聖書注解書

CHAPTER 3

Ephesians 3:3. ἐγνωρίσθη] Elz. Matth. Reiche have ἐγνώρισε, in opposition to decisive testimony. A more precisely defining gloss.

Ephesians 3:5. Before ἑτέραις Elz. has, likewise against decisive testimony, ἐν, which was attached on account of the double dative.

Ephesians 3:6. αὐτοῦ] after ἐπαγγ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence, to be deleted.

Ephesians 3:7. ἐγενόμην] Lachm. Tisch. Rück, read ἐγενήθην, after A B D* F G א. With this preponderant attestation the more to be preferred, in proportion to the ease with which the more current form might involuntarily creep in.

τὴν δοθεῖσαν] Lachm. and Rück.: τῆς δοθείσης, approved also by Griesb. Attested, it is true, by A B C D* F G א, min. Copt. Vulg. It Latin Fathers; but how readily would the genitive present itself to the mechanical copyist after Ephesians 3:2! comp. Ephesians 3:8.

Ephesians 3:8. ἐν τοῖς] A B C א, min. Copt. have merely τοῖς. So Lachm. and Rückert. Strongly enough attested; specially as the parallel in subject-matter, Galatians 1:16, offered ἐν as an addition.

The neuter τὸ πλοῦτος is also here and at Ephesians 3:16 preponderantly attested.

Ephesians 3:9. πάντας] suspected by Beza, placed within brackets by Lachm. But it is wanting only in A א, two min. Cyr. Hilar. Jer. Aug. The omission, at any rate too feebly attested, may have been accidental, or even after ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν intentional.

οἰκονομία] Elz. has κοινωνία, in opposition to almost all the witnesses. An interpretation.

After κτίσαντι Elz. has διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is defended, it is true, by Rinck (in whose view Marcion had deleted it) and by Reiche (who holds it to have been omitted by the orthodox), but is condemned by the decisive counter-testimony as an exegetico-dogmatic addition.

Ephesians 3:12. τὴν παῤῥησίαν κ. τὴν προσαγωγήν] The second τήν is wanting in A B א* 17, 80, Lachm. Rück.; but its superfluousness occasioned the omission. F G have τὴν προσαγωγὴν εἰς τὴν παῤῥησίαν, a change produced by the absolute τὴν προσαγ.

Ephesians 3:14. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησού Χ. is wanting in A B C א 17, 67** Copt. Aeth. Erp. Vulg. ms. and important Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Rück. Harless. An addition to πατέρα readily offering itself, although defended by Reiche (on insufficient internal grounds).

Ephesians 3:16. δῴη] A B C F G א, 37, 39, 116, and several Fathers have δῷ. So Lachm. and Rück. With this important attestation δῷ is here the more to he preferred, as δῴη offered itself to the copyists from Ephesians 1:17.

Ephesians 3:18. βάθος κ. ὕψος] Lachm. reads ὕψος κ. βάθος, on considerable but not decisive evidence. But the sequence of thought, “height and depth,” was more familiar. Comp. Romans 8:39.

Ephesians 3:21. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] So D** K L, min. Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. and other Greeks. But A B C א 73, 80, 213, Copt. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. Jer. Pel. have ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. καὶ ἐν Χ. Ἰ. (so Lachm. and Rück.). D* F G, It. Ambrosiast. have ἐν Χ. Ἰ. καὶ τῇ ἐκκλ. Only 46 and Oros. have ἐν Χ. Ἰ. merely, without ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ., evidence which is far too weak to justify suspicion of ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. (in opposition to Koppe and Rück.). The καί, although strongly attested, is an old unsuitable connective addition; and the placing of ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. after ἐν Χ. Ἰ. is a transposition in accordance with the sense of rank. Hence, with Tisch. and Reiche, the Recepta is to be upheld.

CONTENTS.

On this account am I, Paul, the prisoner of God for the sake of you, the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:1). Effusion over the nature of his office as apostle of the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:2-12), which concludes with the entreaty to the readers not to become discouraged at the sufferings which he is enduring on their behalf (Ephesians 3:13). On this account he beseeches God that they might be inwardly strengthened in the Christian character, in order that they may know the whole greatness of the love of Christ, and thereby become filled with all divine gifts of grace (Ephesians 3:14-19). Doxology, Ephesians 3:20-21.

Ephesians 3:1. On this account, namely, in order that ye may be built unto the dwelling of God by means of the Spirit (Ephesians 2:22),—on this behalf, that your Christian development may advance towards that goal, am I, Paul, the fettered one of Christ Jesus for the sake of you, the Gentiles. The position of Paul in fetters on account of his labours as the apostle of the Gentiles[164] could only exert a beneficial influence upon the development of the Christian life of his churches, as edifying and elevating for them (comp. Ephesians 3:13), as, on the other hand, it must have redounded as a scandal to them, if he had withdrawn from the persecutions (Galatians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 11:23 ff.; Php 2:17 f.). Hence the τούτου χάριν emphatically prefixed.

ἐγὼ Παῦλος] in the consciousness of his personal authority (comp. 2 Corinthians 10:1; Galatians 5:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; Colossians 1:23; Philemon 1:9), which the bonds could not weaken, but only exalt (2 Corinthians 11:23 ff.).

ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Ἰ. Χ.] The article denotes the bound one of Christ κατʼ ἐξοχήν, such as Paul could not but, in accordance with his special relation to Christ (Galatians 1:1; Galatians 6:17), appear to himself and others. The genitive expresses the author of the being bound. Comp. 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1:9. See Winer, p. 170 [E. T. 236]. Paul regards himself, in keeping with the consciousness of his entire dependence on Christ (as δοῦλος Χριστοῦ), as the one whom Christ has put in chains.

As regards the construction, by many the simple εἰμί is rightly supplied after ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χρ. Ἰ. (Syriac, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cajetanus, Beza, Elsner, Calovius, Wolf, Michaelis, Paraphr.; Moras, Koppe, Rosenmüller, and others), so that ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χ. Ἰ. is predicate, in connection with which some have neglected the article, others have rightly had regard to it (see especially Beza). He is, however, the δέσμιος of Christ on behalf of the Gentiles; and this thought leads him in the sequel to explain himself more fully regarding his vocation as Apostle of the Gentiles, whereupon he only briefly returns to the point of his imprisonment in Ephesians 3:13, after having been led away from it by the detailed exposition of the theme, to which he had been incited by the ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐθνῶν. Free movement of thought natural in a letter. Supplementary additions, such as legatione fungor (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus), or hoc scribo (Camerarius, and the like),[165] are not implied in the context, and are therefore erroneous. Others have regarded the discourse as broken off, and have found the resumption either at Ephesians 3:8 (Oecumenius, Grotius), or at Ephesians 3:13 (Zanchius, Cramer, Holzhausen), or at Ephesians 3:14 (Theodoret, Luther, Piscator, Calixtus, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Homberg, Schöttgen, Bengel, Baumgarten, and others, including Flatt, Lachmann, Rückert, Winer, Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, Bisping, Bleek; de Wette, characterizing this construction as “hardly Pauline”), or only at Ephesians 4:1 (Erasmus Schmid, Hammond, Michaelis in note to his translation). But all these hypotheses are—inasmuch as, according to the above explanation, Ephesians 3:1 in itself yields with ease and linguistic correctness a complete and suitable sense—unnecessary complications of the discourse. Baumgarten-Crusius regards the discourse as entirely broken off under the pressure of the crowding thoughts, so that it is not at all resumed in the sequel.

After Ephesians 3:1 only a comma is to be placed.

[164] “Quia gentes Judaeis adaequabat, incidit in suorum popularium odium,” Drusius. Comp. Grotius, Calovius.

[165] Already in early witnesses supplementary additions are met with in the text: πρεσβεύω in D* E 10, followed by Castalio and Calvin; postulo in Clar., Germ.; κεκαύχημαι in 71, 219, al.

Ephesians 3:2. Confirmation of that which has just been said, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν, by the recalling of what the readers have heard concerning his vocation. “For you, the Gentiles,” I say, upon the presupposition that, etc. This presupposition he expresses by εἴγε, i.e. turn certe si (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 308), it being implied in the connection (for of his church he could not presuppose anything else), not in the word itself, that he assumes this rightly. He might have written εἴπερ, if at all, provided that, or εἴπερ γε, provided namely (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 4, Anab. i. 7. 9; often in the tragedians), but he has conceived the presupposition under the form at least if, if namely, and so denotes it. Comp. on Galatians 3:4 and 2 Corinthians 5:3; wherever εἴγε is used and the assumption is a certain one (as also at Ephesians 4:21), the latter is to be gathered from the connection. From whom the readers had heard the matter in question, their own consciousness told them, namely, from Paul himself and other Pauline teachers, so that εἴγε ἠκούσατε κ.τ.λ. is a reminder of his preaching among them. Hence our passage is wrongly regarded as at variance with the superscription πρὸς Ἐφεσίους, and as pointing to readers to whom Paul was not personally known; whilst others, as Grotius (so also Rinck, Sendschr. der Korinth. p. 56, who, however, takes the correct view in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 954), have, without any ground in the context, assigned to the simple ἀκούειν the signification bene intelligere; Calvin, on the other hand, had recourse to the altogether unnatural hypothesis: “Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, eum tacuisse de his rebus;” and Böttger (Beitr. iii. p. 46 ff.) refers it to the hearing of this Epistle read, against which the very ἀναγινώσκοντες that follows in Ephesians 3:3 is decisive. Estius very correctly states that εἴγε is not “dubitantis, sed potius affirmantis; neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii, quibus P. ipse evang. plusquam biennio praedicaverat.”[166] Paul might have expressed himself in the form of an assertion (ἠκούσατε γάρ, or ἐπεὶ ἠκούσατε), but the hypothetic form of expression constitutes a more delicate and suggestive way of recalling his preaching among them (as also the Attic writers, in place of ἐπεί γε, delicately use the hypothetic εἴγε; see Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), without, however, containing an obliquam reprehensionem (Vitringa, comp. Holzhausen), of which the context affords no trace.

τὴν οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος κ.τ.λ.] the arrangement (see on Ephesians 1:10) which has been made regarding the grace of God given to me with reference to you (τῆς χάριτος is the genitive objecti). The more precise explanation is then given by ὅτι κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν κ.τ.λ. The χάρις is here, in accordance with the context (τῆς δοθ. μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς), the divine bestowal of grace that took place in the entrusting him with the apostolic office. Comp. on Romans 12:3; Romans 15:15. Others, like Pelagius, Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, et al., have explained οἰκον. τ. χάρ. as the office of administering evangelic grace; but against this it may be urged that not τῆς δοθείσης, but τὴν δοθεῖσαν, must have been afterwards used. This mistake is avoided by Wieseler, p. 446 f., where he takes it as: the office for which I have been qualified by the grace conferred upon me on your behalf. This office the readers had heard, inasmuch as they had heard the preaching of the apostle. But how are we to justify the expression “to hear the office,” instead of “to hear the official preaching”? The words would merely say: if ye have heard of the office, etc., Galatians 1:13; Colossians 1:4; Philemon 1:5.

[166] De Wette dogmatically lays it down that the readers had no need, if the apostle had already exercised his apostolic calling among them, now first to learn from himself that he had received it. But in so speaking he has not attended to the fact that the object of the ἠκούσατε is not the reception of the apostolic vocation in general, but the mode of this reception (namely, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, ver. 3). This account of the manner in which he had become their apostle he communicated to them when he was with them, and of this he reminds them now.

Ephesians 3:3. In this more detailed specification of the οἰκονομία meant in Ephesians 3:2, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν has the emphasis: by way of revelation, expressing the mode of the making known, in accordance with a well-known adverbial usage (Bernhardy, p. 241). In substance the διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως of Galatians 1:12 is not different. According to the history of the conversion in Acts 26 (not according to Acts 9, 22), we have here to think not merely of the disclosures that followed the event near Damascus (as Galatians 1:12), but also of the revelation connected with this event itself; for the contents of what is revealed is here the blessing of the Gentiles, and with this comp. Acts 26:17-18, as also Galatians 1:16; hence from κατὰ ἀποκάλ. we may not infer a post-apostolic time of composition (Schwegler).

ἐγνωρίσθη] namely, on the part of God; comp. Ephesians 3:2; Ephesians 3:5.

τὸ μυστήριον] see on Ephesians 1:9; it applies here, however, not to the counsel of redemption in general, but to the inclusion of the Gentiles in it. It is not until Ephesians 3:6 that the apostle comes to express this special contents which is here meant.

καθώς down to the end of Ephesians 3:4, is not to be treated as a parenthesis, inasmuch as ὅ, Ephesians 3:5, attaches itself to the ἐν τῷ μυστ. τ. Χ. immediately preceding.

καθὼς προέγραψα ἐν ὀλίγῳ] as I before wrote in brief, refers not to κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, but to ἐγνωρ. μοι τὸ μυστήρ., as is shown by Ephesians 3:4, where Paul characterizes that which was before written as evidence of his knowledge of the mystery, but not as evidence of the revelation by which he has attained to this knowledge. Groundlessly, and at variance with the subsequent present ἀναγινώσκοντες, Calvin, Hunnius, and others have (although it was already rejected by Theodoret) referred προέγρ. to an epistle which has now been lost, in support of which view the passage in Ignatius ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ (see Introd. § 1) has been made use of. See Fabric. Cod. Apoc. I. p. 916. It applies (not to Ephesians 1:9-10, as many would have it, but), as is proved by the here meant special contents of the μυστήριον (Ephesians 3:6), to the section last treated of, concerning the Gentiles attaining unto the Messianic economy of salvation, Ephesians 2:11-22. Comp. already Oecumenius.

ἐν ὀλίγῳ] διὰ βραχέων, Chrysostom: ἐν is instrumental.[167] See Acts 26:28. Comp. the classical διʼ ὀλίγων, Plat. Phil. p. 31 D, Legg. vi. p. 778 C, ἐν βραχεῖ and ἐν βραχέσι (Dem. 592, 8). The same is expressed by συντόμως, Acts 24:4, summarily. Wetstein well puts it: “pauca tantum attigi, cum multa dici possent.” Following Theodoret, Beza (with hesitation), Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Erasmus, Schmid, Koppe, and others have taken it as a more precise definition of the πρό: paulo ante. But in a temporal sense ἐν ὀλίγῳ means nothing else than in a short time (see on Acts 26:28; comp. Plat. Apol. p. 22 B; Dem, xxxiii. 18; Pind. Pyth. viii. 131: ἐν δʼ ὀλίγῳ βροτῶν τὸ τερπνὸν αὔξεται), which is not suitable here; πρὸ ὀλίγου must have been used (Acts 5:36; Acts 21:38; 2 Corinthians 12:2, al.; Plat. Symp. p. 147 E, al.). Comp. ὀλίγον τι πρότερον, Herod, iv. 81.

[167] Yet it may also be conceived of locally, as Thuc. iv. 26. 2; 96. 2 (see Krüger); in small space, in a concise passage.

Ephesians 3:4. In accordance with which ye, while ye read it, are able to discern, etc.[168]

ΠΡῸς Ὅ applies to that which Paul ΠΡΟΈΓΡΑΨΕ, and ΠΡΌς indicates the standard of the judging; in accordance with which. See Bernhardy, p. 205; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 652; Winer, p. 361 [E. T. 505]. The inference: οὐκ ἔγραψεν ὅσα ἐχρῆν, ἈΛΛʼ ὍΣΑ ἘΧΏΡΟΥΝ ΝΟΕῖΝ (Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom; Bengel compares ex ungue leonem), finds no justification at all in what Paul has previously written.

ἀναγινώσκοντες] not attendentes (Calvin), but, as always in the N.T., legentes.

τὴν σύνεσίν μου ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χ.] is to be taken together, and before ἐν it was not needful to repeat the article, because ΣΥΝΙΈΝΑΙ ἘΝ (to have understanding in a matter) was a very current expression (2 Chronicles 34:12; Joshua 1:7; Daniel 1:17). Comp. 3 Esdr. 1:33: τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ κυρίου. The genitive ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ is ordinarily taken as genitivas objecti: the mystery which has reference to Christ. But, even apart from Colossians 1:27, the whole subsequent detailed statement as far as Ephesians 3:12 suggests the contextually more exact view, according to which Paul means the μυστήριον contained in Christ. Christ Himself, His person and His whole work, especially His redeeming death, connecting also the Gentiles with the people of God (Ephesians 3:6), is the concretum of the Divine mystery.

The assailants of the genuineness of the Epistle find Ephesians 3:4 incompatible with the apostolic dignity (de Wette), nay, even “self-complacent and courting favour” (Schwegler). But here precisely the point brought into prominence, that the mystery had become known to him κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, justifies the stress laid upon his ΣΎΝΕΣΙς in the mystery, so far as he has already manifested the same in his Epistle. The apostle might have appealed in proof of this ΣΎΝΕΣΙς to his working, but he might also—especially taking into account the change which had meanwhile occurred in the personal composition of the church—adduce for this purpose his writing, in doing which his very apostolic dignity raised him above considerations of the semblance of self-complacency and the like. Hardly would another, who had merely assumed the name of the apostle Paul, have put into his mouth such a self-display of his σύνεσις—which, in order not to fall out of his assumed apostolic part, he would rather have avoided.

As to ΣΎΝΕΣΙς, see on Colossians 1:9.

[168] Wiggers (Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 433) regards as subject the Ephesians, not as such, but as representatives of the Gentile world: “ye Gentiles.” Arbitrarily imported, and entirely unnecessary. Doubtless the σύνεσις of the Ap. ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χ. must have been entirely beyond doubt for the readers in consequence of their personal connection with him; but thereby his appeal to what he has just written does not become inappropriate, but only the more forcible and effective. There lies a certain μείωσις in this reference to that which he has just written.

Ephesians 3:5. Not an explanation, to what extent he was speaking of a mystery (Rückert, Meier): for that the readers knew, and the design of bringing in a mere explanation would not be in keeping with the elevated solemn style of the whole verse; but a triumphant outburst of the conscious exalted happiness of belonging to the number of those who had received the revelation of the mystery—an outburst, which was very naturally called forth by the sublime contents of the μυστήριον.

ἑτέραις γενεαῖς] may be either a definition of time, like the dative at Ephesians 2:12 (so taken usually); in that case γενεαῖς is not periodis or temporibus in general, but: in other generations (comp. on Ephesians 3:21); or it may express the simple dative relation, so that γενεαῖς is generationibus (Vulgate): which to other generations was not made known, according to which τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρ. would form a characteristic epexegesis (Lobeck, ad Aj. 308; Bernhardy, p. 55; Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, pp. 272, 307). This was my previous view. Yet the former explanation, as being likewise linguistically correct, and withal more simple and more immediately in keeping with the contrast νῦν, is to be preferred. The ἕτεραι γεν. are the generations which have preceded the νῦν; and τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρ. (not elsewhere occurring with Paul) has the significance, that it characterizes men according to their lower sphere conditioned by their “ortum naturalem” (Bengel), under which they were incapable in themselves of understanding the μυστήριον. Comp. Genesis 11:5; Psalm 8:5; Psalm 11:5; Wis 9:6. That specially the O. T. prophets are meant by τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπ., as Bengel supposed,[169] is wrongly inferred from τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις κ.τ.λ., since the contrast does not lie in the persons,[170] but in the time (ἑτέραις γενεαῖς … νῦν). It is true Ezekiel often bears the name בֶּן־אָדָם (Ezekiel 7:1; Ezekiel 12:1, al.), not, however, as prophet, but as man; and thereby likewise his human lowliness and dependence upon God are brought home to him.

Ὡς] By this expression, which (in opposition to Bleek) is to be left as comparative, the disclosure made to Abraham and the ancient prophets of the future participation of the Gentiles in Messiah’s kingdom (Galatians 3:8; Romans 9:24-26; Romans 15:9 ff.) remains undisputed; for “fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum,” Beza; hence the prophetic prediction served only as means for the making known of the later complete revelation of the mystery (Romans 16:26).

ΝῦΝ] in the Christian period. Comp. 1 Peter 1:12.

ἈΠΕΚΑΛΎΦΘΗ] not a repetition of ἘΓΝΩΡΊΣΘΗ, but the distinguishing mode in which this manifestation took place, is intended to be expressed: ΚΑΤᾺ ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙΝ ἘΓΝΩΡΊΣΘΗ, Ephesians 3:3.

ΤΟῖς ἉΓΊΟΙς ἈΠΟΣΤ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] is not to be divided by a comma after ἉΓΊΟΙς (Lachmann, Bisping), so that ἈΠΟΣΤ. ΑὐΤ. Κ. ΠΡΟΦ. would be apposition or more precise definition, whereby the flow of the expression would be only needlessly interrupted. The predicate holy was already borne by the Old Testament prophets (2 Kings 4:9; Luke 1:70; 2 Peter 1:21), and this appellation at our passage by no means exposes the apostolic origin of the Epistle to suspicion (de Wette derives ἁγίοις from the passage Colossians 1:26 recast in post-apostolic times; Baur: from the post-apostolic reverential looking back to the apostles); but it is very naturally called forth by the context, in order to distinguish the recipients of the revelation amidst the mass of the υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, in accordance with the connection, as God’s special messengers and instruments, as ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι (2 Peter 1:21); whereupon the apostolic consciousness in Paul was great and decided enough not to suppress the predicate suggested by the connection,[171] while he is speaking of the apostles and prophets in general, whereas, immediately afterwards, at Ephesians 3:8, in speaking of himself in particular, he gives full play to his individual deep humility. How can we conceive that the author should thus in one breath have fallen out of his assumed part at Ephesians 3:5 with τοῖς ἁγίοις, by a “slip” (Baur), and then have resumed it at Ephesians 3:8 with ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ!

αὐτοῦ] not of Christ (Bleek), but of God, whose action is implied in ἐγνωρίσθη and ἀπεκαλύφθη.

καὶ προφήταις] quite as at Ephesians 2:20.

ἐν πνεύματι] The Holy Spirit is the divine principle, through which the ἀπεκαλύφθη took place. Comp. Ephesians 1:17; 1 Corinthians 2:10 ff. Rückert wrongly takes it as: in an inspired state, which πνεῦμα never means, but, on the contrary, even without the article is the objective Holy Spirit. Comp. on Ephesians 2:22. Koppe and Holzhausen connect ἐν πνεύματι (sc. οὖσι) with προφήταις. In this way it would be an exceedingly superfluous addition, since prophets, who should not be ἐν πν., are inconceivable, whereas a revelation was conceivable even otherwise than through the Spirit (by means of theophany, angel, vision, ecstasy, etc.). Meier connects ἐν πν. even with ἁγίοις, so that the sense would be: in sacred enthusiasm! and Ambrosiaster (comp. Erasmus) with the following εἶναι κ.τ.λ. Baur, p. 440, knows how to explain ἐν πνεύματι from a Montanistic view, and thinks that it is only on account of the prophets that it is applied to the apostles also.

[169] In quite an opposite way Jerome would exclude the ancient patriarchs and prophets from the υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρ.; for these were rather sons of God!

[170] The ἀπόστολοι and προφῆται were also υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρ., but a sacred ἐκλογή of the same.

[171] A side-glance at the Jews, who would have seen a blasphemy in the apostolic message of the joint-heirship of the Gentiles (Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 128), is utterly remote from the connection.

Ephesians 3:6. Epexegetical infinitive, more precisely specifying the contents of the μυστήριον: that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, etc. This εἶναι (which is not to be changed into should be) is objectively contained in the redeeming work of Christ, and the subjective appropriation takes place by the conversion of the individuals.

συγκληρονόμα] denotes the joint possession (with the believing Jews) of eternal Messianic bliss,—a possession now indeed still ideal (Romans 8:24), but to be really accomplished at the setting up of the kingdom. See on Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 1:14, Ephesians 5:5; Acts 20:32; Romans 8:17; Galatians 3:28.

σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα κ.τ.λ.] That which is already sufficiently designated by συγκληρ. is yet again twice expressed, once figuratively and the next time literally;[172] in which no climax is to be found (Jerome, Pelagius, Zanchius, Schenkel), but the great importance of the matter has led the apostle, deeply impressed by it, to accumulated description.[173] σύσσωμα denotes belonging jointly to the body (i.e. as members to the Messianic community, whose head is Christ, Ephesians 1:23, Ephesians 2:16). The word does not occur elsewhere, except in the Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1191), and was perhaps formed by Paul himself. Comp. however, συσσωματοποιεῖν, Arist. de mundo, iv. 30. συμμέτοχος, too, occurs only here and Ephesians 5:7, and besides, in Josephus, Bell. i. 24. 6, and the Fathers. Comp. συμμετέχω, 2Ma 5:20; Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 17; Plat. Theaet. p. 181 C. The ἐπαγγελία is the promise of the Messianic blessedness, which God has given in the O. T., comp. Ephesians 2:12. He, however, who has joint share in the promise is he to whom it jointly relates, in order to be jointly realized in his case; hence ἡ ἐπαγγελία is not to be interpreted as res promissa, which several (Menochius, Grotius, Bengel; comp. Estius) have referred to the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:14; Hebrews 6:4; Acts 2:39), but at variance with the context (συγκληρ.). The thrice occurring συν has the πρῶτον of the Jews (Acts 3:26; Romans 1:16) as its presupposition.[174]

ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ] dependent on εἶναι, applies to all three elements, as does also the following διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγ. In Christ, as the Reconciler, the συγκληρονομία κ.τ.λ. of the Gentiles is objectively founded; and through the gospel, which is proclaimed to them, the subjective appropriation in the way of faith is brought about. The annexing, with Vatablus, Koppe, and Holzhausen, ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ to τῆς ἐπαγγ., is not to be approved, just because the reader, as he needed no more precise definition in connection with συγκληρ. and σύσσωμα, understood also of himself what ἐπαγγελία was meant, and the absolute τῆς ἐπαγγ. (see the critical remarks) is more emphatic.

[172] Harless thinks, the one time after the analogy of persons, and the other time after the analogy of things. But as well in σύσσωμα as in συμμέτ. the relation of persons and of things is combined.

[173] On the accumulation of synonymous expressions in earnest emotional discourse, comp. Düntzer, Aristarch. p. 41.

[174] But the thought that the substantial contents of the gospel are identical with Judaism (Baur, Neutest. Theol. p. 276) is incorrectly imported. See, in opposition to it, especially Ephesians 2:15.

Ephesians 3:7. Διάκονος] Comp. Colossians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 3:6; also Luke 1:2. Paul became a servant of the gospel when he was enjoined by God through Christ (Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:15 ff.; Acts 9:22; Acts 9:26) to devote his activity to the proclamation of the gospel. The distinction from ὑπηρέτης (used by Paul only at 1 Corinthians 4:1) is not, as Harless supposes, that διάκονος denotes the servant in his activity for the service, while ὑπηρέτης denotes him in his activity for the Master (see, in opposition to this, 1 Corinthians 12:3; Romans 13:4; 2 Corinthians 6:3; Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:6); but both words indicate without distinction of reference the relation of service, and the difference lies only in this, that the two designations, in accordance with their etymology, are originally borrowed from different concrete relations of service (διάκ., runner; ὑπηρ., rower; see the Lexicons, and on διάκονος, Buttm. Lexil. I. p. 218 ff.); in the usage, however, of the N.T., both words have retained merely the general notion of servant, as very frequently also with Greek writers. In opposition to Harless it may be also urged that not only is the expression διακονεῖν τινί τι used, but also in like manner ὑπηρετεῖν τινί τι (Xen. Anal, vii. 7. 46, Cyr. i. 6. 39; Soph. Phil. 1012). The gift, which was conferred upon Paul by the divine grace, and in consequence of which he became a servant of the gospel, is, agreeably to the context, the apostolic office (comp. Ephesians 3:2; Ephesians 3:8), not the donum linguarum (Grotius), nor yet the gift of the Holy Spirit (Flatt, after older expositors).

κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργ. τ. δυν. αὐτοῦ] belongs to τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι. To the efficacious action of the power of God (comp. Ephesians 3:20, and on Ephesians 1:19) the bestowal of the gift of grace leads back the mind of the apostle, in the consciousness of what he had been before, Galatians 1:13 ff. “Haec est potentiae ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grands aliquid efficere,” Calvin. By the bestowal, in fact, of that gift of the divine grace Saul had become changed into Paul; hence κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργ. τ. δυν. αὐτοῦ.