《Eadie’s Commentary on Ephesians (Vol. )》(John Eadie) 04 Chapter Introduction Chapter 4
Yüklə 1,44 Mb.
|
|
By the ignorance that is in them, Forasmuch as they have been alienated from the life of God, By the hardness of their hearts. Bengel and Olshausen arrange the verse thus, and Jebb calls it an “alternate quatrain.” Sacred Literature, p. 192, ed. London, 1831. Forbes, Symmetrical Structure of Scripture, p. 21. But such an artificial construction, though it may happen in Hebrew poetry, can scarcely be expected to be found in a letter. Nor does it, as Meyer well argues, yield a good sense. According to such a construction, “the ignorance that is in them” must be regarded as the cause or instrument of their being darkened in their understanding. But this reverses the process described by the apostle, for ignorance is the effect, and not the cause, of the obscuration. Shadow results from darkening or the interception of light. De Wette tries to escape the difficulty by saying that ἄγνοια is rather theoretic ignorance, while the first clause has closer reference to what is practical; but it is impossible to establish such a distinction on sufficient authority. We therefore take the clauses as the apostle has placed them. διανοίᾳ, explained under Ephesians 2:3 and Ephesians 1:18, is the dative expressive of sphere. Winer, § 31, 3. The word here, both from the figurative term joined with it, and from the language of the following clause, seems to refer more to man's intellectual nature, and is so far distinguished from νοῦς before it and καρδία coming after it. See Romans 1:21; Romans 11:10. Other instances of similar usage among the classics may be seen in the lexicons. Deep shadow lay upon the Gentile mind, unrelieved save by some fitful gleams which genius occasionally threw across it, and which were succeeded only by profounder darkness. A child in the lowest form of a Sunday school, will answer questions with which the greatest minds of the old heathen world grappled in vain. And that darkness of mind was associated with spiritual apostasy. The participle ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι has been explained in our remarks on Ephesians 2:12, and there it occurs also in a description of Gentile condition. ζωὴ τοῦ θεοῦ is not a life according to God- ἡ κατὰ θεὸν ζωή, or a virtuous life, as Theodoret, Theophylact, and others describe it; nor is it merely “a life which God approves,” as is held by Koppe, Wahl, Morus, Scholz, Whitby, and Chandler. The term does not refer to course or tenor of conduct- βίος-but to the element or principle of Divine life within us. Vömel, Synon. Wörterb. p. 168. Nor has the opinion of Erasmus any warrant, that the genitive is in apposition-vera vita, qui est Deus. The genitive θεοῦ is genitivus auctoris-that of origin, as is rightly held by Meyer, de Wette, Harless, Rückert, and Olshausen. It is that life from God which existed in unfallen man, and re-exists in all believers who are in fellowship with God-the life which results from the operation and indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Compare Ephesians 2:1-5; Trench, Syn. § xxviii. Harless will not admit any allusion to regeneration in this life, but refers us to the Logos in whom is “the life of men.” Granted; but that light only penetrates, and that life only pulsates, through the applying energies of the Holy Ghost. The Gentile world having severed itself from this life was spiritually dead, and therefore a sepulchral pall was thrown over its intellect. There could be no light in their mind, because there was no life in their hearts, for the life in the Logos is the light of men. The heart reacts on the intellect. And the apostle now gives the reason- διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν—“through the ignorance which is in them, through the hardness of their hearts.” These clauses assign the reason for their alienation from the Divine life-first, ignorance of God, His character, and dispensations; this ignorance being “in them”- τὴν οὖσαν ( ὄντες being already employed)-as a deep-seated element of their moral condition. In reference to immortality, for example, how sad their ignorance! Thus Moschus sighs- “One rest we keep, One long, eternal, unawakened sleep.”
Verse 19 (Ephesians 4:19.) οἵτινες ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ—“Who as being past feeling have given themselves over to uncleanness.” For ἀπηλγηκότες, the Codices D, E read ἀπηλπικότες, and F, G ἀφηλπικότες; the Vulgate with its desperantes, and the Syriac with its דָפסָקו סָברהוּן follow such a reading. But the preponderance of evidence is on the side of the Textus Receptus, which is also vindicated by Jerome, who, following out the etymology of the word, defines it in the following terms-hi sunt, qui, postquam peccaverint, non dolent. The heathen sinners are described as being a class- οἵτινες-beyond shame, or the sensation of regret. Kühner, § 781, 4, 5. The apathy which characterized them only induced a deeper recklessness, for they abandoned themselves to lasciviousness; ἑαυτούς being placed, as Meyer says, mit abschreckendem Nachdruck-with terrific emphasis. Subjection to this species of vice is represented as a Divine punishment in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans—“God gave them up to it.” But here their own conscious self-abandonment is brought out-they gave themselves up to lasciviousness. Self-abandonment to deeper sin is the Divine judicial penalty of sin. ᾿ασελγεία is insolence (Joseph. Antiq. 4.612, 18.13, 1; Plutarch, Alcibiades, viii.), and then lust, open and unrestrained. Trench, Syn. § xvi. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 184. This form of vice was predominant in the old heathen world, and was indulged in without scruple or reserve. Romans 1:24; Romans 13:13; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19. The apostle introduces it here as a special instance of that degraded spiritual state which he had just described in the former verse. εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης—“to the working of all uncleanness.” εἰς denotes purpose, “in order to”- πάσης being placed after the noun, and not, as more usually, before it. ᾿εργασία is not a trade, as in Acts 19:25, nor the gain of traffic, but as in Septuagint, Exodus 26:1; 1 Chronicles 6:49. ᾿ακαθαρσία in Matthew 23:27 signifies the loathsome impurity of a sepulchre; but otherwise in the New Testament, and the instances are numerous, it usually denotes the special sin of lewdness or unchastity. The vice generally is named lasciviousness, but there were many shapes of it, and they wrought it in all its forms. Even its most brutal modes were famous among them, as the apostle has elsewhere indicated. The refinements of art too often ministered to such grovelling pursuits. The naked statues of the goddesses were not exempted from rape (Lucian, Amores, 15, p. 272, vol. v. ed. Bipont), and many pictures of their divinities were but the excitements of sensual gratifications. The most honoured symbols in their possessions and worship were the obscenest, and thus it was in India, Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, and Etruria. There was a brisk female trade in potions to induce sterility or barrenness. In fact, one dares not describe the forms, and scenes, and temptations of impurity, or even translate what classical poets and historians have revealed without a blush. The relics preserved from Herculaneum and Pompeii tell a similar tale, and are so gross that they cannot meet the public eye. The reader will see some awful revelations in Tholuck's Tract on Heathenism, published in Neander's Denkwürdigkeiten, and translated in the 2nd vol. of the American Bib. Repository. Who can forget the sixth satire of Juvenal? ᾿εν πλεονεξίᾳ—“in greediness”-the spirit in which they gave themselves up to wantonness. The explanation of this word is attended with difficulty:-1. Many refer the term to the greed of gain derived from prostitution, and both sexes were guilty of this abomination. Such is the view of Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Chandler, Stolz, Flatt, Meier, and Bähr. 2. The Greek commentators educe the sense of ἀμετρία-insatiableness; and also Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Röell, Crocius, Harless, Stier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and Trench, Syn. xxiv. Suicer, in his Thesaurus, says, “that such a meaning was no uncommon one among the Greek fathers,” but they seem to have got it from the earlier interpretations of this very verse. The meaning assigned it by the Greek fathers cannot be sustained by the scriptural usage to which appeal is made, as 1 Corinthians 5:10, Ephesians 5:3 -as in the first instance it is disjoined by ἤ from πόρνος, but joined by καί to the following ἅρπαξιν according to preponderant authority. In this epistle,Ephesians 5:2, πορνεία and ἀκαθαρσία are joined by καί, but dissociated from πλεονεξία by ἤ-and in Ephesians 5:5, πλεονέκτης is termed an idolater. See under Colossians 3:5. See Ellicott. 3. Olshausen takes it as meaning “physical avidity, pampering oneself with meat and drink, or that luxury and high feeding by which lust is provoked.” This last meaning suits well, and embodies a terrible and disgusting truth, but it takes πλεονεξία in a sense which cannot be borne out. Beza and Aretius render it certatim, as if the heathen outvied one another in impurity. 4. We prefer the common meaning of the noun—“greediness.” This spirit of covetous extortion was an accompaniment of their sensual indulgences. Self w as the prevailing power-the gathering in of all possible objects and enjoyments on oneself was the absorbing occupation. This accompaniment of sensualism sprang from the same root with itself, and was but another form of its development. The heathen world manifested the intensest spirit of acquisition. It showed itself in its unbounded licentiousness, and its irrepressible thirst of gold. There might be reckless and profligate expenditure on wantonness and debauchery, but it was combined with insatiable cupidity. Its sensuality was equalled by its sordid greed- πλέον, more; that point gained, πλέον-more still. Self in everything, God in nothing. Verse 20 (Ephesians 4:20.) ῾υμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν χριστόν—“But ye did not thus learn Christ.” δέ is adversative, and ὑμεῖς is placed emphatically. χριστός is not simply the doctrine or religion of Christ, as is the view of Crellius and Schlichting, nor is it merely ἀρετή-virtue, as Origen conceives it (Catena, ed. Cramer, Oxford, 1842), but Christ Himself. Colossians 2:6. See also Philippians 3:10. Harless even, Rückert, Meier, and Matthies, take the verb μανθάνω in the sense of “to learn to know”—“ye have not thus learned to know Christ.” But this would elevate a mere result or reference to be part of the translation. The knowledge of Christ is the effect of learning Christ; but it is of the process, not of its effect, that the apostle here speaks. Christ was preached, and Christ was learned by the audience- οὕτως. The manner of their learning is indicated—“Ye have not learned Christ so as to walk any more like the rest of the Gentiles.” Your lessons have not been of such a character-they have been given in a very different form, and accompanied with a very different result. Once dark, dead, dissolute, and apathetic, they had learned Christ as the light and the life-as the purifier and perfecter of His pupils. The following division of this clause is a vain attempt- ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως [ ἐστε]—“but ye are not so;”-ye have learned Christ. Yet such an exegesis has the great names of Beza and Gataker in its support. Adversaria Sacra, p. 158. Verse 21 (Ephesians 4:21.) εἴγε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε—“If indeed Him ye have heard;” not in living person, but embodied and presented in the apostolical preaching. 1 Corinthians 1:23. The particle εἴγε does not directly assert, but rather takes for granted that what is assumed is true. See under Ephesians 3:2. καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε—“and in Him were taught.” ᾿εν αὐτῷ signifies, as in other previous portions of the epistle—“in Him,” that is, “in union with Him;” Ephesians 1:7, etc. It does not mean “by Him,” as is the rendering of the English version, and of Castalio, who translates-ab eo, and of Beza, one of whose versions is-per eum. Still less can the words bear the translation-about Him. It denotes, as is proved by Harless, Olshausen, and Matthies, preceded by Bucer—“in Him.” Winer, § 48, a. It is the spiritual sphere or condition in which they were taught. They had not received a mere theoretic tuition. The hearing is so far only external, but being “in Him,” they were effectually taught. One with Him in spirit, they were fitted to become one with Him in mind. The interpretation of Olshausen gives the words a doctrinal emphasis and esoterism of meaning which they cannot by any means bear. The hearing Christ and in Him being taught, are equivalent to learning Christ, in the previous verse-are rather the two stages of instruction. The connection of this clause with the next clause, and with the following verse, has originated a great variety of criticisms. The most probable interpretation is that of Beza, Koppe, Flatt, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, and Winer, and may be thus expressed: “If indeed ye heard Him, and in Him were taught, as there is truth in Jesus-taught that ye put off the old man.” This appears to be the simplest and most natural construction. The apostle had been describing the gloom, death, and impurity of surrounding heathenism. His counsel is, that the Ephesian converts were not to walk in such a sphere; and his argument is, they had been better tutored, for they learned Christ, had heard Him, and in Him had been taught that they should cast off the old man, the governing principle in the period of their irregeneracy, when they did walk as the other Gentiles walked. Meyer and Baumgarten - Crusius, preceded by Anselm, Vatablus, and Bullinger, however, connect ἀποθέσθαι in the following verse with ἀλήθεια-it is “the truth in Jesus, that ye put off the old man;” thus making it the subject of the sentence. The instances adduced by Raphelius of such a construction in Herodotus are scarcely to the point, and presuppose that ἀλήθεια has the same signification as the term νόμος employed by the historian. Meyer lays stress on the ὑμᾶς, but it is added to mark the antithesis between their present and former state. It is certainly more natural to connect it with the preceding verb, but we cannot accede to the view of Bengel, a-Lapide, Stier, and Zachariae, who join it with μαρτύρομαι in Ephesians 4:17, for in that case there would be a long and awkward species of parenthesis. “Taught”- καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ ᾿ιησοῦ—“as there is truth in Jesus.” We cannot but regard the opinion of de Wette, Harless, and Olshausen as defective, in so far as it restricts the meaning of ἀλήθεια too much to moral truth or holiness. “What in Jesus,” says Olshausen, “is truth and not semblance, is to become truth also in believers.” The idea of Harless is, “As there is truth in Jesus, so on your part put off the old man;” implying a peculiar comparison between Jesus and the Ephesian believers addressed. This is not very different from the paraphrase of Jerome-Quomodo est veritas in Jesu sic erit et in vobis qui didicistis Christum; nor is the paraphrase of Estius greatly dissimilar. The notions of the Greek fathers are narrower still. OEcumenius makes it the same as δικαιοσύνη. It means τὸ ὀρθῶς βιοῦν, says Chrysostom; and the same view, with some unessential variety, is expressed by Luther, Camerarius, Raphelius, Wolf, Storr, Flatt, Rückert, Meier, and Holzhausen. But the noun ἀλήθεια does not usually bear such a meaning in the New Testament, nor does the context necessarily restrict it here. It is directly in contrast not only with ἀπάτης in the next verse, but with ἐν ματαιότητι- ἐσκοτισμένοι- ἄγνοια in Ephesians 4:17-18. Nor can the word bear the meaning assigned to it by those who make ἀποθέσθαι depend upon it-their rendering being, “If indeed ye heard Him, and in Him were taught, as it is truth in Jesus for you to put off the old man.” The meaning held by Meyer is, that unless the old man is laid off, there is no true fellowship in Jesus. But this notion elevates an inference to the rank of a fully expressed idea. We take ἀλήθεια in its common meaning of spiritual truth, that truth which the mediatorial scheme embodies-truth in all its own fulness and circuit; that truth especially which lodged in the man Jesus- ἀλήθεια and ἐν τῷ ᾿ιησοῦ being one conception. The words ἐν τῷ ᾿ιησοῦ express the relation of the truth to Christ, not in any sense the fellowship of believers with Him. The historical name of the Saviour is employed, as if to show that this truth had dwelt with humanity, and in Him whom, as Christ, the apostles preached, and whom these Ephesians had heard and learned. We find the apostle commencing his hideous portraiture of the heathen world by an assertion that they were the victims of mental vanity, that they had darkened intellects, and that there was ignorance in them. But those believers, who had been brought over from among them into the fold of Christ, were enlightened by the truth as well as guided by it, and must have felt the power and presence of that truth in the illumination of their minds as well as in the renewal of their hearts and the direction of their lives. Why, then, should this same ἀλήθεια be taken here in a limited and merely ethical sense? It wants the article, indeed, but still it may bear the meaning we have assigned it. The article is in F, G, but with no authority. The phrase, καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ ᾿ιησοῦ, points out the mode of tuition which they had enjoyed. The meaning of καθώς may be seen under Ephesians 1:4, and here it is a predicate of manner attached to the preceding verb. It stands in contrast to οὐχ οὕτως in Ephesians 4:20—“ye have not so learned”-ye have not learned Him in such a way- οὐχ οὕτως-as to feel a licence to walk like the other Gentiles, but ye heard Him, and in Him were taught in this way- καθώς-as there is truth in Him. It tells the kind of teaching which they had enjoyed, and the next verse contains its substance. Their teaching was not according to falsehood, nor according to human invention, but according to truth, brought down to men, fitted to men, and communicated to men, by its being lodged in the man Jesus. They were in Him-the Christ-and so came into living contact with that truth which was and is in Jesus. This appears on the whole to be a natural and harmonious interpretation, and greatly preferable to that of Calixtus, Vatablus, Piscator, Wolf, and others, who give καθώς the sense of “that”-quod; ye have been taught that there is truth in Jesus, or what the truth in Jesus really is. Such a version breaks up the continuity both of thought and syntax, and is not equal to that of Flatt and Rückert, who give the καθώς an argumentative sense—“And ye in Him have been taught, for there is truth in Him.” Calvin, Rollock, Zanchius, Macknight, Rosenmüller, and others, falsely suppose the apostle to refer in this verse to two kinds of religious knowledge-one vain and allied still to carnality, and the other genuine and sanctifying in its nature. Credner's opinion is yet wider of the mark, for he supposes that the apostle refers to the notion of an ideal Messiah, and shows its nullity by naming him Jesus. “Taught & rdq uo;- Verse 22 (Ephesians 4:22.) ᾿αποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς—“That you put off.” The infinitive, denoting the substance of what they had been thus taught (Donaldson, § 584; Winer, 44, 3), is falsely rendered as a formal imperative by Luther, Zeger, and the Vulgate. Bernhardy, p. 358. Our previous version, “have put,” is not, as Alford says of it, “inconsistent with the context, as in Ephesians 4:25,” for perfect change is not inconsistent with imperfect development. But as Madvig, to whom Ellicott refers, says, § 171, b-the aorist infinitive in such a case “differs from the present only as denoting a single transient action.” See on Philippians 3:16. It is contrary alike to sense and syntax on the part of Storr and Flatt, to take ὑμᾶς as governed by ἀποθέσθαι—“that you put off yourselves!” and it is a dilution of the meaning to supply δεῖν, with Piscator. ᾿αποθέσθαι and ἐνδύσασθαι are figurative terms placed in vivid contrast. ᾿αποθέσθαι is to put off, as one puts off clothes. Romans 13:12-14; Colossians 3:8; James 1:21. Wetstein adduces examples of similar imagery from the classics, and the Hebrew has an analogous usage. The figure has its origin in daily life, and not, as some fanciful critics allege, in any special instances of change of raiment at baptism, the racecourse, or the initiation of proselytes. Selden, de Jure Gentium, etc., lib. Ephesians 2:5; Vitringa, Observat. Sac. 139. “That you put off”- κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον—“as regards your former conversation, the old man.” It is contrary to the ordinary laws of language to translate these words as if the apostle had written- τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ προτέραν ἀναστροφήν. Yet this has been done by Jerome and OEcumenius, Grotius and Estius, Koppe, Rosenmüller, and Bloomfield. ᾿αναστρέφω occurs under Ephesians 2:3. Galatians 1:13; 1 Timothy 4:12; Suicer, sub voce. This former conversation is plainly their previous heathen or unconverted state. The apostle says, they were not now to live like the rest of heathendom, for they had been instructed to put off as regards their manner of life, “the old man”- τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. Romans 6:6; Colossians 3:9. The meaning of a somewhat similar idiom- ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος-may be seen under Ephesians 3:16. Romans 7:22. It is needless to seek the origin of this peculiar phrase in any recondite or metaphysical conceptions. It has its foundation in our own consciousness, and in our own attempts to describe or contrast its different states, and is similar to our current usage, as when we speak of our “former self” and our “present self,” or when we speak of a man's being “beside himself” or coming “to himself.” It does not surprise us to find similar language in the Talmud, such as—“the old Adam,” etc. Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. 516; Tr. Jovamoth, 62. Phraseology not unlike occurs also among the classics. Diogenes Laertius, 9, 66. The words are, therefore, a bold and vivid personification of the old nature we inherit from Adam, the source and seat of original and actual transgression. The exegesis of many of the older commentators does not come up to the full idea. This “self” or man is “old,” not simply old in sin, as Jerome and Photius im agine- ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις παλαιωθείς-but as existing prior to our converted state, and as Athanasius says- τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς πτώσεως τοῦ ᾿αδὰμ γεγεννημένον-yet not simply original sin. This old man within us is a usurper, and is to be expelled. As the Greek scholiast says, the old man is not φύσις in its essential meaning, but- τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐνέργεια. With all his instincts and principles, he is to be cast off, for he is described as- τὸν φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης—“being corrupt according to the lusts of deceit.” κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας stands in contrast with κατὰ θεόν in Ephesians 4:24, and τῆς ἀπάτης with τῆς ἀληθείας of the same verse. The old man is growing corrupt, and this being his constant condition and characteristic, the present tense is employed-the corruption is becoming more corrupt. And this corruption does not describe merely the unhappy state of the old man, for, as Olshausen remarks, this opinion of Harless is superficial. The old man is “corrupt,” filled with that sin which contains in it the elements of its own punishment, and he is unfitted by this condition for serving God, possessing the Divine life, or enjoying happiness. That corruption is described in some of its features in Ephesians 4:17-18. But the apostle adds more specifically—“according to the lusts of deceit.” The preposition κατά does not seem to have a causal significance. Harless indeed ascribes to it a causal relation, but it seems to have simply its common meaning of “according to” or “in accordance with.” Winer, § 49, d. ᾿επιθυμία is irregular and excessive desire. Olshausen is wrong in confining the term to sensual excesses, for he is obliged to modify the apostle's statement, and say, that “from such forms of sin individual Gentiles were free, and so were the mass of the Jewish nation.” But ἐπιθυμία is not necessarily sensual desire. Where it has such a meaning-as in Romans 1:24, 1 Thessalonians 4:5 -the signification is determined by the context. The “lusts of the flesh” are not restricted to fleshly longings. Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:24. The term is a general one, and signifies those strong and self-willed desires and appetites which distinguish unrenewed humanity. Romans 6:12; Romans 7:7; 1 Timothy 6:9; Titus 3:3. The genitive- τῆς ἀπάτης-may be, as Meyer takes it, the genitive of subject, ἀπάτη being personified. Though it is a noun of quality, it is not to be looked on as the mere genitive of quality. These lusts are all connected with that deceit which is characteristic of sin; a deceit which it has lodged in man's fallen nature-the offspring of that first and fatal lie which “Brought death into the world and all our woe.” Hebrews 3:13; 2 Corinthians 11:3. This “deceit” which tyrannizes over the old man, as the truth guides and governs the new man (Ephesians 4:24), is something deeper than the erroneous and seductive teaching of heathen priests and philosophers. These “lusts of deceit” seduce and ensnare under false pretensions. There is the lust of gain, sinking into avarice; of power swelling into ruthless and cruel tyranny; of pleasure falling into beastly sensualism. Nay, every strong passion that fills the spirit to the exclusion of God is a “lust.” Alas! this deceit is not simply error. It has assumed many guises. It gives a refined name to grossness, calls sensualism gallantry, and it hails drunkenness as good cheer. It promises fame and renown to one class, wealth and power to another, and tempts a third onward by the prospect of brilliant discovery. But genuine satisfaction is never gained, for God is forgotten, and these desires and pursuits leave their victim in disappointment and chagrin. “Vanity of vanities,” cried Solomon in vexation, after all his experiments on the summum bonum. “I will pull down my barns, and build greater,” said another in the idea that he had “much goods laid up for many years;” and yet, in the very night of his fond imaginings, “his soul was required of him.” Belshazzar drank wine with his grandees, and perished in his revelry. The prodigal son, who for pleasure and independence had left his father's house, sank into penury and degradation, and he, a child of Abraham, fed swine to a heathen master. Verse 23 (Ephesians 4:23.) ᾿ανανεοῦσθαι δὲ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν—“And be renewing in the spirit of your mind.” This passive (not middle) infinitive present still depends on ἐδιδάχθητε- δέ being adversative, as the apostle passes from the negative to the positive aspect. As Olshausen has observed, all attempts to distinguish between ἀνανεοῦσθαι and ἀνακαινοῦσθαι are needless for the interpretation of this verse. See Trench, Syn. xviii.; Colossians 3:10; Tittmann, p. 60. The ἀνα, in composition, denotes “again” or “back”-restoration to some previous state-renovation. See on following verse. Such moral renovation had its special seat “in the spirit of their mind.” This very peculiar phrase has been in various ways misunderstood. OEcumenius, Theophylact, Hyperius, Bull, and Ellicott understand πνεῦμα of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit renewing the mind by dwelling within it διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐν τῷ νοὶ ἡμῶν κατοικοῦντος. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. vol. ii. p. 2. But, 1. The πνεῦμα belongs to ourselves-is a portion of us-language that can scarcely in such terms be applied to the Spirit of God. 2. Nor does Ellicott remove the objection by saying that πνεῦμα is not “the Holy Spirit exclusively, or per se, but as in a gracious union with the human spirit.” This idea is in certain aspects theologically correct, but is not conveyed by these words- πνεῦμα in such a case cannot mean God's Spirit, for it is called τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν; it is only man's spirit though it be filled with God's. In Romans 8:6, the apostle makes a formal distinction. 3. There is no analogous expression. None of the genitives following πνεῦμα are like this, but often denote possession or character as Spirit of God-Spirit of holiness-Spirit of adoption. 4. Nor can we give it the meaning which Robinson has assigned it, of “disposition or temper.” Quite like himself is the notion of Gfrörer, that πνεῦμα is but the rabbinical figment of a נַשָׁמָה, H5972, founded on a misinterpretation of Genesis 2:7, and denoting a kind of Divine “breathing” or gift conferred on man about his twentieth year. Urchrist. ii. p. 257. 5. Augustine, failing in his usual acuteness, identifies πνεῦμα and νοῦς - quia omnis mens spiritus est, non autem omnis spiritus mens est, spiritum mentis dicere voluit eum spiritum, quae mens vocatur. De Trinitate, lib. xiv. cap. 16. Estius follows the Latin father. Grotius and Crellius hold a similar view, joined by Koppe and Küttner, who idly make the unusual combination a mere periphrasis. 6. πνεῦμα is not loosely, as Rückert and Baumgarten-Crusius take it, the better part of the mind, or νοῦς; nor can we by any means agree with Olshausen, who puts forth the following opinion with a peculiar consciousness of its originality and appropriateness—“that πνεῦμα is the substance and νοῦς the power of the substance.” Such a notion is not supported by the biblical psychology. 7. πνεῦμα is the highest part of that inner nature, which, in its aspect of thought and emotion, is termed νοῦς. So the apostle speaks of “soul” and “spirit”- ψυχή often standing to σῶμα as πνεῦμα to νοῦς. It is not merely the inmost principle, or as Chrysostom phrases it, “the spirit which is in the mind,” but it is the governing principle, as Theodoret explains it- τὴν ὁρμὴν τοῦ νοὸς πνευματικὴν εἴρηκε. This generally is the idea of Röell, Harless, de Wette, Meier, and Turner. Meyer in his last edition retracts his opinion in the second, and says that the usual interpretation is correct, according to which-das πνεῦμα das menschliche ist-that πνεῦμα being-das Höhere Lebensprincip. Delitzsch, Bib. Psych. p. 144. The renewal takes place not simply in the mind, but in the spirit of it. The dative points out the special seat of renewal. Winer, § 31, 6, a; Matthew 11:29; Acts 7:51; 1 Corinthians 14:20. The mind remains as before, both in its intellectual and emotional structure-in its memory and judgment, imagination and perception. These powers do not in themselves need renewal, and regeneration brings no new faculties. The organism of the mind survives as it was, but the spirit, its highest part, the possession of which distinguishes man from the inferior animals, and fits him for receiving the Spirit of God, is being renovated. The memory, for example, still exercises its former functions, but on a very different class of subjects; the judgment still discharging its old office, is occupied among a new set of themes and ideas; and love, retaining all its ardour, attaches itself to objects quite in contrast with those of its earlier preference and pursuit. The change is not in mind psychologically, either in its essence or in its operation; neither is it in mind, as if it were a superficial change of opinion, either on points of doctrine or of practice; but it is “in the spirit of the mind,” in that which gives mind both its bent and its materials of thought. It is not simply in the spirit, as if it lay there in dim and mystic quietude; but it is “in the spirit of the mind,” in the power which, when changed itself, radically alters the entire sphere and business of the inner mechanism. Verse 24 (Ephesians 4:24.) καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον—“And put on the new man.” Colossians 3:10. The renewal, as Meyer remarks, was expressed in the present tense, as if the moment of its completion were realized in the putting on of the new man, expressed by the aorist. The verb also is middle, denoting a reflexive act. Trollope and Burton discover, we know not by what divination, a reference in this phraseology to baptism. The putting on of the new man presupposes the laying off of the old man, and is the result or accompaniment of this renewal; nay, it is but another representation of it. This renewal in the spirit, and this on-putting of the new man, may thus stand to each other as in our systems of theology regeneration stands to sanctification. The “new man” is καινός, not νέος-recent. The apostle, in Colossians 3:10, says τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον; here he joins ἀνανεοῦσθαι with τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. In the other epistle the verbal term from καινός is preceded by νέος; in the place before us the verbal term from νέος is followed by καινός. νέος generally is recent- οἶνον νέον, wine recently made, opposed to παλαιόν, made long ago; ἀσκοὺς καινούς-fresh skins-opposed to παλαιούς, which had long been in use. Matthew 9:17. So καινὴ διαθήκη is opposed to the economy so long in existence (Hebrews 8:8), but once it is termed νέα (Hebrews 12:24) as being of recent origin. Compare Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15. Hence also, John 19:41, μνημεῖον καινόν-not a tomb of recent excavation, but one unused, and thus explained, ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἐτέθη. Pillon, Syn. Grecs. 332. The “new man” is in contrast with the “old man,” and repres ents that new assemblage of holy principles and desires which have a unity of origin, and a common result of operation. The “new man” is not, therefore, Christ Himself, as is the fancy of Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and Hilary, De Trinitate, lib. xii. The origin of the “new man” is next shown- τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα—“who was created after God.” Winer, § 49, d. What the apostle affirms is not that creation is God's work and prerogative and His alone, but that as the first man bore His image, so does the new man, for he is created κατὰ θεόν, “according to God,” or in the likeness of God; or, as the apostle writes in Colossians 3:10, κατ᾿ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν. Hofmann's exegesis is feeble and incorrect-von dem göttlicher Weise geschaffenen Menschen. The allusion is to Genesis 1:27. What God created, man assumes. The newness of this man is no absolute novelty, for it is the recovery of original holiness. As the Creator stamps an image of Himself on all His workmanship, so the first man was made in His similitude, and this new man, the result also of His plastic energy, bears upon him the same test and token of his Divine origin; for the moral image of God reproduces itself in him. It is no part of our present task to inquire what were the features of that Divine image which Adam enjoyed. See under Colossians 3:10; Müller, Lehre von der Sünde, vol. ii. p. 482, 3rd ed. The apostle characterizes the new man as being created- ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀλήθειας—“in the righteousness and holiness of the truth”-the elements in which this creation manifests itself. Morus and Flatt, on the one hand, are in error when they regard ἐν as instrumental, for the preposition points to the manifestation or development of the new man; and Koppe and Beza blunder also in supposing that ἐν may stand for εἰς, and denote the result of the new creation. In Colossians 3:10, as Olshausen remarks, “the intellectual aspect of the Divine image is described, whereas in the passage before us prominence is given to its ethical aspect.” In Wisdom of Solomon 2:23, the physical aspect is sketched. δικαιοσύνη is that moral rectitude which guides the new man in all relationships. It is not bare equity or probity, but it leads its possessor to be what he ought to be to every other creature in the universe. The vices reprobated by the apostle in the following verses, are manifest violations of this righteousness. It follows what is right, and does what is right, in all given circumstances. See under Ephesians 5:9. ῾οσιότης, on the other hand, is piety or holiness- τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δίκαια καὶ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ὅσια. Scholium, Hecuba, 5.788. The two terms occur in inverted order in Luke 1:75, and the adverbs are found in 1 Thessalonians 2:10; Titus 1:8. The new man has affinities not only with created beings, but he has a primary relationship to the God who made him, and who surely has the first claim on his affection and duty. Whatever feelings arise out of the relation which a redeemed creature bears to Jehovah, this piety leads him to possess-such as veneration, confidence, and purity. Both righteousness and holiness are- τῆς ἀλήθειας—“of the truth.” John 1:17; Romans 1:25; Romans 3:7. This subjective genitive is not to be resolved into an adjective, after the example of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bodius, Grotius, Holzhausen, and the English version, as if the meaning were-true righteousness and holiness; nor can it be regarded as joining to the list a distinct and additional virtue-an opinion advanced by Pelagius, and found in the reading of D1, F, G- καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. Those critics referred to who give the genitive the simple sense of an adjective, think the meaning to be “true,” in opposition to what is assumed or counterfeit; while the Greek fathers imagine the epithet to be opposed to the typical holiness of the ancient Israel. The exegesis of Witsius, that the phrase means such a desire to please as is in harmony with truth (De OEconomia Foederum, p. 15), is as truly against all philology as that of Cocceius, that it denotes the studious pursuit of truth. ῾η ἀλήθεια in connection with the new man, stands opposed to ἡ ἀπάτη in connection with the old man, and is truth in Jesus. While this spiritual creation is God's peculiar work-for He who creates can alone re-create-this truth in Jesus has a living influence upon the heart, producing, fostering, and sustaining such rectitude and piety. The question of natural and moral ability does not come fairly within the compass of discussion in this place. The apostle only says, they had been taught the doctrine of a decided and profound spiritual change, which had developed its breadth and power in a corresponding alteration of character. He merely states the fact that the Ephesians had been so taught, but how they had been taught the doctrine, in what connections, and with what appliances and arguments, he says not. Its connection with the doctrine of spiritual influence is not insisted on. “Whatever,” says Dr. Owen, “God worketh in us in a way of grace, He presenteth unto us in a way of duty, and that, because although He do it in us, yet He also doth it by us, so as that the same work is an act of His Spirit, and of our own will as acted thereby.” On the Holy Spirit, Works, iii. p. 432; Edinburgh, 1852. See under Ephesians 2:1. The apostle descends now from general remarks to special sins, such sins as were common in the Gentile world, and to which Christian converts were, from the force of habit and surrounding temptation, most easily and powerfully seduced. Verse 25 (Ephesians 4:25.) διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος—“Wherefore, having put away lying.” By διό—“wherefore”-he passes to a deduction in the form of an application. See under Ephesians 2:11. Since the old man and all his lusts are to be abandoned, and the new man assumed who is created in the righteousness and holiness of the truth- ἀλήθεια; the vice and habit of falsehood- ψεῦδος-are to be dropt. Colossians 3:9. It might be a crime palliated among their neighbours in the world, but it was to have no place in the church, being utterly inconsistent with spiritual renovation. The counsel then is- λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν, ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ—“speak ye truth every one with his neighbour.” The clause is found in Zechariah 8:16, with this variation, that the apostle uses μετά for the πρός of the Septuagint which represents the particle in אֶתאּרְֵֵעהוּ . The “neighbour,” as the following clause shows, is not men generally, as Jerome, Augustine, Estius, and Grotius suppose, but specially Christian brethren. Christians are to speak the whole truth, without distortion, diminution, or exaggeration. No promise is to be falsified-no mutual understanding violated. The word of a Christian ought to be as his bond, every syllable being but the expression of “truth in the inward parts.” The sacred majesty of truth is ever to characterize and hallow all his communications. It is of course to wilful falsehood that the apostle refers-for a man may be imposed upon himself, and unconsciously deceive others-to what Augustine defines as falsa significatio cum voluntate fallendi. As may be seen from the quotations made by Whitby and other expositors, some of the heathen philosophers were not very scrupulous in adherence to truth, and the vice of falsehood was not branded with the stigma which it merited. And the apostle adds as a cogent reason- ὅτι ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων μέλη—“for we are members one of another.” Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. Christians are bound up together by reciprocal ties and obligations as members of the one body of which Christ is the one Head-the apostle glancing back to the image of the 16th verse. Their being members one of another springs from their living union with Christ. Trusting in one God, they should therefore not create distrust of one another; seeking to be saved by one faith, they should not prove faithless to their fellows; and professing to be freed by the truth, they ought not to attempt to enslave their brethren by falsehood. Truthfulness is an essential and primary virtue. Chrysostom, taking the figure in its mere application to the body, draws out a long and striking analogy—“Let not the eye lie to the foot, nor the foot to the eye. If there be a deep pit, and its mouth covered with reeds shall present to the eye the appearance of solid ground, will not the eye use the foot to ascertain whether it is hollow underneath, or whether it is firm and resists? Will the foot tell a lie, and not the truth as it is? And what again if the eye were to spy a serpent or a wild beast, will it lie to the foot?” etc. Verse 26 (Ephesians 4:26.) ᾿οργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε—“Be ye angry and sin not.” This language is the same as the Septuagint translation of Psalms 4:4. The verb זוּ Ó רִגַמאי bear such a sense, as Hengstenberg maintains,-Proverbs 29:9; Isaiah 28:21; Ezekiel 16:43,-though Gesenius, Hupfeld, Ewald, and Phillips maintain that the meaning is “tremble,” or “stand in awe,” as in the English version. Delitzsch also renders Bebet—“quake,” Tholuck, Erzittert, and J. Olshausen, Zittert. The Hebrew verb is of the same stock with the Greek ὀργή and the Saxon “rage,” and denotes strong emotion. The peculiar idiom has been variously understood: 1. Some understand it thus—“If ye should be angry, see that ye do not sin.” Such is the view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, OEcumenius, Piscator, Wolf, Koppe, Flatt, Rückert, Olshausen, Holzhausen, Meier, and Bishop Butler; while Harless supposes the meaning to be-zürnet in der rechten Weise-be angry in the right way. Hitzig renders it grollet, aber verfehlt euch nicht. 2. Beza, Grotius, Clarius, and Zeltner take the first verb in an interrogative sense-Are ye angry? It is plain that the simple construction of the second clause forbids such a supposition. The opinion of the Greek fathers has been defended by a reference to Hebrew syntax, in which, when two imperatives are joined, the first expresses a condition, and the second a result. Gesenius, § 127, 2; Nordheimer, § 1008. This clause does not, however, come under such a category, for its fair interpretation under such a law would be—“Be angry, and so ye shall not sin,” or, as in the common phrase-divide et impera—“divide, and thou shalt conquer.” The second imperative does not express result, but contemporaneous feeling. 3. Nor do we see any go od grounds for adopting the notion of a permissive imperative, as is argued for by Winer, § 43, 2—“Be angry”-(I cannot prevent it). 1 Corinthians 7:13. As Meyer has remarked, there is no reason why the one imperative should be permissive and the other jussive, when both are connected by the simple καί. 4. The phrase is idiomatic—“Be angry”-(when occasion requires), “but sin not;” the main force being on the second imperative with μή. It is objected to this view by Olshausen and others, that anger is forbidden in the 31st verse. But the anger there reprobated is associated with dark malevolence, and regarded as the offspring of it. Anger is not wholly forbidden, as Olshausen imagines it is. It is an instinctive principle-a species of thorny hedge encircling our birthright. But in the indulgence of it, men are very apt to sin, and therefore they are cautioned against it. If a mere trifle put them into a storm of fury-if they are so excitable as to fall into frequent fits of ungovernable passion, and lose control of speech or action-if urged by an irascible temper they are ever resenting fancied affronts and injuries, then do they sin. Matthew 5:21-22. But specially do they sin, and herein lies the danger, if they indulge anger for an improper length of time:- ὁ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ τῷ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν—“let not the sun go down upon your indignation.” Similar phraseology occurs in Deuteronomy 24:15; in Philo, and in Plutarch. See Wetstein, in loc. παροργισμός, a term peculiar to biblical Greek, is a fit of indignation or exasperation; παρά-referring to the cause or occasion; while the ὀργή, to be put away from Christians, is the habitual indulgence of anger. 1 Kings 15:30; 2 Kings 23:26; Nehemiah 9:18. παροργισμός is not in this clause absolutely forbidden, as Trench wrongly supposes (Synon. p. 141), but it is to cease by sunset. The day of anger should be the day of reconciliation. It is to be but a brief emotion, slowly excited and very soon dismissed. If it be allowed to lie in the mind, it degenerates into enmity, hatred, or revenge, all of which are positively and in all circumstances sinful. To harbour ill-will; to feed a grudge, and keep it rankling in the bosom; or to wait a fitting opportunity for successful retaliation, is inconsistent with Christian discipleship—“Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” Augustine understands by sun, “the Sun of righteousness” (on Psalms 25; Op. vol. iv. p. 15, ed. Paris), and Anselm “the sun of reason.” Theodoret well says- μέτρον ἔδωκε τῷ θυμῷ τῆς ἡμέρας τὸ μέτρον. The Pythagorean disciple was to be placated, and to shake hands with his foe- πρὶν ἢ τὸν ἥλιον δῦναι. Plutarch, de Am. Frat. 488, b. Verse 27 (Ephesians 4:27.) ΄ηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ—“Also give no place to the devil.” ΄ηδέ, not μήτε, is the true reading, upon preponderant authority, and closely connects this clause with the preceding exhortation, not certainly logically or as a developed thought, but numerically as an allied injunction, more closely than what Klotz calls fortuitus concursus. Ad Devar. ii. p. 6. Hartung, 1.210; Buttmann, § 149; Winer, § 55, 6; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 157. ῾ο διάβολος is plainly the Evil One, not viewed simply in his being, but in some special element of his character. It is wrong to render it here-the accuser or calumniator, though the Syriac version, Luther, Er. Schmid, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, have so rendered it. The notion of Harless appears to be too restricted, namely, that the reference is to Satan as endangering the life and peace of the Christian church, not as gaining the ascendency over individuals. To “give place to,” is to yield room for, dare locum. Luke 14:9; Romans 12:19; Cicero, de Natura Deorum, 2.33. See also Wetstein, in loc. The idea indicated by the connection is, that anger nursed in the heart affords opportunity to Satan. Satan has sympathy with a spiteful and malignant spirit, it is so like his own. Envy, cunning, and malice are the pre-eminent feelings of the devil, and if wrath gain the empire of the heart, it lays it open to him, and to those fiendish passions which are identified with his presence and operations. Christians are not, by the indulgence of angry feeling, to give place to him; for if he have any place, how soon may he have all place! Give him “place” but in a point, and he may speedily cover the whole platform of the soul. Verse 28 (Ephesians 4:28.) ῾ο κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω—“Let the stealer steal no more.” We cannot say that the present participle is here used for the past, as is done by the Vulgate in its qui furabatur, by Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Cramer, and others. Even some MSS. have ὁ κλέψας. ῾ο κλέπτων is the thief, one given to the vice of thieving, or, as Peile renders it, “the thievish person.” Winer, § 45, 7; Bernhardy, p. 318; Galatians 1:23. It is something, as Stier says, between κλέψας and κλέπτης. Some, again, shocked at the idea that any connected with the Ephesian church should be committing such a sin, have attempted to attenuate the meaning of the term. Jerome set the example, and he has been followed by Calvin, Bullinger, Estius, Zanchius, Holzhausen, and partially by Hodge. But the apostle condemns theft in every form, and in all probability he alludes to some peculiar aspect of it practised by a section of the idle population of Ephesus. According to the testimony of Eusebius, in the tenth chapter of the sixth book of his Praeparatio Evangelica, throughout the Eastern world few persons were much affronted by being convicted of theft- ὁ λοιδορούμενος ὡς κλέπτης οὐ πάνυ ἀγανακτεῖ. See 1 Corinthians 5:1, and 2 Corinthians 12:21, for another class of sinners in the early church. The apostle's immediate remedy for the vice is honourable industry, with a view to generosity- μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν—“but rather let him labour, working with his own hands that which is good.” The differences of reading are numerous in this brief clause. In some MSS. ταῖς χερσίν is omitted, and in others τὸ ἀγαθόν. Clement reads simply τὸ ἀγαθόν, and Tertullian only ταῖς χερσίν. Some insert ἰδίαις before χερσίν, and others affix αὐτοῦ after it. Several important MSS., such as A, D1, E F, G the Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, and Ethiopic Armenian; Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius-read ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. Lachmann adopts this reading; K inverts this order, τὸ ἀγαθὸν ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν; but Tischendorf, Hahn, and Alford read τὸ ἀγαθὸν ταῖς χερσίν, with L and the great majority of mss., Chrysostom, Theophylact, OEcumenius, and the Received Version. B has ταῖς χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. We agree with Stier in saying that Harless and Olshausen overlook the proof, when at once they prefer the shortest reading, and treat τὸ ἀγαθόν as an interpolation taken from Galatians 6:10. ΄ᾶλλον δέ-but “rather or in preference” let him work, and with his own hands, ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν. ῎ιδιος, like proprius in Latin instead of suus or ejus, is here used with distinct force. Matthew 25:15; John 10:3; Romans 8:32; Winer, § 22, 7. Manual employment was the most common in these times. Acts 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 4:11. τὸ ἀγαθόν is something useful and profitable. His hands had done what was evil, and now these same were to be employed in what was good. If a man have no industrious calling, if he cannot dig, and if to beg he is ashamed, his resort is to plunder for self-support: “Now goes the nightly thief, prowling abroad For plunder; much solicitous how best He may compensate for a day of sloth By works of darkness and nocturnal wrong.” But if a man be active and thrifty, then he may have not only enough for himself, but even enjoy a surplus out of which he may relieve the wants of his destitute brethren- ἵνα ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι—“that he may have to give to him who hath need.” This is a higher motive than mere self-support, and is, as Olshausen remarks, a specifically Christian object. Not only is the thief to work for his own maintenance, but Christian sympathy will cheer him in his manual toil, for the benefit of others. Already in the days of his indolence had he stolen from others, and now others were to share in the fruits of his honest labour-truest restitution. “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Verse 29 (Ephesians 4:29.) πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω—“Let no filthy word come out of your mouth.” This strong negation contained in the use of πᾶς with μή, is a species of Hebraism. Winer, § 26, 1; Ewald, Heb. Gram. § 576. The general meaning of σαπρός is foul, rotten, useless, though sometimes, from the idea of decay-old, obsolete, ugly, or worthless. Phrynich. ed. Lobeck, p. 337. In Matthew 7:17-18; Matthew 12:33, and in Luke 6:43, the epithet characterizes trees and their fruit, and in the Vulgate is rendered simply malus. In Matthew 13:48, it is applied to fishes. In all these places the contrasted adjective is ἀγαθός. Locke in his paraphrase has, “no misbecoming word.” The term is of course used here in a tropical sense, but its meaning is not to be restricted, as Grotius advocates, to unchaste or obscene conversation, which is afterwards and specially forbidden. It signifies what is noxious, offensive, or useless, and refers to language which, so far from yielding “grace” or benefit, has a tendency to corrupt the hearer. 1 Corinthians 15:33; Colossians 4:6. Chrysostom, deriving his idea from the contrast of the following clause, defines the term thus- ὃ μὴ τὴν ἰδίαν χρείαν πληροῖ; and several vices of the tongue are also named by him, with evident reference to Colossians 3:8. Meier narrows its meaning, when he regards it as equivalent to ἀργός in Matthew 12:36. May there not be reference to sins already condemned? All falsehoods and equivocations; all spiteful epithets and vituperation; all envious and vengeful detraction; all phrases which form a cover for fraud and chicanery-are filthy speech, and with such language a Christian's mouth ought never to be defiled. “Nothing”- ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας—“but that which is good for edification of the need.” Instead of χρείας, some MSS., as D1, E1, F, G, and some of the Latin fathers, read πίστεως, which is evidently an emendation, as Jerome has hinted. ᾿αγαθός, followed by πρός, signifies “good,” in the sense of “suitable,” or rather serviceable for, examples of which may be found in Kypke, Observat. 2.298; Passow, sub voce; Romans 15:2. Our version, following Beza, inverts the order and connection of the two nouns, and renders, “for the use of edifying,” whereas Paul says, “for edification of the need.” χρείας, as the genitive of object, is almost personified. To make it the genitive of “point of view,” with Ellicott, is a needless refinement. The paraphrase of Erasmus, quâ sit opus-and that of Casaubon, quoties opus est, are defective, inasmuch as they suppose the need to be only incidental or occasional, whereas the apostle regards it as a pressing and continuous fact. The precious hour should never be polluted with corrupt speech, nor should it be wasted in idle and frivolous dialogue. We are not indeed to “give that which is holy to dogs”-a due and delicate appreciation of time and circumstance must govern the tongue. Juxta, says Jerome, juxta opportunitatem loci, temporis, et personae aedificare audientes. Conversation should always exercise a salutary influence, regulated by the special need. Words so spoken may fall like winged seeds upon a neglected soil, and there may be future germination and fruit. Trench on Authorized Version, p. 120. ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν—“that it may give grace to the hearers.” χάρις is taken by some to signify what is agreeable or acceptable. Theodoret thus explains it- ἵνα φανῇ δεκτὸς τοῖς ἀκούουσι—“that it may seem pleasant to the hearer;” and the same view has been held by Luther, Rückert, Meier, Matthies, Burton, and the lexicographers Robinson, Bretschneider, Wilke, Wahl, and Schleusner. One of the opinions of Chrysostom is not dissimilar, since he compares such speech to the grateful effect of ointment or perfume on the person. That χάρις may bear such a meaning is well known, but does it bear such a sense in such a phrase as χάριν διδόναι? In Plut. Agis. c. 18- δεδωκότα χάριν; Euripides, Medea, 5.702- τήνδε σοι δοῦναι χάριν; Sophocles, Ajax, 1354- μέμνησ᾿ ὁποίῳ φωτὶ τὴν χάριν δίδως; and in other quotations adduced by Harless, χάριν δοῦναι is “to confer a favour-to bestow a gift.” Ast, Lex Platon. sub voce. So we have the phrase in James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5; and it is found also in the Septuagint, Exodus 3:21; Psalms 84:12. And such is the view of Olshausen, Harless, Meyer, de Wette, and in former times of Bullinger, Zanchius, and virtually of Beza, Grotius, Elsner, and Calvin. Speech good to the edification of need brings spiritual benefit to the hearer; it may excite, or deter, or counsel-stir him to reflection or afford materials of thought. “A word spoken in season, how good is it! - like apples of gold in pictures of silver.” Proverbs 25:11. Verse 30 (Ephesians 4:30.) καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ θεοῦ—“And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.” The term πνεῦμα, and the epithet ἅγιον, have been already explained under Ephesians 1:13, and solemnly and emphatically is the article repeated. He is called the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit of God, each term having a distinct and suggestive significance. This sentence is plainly connected with the previous exhortations, and specially by καί, with the preceding counsel. And the connection appears to be this:-Obey those injunctions as to abstinence from falsehood, malice, dishonesty, and especially corrupt speech, and grieve not the Holy Spirit of God. True, indeed, the Godhead is unruffled in its calm, yet there are feelings in it so analogous to those excited in men, that they are named after such human emotions. The Holy Spirit represents Himself as susceptible of affront and of sorrow. παροξύνειν is used in a similar passage in Isaiah 63:10 by the Seventy, but it is not a perfect representation of the original Hebrew- עָצַב, H6772. We regard it as wrong to dilute the meaning of the apostle, explaining it either with Bengel-contristatur Spiritus Sanctus non in se sed in nobis; or rashly affirming with Baumgarten-Crusius, that the personality of the Holy Spirit is only a form of representation, and no proof of what Harless calls objective reality; or still further declaring with Rieger, that the term Spirit may be referred to-des Menschen neugeschaffenen Geist—“the renewed spirit of man;” or, in fine, so attenuating the meaning with de Wette as to say, that by the Holy Spirit is to be understood moral sentiment, as depicted from the Christian point of view. It is the Holy Spirit of God within us (not in others, as Thomas Aquinas imagines), that believers grieve-not the Father, nor the Son, but the blessed Spirit, wh o, as the applier of salvation, dwells in believers, and consecrates their very bodies as His temple. Ephesians 2:22 ; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Romans 8:26-27. According to our view, the verse is a summation of the argument-the climax of appeal. If Christians shall persist in falsehood and deviation from the truth-if they shall indulge in fitful rage or cherish sullen and malignant dislikes-if they shall be characterized by dishonesty, or idle and corrupt language-then, though they may not grieve man, do they grieve the Holy Spirit of God, for all this perverse insubordination is in utter antagonism to the essence and operations of Him who is the Spirit of truth, and inspires the love of it; who assumed, as a fitting symbol, the form of a dove, and creates meekness and forbearance; and who as the Spirit of holiness, leads to the appreciation of all that is just in action, noble in sentiment, and healthful and edifying in speech. What can be more grieving to the Holy Ghost than our thwarting the very purpose for which He dwells within us, and contravening all the promptings and suggestions with which He warns and instructs us? Since it is His special function to renew the heart, to train it to the abandonment of sin, and to the cultivation of holiness-and since for this purpose He has infleshed Himself and dwells in us as a tender, watchful, and earnest guardian, is He not grieved with the contumacy and rebellion so often manifested against Him? Nay more- ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσθητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως—“in whom ye were sealed for the day of redemption.” εἰς is “for”-reserved for, implying the idea of “until;” the genitive being a designation of time by its characteristic event. Winer, § 30, 2, a. For the meaning of the verb ἐσφραγίσθητε, the explanation already given under Ephesians 1:14 may be consulted. It is a grave error of Chandler and Le Clerc to refer this sealing to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; for surely these were not possessed by all the members of the church, nor could we limit the sin of grieving the Spirit to the abuse of the gift of prophecy, which the second of these expositors supposes to be specially intended in the preceding verse. In Ephesians 1:14, the apostle speaks of the redemption of the purchased possession, and that period is here named “the day of redemption.” The noun ἀπολύτρωσις has already occupied us under Ephesians 1:14, and the comment needs not be repeated. This clause is evidently an argument, or the motive why believers should not grieve the Holy Spirit. If He seal you, and so confirm your faith, and preserve you to eternal glory-if your hope of glory, your preparation for it, and especially your security as to its possession, be the work of God's blessed Spirit, why will you thus grieve Him? There is no formal mention made of the possibility of apostasy, or of the departure of the Spirit. Nor does it seem to be implied, as the verb “sealed” intimates. They who are sealed are preserved-the seal is not to be shivered or effaced. A security that may be broken at any time, or the value of which depends on man's own fidelity and guardianship, is no security at all. Not only does the Socinian Slichtingius hold that the seal may be broken, but we find even the Calvinist Zanchius speaking of the possibility of so losing the seal as to lose salvation: and in such an opinion some of the divines of the Reformation, such an Aretius, join him. The Fathers held a similar view. Theophylact warns- μὴ λύσῃς τὴν σφραγῖδα. See also the Shepherd of Hermas, 2.10, where the phrase occurs- μήποτε ἐντεύξηται τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀποστῇ ἀπὸ σοῦ. Ambrosiaster says-Quia deserit nos, eo quod laeserimus eum. Harless admits that the phrase may teach the possibility of the loss of the seal; while Stier displays peculiar keenness against those who held the opposite doctrine, or what he calls-praedestinationisches Missverständniss. Were the apostle speaking of the striving of the Spirit, or of His ordinary influences, the possibility of His departure might be thus admitted. Genesis 6:3; Isaiah 63:10; Acts 7:51. Or if he had said-grieve not the Holy Spirit, by whom men are sealed, or whose function it is to seal men, the hypothesis of Stier would not be denied. But the inspired writer says—“by whom ye were sealed.” They had been sealed, set apart, and secured, for perseverance is the crowning blessing and prerogative of the saints; not to say, with Meyer, that if the view of Harless were correct- παροξύνετε would have been the more natural expression. The apostle appeals not to their fears, lest the Spirit should leave them; but he appeals to their sense of gratitude, and entreats them not to wound this tender, continuous, and resident Benefactor. 2 Corinthians 1:21. It may be said to a prodigal son-grieve not your father lest he cast you off; or grieve not your mother lest you break her heart. Which of the twain is the stronger appeal? and this is the question we put as our reply to Alford and Turner. In fine, the patristic and popish phraseology, in which this seal is applied to the imposition of hands, to baptism, or the sacrament of confirmation, is wholly foreign from the sense and purpose of the passage before us, though its clauses have been often adduced in proof. Catechismus Roman. § 311; Suicer, sub voce σφραγίς. Verse 31 (Ephesians 4:31.) πᾶσα πικρία, καὶ θυμὸς, καὶ ὀργὴ, καὶ κραυγὴ, καὶ βλασφημία, ἀρθήτω ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν, σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ—“Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking be put away from you, with all malice;”-all feelings inconsistent with love-all emotions opposed to the benign influence and presence of the Divine Spirit-were to be abandoned. πικρία—“bitterness”-is a figurative term denoting that fretted and irritable state of mind that keeps a man in perpetual animosity-that inclines him to harsh and uncharitable opinions of men and things-that makes him sour, crabbed, and repulsive in his general demeanour-that brings a scowl over his face, and infuses venom into the words of his tongue. Romans 3:14; James 4:14. Wetstein, under Romans 3:14, has adduced several examples of the similar use of πικρία from the classical writers. Aristotle justly says- οἱ δὲ πικροὶ δυσδιάλυτοι, καὶ πολὺν χρόνον ὀργίζονται, κατέχουσι γὰρ τὸν θυμόν. Loesner has also brought some apposite instances from Philo, Observat. ad N. T. p. 345. θυμός is that mental excitement to which such bitterness gives rise-the commotion or tempest that heaves and infuriates within. Donaldson, New Cratylus, § 476. ᾿οργή (Deuteronomy 9:19) is resentment, settled and dark hostility, and is therefore condemned. See under Ephesians 4:26. ῾ο θυμὸς γεννητικός ἐστι τῆς ὀργῆς-is the remark of OEcumenius. See Trench, Synon. § 37; Tittmann, de Synon. p. 132; Donaldson, New Cratylus, § 477. κραυγή—“clamour,” is the expression of this anger-hoarse reproach, the high language of scorn and scolding, the yelling tones, the loud and boisterous recrimination, and the fierce and impetuous invective that mark a man in a towering rage. Ira furor brevis est. “Let women,” adds Chrysostom, “especially attend to this, as they on every occasion cry out and brawl. There is but one thing in which it is needful to cry aloud, and that is in teaching and preaching.” βλασφημία-signifies what is hurtful to the reputation of others, and sometimes is applied to the sin of impious speech toward God. It is the result or one phase of the clamour implied in κραυγή, for anger leads not only to vituperation, but to calumny and scandal. In the intensity of passion, hot and hasty rebuke easily and frequently passes into foulest slander. The wrathful denouncer exhausts his rage by becoming a reviler. Colossians 3:8; 1 Timothy 6:4. All these vicious emotions are to be put away. κακία is a generic term, and seems to signify what we sometimes call in common speech bad-heartedness, the root of all those vices. 1 Peter 2:1. Let all these vices be abandoned, with every form and aspect of that condition of mind in which they have their origin, and of that residuum which the indulgence of them leaves behind it. The word is in contrast with the epithet, “tender-hearted,” in the following verse. Now this verse contains not only a catalogue, but a melancholy genealogy of bad passions-acerbity of temper exciting passion-that passion heated into indignation-that indignation throwing itself off in indecent brawling, and that brawling darkening into libel and abuse-a malicious element lying all the while at the basis of these enormities. And such unamiable feeling and language are not to be allowed any apology or indulgence. The adjective πᾶσα belongs to the five sins first mentioned, and πάσῃ to the last. Indeed, the Coptic version formally prefixes to all the nouns the adjective —“all.” They are to be put away in every kind and degree-in germ as well as maturity-without reserve and without compromise. Verse 32 (Ephesians 4:32.) γίνεσθε δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους χρηστοί—“But become ye kind to one another.” The δέ has been excluded by Lachmann, on the authority of B, but rightly retained by Tischendorf. δέ—“But”-passing to the contrast in his exhortation, he says—“become ye kind to one another”- χρηστοί-full of benign courtesy, distinguished by mutual attachment, the bland and generous interchange of good deeds, and the earnest desire to confer reciprocal obligations. Colossians 3:12. Rudeness and censoriousness are opposed to this plain injunction. That there should be any allusion in χρηστός to the sacred name χριστός, is wholly incredible. εὔσπλαγχνοι-(1 Peter 3:8; Colossians 3:12)—“tender-hearted”-the word being based upon the common and similar use of רַחֲמִים, H8171, in the Old Testament. The epithet is found, as in Hippocrates, with a literal sense. See Kypke. So far from being churlish or waspish, Christians are to be noted for their tenderness of heart. They are to be full of deep and mellow affection, in opposition to that wrath and anger which they are summoned to abandon. A rich and genial sympathy should ever characterize all their intercourse- χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς—“forgiving one another.” ῾εαυτοῖς is used for ἀλλήλοις. This use of the reflexive for the reciprocal pronoun has sometimes an emphatic significance-forgiving one another, you forgive yourselves-and occurs in Mark 10:26; John 12:19; Colossians 3:13; Colossians 3:16; and also among classical writers. Kühner, § 628, 3; Jelf, § 654, 3; Bernhardy, p. 273; Matthiae, § 489, 6. May not the use of ἑαυτοῖς also point, as Stier says, to that peculiar unity which subsists among Christ's disciples? The meaning of the participle, which is contemporaneous with the previous verb, is plainly determined by the following clause. It does not mean being gracious or agreeable, as Bretschneider thinks, nor yet does it signify, as the Vulgate reads-donantes, but condonantes. Luke 7:42-43; 2 Corinthians 2:10; Colossians 2:13; Colossians 3:13. Instead of resentment and retaliation, railing and vindictive objurgation, Christians are to pardon offences-to forgive one another in reciprocal generosity. Faults will be committed and offences must come, but believers are to forgive them, are not to exaggerate them, but to cover them up from view, by throwing over them the mantle of universal charity. And the rule, measure, and motive of this universal forgiveness are stated in the last clause- καθὼς καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν—“as also God in Christ forgave you.” Some MSS., as B2, D, E, K, L, the Syriac, and Theodoret read ἡμῖν; others, as A, F, G, I, and Chrysostom in his text, read ὑμῖν. The latter appears the better reading, while the other may have been suggested by Ephesians 5:2. καθὼς καί—“as also”-an example with an implied comparison. Klotz, ad Devar. 2.635. But the presentation of the example contains an argument. It is an example which Christians are bound to imitate. They were to forgive because God had forgiven them, and they were to forgive in resemblance of His procedure. In the exercise of Christian forgiveness, His authority was their rule, and His example their model. They were to obey and also to imitate, nay, their obedience consisted in imitation. ᾿εν χριστῷ is “in Christ” as the element or sphere, and signifies not “on account of, or by means of Christ,” but ὁ θεὸς ἐν χριστῷ is God revealed in Christ, acting in Him, speaking in Him, and fulfilling His gracious purposes by Him as the one Mediator. 2 Corinthians 5:19. For the pardon of human guilt is no summary act of paternal regard, but sin was punished, government vindicated, and the moral interests of the universe were guarded by the atonement which Christ presented. The nature of that forgiveness which God in Christ confers on sinners, has been already illustrated under Ephesians 1:7. That pardon is full and free and irreversible-all sin forgiven; forgiven, not because we deserve it; forgiven every day of our lives; and, when once forgiven, never again to rise up and condemn us. Now, because God has pardoned us, we should be ready to pardon others. His example at once enjoins imitation, and furnishes the pattern. God is presented, as Theophylact says- εἰς ὑπόδειγμα. And thus the offences of others are to be pardoned by us fully, without retaining a grudge; and freely, without any exorbitant equivalent; forgiven not only seven times, but seventy and seven times; and when pardoned, they are not to be raked out of oblivion, and again made the theme of collision and quarrel. According to the imagery of our Lord's parable, our sins toward God are weighty as talents, nay, weighty and numerous as ten thousand talents; while the offences of our fellows toward ourselves are trivial as pence, nay, as trivial and as few as a hundred pence. If the master forgive such an immense amount to the servant so far beneath Him, will not the forgiven servant be prompted, by the generous example, to absolve his own fellow-servant and equal from his smaller debt? Matthew 18:23-35. Yüklə 1,44 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|