Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Ephesians 6:1 - 6:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
6:1-9. Special injunctions to children and fathers, slaves and masters. Slaves are called on to regard their service as a service done to Christ; masters are reminded that they, too, are subject to the same Master, who has no respect of persons
1. τ τκα ὑαοεετῖ γνῦι ὑῶ ἐ Κρῳ ἐ Κρῳis omitted by B D* G, but added in, אA Dbc K L P, Vulg., Syr., etc. Origen expressly, who mentions the ambiguity of the construction, i.e. that it may be either τῖ ἐ Κρῳγνῦι or ὑαοεεἐ Κ If the words had been added from Col_3:20 they would probably have come after δκιν Assuming that the words are genuine, as seems probable, the latter is the right construction. “In the Lord,” not as defining the limits of the obedience, ἐ ὁςἂ μ ποκοσς(τ Κρῳ Chrys., but rather showing the spirit in which the obedience is to be yielded. It is assumed that the parents exercise their authority as Christian parents should, and we cannot suppose that the apostle meant to suggest to the children the possibility of the contrary.
τῦογρἐτνδκιν i.e. κὶφσιδκινκὶὑὸτῦνμυποτσεα, Theoph. Compare Col_3:20. From the children being addressed as members of the Church, Hofmann infers that they must have been baptized, since without baptism no one could be a member of the Church (Schriften, ii. 2, p. 192). Meyer’s reply, that the children of Christian parents were ἅιιby virtue of their fellowship with their parents (1Co_7:14), loses much of its point in the case of children who were past infancy when their parents became Christians. But no conclusion as to infant baptism can be deduced.
2. ἥι ἐτνἐτλ πώηἐ ἐαγλᾳ ἥι, “for such is,” Alf. To translate “seeing it is” would be to throw the motive to obedience too much on the fact of the promise.
πώηἐ ἐ. has caused difficulty to expositors. The second commandment has something which resembles a promise attached. Origen, who mentions this difficulty, replies, first, that all the commandments of the Decalogue were πωα, being given first after the coming out of Egypt; or, if this be not admitted, that the promise in the second commandment was a general one, not specially attached to the observance of that precept. The latter reply has been adopted by most modern commentators. Others have supposed “first” to mean “first in the second table”; but the Jews assigned five commandments to each table, as we learn from Philo and Josephus. See also Lev_19:3 and Rom_13:9. The position of the precept in the former passage and its omission in the latter agree with this arrangement. In either case this would be the only commandment with promise. Meyer and Ellicott suppose, therefore, that it is not the Decalogue alone that is referred to. Braune and Stier understand πώηas first in point of time, namely, the first which has to be learned. Compare Bengel (not adopting this view): “honor parentibus per obedientiam praesertim praestitus initio aetatis omnium praeceptorum obedientiam continet.”
ἐ ἐαγλᾳ Ellicott, Meyer, and others take this to mean “in regard of, or, in point of, promise.” “The first command we meet with which involves a promise” (Ell.). Meyer compares Diod. Sic. xiii. 37, ἐ δ εγνί κὶποτ πῶο. But to make this parallel we should understand the words here: “foremost in promise,” i.e. having the greatest promise attached, or, at least, “having the advantage in point of promise,” which is not their interpretation. Chrysostom says: ο τ τξιεπνατνπώη, ἀλ τ ἐαγλᾳ But it is precisely τ τξιthat Ell. and Mey. make it first, only not of all the commandments. It is better, then, to take ἐ (with Alford) as = characterised by, accompanied with, so that we might translate “with a promise.” But to what purpose is it to state that this is the first command in order accompanied with a promise, especially when it would be equally true, and much to the purpose, to say that it is the only command with a promise? On the whole, therefore, remembering that it is children who are addressed, the interpretation of Stier and Braune seems preferable. Westcott and Hort give a place in their margin to a different punctuation, viz. placing the comma after πώη and connecting ἐαγλᾳwith ἵα
3. ἵαε σιγντι κτλ The text in the Sept. proceeds: κὶἵαμκορνο γν ἐὶτςγςἦ Κρο ὁΘό συδδσ σι The latter words are probably omitted purposely as unsuitable to those addressed. The future ἔῃis to be regarded as dependent on ἵα—a construction which is found elsewhere in St. Paul, as 1Co_9:18, ἵαἀάαο θσ τ εαγ Gal_2:4, ἵαἡᾶ κτδυώοσν In Rev_22:14 we have future and conjunctive, just as in classical writers future and conjunctive are used after ὅω. It is possible that ἔῃis used here because there was no aor. conj. of the verb. In the passage referred to in Rev. the future is ἔτι
4. κὶο πτρς κὶmarks that the obligation was not all on the side of the children. So κὶο Κρο, ver. 9. πτρς “patres potissimum alloquitur, nam hos facilius aufert iracundia,” Bengel. μ πρρίεε Col_3:21, μ ἐείεε “Do not irritate.”
ἐ πιεᾳκὶνυεί Κρο. πιεαoccurs only in one other place in St. Paul, viz. 2Ti_3:16, πσ γαή…ὠέιο …πὸ πιεα τνἐ δκισν. The verb πιεωalso, although used of chastening in 1Co_11:32; 2Co_6:9, is employed in a wider sense in 2Ti_2:25; Tit_2:12. There is no sufficient reason, then, for supposing that the two substantives here are distinguished, as Grotius thinks: “πιεαhic significare videtur institutionem per poenas: νυεί autem est ea institutio quae fit verbis,” followed by Ellicott and Alford. Rather, πιεαis, as in classical writers, the more general, νυεί more specific, of instruction and admonition. νυεί is a later form for νυέηι. Κρο is not “concerning the Lord,” as Theodoret, etc.,—a meaning which the genitive after such a word as νυ. can hardly have, but the subjective genitive; the Lord is regarded as the guiding principle of the education.
5. ο δῦο, ὑαοεετῖ κτ σρακρος This is the order in אA B P, etc. Rec. has τῖ κροςκτ σρα
Bengel thinks that κ σραis added, because after the mention of the true κρο it was not fitting to use κρο without qualification. In Col_3:22 a sentence intervenes, but still the reason holds good, for ὁΚρο was their κρο also κτ πεμ. δσόη is the word used for the master of slaves in the Pastorals and 1 Peter.
μτ φβυκὶτόο. These words are similarly associated in 1Co_2:3; 2Co_7:15; Php_2:12, expressing only anxious solicitude about the performance of duty, so that there is no allusion to the hardness of the service. In Col_3:22 it is φβύεο τνκρο.
ἐ ἁλττ τςκρίς The word ἁλτςis used several times by St. Paul (by him only in the N.T.), and always indicates singleness and honesty of purpose, sometimes showing itself in liberality. (See Fritzsche’s note on Rom_12:8, vol. iii. p. 62.) Here the meaning is the obvious one, there was to be no double-heartedness in their obedience, no feeling of reluctance, but genuine heartiness and goodwill. ἔιγρκὶμτ φβυκὶτόο δυεεν ἀλ οκἐ ενις ἀλ κκύγς Oecum.
ὡ τ Χιτ, as ὡ τ Κρῳ 5:22, “so that your service to your master is regarded as a service to Christ.”
6. μ κτ ὀθλοολα. “Not in the way of ὀθ” The word is not found elsewhere except in Col_3:22, and may have been coined by St. Paul. The adjective ὀθλόολςis found in the Apost. Constit., but with reference to this passage (i. p. 299 A, ed. Cotel.). The meaning is obvious.
ὡ ἀθωάεκι This word is not found in classical writers; it occurs in the Sept., Psa_52(53):6; not as a rendering of our Hebrew text. It is also found in Psalt. Sol. iv. 8, 10. This is the opposite of ὡ τ as well as of the following words.
ἀλ ὡ δῦο Χιτῦπιῦτςτ θλμ τῦΘο. τῦbefore Χιτῦrests on insufficient authority, Dc K L, etc., against אD* G L P, etc. Not subordinate to the following clause, as if it were “as servants who are doing,” etc., for the words are clearly in contrast to the preceding, and πιῦτςτ θλ has much more force if taken as a separate character.
6, 7. ἐ ψχςμτ ενίςδυεοτςὡ τ Κρῳ ἐ ψχςmay be connected either with what precedes or with what follows. The latter connexion (adopted by Syr., Chrys., Jerome, Lachm., Alf., WH.) seems preferable, for πιῦτςτ θλμ τῦΘο does not require such a qualification, nor is there any tautology in taking ἐ ψ with the following, for these words express the source in the feeling of the servant towards his work; μτ ενίςhis feeling towards his master (Harless). Compare Raphel’s apt quotation from Xen.: οκῦ ενινπῶο, ἔη ἐώ δήε ατν[τνἐίρπν ἔενσικὶτῖ σῖ ε μλο ἀκσι ἀτ σῦπρν (Oecon. xii. 5). Treg. puts a comma after ενίς WH. after δυεοτς
ὡ before τ Κρῳrests on preponderant evidence, אA B D* G P, Vulg., Syr. It is omitted by Dc K L. Internal evidence is in its favour, since δυ. τ κ would be tautologous with δῦο Χιτῦ
8. εδτςὅιἕατςὃἂ πισ ἀαό, τῦοκμστιπρ Κρο.
There is great uncertainty as to the reading.
ὅιἕατςὂἂ (or ἐν πισ, A D G P 17 37, Vulg., Arm.
ὅιἕατςἐντ, B, Petr. Alex.
ὅιἐντ ἕατς L* 46 115.
ὅἐντ ἕατςπισ, L** and most cursives. This is the Rec. Text.
ὅι(probably to be read ὅτ) ἐνπισ, א corrected by א by the insertion of ὅbefore ἐν
There are minor variations.
The best supported reading is that first mentioned, which is adopted by Treg. and Tisch. 8; but Meyer and Ellicott think the Rec. better explains the others. WH. adopt the reading of B.
In the reading of Rec. the relative is to be understood as separated from τ by tmesis. Cf. Plato, Legg. ix. 864 E, ἣ ἄ τν κτβάῃ
κμστι אA B D* G, is better attested than the Rec. κμετι τῦalso of Rec. before Κρο is rejected on the authority of all the chief uncials.
κμζσα is to receive back, as, for example, a deposit, hence here it implies an adequate return. Compare 2Co_5:10, ἵακμστιἕατςτ δὰτῦσμτς and Col_3:25.
This lesson to slaves is equally a lesson for all kinds of service, as the following for all masters.
9. κὶο κρο. See on κί ver. 4.
τ ατ πιῖε I.e. act in a similar manner, in the same spirit. De Wette refers it to ἀαό. The Greek comm. pressed τ ατ as if it meant δυεεεατῖ.
ἀινε τνἀελν “Giving up your threatening.” The article indicates the well known and familiar threatening, “quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet,” Erasmus.
εδτς κτλ Wetstein cites a remarkable parallel from Seneca, Thyest. 607, “Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae Jus dedit magnum necis atque vitae, Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus. Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit, Major hoc vobis dominus minatur! Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.”
κὶατνκὶὑῶ is supported by preponderant authority, א (ἑυῶ) A B D*, Vulg. Boh. Arm., Petr. Alex. etc. Dc G have κὶατνὑῶ: K and most cursives, κὶὑῶ ατν Meyer thinks the mention of slaves (ατν here appeared unsuitable, partly in itself and partly in comparison with Col_4:1. Whether this be a correct account of the causes of the variation, it cannot be doubted that the reading attested by the best MSS. here is the more forcible, expressing, not merely the fact that “ye also have a Master,” but that both you and they are subjects of the same Master.
ποωοηψα like ποωοηπή, and the verb ποωοηπέ, is found only in N.T. and ecclesiastical writers. The expression πόωο λμάενhas a different meaning in the N.T. from that which it had in the O.T. In the latter it only meant to show favour, in the former it is to show partiality, especially on account of external advantages.
10-12. Exhortation to prepare for the spiritual combat by arming themselves with the panoply of God, remembering that they have to do with no mere mortal foes, but with spiritual powers
10. τῦλιο. So א A B 17.
τ λιό. א D G K L P, Chrys., etc.
Meyer points out that B 17 have δνμῦθ instead of ἐδ a variation which Meyer thinks may have arisen from a confusion of the N of λιό with the N of ἐδν thus pointing to the reading λιό. Properly, τῦλιό means “henceforth, for the future,” Gal_6:17, in which sense τ λιό may also be used; but the latter alone is used in the sense “for the rest,” Php_3:1, Php_3:4:8, 2Th_3:1. As the latter is the meaning here, we should expect τ λιό.
ἀεφίμυis added in Rec. before ἐδν with א K L P, most cursives, Syr. (both) Boh., but om. by א B D 17, Arm., Aeth,. A G, Vulg., Theodoret have ἀεφίwithout μυ It has probably come in by assimilation to other passages in which τ λιό occurs (see above). St. Paul does not address his readers thus in this Epistle.
ἐδνμῦθ. “Be strengthened.” Cf. Rom_4:20. Not middle but passive, as elsewhere in N.T. (Act_9:22; Rom_4:20; 2Ti_2:1; Heb_11:34). The active occurs Php_4:23; 1Ti_1:12; 2Ti_4:17. The simple verb δνμω which B 17 have here, is used in Col_1:2, and according to א A D* in Heb_11:34. ἐδνμῦθιoccurs once in the Sept. Psa_51 (52): 7 rather in a bad sense. There is no reason why a verb which occurs once in the Sept. and several times in the N.T. should be said to be “peculiar to the Alexandrian Greek.”
κὶἐ τ κάε τςἰχο ατῦ Not a hendiadys. Compare i. 19.
11. ἐύαθ τνπνπίντῦΘο. “Put on the panoply of God.” πνπί occurs also in Luk_11:22. The emphasis is clearly on πν not on τῦΘο. Observe the repetition in ver. 13, “of God,” i.e. provided by God, ἄαι δαέε τνβσλκνπνεχα, Theodoret. There is no contrast with other armour, nor is πνπί to be taken as merely = “armatura.” The completeness of the armament is the point insisted on. St. Paul was, no doubt, thinking of the Roman soldiery, as his readers also would, although the Jewish armour was essentially the same. Polybius enumerates as belonging to the Roman πνπί, shield, sword, greaves, spear, breastplate, helmet. St. Paul omits the spears, and adds girdle and shoes, which, though not armour, were an essential part of the soldier’s dress.
πὸ τ δνσα. “To the end that ye may be able.” σῆα πό, “to hold your ground against,” an expression suited to the military figure.
τςμθδίς Cf. 4:14. The plural expresses the concrete workings of the μθδί. We can hardly press it as specially appropriate to the military metaphor and = “stratagems.”
12. ὅιοκἔτνἡῖ ἡπλ πὸ αμ κὶσρα
ἡῖ, with אA Dc K L P and most MSS. and vss.
ὑῖ, B D* G, Goth., Aeth., adopted by Lach., and admitted to the margin by Treg. and WH. The second person would very readily occur to a scribe, the whole context being in the second person.
ἡπλ. “Our wrestling.” The word is suitable to πὸ αμ κὶς but not to the struggle in which the πνπί is required. The word is indeed found in a more general sense (see Ellicott), but only in poetry, as “wrestling “also might be used in our own tongue. But as the word is here used to describe what the struggle is not, it is most natural to supply a more general word, such as ἡμχ or μχτο, in the following clause, according to an idiom frequent in Greek writers.
αμ κὶσρα in this order here only. Jerome understands this of our own passions; but that would be πὸ τνσραwithout αμ. Moreover, the contrast is clearly not between foes within and foes without, but between human and superhuman powers.
πὸ τςἀχς πὸ τςἐοσα. See on 1:21.
πὸ τὺ κσορτρς “World-rulers.” The word κσορτρoccurs in the Orphica (viii. 11, xi. 11), and is used by the Schol. on Aristoph. Nub. 397, Σσγωι ὁβσλὺ τνΑγπίνκσορτργγνς It frequently occurs in Rabbinical writers (transliterated), sometimes of kings whose rule was world-wide, as “tres reges κσορτρς dominatores ab extremitate mundi ad extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnesar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar” (Shir Rab. iii. 4, ap. Wetst.); also of the four kings whom Abraham pursued (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 57. 1). These are so called to add glory to Abraham’s victory. Also the angel of death is so called, and by the Gnostics the Devil (Iren. i. I). In the Test. XII Patr., Test. Sol. the demons say: ἡεςἐμντ λγμν σοχῖ, ο κσορτρςτῦκσο τύο. It appears, therefore, that it differs from “rulers” in implying that their rule extends over the κσο. Schoettgen supposes that St. Paul means the Rabbis and Doctors of the Jews, and he cites a passage from the Talmud where it is argued that the Rabbis are to be called kings; he also compares Act_4:26. But the context appears to be decisive against such a view. The contest is clearly a spiritual one. Compare the designation of Satan as ὁΘὸ τῦαῶο τύο, 2Co_4:4; ὁἄχντῦκσο τύυ Joh_14:30.
τῦσόοςτύο.
So, without τῦαῶο, א A B D* G 17 672, Vulg. Boh. Syr-Pesh and Harcl (text), etc.
After σόος τῦαῶο is added by א Dc K L P most MSS. The words were not likely to be omitted because they seemed superfluous or difficult to explain; and an omission from homoeoteleuton is not to be supposed in the face of so many documents. They might, on the contrary, have been added as a gloss, the phrase σόοςτύο being rare.
πὸ τ πεμτκ τςπνρα. “Against the spirit forces of wickedness,” which belong to or are characterised by πνρα RV. has “hosts of wickedness.” So Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, comparing τ ἱπκν “the cavalry,” Rev_9:16; τ πλτκν Herod. vii. 103; τ λσρκ, Polyaen. v. 14. 141. But these are not really parallel; ἱπκν primarily meaning “appertaining to ἵπι ” hence “equestrian,” was naturally used for brevity to designate the cavalry of an army, as πζκ the infantry, just like our “horse and foot.” Thus Polyb. xv. 3. 5, Ἁνβςἐλίω τῖ ἱπκῖ, “in the matter of cavalry”; ib. xviii. 5. 5, Ατλι…κθ ὅο ἐ τῖ πζκῖ ἐλπῖ εσ …κτ τσῦο τῖ ἱπκῖ δαέοσ πὸ τ βλιντ͂ ἄλνἙλνν ib. iii. 114. 5, τ τνἱπκνπῆο τ σμα τῖ Κρηοίι εςμρος …In Rev_9:16 we have ὁἀιμςτνσρτυάω τῦἱπκῦ But πεμτκνnever had such a signification, nor would its etymology lead us to expect that it could be so used; for it does not mean what relates to πεμτ, but to τ πεμ. It would be almost as reasonable to conclude from the use of the English “horse” and “foot,” that “spirit” could be used for a host of spirits, as to draw a like conclusion about πεμτκ from the use of ἱπκ, etc. Moreover, τ ἱπκ does not mean “hosts or armies” of horses or of horsemen; and, if we were to follow the analogy of its meaning, we should interpret τ π. τςπν as = the πεμτκνconstituent of πνρα τ λσρκ, too, does not mean “bands of robbers,” but of “pirate ships,” which are themselves called λσρκί Polyaenus, v. 14. 141; and τ πλτκν in Herod. vii. 103, means that part of the population which consists of πλτι This word, like ἱπκν used in such a connexion as it has there, at once conveys this meaning. But to give πεμτκ here the meaning “spiritual armies, or hosts,” is to depart wholly from the ordinary use of the word.
Giving up, therefore, this rendering as untenable, we may translate “the spiritual forces, or elements of wickedness.”
ἐ τῖ ἐορνοςis connected by Chrysostom with ἡπλ ἐτν Thus: ἑ τῖ ἐ. ἡμχ κῖα …ὡ ἂ ε ἔεε, ἡσνήηἐ τν κῖα: ἐ χυῷ i.e. our contest is for the heavenly blessings, and so Theodoret, Oecum. al. But in the illustration cited it is the connexion with κῖα that makes this sense possible; the idea is “rests in, or depends on,” which does not suit ἡπλ ἑτν
The view generally adopted by modern expositors is that τ ἐ. means the seat of the evil spirits or spiritual hosts referred to, corresponding to the τῦἀρςof 2:2. As Alford expresses it, that habitation which in 2:2, when speaking of mere matters of fact, was said to be in the ἀρ is, now that the difficulty and importance of the Christian conflict is being set forth, represented as ἐ τῖ ἐ.—over us and too strong for us without the panoply of God. He compares τ πτιὰτῦορνῦ Mat_6:26. This comment seems to amount to this, that these spiritual hosts dwell in the air; but to impress us the more with the difficulty of the combat, the air is called “heaven.” There is, however, no proof that τ ἐορναmeant the atmosphere, and this is not the meaning of the word elsewhere, e.g. 1:3, 20, 2:6.
The view of Eadie, al., is that τ ἐ. means the celestial spots occupied by the Church, and in them this combat is to be maintained, “These evil spirits have invaded the Church, are attempting to pollute, divide, and overthrow it.” Barry, while adopting the former view of τ ἐ., yet adds that the meaning points to the power of evil as directly spiritual, not acting through physical and human agency, but attacking the spirit in that higher aspect in which it contemplates heavenly things and ascends to the communion with God.
In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, which is pre-Christian, and perhaps as early as b.c. 30, we have “a scheme of the seven heavens which, in some of its prominent features, agrees with that conceived by St. Paul. Paradise is situated in the third heaven as in 2Co_12:2, 2Co_12:3, whereas, according to later Judaism, it be longed to the fourth heaven. In the next place the presence of evil in some part of the heavens is recognised. Thus, in Eph_6:12, we meet with the peculiar statement, Against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavens” (Morfill and Charles, p. xl). Charles points out other parallels between the Epistle and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch; e.g. Eph_3:10, Eph_3:4:10, 25 (pp. xxii, xli); and the possibility that the present passage has been influenced by these speculations must be admitted.
13-18. Detailed description of the spiritual armour
13. ἐ τ ἡέᾳτ πνρ. “The evil day,” the day of the power of evil, when the conflict is most severe, “any day of which it may be said, ‘this is your hour, and the power of darkness,’ ” Barry. Meyer understands it as referring to the great outbreak of Satanic power expected to occur before the second coming. ἅατ κτραάεο; Oecum. and Theoph. take this to mean “having overcome all,” AV. marg.; but although the verb has this sense occasionally in classical writers, or rather “to despatch, to finish,” “conficere,” it never has it in St. Paul, who uses it twenty times. This would not be decisive if this meaning were more suitable here. But the conflict is perpetual in this world, it is ever being renewed. On the other hand, we cannot without tautology understand this clause as merely expressing preparation for the combat. κτράεθι too, means to accomplish a difficult work: “notat rem arduam,” Fritzsche, and could hardly be used of mere arming for the fight. It appears, then, to mean having done all that duty requires, viz. from time to time. The Vulgate (not Jerome) has “omnibus perfecti,” or, in some MSS., “in omnibus perfecti,” following, as some think, the reading κτιγσέο. A has κτραμνι doubtless a mistake for κτραάεο, not meant for κτιγσέο σῆα. opposed to φύεν “hold your ground.”
14. σῆεον This σῆεcannot be taken in the same sense as the preceding, otherwise we should have the end there aimed at, here assumed as already attained when the arming begins.
In the following details of the figure, each part of the equipment has its appropriate interpretation, which, however, must not be pressed too minutely. In the case of the breastplate and the helmet, St. Paul follows Isa_59:17, ἐεύαοδκισννὡ θρκ, κὶπρέεοπρκφλινστρο ἐὶτςκφλς but the remainder of Isaiah’s description was unsuitable, viz. κὶπρεάεοἱάινἐδκσω κὶτ πρβλινζλυ The figure of Isaiah is more fully carried out in Wisd. 5:18, 20, λψτιπνπαο τνζλνατῦ…ἐδστιθρκ δκιση, κὶπρθστικρθ κίι ἀυόρτν λψτιἀπδ ἀααάηο ὁιττ, ὀυε δ ἀόοο ὀγνεςῥμαα. In Isa_11:5, δκισν and ἀήεαare both girdles.
πρζσμνιτνὀφνὑῶ ἐ ἀηεᾳ The aorists are properly used, since the arming was complete before the σῆε The present would mean that they were to be arming themselves when they took up their position, which would be rather a mark of unpreparedness. The girdle was a necessary part of the equipment of a soldier to make rapid movement possible; and, indeed, was commonly used to support the sword, though not in Homeric times. But there is no reference to that use here, the sword being not referred to until ver. 17. ἐ ἀηεᾳ ἐ, instrumental, “with“; “truth,” not the objective truth of the gospel, which is the sword, ver. 17, but truth in its widest sense as an element of character. Compare ch. 5:9.
τνθρκ τςδκισνς genitive of apposition. δκ as in ch. 5:9, Christian uprightness of character, which like a breastplate defends the heart from the assaults of evil. Eadie (with Harless, al.) understands it of the righteousness of faith, i.e. Christ’s justifying righteousness, remarking that the article has a special prominence. But the article is used in accordance with the ordinary rule, θρκ having the article. The faith by which this justification is attained is mentioned in ver. 16. That no Christian possesses entire rectitude is not an objection, the breastplate is not faultlessness, which would, in fact, be inconsistent with the figure, but the actual rightness of character wrought by Christ.
15. ὑοηάεο τὺ πδς no doubt referring to the “caligae” of the Roman soldier.
ἐ ἑομσᾳ The more classical form is ἑομτς but Hippocr. has ἑομσα The word occurs in the Sept. in the sense of “preparedness” (Ps. 9:41, Psa_10:17), but more frequently as representing the Hebrew מכֹ, which they rendered according to their view of its etymology, not its meaning. It is quite erroneous to interpret it here by this use, or rather misuse, of it, as some expositors have done, taking it, for example, to mean ‘vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem adeo ipsam certam illam quidem et fundamento cui insistere possis, similem,” Koppe. This is also against the figure. Shoes are not the firm foundation on which one stands, but we may compare with them the readiness of mind with which one advances to the conflict, and which is wrought by the gospel τῦεα. It is not preparation to preach the gospel that is meant, for the apostle is addressing all Christians; and, moreover, this interpretation does not agree with the figure.
τςερνς peace with God and amongst men, see ch. 2:17; an oxymoron. ἂ τ δαόῳπλμμνερνύμνπὸ τνΘό, Chrys.
16. ἐ πσν So אB P 17, al., Cat. text, Vulg., Boh., Syr-Harcl., Aeth.
ἐὶπσν A D G K L most cursives, Syr-Pesh, Arm., etc.
There is a similar variety in Luk_16:26, where אB L Boh. read ἐ, but A D X Δal. ἐί This alone is sufficient to set aside Ellicott’s suggestion that ἐ here was a correction for the ambiguous ἐί Meyer thinks it was substituted as the more common.
If ἐίis read it is not to be rendered “above all,” AV. Beza, nor “over all,” but “in addition to all“; cf. Luk_3:20, ποέηεκὶτῦοἐὶπσ.
τνθρό. θρό is used in Homer of a great stone placed against a door to keep it shut. In later writers, Plutarch, Polybius, etc., it means a large oblong shield, “scutum,” according to Polyb. 4 ft. by 2 ½ differing from the ἀπς which was small and round. But in Wisdom, quoted above, ὁιτςis the ἀπςor “clypeus.” St. Paul’s purpose, however, is different, and he is describing a heavy armed warrior well furnished for defence.
τςπσες genitive of apposition. Only where faith is weak does the enemy gain access. In 1Th_5:8 faith and love are the breastplate.
ἐ ᾧδνσσε The future is properly used, not because the combat does not begin until the day of the great future conflict with evil, but because the whole duration of the fight is contemplated. At all times ye shall be able, etc.
τ βλ τῦπνρῦτ ππρμν σέα. The figure alludes to the darts or arrows tipped with tow dipped in pitch and set on fire, mentioned, for example, in Herod. viii. 52. Some of the older interpreters (Hammond, al.) understood the word to mean poisoned, the word “fiery” being used with reference to the sensation produced; but this is contrary to the grammatical meaning of the word. “Fiery darts” is a suitable figure for fierce temptations; beyond this there is no need to go.
σέα is appropriate, since the shields alluded to were of wood covered with leather, in which when the arrow fixed itself the fire would go out. So Thucydides tells us of hides being used for this very purpose (ii. 75).
τ is omitted by B D* G, and bracketed b Treg. and WH.; omitted by Lachm. If omitted, the interpretation would be “fire tipped as they are.” The authority for omission is small; but the insertion would be more easily accounted for than the accidental omission.
17. κὶτνπρκφλίντῦστρο δξσε This verse is separated from ver. 16 by a full stop in RV. as well as by Lachm., Tisch., not Treg., WH. But though the construction is changed, as in 1:22, this is only a result of the rapidity of thought for which a strict adherence to the participial construction might be a hindrance. The same vividness of conception leads the writer to put τνπρκ first.
Στρο is not used elsewhere by St. Paul; here it is taken with the preceding word from the Sept. Theodoret understands it as masculine, referring to Christ; and so Bengel, “salutaris, i.e. Christi”; but this is refuted by the parallel, 1Th_5:8, where the πρκ is the hope of salvation. Soden thinks that in that passage the apostle purposely corrects the στρο of the Sept.
κὶτνμχια τῦπεμτς This cannot well be a genitive of apposition, since the following clause explains the sword as ῥμ Θο. Olshausen, indeed, and Soden, take the relative ὅas referring to πεμτς They understand the writer as speaking of the Holy Spirit in relation to man, as finding expression in the word of God. But there is no parallel for thus calling the Spirit ῥμ Θο. It is much more natural to interpret τῦπ. as “which is given by the Spirit’; nor is there any difficulty in taking this genitive differently from the others, since this alone is a genitive of a personal name. Chrysostom suggests the alternative: ἤο τ Πεμ φσν ἤο ἐ τ πεμτκ μχίᾳ(or ἤο τ χρσατ πεμτκν δὰγρπεμτκςμχία, κτλ
ὅἐτνῥμ θο. Compare Heb_4:12, ὁλγςτῦΘο …τμτρςὑὲ πσνμχια δσοο.
δξσε “Accipite, oblatum a Domino,” Bengel.
A Dc K L, etc., read δξσα, perhaps only by itacism. The verb is omitted by D* G, al.
18. δὰπσςποεχςκὶδήες κτλ These words are best taken with the principal imperative σῆε not simply with the previous clause, for πσςand ἐ ηνὶκιῷwould not agree with the momentary act δξσε which is itself subordinate to σῆε “With all prayer, i.e. prayer of every form.”
ποεχ and δηι differ in this respect, that the former is used only of prayer, whether supplication or not, to God, while δηι means “request,” and may be addressed to either God or man. Here, then, we may say that π. expresses that the prayer is addressed to God, and δ that it involves a request. Compare Php_4:6, ἐ πνὶτ ποεχ κὶτ δηε, and see on Luk_1:13.
ἐ πνὶκιῷcorresponds with the ἀιλίτςποεχσα of 1Th_5:17.
ἐ Πεμτ. “In the Spirit” (cf. Jud_1:21) not = ἐ ψχς for which interpretation St. Paul’s usage supplies no justification, besides which it was not necessary to say that the prayer was to be from the heart. Chrysostom supposes ἐ π. to be in contrast to βτοοίι, which is also open to the objection that he who has put on the specified armour must be assumed not to pray ἐ βτοοί.
κὶεςατ. “Thereunto,” i.e. to the ποεχμνιἐ π κἐ π.
Rec. has τῦοafter ατ, with Dc J K, etc.; but ατ alone, אA B (D* G, ατν The frequent occurrence of ατ τῦοin St. Paul accounts for the insertion.
ἀρπονε ἐ πσ ποκρεήε. Compare Col_4:2, τ ποεχ ποκρεετ, γηοονε ἐ ατ ἐ ευαιτᾳ “keeping watch,” or “being watchful”; cf. Mar_13:33, ἀρπετ κὶποεχσε ib. 35, γηοετ: Luk_21:36, ἀρπετ ἐ πνὶκιῷδόεο, κτλ
Ποκρέηι is not found elsewhere, but the verb ποκρεέ is frequent both in classical writers and N.T. always with the sense of continued waiting on, attention to, adherence, etc. Cf Act_2:42, τ δδχ: ib. 46, ἐ τ ἱρ: 8:13, τ Φλπῳ Mar_3:9, ἵαποάινποκρεῇατ: Rom_12:12, ποεχ: ib. 13:6, εςατ τῦο It is clear, then, that Alford is not justified in rendering it “importunity” in order to avoid a hendiadys. Practically, there is a hendiadys.
πρ πνω τνἁίν κὶὑὲ ἐο. κί introducing a special case, see ch. 5:18. Harless and Eadie distinguish πρ here from ὑέ, regarding the latter as more vague. “They could not know much about all saints, and they were to pray about them.” Eadie admits, however, that such a distinction cannot be uniformly Carried out. Meyer, to prove the prepositions synonymous, quotes Dem. Phil. ii. p. 74, μ πρ τνδκίνμδ ὑὲ τνἔωπαμτνενιτνβυή, ἀλ ὑὲ τνἐ τ χρ: but this passage rather indicates the contrary; “not about a question of justice, but in defence of.” So also the similar one, ο πρ δξςοδ ὑὲ μρυ χρςπλμῦι i.e. “not about a matter of glory, but in defence of,” etc. ὑὲ δξςmight have been used, but the idea would not be quite the same. Here, too, ὑέ expresses with more precision “on behalf of”; but the reason of the difference is probably not to be found in the difference between πνω τνἁίνand ἐο, but in the fact that the special object of the latter prayer is stated: “and on behalf of me, that,” etc. See Dale, Lect. xxiv. p. 437.
19, 20. The apostle’s request for their prayers for himself, that he may have freedom to proclaim the mystery of the gospel for which he is an ambassador.
ἵαμιδθ λγ ἐ ἀοξιτῦσόαό μυ Λγς in the sense of utterance, as 2Co_11:2, ἰιτςτ λγ. The words ἐ ἀλίε τῦσ. are by some connected with the following. Thus Grotius: “ut ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem,” etc., but πρηί never refers to external freedom, and its meaning here is further determined by πρηισμι ver. 20. To take πρηί as merely epexegetical of ἀοξιτ σ. would be very flat.
Taken with the preceding, the words may mean the opening of the mouth by God, as in Psa_51:17. Or they may mean, “when I open my mouth.” The latter is the interpretation adopted by Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer. But so understood, the words are superfluous, not to say trivial.
On the other hand, with the former interpretation they give a fulness of expression to the idea in δθ λγς which is in harmony with the gravity of the thought; they complete from the subjective side what is expressed on the objective side in δθ λγς This is the view of Harless, Olsh., Soden. The absence of the article is also in its favour. Compare Col_4:3, although there it is ἵαὁΘὸ ἀοξ ήῖ θρντῦλγυ “Opening the mouth” is an expression used only where some grave utterance is in question.
ἐ πρηί γωία. “To make known with openness of speech “; cf. Php_1:20. The margin of RV. connects ἐ πρηί with the preceding words, as the AV. had done. This involves a tautology with πρηισμι
δθί of Rec. rests on very slight evidence.
τ μσήιντῦεαγ See ch. 1:9.
20. ὑὲ ο πεβύ ἐ ἁύε. ο refers to τ μσ., for this is the object of γωία, and γωία is in substance connected with πεβύ Compare Col_4:3, λλσιτ μσ. τῦΧιτῦδʼὃκὶδδμι The simplest view is probably the best: “I am an ambassador in chains”; but Grotius understands the words to mean: “nunc quoque non desino legationem”; but this would require some emphasis on ἁύε, as, for example, κὶἐ ἁ. πεβύ: and there is no reference here, as in Php_1:12 ff., to the good effects of his imprisonment. The oxymoron is noted by Bengel and Wetstein: “alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant.” So, indeed, Theoph., τὺ πέβι νμςμδνπσενκκν ἐ ἁύε is in distinct opposition to ἐ πρηί.
Paley and others have drawn attention to the use of ἅυι here as referring to the “custodia militaris” in which St. Paul was kept at Rome, Act_28:16, Act_28:20; cf. 2Ti_1:16. It is true the singular might possibly be used in a general sense, although the instances cited from Polyb. of εςτνἅυι ἐππεν(xxi. 3. 3, iv. 76. 5) are not parallel, since the article there is generic. Still it can hardly be denied that the term has a special suitability to the circumstances of this imprisonment, or rather custody. Of course, δσο as the general term might also be used, and therefore the fact that it is used, Col_4:18, is no objection.
ἵαἐ ατ πρηισμι Co-ordinate with the preceding ἵα Soden, however, takes the clause as depending on the πεβύ ἐ ἁ., the meaning according to him being that St. Paul might have been set at liberty on condition that he did not preach the gospel, but remained in custody in hope that the result of the trial would be that he would be at liberty to preach. This, he adds, corresponds to ὡ δῖμ λλσι and escapes the tautology involved in the other interpretations.
21-24. Personal commendation of Tychicus, who carries the letter, and final benediction
21. ἵαδ εδτ κὶὑες κίis probably simply “ye as well as others.” Meyer and others suppose a reference to the Epistle to the Colossians, “ye as well as the Colossians”; cf. Col_4:7. But this seems forced, for this significance of κίcould hardly occur to the readers. But it may mean, “although there are no personal relations between us.” Alford understands: “as I have been going at length into the matters concerning you, so if you also, on your part, wish,” etc.
τ κτ ἐέ= Col_4:7.
τ πάσ, nearer definition of τ κτ ἐέ “how I d