Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Ephesians 4:1 - 4:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
4.1 ff He now passes, as usually in his Epistles, after the doctrinal exposition to the practical exhortation, in the course of which, however, he is presently drawn back (ver. 4) to doctrinal teaching to support his exhortation to unity.
1-4. Exhortation to live in a manner worthy of their calling, in lowliness, patience, love, and unity
1. πρκλ ονὑᾶ ἐὼὁδσιςἐ Κρῳ “I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, entreat you.” ονmay indicate inference from the immediately preceding verse, or more probably (since it is the transition between two sections of the Epistle) from the whole former part, ὁδσιςἐ Κ This is not to excite their sympathy, or as desiring that they should cheer him in his troubles by their obedience; for, as Theodoret remarks, “he exults in his bonds for Christ’s sake more than a king in his diadem”; but rather to add force to his exhortation. “In the Lord” for “in Domini vinculis constrictus est qui ἐ Κρῳὥ vinctus est,” Fritzsche (Rom. ii. p. 84). It does not signify “for Christ’s sake”; compare σνρὸ ἐ Χιτ, Rom_16:3, Rom_16:9; ἀαηὸ ἐ Κρῳib. 8. It assigns rather the special character which distinguished this captivity from others.
πρκλ may be either “exhort” or “entreat, beseech”; and in both senses it is used either with an infinitive or with a conjunction (ἵαor ὅω). Either sense would suit here, but “exhort” seems too weak for the connexion; comp. Rom_12:1, where it is followed by “by the mercies of God,” a strong form of appeal. More than exhortation is implied, especially as it is an absolute duty to which he calls them.
ἀίςπρπτσιτςκήεςἧ ἐλθτ. “To walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called.” ἧ attracted for ἥ the cognate accusative; cf. 1:6; 2Co_1:4. True, the dative might be used with κλῖ (see 2Ti_1:9); but the attraction of the dative would not be in accordance with N.T. practice.
2. μτ πσςτπιορσνςκὶπᾳττς “With all lowliness and meekness.” μτ is used of accompanying actions or dispositions (see Act_17:11; 2Co_7:15); πσςbelongs to both substantives. What is τπιορσν? Chrysostom says it is ὅα τςμγςὤ ἑυὸ τπιο; and elsewhere, ὅα μγλ τςἑυῷσνιώ, μδνμγ πρ ατῦφνάηα. Trench says it is rather esteeming ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so, the thinking truly, and therefore lowlily of ourselves; adding that Chrysostom is bringing in pride again under the disguise of humility. In this he is followed by Alford and other English com mentators. Yet surely this is not right. A man may be small, and know himself to be so, and yet not be humble. But every man cannot truly think himself smaller than his fellows; nor can this be the meaning of Php_2:3. If a man is really greater than others in any quality or attainment, moral, intellectual, or spiritual, does the obligation of humility bind him to think falsely that he is less than they? It is no doubt true that the more a man advances in knowledge or in spiritual insight, the higher his ideal becomes, and so the more sensibly he feels how far he comes short of it. This is one aspect of humility, but it is not τπιορύη And St. Paul is speaking of humility as a Christian social virtue. St. Paul declares himself to be not a whit inferior to ο ὑελα ἀότλι and in the same breath says that he humbled himself; he even exhorts his readers to imitate him, and yet he attributes this very virtue to himself, Act_20:19. And what of our Lord Himself, who was meek and lowly, πᾷςκὶτπιό, in heart? One who knows himself greater in relation to others, but who is contented to be treated as if he were less, such a one is certainly entitled to be called humble-minded; he exhibits τπιορύη Chrysostom’s definition, then, is far truer than Trench’s; it only errs by limiting the possibility of the virtue to those who are great.
This is a peculiarly Christian virtue. The word occurs in Josephus and Epictetus, but only in a bad sense as = “meanness of spirit.” πᾳτςis understood by some expositors as meekness toward God and toward men; the spirit “which never rises in in subordination against God, nor in resentment against man” (Eadie); but its use in the N.T. does not justify the introduction of the former idea; compare 1Co_4:21, “Shall I come to you with a rod, or in the spirit of π.”? 2Ti_2:25, “correcting in π.”; Tit_3:2, “showing all π. towards all men.” Resignation toward God and meekness toward man are distinct though allied virtues. The same virtues are mentioned in Col_3:12.
μτ μκομίς “with long-suffering,” connected by some expositors with the following; but ἀεόεο is already defined by ἐ ἀάῃ which is best connected with that word. The repetition of μτ is rather in favour of than adverse to the parallelism with the preceding, τπ and πᾳ being taken more closely together as being nearly allied virtues.
μκουί has two senses: steadfastness, especially in enduring suffering, as in Plutarch, “Never ask from God freedom from trouble, but μκουί” (Luc. 32) cf. Jam_5:10; Heb_6:12; but generally in N.T. slowness in avenging wrongs, forbearance, explained, in fact, in the following words. Fritzsche defines it, “Clementia, quâirae temperans delictum non statim vindices, sed ei qui peccaverit poenitendi locum relinquas” (Rom. i. p. 98). Compare 1Co_13:4, ἡἀάημκουε, χητύτι In his comment on that passage, Chrysostom rather curiously says: μκόυο δὰτῦολγτιἐεδ μκά τν κὶμγλνἔε ψχν
ἀεόεο ἀλλνἐ ἀάῃ “Forbearing one another in love.” This mutual forbearance is the expression in action of μκουί It involves bearing with one another’s weaknesses, not ceasing to love our neighbour or friend because of those faults in him which perhaps offend or displease us.
The participles fall into the nominative by a common idiom, ὑεςbeing the logical subject of ἀίςπρπτ cf. ch. 3:18 and Col_1:10. There is no need, then, with some commentators, to supply ἐτ or γνσε
3. σοδζνε τρῖ τνἑόηατῦπεμτςἐ τ σνέμ τςερνς “giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” “Endeavouring,” as in the AV., would imply the possibility, if not likelihood, of the endeavour failing. Trench (On the Authorised Version, p. 44) says that in the time of the translators “endeavouring” meant “giving all diligence.” But in Act_16:10 the word is used to render ἐηήαε, and except in this and two other passages it is not used for σοδζι, which, in Tit_3:12 and 2Pe_3:14, is rendered “be diligent”; in 2Ti_4:9, 2Ti_4:21, “do thy diligence”; 2Ti_2:15, “study.” The other passages where the rendering is “endeavour” are 1Th_2:17, where the endeavour did fail, and 2Pe_1:15, where failure might have appeared possible. Theophylact well expresses the force of the word here: οκἀόω ἰχσμνερνύι. The clause expresses the end to be attained by the exercise of the virtues mentioned in ver. 2.
τρῖ, “to preserve,” for it is supposed already to exist. “Etiam ubi nulla fissura est, monitis opus est,” Bengel. The existence of divisions, therefore, is not suggested. “The unity of the Spirit,” i.e. the unity which the Spirit has given us. “The Spirit unites those who are separated by race and customs,” Chrys., and so most recent commentators; and this seems to be proved by ἕ Πεμ in the following verse. But Calvin, Estius, and others, following Anselm and ps-Ambrose, understand π. here of the human spirit, “animorum concordia.” De Wette, again, thinks that the analogy of ἑόη τςπσες in ver. 13, is against the received interpretation, and accordingly interprets “the unity of the spirit of the Christian community,” taking π. in ver. 4 similarly. Comp. Grotius, “unitatem ecclesiae quae est corpus spirituale.” (Theodore Mops. agrees with Chrys. The quotation in Ellicott belongs to the next verse.)
ἐ τ σνέμ τςερνς Genitive of apposition; peace is the bond in which the unity is kept; cf. σνεμνἀιίς Act_8:23, and σνεμςενίς Plut. Num_6. The fact that love is called the bond of peace in Col_3:14 does not justify us in taking the words here as meaning “love,” an interpretation adopted, probably, in consequence of ἐ being taken instrumentally; in which case, as peace could not be the instrument by which the unity of the Spirit is maintained, but is itself maintained thereby, the genitive could not be one of apposition. But the ἐ is parallel to the ἐ before ἀάῃ and in any case it is not by the bond of peace that the unity of the Spirit is kept.
4-11. Essential unity of the Church. It is one Body, animated by one Spirit, baptized into the name of the one Lord, and all being children of the same Father. But the members have their different gifts and offices
4. ἓ σμ κὶἓ Πεμ κθςκὶἐλθτ ἐ μᾷἐπδ τςκήεςὑῶ. “One Body, and one Spirit, even as ye were called in one hope of your calling.” This and the two following verses express the objective unity belonging to the Christian dispensation in all its aspects. First, the oneness of the Church itself: one Body, one Spirit, one Hope. Next, the source and instruments of that unity, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; and lastly, the unity of the Divine Author, who is defined, in a threefold manner, as over all, through all, and in all.
Although there is no connecting particle, and γρis certainly not to be supplied, the declaration is introduced as supplying a motive for the exhortation, but the absence of any such particle makes it more vivid and impressive. We need not even supply ἐτ; it is rather to be viewed as an abrupt and emphatic reminder of what the readers well knew, as if the writer were addressing them in person. Still less are we to supply, with Theophylact and Oecumenius, “Be ye,” or with others, “Ye are,” neither of which would agree with vv. 5 and 6.
One Body; namely, the Church itself, so often thus described; one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which dwells in and is the vivifying Spirit of that body; cf. 1Co_12:13. The parallelism εςΚρο, εςΘό seems to require this. Comp. 1Co_12:4-6, where τ ατ Πεμ, ὁατςΚρο, ὁατςΘό. Chrysostom, however, interprets differently; indeed, he gives choice of several interpretations, none of them agreeing with this. “Showing (he says) that from one body there will be one spirit; or that there may be one body but not one spirit, as if one should be a friend of heretics; or that he shames them from that, that is, ye who have received one spirit and been made to drink from one fountain ought not to be differently minded; or by spirit here he means readiness, πουί.”
κθςis not used by Attic writers, who employ κθπρor κθ. It is called Alexandrian, but is not confined to Alexandrian or biblical writers.
ἐ μᾷἐπδ. ἐ is not instrumental, as Meyer holds. Comp. κλῖ ἐ χρτ, Gal_1:6; ἐ ερν, 1Co_7:15; ἐ ἁισῷ 1Th_4:7; nor is it = εςor ἐί as Chrysostom.
It is frequently said in this and similar cases that it indicates the “element” in which something takes place. But this is no explanation, it merely suggests an indefinite figure, which itself requires explanation. Indeed, the word “element” or “sphere” seems to imply something previously existing. What ἐ indicates is that the hope was an essential accompaniment of their calling, a “conditio” (not “condition” in the English sense). It differs from εςin this, that the latter preposition would suggest that the “hope,” “peace,” etc., followed the calling in time. In fact, the expression εςτ involves a figure taken from motion; he who is called is conceived as leaving the place in which the call reached him. But κῆι as applied to the Christian calling is pregnant, it includes the idea of the state into which the calling brings those who are called. “ἐ exprimit indolem rei,” Bengel on 1Th_4:7; so also the verb. Hence such an expression as κηο ἅιι They are so called as to be ἐ ἐπδ, ἐ ερν, by the very fact of their calling, not merely as a result of it. Hence, also, we are not to interpret “hope of your calling,” or “the hope arising from your calling,” which is hardly consistent, by the way, with the idea that hope is the “element.” It is rather the hope belonging to your calling.
5. εςΚρο, μαπσι, ἓ βπιμ. “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.” One Lord, Christ; one faith, of which He is the object, one in its nature and essence; and one baptism, by which we are brought into the profession of this faith.
The question has been asked, Why is the other sacrament not mentioned? and various answers have been given, of which the one that is most to the point, perhaps, is that it is not a ground or antecedent condition of unity, but an expression of it. Yet it must be admitted that it would supply a strong motive for preserving unity, as in 1Co_10:17. Probably, as it was not essential to mention it, the omission is due in part to the rhythmical arrangement of three triads.
6. εςΘὸ κὶπτρπνω. “One God and Father of all.” Observe the climax: first, the Church, then Christ, then God; also the order of the three Persons—Spirit, Lord, Father. Ellicott quotes from Cocceius: “Etiamsi baptizamur in nomen Patris Filii et Spiritus. Sancti, et filium unum Dominum nominamus, tamen non credimus nisi in unum Deum.” It is arbitrary to limit πνω to the faithful. It is true the context speaks only of Christians, but then πνε has not been used. The writer advances from the Lord of the Church to the God and Father of all. For this notion of Fatherhood see Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 1.
ὁἐὶπνω κὶδὰπνω κὶἐ πσν “Who is over all, and through all, and in all.” The Received Text adds ὑῖ, with a few cursives, and Chrys. (Comm. not text), Theoph., Oec. ἡῖ is added in D G K L, Vulg., Syr. (both), Arm., Goth., Iren.
There is no pronoun in אA B C P 17 672, Ign. Orig. al. It was, no doubt, added as a gloss, πσνseeming to require a limitation.
As πσνis undoubtedly masculine, it is most natural to take πνω in both places as masculine also. Ver. 7 individualises the πνω by ἑὶἑάτ ἡῶ. Erasmus and some later commentators, however, have taken the first and second πνω as neuter, whilst the Vulg. so takes the second.
ὁἐὶπνω; cf. Rom_9:5, ὁὢ ἐὶπνω Θὸ ελγτςεςτῦ αῶα. “Over all,” as a sovereign ruler. It is less easy to say what are the distinct ideas meant to be expressed by δάand ἐ respectively. The latter is more individualising, the indwelling is an indwelling in each; whereas δὰπνω expresses a relation to the whole body, through the whole of which the influence and power of God are diffused. It is a sustaining and working presence. This does not involve the supplying of ἐεγν
We are not to suppose a direct reference to the Trinity in these three prepositional clauses, for here it is the Father that is specially mentioned in parallelism to the Spirit and the Son, previously spoken of.
7. ἐὶδ ἑάτ ἡῶ ἐόηἡχρςκτ τ μτο τςδρᾶ τῦχιτῦ “But to each one of us the grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” He passes from the relation to the whole to the relation to the individual. In the oneness of the body, etc., there is room for diversity, and no one is overlooked; each has his own position. Compare Rom_12:4-6; 1Co_12:4 ff., where the conception is carried out in detail. “The grace,” i.e. the grace which he has. The article is omitted in B D* G L P*, but is present in אA C Dc K Pcorr, most others. The omission is easy to account for from the adjoining ηin ἐόη “According to the measure,” etc., i.e. according to what Christ has given; cf. Rom_12:6, “gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us.”
8. Δὸλγι “Wherefore it saith” = “it is said.” If any substantive is to be supplied it is ἡγαή but the verb may well be taken impersonally, just as in colloquial English one may often hear: “it says,” or the like. Many expositors, however, supply ὁΘό. Meyer even says, “Who says it is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scripture is.” Similarly Alford and Ellicott. If it were St. Paul’s habit to introduce quotations from the O.T., by whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula ὁΘὸ λγι then this supplement here might be defended. But it is not. In quoting he sometimes says λγι frequently ἡγαὴλγι at other times ΔβδλγιἩαα λγι There is not a single instance in which ὁΘό is either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original context God is the speaker, as in Rom_9:15. Even when that is the case he does not hesitate to use a different subject, as in Rom_10:19, Rom_10:20, “Moses saith,” “Isaiah is very bold, and saith”; Rom_9:17, “The Scripture saith to Pharaoh.”
This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in ch. 5:14 a form of expression consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration. When Meyer (followed by Alford and Ellicott) says that ἡγαήmust not be supplied unless it is given by the context, the reply is obvious, namely, that, as above stated, ἡγαὴλγιdoes, in fact, often occur, and therefore the apostle might have used it here, whereas ὁΘὸ λγιdoes not occur (except in cases unlike this), and we have reason to believe could not be used by St. Paul here. It is some additional confirmation of this that both here and in ch. 5:14 (if that is a biblical quotation) he does not hesitate to make important alterations. This is the view taken by Braune, Macpherson, Moule; the latter, however, adding that for St. Paul “the word of the Scripture and the word of its Author are convertible terms.”
It is objected that although φσ is used impersonally, λγιis not. The present passage and ver. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles where this sense is at least applicable; cf. Rom_15:10, where λγιis parallel to γγατιin ver. 9; Gal_3:16, where it corresponds to ἐρθσν But, in fact, the impersonal use of φσ in Greek authors is quite different, namely = φσ, “they say” (so 1Co_10:10). Classical authors had no opportunity of using λγιas it is used here, as they did not possess any collection of writings which could be referred to as ἡγαή or by any like word. They could say: ὁνμςλγι and τ λγμνν
Ἀαὰ εςὕο ᾐμλτυε αχαωίνκὶἔωεδμτ τῖ ἀθώος “When he ascended on high He led a captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” The words appear to be taken from Ps: 68:18 (where the verbs are in the second person); but there is an important divergence in the latter clause, which in the Hebrew is, “Thou has received gifts among men,” the meaning being, received tributary gifts amongst the vanquished, or according to another interpretation, gifts consisting in the persons of the surrendered enemies (Ibn Ezra, Ewald). The Septuagint also has ἔαε δμτ ἐ ἀθώῳ or, according to another reading, ἀθώος Various attempts have been made to account for the divergence. Chrysostom simply says the one is the same as the other, τῦοτὐό ἐτνἐεν and so Theophylact, adding, “for God giving the gifts receives in return the service.” Meyer, followed by Alford and Eadie, maintains that the Hebrew verb often has a proleptic signification, “to fetch,” i.e. to take in order to give. The apostle, says Eadie, seizes on the latter portion of the sense, and renders—ἔωε Most of the passages cited for this are irrelevant to the present purpose, the verb being followed by what we may call the dative of a pronoun, e.g. Gen_15:9, “Take for me”; 27:13, “Fetch me them.” In such cases it is plain that the notion of subsequent giving is in the “mihi,” not in the verb, or rather the dative is simply analogous to the dativus commodi. This use is quite parallel to that of the English “get.” In 18:5, “I will get a piece of bread and comfort ye your hearts,” the pronoun is omitted as needless, the words that follow expressing the purpose for which the bread was to be fetched. In 42:16, “Send one of you and let him fetch your brother,” there is no idea of giving. In no case is giving any part of the idea of the Hebrew verb any more than of the English “get” or “fetch.” But whatever may be thought of this “proleptic use,” this is not the sense of the verb in the psalm, so that it would not really help. The psalm speaks of receiving (material) gifts from men; the apostle, of giving (spiritual) gifts to men. Macpherson says, “The modification is quite justifiable, on the ground that Christ, to whom the words are applied, receives gifts among men only that He may bestow them upon men.” But Christ did not receive amongst men the gifts which He is here said to bestow. The Pulpit Commentary states: “Whereas in the psalm it is said gave gifts to men” [which is not in the psalm, but in the Epistle], as modified by the apostle it is said “received gifts for men,” which is neither one nor the other, but a particular interpretation of the psalm adopted in the English version. Ellicott, admitting that the difference is not diminished by any of the proposed reconciliations, takes refuge in the apostolic authority of St. Paul. “The inspired apostle, by a slight (?) change of language and substitution of ἔωεfor the more dubious לקת succinctly, suggestively, and authoritatively unfolds.” But he does not profess to be interpreting (as in Rom_10:6, Rom_10:7, Rom_10:8), but quoting. Such a view, indeed, would open the door to the wildest freaks of interpretation; they might not, indeed, command assent as inspired, but they could never be rejected as unreasonable. The change here, far from being slight, is just in that point in which alone the quotation is connected either with what precedes or with what follows.
The supposition that St. Paul does not intend either to quote exactly or to interpret, but in the familiar Jewish fashion adapts the passage to his own use, knowing that those of his readers who were familiar with the psalm would recognise the alteration and see the purpose of it, namely, that instead of receiving gifts of homage Christ gives His gifts to men, is not open to any serious objection, since he does not found any argument on the passage. So Theodore Mops., who remarks that ὑαλξςτ ἔαεδμτ οτςἐ τ ψλῷκίεο, ἔωεδμτ επ, τ ὑαλγ πρ τνοκίνχηάεο ἀοοθα·ἐε μνγρπὸ τνὑόει τ ἔαε ἥμτε, ἐτῦαδ τ ποεμν τ ἔωε ἀόοθνἦ. As Oltramare observes: Paul wishes to speak of the spiritual gifts granted to the Christian in the measure of the gift of Christ, exalted to heaven. An expression of Scripture occurs to him, which strikes him as being “le mot de la situation.” Depicting originally the triumph of God, it strikes him as expressing well (mutatis mutandis) the triumph of Christ, but he does not identify either the facts or the persons. It is, however, remarkable that the same interpretation of the words of the psalm is given in the Syriac Version and in the Targum. The former may have followed St. Paul, as the Arabic and Ethiopic, although made from the Septuagint, have done; and it has been suggested that the Targumist, finding a difficulty, followed the Syriac,—an improbable supposition. In his expansion he interprets the words of Moses, “Thou didst ascend to the firmament, Moses the prophet, thou didst take a captivity captive, thou didst teach the words of the law, thou gavest gifts to the sons of men.” This Targum as we have it is of comparatively late date. But if we may assume, as no doubt we may, that it is giving us here an ancient interpretation, we have a solution of the difficulty so far as St. Paul is concerned; he simply made use of the Rabbinical interpretation as being suitable to his purpose. Compare 1Co_10:4. No doubt the question remains, What led the Targumist to take this view of the passage? Hitzig suggests that as the receiving of gifts seemed not consonant with the majesty of God, the paraphrast mentally substituted for לחthe verb חק which has the same letters in a different order, and means “to divide, give a portion,” etc. This verb is rendered δδσνby the Sept. in Gen_49:27 (EV. “divide”), while in 2Ch_28:21, where it occurs in an otherwise unexampled sense “plunder” (EV. “took a portion out of”), the Sept. has ἔαε (τ ἐ). The feeling that prompted the paraphrast here shows itself also in Rashi’s comment, “took, that thou mightest give.”
This renders needless a recourse to the supposition that the quotation is from a Christian hymn, which borrowed from the psalm. The objection raised to this and to the preceding view from the use of λγι has no force except on the assumption that Θό is to be supplied; and, in fact, in ver. 14 many expositors suppose that it is a hymn that is quoted in the same manner. Nor can it be truly alleged that St. Paul here treats the words as belonging to canonical Scripture, for he draws no inference from them, as we shall see. Indeed, if he himself had altered them, instead of adopting an existing alteration, it would be equally impossible for him to argue from the altered text as if it were canonical.
ᾐμλτυε αχαωίν “Took captive a body of captives,” the cognate accusative, abstract for concrete, as the same word is used in 1 Esdr. 5:45 and Judith 2:9. We have the same expression in the song of Deborah: “Arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam,” Jdg_5:12, which is perhaps the source of the expression in the psalm. The interpretation adopted in a popular hymn, “captivity is captive led,” as if “captivity” meant the power that took captive, is quite untenable, and such a use of the abstract is foreign to Hebrew thought.
Who are these captives? Chrysostom replies: The enemies of Christ, viz. Satan, sin, and death. In substance this interpretation is no doubt correct, but it is unnecessary to define the enemies; the figure is general, that of a triumphant conqueror leading his conquered enemies in his train. Compare Col_2:15. To press the figure further would lead us into difficulties. These enemies are not yet finally destroyed, ἔχτςἐθὸ κτρετιὁθντς(1Co_15:25).
Theodoret interprets the “captives” as the redeemed (as Justin had already done), namely, as having been captives of the devil, ο γρἐεθρυ ὄτςἡᾶ ᾐμλτυε, ἀλ ὑὸτῦδαόο γγνμνυ ἀτχαώεσν κὶτνἐεθρα ἡῖ ἐωήαο and so many moderns. But this does not agree with the construction by which the αχαωί must be the result of the action of the verb. Besides, the captives are distinguished from ἄθωο. The same objections hold against the view that the captives are the souls of the righteous whom Christ delivered from Hades (Lyra, Estius).
“And gave gifts.” κίis omitted in א A C2 D* G 17, al.; but inserted in א B C* and c Dc K L P, al. Syr. A tendency to assimilate to the passage in the psalm appears in the reading ᾐμλτυαςin A L and several MSS., which nevertheless read ἔωε. For the gifts compare Act_2:33.
9. τ δ Ἀέητ ἐτνε μ ὅικὶκτβ εςτ κττρ μρ τςγς “Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth?”
There is here a very important variety of reading—
κτβ without πῶο is the reading of א A C* D G 17 672, Boh., Sahid., Eth., Amiat., Iren., Orig., Chrys. (Comm.), Aug., Jerome.
κτβ πῶο is read in א B Cc K L P, most MSS. Vulg., Goth., Syr. (both), Arm., Theodoret.
The weight of authority is decidedly on the side of omission. Transcriptional evidence points the same way. The meaning which presented itself on the surface was that Christ who ascended had had His original seat in heaven, and that what the apostle intended, therefore, was that He descended before He ascended; hence πῶο would naturally suggest itself to the mind of a reader. On the other hand, it is not easy to see why it should be omitted. Reiche, indeed, takes the opposite new. The word, he says, might seem superfluous, since both in ver. 8 and ver. 10 we have ἀαὰ εςὕο without πῶο; or, again, unsuitable, since Christ descended but once, supposing, namely, that the reference to ἀαά was missed. He thinks πῶο all but necessary to the argument of the apostle. This is just what some early copyists thought, and it is a consideration much more likely to have affected them than the opposite one, that the word was superfluous. It is rejected by most critics, but Westcott and Hort admit it to a place in the margin.
μρ after κττρ has the authority of אA B C Dc K L P, while it is omitted by D* G (not f). The versions and Fathers are divided. The word is read in Vulg., Boh., Arm., Syr-Pesh, Chrys., Theodoret, Aug., but omitted by Goth., Syr. (Sch.), Eth., Iren., Theodotus. The insertion or omission makes no difference in the sense. Most recent critical editors retain the word. Tischendorf rejected it in his seventh, but restored it in his eighth edition. Alford, Ellicott, and Meyer pronounce against it; the last-mentioned suggesting that it is a gloss due to the old explanation of the descent into hell, in order to mark the place as subterranean.
τ δ Ἀέη i.e. not the word ἀέη which had not occurred, but that which is implied in ἀαά. τ ἐτνε μ, κτλ i.e. “what does this mean but,” etc. τ κττρ τςγς The genitive may be either partitive, the lower as distinguished from the higher parts of the earth, or of apposition, the lower regions, i.e. those of the earth. With the former interpretation we may understand either death simply, as Chrysostom and the other Greeks, τ κτ μρ τςγςτνθντνφσν ἀὸτςτνἀθώω ὑοοα, quoting Gen_44:29; Psa_142:7; or Hades, as the place where departed spirits live, which is the view of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, and many moderns, including Bengel, Olshausen, Meyer (later editions), Alford, Ellicott, Barry.
But there are serious objections to this. First, if the apostle had meant to say that Christ descended to a depth below which there was no deeper, as He ascended to a height above which was none higher, he would doubtless have used the superlative. τ κττρ μρ τςγς if the genitive is partitive, could mean “the low-lying regions of the earth,” in opposition to τ ἀωειὰμρ (Act_19:1). Meyer, indeed, takes the genitive as depending on the comparative; but this would be an awkward way of expressing what would more naturally have been expressed by an adverb. τ κτττ τςγςoccurs in the Sept. Psa_63:9, Psa_139:15 (κτττ); but in the former place the words mean death and destruction; in the latter they figuratively denote what is hidden, the place of formation of the embryo. The corresponding Hebrew phrase is found in Eze_32:18, Eze_32:24, referring to death and destruction, but rendered βθςτςγς Cf. Mat_11:23, where ᾅο is used similarly. Such passages would support Chrysostom’s view rather than that under consideration. But, secondly, all these Old Testament expressions are poetic figures, and in a mere statement of fact like the present, St. Paul would hardly have given such a material local designation to the place of departed spirits, especially in connexion with the idea of Christ filling all things. Thirdly, the antithesis is between earth and heaven, between an ascent from earth to heaven, and a descent which is therefore probably from heaven to earth. Some, indeed, who adopt this view understand the descent as from heaven, some as from earth. For the argument from the connexion, see what follows.
For these reasons it seems preferable to take “the lower parts of the earth” as = “this lower earth.” Those who adopt this view generally assume that the descent preceded the ascent, and therefore understand by the descent, the Incarnation. This view, however, is not free from difficulty. St. Paul is speaking of the unity of the whole on the one hand, and of the diversity of individual gifts on the other. The latter is the topic in ver. 7 and again in ver. 11. To what purpose would be an interpolation such as this? It is not brought in to prove the heavenly pre-existence of Christ; that is assumed as known; for ascent to heaven does not imply descent thence, except on that assumption. And why the emphatic assertion of the identity of Him who ascended with Him who had previously descended, which was self-evident? But, in fact, this ascension is not what is in question, but the giving of gifts; what had to be shown was, that a descent was necessary, in order that He who ascended should give gifts. The descent, then, was contemporaneous with the giving, and, therefore, subsequent to the ascent. This seems to be indicated by the κίbefore κτβ. It seems hardly possible to take κὶκτβ otherwise than as expressing something subsequent to ἀέη The meaning then is, that the ascent would be without an object, unless it were followed by a descent. This is the descent of Christ to His Church alluded to in 2:17, “came and preached”; in 3:17, “that Christ may dwell in your hearts”; and which we also find in Joh_14:23, “we will come to Him”; also ib. 3 and 16:22. It is now clear why it was necessary to assert that ὁκτβςwas the same as ὁἀαά. This interpretation is ably maintained by v. Soden.
10. ὁκτβςατςἐτνκὶὁἀαὰ ὑεάωπνω τνορννἵαπηώῃτ πνα “He Himself that descended is also He that ascended high above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.”
ατςis not “the same,” which would be ὁατς but emphatic. ο γρἄλςκτλλθ κὶἄλςἀεήυε, Theodoret.
“All the heavens” is probably an allusion to the seven heavens of the Jews. Cf. 2Co_12:2, τίο ορνς and Heb_4:14, δεηυόατὺ ορνύ, “that He might fill all things.”
This has sometimes been understood to mean “that He might fill the universe,” as when we read in Jer_23:24, μ οχ τνορννκὶτνγνἐὼπηῶ But how can the occupation of a special place in heaven have for its object presence throughout the universe? Moreover, this does not agree with the context, which refers to the gifts to men. In fact, in order to explain this connexion, the omnipresence is resolved by some commentators into the presence everywhere of His gifts (Harless), or else of His government (Chrys, al.). A similar result is reached by others, who take πηώῃas meaning directly “fill with His gifts” (De Wette, Bleek, al.), τ πναbeing either the universe, or men, or members of the Church. But πηονby itself can hardly mean “fill with gifts.” Rü explains, “accomplish all,” viz. all that He had to accomplish. But the words must clearly be interpreted in accordance with 1:23, τ πναἐ πσνπηομνυ which they obviously repeat. Oltramare interprets, “that He might render all perfect, and (in conformity with this purpose), He gave,” etc.
11. κὶατςἔωε τὺ μνἀοτλυ, τὺ δ ποήα, τὺ δ εαγλσά, τὺ δ πιέα κὶδδσάος “And He Himself gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers.”
ἔωε is not a Hebraism for ἔεο(1Co_12:28); it is obviously chosen because of ἔωε δμτ in the quotation, as if the apostle had said, “the gifts He gave were,” etc. It is not merely the fact of the institution of the offices that he wishes to bring into view, but the fact that they were gifts to the Church. Christ gave the persons; the Church appointed to the office (Act_13:2, Act_14:23). The enumeration here must be compared with that in 1Co_12:28, “God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then miraculous powers, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues.” There the order of the first three is expressly defined; the latter gifts are not mentioned here, perhaps, as not expressing offices, but special gifts which were only occasional; and, besides, they did not necessarily belong to distinct persons from the former.
“Apostles.” This word is not to be limited to the Twelve, as Lightfoot has shown in detail in his excursus on Gal_1:17. Besides St. Paul himself, Barnabas is certainly so called (Act_14:4, Act_14:14); apparently also James the Lord’s brother (1Co_15:7; Gal_1:19), and Silvanus (1Th_2:6, “we might have been burdensome to you, being apostles of Christ”). In Irenaeus and Tertullian the Seventy are called apostles (Iren. ii. 21. 1; Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 24). According to the Greek Fathers, followed by Lightfoot, Andronicus and Junia are called apostles in Rom_16:7. In 2Co_8:23 and Php_2:25 the messengers of the Churches are called “apostles of the Churches.” But to be an apostle of Christ it seems to have been a condition that he should have seen Christ, 1Co_9:1, 1Co_9:2, and have, moreover, been a witness of the resurrection (Act_1:8, Act_1:21-23). Their office was not limited to any particular locality. Prophets are mentioned along with apostles in 2:20, 3:5. Chrysostom distinguishes them from “teachers” by this, that he who prophesies utters everything from the spirit, while he who teaches sometimes discourses from his own understanding. “Foretelling” is not implied in the word either etymologically or in classical or N.T. usage. In classical writers it is used of interpreters of the gods. For N.T. usage, compare Mat_26:68, “Prophesy, who is it that smote thee”; Tit_1:12, “a prophet of their own,” where it is used in the sense of the Latin “vates”; Mat_15:7, “well hath Isaiah prophesied of you”; and especially 1Co_14:3, “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” Also Act_15:32, “Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren …and confirmed them.” The function of the prophet has its modern parallel in that of the Christian preacher, who discourses “to edification, exhortation, and comfort” to those who are already members of the Church. “Preaching,” in the English Version of the N.T., means proclaiming the gospel to those who have not yet known it (κρτεν εαγλζσα).
By “evangelists” we are doubtless to understand those whose special function it was to preach the gospel to the heathen in subordination to the apostles. They did not possess the qualifications or the authority of the latter (πρίνε ἐήυτν says Theodoret). One of the deacons is specially called an evangelist (Act_21:8). Timothy is told by St. Paul to do the work of an evangelist, but his office included other functions.
τὺ δ πιέα κὶδδσάος The first question is whether these words express distinct offices or two characters of the same office. Many commentators—both ancient and modern—adopt the former view, differing, however, greatly in their definitions. Theophylact understands by “pastors,” bishops and presbyters, and by “teachers,” deacons. But there is no ground for supposing that deacons would be called δδσαο. On the other hand, the circumstance that τὺ δ is not repeated before δδσάοςis in favour of the view that the words express two aspects of the same office. So Jerome: “Non enim ait: alios autem pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse debeat et magister.” This, indeed, is not quite decisive, since it might only mark that the gifts of pastors and of teachers are not so sharply distinguished from one another as from those that precede; and it must be admitted that in a concise enumeration such as the present, it is in some degree improbable that this particular class should have a double designation. This much is clear, that “pastors and teachers” differ from the preceding classes in being attached to particular Churches. The name “pastors” implies this, and this term no doubt includes ἐίκπιand πεβτρι Compare 1Pe_5:2 (addressing the πεβτρι πιάαετ ἐ ὑῖ πίνο τῦΘο, ἐικπῦτς(om. RV. mg.): 1Pe_2:25, τνπιέακὶἐίκπντνψχνὑῶ, where ἐίκπνseems to explain πιή: Act_20:28, τ πινῳἐ ᾧὑᾶ τ Πεμ τ ἅινἔεοἐικπυ, πιανι τνἐκ. πιή was used in the earliest classical writers of rulers of the people. Even in Homer we have Agamemnon, for instance, called πιὴ λῶ. The πιή of a Christian Church would, of course, be a teacher as well as a governor; it was his business to guide the sheep of the flock; cf. 1Ti_3:2, δῖτνἐίκπν…δδκιὸ (ενι also Tit_1:9. But there would naturally be other teachers not invested with the same authority and not forming a distinct class, much less co-ordinate with the ἐίκπι Had τὺ δ been repeated, it might have seemed to separate sharply the function of teaching from the office of πιή. It is easy to see that ἐίκπςwould have been a much less suitable word here, since it does not suggest the idea of a moral and spiritual relation.
12-16. The object of all is the perfection of the saints, that they may be one in the faith, and mature in knowledge, so as not to be carried away by the winds of false doctrine; but that the whole body, as one organism deriving its nourishment from the Head, may be perfected in love
12. πὸ τνκτριμντνἁίν εςἔγνδαοίς εςοκδμντῦσμτςτῦχιτῦ “With a view to the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ.” The κτριμςτνἁ. is the ultimate purpose, with a view to which the teachers, etc., have been given εςἔγνδα. εςοκ κτλ The Authorised Version follows Chrysostom in treating the three clauses as co-ordinate, ἕατςοκδμῖ ἕατςκτρίε, ἔατςδαοε. The change in the prepositions is not decisive against this, for St. Paul is rather fond of such variety. But if the three members were parallel, ἔγνδαοίςshould certainly come first as the more indefinite and the med