely; see on Eph 6:22; Kühner, ad Xen, Mem. iii. 10. 14; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. ii. p. 362 D. According to Holzhausen (comp. Koppe), it has reference to ἵνα μοι δοθῇ. But in that case εἰς τοῦτο must have been written; and, moreover, περὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων would be from a logical point of view opposed to it.
ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτ. κ. δεήσει περὶ π. τ. ἁγ.] denotes the domain, wherein, etc. On behalf of the required προσεύχεσθαι they are to be watchful in every kind of perseverance and entreaty for all saints. The προσκαρτέρησις is, according to the context (and comp. Col 4:2), the perseverance in prayer, so that ἐν π. προσκ. corresponds to the διὰ πάσ. προσευχῆς at the beginning of the verse, and then with καὶ (ἐν πάσῃ) δεήσει, as there, the entreaty attaches itself, but now with the more precise definition: περὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων, which hence belongs not to προσκαρτ., but only to δεήσει, as, indeed, accordingly the latter may not be amalgamated with προσκαρτ. into a ἓν διὰ δυοῖν. According to Rückert, ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτ. κ. δεήσει is added, in order to be able to annex περὶ πάντ. τ. ἁγ. But in that case could not Paul have written merely εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρυπν. περὶ πάντ. τ. ἁγ., and that without risk of being misunderstood? No, the ἐν πάσῃ προσκ. κ. δεήσ., in itself not essential, gives to his discourse the emphasis of earnestness and solemnity. Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxviii. f.
πάσῃ] as previously πάσης.
[312] The case would be otherwise, and this impossibility would not exist, if it were said: διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς κ. δεήσ. καὶ ἐν π. καιρῷ.
Eph 6:19. Καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] καί: and in particular. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11, 713. The special point which, in connection with the intercession embracing all Christians, he would have to be made matter of supplication for himself, is stated in what follows. ὑπέρ expresses, as previously the περί in current use, the sense in commodum (see Schaefer, App. ad Dem. I. p. 190; Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188); and only the form of sensuous perception, which underlies the two prepositions, is different, as in the case of the Germ. über and um; comp. 1Pe 3:18. It is wrongly assumed by Harless that only ὑπέρ expresses in itself the relation of care for, and not περί. The notion of the latter-that of encircling-in fact sensuously embodies such care; hence with classical writers too, especially with Demosthenes, περί and ὑπέρ are interchanged without any difference of sense, e.g. phil. ii. p. 74, 35: μὴ περὶ τῶν δικαίων μηδʼ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἔξω πραγμάτων εἶναι τὴν βουλήν, ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ, 10. 16: οὐ περὶ δόξης οὐδʼ ὑπὲρ μέρους χώρας πολεμοῦσι, Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17: ὑπὲρ τούτων περὶ αὐτοῦ παραγνῶναι, Thucyd. vi. 78. Ephesians 1 : ὑπέρ γε τῆς ἐμῆς κινδυνεύειν, ἐνθυμηθήτω οὐ περὶ τῆς ἐμῆς μᾶλλον.
ἵνα μοι δοθῇ κ.τ.λ.] Aim of the καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, and consequently contents of the intercession for the apostle (comp. on Eph 3:16): in order that utterance may be given to me on the opening of my mouth, i.e. that there may not be withheld from me by God, but may on the contrary be conferred, that which I ought to speak when I open my mouth. That Paul means the speaking with a view to the proclamation of the gospel, is from the context (see ἐν παῤῥησ. γνωρ. κ.τ.λ.) clear. The emphasis, however, is upon δοθῇ, to which, in the sequel, ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ significantly corresponds; for this freedom of speech is the consequence wished for by Paul from that bestowal. Comp. Luk 21:15. As to ἀνοίγειν τὸ στόμα, which in itself represents nothing else than the opening of the mouth to speak, comp. on Mat 5:2; 2Co 6:11; on the substantive ἄνοιξις, comp. Thuc. iv. 67. 3. The expression is graphic, and has here something of a pathetic nature, without, however, containing a qualitative feature of the discourse itself, not even the character of unpremeditated utterance (Oecumenius: ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ἀνοῖξαι ὁ λόγος προήει), which would have been expressed by ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀνοίξει τοῦ στ., or in a similar significant way. This at the same time in opposition to Calvin, Boyd, Zanchius, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others, including Koppe, Rückert, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, Schenkel, who explain: unreservedly, frankly, which would have to be attached not to what follows (see below), but closely to λόγος, and thereby, again, the ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρ. would be unwarrantably anticipated. Following Bullinger, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others,[313] Harless and Olshausen understand the ἌΝΟΙΞΙς ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς as the act of God (comp. Eze 3:27; Eze 29:21; Eze 32:22; Psa 51:17), holding it to denote: the bestowed capacity of speaking in contrast to an earlier bound state of the tongue. Paul would thus have said: “in order that utterance may be given unto me through my mouth being opened.” But what needless diffuseness of expression, since ΔΟΘῇ ΛΌΓΟς and ἌΝΟΙΞΙς ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς would be just the same thing! Kypke and Koppe attach ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στ. μ. to what follows; in which case Kypke regards ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ as epexegesis of ἀνοίξει τ. στ. μ., and Koppe, following Grotius,[314] refers ἐν παῤῥ. to the outward freedom: “non vinculis constrictus in carcere latens.” The latter explanation is logically erroneous, since, thus understood, ἐν παῤῥησ. would be something quite other than the ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματος, and thus could not be added by way of apposition, without καί; and linguistically erroneous, since παῤῥησία never denotes outward freedom, and here especially its signification of boldness is rendered clear by the παῤῥησιάσωμαι of Eph 6:20. Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 99 f. In opposition to Kypke, it may be urged that an addition of so purely exegetical a character, as ἐν παῤῥ. would be to ἐν ἀνοίξ. τ. στόμ. μ., would not be in keeping with the elevated style of the discourse, which is not couched in anything like a didactic tone. Köster (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 317), with whom, in the main, Bleek agrees, attaches ἐν ἀνοίξ. τ. στόμ. μ. to what follows, and takes δοθῇ λόγος in the well-known classical sense: to allow one to come to speech, to let him speak (Dem. 26, 18; 27, 9; 508, 16; 1220, 20; comp. λόγου τυχεῖν, 229, 13); so that Paul is supposed to say: “that opportunity to speak may be given to me, namely, at the opening of my mouth (that is, when I wish to speak) frankly to proclaim,” etc. But even in this way ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόμ. μου. would be only a needless and cumbrous addition.
ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι κ.τ.λ.] with frankness to make known the mystery of the gospel, i.e. the mystery (see on Eph 1:9) which forms the contents of the gospel. The opportunity of preaching was not taken from the apostle in his captivity at Caesarea (Act 24:23), nor yet afterwards at Rome (Act 28:30 f.). Should we attach ἐν παῤῥ. to what precedes (Vatablus: “ut detur mihi aperto ore loqui libere, ut notum faciam,” etc.), γνωρίσαι would be without a necessary modal definition.
[313] Grotius also regards the ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματος as the act of God: “sic Deus labia aperire dicitur, ubi materiam suppeditat sibi gratias agendi, Psa 51:15,” yet makes out of it, after the Rabbinical פתחון פה (see Capell. Spicileg. p. 112; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1872), occasione (loquendi) data. But the sense, “opportunity to speak,” could only so be brought out in the event of the words running thus: ἵνα μοι δοθῇ ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματός μου.
[314] “Ut ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem evang.,” etc.
REMARK.
If the Recepta δοθείη were genuine, the statement of aim, introduced by ἵνα, would be adduced from the mind of the persons praying, thus in the character of the oratio obliqua. See on Eph 1:17.
Eph 6:20. For which (to conduct its cause) I discharge the office of ambassador in a chain. Comp. on 2Co 5:20. It is to be explained neither as though ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύων ἐν ἁλύσει εἰμί (Zachariae, Rückert, Matthies) were written, nor as though ὑπὲρ οὗ καὶ ἐν ἁλύσει πρεσβεύω were the reading (Grotius: “nunc quoque non desino legationem,” etc.); nor is οὗ to be referred, as is usually the case, merely to τοῦ εὐαγγελ., but to τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγ., seeing that this was the object of γνωρίσαι, and to this γνωρίσαι the πρεσβεύω significantly corresponds. Comp. Col 4:3 : λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, διʼ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι.
πρεσβεύω] whose ambassador he is, was at once understood by the reader, namely, Christ’s; and equally so to whom his embassy was addressed, namely, to all peoples, specially the Gentiles (Act 9:15; Act 22:15; Rom 1:14; Rom 11:13; Gal 2:9). The opinion of Michaelis, that Paul designates himself as delegate of Christ to the Roman court, would, even if he had written the Epistle in Rome, be imported, since no reader could find anything else than the apostle denoted by πρεσβεύω without more precise definition.
ἐν ἁλύσει] On ἐν, comp. phrases like εἰς τὴν ἅλυσιν ἐμπίπτειν, Polyb. xxi. 3. 3. Wetstein, we may add, aptly observes: “alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant.” To infer, however, from the use of the singular (Baumgarten, Paley, Flatt, Steiger) the custodia militaris, in which Paul was at Rome (Act 28:20; 2Ti 1:16), is too hasty; partly for the general reason that the singular must by no means be urged, but may be taken collectively (Bernhardy, p. 58 f.), and partly for the special reason that we have to think of Paul at Caesarea too, and that from the very beginning of his captivity there (see on Act 24:23), as in the custodia militaris; Act 24:27; Act 26:29.[315] The significant bearing of the addition ἐν ἁλύσει is to make palpable the so much greater need of the παῤῥησία, and so the more fully to justify the longing for the intercessory prayer of the readers.
ἽΝΑ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΑῤῬΗΣ. Ὡς ΔΕῖ ΜΕ ΛΑΛ.] Parallel to the ἵνα μοι δοθῇ … εὐαγγελίου, Eph 6:19, and indeed not tautological (in opposition to Harless), but, by means of Ὡς ΔΕῖ ΜΕ ΛΑΛῆΣΑΙ, more precisely defining the thought already expressed. As similar parallels by means of a second ἵνα, comp. Rom 7:13; Gal 3:14; 1Co 12:20; 2Co 9:3. Harless regards this second ἽΝΑ as subordinate to the first. Thus the words would express not the aim on account of which Paul summons his readers to prayer, as stated by Harless, but the aim of the δοθῇ λόγος κ.τ.λ. But this would be inappropriate, since ΔΟΘῇ ΛΌΓΟς Κ.Τ.Λ. has already the definition of aim appropriate to it, namely, in ἐν παῤῥ. γνωρ. κ.τ.λ. Bengel and Meier make ἽΝΑ dependent on ΠΡΕΣΒΕΎΩ ἘΝ ἉΛΎΣΕΙ (in which case Meier imports the sense, as if the words were ἽΝΑ ΚΑῚ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ ΠΑῤῬ.); but the clause expressive of the aim: “in order that I may therein speak as boldly as I am bound to speak,” does not logically correspond to the πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, because without any reference to ἘΝ ἉΛΎΣΕΙ. Had Paul merely written: ἽΝΑ ΠΑῤῬΗΣΙΆΣΩΜΑΙ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ (without Ὡς ΔΕῖ ΜΕ ΛΑΛῆΣΑΙ), by which the ΠΑῤῬΗΣ. would have become emphatic,[316] or: ἽΝΑ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ ΠΑῤῬΗΣ. ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ, the logical relation would be satisfied.
ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ] namely, in the mystery of the gospel, i.e. occupied therewith, in the proclamation thereof (Matthiae, p. 1342). Comp. Act 9:27. Harless understands ἐν of the source or ground of the παῤῥησία, which has its basis in the message itself [rather: in the mystery of the gospel; see on ὙΠῈΡ ΟὟ]. But the context represents the ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓ. as the object of the bold discourse (Eph 6:19); and the source of the παῤῥησία is in God (see 1Th 2:2), which is not indeed here expressed, but is implied in the fact that it is to be obtained for the apostle by prayer on the part of the readers.
ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι] to be taken together (comp. Col 4:4); and after με there is not to be put any comma, by which ΛΑΛῆΣΑΙ would be connected with ΠΑῤῬΗΣ. (Koppe),-a course, which is impossible just because ΠΑῤῬΗΣ. already expresses the bold speaking; and thus λαλῆσαι, if it were to be more precisely defining, could not but of necessity have with it a modal definition (comp. 1Th 2:2). See Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 100 f.
[315] In the latter passage the plural τῶν δεσμ. τούτων is not at variance with this view, as it is rather the categoric plural, and leaves the question entirely undecided, whether Paul was bound with one or more chains.
[316] This seems also to have been felt by Bengel, who connected ὡς δεῖ με λαλ. with γνωρίσαι, which certainly could not occur to any reader.
Eph 6:21. Δέ] Serving to make the transition to another subject.
καὶ ὑμεῖς] ye also, not merely the Colossians, Col 4:8-9. See Introd. § 2. While most of the older expositors pass over this καί in silence (rightly, however, explained in a general sense by Bengel: “perinde ut alii”), Rückert and Matthies strangely enough think that it stands in contradistinction to the apostle himself. From this there would in fact result the absurd thought: “in order that not only I, but also ye may know how it fares with me.”
τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ] my circumstances, my position, Php 1:22; Col 4:7. See Kühner, II. p. 119.
τί πράσσω] more precise definition of τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ: what I experience. i.e. how it fares with me, how I find myself.[317] So often also in classical writers, “de statu et rebus, in quibus quis constitutus est et versatur,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 629. Comp. Ael. V. H. ii. 35, where the sick Gorgias is asked τί πράττοι, Plato, Theaet. p. 174 B; Soph. Oed. R. 74; and see Wetstein and Kypke.
Τύχικος] See Act 20:4; Col 4:7; 2Ti 4:12. Beyond these passages unknown.
Ὁ ἈΓΑΠΗΤῸς ἈΔΕΛΦῸς ΚΑῚ ΠΙΣΤ. ΔΙΆΚ. ἘΝ ΚΥΡ.] So Paul characterizes Tychicus by way of commendation,[318] and that (a) as his beloved fellow-Christian, and (b) as his faithful official servant. As the latter, he was employed by Paul for just such journeys as the present. Comp. 2Ti 4:12. Mark likewise, according to 2Ti 4:11, receives from the apostle the testimony that he is for him εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν. Others, like Grotius (comp. Calvin), do not refer διάκονος to the relation to the apostle, but explain it: servant of the gospel [minister evangelii], while Estius and many understand specially the ecclesiastical office of the deacon. But Col 4:7, where διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος are united (the latter word softening the relation of service towards the apostle expressed by διάκονος), speaks in favour of our view.
ἐν κυρίῳ] belongs only to διάκονος, not to ἀδελφός as well (in opposition to Meier and Harless), since only the former had need of a specific definition (comp. on Php 1:14), in order to be brought out in its true relation (and not to bear the semblance of harshness). Not beyond the pale of Christian relations was Tychicus servant of the apostle, but in Christ his service was carried on, Christ was the sphere of the same, inasmuch as Tychicus was official διάκονος of the apostle. ἐν κυρίῳ is attached without an article, because combined with διάκονος so as to form one idea.
[317] Others, like Wolf: what I am doing. But that the reader knew. He was doing the one thing, which always occupied him. See vv. 19, 20.
[318] The assumption of a more special design as regards πιστός, namely, that it is meant to represent Tychicus as a trustworthy reporter (Grotius), is inadmissible, because Tychicus without doubt was known to the readers (Act 20:4). It was otherwise in relation to the Colossians. See on Col 4:7.
Eph 6:22. Ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς] namely, that he should travel from Colossae to you, Col 4:7-9. See Introd. § 2.
εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] in this very design. See on Eph 6:18, and Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 12. 2; Pflugk, ad Eur. Androm. 41.
ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν] must on account of εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο necessarily convey the same thing as was said by ἵνα εἰδῆτε τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ, τί πράσσω, Eph 6:21; hence the conjecture of Rückert, ἵνα γνῷ τε τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, is entirely baseless; and at Col 4:8 also we have, in accordance with preponderant evidence, to read ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν.
By ἡμῶν Paul means himself and those that are with him (see Col 4:10 ff.; Phm 1:10 f., 23 ff.), concerning whom information was likewise reserved for the report of Tychicus.
παρακαλέσῃ] might comfort. For Tychicus had to tell of sufferings and afflictions which Paul must needs endure (comp. Eph 6:20), and on account of them the readers were called μὴ ἐκκακεῖν, Eph 3:13. Amplifications of the notion (Rückert: “to elevate by address to them of every kind;” Baumgarten-Crusius: to strengthen; comp. Estius, who proposes exhortetur) are arbitrary.
Eph 6:23 f. Twofold wish of blessing at the close, in which, however, Paul does not, as in the closing formulae of the other Epistles, directly address the readers (μεθʼ ὑμῶν, μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν). This variation is to be regarded as merely accidental, and the more so, seeing that he has in fact been just addressing his readers directly, and seeing that a μεθʼ ὑμῶν or the like would simply address the readers, as has so often been done in the Epistle itself, leaving, we may add, the question, who these readers are, in itself wholly undetermined. For what is asserted by Grotius on Eph 6:24 : “Now, Ephesios tantum salutat, sed et omnes in Asia Christianos,” is not implied in τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς-which, on the contrary, represents quite the simple ὑμῖν, inasmuch as Paul conceives of the recipients of the Epistle in the third person. According to Wieseler, p. 444 f., the apostle in Eph 6:23 salutes the Jewish Christians (ἀδελφ.), and in Eph 6:24 the Gentile Christians (πάντων) in Ephesus. Improbable in itself, more particularly in this Epistle, which so carefully brings into prominence the unity of the two; and the alleged distinguishing reference would neither be recognisable, nor in keeping with the apostolic wisdom.
εἰρήνη] not concordia, as recommended by Calvin (“quia mox fit dilectionis mentio;” comp. also Theodoret and Oecumenius), but, as Calvin himself explains: welfare, blessing, שָׁלוֹם, without more precise definition, because it takes the place of the valete (ἔῤῥωσθε, Act 15:29) at the close of our Epistle,[319] and because that special sense is not at all suggested from the contents of the Epistle (comp. on the other hand, 2Co 13:11).
ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως] is one object of the wish for blessing, not two. After the general fare well! namely, Paul singles out further the highest moral element, which he wishes for his readers. He does not, however, write καὶ ἀγάπη καὶ πίστις, because with good reason he presupposes faith (in the atonement achieved by Christ) as already present, but has doubtless to wish for them that which, as the constant life of faith, is to be combined with it (1 Corinthians 13; Gal 5:6), Christian brotherly love, consequently love with faith (ἀγάπη has the emphasis, not μετὰ πίστ.). Comp. Plato, Phaed. p. 253 E: κάλλος μετὰ ὑγιείας λαμβάνειν. Bengel and Meier understand the divine love, to which, however, μετὰ πίστ. is unsuitable, although Meier explains it: in conformity with their own faith, partly at variance with linguistic usage,[320] partly importing a thought (their own). The reading ἔλεος (instead of ἈΓΆΠΗ) is to be regarded simply as a glossematic consequence of the explaining it of the divine love, and yet, though found only in codex A, it is held by Rückert to be the true one (comp. Gal 6:16); Paul, he says, wishes to the readers εἰρήνη κ. ἔλεος for the reward (?) of faith.
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς κ. κυρ. Ἰ. Χ.] See on Rom 1:7. Grotius, we may add, rightly observes: “conjungit causam principem cum causa secunda.”[321] For Christ is exalted on the part of God to the government of the world, and particularly to the Lordship of the church (Eph 1:22; Php 2:9); and His dominion has in God, the Head of Christ (1Co 11:3), not merely its ground (comp. also Eph 1:17), but also its goal (1Co 3:23; 1Co 15:28).
[319] Hence also not to be explained of the peace of reconciliation (Bengel, Matthies, Schenkel, and others), any more here than in the opening salutations of the Epistle, where it takes the place of the epistolary salutem, εὖ πράττειν.
[320] μετά may, it is true, sometimes be approximately as to sense rendered by conformably to, but the analysis in those cases is such as does not suit our passage. See e.g. Dem. Lept. p. 490; Plato, Phaed. p. 66 B, where μετὰ τῶν νόμων and μετὰ τοῦ λόγου is to be explained, in connection with the laws, etc., i.e. with the aid of the same. Comp. also Thucyd. iii. 82. 5, and Krüger in loc. See in general, Bernhardy, p. 255.
[321] The order in the combination of the two causes is inverted in Gal. l.c.: διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χρ. καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός.
Eph 6:24. While Paul has in Eph 6:23 expressed his wish of blessing for the readers (τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς), he now annexes thereto a further such general wish, namely, for all who love Christ imperishably, just as at 1Co 16:22 he takes up into the closing wish an ἀνάθεμα upon all those who do not love Christ.
ἡ χάρις] the grace κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. the grace of God in Christ. Comp. Col 4:18; 1Ti 6:21; 2Ti 4:22; Tit 3:15. In the conclusion of other Epistles: the grace of Christ, Rom 16:20; Rom 16:24; 1Co 16:23; 2Co 13:13; Gal 6:18; Php 4:23; 1Th 5:28; 2Th 3:18; Phil. 25.
ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ] belongs neither to Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν (Wetstein: “Christum immortalem et gloriosum, non humilem,” etc.; see also Reiners in Wolf and Semler), nor to ἡ χάρις (“favor immortalis,” Castalio, Drusius; comp. Piscator and Michaelis, who take ἐν as equivalent to σύν, while the latter supposes a reference to deniers of the resurrection!), nor yet to the sit to be supplied after ἡ χάρις, as is held, after Beza (who, however, took ἐν for εἰς) and Bengel, recently by Matthies (“that grace with all … may be in eternity;” comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), Harless (according to whom ἐν denotes the element in which the χάρις manifests itself, and ἀφθαρσ. is all imperishable being, whether appearing in this life or in eternity), Bleek, and Olshausen, which last supposes a breviloquentia for ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσιν ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, i.e. ζωὴν αἰώνιον. But, in opposition to Matthies, it may be urged that the purely temporal notion eternity (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) is foisted upon the word imperishableness; and in opposition to Harless, that the abstract notion imperishableness is transmuted into the concrete notion of imperishable being, which is not the meaning of ἀφθαρσ., even in 2Ti 1:10 (but imperishableness in abstracto), and that ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, instead of adding, in accordance with its emphatic position, a very weighty and important element, would express something which is self-evident, namely, that according to the wish of the apostle the grace might display itself not ἐν φθαρτοῖς (1Pe 1:18), but ἐν ἀφθάρτοις; the breviloquentia, lastly, assumed by Olshausen is, although ἀφθαρσ. in itself might be equivalent to ζωὴ αἰώνιος (see Grimm, Handb. p. 60), a pure invention, the sense of which Paul would have expressed by εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν. The right connection is the usual one, namely, with ἀγαπώντων. And in accordance with this, we have to explain it: who love the Lord in imperishableness, i.e. so that their love does not pass away, in which case ἐν expresses the manner. Comp. the concluding wish Tit 3:15, where ἐν πίστει is in like manner to be combined with φιλοῦντας. Others, following the same connection, have understood the sinceritas either of the love itself (Pelagius, Anselm, Calvin, Calovius, and others) or of the disposition and the life in general (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Flacius, Estius, Zeger, Grotius: “significatur is, qui nulla vi, nullis precibus, nullis illecebris se corrumpi, i.e. a recto abduci, patitur,” and others, including Wieseler), but against this Beza has already with reason urged the linguistic usage; for uncorruptedness is not ἀφθαρσία (not even in Wis 6:18-19), but ἀφθορία (Tit 2:7) and ἀδιαφθορία (Wetstein, II. p. 373). On ἀφθαρσία, imperishableness (at 1Co 15:42; 1Co 15:52, it is in accordance with the context specially incorruptibility), comp. Plut. Arist. 6; Rom 2:7; 1Co 9:25; 1Ti 1:17; 2Ti 1:10; Wis 2:23; Wis 6:18 f.; 4Ma 9:22; 4Ma 17:12.
1. Children, obey. Why does the apostle use the word obey instead of honor, (167) which has a greater extent of meaning? It is because Obedience is the evidence of that honor which children owe to their parents, and is therefore more earnestly enforced. It is likewise more difficult; for the human mind recoils from the idea of subjection, and with difficulty allows itself to be placed under the control of another. Experience shews how rare this virtue is; for do we find one among a thousand that is obedient to his parents? By a figure of speech, a part is here put for the whole, but it is the most important part, and is necessarily accompanied by all the others.
In the Lord. Besides the law of nature, which is acknowledged by all nations, the obedience of children is enforced by the authority of God. Hence it follows, that parents are to be obeyed, so far only as is consistent with piety to God, which comes first in order. If the command of God is the rule by which the submission of children is to be regulated, it would be foolish to suppose that the performance of this duty could lead away from God himself.
For this is right. This is added in order to restrain the fierceness which, we have already said, appears to be natural to almost all men. He proves it to be right, because God has commanded it; for we are not at liberty to dispute, or call in question, the appointment of him whose will is the unerring rule of goodness and righteousness. That honor should be represented as including obedience is not surprising; for mere ceremony is of no value in the sight of God. The precept, honor thy father and mother, comprehends all the duties by which the sincere affection and respect of children to their parents can be expressed.
(167) “Τιμᾷν properly signifies, ‘to perform one’s duty to any one;’ and here reverence must comprehend the cognate offices of affection, care, and support. The same complexity of sense is observable in the classical phrase τιμᾷν τὸν ἰατρόν [to reverence the physician.] — Bloomfield.
2. Which is the first commandment with promise. The promises annexed to the commandments are intended to excite our hopes, and to impart a greater cheerfulness to our obedience; and therefore Paul uses this as a kind of seasoning to render the submission, which he enjoins on children, more pleasant and agreeable. He does not merely say, that God has offered a reward to him who obeys his father and mother, but that such an offer is peculiar to this commandment. If each of the commandments had its own promises, there would have been no ground for the commendation bestowed in the present instance. But this is the first commandment, Paul tells us, which God has been pleased, as it were, to seal by a remarkable promise. There is some difficulty here; for the second commandment likewise contains a promise,
“I am the Lord thy God, who shew mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
(Exo 20:5.)
But this is universal, applying indiscriminately to the whole law, and cannot be said to be annexed to that commandment. Paul’s assertion still holds true, that no other commandment but that which enjoins the obedience due by children to their parents is distinguished by a promise.
3. That it may be well with thee. The promise is — a long life; from which we are led to understand that the present life is not to be overlooked among the gifts of God. On this and other kindred subjects I must refer my reader to the Institutes of the Christian Religion; (168) satisfying myself at present with saying, in a few words, that the reward promised to the obedience of children is highly appropriate. Those who shew kindness to their parents from whom they derived life, are assured by God, that in this life it will be well with them.
And that thou mayest live long on the earth. Moses expressly mentions the land of Canaan,
“that thy days may be long upon the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Exo 20:12.)
Beyond this the Jews could not conceive of any life more happy or desirable. But as the same divine blessing is extended to the whole world, Paul has properly left out the mention of a place, the peculiar distinction of which lasted only till the coming of Christ.
(168) See volume 1. page 468.
4. And, ye fathers. Parents, on the other hand, are exhorted not to irritate their children by unreasonable severity. This would excite hatred, and would lead them to throw off the yoke altogether. Accordingly, in writing to the Colossians, he adds, “lest they be discouraged.” (Col 3:21.) Kind and liberal treatment has rather a tendency to cherish reverence for their parents, and to increase the cheerfulness and activity of their obedience, while a harsh and unkind manner rouses them to obstinacy, and destroys the natural affections. But Paul goes on to say, “let them be fondly cherished;” for the Greek word, (ἐκτρέφετε,) which is translated bring up, unquestionably conveys the idea of gentleness and forbearance. To guard them, however, against the opposite and frequent evil of excessive indulgence, he again draws the rein which he had slackened, and adds, in the instruction and reproof of the Lord. It is not the will of God that parents, in the exercise of kindness, shall spare and corrupt their children. Let their conduct towards their children be at once mild and considerate, so as to guide them in the fear of the Lord, and correct them also when they go astray. That age is so apt to become wanton, that it requires frequent admonition and restraint.
5. Servants, be obedient. His exhortation to servants is so much the more earnest, on account of the hardship and bitterness of their condition, which renders it more difficult to be endured. And he does not speak merely of outward obedience, but says more about fear willingly rendered; for it is a very rare occurrence to find one who willingly yields himself to the control of another. The servants (δοῦλοι) whom he immediately addresses were not hired servants, like those of the present day, but slaves, such as were in ancient times, whose slavery was perpetual, unless, through the favor of their masters, they obtained freedom, — whom their masters bought with money, that they might impose upon them the most degrading employments, and might, with the full protection of the law, exercise over them the power of life and death. To such he says, obey your masters, lest they should vainly imagine that carnal freedom had been procured for them by the gospel.
But as some of the worst men were compelled by the dread of punishment, he distinguishes between Christian and ungodly servants, by the feelings which they cherished.With fear and trembling; that is, with the careful respect which springs from an honest purpose. It can hardly be expected, however, that so much deference will be paid to a mere man, unless a higher authority shall enforce the obligation; and therefore he adds,as doing the will of God. (Ver. 6.) Hence it follows, that it is not enough if their obedience satisfy the eyes of men; for God requires truth and sincerity of heart. When they serve their masters faithfully, they obey God. As if he had said, “Do not suppose that by the judgment of men you were thrown into slavery. It is God who has laid upon you this burden, who has placed you in the power of your masters. He who conscientiously endeavors to render what he owes to his master, performs his duty not to man only, but to God.”
With good will doing service. (Ver. 7.) This is contrasted with the suppressed indignation which swells the bosom of slaves. Though they dare not openly break out or give signs of obstinacy, their dislike of the authority exercised over them is so strong, that it is with the greatest unwillingness and reluctance that they obey their masters.
Whoever reads the accounts of the dispositions and conduct of slaves, which are scattered through the writings of the ancients, will be at no loss to perceive that the number of injunctions here given does not exceed that of the diseases which prevailed among this class, and which it was of importance to cure. But the same instruction applies to male and female servants of our own times. It is God who appoints and regulates all the arrangements of society. As the condition of servants is much more agreeable than that of slaves in ancient times, they ought to consider themselves far less excusable, if they do not endeavor, in every way, to comply with Paul’s injunctions.
Masters according to the flesh. (Ver. 5.) This expression is used to soften the harsh aspect of slavery. He reminds them that their spiritual freedom, which was by far the most desirable, remained untouched.
Eye-service (ὀφθαλμοδουλεία) is mentioned; because almost all servants are addicted to flattery, but, as soon as their master’s back is turned, indulge freely in contempt, or perhaps in ridicule. Paul therefore enjoins godly persons to keep at the greatest distance from such deceitful pretences.
8. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth. What a powerful consolation! However unworthy, however ungrateful or cruel, their masters may be, God will accept their services as rendered to himself. When servants take into account the pride and arrogance of their masters, they often become more indolent from the thought that their labor is thrown away. But Paul informs them that their reward is laid up with God for services which appear to be ill bestowed on unfeeling men; and that there is no reason, therefore, why they should be led aside from the path of duty. He adds, whether bond or free No distinction is made between a slave and a free man. The world is wont to set little value on the labors of slaves; but God esteems them as highly as the duties of kings. In his estimate, the outward station is thrown aside, and each is judged according to the uprightness of his heart.
9. And ye masters. In the treatment of their slaves, the laws granted to masters a vast amount of power. Whatever had thus been sanctioned by the civil code was regarded by many as in itself lawful. To such an extent did their cruelty in some instances proceed, that the Roman emperors were forced to restrain their tyranny. But though no royal edicts had ever been issued for the protection of slaves, God allows to masters no power over them beyond what is consistent with the law of love. When philosophers attempt to give to the principles of equity their full effect in restraining the excess of severity to slaves, they inculcate that masters ought to treat them in the same manner as hired servants. But they never look beyond utility; and, in judging even of that, they inquire only what is advantageous to the head of the family, or conducive to good order. The Apostle proceeds on a very different principle. He lays down what is lawful according to the Divine appointment, and how far they, too, are debtors to their servants.
Do the same things to them. “Perform the duty which on your part you owe to them.” What he calls in another Epistle, (τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα) that which is just and equal, (169) is precisely what, in this passage, he calls the same things, (τὰ αὐτὰ.) And what is this but the law of analogy? Masters and servants are not indeed on the same level; but there is a mutual law which binds them. By this law, servants are placed under the authority of their masters; and, by the same law, due regard being had to the difference of their station, masters lie under certain obligations to their servants. This analogy is greatly misunderstood; because men do not try it by the law of love, which is the only true standard. Such is the import of Paul’s phrase, the same things; for we are all ready enough to demand what is due to ourselves; but, when our own duty comes to be performed, every one attempts to plead exemption. It is chiefly, however, among persons of authority and rank that injustice of this sort prevails.
Forbearing threatenings. Every expression of disdain, arising from the pride of masters, is included in the single word, threatenings. They are charged not to assume a lordly air or a terrific attitude, as if they were constantly threatening some evil against their servants, when they have occasion to address them. Threatenings, and every kind of barbarity, originate in this, that masters look upon their servants as if they had been born for their sake alone, and treat them as if they were of no more value than cattle. Under this one description, Paul forbids every kind of disdainful and barbarous treatment.
Their Master and yours. A very necessary warning. What is there which we will not dare to attempt against our inferiors, if they have no ability to resist, and no means of obtaining redress, — if no avenger, no protector appears, none who will be moved by compassion to listen to their complaints? It happens here, in short, according to the common proverb, that Impunity is the mother of Licentiousness. But Paul here reminds them, that, while masters possess authority over their servants, they have themselves the same Master in heaven, to whom they must render an account.
And there is no respect of persons with him. A regard to persons blinds our eyes, so as to leave no room for law or justice; but Paul affirms that it is of no value in the sight of God. By person is meant anything about a man which does not belong to the real question, and which we take into account in forming a judgment. Relationship, beauty, rank, wealth, friendship, and everything of this sort, gain our favor; while the opposite qualities produce contempt and sometimes hatred. As those absurd feelings arising from the sight of a person have the greatest possible influence on human judgments, those who are invested with power are apt to flatter themselves, as if God would countenance such corruptions. “Who is he that God should regard him, or defend his interest against mine?” Paul, on the contrary, informs masters that they are mistaken if they suppose that their servants will be of little or no account before God, because they are so before men. “God is no respecter of persons,” (Act 10:34,) and the cause of the meanest man will not be a whit less regarded by him than that of the loftiest monarch.
(169) See Col 4:1 — fj.
10. Finally. Resuming his general exhortations, he again enjoins them to be strong, — to summon up courage and vigor; for there is always much to enfeeble us, and we are ill fitted to resist. But when our weakness is considered, an exhortation like this would have no effect, unless the Lord were present, and stretched out his hand to render assistance, or rather, unless he supplied us with all the power. Paul therefore adds, in the Lord. As if he had said, “‘You have no right to reply, that you have not the ability; for all that I require of you is, be strong in the Lord. ” To explain his meaning more fully, he adds, in the power of his might, which tends greatly to increase our confidence, particularly as it shews the remarkable assistance which God usually bestows upon believers. If the Lord aids us by his mighty power, we have no reason to shrink from the combat. But it will be asked, What purpose did it serve to enjoin the Ephesians to be strong in the Lord’s mighty power, which they could not of themselves accomplish? I answer, there are two clauses here which must be considered. He exhorts them to be courageous, but at the same time reminds them to ask from God a supply of their own deficiencies, and promises that, in answer to their prayers, the power of God will be displayed.
11. Put on the whole armor. God has furnished us with various defensive weapons, provided we do not indolently refuse what is offered. But we are almost all chargeable with carelessness and hesitation in using the offered grace; just as if a soldier, about to meet the enemy, should take his helmet, and neglect his shield. To correct this security, or, we should rather say, this indolence, Paul borrows a comparison from the military art, and bids us put on the whole armor of God. We ought to be prepared on all sides, so as to want nothing. The Lord offers to us arms for repelling every kind of attack. It remains for us to apply them to use, and not leave them hanging on the wall. To quicken our vigilance, he reminds us that we must not only engage in open warfare, but that we have a crafty and insidious foe to encounter, who frequently lies in ambush; for such is the import of the apostle’s phrase, THE WILES (170) (τὰς μεθοδείας) of the devil
(170) “Plutarch tells us, (Symp. l. 2., page 638,) that wrestling was the most artful and subtle of all the ancient games, and that the name of it (πάλη) was derived from a word, which signifies to throw a man down by deceit and craft. And it is certain that persons who understand this exercise have many fetches, and turns, and changes of posture, which they make use of to supplant and trip up their adversaries. And it is with great justice, that a state of persecution is compared with it; since many are the arts, arising from the terrors of worldly evil on the one hand, and the natural love which men have to life, liberty, plenty, and the pleasures of life, on the other, that the devil makes use of to circumvent and foil them.” — Chandler.
12. For we wrestle (171) not. To impress them still more deeply with their danger, he points out the nature of the enemy, which he illustrates by a comparative statement, Not against flesh and blood. The meaning is, that our difficulties are far greater than if we had to fight with men. There we resist human strength, sword is opposed to sword, man contends with man, force is met by force, and skill by skill; but here the case is widely different. All amounts to this, that our enemies are such as no human power can withstand. By flesh and blood the apostle denotes men, who are so denominated in order to contrast them with spiritual assailants. This is no bodily struggle.
Let us remember this when the injurious treatment of others provokes us to revenge. Our natural disposition would lead us to direct all our exertions against the men themselves; but this foolish desire will be restrained by the consideration that the men who annoy us are nothing more than darts thrown by the hand of Satan. While we are employed in destroying those darts, we lay ourselves open to be wounded on all sides. To wrestle with flesh and blood will not only be useless, but highly pernicious. We must go straight to the enemy, who attacks and wounds us from his concealment, — who slays before he appears.
But to return to Paul. He describes our enemy as formidable, not to overwhelm us with fear, but to quicken our diligence and earnestness; for there is a middle course to be observed. When the enemy is neglected, he does his utmost to oppress us with sloth, and afterwards disarms us by terror; so that, ere the engagement has commenced, we are vanquished. By speaking of the power of the enemy, Paul labors to keep us more on the alert. He had already called him the devil, but now employs a variety of epithets, to make the reader understand that this is not an enemy who may be safely despised.
Against principalities, against powers. Still, his object in producing alarm is not to fill us with dismay, but to excite us to caution. He calls themκοσμοκράτορας, that is, princes of the world; but he explains himself more fully by adding — of the darkness of the world. The devil reigns in the world, because the world is nothing else than darkness. Hence it follows, that the corruption of the world gives way to the kingdom of the devil; for he could not reside in a pure and upright creature of God, but all arises from the sinfulness of men. By darkness, it is almost unnecessary to say, are meant unbelief and ignorance of God, with the consequences to which they lead. As the whole world is covered with darkness, the devil is called “the prince of this world.” (Joh 14:30.)
By calling it wickedness, he denotes the malignity and cruelty of the devil, and, at the same time, reminds us that the utmost caution is necessary to prevent him from gaining an advantage. For the same reason, the epithet spiritual is applied; for, when the enemy is invisible, our danger is greater. There is emphasis, too, in the phrase, in heavenly places; for the elevated station from which the attack is made gives us greater trouble and difficulty.
An argument drawn from this passage by the Manicheans, to support their wild notion of two principles, is easily refuted. They supposed the devil to be (ἀντίθεον) an antagonist deity, whom the righteous God would not subdue without great exertion. For Paul does not ascribe to devils a principality, which they seize without the consent, and maintain in spite of the opposition, of the Divine Being, — but a principality which, as Scripture everywhere asserts, God, in righteous judgment, yields to them over the wicked. The inquiry is, not what power they have in opposition to God, but how far they ought to excite our alarm, and keep us on our guard. Nor is any countenance here given to the belief, that the devil has formed, and keeps for himself, the middle region of the air. Paul does not assign to them a fixed territory, which they can call their own, but merely intimates that they are engaged in hostility, and occupy an elevated station.
(171) “Πάλη is properly a gymnastic term; but the Apostle often unites military with agonistic metaphors; and here the agonistic is not less suitable than the military. So in a similar passage of Max. Tyr. Diss. Version 9, volume 1. page 79, ed. Reisk, we have mention of Socrates wrestling with Melitus, with bonds and poison; next, the philosopher Plato wrestling with a tyrant’s anger, a rough sea, and the greatest dangers; then, Xenophon struggling with the prejudices of Tissaphernes, the snares of Ariaeus, the treachery of Meno, and royal machinations; and, lastly, Diogenes struggling with adversaries even more formidable, namely, poverty, infamy, hunger, and cold.” — Bloomfield.
13. Wherefore take unto you. Though our enemy is so powerful, Paul does not infer that we must throw away our spears, but that we must prepare our minds for the battle. A promise of victory is, indeed, involved in the exhortation, that ye may be able. If we only put on the whole armor of God, and fight valiantly to the end, we shall certainly stand. On any other supposition, we would be discouraged by the number and variety of the contests; and therefore he adds, in the evil day. By this expression he rouses them from security, bids them prepare themselves for hard, painful, and dangerous conflicts, and, at the same time, animates them with the hope of victory; for amidst the greatest dangers they will be safe. And having done all. They are thus directed to cherish confidence through the whole course of life. There will be no danger which may not be successfully met by the power of God; nor will any who, with this assistance, fight against Satan, fail in the day of battle.
14. Stand therefore. Now follows a description of the arms which they were enjoined to wear. We must not, however, inquire very minutely into the meaning of each word; for an allusion to military customs is all that was intended. Nothing can be more idle than the extraordinary pains which some have taken to discover the reason why righteousness is made a breastplate, instead of a girdle. Paul’s design was to touch briefly on the most important points required in a Christian, and to adapt them to the comparison which he had already used.
Truth, which means sincerity of mind, is compared to a girdle. Now, a girdle was, in ancient times, one of the most important parts of military armor. Our attention is thus directed to the fountain of sincerity; for the purity of the gospel ought to remove from our minds all guile, and from our hearts all hypocrisy. Secondly, he recommends righteousness, and desires that it should be a breastplate for protecting the breast. Some imagine that this refers to a freely bestowed righteousness, or the imputation of righteousness, by which pardon of sin is obtained. But such matters ought not, I think, to have been mentioned on the present occasion; for the subject now under discussion is a blameless life. He enjoins us to be adorned, first, with integrity, and next with a devout and holy life.
15. And your feet shod. The allusion, if I mistake not, is to the military greaves; for they were always reckoned a part of the armor, and were even used for domestic purposes. As soldiers covered their legs and feet to protect them against cold and other injuries, so we must be shod with the gospel, if we would pass unhurt through the world. It is the gospel of peace, and it is so called, as every reader must perceive, from its effects; for it is the message of our reconciliation to God, and nothing else gives peace to the conscience. But what is the meaning of the word preparation? Some explain it as an injunction to be prepared for the gospel; but it is the effect of the gospel which I consider to be likewise expressed by this term. We are enjoined to lay aside every hinderance, and to be prepared both for journey and for war. By nature we dislike exertion, and want agility. A rough road and many other obstacles retard our progress, and we are discouraged by the smallest annoyance. On these accounts, Paul holds out the gospel as the fittest means for undertaking and performing the expedition. Erasmus proposes a circumlocution, (ut sitis parati ,) that ye may be prepared; but this does not appear to convey the true meaning.
16. Taking the shield of faith. Though faith and the word of God are one, yet Paul assigns to them two distinct offices. I call them one, because the word is the object of faith, and cannot be applied to our use but by faith; as faith again is nothing, and can do nothing, without the word. But Paul, neglecting so subtle a distinction, allowed himself to expatiate at large on the military armor. In the first Epistle to the Thessalonians he gives both to faith and to love the name of a breastplate, — “putting on the breastplate of faith and love,” (1. h 5:8.) All that was intended, therefore, was obviously this, — “He who possesses the excellencies of character which are here described is protected on every hand.”
And yet it is not without reason that the most necessary instruments of warfare — a sword and a shield — are compared to faith, and to the word of God. In the spiritual combat, these two hold the highest rank. By faith we repel all the attacks of the devil, and by the word of God the enemy himself is slain. If the word of God shall have its efficacy upon us through faith, we shall be more than sufficiently armed both for opposing the enemy and for putting him to flight. And what shall we say of those who take from a Christian people the word of God? Do they not rob them of the necessary armor, and leave them to perish without a struggle? There is no man of any rank who is not bound to be a soldier of Christ. But if we enter the field unarmed, if we want our sword, how shall we sustain that character?
Wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the darts. But quench appears not to be the proper word. Why did he not use, instead of it, ward off or shake off, or some such word? Quench is far more expressive; for it is adapted to the epithet applied to darts The darts of Satan are not only sharp and penetrating, but — what makes them more destructive — they are fiery Faith will be found capable, not only of blunting their edge, but of quenching their heat.
“This,” says John, “is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1. o 5:4.)
17. And take the helmet of salvation. In a passage already quoted, (1. h 5:8,) “the hope of salvation” is said to be a helmet, which I consider to be in the same sense as this passage. The head is protected by the best helmet, when, elevated by hope, we look up towards heaven to that salvation which is promised. It is only therefore by becoming the object of hope that salvation is a helmet.
18. Praying always with all prayer. Having instructed the Ephesians to put on their armor, he now enjoins them to fight by prayer. This is the true method. To call upon God is the chief exercise of faith and hope; and it is in this way that we obtain from God every blessing. Prayer and supplication are not greatly different from each other, except that supplication is only one branch of prayer
With all perseverance. We are exhorted to persevere in prayer. Every tendency to weariness must be counteracted by a cheerful performance of the duty. With unabated ardor we must continue our prayers, though we do not immediately obtain what we desire. If, instead of with all perseverance, some would render it, with all Earnestness, I would have no objection to the change.
But what is the meaning of always? Having already spoken of continued application, does he twice repeat the same thing? I think not. When everything flows on prosperously, — when we are easy and cheerful, we seldom feel any strong excitement to prayer, — or rather, we never flee to God, but when we are driven by some kind of distress. Paul therefore desires us to allow no opportunity to pass, — on no occasion to neglect prayer; so that praying always is the same thing with praying both in prosperity and in adversity.
For all saints. There is not a moment of our life at which the duty of prayer may not be urged by our own wants. But unremitting prayer may likewise be enforced by the consideration, that the necessities of our brethren ought to move our sympathy. And when is it that some members of the church are not suffering distress, and needing our assistance? If, at any time, we are colder or more indifferent about prayer than we ought to be, because we do not feel the pressure of immediate necessity, — let us instantly reflect how many of our brethren are worn out by varied and heavy afflictions, — are weighed down by sore perplexity, or are reduced to the lowest distress. If reflections like these do not rouse us from our lethargy, we must have hearts of stone. But are we to pray for believers only? Though the apostle states the claims of the godly, he does not exclude others. And yet in prayer, as in all other kind offices, our first care unquestionably is due to the saints.
19. And for me. For himself, in a particular manner, he enjoins the Ephesians to pray. Hence we infer that there is no man so richly endowed with gifts as not to need this kind of assistance from his brethren, so long as he remains in this world. Who will ever be better entitled to plead exemption from this necessity than Paul? Yet he entreats the prayers of his brethren, and not hypocritically, but from an earnest desire of their aid. And what does he wish that they should ask for him?That utterance may be given to me. What then? Was he habitually dumb, or did fear restrain him from making an open profession of the gospel? By no means; but there was reason to fear lest his splendid commencement should not be sustained by his future progress. Besides, his zeal for proclaiming the gospel was so ardent that he was never satisfied with his exertions. And indeed, if we consider the weight and importance of the subject, we shall all acknowledge that we are very far from being able to handle it in a proper manner. Accordingly he adds,
20. As I ought to speak; meaning, that to proclaim the truth of the gospel as it ought to be proclaimed, is a high and rare attainment. Every word here deserves to be carefully weighed. Twice he uses the expression boldly, — “that I may open my mouth boldly, ” “that therein I may speak boldly. ” Fear hinders us from preaching Christ openly and fearlessly, while the absence of all restraint and disguise in confessing Christ is demanded from his ministers. Paul does not ask for himself the powers of an acute debater, or, I should rather say, of a dexterous sophist, that he might shield himself from his enemies by false pretences. It is, that I may open my mouth, to make a clear and strong confession; for when the mouth is half shut, the sounds which it utters are doubtful and confused. To open the mouth, therefore, is to speak with perfect freedom, without the smallest dread.
But does not Paul discover unbelief, when he entertains doubts as to his own stedfastness, and implores the intercession of others? No. He does not, like unbelievers, seek a remedy which is contrary to the will of God, or inconsistent with his word. The only aids on which he relies are those which he knows to be sanctioned by the Divine promise and approbation. It is the command of God, that believers shall pray for one another. How consoling then must it be to each of them to learn that the care of his salvation is enjoined on all the rest, and to be informed by God himself that the prayers of others on his behalf are not poured out in vain! Would it be lawful to refuse what the Lord himself has offered? Each believer, no doubt, ought to have been satisfied with the Divine assurance, that as often as he prayed he would be heard. But if, in addition to all the other manifestations of his kindness, God were pleased to declare that he will listen to the prayers of others in our behalf, would it be proper that this bounty should be slighted, or rather, ought we not to embrace it with open arms?
Let us therefore remember that Paul, when he resorted to the intercessions of his brethren, was influenced by no distrust or hesitation. His eagerness to obtain them arose from his resolution that no privilege which the Lord had given him should be overlooked. How absurdly then do Papists conclude from Paul’s example, that we ought to pray to the dead! Paul was writing to the Ephesians, to whom he had it in his power to communicate his sentintents. But what intercourse have we with the dead? As well might they argue that we ought to invite angels to our feasts and entertainments, because among men friendship is promoted by such kind offices.
21. But that, ye also may know. Uncertain or false reports frequently produce uneasiness, chiefly, no doubt, in weak minds, but sometimes also in thoughtful and steady persons. To prevent this danger, Paul sends Tychicus, from whom the Ephesians would receive full information. The holy solicitude which Paul felt about the interests of religion, or, to use his own language, “the care of all the churches,” (2. o 11:28,) was thus strikingly evinced. When death stood constantly before his eyes, neither the dread of death, nor anxiety about himself, prevented him from making provision for the most distant churches. Another man would have said, “My own affairs require all the attention I can give. It would be more reasonable that all should run to my assistance, than that they should expect from me the smallest relief.” But Paul acts a different part, and sends in every direction to strengthen the churches which he had founded.
Tychicus is commended, that his statements may be more fully believed. A faithful minister in the Lord. It is not easy to say, whether this refers to the public ministry of the church, or to the private attentions which Paul had received from Tychicus. This uncertainty arises from these two expressions being connected, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord. The former refers to Paul, to whom the second may be supposed also to apply. I am more inclined, however, to understand it as denoting the public ministry; for I do not think it probable that Paul would have sent any man who did not hold such a rank in the church, as would secure the respectful attention of the Ephesians.
23. Peace be to the brethren. I consider the word peace, as in the salutations of the Epistles, to mean prosperity. Yet if the reader shall prefer to view it as signifying harmony, because, immediately afterwards, Paul mentions love, I do not object to that interpretation, or rather, it agrees better with the context. He wishes the Ephesians to be peaceable and quiet among themselves; and this, he presently adds, may be obtained by brotherly love and by agreement in faith From this prayer we learn that faith and love, as well as peace itself, are gifts of God bestowed upon us through Christ, — that they come equally from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
24. Grace be with all. The meaning is, “May God continue to bestow his favor on all who love Jesus Christ with a pure conscience!” The Greek word, which I follow Erasmus in translating sincerity, (ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ,) signifies literally uncorruptedness, which deserves attention on account of the beauty of the metaphor. Paul intended to state indirectly, that, when the heart of man is free from all hypocrisy, it will be free from all corruption. This prayer conveys to us the instruction, that the only way of enjoying the light of the Divine countenance is to love sincerely God’s own Son, in whom his love toward us has been declared and confirmed. But let there be no hypocrisy; for most men, while they are not unwilling to make some professions of religion, entertain exceedingly low notions of Christ, and worship him with pretended homage. I wish there were not so many instances in the present day to prove that Paul’s admonition, to love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity is as necessary as ever.
END OF THE COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
