Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 4

Ephesians 4:6. After πᾶσιν Elz. has, with min. Chrys. Theodoret, ὑμῖν; for which D E F G K L and many min., also several vss. and Fathers, read ἡμῖν. So Griesb. and Scholz. But neither pronoun is present in A B C א and several min. vss. and Fathers. The pronouns are exegetic additions, designed to secure the reference of πάντων, πάντων, πᾶσιν to the Christians.

Ephesians 4:7. The article of χάρις is wanting in B D* F G L, Dam. min. Deleted by Lachm. But it was more easily absorbed through the preceding H than brought in through writing it twice; and in its favour tell the readings ἡ χάρις αὕτη in C** 10, 31, Cyr., and ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ in Aeth., in which the article is glossed.

Ephesians 4:8. Before ἔδωκε Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. have καί, which has against it A C** D* E F G א* 17, Copt. Slav. ant. Vulg. It. and several Latin Fathers, and hence is suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. But considerable witnesses still remain in favour of καί; and since the LXX. does not have it at Psalm 68:19, the omission seems to have taken place in accordance with the LXX.

Ephesians 4:9. After κατέβη Elz. has πρῶτον, in opposition to decisive witnesses, although defended by Reiche. A more precisely defining addition, as is also μέρη in Elz. after κατώτ. Less weighty authority, it is true, testifies against this μέρη (hence it is retained not only by Reiche, but also by Lachm. Scholz, and Rück.), but it betrays itself as a glossing product of the very old explanation of the descent into hell, in order to designate the place whither Christ descended as subterranean.

Ephesians 4:15. Instead of ὁ Χριστός, A B C א* min. Fathers have merely Χριστός. So Lachm. and Tisch. To be preferred, on account of the oldest MS. attestation.

Ephesians 4:16. μέρους] A C, 14, 66 (on margin), Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. and several Fathers have μέλους, which, after Grot. Mill, and Bengel, is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Rück. (not Lachm.). An interpretation in accordance with the context. G has μέτρους, which likewise testifies in favour of μέρους.

Ephesians 4:17. λοιπά] is wanting with A B D* F G א, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Clem. Cyr. and Lat. Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Rück. But how naturally might it be omitted, since Paul was speaking to Gentiles who were now Christians, and upon a comparison with 1 Thessalonians 4:5!

Ephesians 4:18. ἐσκοτισμένοι] Lachm. Tisch. read ἐσκοτωμένοι, following A B א, Ath. Rightly; the current form was brought in.

Ephesians 4:26. The article before παροργ., deleted by Lachm., is wanting in A B א*, and is more likely to have been added on account of the definite reference in the text, than to have been omitted.

Ephesians 4:27. μήτε] All uncials have μηδέ. On that account, even apart from the greater linguistic probability, rightly approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, Rück. and Harless.

Ephesians 4:28. τὸ ἀγαθὸν ταῖς χερσίν] Many variations, among which ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν (so Lachm. and Rück.) is by far the best attested reading (A D E F G א* min. Ar. pol. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Basil, Epiph. Naz. Jer. Aug. Pel.). The shortest readings are: merely τὸ ἀγαθόν with Clem., and merely ταῖς χερσίν with Tertull. Harless (comp. Mill) conjectures that the latter is the original form, and that 1 Corinthians 4:12, Galatians 5:10 gave occasion to glosses. But only 1 Corinthians 4:12 is here parallel, because Galatians 6:10 does not speak of literal labour. There would hence be more warrant for regarding the simple τὸ ἀγαθόν in Clement as original. But in opposition to this, it may be urged that ταῖς χερσίν is wanting in no other witness, and is in the highest degree appropriate to the connection; whereas τὸ ἀγαθόν, since the mention is of manual labour, might easily appear inappropriate. The true reading accordingly I hold to be ταῖς χερσὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν, which remains, if we delete ἰδίαις in Lachm., as an addition from 1 Corinthians 4:12. And with this agree also B א** Amiat. Ambrosiast., which actually read ταῖς χερσὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν.

Ephesians 4:29. χρείας] D* E* F G, 46, Arm. in several codd. of Vulg., codd. of It., Lat. codd. in Jer. and several Fathers: πίστεως. An interpretation.

Ephesians 4:32. δέ] is wanting, no doubt, in B and min. Clar. Germ. Clem. Dam. Oec., and is deleted by Lachm., but was easily dropped out through the last syllable of γίνεσθε. Omitted, it was then in accordance with Ephesians 5:1 made up for, in many witnesses, by οὖν (D* F G, lect. 6, 14, codd. of It.).

ὑμῖν] Lachm.: ἡμῖν, after B** D E K L, min. Syr. utr. Ar. pol. Sahid. Arm. Chrys. in comm., Theodoret, Theophylact. But ἡμῖν appears an alteration in accordance with Ephesians 5:2; where, no doubt, the variations ὑμᾶς and ὑμῶν are found, but in opposition to so decisive a preponderance of witnesses reading ἡμᾶς and ἡμῶν, that ὑμᾶς and ὑμῶν only become an evidence for the originality of our ὑμῖν.

CONTENTS.

The paraenetic portion of the Epistle begins with the general exhortation to the readers to live worthily of their vocation, whereupon, especially, mutual loving forbearance and the preservation of Christian unity are brought prominently forward (Ephesians 4:1-3). Thereon follows, Ephesians 4:4-16, a detailed exhibition of those relations, which render the preservation of Christian unity a duty, namely—(a) that there is one body, one Spirit, etc., Ephesians 4:4-6. Further, (b) that to every individual is grace given in the measure in which Christ apportions His gift, Ephesians 4:7-10. And (c) that Christ has given the different teachers, until all should have attained to unity of the faith and of knowledge, in order that dependence on false teaching may cease, and, on the other hand, the truth may be acknowledged in love, and thus all may grow in relation to Christ the head, from whom the whole church, the body, accomplishes in love its organic development to perfection, Ephesians 4:11-16. Hereupon the discourse returns to the form of exhortation, namely, that they no longer walk after a Gentile manner (Ephesians 4:17-19). They had, indeed, been quite otherwise taught, namely so, as it is truth in Jesus, that they should lay aside the old man, and, on the other hand, should be renewed in their mind and should put on the new man (Ephesians 4:20-24). Lastly, thus grounded, there follow the special exhortations no longer to lie, but to speak the truth; not to sin in anger, etc.; no longer to steal, but to work, etc.; to hold no bad discourse, but, etc.; not to be bitter, passionate, etc., but kind, compassionate, forgiving (Ephesians 4:25-32).

Ephesians 4:1. See on Ephesians 4:1-6, Winzer, Commentat., Lips. 1839.

παρακαλῶ] “Parte doctrinae absoluta venit, ut solet, ad adhortationes,” Grotius. No doubt, there presently begins again at Ephesians 4:4 a doctrinal exposition as far as Ephesians 4:16, but it is subservient to the paraenesis, and is itself pervaded by the paraenetic element (Ephesians 4:14-15).

οὖν] deduces the exhortation from the immediately preceding Ephesians 3:21. For a walk in keeping with the vocation, through which one belongs to the church, is what is practically in keeping with the praise of God in the church. The suitableness of this nearest reference gives it the preference over the more vague ordinary view, that οὖν draws its inference from the whole contents of the first three chapters. Comp. on Romans 12:1.

ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρ.] gives to the παρακαλῶ οὖν a touching force “ad excitandum affectum, quo sit efficacior exhortatio,” Estius; comp. Calvin. Similarly Ignat. Trall. 12: παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς τὰ δεσμά μου, ἃ ἕνεκεν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ περιφέρω. But all that has been said about exciting sympathetic feeling (Koppe and older expositors), cheering obedience,[197] and the like, is quite inappropriate, since it was just in his sufferings that Paul was conscious of all his dignity with holy pride (comp. Ephesians 3:13 and on Galatians 6:17). So here, too, in the ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛῶ, the reader was to be affected by the consciousness of the dignity and greatness of the martyr who utters it.[198] According to others, Paul wishes to present himself as an example (Harless, Olshausen; comp. also Koppe). In that case he must at least have written: παρακαλῶ οὖν ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμ. ἐν κυρ. καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀξίως περιπ. κ.τ.λ.

ἐν κυρίῳ] does not belong to παρακαλῶ (Semler, Koppe with hesitation; Zanchius already suggested, but did not approve it), but to ὁ δέσμιος, beside which it stands, and which alone needs its significant reference; comp. Ephesians 3:1; Php 1:13. Paul was the prisoner in the Lord (the article as Ephesians 3:1), for he did not endure a captivity having its ground apart from Christ,—such as one suffers who for any other reason is placed in bonds,—but in Christ his being bound had its causal basis, just because he was bearing the chains for Christ’s sake; without, however, ἐν κυρίῳ signifying “for Christ’s sake” (comp. on Galatians 1:24), as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many would have it. Comp. rather, συνεργὸς ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀγαπητὸς ἐν κυρίῳ, δόκιμος ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐκλεκτὸς ἐν κυρίῳ, Romans 16:3; Romans 16:8-10; Romans 16:13, al. It gives to the δέσμιος its specific character, by which therefore the captivity was essentially distinguished from any other.

ἐν κυρίῳ] is annexed without an article, because it is blended with ὁ δέσμιος into a unity of conception. The genitive designation, Ephesians 3:1, expresses the same thing, but otherwise conceived of.

ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι κ.τ.λ.] i.e. to lead such a life-walk as is appropriate to the call to the Messianic kingdom issued to you (at your conversion), “ne sint tanta gratia indigni,” Calvin. Comp. Php 1:27; Colossians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; Matthew 3:8; Romans 16:2; Bernhardy, p. 140. The future possession of the kingdom, forsooth, is destined only for those whose ethical frame is renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. See Ephesians 4:21 ff., Ephesians 4:30; Romans 8:4 ff; Romans 14:17; Galatians 5:21 f.; 1 Corinthians 6:9 f., al.

ἧς] as at Ephesians 1:6; and see on 2 Corinthians 1:4. Attracted instead of ἥν. Yet Paul might have written ᾗ, 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Corinthians 7:20.

[197] “Ut Paulum obsequio exhilararent,” Bengel.

[198] Theodoret aptly remarks: τοῖς διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν δεσμοῖς ἐναβρύνεται μᾶλλον ἢ βασιλεὺς διαδήματι.

Ephesians 4:2. Μετὰ πάσ. ταπεινοφρ. κ. πραότ.] the characteristic dispositions accompanying this περιπατῆσαι; see Winer, p. 337 [E. T. 471], and with regard to πάσης, on Ephesians 1:8; it belongs to both substantives. On the subject-matter, comp. Matthew 11:29; Colossians 3:12. The opposite of humility: τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν, Romans 12:16; Romans 11:20; 1 Timothy 6:17; δοκεῖν εἶναί τι, Galatians 6:3. On the notion of πραότης, gentleness, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 140.

μετὰ μακροθ.] is attached by Calvin, Estius, Zeltner, Calixtus, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Zachariae, Rückert, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, to the following ἀνεχόμενοι. But the very repetition of the preposition, to which appeal is made, most naturally points backwards, so that μετὰ μακροθ. appears as parallel to μετὰ π. ταπεινοφρ. κ. πραότ., inasmuch, namely, as Paul makes the general be followed by the special, and then gives to the latter the elucidation ἀνεχόμενοι κ.τ.λ. Besides, μετὰ μακροθ., if it belonged to ἀνεχόμ., would have an undue emphasis, since without long-suffering the ἀνέχεσθαι ἀλλήλων would not exist at all; Colossians 3:12 f. Bengel and Matthies, following Theodoret and Oecumenius, have attached the whole μετὰ π. ταπ. κ. πραότ., μετὰ μακροθ. to ἀνεχόμενοι. But in this way we lose the gradual transition from the general ἀξίως περιπατ. τ. κλ. to the special ἀνεχόμ. ἀλλήλ., which under our construction is very naturally brought about.

ἀνεχόμ. ἀλλήλ. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] The reciprocal forbearance in (ethical habit) love (comp. Romans 15:1; Galatians 6:2) is the practical expression of the μακροθυμία. Comp. Colossians 3:13. It consists in the fact that we “aliorum infirmitates aequo animo ferimus, nec ob ea, quae nobis in proximo displicent, ab ejus amicitia recedimus, sed personam constanter amamus, etsi vitia in odio habeamus,” Calovius. The nominative of the participle (comp. Colossians 1:10) is put κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον, because the logical subject of ἀξίως περιπατ., Ephesians 4:1, is ὑμεῖς. See on Ephesians 3:18; comp. on 2 Corinthians 1:7, and Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 970. Ignoring this familiar construction, Heinsius, Knatchbull, and Homberg have placed a full stop after Ephesians 4:1, and then supplied estote to the participles—a course, which would only be admissible if, as in Romans 12:9, this concise, pregnant mode of expression were implied in the context.

ἐν ἀγάπῃ] belongs to the preceding. On the thing itself, comp. 1 Corinthians 13:4. Lachmann, Holzhausen, and Olshausen attach it to σπουδάζοντες. The reason given by Olshausen, that, as the μακροθ. is only a form of expression of love, ἐν ἀγάπῃ could not belong to what precedes, would be set aside, even if it were in itself valid, by the correct separation of μετὰ μακροθ. from ἀνεχόμ. And ἀνεχόμ. ἀλλήλ., taken alone, renders the discourse simply abrupt. How harmonious is the structure, when both participial clauses begin with the participle and close with the definitions attached by ἐν, in which definitions there is opened up the whole ethical domain (love and peace) to which the before-named special virtues belong (1 Corinthians 13)!

Ephesians 4:3. Parallel of ἀνεχόμενοι κ.τ.λ., which is characterized as respects the effort by which it must be upheld.

τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος] The πνεῦμα is not the human spirit, so that in general animi studiorumque consensus is meant (Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Erasmus, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, Koppe, and many, including Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Rückert, according to whom Paul did not write τοῦ νοός, because he derives the unity of the spirit from the Divine Spirit), but, as is shown from Ephesians 4:4, and is in itself clear from the exhortation to the Christian life (Ephesians 4:1), the Holy Spirit, instead of which we have not, with de Wette and Schenkel, to understand the Christian spirit of the community; the N.T. knows not this modern notion, but knows only the Holy Spirit of God, as that which rules in the church (Ephesians 2:22), and upholds and developes its specific life, so that the latter has precisely in the κοινωνία τοῦ πνεύματος (Php 2:1; 2 Corinthians 13:13) its common source and support. Rightly already Chrysostom (τὸ πνεῦμα τοὺς γένει καὶ τρόποις διαφόροις διεστηκότας ἑνοῖ) and his successors, Beza, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Harless, Winzer, Bleek, and Ch. F. Fritzsche, Nova opp. acad. p. 244: the unity, which the Spirit produces. Comp. Php 1:27; 1 Corinthians 12:13; John 17:21. And this unity is the identity of faith, of love, of sentiment, of hope, etc., in the different subjects who are moved by the Spirit.

ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης] is attached by Lachmann to what follows, whereby the parallelism with the preceding participial clause is destroyed. And after the definition by ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρ. being prefixed, several of the following elements of unity would not be appropriate, since even without the bond of peace there is one Lord, one baptism, one God and Father.

ἐν is ordinarily taken as instrumental: through the bond of peace. In opposition to the parallelism with ἐν ἀγάπῃ; and through the unity of the Spirit the bond of peace is preserved, not the converse.[199] Hence: in the bond of peace, by which is denoted the ethical relation, in which they are to preserve the unity of the Spirit, namely, while peace one towards another must be the bond, which is to envelope them. τῆς εἰρήνης, accordingly, is genitive of apposition. Comp. σύνδεσμος εὐνοίας καὶ φιλίας, Plut. Numbers 6; Acts 8:23; Isaiah 58:6. Others: “vinculum, quo pax retinetur” (Bengel; so Theophylact, Calovius, and others, including Rückert, Meier, Harless, Winzer), and this is held to be love. Appeal is made to Colossians 3:14, and to the parallel with ἐν ἀγάπῃ. But, in Col. l.c., love in fact is expressly named, and designated as σύνδεσμος τῆς τελείοτητος; while justice is done to the parallel with ἐν ἀγάπῃ by our interpretation also, and it was at any rate most natural for the reader to understand under the bond of peace peace itself, conceived of as a bond. Expositors would not have sought for another explanation, had they not taken ἐν as instrumental, in which case the difficulty obtruded itself, that the unity of the Spirit is not preserved by means of peace, but peace by means of the unity of the Spirit.

That, moreover, no inference may be drawn from Ephesians 4:3 as to divisions prevailing in the church, Bengel has already rightly observed: “etiam ubi nulla fissura est, monitis opus est.” And particularly was such exhortation natural for the apostle, even in the absence of special occasion, considering the many saddening experiences which he had met with elsewhere on this point!

[199] What de Wette observes in opposition to this view—that the peacefulness, to which the readers are exhorted, is to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the fact that it holds all enveloped with the bond of peace—is not sufficient; since this peacefulness, which encircles all with the bond of peace, at any rate presupposes the unity of the Spirit. Where there is dispeace, this unity is already wanting.

Ephesians 4:4, on to Ephesians 4:6. Objective relations of unity, to which the non-compliance with what is demanded in Ephesians 4:3 would be contradictory,[200] and which are consequently meant to incite towards compliance,—but without γάρ (comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. II. p. 277), which gives greater animation to the discourse. The simple ἐστί is to be supplied (comp. 1 Corinthians 10:17); for the discourse is not hortatory, as it is taken to be by Pelagius, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Calvin, Camerarius, Estius, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 128, with which Ephesians 4:5-6 would not be in accord; for the same reason also the words are not to be attached appositionally to σπουδάζοντες (Bleek), but they are independent and purely assertive: there is one body and one Spirit. On ἓν σῶμα, by which the totality of Christians as corpus (Christi) mysticum is meant, comp. Ephesians 2:16; Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 12:13; on ἓν πνεῦμα, which is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of that corpus mysticum, Ephesians 2:18; 1 Corinthians 12:13. The explanation: “one body and one soul” (“quasi diceret, nos penitus corpore et anima, non ex parte duntaxat, debere esse unitos,” Calvin), is excluded, as at variance with the context, by the specifically Christian character of the other elements, and rendered impossible by the correct supplying of ἐστί (not esse debetis).

καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθ. κ.τ.λ.] with which unity (ἓν σ. κ. ἓν πν.) the relation also of your calling is in keeping (comp. Colossians 3:15), which took place by the fact that (ἐν instrumental, see on Galatians 1:6) one hope (namely, that of the eternal Messianic bliss) was communicated to you; for all in fact were called by God to this very Messianic σωτηρία (Php 3:14).

τῆς κλήσ. ὑμῶν] genitive, as at Ephesians 1:18. Bengel, we may add, aptly remarks: “Spiritus est arrhabo, atque ideo cum ejus mentione conjongitur spes haereditatis.” Comp. also Clem. Cor. I. 46.

[200] These set forth—(1) the church itself constituted on the footing of unity—one body, one Spirit, one blessed consummation, ver. 4; (2) means, by which the constitution of it as an unity is produced and preserved—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ver. 5; (3) the supreme ruler, disposer, and sustainer of this entire unity—one God and Father, etc., ver. 6. Observe the threefold tripartite arrangement.

Ephesians 4:5. Continuation. There are not several Lords, but One, who is Lord of all believers, even Christ; not several kinds of faith, but one faith, inasmuch as all place their confidence upon the atoning death of Christ, on account of which they are justified and obtain salvation (Romans 3:23 ff.); not several kinds of baptism, but one baptism, namely, into Christ (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5).

εἷς κύριος at the head; because μία πίστις and the ἓν βάπτισμα accomplished in the case of those who have become believers are consequentia of εἷς κύριος.

To make of πίστις the doctrine of the faith (Grotius, Zachariae, and others), is at variance with linguistic usage; comp. on Galatians 1:23; Romans 1:5. The ἑνότης τῆς πίστεως is here represented as present, but in Ephesians 4:13 as future. Both with justice; inasmuch as here the Christian faith in the narrower sense is intended, the fides salvifica, which in all Christians was essentially the same, while at Ephesians 4:13 it is the Christian faith in the wider sense, within the compass of which there was diversity of convictions (as respects the validity of the law, the resurrection, veneration of angels, asceticism, partaking of flesh offered to idols, and other matters).

Of the Lord’s Supper, the unity of which might likewise appear as a suitable element in the connection (1 Corinthians 10:17), Paul does not make mention: according to Calovius, because it was comprehended “uno baptismatis sacramento ex paritatis ratione;” according to Harless, because Paul was mentioning only the fundamental conditions of the Christian fellowship, as they exist from the outset, at the first entrance upon it; according to Olshausen, because the specific act of the Supper, the partaking (rather, the communion, 1 Corinthians 10:16) of Christ, is included in εἷς κύριος, μία πίστις; according to de Wette, because it was less a something conditioning the unity, than something representing this unity itself.[201] But, in opposition to Calovius and Olshausen, it may be urged that, if Paul had adopted the synecdochic point of view in the selection, he would not have needed to mention πίστις, since baptism presupposes faith; in opposition to Harless, that the fundamental conditions of the Christian communion which Paul mentions are such, not specially for the beginning of it, but for its whole duration; in opposition to de Wette, finally, that the Lord’s Supper is, precisely as a representation of the unity, at the same time a powerful ethical incitement thereto, and hence would have been admirably appropriate in the series of points adduced. The ground of its not being mentioned is rather to be sought in the fact that the adducing of the Lord’s Supper would have disturbed the threefold triad of the elements adduced, and have broken through the whole rhythm of the passage. And the holy meal might the more easily remain unmentioned, because it was at that time not yet an observance subsisting by itself, but was combined with the common meals; hence, doubtless, in a context where the Lord’s Supper is spoken of, the εἷς ἄρτος (1 Corinthians 10:17) is brought forward as a symbol of the unity of Christians, but in another context the thought ἓν δεῖπνον κυρίου or μία τράπεζα κυρίου—because the Supper was not something subsisting alone like baptism, which as the constituent element of Christian standing could not remain unmentioned—did not so necessarily suggest itself.

[201] Most mistakenly of all, Schenkel holds that Paul did not regard a uniform observance of the Supper as necessary, and would not stand in the way of the varied development of a rite. In that case, doubtless, Paul would have done well not to mention baptism either.

Ephesians 4:6. Observe the climactic advance in Ephesians 4:4-6 : the Church, Christ, God;—and at the same time the climax in the divine Triad: Spirit, Lord, Father. Only the dominion of the Father is the absolute one, that of the Son is the derived, conferred, obtained (Php 2:9; 1 Corinthians 15:24 ff; 1 Corinthians 3:23, al.; comp. Ernesti, Ursprung d. Sünde, I. p. 194 ff.), in which He also disposes of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18). See also Gess, von der Person Christi, p. 158 ff.

πάντων] i.e. of all believers, as those who have the υἱοθεσία (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:15; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5), so that God is their God and Father. Holzhausen erroneously (seeing that the context treats of the Christian ἑνότης) thinks that all men are intended. Not even the spiritually dead members of the church are included (in opposition to Münchmeyer), as results from the sequel indicated by διά and ἐν, since they have not the Spirit and belong not to Christ (Romans 8:9), but are aloof from connection with Him and stand outside of grace (Galatians 5:4 f.; John 15:2; John 15:6), consequently have no share in the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:23) and in the living temple of God (Ephesians 2:22 f.).

ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων κ.τ.λ.] The relation of the Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων to the πᾶσι in threefold manner. Comp. Romans 11:36, where, however, the prepositions define the subject, not, as here, the object. πάντων, πάντων, and πᾶσιν are equally to be taken as masculine, because the preceding πάντων was masculine, and because the discourse continues in Ephesians 4:7 with ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν, wherein the πάντες are individualized. Wrongly, therefore, many (including Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, Rückert, Baumgarten-Crusius) have taken the first two as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zachariae, Koppe, et al., give the second point alone as neuter, and Matthies, on the other hand, explains all three elements of the relation of God to the world and mankind, consequently as neuter.

ἐπὶ πάντων] ἐπάνω πάντων, Chrysostom; τὴν δεσποτείαν σημαίνει, Theodoret. Comp. Romans 9:5. See Wessel, ad Diodor. xiii. 14; Lobeck, ad Phryn p. 474; Winer, p. 335 [E. T. 521]. After this relation of transcendence there follows, in διὰ … πᾶσιν, that of immanence.

διὰ πάντων] cannot, since the πάντες are the Christians and the relation of God to what is Christian is characterized, apply either to the creation (Estius, Wolf, and others), so that we should have to think of the all-penetrating creative power of God, or to providence (Chrysostom and his successors; Beza, Grotius: “per omnes diffundit providam suam gubernationem”); but the charismatic presence of God by means of the Holy Spirit, pervading and ruling all Christians, is meant. See also Ephesians 4:7, and comp. 1 Corinthians 12:6. The distinction from the following ἐν πᾶσιν lies not in the thing itself, since both elements denote the immanent ruling of God by virtue of His Spirit, but in the form of conception, since with ἐν the relation is conceived of as operative indwelling, and with διά as operative movement throughout all Christian hearts (“Deus enim Spiritu sanctificationis diffusus est per omnia ecclesiae membra,” Calvin). According to Harless, the thought expressed in διὰ πάντων is, that God as head works through the members. But of the conception of the head and the members there is absolutely nothing in the context; further, though mention is made of God as Father, it is not the Father, but Christ, that is Head of the members; lastly, in place of the simple ὤν, which is to be mentally supplied, there would be insensibly introduced a wholly different supplement, namely, ἐνεργῶν, or a similar verb.[202] At the bottom of this explanation there lies, indeed, the presupposition, that the relation of the Trinity is expressed in the three prepositions, as Jerome, Thomas, and many of the older expositors would have it. Against this altogether arbitrary supposition, however, Theophylact already rightly declared himself. See also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 201. Olshausen, too, finds here, as at Romans 11:36, the Trinity; holding that God is described in His various relations to the creature [rather to the Christians] as Lord over all things, as instrument by which they are (this being held to apply to the Son), and as the element in which they are. Thus, moreover, the prepositional relation of the last two clauses is exactly reversed, inasmuch as not διὰ πάντων κ.τ.λ. is explained, but διʼ οὗ πάντες κ.τ.λ.! According to Beyschlag, Christol. d. N.T. p. 250, there is expressed, at least in the form of hint, the threefold mode of existence of God (“self-preservation, self-disclosure, self-communication”). But apart from the fact that such a threefold form of existence is not the expression of the New Testament triad, the self-communication, in fact, is implied not only in ἐν πᾶσιν, but necessarily already in διὰ πάντων. Lastly, Koppe is wrong in an opposite way: “Sententia videtur una, tantum variis formulis synonymis (!) expressa haec: cui vos omnes debetis omnia.”

Observe, further, that the great fundamental elements of unity, Ephesians 4:4-6, are matters of fact, historically given with Christianity itself, and as such are not affected by differences of doctrine; hence without reason there have been found here traces of the later age, when “upon the basis of the Pauline thought a Catholic church was built,” of which the centralization in doctrine and constitution was not derived from the adherents of Paul, but was a Petrine thought (Schwegler). The Catholic idea in our passage is just the Pauline one (1 Corinthians 12), cherished by Christ Himself (John 17:20 f.).

[202] This also in opposition to Winzer: “qui per omnes operatur, quasi unoquoque utitur ad declarandam suam majestatem, ad consilia sua exsequenda.” So, in the main, de Wette (comp. Bengel): it applies to the operation brought about by means of all; and Reiche: “omnibus utitur quasi instrumentis, quibus … res Christiana stabilitur, augetur, consummatur.”

Ephesians 4:7.[203] Δέ] forms the transition from the summary πάντων, πάντων, πᾶσιν, Ephesians 4:6, to each individual among the Christians. No single one, however,—in order to adduce this also as motive to the preservation of the ἑνότης τοῦ πνεύματος,—was overlooked in the endowing with grace; on every individual was it conferred, the grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, so that each individual on his part can and ought to contribute to the preservation of that unity.

ἡ χάρις] i.e. according to the context, the grace of God at work among the Christians, the communication of which is manifested in the diverse χαρίσματα; hence our passage is in harmony with the representation given, Romans 12:6.

ἐδόθη] by Christ.

κατὰ τὸ μέτρον κ.τ.λ.] τῆς δωρεᾶς is genitive subjecti (Romans 12:3; Romans 12:6; Ephesians 4:13). Hence: in the proportion in which the gift of Christ is meted out, according as Christ apportions to the one a larger, to the other a smaller measure of His gift (i.e. the gift of the divine χάρις).

The δωρεὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ is the gift which Christ gives (2 Corinthians 9:15), not: which Christ has received (Oeder, in Wolf; see in opposition to this view, already Calvin), in opposition to which Ephesians 4:8, ἔδωκε δόματα τ. ἀνθρ., is decisive.

[203] See on vv. 7–9, Hoelemann, Bibelstudien, II. p. 93 ff.