《Eadie’s Commentary on Ephesians (Vol. )》(John Eadie) 04 Chapter Introduction Chapter 4

καὶ διὰ πάντων—“and through all.” The strange interpretation of Thomas Aquinas has found some supporters. He explains the first clause of God the Father, who is over all-fontale principium divinitatis; and the clause before us he refers to the Son-per quem omnia facta sunt. But this exegesis, which is adopted by Estius and Olshausen, reverses the idea of the apostle. It is one thing to say, All things are through God, and quite another to say, God is through all things. The latter, and not the former, is the express thought of the inspired writer. Jerome also refers the phrase to the Son-quia per filium creata sunt omnia; while Calvin understands by it the third Person of the Trinity-Deus Spiritu sanctificationis diffusus per omnia ecclesiae membra. Meyer holds a similar view. Chrysostom and his patristic followers, along with Beza, Zanchius, Crocius, and Grotius, refer it to God providing for all, and ordering all- τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ διοικήσει. Bengel, Flatt, and Winer understand it as signifying “through all acting.” Winer, § 50, 6. Harless explains it as meaning “works through all, as the head through the members.” It is plain that some of these views do not make any real distinction between the διά of this clause and the ἐν of the following. The idea of simple diffusion “through all,” is not far from the idea of “in all.” But the notion of providence, if taken in a general sense, comes nearer the truth. The thought seems to be that of a pervading, and thus a sustaining and working presence. Though He is “over all,” yet He lives not in remote splendour and indifference, for He is “through all;” His influence being everywhere felt in its upholding energies.

καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν—“and in all.” The Elzevir Text adds ὑμῖν, as Chrysostom does in his commentary. Others have adopted ἡμῖν, on the authority of D, E, F, G, K, L, the Syriac and Vulgate, Theodoret, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster-a reading admitted by Griesbach, Knapp, Scholz, and Hahn. But the higher witness of A, B, C, the Coptic and AEthiopic, and the text of Ignatius, Eusebius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Gregory, Chrysostom, and Jerome, exclude such a pronoun altogether, and leave us simply ἐν πᾶσιν. Accordingly, Lachmann and Tischendorf strike out the word as an evident gloss. The pronoun would modify the universality predicated in the two preceding clauses. He is “in all,” dwelling in them, filling them with the light and love of His gracious presence. The idea conveyed by διά is more external and general in its nature-acting through or sustaining; while that expressed by ἐν is intimate and special union and inhabitation. Very different is such a conception from either ancient or modern pantheism; from that of Zeno or that of Hegel, or the poetical mysticism of Pope-

“All are but parts of one stupendous whole-

Whose body nature is, and God the soul.”

Whether there be any reference to the Trinity in this remarkable declaration, it is impossible to affirm with certainty. While Theophylact seems to deny it, because heretical notions were based upon it, Jerome on the other hand maintains it, and it was held by Irenaeus and Hippolytus, the former of whom explains the first clause of the Father-caput Christi; the second of the Son-caput ecclesiae; and the third of the Holy Spirit in us-aqua viva. Harless, Olshausen, Stier, de Wette, von Gerlach, Ellicott, and Alford are of the same opinion. It has been said in proof, that most certainly in the third clause—“in all”-the reference is to the Holy Ghost, by whom alone God dwells in believers; so that in the second clause, and in the words “through all,” there may be an allusion to Him who is now on the throne of the universe, and “by whom all things consist;” and in the first clause to the Eternal Father. In previous portions of the Epistle, triune relation has been distinctly brought out; only here the representation is different, for unity is the idea dwelt on, and it is the One God and Father Himself who works through all and dwells in all.

All these elements of oneness enumerated in Ephesians 4:4-6, are really inducements for Christians to be forward to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It is plainly of the one holy catholic church that the apostle has been speaking; not of the visible church, which has in it a mixed company, many whom Augustine characterizes as being in fellowship cum ecclesia—“with the church,” but who are not in ecclesia—“in the church.” “All are not Israel who are of Israel.” But the real spiritual church of the Redeemer is one body. All the members of that church partake of the same grace, adhere to the same faith, are washed in the same blood, are filled with the same hopes, and shall dwell at length in the same blessed inheritance. Heretics and ungodly men may find their way into the church, but they remain really separated from its “invisible conjunction of charity.” There may be variations in “lesser matters of ceremony or discipline,” and yet this essential unity is preserved. Clement of Alexandria compares the church so constituted to the various chords of a musical instrument, “for in the midst of apparent schisms there is substantial unity.” Barrow again remarks, that the apostle says—“one Lord, one faith, one baptism; not one monarch, or one senate or sanhedrim.” He does not insist on unity “under one singular, visible government or polity.” How sad to think that the passions of even sanctified men have often pro duced feuds and alienations, and led them to forget the apostolic mandate! Christ's claim for the preservation of unity is upon all the churches-a unity of present connection and actual enjoyment-not a truce, but an alliance, with one livery and cognizance-not a compromise, but a veritable incorporation among “all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their Lord and ours.” “I will give them one heart and one way”-a promise the realization of which is surely not to be deferred till the whole church assemble in that world where there can be no misunderstanding. The great father of the western church tersely says-Contra rationem, nemo sobrius; contra Scripturas nemo Christianus; contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.

Verse 7

(Ephesians 4:7.) ῾ενὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις—“But to each of us was given grace.” Unity is not uniformity, for it is quite consistent with variety of gifts and offices in the church. The δέ marks a transitional contrast, as the writer passes on to individual varieties. Still along with this unity there is variety of gifts. In the addition of ἑνί to ἑκάστῳ, the idea of distribution is expressed more distinctly than by the simple term. Luke 4:40; Acts 2:3; Acts 20:31. B, D¹, F, G, L, omit the article ἡ before χάρις, but there is no valid reason to reject it; the preceding η of ἐδόθη may have led to its omission. This χάρις is gift; not merely in connection with personal privilege or labour, but, as the sequel shows, gift in connection with official rank and function. ᾿εδόθη in this verse is explained by ἔδωκε in Ephesians 4:8. While grace has been given to every individual, and no one is omitted, that grace differs in form, amount, and aspect in every instance of its bestowment; and as a peculiar sample and illustration of such variety in unity, the apostle appeals to the offices and dignities in the church. For this grace is described as being conferred-

κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ χριστοῦ—“according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” The first genitive is subjective, and the second that of possession or of agent. The gift is measured; and while each individual receives, he receives according to the will of the sovereign Distributor. And whether the measure be great or small, whether its contents be of more brilliant endowment or of humbler and unnoticed talent, all is equally Christ's gift, and of Christ's adjustment; all is equally indispensable to the union and edification of that body in which there is “no schism,” and forms an argument why each one gifted with such grace should keep the unity of the Spirit. The law of the church is essential unity in the midst of circumstantial variety. Differences of faculty or temperament, education or susceptibility, are not superseded. Each gift in its own place completes the unity. What one devises another may plead for, while a third may act out the scheme; so that sagacity, eloquence, and enterprise form a “threefold cord, not easily broken.” It is so in the material creation-the little is as essential to symmetry as the great-the star as well as the sun-the rain-drop equally with the ocean, and the hyssop no less than the cedar. The pebble has its place as fittingly as the mountain, and colossal forms of life are surrounded by the tiny insect whose term of existence is limited to a summer's twilight. Why should the possession of this grace lead to self-inflation? It is simply Christ's gift to each one, and its amount and character as possessed by others ought surely to create no uneasiness nor jealousy, for it is of Christ's measurement as well as of His bestowment, and every form and quantity of it, as it descends from the one source, is indispensable to the harmony of the church. No one is overlooked, and the one Lord will not bestow conflicting graces, nor mar nor disturb, by th e repulsive antipathy of His gifts, that unity the preservation of which here and in this way is enjoined on all the members of His church.

Verse 8

(Ephesians 4:8.) διὸ λέγει—“Wherefore He saith.” This quotation is no parenthesis, as many take it, nor is it any offshoot from the main body of thought, but a direct proof of previous assertion. And it proves those truths-that the ascended Lord confers gifts-various gifts-that men are the recipients, and that these facts had been presented to the faith and hope of the ancient Jewish church. The apostle, too, must have felt that the Jewish portion of the Ephesian church would acknowledge his quotation as referring to Jesus. If they disputed the sense or reference of the quotation, then the proof contained in it could not affect them. The citation is taken from the 18th verse of the 68th Psalm. It is vain to allege, with Storr and Flatt, that the apostle refers to some Christian hymn in use at Ephesus-quod ab Ephesiis cantitari sciret. Opuscula, 3.309. The formula λέγει is not uncommon-a pregnant verb, containing in itself its own nominative, though ἡ γραφή often occurs, as in Romans 4:3; Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; Galatians 4:30; Surenhusius, Bibl. Katall. 9. There are two points which require discussion - first, the difference of reading between the apostle's citation and the original Hebrew and the Septuagint version; and, secondly, the meaning and reference of the quotation itself.

The change of person from the second to the third needs scarcely be noticed. The principal difference is in the last clause. The Hebrew reads - עָלִיתָ לַמָּרוֹם שָׁבִיתָ שֶּׁבִי לָקַחְתָּ מַתָּנוֹתבָּאָדָם, and the Septuagint has in the last clause- ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, or- ἀνθρώποις ; but the apostle's quotation reads- καὶ ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις—“and He gave gifts to men.” Various attempts have been made to explain this remarkable variation, none of them perhaps beyond all doubt. It may be generally said that the inspired apostle gives the quotation in substance, and as it bore upon his argument. Whiston maintained, indeed, that Paul's reading was correct, and that the Hebrew and Seventy had both been corrupted. Carpzovius, Crit. Sacr. p. 3. On the other hand, Jarchi, one of the Targums, the Syriac, and Arabic, have—“Thou hast given gifts to the sons of men.” Jerome, followed by Erasmus, relieves himself of the difficulty by alleging that, as the work of Christ was not over in the Psalmist's time, these gifts were only promised as future, and He may be said to have taken them or received them. But the giving and taking were alike future on the part of the Messiah in the age of David. More acute than this figment of his Eastern contemporary is the remark of Augustine, that the Psalmist uses the word “received,” inasmuch as Christ in His members receives the gifts, whereas Paul employs the term “gave,” because He, along with the Father, divides the gifts. The idea is too subtle to be the right one. Some, again, identify the two verbs, and declare them to have the same significance. Such is the view of Ambrosiaster, Beza, Zanchius, Piscator, Hammond, Bengel, and a host of others. “The one word,” says Chrysostom, “is the same as the other.” His Greek followers held generally the same view. Theodore of Mopsuestia simpl y says, “that to suit the connection the apostle has altered the terms,” and the opinion of Harless is much the same. Theodoret says- λαμβάνων γὰρ τὴν πίστιν ἀντιδίδωσι τὴν χάριν, a mere Spielerei as Harless terms it. We agree with Meyer, that the Hebrew word לָקַח, H4374, has often a proleptic signification. “The giving,” says Hengstenberg, “presupposes the taking; the taking is succeeded by the giving as its consequence.” The verb seems often to have the peculiar meaning of danda sumere-Genesis 15:9 —“Take for me,” that is, take and give to me; Genesis 18:5—“And I will take you a morsel of bread,” i.e. take and give it you; Genesis 27:13—“Go, take them,” i.e. take them and give me them; Genesis 42:16—“Let him take your brother,” i.e. let him take and bring him; Exodus 27:20—“That they take thee pure oil,” i.e. take and present it to thee; so Leviticus 24:2; 1 Kings 17:10—“Take me a little water,” i.e. take and offer it me; 2 Kings 2:20; Hosea 14:2; and so in other places; Glassius, Philol. Sacra, p. 185; Buxtorf, Catalecta Philol.-Theol. p. 39. This interpretation is, therefore, not so capricious as de Wette affirms. Such is the idiomatic usage of the verb, and the apostle, as it especially suited his purpose, seizes on the latter portion of the sense, and renders- ἔδωκε. The phraseology of Acts 2:33 is corroborative of our view—“Being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received- λαβών-from the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this”-bestowed upon the church such gifts of the Spirit. It is of the gifts of the Spirit, especially in the administration of the church, that the apostle speaks in this paragraph; and Peter, in the style of the Psalmist, describ es Messiah as receiving them ere He distributes them. The Mediator wins them by His blood, receives them from the Father who has appointed and accepted the sacrifice, and holds them for the very purpose of conferring them on His church. The Psalmist looks on the gifts in Christ's possession as taken and held by Him for men; but the time of bestowment had fully come, what was so held had now been communicated, and so the apostle from his own point of view says—“He gave gifts to man.” Still, in the original psalm the taking appears to be taking by force of spoil from the conquered foes. But the martial figure of the Hebrew psalmist is not to be strained.

Our attention must now be turned to the general meaning of the quotation. The 68th Psalm is evidently a hymn of victory. The inspired bard praises God for deliverance vouchsafed-deliverance resulting from battle and triumph. This is also the view of Delitzsch in his Commentar über den Psalter, published last year (1859). The image of a procession also appears in some parts of the ode. Very many expositors, among them Stier and Hofmann, have adopted the view that it was composed on occasion of the removal of the ark to Mount Zion, and the view of Alford is the same in substance. But the frequent introduction of martial imagery forbids such a hypothesis. What the campaign was at the issue of which this paean was composed, we cannot ascertain. Hitzig refers it to the campaign of Joram and Jehoshaphat against the Moabites (2 Kings 3), and von Lengerke refers it to some period of Pharaoh Necho's reign. Hengstenberg thinks the occasion was the termination of the Ammonitic wars, and the capture of Rabbah. 2 Samuel 12:26. One of his arguments is at best only a probability. He says, there is reference to the ark twice in Psalms 68 in Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 4:24, and that the ark was with the army during the warfare with Ammon. But the words in Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 4:24 of the psalm do not necessarily contain a reference to the ark, and the language of Joab to David, in 2 Samuel 11:11, does not affirm the presence of the ark in the Israelitish camp, but may be explained by the words of 2 Samuel 7:2. That the psalm is one of David's times and composition may be proved, against Ewald, de Wette, and Hupfeld, from its style and diction. The last writer, in his recent commentary (Die Psalmen, Dritter Band, Gotha, 1860), refers it to the return from Babylon, and supposes that it is perhaps the composition of the so-called pseudo-Isaiah, that is, the author of the latter half of Isaiah's prophecies. Reuss, in a treatise full of “persiflage,” as Hupfeld says, and which Delitzsch truly calls a “Pasquill”-a “Harlekinanzug”-brings the psalm down to the period between Alexander the Great and the Maccabees. One of the Targums refers the passage to Moses and the giving of the law. Its pervading idea-probably without reference to any special campaign, but combining what had happened many times when the Lord had shown Himself “mighty in battle”-is, that He, as of old, had come down for His people's deliverance, and had achieved it; had vanquished their foes, and given them a signal victory, and that, the combat being over, and captivity led captive, He had left the camp and gone up again to heaven. This portion of the psalm seems to have been chanted as the procession wound its way up Mount Zion to surround the symbols of the Divine majesty.

“Thou hast ascended on high.” The word לַמָּרוֹם —“on high”-in such a connection refers to heaven, in contrast with earth, where the victory had been won. Psalms 18:16; Isaiah 24:18; Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 25:30.

“Thou hast led captivity captive”- ᾐχμαλώτευσας αἰχμαλωσίαν. The meaning of this idiom seems simply to be-Thou hast mustered or reviewed Thy captives. Judges 5:12; Gesenius, sub voce. The allusion is to a triumphal procession in which marched the persons taken in war.

“Thou hast received gifts for men.” There is no need, with de Wette and others, to translate בּ in, and to regard this as the meaning—“Thou hast received gifts in men,” that is, men constituted the gifts, the vanquished vassals or proselytes formed the acquisition of the conqueror. Commentar über die Psalmen, p. 412; Boettcher, Proben, etc. § 62; Schnurrer, Dissertat. p. 303. The preposition בּ often signifies “for” or “on account of.” Genesis 18:28; Genesis 29:18; 2 Kings 14:6; Jonah 1:14; Lamentations 2:11; Ezekiel 4:17, etc.; Noldius, Concord. Part. Heb. p. 158. Hafniae, 1679. “Thou hast received gifts on account of men” to benefit and bless them; or the preposition may signify “among,” as in 2 Samuel 23:3; Proverbs 23:28; Jeremiah 49:15; Ewald, Gram. der Heb. Sprache, § 521, and Delitzsch. These gifts are the results of His victory, and they are conferred by Him after He has gone up from the battle-field. To obtain such a sense, however, it is out of the question, on the part of Bloomfield, to disturb the Septuagint reading and change the ἐν into ἐπί. But how can ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ denote “after the fashion of a man,” and how can בָּאָדָם in this connection mean, as Adam Clarke and Wordsworth conjecture, “in man”-that is, by virtue of His incarnation as the head of redeemed humanity?

In what sense, then, are those words applicable to the ascended Redeemer? They are not introduced simply as an illustration, for the apostle reasons from them in the following verses. This bare idea of accommodation, vindicated by such exegetes as Morus and even by Doddridge, can therefore have no place here. Nor can we agree with Calvin, that Paul has somewhat twisted the words from their original meaning—“nonnihil a genuino sensu hoc testimonium detorsit Paulus”-an opinion which wins suspicious praise from Rückert. The argument of the next verse would in that case be without solid foundation. Nor does Olshausen, in our apprehension, fix upon the prominent point of illustration. That point is in his view not the proof that Christ dispenses gifts, but that men receive them, so that Gentiles, as partakers of humanity, have equal right to them with Jews. While the statement in the latter part is true, it seems to be only a subordinate inference, not the main matter of argument. That men had the gift was a palpable fact; but the questions were-Who gave them? and does their diversity interfere with the oneness of the church? Besides, it is the term ἀναβάς on which the apostle comments. Nor can we bring ourselves to the notion of a typical allusion, or “emblem” as Barnes terms it, as if the ark carried up to Zion was typical of Christ's ascent to heaven; for we cannot convince ourselves that the ark is, so formally at least, referred to in the psalm at all. Nor will it do merely to say, with Harless, that the psalm is applicable to Christ, because one and the same God is the revealer both of the Old and New Testaments. Still wider from the tenor of the apostle's argument is one portion of the notion of Locke, that Paul's object is to prove to unconverted Jews out of their own scriptures that Jesus must die and be buried. Our position is, that the same God is revealed as Redeemer both under the O ld and New Testament, that the Jehovah of the one is the Jesus of the other, that Psalms 68 is filled with imagery which was naturally based on incidents in Jewish history, and that the inspired poet, while describing the interposition of Jehovah, has used language which was fully realized only in the victory and exaltation of Christ. Not that there is a double sense, but the Jehovah of the theocracy was He who, in the fulness of the time, assumed humanity, and what He did among His people prior to the incarnation was anticipative of nobler achievements in the nature of man. John 12:41; Rom. xiv 10, 11; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Hebrews 1:10. The Psalmist felt this, and under the influence of such emotions, rapt into future times, and beholding salvation completed, enemies defeated, and gifts conferred, thus addressed the laurelled Conqueror—“Thou hast ascended on high.” Such a quotation was therefore to the apostle's purpose. There are gifts in the church-not one donation but many-gifts the result of warfare and victory-gifts the number and variety of which are not inconsistent with unity. Such blessings are no novelty; they are in accordance with the earnest expectations of ancient ages; for it was predicted that Jesus should ascend on high, lead captivity captive, and give gifts to men. But those gifts, whatever their character and extent, are bestowed according to Christ's measurement; for it was He who then and now ennobles men with these spiritual endowments. Nor has there been any change of administration. Gifts and graces have descended from the same Lord. Under the old theocracy, which had a civil organization, these gifts might be sometimes temporal in their nature; still, no matter what was their character, they came from the one Divine Dispenser, who is still the Supreme and Sovereign Benefactor. The apostle says-

ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν—“having ascended on high, He led captivity captive.” The reference in the aorist participle is to our Lord's ascension, an act preceding that of the finite verb. Winer, § 45, 6; Krüger, § 56, 10; Acts 1:9. The meaning of the Hebrew phrase corresponding to the last two words has been already given. Such a use of a verb with its cognate substantive is, as we have seen again and again, a common occurrence. Lobeck, Paralipomena, Dissert. viii., De figura etymologica, p. 499, has given many examples from the classics. The verb, as well as the kindred form αἰχμαλωτίζω, belongs to the later Greek-extrema Graeciae senectus novum palmitem promisit. Lobeck, ad Phrynichus, p. 442. The noun seems to be used as the abstract for the concrete. Kühner, ii. § 406; Jelf, § 353; Diodorus Siculus, 17:76; Numbers 31:12; Judges 5:12; 2 Chronicles 28:11-13; Amos 1:6; 1 Maccabees 9:70; 1 Maccabees 9:72; 1 Maccabees 14:7. The prisoners plainly belong to the enemy whom He had defeated, and by whom His people had long been subjugated. This is the natural order of ideas-having beaten His foes, He makes captives of them. The earlier fathers viewed the captives as persons who had been enslaved by Satan-as Satan's prisoners, whom Jesus restored to liberty. Such is the view of Justin Martyr, of Theodoret and OEcumenius in the Greek church, of Jerome and Pelagius in the Latin church, of Thomas Aquinas in mediaeval times, of Erasmus, and in later days, of Meier, Harless, and Olshausen. But such an idea is not in harmony with the imagery employed, nor can it be defended by any philological instances or analogies. On the contrary, Christ's subjugation of His enemies has a peculiar prominence in the Messianic or acles; Psalms 110:1; Isaiah 53:12; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Colossians 2:15; and in many other places.