Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 6

Ephesians 6:1. After ὑμῶν Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ἐν κυρίῳ, in opposition to B D* F G, It. Marcion, Cyril, Cypr. Ambrosiast. Rejected by Mill, suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Rück., but defended (on the ground of Colossians 3:20) by Harless and Reiche. The latter with justice; since the witnesses who omit do not preponderate, and since for the purpose of a gloss not ἐν κυρίῳ but ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ (Ephesians 5:22) would have suggested itself. If, however, ἐν κυρίῳ had been added from Col. l.c., it would have been brought in after δίκαιον.

Ephesians 6:5. τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα] Lachm. and Rück.: τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, following A B א, min. Clem. Dam. Theophyl. From Colossians 3:22.

Ephesians 6:6. The article before Χριστοῦ is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with preponderating testimony, to be deleted.

Ephesians 6:7. ὡς, which is wanting with Elz., is decidedly attested.

Ephesians 6:8. ὃ ἐάν τι ἓκαστος] Lachm. and Rück. have ἓκαστος ὃ ἐάν, which was also recommended by Griesb., following A D E F G, min. Vulg. It. Bas. Dam. Other variations are, ἓκαστος ἐάν τι (B), ἐὰν ποιήσ. ἕκαστος (א*), ἐάν τι ποι. ἓκ. (א**), ὃ ἐάν τις ἓκαστος (1, 27, 32, al.), ἐάν τι ἕκαστ. (46, 115, al., Theoph. ms.), ἐάν τις ἓκαστ. (62, 197, al.), ἐάν τις (or τι) ἄνθρωπος (Chrys. in Comment.). The best attested reading is accordingly ἓκαστος ὃ ἐάν. But if this had been the original one, it would not be at all easy to see how it could have given rise to variations, and specially to the introducing of the τι. The Recepta, on the other hand (again adopted by Tisch.), became very easily the source of the other readings, if the copyist passed over from OTI at once to the subsequent TI. Thus arose the corruption ὃτι ἓκαστος ποιήσῃ κ.τ.λ., and thence, by means of different ways of restoring what had been omitted, were formed the variations, in which case ἄνθρωπος came in instead of ἓκαστος as a gloss, designed to indicate the general sense of ἓκαστος.

κομιεῖται] A B D* F G א Petr. alex.: κομίσεται.[291] So Lachm. Tisch. Rück. In Colossians 3:25, likewise, these two forms are found side by side in the critical witnesses. Nevertheless here, as there, κομίσεται is more strongly attested, and hence to be preferred. κομιεῖται may have originated in a reminiscence of 1 Peter 5:4Ephesians 6:9. ἱμῶν αὐτῶν] many variations, among which αὐτῶν κ. ὑμῶν (so Lachm. Tisch. Rück, and Harless; recommended also by Griesb.) is that most strongly attested, namely, by A B D min. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Copt. Clem. Pet. Chrys. (alicubi) Damasc. Jer. Aug. Pel. Rightly. The mention of the slaves (αὐτῶν) appeared here partly in itself, partly from a comparison with Colossians 4:1, not relevant; hence the Recepta (anew defended by Reiche) ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, in which case αὐτῶν applies to the masters, just as αὐτῶν ὑμῶν in E F G, and merely ὑμῶν in 17. Others, leaving the καί standing, at least prefixed ὑμῶν (L, min. Syr. p. Fathers: ὑμῶν καί αὐτῶν). א* testifies in favour of Lachmann’s reading by ἑαυτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν, whereas א**, like the others, has regarded the prefixing of ὑμῶν (thus ὑμ. κ. ἑαυτ.) as necessary.

Ephesians 6:10. τὸ λοιπόν] Lachm. and Rück. read τοῦ λοιποῦ, following A B א* 17, 73, 118, Cyril, Procop. Dam. Thus at least not preponderantly supported. In favour, however, of τὸ λοιπόν, testifies also the reading δυναμοῦσθε, which is found in B 17, instead of the following ἐνδυναμοῦσθε, and probably has arisen from the confounding on the part of the copyist of the N in λοιπόν with the N in ΕΝδυναμοῦσθε. Since, moreover, τὸ λοιπόν better accords with the sense than τοῦ λοιποῦ (see on Galatians 6:17), I hold the latter to be a mechanical repetition from Gal. l.c.

The following ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ ΜΟΥ is wanting in B D E א* Aeth. Arm. Clar. Germ. Goth. Cyril, Damasc. Lucifer, Ambrosiast. Jerome; while in A[292] F G, codd. Ital. Syr. p. Vulg. Theodoret, only ΜΟΥ is wanting. ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ ΜΟΥ, which Griesb. also holds suspected, and Lachm. Tisch. Rück. have deleted, is an addition from Php 3:1; Php 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 13:11. And this addition, too, tells in favour of the originality of ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ.

Ephesians 6:12. ἩΜῖΝ] B D* F G, 52, 115, Syr. Ar. pol. Slav. ant. It. Goth. Lucif. Ambrosiast.: ὙΜῖΝ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rück. But how naturally would ὙΜῖΝ suggest itself to the copyists, inasmuch as the whole context speaks in the second person!

ΤΟῦ ΣΚΌΤΟΥς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ] Elz. has ΤΟῦ ΣΚ. ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ, in opposition to decisive witnesses. Expansion by way of gloss.

Ephesians 6:16. ἘΠῚ ΠᾶΣΙΝ] Lachm. reads ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙΝ, for which more current expression, however, only B א, min. Vulg. It. and some Fathers testify, and several vss. are doubtful.

ΤΆ before ΠΕΠΥΡ. is wanting, indeed, in B D* F G, and is deleted by Lachm., but was easily regarded as superfluous and thus passed over.

Ephesians 6:17. ΔΈΞΑΣΘΕ] is wanting in D* F G, codd. It. and various Fathers, while A D*** K L and min. read ΔΈΞΑΣΘΑΙ (so Matth.), and Arm. places ΔΆΞΑΣΘΕ before ΤῊΝ ΠΕΡΙΚΕΦ. Suspected by Griesb. But if no verb had stood, and a gloss had been supplied, we should most naturally expect ἀναλάβετε to be added. In consideration, however, of the seeming redundancy, it is much more likely that the omission was made. The infinitive has come in after the preceding ΣΒΈΣΑΙ.

Ephesians 6:18. ΑὐΤῸ ΤΟῦΤΟ] A B א, min. Basil, Chrys. (in commentary) Damasc. have only ΑὐΤΌ; D* F G have ΑὐΤΌΝ, and Latins in illum or in illo s. ipso, which readings likewise tell in favour of the simple ΑὐΤΌ. With reason (in opposition to Reiche) ΤΟῦΤΟ is disapproved by Griesb., and rejected by Lachm. Tisch. Rück. An exegetical, more precise definition in accordance with Paul’s practice elsewhere.

Ephesians 6:19. ΔΟΘῇ] Elz. has ΔΟΘΕΊΗ, in opposition to decisive testimony. Perhaps occasioned by a mere repetition of the H in copying.

Ephesians 6:21. ΕἸΔῆΤΕ ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς] Lachm. and Rück. read ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς ΕἸΔῆΤΕ. So A D E E G א, min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Lat. Fathers. In what follows Lachm. and Rück. place ΓΝΩΡΊΣΕΙ before ὙΜῖΝ, following B D E F G א, min. It. Goth. Ambrosiast. The latter from Colossians 4:7. And the former is to be explained from the circumstance that ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς was, through inattention to the reference of the ΚΑΊ, omitted as superfluous (so still in cod. 17), and was thereupon reintroduced according to the order of the words which primarily suggested itself, by which means it came before εἰδῆτε.

[291] A reads ΚΟΜΙΣΕΤΕ, and thus testifies indirectly in favour of κομίσεται.

[292] A has ἀδελφοί only after ἐνδυναμοῦσθε.

CONTENTS.

How the children (Ephesians 6:1-3), the fathers (Ephesians 6:4), the slaves (Ephesians 6:5-8), and the masters (Ephesians 6:9) are to demean themselves. Concluding exhortation to the acquiring of Christian strength, for which purpose the readers are to put on the whole armour of God, and thus armed to stand forth, in order victoriously to sustain the conflict with the diabolic powers (Ephesians 6:10-17); in connection with which they are ever to apply themselves to prayer, and to make intercession for all Christians, and, in particular, for the apostle (Ephesians 6:18-20). Sending of Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21-22). Concluding wishes (Ephesians 6:23-24).

Ephesians 6:1. Ἐν κυρίῳ] characterizes the obedience as Christian, the activity of which moves in Christ, with whom the Christian withal stands in communion of life. The reference to God (“praeter naturae legem … Dei quoque auctoritate sancitum docent,” Calvin; comp. Wolf) is already refuted by the very ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ, Ephesians 4:21, placed at the head of all these precepts, as also by the standing formula itself (comp. Colossians 3:20).

δίκαιον] right, i.e. κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμον, Theodoret. Comp. Colossians 4:1; Php 1:7; Php 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:6; Luke 12:57.

In favour of infant baptism, i.e. in favour of the view that the children of Christians were as early as that time baptized, nothing at all follows from the exhortation of the apostle to the children (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 192). The children of Christians were, through their fellowship of life with their Christian parents, even without baptism ἅγιοι (see on 1 Corinthians 7:14; Acts 16:15), and had to render to their parents obedience ἐν κυρίῳ.

Ephesians 6:2. The frame of mind towards the parents, from which the ὑπακούειν just demanded of the children must proceed, is the τιμᾶν. Hence Paul continues, and that in the express hallowed words of the fourth commandment: τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου κ.τ.λ. (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16). And as he had before subjoined the general motive of morality τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι δίκαιον, so he now subjoins the particular incitement ἥτις ἐστιν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελ., so that the relation as well of the two precepts themselves, as of their motives, Ephesians 6:1-2, is climactic, and ἥτις … ἐπαγγελίᾳ can by no means be a parenthesis (Griesbach, Rückert, and others).

ἥτις] utpote quae, specifies a reason. See on Ephesians 3:13.

ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελ.] The article is not necessary with the πρώτη, which is in itself defining, or with the ordinal numbers generally (Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 35). Comp. Acts 16:12; Php 1:12, al. And the statement that the commandment first as to number in the Decalogue has a promise, is not inconsistent with the facts, since the promise, Exodus 20:6, Deuteronomy 5:10, is a general one, having reference to the commandments as a whole. Just as little is it to be objected that no further commandment with a promise follows in the Decalogue; for Paul says πρώτη, having before his mind not only the Decalogue, but also the entire series of all the divine precepts, which begins with the Decalogue. Among the commandments, which God has given at the time of the Mosaic legislation and in all the subsequent period, the commandment: “Honour father and mother,” is the first which is given with a promise. The apparent objection is thus removed in a simple manner by our taking ἐντολή as divine commandment in general, and not restricting it to the sense “commandment in the Decalogue.” If Paul had had merely the Decalogue in mind, he must have written: the only commandment.[293] For the assumption that “it is the first, not with regard to those which follow, but to those which have preceded” (Harless), would not even be necessarily resorted to, if it were really established—which, however, is assumed entirely without proof—that Paul had taken into account merely the ten commandments, seeing that he and every one of his readers knew that no other commandment of the ten had a promise. From the arbitrary presupposition, that merely the Decalogue was taken into account, it followed of necessity in the case of other expositors, either that they restricted ἐντολή simply to the commandments of the second table[294] (Ambrosiaster, Zachariae, Michaelis, the latter misconstruing the absence of the article before ἐντολὴ πρώτη as favouring his view), in connection with which Holzhausen even maintained that ἐντολή never denotes a commandment in reference to God (see Matthew 22:36; Matthew 22:38; Mark 12:28); or else that they tampered with the numerical sense of πρώτη, and made out of it a very important, a chief commandment (Koppe, Morus, Flatt, Matthies, Meier). What a feeble motive would thus result! and πρώτη would in fact mean the most important, which, however, the fifth commandment is not (Matthew 22:38; Romans 13:9-10; Galatians 5:14). Further, the proposal of Erasmus, that πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελ. should be held to apply to the definite promise of Ephesians 6:3, mention of which first occurs in the fifth commandment, is not worthy of attention (Harless), but erroneous; because the same promise occurs after the fifth commandment only with a general reference to the commandments as a whole (Deuteronomy 5:33; Deuteronomy 6:2), as it has also occurred even before the fifth commandment in such a general form (Deuteronomy 4:40); and because, besides, ἐπαγγ. could not but have the article.

ἐν ἐπαγγελ.] is to be closely attached to πρώτη, as expressing that, wherein this commandment is the first, the point in which the predicate pertains to it. Comp. Diodor. xii. 37: ἐν δὲ εὐγενείᾳ καὶ πλούτῳ πρῶτος, Soph. O. R. 33: πρῶτος ἐν συμφοραῖς. In point of promise it is the first (οὐ τῇ τάξει, Chrysostom).

[293] According to Bleek, Paul had not at the moment the form of the following commandments of the Decalogue definitely before his mind. But with such inadvertence no one is less to be charged than Paul.

[294] In opposition to this, Erasmus aptly remarks: “Haec distinctio non est fundata in s. literis, sed est commentum recentiorum theologorum.” In general it is to be observed that, according to Philo and Josephus, each of the two tables contained five commandments, not, as Augustine (whom Luther followed) supposed, the first three, and the second seven,—and thus two sacred numbers, in which case, moreover, there was found in the first table a reference to the Trinity.

Ephesians 6:3. After Paul has just said: “the first commandment with promise,” he now adduces the definite promise, on account of which this predicate pertains to that commandment, and that according to the LXX. of Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, with immaterial variation (LXX.: καὶ ἵνα μακροχρ. γένῃ ἐπὶ τ. γ.), and with omission of the more precise designation of Palestine, which in the LXX. follows after γῆς. This omission, however, was not occasioned by the circumstance that the promise was to bear upon long life in general (Calvin, Koppe, Rückert, Matthies, Schenkel, and many), in which case, indeed, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς might also have been left out; but Paul could so fully presuppose acquaintance with the complete words of the promise, that with the mere ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς enough was said to preclude any misunderstanding which should depart from the original sense: in the land, i.e. Palestine. So, namely, in accordance with the sense of the original text well known to the readers, is ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς to be understood, not as “upon earth;” for the promise is here adduced historically. Hence its original sense is not at all to be altered or spiritualized, or to be taken conditionally, as e.g. was done by Zanchius: if the promise is not fulfilled simpliciter, yet it is fulfilled commutations in majus; or by Calovius: “Promissiones temporales cum conditions intelligendae, quantum sc. temporalia illa nobis salutaria fore Deus censuerit;” comp. also Estius, who at the same time remarks (so again typically Olshausen, comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that the land of Canaan prefigures the kingdom of heaven (comp. Matthew 5:5), and the long life everlasting blessedness. Nor is it to be said, with Bengel, Morus, Stolz, Rosenmüller, Flatt, and Harless, that the earthly blessing is promised not to the individual, but to the people. For in the summons “thou shalt” in the Decalogue, although the latter on the whole (as a whole) is directed to the people, the individual is withal addressed, as is evident from the very commandments in which the neighbour is mentioned, and as is the view underlying all the N.T. citations from the Decalogue-law, Matthew 15:4; Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27; Romans 7:7; Romans 13:9.

εὖ σοι γένηται] Comp. Genesis 2:13; Deuteronomy 4:40; Sir 1:13. A Greek would employ εὖ πάσχειν, εὖ πράττειν, or the like, or even ἀγαθά σοι γένηται.

καὶ ἔσῃ κ.τ.λ.] is regarded by Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 361], and de Wette (comp. already Erasmus), not as dependent upon ἵνα, but as a direct continuation of the discourse. But this expedient is unnecessary, inasmuch as ἵνα with the future actually occurs in the case of Paul (see on 1 Corinthians 9:18; Galatians 2:4); and is, moreover, here out of place, since there is not any direct continuation of the discourse in those passages of the O. T., the sense of which Paul reproduces. At Revelation 22:14 also the future and subjunctive are interchanged after ἵνα, as also in classical writers the same variation after ὅπως is well known (see on the erroneous canon Dawesianus, Bremi, in Schaef. Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 277; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 335 f.; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 184 [E. T. 213]). And how aptly do the two modes of construction here suit the sense, so that γένηται expresses the pure becoming realized, and ἔσῃ μακροχρόν. the certain emergence and continued subsistence (Kühner, II. p. 491). The change is a logical climax.

Ephesians 6:4. The duty of fathers, negative and positive.

καὶ οἱ πατέρες] and ye fathers, so that καί quickly subjoins. Comp. Ephesians 6:9. Paul does not address the mothers, not because he is thinking of the training of grown-up children (so quite arbitrarily Olshausen), nor on account of an Oriental depreciation of the mothers (Rückert), in opposition to which view—even apart from passages like Proverbs 14:1; Proverbs 31:10 ff.—the whole teaching of the apostle concerning the relation of husband and wife in marriage (Ephesians 5:25 ff.) is decisive; but because the husband, as the head of the wife, has, even in the bringing up of children the rule, and the wives join in prosecuting the work of training ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (Ephesians 5:22 ff.).

μὴ παροργίζετε] by injustice, harshness, hastiness of temper, undue severity, and the like, whereby the children are irritated against the fathers; at Colossians 3:21 there is subjoined as motive ἵνα μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν.

ἐκτρέφετε] not as at Ephesians 5:29, but of the bringing up, and that on its moral side. Proverbs 23:24; 1Ma 6:15; 1Ma 6:55; Plato, Gorg. p. 471 C; Polyb. vi. 6. 2. See Wyttenbach, ad Plut. de educ. p. 66; Lennep. ad Phalar, p. 350b.

ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου] ἐν denotes the regulative element, in which the training is to take place. Comp. Polyb. i. 65. 7: τῶν ἐν παιδείαις κ. νόμοις κ. πολιτικοῖς ἔθεσιν ἐκτεθραμμένων. Hence: in the Lord’s training and correction. παιδεία is the general term, the training of children as a whole, and νουθεσία is the special one, the reproof aiming at amendment, whether this admonition take place by means of words (νουθετικοὶ λόγοι, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 21) or of actual punishments (οἱ μὲν ῥάβδοι νουθετοῦσι κ.τ.λ., Plut. Quaest. Rom. p. 283). See Gellius, vi. 4; Kypke, Obss. ad 1 Thess. v. 14. With regard to the form, in place of which the better Greek has νουθέτησις, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. κυρίου means neither to the Lord (Luther), nor according to the doctrine of Christ (Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Menochius, Estius, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosenmüller, Bisping, and others, including Holzhausen, who, however, takes κυρ. of God), nor worthily of the Lord (Matthies), or the like; but it is the genitive subjecti, so that the Lord Himself is conceived as exercising the training and reproof, in so far, namely, as Christ by His Spirit impels and governs the fathers therein. Comp. Soph. Electr. 335: ἅπαντα γάρ σοι ταʼ μὰ νουθετήματα κείνης διδακτὰ, κοὐδὲν ἐκ σαυτῆς λέγεις. Rückert is unable to come to a decision, and doubts whether Paul himself had a distinct idea before his mind.

Ephesians 6:5. On Ephesians 6:5-9, comp. Colossians 3:22 to Colossians 4:1.

Here, too, there is doubtless no approval, but at the same time no disapproval of the existing slavery in itself, which—in accordance with the apostolic view of a Christian’s position (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 7:22; comp. Titus 2:9 f.; 1 Peter 2:18)—like every other outward relation of life, ought not to affect spiritual freedom and Christian unity; hence at 1 Corinthians 7:21 it is expressly prescribed that the slave is to remain in his position (comp. Ignat. ad Polyc. 4; Constitt. Apost. iv. 12, vii. 13; viii. 32, 2 f.), as, indeed. Paul even sent back Onesimus after his conversion to his master, without requiring of the latter his manumission.[295]

τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα] to those, who in a merely human relation are your rulers, i.e. your human masters, whose slaves you are as regards outward temporal position in life, by way of distinction from the higher divine master, Christ; hence also τοῖς κυρ. κ. σ. stands without repetition of the article, combined into one idea; comp. on Ephesians 2:11. As Paul immediately after makes mention of the higher master Christ (ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ), it was very natural for him, in view of the twofold and very diverse relation of masters which was now present to his mind, to add κατὰ σάρκα, in the use of which any special set purpose cannot be made good. This in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, who find in it a consolatory allusion to the δεσποτεία πρόσκαιρος; in opposition to Calvin, who supposes a softening of the relation to be conveyed in this expression, as being one that leaves the spiritual freedom untouched (comp. Beza, Zanchius, Grotius, Flatt, and others); and in opposition to Harless, who finds in the predicate the thought that, although in another domain they are free, yet in earthly relations they had masters.

μετὰ φόβου κ. τρόμ.] i.e. with that zeal, which is ever keenly apprehensive of not doing enough. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 2:3; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Php 2:12.

ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδ. ὑμ.] State of heart, in which the obedience with fear and trembling is to take place; it is to be no hypocritical one, in which we are otherwise minded than we outwardly seem, but an upright, inwardly true one, without duplicity of disposition and act. Comp. Romans 12:8; 2 Corinthians 8:2; 2 Corinthians 9:11; Jam 1:5. In Philo joined with ἀκακία. See Loesner, Obss. p. 262. Oecumenius well observes: ἔνι γὰρ καὶ μετὰ φόβου κ. τρόμου δουλεύειν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐξ εὐνοίας ἀλλὰ κακούργως.

ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ] as to Christ, so that you regard your obedience to your masters as rendered to Christ (comp. Ephesians 5:22). See Ephesians 6:6. An allusion to reward (Theodoret) is imported.

[295] The reforming efficacy of the gospel addresses itself to knowledge and feeling, out of which, and so out of the inner life of faith, the alterations of the outward forms and relations of life gradually take shape with moral necessity by way of consequence; as history, too, has shown, which, when it has developed itself in a revolutionary manner, has either violently precipitated, or forsaken, or inverted that course, or else in its necessary development has encountered such hindrances as disowned the influence of this necessary development, and yet could not arrest it. “Civitates malis studiis malis que doctrinis repente evertuntur,” Cic. Leg. ii. 15. 39. It is not, however, to be overlooked that by the apostle’s mode of regarding the relation of freedom and slavery which he found existing, the slavery introduced by Christians, the enslaving of free men, the slave trade, etc., are by no means justified—rather are these things impossible, where the knowledge and feeling, that spring from evangelical faith, are the principles which shape the life and the forms assumed by it.

Ephesians 6:6-7. The ἐν ἁπλότητι … Χριστῷ just spoken of is now more precisely described.

μὴ κατʼ ὀφθαλμ. ὡς ἀνθρ.] not after an eye-serving manner as men-pleasers. The word ὀφθαλμοδουλεία occurs nowhere else than here and Colossians 3:3, but its meaning is, from its composition, clear. Comp. ὀφθαλμόδουλος in the Constitt. Apost. iv. 12. 2. It is the service which is rendered to the eyes of the master, but in which the aim is merely to acquire the semblance of fidelity, inasmuch as one makes himself thus noticeable when seen by the master, but is in reality not such, acting, on the contrary, otherwise when his back is turned. Theodoret: τὴν οὐκ ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας προσφερομένην θεραπείαν, ἀλλὰ τῷ σχήματι κεχρωσμένην.

ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι] Comp. Psalm 53:5; Psalt. Sal. iv. 8. 10, in Fabric. Cod. Pseud, i. p. 929; and see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 621. The men whom such slaves endeavour to please are just their masters, and the fault of this behaviour lies in the fact that such endeavour is not conditioned by the higher point of view of serving Christ and doing the will of God, but has as its aim simply human approbation. Even of slaves Matthew 6:24 holds good. Comp. Galatians 1:10.

ἀλλʼ ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ, ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς] but as slaves of Christ, in that ye do the will of God from the heart. The contrast lies in δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ (comp. Ephesians 6:7), and ποιοῦντες κ.τ.λ. is a modal definition of this their service, whereupon there follows in Ephesians 6:7 yet a second modal definition. Now to be a slave of Christ and not to do the will of God, and that indeed ex animo (from a genuine impulse of the soul), would be a contradiction, seeing that God is the Father of Christ, has sent Christ, and is the Head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 3:23). According to Rückert, ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ is subordinate, and ποιοῦντες τ. θέλ. τ. Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς forms the contrast: “but doing as Christ’s servants the will of God from the heart.” But after ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, comp. with Ephesians 6:5, this subordination of ὡς δοῦλοι Χρ. is altogether arbitrary and opposed to the context. ἐκ ψυχῆς is no doubt attached to what follows by Syriac, Chrysostom, Jerome, Bengel, Koppe, Knapp, Lachmann, Harless, de Wette; but μετʼ εὐνοίας (comp. Xen. Oec. xii. 5. 7), since it expresses the well-meaning disposition, already in fact includes in itself the sense of ἐκ ψυχῆς (ex animi sententia, Colossians 3:23; Mark 12:30; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 6. 3; Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 43; Nicarch. epigr. 2; Theocr. Idyll, iii. 35); and it is arbitrary to assume, with Harless, that ἐκ ψ. expresses the relation of the true servant to his service, and μετʼ εὐνοίας his relation to his master.

ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ] sc. δουλεύοντες, as to the Lord, the true mode of regarding his service as rendered to Christ.

καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρ.] Comp. on Galatians 1:1.

Ephesians 6:8. Εἰδότες] Incitement to the mode of service demanded, Ephesians 6:5-7 : since ye know that whatever good thing each one shall have done, he shall bear off this (the good done) from the Lord, whether he be slave or free.

ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος] ἐάν in the relative clause with the subjunctive instead of ἄν (Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 63 [E. T. 72]), and τί separated from ὅς, as in Plato, Legg. ix. p. 864 E: ἣν ἄν τινα καταβλάψῃ, Lys. p. 160: ὃς ἄν τις ὑμᾶς εὖ ποιῇ.

τοῦτο κομ.] Expression of entirely adequate recompense. See on 2 Corinthians 5:10.

παρὰ κυρίου] from Christ, at the judgment.

εἴτε δοῦλος, εἴτε ἐλεύθ.] ἔδειξε τῷ παρόντι βίῳ πεπωρισμένην τὴν δουλείαν καὶ δεσποτείαν, μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐκδημίαν οὐκ ἔτι δουλείας καὶ δεσποτείας, ἀλλʼ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας ἐσομένην διαφοράν, Theodoret. It is evident, we may add, from our passage that Paul did not think of a ceasing of slavery among Christians before the Parousia,—a view which was very naturally connected with the conception of the nearness of the latter, which did not admit of his looking forth upon the development of centuries.