Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Ephesians 2:1 - 2:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2:1-10. This exhibition of God’s power has not stopped there He has made us partakers of Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, having given us life when we were dead through our sins. Not for any merit of our own, but of His own free grace, for it was when we were dead in our sins that He thus loved us. But though our salvation was not on account of any works of ours, it was God’s purpose in His new creation of us that we should walk in the path of holiness which He designed
1. κὶὑᾶ from its position means “and you, too.” Resumed in ver.5, where first the verb σνζοοηεis expressed. Some commentators, indeed, have closely connected this with the preceding verse, so as to make ὑᾶ depend on πηομνυ But the relation between νκοςand σνζ is decisive against this. Lachmann, while taking ὑᾶ to be dependent on σνζ puts only a comma after 1:23, so as to co-ordinate κὶ(σνζ ὑᾶ with ατνἔωε But in this case we should certainly expect ἡᾶ here, since the apostle would be passing from what God has done with respect to Christ, to what He has done to Christians; cf. 1:19, εςἡᾶ τὺ πσ. Moreover,1:23 has the character of a solemn close, not of a parenthetical insertion; while the exposition which begins in 2:1 is too important to be regarded as a mere appendage to the foregoing. Hence, also, it is not a mere exemplification of the general act of grace referred to in 1:23. Rather are we to understand that the apostle, having spoken of the exceeding power of God towards those that believe, which might be recognised by reflection on what He had done in raising and exalting Christ, now, applying this to his readers, reminds them that in them also God had shown that exceeding power (Meyer). The grammatical structure is interrupted before the subject or the verb is expressed. It is taken up again with δ in ver. 4, where the subject is expressed, and in ver. 5 the object is repeated, which, however, is now changed to the first person in consequence of the κὶἡεςintroduced in ver. 3.
ὄτςνκοςτῖ πρπώαι κὶτῖ ἁαταςὑῶ. ὑῶ is added with אB D G, Syr. (both) Vulg., Theodoret, etc. It is omitted by K L, most cursives, Chrys., Oec. A has ἑυῶ ὄτςν “dead as ye were through your trespasses and sins.” Many attempts have been made to distinguish between ἁατα and πρπώαα Tittmann, following Augustine’s distinction (ad Lev. qu. 20), supposes the former to be deliberate sins, the latter sins of thoughtlessness. Augustine himself in the same place suggests a different view, viz. that π meant “desertio boni,” and ἁ. “perpetratio mali.” He seems then to have been guessing. Certainly these distinctions are both untenable. Jerome takes πρ to refer to the beginnings of sin in thought, ἁ. to the actual deeds, which is not admissible. Many understand ἁ., which is the more general term, as meant to include the sinful disposition, πρ being only concrete acts. However reasonable this may be with the singular ἁατα it can hardly be maintained of the plural. Etymology gives no help, for πρππωmeans to fall or go aside from, to miss, e.g. τςὁο, Polyb. iii. 54. 5; τςἀηεα, ib. xii. 7. 2, also without a genitive, to err. So that etymologically πρ is the same as ἁατα St. Paul appears to use the words as synonymous, see Rom_5:20, ἵαπενσ τ πρπωα ο δ ἐλόαε ἡἁατα κτλ Comp. also Rom_4:25 with 1Co_15:3.
Νκοςis here taken by Meyer to mean liable to eternal death. That νκο may be used proleptically appears from Rom_8:10. In that case the dative is instrumental. But this is hard to reconcile with the tense of σνζοοηε And surely it is very improbable that the apostle in speaking of the working of God’s power towards them, would mention only their future deliverance from death, and not their actual deliverance from spiritual death. Nor could the readers fail to think of spiritual death. This sense is sufficiently indicated by τῖ πρ κτλ as well as by the following verse. So Chrysostom, εςἕ χτνκκα ἠάαε(τῦογρἐτ νκωῆα). This figure of spiritual (or moral) death is frequent amongst the ancients. Clement of Alexandria says that ἐ τ βράο φλσφᾳνκοςκλῦιτὺ ἐπσνα τνδγάω κὶκθπτξνα τννῦ τῖ πθσ τῖ ψχκῖ. The Jewish Rabbis have similar expressions. But Christianity has given a much deeper meaning to “death” in this connexion. We have the same phrase in Col_2:13, where ἐ is not part of the genuine text, and τ ἀρβσί τςσρὸ ὑῶ is against the mere instrumental sense of the dative. It expresses that in which the death consisted.
2. ἐ αςrefers to both substantives, though agreeing in gender with the nearer. πρπτῖ in this sense is a Hebraism. The figure has disappeared, so that we are not to press the preposition as if marking “the walk which they trod”; see Rom_13:13, πρπτσμν μ κμι κὶμθι, κτλ and the parallel use of πρύσα, Act_9:31, π τ φβ τῦκρο. It is of frequent occurrence in St. Paul and St. John, but is not found in St. James or St. Peter, who use ἀατέεθι(a classical word, though not before Polybius); cf. 1Pe_1:17.
κτ τναῶατῦκσο τύο. “In accordance with the course of this world.” This combination of αώ and κσο creates some difficulty. Elsewhere we have ὁαὼ οτς(1Co_1:20, 1Co_2:6, 1Co_3:18, etc.), or ὁκσο οτς 1Co_3:19. ἡσφατῦκ τύο in the latter passage being synonymous with ἡσφατῦα. τύο in 1Co_2:6. But the two substantives are not synonymous; αώ means a period of time; κσο, the world existing in that period. Thus Antoninus (2:12) says that all things quickly vanish, τ μνκσῳατ τ σμτ, τ δ αῶια μῆα ατν The signification “life,” frequent in classical Greek, especially in the tragic poets, is never found in the N.T. As a paraphrase, however, “spirit of the age” fairly represents the sense, except that “age” refers to the whole period of this κσο. Comp. Tacitus, “corrumpere et corrumpi saeculum vocatur” (Germ. i. 9). αώ being a technical word with the Gnostics, it was to be expected that some expositors would adopt a similar meaning here. Accordingly, this has been done by Michaelis, who supposes the words αὼ τῦκ τ to mean “the devil,” with a polemic reference to the Gnostic aeons; and by Baur, who regards the expression itself as Gnostic, and equivalent to κσορτρ 6:12, meaning “the devil.” Holtzmann regards it as representing a transition stage between Paulinism and Gnosticism. As the ordinary signification of αώ yields a perfectly good and Pauline sense, there is no ground for such hypotheses. If the devil were intended to be designated here as ruler of this world, we might expect some such expression as ὁθὸ τῦαῶο τῦο, as in 2Co_4:4.
κτ τνἄχνατςἐοσα τῦἀρς Most expositors take ἐ. here collectively = α ἐοσα, understanding τῦἀρςas expressing the sphere of their existence. Such words as σμαί for σμαο, δυεαfor δῦο, πεβί for πέβι etc., exemplify this collective use of abstract for concrete terms. So occasionally in English, as “embassy,” “flight” (of arrows). The present case, however, is not quite parallel, since the distribution for which ἐ. is supposed to stand is the plural of this word itself, viz. α ἐοσα. This implies that the singular might be used of one of the ἐοσα; cf. Rom_13:2, Rom_13:3, where, however, ἡἐ. does not mean a ruling person. To use it collectively for α ἐ. is, therefore, very different from using ἡσμαί for ο σμαο. Besides, we must not assume that the word can be treated apart from the following genitive. ὁἄχνis defined, not by τςἐ., but by τςἐ. τῦἀρς For this reason, too, we cannot take τ ἐ as a genitive of apposition = “princeps potentissimus.” Now, the genitive following ἐοσαis elsewhere either subjective, as ἡἐ. τῦστν, Act_26:18; τῦἡεόο, Luk_20:20; ὑῶ, 1Co_8:9; or objective, πσςσρό, Joh_17:2; πεμτν Mat_10:1; ὑῶ, 1Co_9:12. It is possible, therefore, to understand the words as meaning “the ruler to whom belongs the power over the region of the air”; but this would create a difficulty in connexion with πεμτς It is therefore perhaps best to take ἡἐ. τῦἀ as the power whose seat is in the air. Some commentators take ἀρhere as = σόο; and if this were possible we should have obvious parallels in 6:12, κσορτρςτῦσόοςτῦο, and Col_1:13, τςἐοσα τῦσόος But although ἀρ is used in Homer and elsewhere of “thick air” in contrast to αθρ as in Plutarch (of the first creation), ἔιμνορννἔρπε ἀρ(De esu carn. Or. I. §2), it does not appear that it can be used simply for σόο, nor again that if so used figuratively, it could by another figure be used of spiritual darkness. What, then, does the expression mean? Oecumenius’ view is that as the rule of Satan is under heaven, not above, it must be either in the earth or the air; but, being a spirit, it must be in the air, φσςγρτῖ πεμσνἡἐαρο δαρβ; and this is adopted by Harless and others. The air being understood to mean, not merely the region of the atmosphere, but “all that supra-terrestrial, but sub-celestial, region, which seems to be, if not the abode, yet the haunt of evil spirits,” Ellicott, who compares Job_1:7 LXX, ἐπρπτσντνὑʼορνν which surely is not to be appealed to as giving any light. Eadie ingeniously suggests that “the ἀρand κσο must correspond in relation. As there is an atmosphere round the physical globe, so air, ἀρ envelops this spiritual κσο, ”—an atmosphere “in which it breathes and moves.” Compare our own phrases in which “atmosphere” is used figuratively, “an atmosphere of flattery,” etc. But if such a figure were intended, some word must be added which would indicate the figure, such as the words “breathes and moves” in Eadie’s explanation. Indeed, he admits that it is perhaps too ingenious to be true, and falls back on the alternative that either the apostle used current language, which did not convey error, as Satan is called Beelzebub, without reference to the meaning of the term “Lord of flies,” or that he means to convey the idea of “near propinquity,” or alludes to what he had more fully explained during his residence at Ephesus. That the notion of the air being the dwelling-place of spirits, and specially of evil spirits, was current, appears to be beyond doubt. Thus Pythagoras held ενιπνατνἀρ ψχνἔπεν(Diog. L. viii. 32). Philo says, οςἄλιφλσφιδίοα, ἀγλυ Μσςεωε ὀοάεν ψχὶδ εσ κτ τνἀρ πτμνι In the Test. XII. Patr. it is of ὁδύεο ορνςthat it has fire, snow, ice ready for the day of the Lord’s command, ἐ ατ εσ πνατ πεμτ τνἐαωῶ εςἐδκσντνἀόω (Levi, ap. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. V.T. p. 547), and in Test. Benj. p. 729, Βλά is called τ ἀρο πεμ. Drusius cites from the commentary on Aboth, “sciendum, a terra usque ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et praefectis et infra plurimas esse creaturas credentes et accusantes, omnesque stare ac volitare in aere …quorum alii ad bonum, alii ad malum incitant.” There is no difficulty in supposing that St. Paul is here alluding to such current notions. Nor are we to suppose that he is conveying any special revelation about the matter. Harless’ objection, that according to the views referred to, the air was inhabited by good spirits as well as bad, is by no means fatal, since it is on the bad spirits that men’s thoughts would chiefly dwell, and to them would be referred evil suggestions and desires.
τῦπεμτςis understood by some (including Rü and De Wette) as in apposition with τνἄχνα Winer, while rejecting this view, admits that in this case the apostle might most easily have wandered from the right construction, namely, on account of the preceding genitives. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose this, although it must be conceded that the only admissible alternative, viz. that π. depends on ἄχνα is more harsh as to sense, although the harshness is lessened by the distance from ἄχνα Adopting this, the sense is, “the ruler of the spirit,” etc. Here πεμ is not to be understood collectively, which it cannot be; it is what in 1Co_2:12 is called τ πεμ τῦκσο, the spiritual influence which works in the disobedient. It seems to be a sort of explanation of the preceding ἐοσα
νν Not “even now,” which would require κὶνν but in contrast to πτ, when this spirit operated in the readers also.
ἐ τῖ υοςτςἀεθίς A Hebrew form of expression. We have “son of misery,” Pro_31:5; “sons of iniquity,” 2Sa_7:10; “sons of Belial (= worthlessness).” Compare ch. 5:6; Col_3:6; 1Th_5:5 (“sons of light”); 2Th_2:3 (“son of perdition”). Greek authors used the expression πῖε ζγάω and the like, but not with abstracts. The opposite to υο ἀ. is τκαὑαος 1Pe_1:14. ἀεθι is not unbelief, but disobedience; compare Rom_11:30, κὶὑεςπτ ἠεθστ τ Θῷ Chrysostom very curiously says, ὁᾶ ὅιο βᾳοδ τρνίιἀλ πιο ποάεα; ἀεθινγρεπν ὡ ἄ τςεπι ἀάῃκὶπιο τὺ πνα ἐέκτι But on Col_3:6 he says, δινςὅιπρ τ μ πιθνιἐ τύοςεσν The former remark looks more like a rhetorical play on words than a serious comment.
3. ἐ οςκὶἡες κὶἡες “we also, we too.” Having spoken specially of the Gentiles in the preceding verses, the apostle now passes to the Jews. The πνε is certainly no objection to this. “Even amongst us (the chosen people) there was no exception.” What more natural than to say “all of us also.” If πνε included both Jews and Gentiles, ἡεςwould be quite superfluous; and the emphatic κὶἡεςwould be unintelligible if it included ὑεςof vv. 1 and 2. ἐ οςis connected by Stier with πρπώαι (which he thinks appropriate to Jews, as ἁαταςto Gentiles). His reasons are, first, that as υο τςἀ. are the heathen, not all the unbelieving, it would not be suitable to reckon the Jews amongst them; secondly, that the harshness of supposing that ἐ just now used with ἐεγῦτςis immediately used with the same object in a different signification; and thirdly, that the parallelism of 2 and 3 compels us to take ἐ αςand ἐ οςas parallel. With the reading ὑῶ adopted above in ver. 1 it is impossible thus to separate πρ from ἁ. It might more plausibly be maintained that οςrefers to both substantives, the feminine having been adopted only because ἁ. was the nearest substantive, and the neuter being used where that reason does not exist. But we cannot well avoid referring the relative to the nearest antecedent when that gives a suitable sense, and the change of verb from πρπτῖ to ἀατέεθι which is more suitable if οςbe persons, is in favour of this; “amongst whom we also,” belonging to the same class of the disobedient.
ἀετάηε. “Versabamur,” “lived our life”; “speciosius quam ambulare,” Bengel, but rather perhaps adopted because πρπτῖ ἐ τῖ υοςcould not be said.
ἐ τῖ ἐιυίι τςσρό. σρ, though primarily signifying the matter of the body, and hence the appetites arising from the body, is not to be limited to these, but includes the whole of the lower or psychical nature. In Rom_7. it appears in the natural man as opposed to νῦ or ἐώin the higher sense; in Rom_8. in the regenerate it is opposed to πεμ. Amongst the works of σρ are “strifes,” etc., Gal_5:19, Gal_5:22. Compare Col_2:18, puffed up by the νῦ of his σρ.” The ἐιυίιof the flesh are therefore not merely the bodily appetites, but in general what Butler calls “particular propensions.” So here it includes σρ proper and δάοα.
πιῦτςτ θλμτ, κτλ expresses the result in act of the ἐιυίι there is no tautology. Δάοα is not found elsewhere with a bad signification. In classical authors δάοαmeans the understanding, or a thought or purpose. In Aristotle virtue is ποίει μτ λγυκὶδαοα. The plural also is used by Plutarch in a good sense. In the N.T. it occurs frequently in a good sense, 1Pe_1:13, “girding up the loins of your δ”; 2Pe_3:1“I stir up your pure δ”; 1Jn_5:20, “hath given us a δ”; cf. also ch. 1:18. Harless conjectures that the plural here is used in the sense common in Greek writers, viz. purpose, the plural suggesting vacillation; and he compares the use of σφα in Aristoph. Ran., and “sapientiae” in Cic. Tusc. iii. 18. But this is too refined. It deserves notice that in ch. 4:18 and Col_1:20, St. Paul speaks of his readers having been “darkened in their δαοα and “enemies in their δ” Here, while by no means admitting a hendiadys, “cogitationes carnales,” we must at least allow that δαοῶ acquires its bad significance from the preceding σρό so that it nearly = “the σρ and its δαοα.”
κὶἤεατκαφσιὀγς This order, which is that of the Text. Rec., is established by אB K etc., Chrys., Lachmann adopted φσιτκα with A D G L P, Vulg., Syr-Harcl.
The change from the participle to the finite verb need occasion no difficulty; it is, in fact, required by the sense. Had ὄτςbeen written it would be co-ordinate with πιῦτςand subordinate to ἀετάηε, and explanatory of it, “doing the desires …and being the children … Whatever view is taken of the latter clause, these two are not co-ordinate. Not merely, therefore, for emphasis, but because the latter is a distinct predication, co-ordinate with ἐ οςἀετ., or, more exactly, expressing a consequence of that, the verb is in the indicative,—“and so we were.”
τκαὀγςis understood by many as = actual objects of God’s wrath, τκαbeing used as suitable to Israel, and then by a sort of irony is added, not “of Abraham” or “of God,” but “by nature of wrath.” There could be no objection to such an interpretation if it corresponded with the context; but here, if the actual wrath of God were intended, we should expect it to be defined by Θο or the article, or otherwise. But how strange, if not impossible, would be the expression “children of God’s wrath”; and especially so here, where in the same breath they are described as at the same time objects of God’s love, without anything to soften the apparent opposition ! Nor can it be said that this is at all implied in the word τκα On the contrary, we have several instances in the Old Testament in which “son of” followed by a word denoting punishment cannot reasonably be given any other meaning than either “worthy of,” or “in danger of.” Thus Deu_25:2, “If the wicked man be a son of stripes, the judge shall …cause him to be beaten before his face,” etc.; rightly rendered in the Sept. ἐνἄιςᾖπηῶ. 1Sa_26:16 (David to Abner), “Ye are sons of death, because ye have not kept watch over your lord.” 2Sa_12:5 (David to Nathan), “The man that hath done this is a son of death.” In these two passages the RV. has correctly “worthy to die,” and in the former no other interpretation is possible. In 1Sa_20:31, RV. has in the text (with AV.) “shall surely die,” but in the margin “is worthy to die.” In Psa_79:11 and 102:20, “sons of death” are “those who are in danger of death.”
These instances, together with the indefiniteness of ὀγς justify us in understanding the words to mean “objects, i.e. fit objects of wrath,” “deserving of wrath.” And so they are interpreted by Chrysostom, “We have provoked God to wrath, τυέτνὀγ ἦε κὶοδνἕεο” (explaining that he who is ἀθώο τκο is ἄθωο). “πνε ἐρτοε ἄι ὀγς” Similarly Oecumenius, “As those who do things worthy of perdition or of hell are called τκαἀωεα κὶγένς[e.g. 2Th_2:3; Mat_23:15] οτ κὶτκαὀγςο ἄι ὀγς
Why is φσιinserted? This question does not seem hard to answer. It must first be remarked that φσςis opposed sometimes to νμς sometimes to θσς ἀάκ, etc., but does not necessarily mean “by birth.” Rom_2:14, the Gentiles do φσιτ τῦνμυ 1Co_11:14, ἡφσςteaches that if a man have long hair it is a shame. Josephus says of David that he was φσιδκιςκὶθοεή (Ant. vii. 7, 1), and of the Pharisees φσιἐιιῶ ἔοσν(xiii. 10, 6). We have φσιφλγωγττςin Xen. Oec. xx. 25. Compare also Philo, De Conf. Ling. p. 327 E, ἀλ οκἀτλγκὶγγνσνὅο τςἐιτμςκὶἀεῆ ζλνἔχν It is, in fact, used like our word “naturally.” Here the opposition suggested might be to χρτ; but as the Jews are in question, it is more probably to θσι their covenant position as the people of God, by which they were holy branches of a holy root, to whom belonged the υοεί (Rom_11:16, Rom_11:21). “We Jews, too, just as the heathen, were, apart from the covenant, τκαὀγς”
From the time of Augustine these words have been supposed by many to contain a direct assertion of original sin. Thus Calvin, “Paulus nos cum peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum venenum ex utero afferunt.”
But, first, this gives a very great emphasis to φσι which its position forbids. Secondly, it supposes κὶἤεαto refer to, or at least include, a time prior to ἐ οςἀ., which seems not possible. Thirdly, it does not harmonise with the context. That treats of actual sin (including, of course, character), and the immediate context of the Jews only. It would be natural and intelligible that this description should be followed by mention of the wrath thereby incurred; it would also be intelligible, though less natural, that it should be followed by a statement that in addition to this we inherited a sinful and guilty nature. The interpretation in question supposes that neither of these is mentioned; the wrath incurred by actual sin is omitted, while that incurred by birth sin is mentioned without mention of its cause, which is left to be inferred. And fourthly, even this is stated expressly only of the Jews; it is assumed as self-evident of the Gentiles, ο λιο. The reader has to fill up the sentence somewhat in this way, “We fulfilled the desires of the flesh [and thus became objects of God’s wrath; and, in addition to this, we were even before committing any actual sin inheritors of a sinful nature, and so] already by nature objects of His wrath.”
It is true, indeed, that men are born with a sinful and corrupt nature; but to say this is not to say that the infant who has committed no actual sin is an actual object of God’s wrath; still less does it prove that the apostle’s words here imply it. Chrysostom has no trace of such an interpretation; in fact he seems even to regard these words as guarding against a similar interpretation of θλμτ σρό. “That is [he says], οδνπεμτκνφοονε. But that he may not be suspected of saying this in disparagement of the flesh, and lest one should think the offence not great, see how he guards himself. Fulfilling the desires, etc.; he (the apostle) says, we provoked God”; adding what has been quoted above. Jerome gives as alternatives, “Vel propter corpus humilitatis corpusque mortis et quod ab adolescentia mens hominum apposita sit ad malum.” “Vel quod ex eo tempore quo possumus habere notitiam Dei, et ad pubertatem venimus, omnes aut opere aut lingua aut cogitatione peccemus.” He mentions some who took φσιhere to mean “prorsus”; cf. ἀηῶ or ἀηῶ or γηίς Oecum.; but the word never has this meaning.
ο λιο, the heathen, cf. 1Th_4:13.
4. ὁδ Θό resumes from ver. 1 after the interruption, and now with the subject; ονis more usual in such a resumption; but δ is more suitable here, on account of the contrast of what is now to be said with what precedes. Jerome’s comment is characteristic, “Conjunctionem causalem in eo loco in quo ait: Deus autem etc. arbitramur aut ab indoctis scriptoribus additum et vitium inolevisse paulatim, aut ab ipso Paulo, qui erat imperitus sermone et non scientia, superflue usurpatum.” Erasmus’ remark is more correct, “Hyperbati longioris ambitum ipse correxit Apostolus.”
ποσο ὢ ἐ ἐέι “being as He is” (the participle assigning the reason), not simply ἐεμν but “rich in mercy” (Chrys.). Compare Rom_9:23, “make known the riches of His glory on σεηἐέυ.” In classical writers ποσο is construed with a genitive of the thing, but in the N.T. with ἐ, see Jam_2:5, ἐπσε; and similarly the verbs ποτῖ, ποτζσα (1Co_1:5). Compare the correspondence of ἔεςand ἀεθί in Rom_11:31. ἀάηis not a particular form of ἔες but is the cause from which, or by reason of which, ἔεςwas exercised.
δὰτνπλὴ ἀάη, “propter,” Vulg. “for His great love”; cf. Phm_1:8, “for love’s sake.” ἥ, cognate accusative, a very common usage, both in classical and N.T. Greek. Here the addition ἣ ἠ. ἡᾶ, being not necessary to the sense, gives great emphasis to the expression of the Divine love. Nor is ατῦto be neglected, “His love” marking more distinctly that it is from Him alone and His attitude of love that this mercy proceeds.
ἡᾶ now includes both the ὑεςof ver. 1 and the ἡᾶ ver. 3. and includes therefore both Jews and Gentiles.
5. κὶὄτςἡᾶ νκος The κίdoes not signify “us also altogether,” which is forbidden by the position of ἡᾶ (not κὶἡᾶ), and for the same reason it does not resume the κίof ver. 1. It is best taken as “Even,” “Even when we were dead,” etc. It is objected, indeed, that it is only the dead who can be “brought to life,” and for this reason Meyer takes κίas the copula, “on account of His great love, and when we were dead”; but these two ideas are not co-ordinate. Soden, for the same reason, joins the words with the preceding, “loved us even when,” etc. This, no doubt, gives a good sense, although the antithesis between “loved” and “when dead” is not very natural, whereas that between νκοςand ἐωπίσ is striking. Besides, the proposed construction would require ἡᾶ to be expressed with σνζ not with ὄτς since ἠάηε already has its object expressed. But the objection is hypercritical. The answer to it is, not that νκ is qualified by τῖπρπ. which has no emphasis, nor that σνζ is defined by ἐ Χιτ. The true answer is found in the position of the verb. “Gave life even to the dead” would not be a natural mode of expression, but “Even the dead He restored to life” is perfectly natural. The κὶὄτς κτλ attracts the reader’s attention to some striking instance of God’s love about to be mentioned. Comp. Col_2:13, where the connexion is unambiguous. Indeed, it is not quite true that ζοοενcan be only of the dead. See Joh_6:63 compared with ver. 54; also 1Co_15:36; 2Co_3:6.
τῖ πρπώαι = our trespasses, the trespasses already mentioned in ver. 1.
σνζοοηετ Χιτ.
B adds ἐ after the verb with 17 Arm. and some other authorities, —a reading admitted to the margin by Westcott and Hort, and in brackets by Lachmann. It might, with equal ease, be omitted or inserted accidentally. There could be no reason for intentional omission, but it might be added intentionally from the construction being mistaken. It is observable that B, Arm. also insert ἐ after νκος if, indeed, a version can be safely cited in such a case. Internal evidence is against ἐ, as we get a better sense by taking χιτ as dependent on σν
Meyer, having understood νκοςto refer to future eternal death, of course understands σνζ as referring to the eternal life which begins with the resurrection. This view he regards as alone consistent with the context in which the translation into heaven is expressed, and again in ver. 7 the times after the Parousia are referred to. His view then is, that God has made believers alive with Christ; that is, that by virtue of the dynamic connexion of Christ with His believers as the Head with its body, their revivification is objectively included in His; “quum autem fides suscipitur ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini et ab homine rata habentur,” Bengel. The apostle therefore views this as having already taken place, although the subjective individual participation remains future, and he might have used the future as in 1Co_15:22. The peculiar use of the aorist here he refers to the principle thus stated by Fritzsche (on Rom_8:30, ii. p. 206), “Ponitur Aoristus de re, quae, quamvis futura sit, tamen pro peractârecte censeatur, quum vel aliâre jam factâcontineatar, ut h. 1., vel a conditione suspensa cogitetur, quam jam obtinuisse finxeris, v. Hom. Il. iv. 161; Joh_15:6.” This usage was first explained by Hermann, “De emend. ratione graecae gr.” pp. 190 ff., but, as stated by him, does not apply here.
Of the two passages to which Fritzsche after Hermann refers, that from Homer is, says Hermann, the only instance known to me in which it may be reasonably questioned whether the aorist has not the signification of the future, viz. Hom. Il. iv. 160-162. It is as follows:—
επργρτ κὶατκὈύπο οκἐέεσν
ἔ τ κὶὀὲτλῖ σντ μγλ ἀέια,
σνσῇι κφλσ γνιίτ κὶτκεσν
Here the poet throws himself forward into the time of the verb τλῖand sees the instantaneous carrying out of this vindication of oaths; as if he said, “And, lo! at once they have paid the penalty.” “Rem futuram non ut futuram sed ut praeteritam narrat: nimirum post quam Troianos punierit Iuppiter turn illi poenas dederunt” (Hermann). The other example is from Joh_15:6, ἐνμ τςμίῃἐ ἐο, ἐλθ ἔωὡ τ κῆα κὶἐηάθ. Here also a condition is expressed from which the consequence necessarily follows. Similarly Epictetus, cap. 59, ἂ ὑὲ δνμνἀαάῃ τ πόωο, κὶἐ τύῳἠχμνσς κὶὃἠύαοἐπηῶα, πρλπς(see Jelf, §403). In the present passage, if σνζ is referred to the future, there is no resemblance to these instances. We have already seen, however, that νκοςincludes present spiritual death, and that indeed as its primary notion, although it cannot be limited to that, since the consequence, natural and eternal death, is necessarily suggested with it. Accordingly, the vivification, though primarily spiritual, includes in it our share in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. In 1:20, 21 the writer has pointed to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ as an exhibition of Divine power; here he declares that by virtue of our union with Him as of members with the head, we participate in the same. “Quamvis salus nostra in spe sit adhuc abscondita quantum ad nos spectat: in Christo nihilominus beatam im-mortalitatem possidemus,” Calvin. Col_2:13 is closely parallel. The fact that baptism is there referred to as the means by which the individual entered subjectively into fellowship with Christ, and is not mentioned here, does not justify the adoption of a different meaning for σνζ here, such as that of Harless, whose view is that the risen life and glorification of Christ are here spoken of as ours, because they are the glory of “our” Redeemer.
Chrysostom’s comment is: ε ἡἀαχ ζ, κὶἡες ἐωπίσ κκῖο κὶἡᾶ, to which Theophylact adds: ἐεννἐεγί, ἡᾶ δνμινν μτ ὀίο δ κὶἐεγί. σν clearly “with Christ,” Col_2:13.
χρτ ἐτ σσσέο. “It is by grace that ye have been saved,”—a lively parenthetical reminder suggested by the preceding words, and vindicating the expression “vivified when dead.” Being dead, ye could do nothing of yourselves, so that it must needs be all by grace, i.e. simply by God’s free gift. We are so accustomed to use “grace” in a technical theological sense, that we are prone to think of that sense where it does not really come in. This technical sense of “grace” as something conferred is not in question here, and any reference to the distinction between prevenient and co-operating grace, etc., is out of place. The word is used just as in royal letters the words “by our special grace and mere motion.”
D G, Vulg. al. prefix ο(D ο τ) to χρτ.
The perfect ἐτ σσσέο here is in striking contrast with the aorist ἐώηε in Rom_8:24, τ γρἐπδ ἐ. But the perfect is as suitable here as it would have been unsuitable there, where it would contradict ἐπδ. Then, what was to be said had reference to the definite moment of the readers’ introduction into the Christian Church, and the point was that the στραobtained at that definite moment was in part a matter of hope. Here it is not a past moment that is in question, as if χρςwas over and done with, but the readers’ present condition as the continuing result of their conversion. In one sense their στραwas complete, viz. regarded with respect to that from which they were delivered; in another incomplete, viz. with respect to that which was reserved for them. So to persons rescued from a wreck, but not yet arrived in port, we might say either ἐώηεor σσσέο ἐτ.
6. σνγιεis nearly synonymous with σνζοοηε but suggests more distinctly physical resurrection. In Col_3:1, as here, the ἐεθνισνΧιτ is treated as past, and is made the motive for seeking those things which are above, “…for ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” The present passage expresses this more vividly and strikingly, σνκθσνἐ τῖ ἐορνος “Non dicit in dextra; Christo sua manet excellentia,” Bengel (and so Estius less tersely). ἐ τῖ ἐ. denotes the true or ideal locality of the Church as the “kingdom of heaven.” Comp. Heb_12:22, ποεηύαε…πλιΘο ζνο, Ἱρυαὴ ἐορνῳ
ἐ Χιτ after σν has caused some perplexity, and led some commentators to understand the σν in ver. 6 (not in ver. 5) as joining ὑεςand ἡεςtogether. But it seems better to understand ἐ Χ as completing and defining with more precision what was intended by σν for it is not simply together with Christ that this vivification and exaltation takes place, but also in Him, by virtue of union with Him as the Head.
7. ἵαἐδίηα. The middle does not mean “for His own glory,” nor does the language of the verse suggest the idea of showing as a sample or specimen. The verb seldom occurs in the active voice except as a legal expression, never in N.T. The middle involves no more than is already contained in ατῦ as the instances show: Rom_2:15, “show the work of the law written in their hearts”; 2Co_8:24, “showing the ἔδιι of your love and of our boasting”; 2Ti_4:14, “Alexander the coppersmith πλάμικκ ἐεεξτ.” See also Tit_2:10, Tit_2:3:2; Heb_6:10, Heb_6:11. These instances also show that the word means, not “make known,” but “exhibit in fact or act.”
ἐ τῖ αῶιτῖ ἐεχμνι. “In the coming ages.” It seems more suitable to the context, as well as to the use of parallel expressions, to understand this of the future life, ὁαὼ ὁμλω, in which the state described in the preceding words will be actually realised and made manifest. The present participle is not against this, for in Mar_10:30 we have ὁαὼ ὁἐχμνςin this sense. The plural may at first sight seem against it, but is not really so; it only indicates that the apostle viewed the future age as involving stages of development in which the exceeding riches of God’s grace will be more and more clearly manifested, and that becomes actual, the knowledge of which is mentioned as the object of desire in 1:18. Compare the frequent expression εςτὺ αῶα τναώω, also Jud_1:25, εςπνα τὺ αῶα; and the remarkable expression, 1Ti_1:17, τ βσλῖτναώω. These αῶε may be regarded as constituting a whole in contrast to the present life, and so be named in the singular ὁα. ὁμλω.
τ ὑεβλο ποτςτςχρτςατῦ The neuter ποτςis best supported here. In modern Greek the word is indifferently masculine or neuter.
ἐ χητττ ἐʼἡᾶ. These words are to be so connected, not ὑεβλο ἐʼἡᾶ. To exhibit χρςin χηττςwould be tautological. Nor is the absence of the article any objection, for χηττςimplies, not merely an inherent quality, but one which involves in its idea exercise towards another, so that it requires to be completely defined by the expression of this object.
ἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦ The ground of this kindness shown towards us is in Christ, not in us. As Calvin remarks, “Notanda repetitio nominis Christi quia nihil gratiae neque amoris a Deo sperari vult, nisi ipso intercedente.”
8. τ γρχρτ, κτλ How justly I say “the exceeding riches of His grace,” for, etc. The apostle now speaks in more detail about the truth of which his mind was so full. χρτ has the article, because it is the grace already mentioned.
δὰπσεςwithout the article, אA B D* G P 17, Chrys., Rec. has the article, with Dc K L and most cursives.
This is the subjective condition, the “causa apprehendens,” the necessary medium on the side of man, “the living capacity for receiving the powers of the higher world,” Olshausen. The whole emphasis is on τ χρτ. The article before πσεςwould imply that its possession was presupposed: “your faith.”
κὶτῦο “and that” (for which κὶτῦαis more frequent in classical writers), is referred by the Fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Jerome, to “faith.” Thus Chrysostom says: οδ ἡπσι ἐ ἡῶ, ε γροκἦθν ε γρμ ἐάεε πςἠυάεαπσεσι πςγρ φσ, πσύοσνἐνμ ἀοσσν He proceeds to interpret the words Θο τ δρνas applying, not to faith, but to the grant of salvation on condition of faith, ἐε πςσζιἡπσι, επ μι ἄε ἔγν τῦοατ Θο δρνἐτν This is not very different from what Theophylact says: ο τνποι λγιδρνΘο, ἀλ τ δὰπσεςσθνι τῦοδρνἐτ θο. Modern commentators (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, etc.) who have adopted the view that τῦοrefers to πσι, understand the meaning to be that the power or exercise of faith (faith subjectively considered) is the gift of God (as Php_1:29), in which case κὶτῦοto δρνmust be parenthetical, since to say that faith is not ἐ ἔγνwould be trivial in the extreme.
The gender of τῦοis not fatal to the reference to πσι, but to separate ἐ ὑῶ in this way from ἐ ἔγνdoes violence to the connexion. The latter is a nearer definition of the former. Recent commentators refer κὶτῦοto σσσέο ἐτ, or, better, to the whole clause; for after χρτ had been expressed with σς the emphatic κὶτῦοwould be out of place. In fact, the apostle emphasises and defines τ χ more closely by denying the opposites; first, of the objective source χρςby οκἐ ὑῶ; and, secondly, of the subjective element by οκἐ ἔγν(Meyer).
Θο τ δρν God’s is the gift = Θο δρντ δρνἐτ,Θο being placed first for the sake of the emphatic contrast with ὑῶ.
9. οκἐ ἔγν He does not say ἔγννμυ because not writing to Jewish believers. De Wette (who does not accept the Pauline authorship) thinks the opposition in οκἐ ἔγνhas no meaning, since the writer is not thinking of Jews, and heathen believers did not need to be warned against taking pride in the righteousness of works, especially after what had preceded in vv. 1 and 5. But the οκἐ ἔγνwas such an essential principle of St. Paul’s teaching that no doubt he must have often repeated it amongst both Jews and Gentiles; nor is there any force in the reference to the past condition of the readers. Might not Gentile converts be tempted to regard their salvation as secured by their new holiness of life? and not the less because their former sins were when they were in darkness.
ἵαμ τςκυήηα. Some commentators insist on giving ἵαits full final force, “in order that”; so that to prevent boasting was God’s purpose, or one of His purposes, in appointing that men should not be justified by works. Are we then to say that, in order that men should not boast, He has refused to allow salvation or justification by works? Nay; but no man can be justified by his works, and “when they have been betrayed by these,” God appointed that He should save them χρτ δὰπσες So in substance Chrysostom and Theophylact, whose words are: τ γρἵαοκατογκνἐτ, ἀλ ἐ τςἀοάεςτῦπάμτς Yet the clause is not to be reduced to a mere statement of result, since it is a result inseparable from God’s purpose. Stier suggests that ἵα κτλ may be viewed as the expression of the writer’s purpose: “This I say in or