Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Ephesians 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3:1-7. This truth, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs with the Jews, was hidden from former generations, but has now been revealed to the apostles and prophets; and unworthy though I am, yet to me has been given the privilege of making it known, and of preaching Christ to the Gentiles
1. τύο χρνἐὼΠῦο ὁδσιςτῦχιτῦἸσῦὑὲ ὑῶ τνἐνν (Tischendorf omits Ἰσῦ with א D* G.) “For this reason, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles.” “For this reason,” “hujus rei gratiâ” Vulg., i.e., as Theodoret says, “Knowing well both what ye were and how ye were called and on what conditions, I pray God to establish you in the faith.”
Chrysostom supplies εμ. I am the prisoner of Christ Jesus, etc. So the Peshitto and many moderns, including Beza, Meyer, Macpherson, “in order that ye may be built up to the habitation of God—in this behoof, that your Christian development may advance to that goal.” But this is to give too great prominence to the assertion of his imprisonment, as if it were a main point in the discourse, instead of being incidental. Besides, we should expect in that case δσιςwithout the article. St. Paul was not likely thus to designate himself as “the prisoner of Christ Jesus,” even with the addition “for you Gentiles.” The notoriety of the fact does not explain this. Moreover, this view makes τύο χρνand ὑὲ ὑῶ rather tautologous. The analogy of ch. 4:1 is in favour of taking ὁδ in apposition with ἐὼΠῦο.
Calvin’s “legatione fungor” is a rendering of πεβύ, the reading of D (from 6:20). Three cursives add κκύηα.
Origen (Catena) supposes a solecism; that, in fact, what St. Paul ought to have written was τ χρ …ἐνρσ τ μσ. Jerome also, following Origen, declares that after diligent search he could not find the continuation of the sense. But the true key was given by Theodore Mops., followed by Theodoret, viz. that vv. 2-13 is a parenthesis. τῦαπναἐ μσ τθιὼ ἀααβνιτνπρ ποεχςλγν Theodoret. The apostle having described himself as a prisoner for the Gentiles, is quite characteristically drawn off into a digression on the grace granted to him in connexion with this ministry to the Gentiles. Oecumenius regards the sentence as resumed in ver. 8 with the change of the nominative to the dative, a change not without parallels, as he observes, in Thucydides and Demosthenes. On that view τύο χρνwould mean “for this purpose,” as in Tit_1:5. But then ὁδσιςwould have no point, and, besides, ver. 8 is closely connected with 6 and 7. It is much more satisfactory to assume, with Theodore and Theodoret, that the sense is resumed with the same words, τύο χρν in ver. 14. The supposition of a resumption in ch. 4:1, adopted in the AV., rests apparently only on the repetition of ὁδσις and unnecessarily lengthens the parenthesis.
“The prisoner of Christ Jesus,” so he calls himself in 2Ti_1:8 and Phm_1:9, and in this Eph_4:1, “prisoner in the Lord.” He looks on his imprisonment, not merely as suffered in the service of the Lord, but as part of the lot assigned to him by Christ, so that he was Christ’s prisoner. Somewhat similarly in ch. 6:20, ὑὲ ο πεβύ ἐ ἀύε.
“In behalf of you Gentiles.” Since it was his preaching the free admission of the Gentiles that led to his persecution at the hands of the Jews and to his present imprisonment, Act_21:21, Act_21:28, Act_21:22:22.
2. εγ ἠοστ τνοκνμα. “If, indeed, ye have heard of the dispensation.” This seems decisive against the supposition that the Epistle was addressed to a Church which had been personally instructed by the writer. The utmost force that can be claimed for εγ is that, in Hermann’s words, it is used “de re quae jure sumpta creditur,” “if, as I take for granted,” being less hypothetical than επρ According to Lightfoot on Gal_3:4, this rule requires modification when applied to the N.T., where εγ is less directly affirmative than επρ
Eadie says it is “undeniable” that εγ is used in the N.T. of things that are certain, quoting 4:21 and Col_1:23. The former passage is in the same case with the present; in the latter, hope only is expressed, not certainty. The only other places where εγ occurs in the N.T. are Gal_3:4 and in the Received Text 2Co_5:3 (επρ B D). It is found also in Rom_5:6 in B. But allowing that the particle implies certainty as strongly as Hermann’s rule asserts, it could not be used of a fact in the writer’s own experience. A preacher addressing a strange congregation might say “I am sure,” or even “I know that you have been taught so and so,” but no preacher addressing those whom he himself had taught would ordinarily express himself in this way.1
It is said, indeed, that this argument proves too much, since “what was known of Paul in the Ephesian Church would practically be known of him throughout the missions of Asia” (Moule). But this is just the kind of case in which the particle may be properly used, viz. where the writer may be “practically” certain, but doubt is conceivable. Besides, the details which follow might be but imperfectly known to those who had not heard them from St. Paul’s own lips. And again, would he, in writing to the Ephesians, refer them to what he has just now written, that they may appreciate his knowledge in the mystery of Christ? Had they not had much more full proof of this during his long ministry? Every other attempt to evade this conclusion is equally unsuccessful. Thus ἠοστ has been rendered “intellexistis” (Anselm, Grotius), a meaning which the verb can have only when “hearing” is included; or, again, “hearing” the Epistle read (alluding to earlier passages in this Epistle); but cf. ἀαιώκνε, ver. 4. Calvin says: “Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, eum tacuisse de his rebus.” Ellicott reasons in a circle, “There could be no real doubt; ‘neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii quibus Paulus ipse evangelium plusquam biennio praedicaverat,’ Estius. …No argument, then, can be fairly deduced,” etc. He supposes the apostle to convey the hope that his words had not been forgotten. Similarly Eadie, Alford, Macpherson, Meyer, (contra, W. Schmidt in last ed. of Meyer). But the words are not “if ye remember,” or “if ye know”; but “if ye have heard”; and that, if written to the Ephesians, would be = “if I told you.”
τνοκνμα τςχρτςτῦΘο τςδθίη μιεςὑᾶ. “The dispensation of the grace of God, the grace given me to youward.”
As the explanation which follows is “that by revelation,” etc., it is best to understand τ χρτςas the genitive of the object, viz. the dispensation or plan or arrangement (namely, God’s arrangement) with respect to the grace,” etc. Chrysostom, followed by Oecum., takes the genitive as that of the subject. οκ χρ τνἀοάυι φσν ὅιο πρ ἀθώο ἔαε, ἀλ οτςᾠοόηε ἡχρςὥτ μιἐ ορνῦἀοαυθνι Oec. But this does not agree so well with the following words, which define the χρςas ἡδθῖαεςὑᾶ. Alford, understanding the genitive as objective, takes οκ as = “munus dispensandi.” But it is not easy to see in what sense St. Paul could dispense the grace given to him. Many commentators suppose δθίη to be attracted into the genitive by χρτς either understanding that it is in and with the grace that the οκ is entrusted to him (for which reason the participle has the case of χ v. Soden), or taking τ οκ τ χρ as = the gospel dispensation. But, while St. Paul might speak of the gospel dispensation as entrusted to him (οκνμα ππσεμι 1Co_9:17), he could hardly speak of it as “given to him.” Nor does this interpretation agree with the circumstance that the following words take the form of an explanation. The explanation of οκ as the apostolic office or stewardship, is also not consistent with the explanation, in which it is the act of God that is spoken of, not any conduct of the apostle. It is tempting to suppose, with some expositors, that the writer, in using the word οκνμα has in his mind the building just referred to. But although οκςmight suggest the idea of an οκνμς οκδμ and οκτρο do not; and the figurative use of οκνμαwas so common, that it the apostle had intended such an allusion, he would have made it more distinct.
3. ὅικτ ἀοάυι ἐωίθ μιτ μσήιν “That it was by way of revelation that the mystery was made known to me.” Explanation of ver. 2; hence the emphasis is on κτ ἀ., which is not really different from δ ἀοαύες Gal_1:12. In the latter passage, κτ could not have been used on account of ἸσῦΧιτῦfollowing.
ἐνρσηis the reading of אA B C D* G P, Vulg., Boh., Arm., Chrys. The Rec. has ἐνρσ, with Dc K L, Theoph. Oec. For τ μσήινsee on ch. 1:9. Here, not the “mystery” of redemption in general is meant, but the particular “mystery” of the inclusion of the heathen, for it is thus explained in ver. 6.
κθςπογααἐ ὀίῳ “As I have just written in brief.” πο is local, not temporal (cf. Gal_3:1, πογάη and the reference is to the present Epistle, not to an earlier one, as supposed by Chrysostom, Calvin, al., contrary to the present participle ἀαιώκνε. Theodoret and Theophylact have the right view. Comp. 1Co_5:9, ἔρψ ἐ τ ἐιτλ and 1Pe_5:12, ἔρψ δʼὀίω. The reference is doubtless to the whole preceding exposition about the Gentiles.
ἐ ὀίῳ equivalent to ἐ βαε, used by Demosthenes. Theodoret, indeed, and some moderns connect this with the πο in πογαα as if it meant “paulo ante,” which would be πὸὀίο. ἐ ὀ. in a temporal sense would mean, “in a short time” (Act_26:28). Wetstein correctly, “pauca tantum attigi cum multa dici possent.” Oecumenius gives a peculiar turn, οκἔρψνὅαἐρνἀλ ὅαἐώοννεν as if the following πὸ ὅwere = “prout,” which would make ἀαιώκνε unmeaning.
4. πὸ ὅis, “according to which, or looking to which,” namely, to what I have said. Comp. “πὸ ἃἔρξν” 2Co_5:10; πὸ τνἀηεα τῦεαγ Gal_2:14; πὸ τ θλμ ατῦ Luk_12:47. But the usage is quite classical.
ἀαιώκνε, present, because it is “while reading,” or “as ye read.”
νῆα. Where it is indifferent whether the aorist or present infinitive is used, the aorist is more frequent (Winer, §44. 7), especially after such verbs as δνμι θλ, etc. Hort thinks this ἀα. refers to reading the O.T. prophecies, comparing Mat_24:15. But there the passage “read” is distinctly specified, and although in Mar_13:14 Daniel is not named, he is quoted.
τνσνσνμυἐ τ μσηί τῦχιτῦ “My understanding in the mystery of Christ.” The article is not required before ἐ τ μ because σνέα ἐ is a frequent expression (Jos_1:7; 2Ch_34:12).
μσ. τῦΧ. We have the same expression in Col_4:3, where it clearly means the doctrine of the free admission of the Gentiles (δʼὃκὶδδμι It is the same here, as explained in ver. 6. Similarly, in Col_1:27 we have τῦμ τύο ὅἐτνΧιτςἐ ὑῖ. That passage has been used (by Alford, Ellicott, Meyer) to prove that the genitive here is one of apposition or identity; but it fails in this, since there it is not Χιτςbut Χιτςἐ ὑῖ, that constitutes the μ It is better, therefore, to understand “the mystery (or doctrine) relating to the Christ”; the genitive being that of the object.
Critics who question the genuineness of the Epistle regard this verse as the expression of a boastfulness not in accordance with the dignity of an apostle, and only a clumsy imitation of 2Co_11:5, 2Co_11:6, where St. Paul is merely claiming for himself that in which his opponents claim to surpass him. But there is no self-laudation in this assertion of σνσς(see, on the contrary, ver. 8); nor even as high a claim to exceptional knowledge as is involved in κτ ἀοάυι, which it only serves to illustrate. Is it not quite natural that in writing to Churches where he was not personally known, and where there were teachers whose teaching was of a corrupt and paganising tendency (v. 11-14), and threatened to cause a schism between the Jewish and the Gentile members of the Church, the apostle, who was, in fact, combating these errors, and expounding the true nature of the privileges to which the Gentiles were admitted, should remind them in some such way that the subject was one on which he could speak with authority, and thus guard against objections which might possibly be urged by these unsound teachers? From this point of view it will be seen that this indirect and delicate way of meeting possible opposition is thoroughly Pauline. On the other hand, a writer who merely assumed the name of Paul, especially one of such power as the writer of this Epistle, would hardly put into his mouth an expression of such seeming self-complacency, without any hint of opposition. Still less would such a writer forthwith add so striking an expression of self-depreciation as is contained in ver. 8.
5. ὃἐέαςγναςοκἐνρσητῦ υοςτνἀθώω. “Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men.” ἐ, which in the Received Text precedes ἑέας rests on slight authority, but it expresses the right construction of ἑ. γν Meyer, in his earlier editions, adopted the view that the meaning was “to other generations,” τῖ υος κτλ being epexegetical. (So also v. Soden.) But the usual interpretation is simpler, and corresponds better with the antithetical νν For γνάin this sense, cf. Act_14:16, ἐ τῖ πρχμνι γ and for the dative of time, 2:12, ἑέας i.e. other than the present.
“The sons of men,” an expression frequent in the O.T. and simply = “men.” Comp. Mar_3:28 (the only N.T. parallel) with Mat_12:31. It is needless, therefore, to adopt Bengel’s remark, “latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignorantiae, ortum naturalem cui opponitur Spiritus.” Bengel, indeed, thinks that the prophets are especially referred to, because Ezekiel, who writes largely of the temple, as St. Paul does here, calls himself the son of man; but this is peculiar to him. It seems equally erroneous to find in the words a marked contrast with “His holy apostles,” namely, because these were Θο ἄθωο (2Pe_1:21) (Ellicott). This is far-fetched. The apostles and prophets were not the less sons of men; and we might, with as much reason, follow Jerome, who would exclude the O.T. patriarchs and prophets because they were “sons of God.”
ὡ ννἀεαύθ τῖ ἁίι ἀοτλι ατῦκὶποήαςἐ Πεμτ. “As it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.”
ὡ is comparative, with such clearness as now. οτςἀρβςοκᾔεσνο πλιὶτ μσήιν Theoph.; “fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum,” Beza.
ἀεαύθ, not now ἐνρση because the special manner in which the knowledge was given is to be brought out.
“His holy apostles.” How can the writer, if himself an apostle, use such an expression? Some critics answer unhesitatingly that it is incredible that an apostle should do so, and that the expression betrays the view which belonged to a later age. Baur thinks the ἁίι an oversight. And the writer who was so unskilful as to be guilty of this palpable oversight, is so mindful of his assumed character that in the same breath he says, ἐο τ ἐαιττρ πνω ἁίν The difficulty seems to arise from the use of the word “holy,” and the corresponding words in other modern languages, to express the personal character of “holiness.” But ἅιςis used of any thing that is set apart for a sacred purpose. So we have “holy prophets,” Luk_1:70; Act_3:21. All Christians are by their calling ἅιι and St. Paul frequently uses the word where he himself is included (e.g. 1Co_6:2 and Col_1:26). When he calls all believers ἅιι what delicacy should prevent him from calling the apostles by the same word? A clergyman is not expected to be prevented, by a feeling of delicacy, from speaking of his “reverend brethren,” or a bishop of his “right reverend brethren.”
Lachmann and Tregelles place a comma after ἁίι, the following words being in apposition: “to the saints, His apostles and prophets,” or rather “apostles and prophets of His.” But such a separation of the adjective from the following substantive is harsh, although it must be admitted that it is suggested by the parallel in Col_1:26.
A more considerable difficulty seems to arise from the statement that the mystery of the free admission of the Gentiles had been revealed to “the apostles and prophets,” viz. as a body. For this is precisely the special doctrine which St. Paul seems elsewhere, and here in ver. 3, to claim as his own, and which, at least at first, was not accepted by the other apostles (Gal_2.). In ver. 8, also, this is recognised as the distinctive characteristic of St. Paul’s apostleship. For this reason Reuss makes the suggestion that the second half of ver. 5 is a gloss. In favour of this suggestion, it may also be observed that ατῦhas no expressed antecedent, unless, indeed, in opposition to most expositors, we take it to be Χιτῦ In the parallel in Col_1:26, τῖ ἁίι ατῦ the antecedent Θο occurs just before. But the authority of the MSS. is too strong for this suggestion to be accepted. B, indeed, omits ἀοτλι (with ps. Ambr.), while D G place the word after ατῦ
The difficulty, however, is met by the consideration that, not-withstanding the doubts which the other apostles at first entertained, they afterwards fully accepted the doctrine as taught by St. Paul, Acts 15., Gal_2:7 ff., and that long before the present Epistle was written. The “prophets” are manifestly Christian prophets. ἐ πεμτ must be joined with the verb, not with ποήας to which it would be a superfluous addition, or ἁίι or the following ενι
6. ενιτ ἔν σγλρνμ κὶσσωα…(namely) “that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs (or joint possessors) and fellow-members of the body.” Epexegetical; stating, not the purpose, but the content of the μσήιν The “should be” of AV. is not grammatically tenable. σγλρνμ, fellow-heirs, not with Christ, as in Rom_8:17 (and Jerome here), for it is “in Christ,” but with the believing Jews. The word σγλρνμςis found four times in the N.T. and once in Philo, but not elsewhere. σσωα incorporated with them into the body of which Christ is the Head. The word is not found elsewhere (except in the Fathers), and is supposed to have been perhaps formed by St. Paul. But as Aristotle has the compound σσωαοοεν(De Mundo, iv. 30), it is more probable that the adjective was in use.
κὶσμέοατςἐαγλα ἐ χιτἸσῦ
The Received Text has ατῦafter ἐαγ with Dbc G K L, al.; but the word is absent from אA B C D* P 17, al. Χιτ of the Text Rec. rests on nearly the same MS. authority, with the addition of D; while ΧιτἸσῦhas the authority of אA B C P 17.
“And joint-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.” The accumulation of epithets is due to the importance of the matter; there is no climax, for σμέ. is not stronger than σσωα The former word is found outside this Epistle only in Josephus, but the verb σμεέωoccurs in Xen. and Plato. Jerome renders the words “cohaeredes et concorporales et comparticipes promissionis,” defending the inelegance of the Latin by the importance of correctly representing the Greek. The genitive ἐαγ depends only on σμε. The promise is the promise of salvation, of a part in the kingdom of the Messiah; and to be partakers of the promise is to be joined with those to whom the promise is given. There is no need, then, to take ἡἐα. as = the thing promised, still less to understand this specially of the Holy Spirit. In the passages to which Eadie and others refer in support of such a restriction, the Spirit is expressly named, e.g. Gal_3:14; ch. 1:13.
ἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦand δὰτῦεαγλο refer to all three epithets. “In Christ Jesus through the gospel.” In Christ, not δά for He was not simply the means; it was in His person that this effect was produced. Cf. 1:7; and for an analogous distinction between ἐ and δά even where both substantives are impersonal, 1Pe_1:5, ἐ δνμιΘο φορυέοςδὰπσες and Heb_10:10, ἐ ᾧθλμτ ἡισέο ἐτ δὰτςποφρςκτλ
7. ο ἐεήη δάοο. “Of which I became a minister” (ἐεήη, אA B D* G; but ἐεόη, C Dc K L). The use of γνθνιinstead of the Attic γνσα is condemned by Phrynichus, who calls it Doric; but it is frequent in later Greek writers (Polybius, Diodorus, Dion. Hal. etc.), as is shown by Lobeck (ad Phryn. p. 109). There is no ground, then, for assigning to the word here a passive shade of meaning, as is done by Oecum., οδνγρἐὼἔγνἐὸ σνιήεκ τ χρτ τύῃ Compare, on the contrary, Col_4:11, ἐεήηά μιπργρα 1Th_2:14, μμτὶἐεήηε
δάοο. Harless maintains that δ denotes the servant in his activity for that service, while ὑηέη denotes him in his activity for the Master, apparently on the ground that δαοεντ or τν τ is said, and he compares 1Co_4:1 with Col_1:7. But ὑηεεντν τ is also said (Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 46; Soph. Phil. 1012), and the distinction cannot be maintained; see 2Co_11:23, δάοο Χιτῦεσ; 1Ti_4:6; and for ὑηέη, Act_26:16; Luk_1:2.
κτ τνδρὰ τςχρτςτῦΘο τςδθίη μικτ τνἐέγιντςδνμω ατῦ According to the gift of that grace of God which was given to me “by virtue of the exercise of His power.” τςδθίη is the reading of אA B C D* G, Vulg., Boh. The accusative is read by Dc K L, Syr., Chrys. The genitive is one of apposition, the gift being the grace given, so that the two readings do not differ in sense; but logically the genitive has the advantage, as the grace required this further definition more than the gift.
κτ τνἐ. ατῦ These words, which are to be connected with δθίη, are by no means superfluous, but express the everpresent consciousness of St. Paul that his mission as an apostle was not due to anything in himself, it was the grace of God given with Divine power that alone changed the persecutor into the apostle. Hence the accumulation δρά χρςδθίη ἐέγι, δνμς proceeding from the feeling of his own unworthiness, suggested by ο δά. ἐεήη. “Nolite respicere quid sim meritus, quia dominus ultro mihi sua liberalitate hoc contulit ut sim apostolus gentium; non mea dignitate sed ejus gratia. Nolite etiam respicere qualis fuerim; nam domini est homines nihili extollere. Haec est potentiae ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid effcere.” See Dale, Lect. xiii. p. 235.
8. ἐο τ ἐαιττρ πνω ἁίνἐόηἡχρςατ. τνis added before ἁίνin the Received Text, against a great preponderance of authority. ἁίνis used as a substantive. “To me who am less than the least of all saints” (i.e. all Christians) “was this grace given.” Closely connected in thought with the preceding, as expressing his own unworthiness in contrast with God’s grace. Ἐαιττρς Double forms of comparatives and superlatives are frequent in the poets. Wetstein quotes Eustathius, who has collected numerous instances. But they also occur in the later prose writers, e.g. μιόεο (Malalas, 490. 9; also 3Jn_1:4); ἐαιτττς(Sextus Empir.; also Matt. iii. 54, ix. 406), apparently without any increase of meaning. The instances in earlier prose writers (Xen. Aristot.) seem to be invented by the respective writers. The present instance is remarkable as a combination of superlative and comparative. It has a curiously parallel form in Aristotle, Metaph. x. 4. 7 (Bekker), οτ γρτῦἐχτυἐχττρνεηἄ τ; but there the form is introduced only as expressing an impossible conception, and is construed as a comparative; here, on the contrary, ἐαιττρςappears to express a definite idea, not only least of all saints, but even less than this implies. It may therefore be considered a unique formation. The expression can hardly be interpreted, with some eminent expositors, as referring to his consciousness of enduring sinfulness, as to which he could not place himself lower than all saints. True it is, no doubt, that every Christian, when he looks into his own heart, and is conscious of the sin that still dwells there, and knows that he cannot see what is in the heart of others, may be ready to exclaim, ἐὼἐαιττρςπνω ἁίν but this does not express a deliberate comparison, and whatever such a one may feel at such moments, he would act unwisely if, when instructing and exhorting others, he should thus proclaim his own inferiority to them. Such a confession would be likely to be misunderstood, and either called hypocritical or made the ground of the retort, Why, then, take upon you to instruct and reprove your betters? Certainly St. Paul gives us little reason to think that he would take such a view. He declares that he has “lived in all good conscience toward God”; that if any one might have confidence in the flesh, he might, being blameless as touching the righteousness which is in the law. And as one of the ἅιι he does not reckon himself amongst the babes in Christ, but the mature, τλιι(Php_3:15). He affirms that in nothing is he behind the ὑελα ἀότλι nay, he does not hesitate to call on his readers to be imitators of him, as he is of Christ. While never for a moment forgetting his own nothingness, and that it is only by the grace of God that he was what he was, he likewise never forgets his true position in Christ’s service. And he was too much taken up with his work in that service to have time for indulging in that kind of self-examination which consists in analysing one’s state of mind or one’s feelings. In Rom_7:17, to which Harless refers, he is describing the state from which he has been delivered (ib. ver. 25, 8:2).
His recollection, ever vivid, of his former career as a persecutor is quite sufficient explanation of the expression here used.
The same writers who hold that the ἅιιἀότλι ver. 5, could proceed only from an imitator who forgot his part, are of opinion that the expression now before us is an exaggerated imitation of 1Co_15:9, “I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle.” But there was no occasion there for any comparison with believers in general; he is only speaking of himself as one of the apostles; here he speaks of a grace that distinguished him above other believers, and, “now undeservedly,” is his natural feeling. Indeed, we may with more justice say that this striking and unique expression could not proceed from calculated imitation; it has the stamp of a spontaneous outflow of an intense feeling of unworthiness. Nor does it really go beyond the passage in 1 Cor.; for there he declares himself not only the least of the apostles, but not meet to be called an apostle; here he does not say that he is not meet to be reckoned amongst the ἅιι For the reader will not fail to note that notwithstanding the depth of his self-depreciation he still counts himself (or is represented as counting himself), and that not with hesitation, amongst the ἅιι the very term which when joined with ἀότλιis thought to be unapostolic. Yet no one supposes that ἁίνhere is inconsistent with humility.
τῖ ἔνσνεαγλσσα τ ἀεινατνποτςτῦχιτῦ The Rec. Text has ἐ before τῖ ἔ., with D G K L. It is absent from אA B C P.
“To preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” This is what ἡχρςατ consisted in. ατ refers to what follows. Harless regards the words as an exposition of δρά ἐο to ατ being treated as a parenthesis in order to avoid what he thinks would be unnatural the close of a period within the long parenthesis, whose unusual length is only explained by the uninterrupted flow of thought. In that case ατ would refer backward to ver. 7. But it is very awkward to separate εαγλσσα from the immediately preceding ἡχρςατ. As to vv. 2-13, this is not grammatically a parenthesis, for the sentence in ver. 1 is completely broken off, and a new sentence begins in ver. 14.
ἀεινατν Theodoret well remarks: κὶπςκρτεςεπρὁποτςἀεινατσ τῦογρατ, φσ, κρτω ὅιἀεινατς The neuter ποτςhowever, is the best supported reading in the text, being in א A B C D* G 17 67**, while א Dc K L P have the masculine, “the riches of Christ”; all the inexhaustible blessings contained in Him. Comp. Rom_11:33 (where the same word ἀει. occurs), and 1Co_8:9-12, “We know in part,” etc., and Php_3:10.
9. κὶφτσι[πνα]. The reading is doubtful. φτσιwithout πτςis read by א A 672, Cyr., Hil. and apparently Jerome. πνα is added by א B C D G K L P, Ital, Vulg., Syr., Chrys., al.; Tisch. Treg. Westcott and Hort leave out the word. The insertion seems easy to account for, as the verb seemed to require an accusative, which it usually has in the N.T. As to the sense, the advantage seems to be on the side of the omission. The general meaning is, indeed, pretty much the same with either reading, since the result of bringing the οκto light is that all men are enabled to see it. But πνα would seem to represent this result as attained by opening the eyes of men, whereas, since it was by revelation that the apostle learned it, opening men’s eyes would not be sufficient; the mystery itself had to be brought to light. Besides, the meaning given to φτσιwith the reading πνα, viz. to enlighten by way of instruction, has no parallel in the N.T., although it is so used in a few passages in the Sept. (Jdg_13:8; 2Ki_12:2, 2Ki_12:17:27, 28). Moreover, if πνα is read, although it is not emphatic, it cannot be limited to the Gentiles, and it would hardly be in St. Paul’s manner to claim as his the office of enlightening all men as to the mystery.
τςἡοκνματῦμσηίυ The Rec. Text has κιωί, a remarkable variation, but found in few MSS. οκνμαis in all the uncials, most cursives, and the versions and Fathers.
“What is the arrangement, or administration, of the mystery?” The mystery is that indicated in ver. 6, and that which was ordered or arranged as to the carrying out of this is the οκ τ μσ. This was entrusted to St. Paul; cf. ver. 2. This seems more natural than to interpret οκ as the arrangement which consisted in hitherto concealing the mystery and now revealing it. Comp. Col_1:25, τνοκ τῦΘο τνδθῖά μιεςὑᾶ πηῶα τνλγντῦΘο τ μσήιντ ἀοερμέο ἀὸτναώω.
τῦἀοερμέο, “which was hidden” = σσγμνυ Rom_16:25. Comp. also 1Co_2:7, κλῦε Θο σφα ἐ μσηί τνἀοερμέη.
ἀὸτναώω, equivalent to χόοςαωίι Rom_16:25, “from the beginning.” The expression occurs only here and Col_1:26 in the N.T. ἀʼαῶο (used also by Longinus) occurs in Luk_1:70; Act_3:21, Act_15:18. ἐ τῦα., which is used by St Joh_9:32, is also found in Greek writers. Comp. πὸτναώω, 1Co_2:7.
ἐ τ Θῷτ τ πνακίατ. “In God who created all things.” The Rec. Text adds, δὰηο Χιτῦ with Dc K L, Chrys., Theodoret, Oec. But the words are omitted by אA B C D* G P, Vulg., Syr-Pesh and Harcl (text) and other versions, Tert., Jerome, Augustine, al.
It is not quite clear what is the point here of the words τ τ π κίατ. When the words δὰ. Χ. were read, a reference to the spiritual or new creation was naturally thought of; but these words being omitted, such a reference is excluded. But, in fact, it is remote from the context, and unsuitable to the emphatic and unrestricted πναas well as to the simple κίατ.
It is clear that κίενcannot be applied to the μσήιν which is not a thing created. The simplest explanation seems to be that the Creator of all was free to make what arrangement He pleased as to the concealment and revelation of His purpose. As Bengel remarks: “Rerum omnium creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquae oeconomiae pro potestate Dei universali liberrime dispensatae.” Harless connects the words with the following: “Created all things in order to reveal in the Church His varied wisdom.” But so important an assertion as this would hardly be made in so incidental a manner in a subordinate clause, especially as it has no analogy elsewhere in the N.T. Moreover, ννin the following clause is against this view; see on ver. 10.
10-13. It is God’s purpose, that even the angelic powers should learn through the Church the varied wisdom of God as shown in His eternal purpose in Christ
10. ἵαγωιθ νντῖ ἀχῖ κὶτῖ ἐοσαςἐ τῖ ἐορνοςδὰτςἐκηίςἡπλπίιο σφατῦΘο. “To the end that now might be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places the much varied wisdom of God.” ἵαis supposed by some to be connected with the whole of the preceding, or specially with ἐόη κτλ This would make St. Paul ascribe to his own preaching a result in which the other apostles had their share. But as γωιθ directly opposed to ἀοερ and ννto ἀὸτναώω, the most natural interpretation is that the secret or mystery was concealed in former times in order that now the wisdom of God might be manifested in its fulfilment. Braune, however, connects ἵαwith τςἡοκ τῦμ “The arrangement is directed to this end, that the wisdom of God,” etc.
τῖ ἀχῖ κὶτῖ ἐοσας Understood by some of the older expositors of earthly powers in general, or of Jewish rulers in particular (so Locke), or again of heathen priests, or of Church authorities; all from unwillingness to admit the sublime thought of the apostle, that God’s wisdom in the scheme of redemption is an object of contemplation to heavenly intelligences. Comp., on the contrary, 1Pe_1:12, “which things angels desire to look into.”
V. Soden, comparing Col_2:10-15, understands the words of the angelio powers which ministered the law on the one hand, and on the other hand the elemental spirits which claimed the veneration of the heathen. To both was it now made manifest that the enmity was at an end.
ἐ τι ἐορνοςlocal, cf. 1:3, 20. It qualifies the preceding substantive notwithstanding the absence of the article, which is not necessary in the case of local definitions. Cf. Demosth. c. Pantaen, p. 967, τῖ ἔγι ἐ Μρνί: Aeschines, Fals. Leg. 42, τντίη πεβίνἐὶτ κιὸ τνἈφκυνν(Bernhardy, p. 322 f.).
δὰτςἐκηίς i.e. as Theodoret expresses it, δὰτςπρ τνἐκηίνοκνμα. The Church is the phenomenon, which by its existence is a proof and exhibition of the Divine wisdom as manifested in a scheme of redemption which is world wide.
πλπίιο does not mean “very wise,” as has been hastily inferred from the use of πίιο in Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 315, where, however, the word means “crafty.” πλπίιο is used by Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1149, of cloth; by Eubulus, ap. Athen. 15, p. 679d, of flowers. In a figurative sense, as here, it occurs in the Orphica (lxi. 4, of discourse), and in Theophilus. The Latin here has “multiformis.” The word probably refers to the variety of God’s dealings with Jews and Gentiles in former times, which are now seen to have worked to one end. Gregory of Nyssa (Hom. viii. in Cant. Cant. followed by Theoph. and Oecum.) gives a striking interpretation. “Before the incarnation of our Saviour the heavenly powers knew the wisdom of God only as simple and uniform, effecting wonders in a manner consonant with the nature of each thing. There was nothing πίιο. But now by means of the οκνμα with reference to the Church and the human race, the wisdom of God is known no longer as simple, but as πλπίιο, producing contraries by contraries; by death, life; by dishonour, glory; by sin, righteousness; by a curse, blessing; by weakness, power. The invisible is manifested in flesh. He redeems captives, Himself the purchaser, and Himself the price.” The thought is no doubt striking, but the adjective πλπ does not suggest πρδξν Perhaps, indeed, the word has been too much pressed by some expositors, and is only suggested by the thought of the great apparent difference and real harmony between the Christian dispensation and that which preceded it.
11. κτ πόει τναώω. “According to the purpose of the ages.” The genitive does not seem to be correctly taken as that of the object, the purpose concerning the ages, the foreordering of the ages (Whitby), since the writer is speaking of the one purpose carried out in Christ. Nor can πόει be taken as = foreknowledge (Chrys.). Modern commentators generally take it as = eternal. Ellicott compares πόει …πὸχόω αωίν 2Ti_1:9; but then the latter words are connected with δθῖα, not with πό. A better sense is obtained by taking the genitive as one of possession, “the purpose that runs through the ages.” Cf. Tennyson, “through the ages one increasing purpose runs.”
ἣ ἐοηε ἐ τ Χιτ Ἰσῦτ Κρῳἡῶ. “Which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It is questioned whether ἐοηε means “formed” or “executed” the purpose. The immediate connexion favours the former view; but it is urged by Meyer, Ellicott, al., that what follows belongs to the execution, not the formation of the purpose; and this has been thought also to account for Ἰσῦbeing added, since it was not the formation of the purpose, but its accomplishment that took place in the historical Jesus. For the use of πιῖ in this sense we are referred to ch. 2:3; Mat_21:31; Joh_6:38, and in the Sept. 1Ki_5:8; Isa_44:28. But in all these passages the object of the verb is θλμ, which primarily means that which is willed, so that the exact meaning of π θλμ is to perform that which God, e.g., has willed. It could not mean to form a purpose. With πόει it is otherwise. This properly means the purpose as an act, although by a natural figure it may also be used of that which is purposed. The natural meaning of πιῖ π., therefore, is to form a purpose, and the passages cited do not prove that any other sense is possible. Meyer also compares πιῖ γώη, Rev_17:17; but even if this were quite parallel, we cannot explain St. Paul’s Greek by that of the Apocalypse. In any case, when it is a πόει τναώω that is in question, πιῖ would be a very weak verb to use. The addition of Ἰσῦis sufficiently accounted for by this, that the apostle desired to bring to the mind of his readers the thought that He whom they know as Jesus their Lord is none other than the Christ in whom God had from eternity formed His purpose. So likewise ch. 1:4.
12. ἐ ᾧἔοε τνπρηίνκὶποαωὴ ἐ ππιήε δὰτςπσεςατῦ
So אA B 17 80, Greg-Nyss. The Rec. Text. has τνbefore ποαωή, with C Dc K L P, Ath., Chrys., al.
D*c have τνποαωὴ κὶτνπρηίν
G: ποαωὴ εςτνπρηίν The article seems more likely to have been inserted for grammatical reasons than omitted either accidentally or otherwise.
“In whom we have our boldness and access in confidence through our faith in Him.” πρηί is primarily freedom of speech, and is frequently found in that sense in the N.T., as well as in that of “plainness of speech,” Joh_16:25, Joh_16:26. It occurs in the sense of “confidence” in the Apocrypha and in Josephus, e.g. 1 Macc. 4:18, λψτ τ σῦαμτ π Wisd. 5:1, σήεα ἐ π πλῇὁδκις so Php_1:20; 1Ti_3:13; Heb_10:19; cf. 1Jn_2:28, 1Jn_3:21, 1Jn_4:17, 1Jn_5:14. The transition of meaning seems not to be by way of generalisation from confidence in speaking to confidence generally; for the primary meaning is not “confidence,” but “freedom, openness” of speech. But freedom of speech (in the active sense) implies the absence of fear or shame; see the passages just referred to in 1Jn_2:28, “have π and not be ashamed”; 4:17, “π in the day of judgment.” In Joh_3:21 and 4:12, π is connected with prayer.
On ποαωήsee 2:18. The intransitive sense is obviously the more suitable here. If the article is not read we must either suppose πρηί and ποαωήto form parts of one conception, or we must connect the following words with the latter only. What has just been said of πρηί shows that the former alternative is quite possible, πρηί κὶποαωήbeing nearly equivalent to ποαωὴμτ πρηίς and the idea would be the same that is expressed in Heb_4:16, ποεχμθ μτ πρηίςτ θόῳτςχρτς The other alternative would leave πρηί very indefinite.
How grandly is this confidence expressed in Rom_8:38, Rom_8:39 ! (Meyer.)
ππίηι is a word of the later Greek. It occurs several times in Josephus, also in Sextus Empiricus and in Philo, but only once in the Sept. 2Ki_18:19