rov <u\iaroq avrov, through his own blood, and the access to the
Father (nooaayuyf) npb$ rov rrarepa), presupposes the adoption (i. 5),
which is imparted only by the experience of salvation. The dfuf>6repoi
iv tvl nvevfiari) both in one spirit, which answers to the d^orepoi tv tvl
origan above, ver. 16, shews, as does also what follows (ver. 19, seq.),
that Paul still has the leading idea in his mind, namely, the differ-
ence between Jews and non-Jews which had been abolished by Christ.
(In ver. 17 B.D.F.G. read elprjvrjv repeated before rolg t-yyv?, a
reading which Lachmann has justly received into the text. Ver.
18. On npoaayuyri see Kom. v. 2. From the idea of fiaicpdv, far,
rises naturally that of access, of being permitted to approach ; if
EPHESIANS II. 19, 20. 77
a special reference is required, the only admissible one is that bor-
rowed from the Temple, which the Gentiles were not allowed to
approach. 'Ev evl nvevnari is, of course, not " through one spirit,
but united in one spirit," thus forming a unity of spiritual life, in
which the former distinctions are abolished. Comp. Gal. iii. 28.)
Vers. 19, 20. Paul next introduces the close of this chain of
ideas, by representing, with a retrospect to the picture of the Gen-
tile world in ver. 12, this state of estrangement as now done away
in the case of his readers ; like the Christian Israelites, they too,
the Gentile Christians, are members of the commonwealth of Israel
(nokireia rov 'laparjfy, nay, stones in the building of the Temple,
which the Church of Christ represents. (Ver. 19. On dpa see at
Kom. vii. 25. Whilst &voi and av^oXlrat r&v dyiuv correspond to
each other, Trdpoiicoi and olicelot rov Qeov are mutually contrasted.
The two former words are sufficiently explained by ver. 12. The
form avfnro^irrjg is not found again in the New Testament ; the
grammarians designate it as not Greek. [See Lobeck's Phryni-
chus, p. 172.] However, Josephus uses the word, Antiq. xix. 2, 2.
But the second antithesis gives rise to a difficulty, because "ndpomoi
does not seem adapted to this connexion. It usually means a resident
alien, i.e., one who is allowed to live in a city or land, but has no
right of citizenship, thus allied to Zsvog, as indeed it occurs Acts vii.
6, 29 ; 1 Peter ii. 11, along with tevo?. But that meaning is not
appropriate here as an antithesis to oliceioi rov Qeov. This phrase
points to the image of a family of God (Gal. vi. 10) to which the
idea of a Father naturally leads ; in this family the Jews are
conceived as the proper inmates, and the Gentiles as next neigh-
bours, [or as Meier expresses himself, Beisassen,] who are, it is true,
in the great house of God along with the Jews, but do not properly
belong to the family.) The figure, which conceives all believers
together as a temple, the corner-stone of which is Christ, whose
foundations are the apostles and prophets, often occurs in the
Scriptures. Each individual is called a temple (1 Cor. vi. 19), and
again all together also form a vabg Qeov (1 Cor. iii. 16). The figure
is most completely carried out in 1 Peter ii. 4, seq. There Christ
is called A#?of %tiv, vrcb dvOpunw fj,ev d7TodedoKipao[j,evog, irapd 6e 6eo>
EK^enrbg, Kvrifiog, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, etc. The
individual believers, who are built upon Christ (eTToitcodo[j,eioOat, see
1 Cor. iii. 10), also bear the name of living stones (MOoi wvrf),
and the whole building of the Temple is designated a spiritual
house (oiKog nvevfj-armog). The basis of this figurative representa-
tion is formed by the typical conception of the stone Temple in
Jerusalem, which was not arbitrarily built on its exact plan, but
after patterns from a higher world (Exod. xxv. 8, 9). The only
difficulty in our passage is caused by the remark that the apostles
78 EPHESIANS II. 21, 22.
and the prophets form the foundation (dep&iog) which again is to
be conceived as reposing upon Christ, as the proper foundation and
corner-stone. For in other passages, particularly, Rev. xxi. 14, the
twelve apostles alone form the 6udeita de^Xiov^ of the church.
The first question, is here whether the reference is to the prophets
of the Old, or to those of the New Testament ? Everything
argues the latter. Not merely the circumstance that the -pro-
phets are named after the apostles, but also the absence of the
article, which makes apostles and prophets appear most intimately
united, and the nature of the case ; the prophets of the Old Testa-
ment cannot well be called foundations of the Temple, which grows
out of Christ (ver. 21). But how can the prophets of the New Tes-
tament be set on a par with the apostles in relation to the founda-
tion of the church ? Inasmuch as the Holy Ghost, which fills them
both, is the real element which lays that foundation ; whilst Christ
is called the corner-stone in his person, the apostles and prophets
are called, not in relation to^their persons, but in regard to their
doctrine and the Holy Ghost, which accompanied-it, taken together,
the foundation. It is otherwise in Revelation ; the stress there laid
on the number 12 is connected with the whole description of the new
Jerusalem in that passage, and can therefore exercise no influence
over our passage ; otherwise neither could Paul, as not being com-
prised in the number 12, be reckoned among the founders of the
church. (Ver. 20 a/cpoyomaZo^ is found again in 1 Peter ii. 6. It
stands for the Hebrew rts -JSK or nB , /f0aA^ ywvmf, Is. xxviil
16 ; Ps. cxviii. 22 ; Matth. xxi. 42.)'
Vers. 21, 22. As the building of the church rests on Christ as
the corner-stone, so it also increases continually in him, L c. } in the
fellowship of all the members of the church with Christ, in their
introduction into him. Both verses express substantially the same
idea ; for the second KV <i must not be connected with va6$ } but with
Kvpiog, and is consequently parallel with the first KV w. But ver. 22
again in the KOI v^eig, ye also, renders expressly prominent the refer-
ence to the Gentile Christians as integral parts of the structure of
the church. But the concluding words of ver. 24, d$ KaroiKr}rripiov rov
eeov Iv nvevfMTi, for a habitation of God in the Spirit, define more
accurately the idea of the vabg dytog tv Kvpiu, holy temple in the Lord.
Indeed this addition iv nvoiu is produced by the image which Paul
made use of in ver. 20 ; as it has the force of designating the vabq
ayiog as a spiritual community, iv icvpiu has nothing at all pleonastic,
though iv $ preceded : for this iv o5 only defines the participle awap-
fiohyyovpfrTj. But the KaroiK^njpiov rov Qeov KV nvevfjtan describes
still more expressly the nature of this spiritual community, which
is built up in Christ of Gentiles and Jews. The church is in it de-
scribed as the lodging, in which God himself takes up his abode (see
EPHESIANS III. 1. 79
2 Cor. vi. 16, seq.), and that too permanently, inasmuch as it is of
a spiritual nature in opposition to the earthly habitation (/caTot/c^-nf-
piov ytfivov), from which the whole simile is borrowed. (Ver. 21.
The f] and -rrdaa is wanting in B.D.E.G., it is, therefore, no doubt to
be erased. But -rrdaa okotfop? must not be rendered " every build-
ing," since mention is made here of the one Temple only, but " the
whole building." In later Greek nag often has the meaning totus
even without the article. [See generally on the use of Tra? Winer's
Gr. 18, 4, and Harless on this passage.] Swappohoyeiv is found
again only at iv. 16. It = avfiftipti&iv, and refers to the firmness of
the building, in which the various personages and opinions [iv. 16]
are put together. The form ot5|w, instead of the usual avgdvu, is
found nowhere else in the New Testament but Col. ii. 19. Ver. 22.
On account of iv o>, which precedes, iv -nvevaari cannot be con-
nected with ovvoiKoSopelode, but only with the collective idea KaroiKr)-
Tijpiov TOV Qsov. Harless chooses to take iv nvevfj.aTt " in the Holy
Ghost ;" but against this are : 1, the preceding iv <5, i. e., iv nvpiu ;
2, the rov Qeov. Paul certainly says %apd, dyd^ iv TrvevpctTi, but he
does not, and cannot, say : Qeog iv TrvevpaTi, because the Spirit itself
is God. 'Ev TTvevnan forms here the antithesis with iv aapni, with a
reference to the vabg xeipoTroirjTos.)
Chap. iii. 1. To this description of the glory of the church Paul
meant now to add only a prayer, in which he beseeches God to real-
ize in his readers all that belongs to the idea of the church, in order
with it to close entirely this general part of his epistle ; but he
allows himself by the liveliness of his feelings to be once more
led into a discussion, so that he does not till ver. 14 resume
the discourse begun in ver. 1. There has been indeed no want of
attempts to avoid the assumption of an anacoluthon in ver. 1, by
proposing to make ver. 1 an independent proposition, and supply
the verb which is wanting. Some MSS., particularly, D.E., supply
TTpea/3ev(,) : which may be supposed to have come into the text from
vi. 20, others Ke/tavxijpat, perhaps after Phil. ii. 16. Most interpre-
ters, who are against the anacoluthon, content themselves with sup-
plying dpi. But, to say nothing of the difficulty caused by the
TOVTOV %dpiv on this assumption, the article must then necessarily
have been wanting before dea/wo?. But, if we suppose a digression
in ver. 2, Paul cannot possibly resume the discourse in ver. 8, or ver.
13, or even iv. 1, as many have thought, but only, as all the better
later interpreters assume, in ver. 14, where the TOVTOV %dptv ex-
pressly marks the resumption of the discourse. Thus the thanks-
giving prayer in ver. 14, seq., is brought into connexion with the
description of the church in ii. 19, seq., in the glory of which the
Gentiles also have a share, and the TOVTOV %dpiv appears, therefore,
in well-founded connexion. . But Paul makes mention of his bonds
80 EPHESIANS III. 2, 3.
here in order, we may suppose, to allow the glory just described to
appear in stronger contrast with the then existing state of the church,
and especially to make the Gentiles observe, by what sacrifices on
his part their entrance into the church had been purchased. Con-
sidered in itself, we might here take vrrep v^v TWV tdv&v "for
your sake, i. e., because I have preached to the Gentiles." But if
we compare verse 13, and especially the decisive parallel passage
Col. i. 24, it results that here too the words are to be taken, " for
your benefit :" in what sense this is more particularly to be under-
stood will be found determined at Col. i. 24 more in detail. (We
find at iv. 1 6 deojuog iv Kuptw for 6 6eopios rov Xpiarov 'ITJOOV. The
genitive here is to be taken as a designation of the active cause,
" whom Christ and his cause have made a prisoner, and that too
unto salvation for you, the Gentiles, i. e., for the whole body of Gen-
tiles," as in Philem., verse 13, deofioi rov evayyeAtov, bonds of the
gospel, denote bonds, which the gospel has brought.)
Vers. 2, 3. The expression which follows, and with which the
digression extending to verse 13 begins, shews the uncertainty of
Paul as to whether all his readers were acquainted with him person-
ally. This explains the naming his name in verse 1, and the picture
of his then existing state, and this very uncertainty was also the oc-
casion for Paul in what follows again to expatiate on his position
with regard to the gospel and his mode of apprehending it, with
reference to the main point of the calling of the Gentiles for the
kingdom of God, before resuming at ver. 14 the main thread of his
discourse. Paul does not name his apostolical office in general, as
that in regard to his readers' knowledge of which he shews himself
uncertain, but the dispensation of the grace of God, that to him was
made known the mystery of the redemption by immediate revelation
and with special reference to the Gentiles. The subordinate clause
on Kara drro/caAvi/Jtv, K. r. A., defines, that is to say, the idea of the
chief clause elye fjKovoare rrjv oiicovopiav TTJ<; %dpiro$ r. 9., K. r. A., more
accurately. (Ver. 2. See on eiye and its relation to einep the remarks
in the Comm. on Bom. viii. 9 ; 2 Cor. v. 3 ; Gal. iii. 4. Elye here
contains the idea of pre-supposition in itself : " that is to say, if you,
as I may suppose, have heard." On olxovofiia, see at i. 10. It can-
not here, as at 1 Cor. ix. 17 ; Col. i. 25, mean " the apostolical
office," as people have been misled by the latter parallel passage to
assume also here ; on the contrary, the reference to the office hero
is couched in the #apt$- rov 6eov, as the addition rfjg doBeiaw poi el?
vfiag shews, while Col. i. 25 relates to olKovopia. The oitcovofiia here
denotes only the way in which the office came to Paul, viz., Kara
dTTOKdkmjjiv. In ver. 7 Kara rijv dupeav rrfc ^aptrof, K. r. A., stands
together in the same way, and in verse 8 Paul himself explains
the grace, of his apostolical call to preach to the Gentiles. EZ? uuof
EPHESIANS III. 4, 5. 81
marks again the special reference to the Gentiles for whom Paul
was especially called. (Ver. 3. The d-rroicdkvijjis relates, of course, to
the occurrence at Damascus, Acts ix. Instead of the reading of the
teoct. rec. tyvupioe, which was doubtless put in the text only on ac-
count of tyvupiadr] which follows in verse 5, we must read t-yvw-
piadr] on the authority of A.B.C.D.F.G., and with all the better
critics and interpreters.)
Ver. 4. In a subordinate clause, which, however, need not be,
with Griesbacb, exactly put in brackets, Paul appeals, with respect
to the mystery of Christ, which is imparted to him by revelation, to
his own earlier communications to them, from which they might un-
derstand his knowledge in the mystery of Christ. This idea exhibits
the striking feature that Paul seems by it to set up his readers as
judges over him ; they are to judge of his knowledge in the gospel
from his communications to them ; it should seem that they, on the
contrary, would first be obliged to learn of him what the mystery of
Christ is. But Paul conceives them to himself as endowed with the
Holy Ghost, and through him the gift of the dtdttpimg TrvevpaTuv,
discerning of spirits, and thus the idea is merely this : " the Spirit
in you will testify to you that my representation of the gospel is the
true one." But Paul would certainly not have made that remark,
had not there been persons, who denied him the true understanding
in the mystery of Christ (ovveaig iv ru> fivorrj^i^ rov Xpiarov'), and of
whom it was supposed that they would sooner or later also appear
against him in the churches to whom this epistle is addressed. (On
icadug see i. 4. The reference of Trpoe-yparfa to an earlier epistle is
quite inadmissible ; the expression is only to be referred to the pre-
vious declarations of Paul in this very epistle. Paul scarcely has in
mind any particular passage ; he has the epistle up to that point be-
fore his eyes, which already sufficed to make his readers conscious
of the apostolical spirit which animated him. ITpof o " according to
which, in consequence of which." The dvayivuoKovreg places wholly
out of the question any viva voce expositions whatever ; it is to be
referred immediately to the public reading of the epistle in the con-
gregations. The avvemg is here the gnosis in its more defined, as it
were, scientific form. See the remarks on i. 8.)
Ver. 5. Paul does not mean in the words which follow to ex-
plain why he calls this decree of God a ^var^piov , mystery, as is
Meyer's opinion, but to place the apostolical form of revelation as
the higher one in comparison with all previous ones. The decree of
God in Christ is called a nvorripiov only inasmuch as it cannot be
known from human power, but only by means of Divine revelation.
Stress must, therefore, be laid on the &>g v v v a-KtuakvfyQ'r}, as it is
now revealed, to which an ot>% o v r w f Kyvugiodri, as an antithesis, is
to be understood. (The o is connected with the pvorr/piov immedi-
VOL. V. 6
82 EPHESIANS III. 6.
ately preceding, not with that in verse 3, which would be requisite
if a parenthesis were supposed. " Sons of men" is a general desig-
nation of men as such ; Paul doubtless thought especially of the
Prophets of the Old Testament, but he seems designedly to conceive
the idea in quite a general way ; " the mystery has not been made
known to men in general, wherever they may have been and when-
ever they may have lived, as it is now revealed to the prophets."
Term denotes here age, generation. The EV is rejected by the MSS.
with an overwhelming majority. The dative is usual in definite
statements of time. See Winer's Gr. 31, 9. On the juxtaposition
of drro(rroAot nal Trpwffirai see at ii. 20. The avrov here added, which
refers to God, is certainly genuine, since the omission of it is easily
explained by ii. 20. But it is undoubtedly singular, that Paul here
calls the apostles, and consequently himself along with them, "holy
apostles." De Wette indeed goes too far in finding in this a mark of
the non-apostolical origin of the epistle ; but still the expression is
unusual. I explain it to myself by the fact that Paul here conceives
the apostles and prophets as a collective body [see iv. 11], and
gives them as such, therefore, in their official character, the predi-
cate dyiog, just as he calls the faithful, considered as a body, aytot,
or rjyiaonKvoi, but never an individual. The connexion of dyiotc; with
KV TTVEvfiari, which Meier proposes, is utterly to be rejected ; iv TTVSV-
fw.Ti is undoubtedly to be taken as more exactly determining a
Ver. 6. That now in which Paul finds the progress in the
revelation of the mystery of Christ, as it was imparted to the apos-
tles and prophets, is again the calling of the Gentiles along with
the Jews through the gospel. But this certainly seems to have
been already clearly taught in the Old Testament also (see Isaiah
Iv. 5, Ix. 3, seq., 10, seq. ; Jerem. iii. 16, seq.), and thus everything
specific in the revelation in the New Testament to be lost ! But in
the Old Testament just that point, which was the decisive one in
regard to the question as to the relation of the Gentiles to the
Church, and which Paul had to defend against the Jewish Christ-
ians, was not discussed ; the Gentiles were, it is true, represented
in the Old Testament as called to the kingdom of the Messiah, but
without any clear information on the point that they would enter
it immediately, not through the medium of circumcision and of the
ceremonial law. The universal character of Christianity was first
completed by enlightenment on that decisive point. The apostles
officially recognized that great truth under the illumination of the
Holy Ghost (Acts xv.) ; but Paul was called more than the rest to
translate it into life, and to defend it against all gainsayers. (The
infinitive elvai connects itself with what precedes as denoting not
purpose, but only the explanation, " that is* to say that the Gentiles
EPHESIANS III. 7-9. 83
are to be, etc." We have already had ovyK^ovo/iiog, i. 14.*
jwt/f we may suppose was invented by Paul himself ; it is found in
ecclesiastical writers alone, who borrowed the word probably from
Paul's epistles. tipp6rogog is found also in v. 7. There is no cli-
max in the words ; rather the former expression seems only more
accurately defined by the two later ones ; but, the repetition of
ovv seems meant to put the leading idea in a clear light. Lachmann
has stricken out the avrov before KV TGJ Xptarui on the authority of
A.B.C.D. We scarcely see, however, who would have added it if it
were originally wanting in the text, whilst we can understand how
it might easily have been omitted by copyists.)
Vers. 7, 8. The apostle represents himself, then, as a servant of
this gospel, according to the grace bestowed on him to preach the
gospel to the Gentiles, but designates himself in his humility, not-
withstanding the grandeur of his call, as the least of all the saints,
(thus not merely of the holy apostles but of all saints,) with refer-
ence to his former persecution of the church of the Lord before his
conversion. (Ver. 7. Compare Col. i. 23, 25 as a parallel passage.
On dwpea rrjg ^aptrof see at ver 2. Ver. 8 explains more in detail
what the %dpig consists in, viz., in the authority to preach the gospel
among the Gentiles. Trjgdodeiaw is, after Griesbachand Lachmann,
to be justly preferred to the reading of the text. rec. rrjv <5o6eloav, as
the %dpig, not the dojpea, denotes the office. On the combination ev-
epyeiav rrjg 6v vd^ec^g, see i. 19. The mention of the power of God is
founded on the circumstance that Paul sees in his change of heart
from a foe to a friend of Christ an act of omnipotence. So rightly
Calvin, on this passage : doinini est homines nihili extollere ; hsec
est potentiae ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid efficere.
Ver. 8. The designation of himself by Paul as l^axiororepo^ navruv
dyiw } least of all saints, is no false modesty. He was well aware
on the other hand [1 Cor. xv. 9, 10] that he had laboured more than
they all ; but that he ascribed to the grace of God alone ; himself
he knew only in his wretchedness. On the comparative form of the
superlative, see Winer's Gr. 11. 2, and Wetstein, ad h. 1. 'Avegi-
yviaoTo<; is found again at Bom. xi. 33. On TO nkovTog see at ii. 7.)
Ver. 9. But Paul's task as the preacher of the gospel is further
also to enlighten all men as to the institution of the mystery of re-
demption which was hidden in God from eternity and revealed in
Christ. The Kal (f>uriaai ndvra^, and to enlighten all, cannot as
Meier explains, serve merely to determine more closely the KV rol<;
ZOveaiv evayyekioaadat,, publish the gospel among the Gentiles, which
precedes, but is a fresh idea. Primarily, indeed, Paul has the task
of preaching among the Gentiles, but then also that of enlightening
all men on the mystery of Christ, as in fact also, according to the
* It ia not there. It is found Rom. viii. 17. [K.
84 EPHESIANS III. 10.
testimony of the Acts, he always offered the gospel to the Jews
first. Of course, however, the Quriocu -ndvrcu; is to be understood not
of the actual result, but of the tendency of the office, so that what
Paul himself could not execute remained for his successors to do.
Further, there is no occasion here to maintain in okovopa rov nvorypiov
a reference to the calling of the Gentiles to the kingdom of God, to
which idea doubtless the reading noivuvca owes its origin. In vers.
18, 19, Paul himself explains the expression TI'J- -fj olKavopia. It
denotes merely the riches of Divine grace which are revealed in
the institution of redemption through Christ. This mystery, how-
ever, is designated as hidden in God from eternity in order to con-
trast the present in the vvv, as the time of the revelation, with the
past. But the object of the addition, rw rd -ndvra Krioav-t, who cre-
ated all things, is the most difficult thing to explain in this passage.
For that the reading Sid 'l-rjaov Xptarov, which is wanting in all the
better MSS., is not genuine, may be considered as decidedly certain
as the interpretation of the words of the physical, not of the spiritual
creation of the new birth, in conformity with the striking remarks of
Harless ad h. 1. Usteri and Meier have again recommended the
latter acceptation of the words in addition to Calvin, Calixtus, and
others. But both the aorist of the participle and the rd -ndvra, all
things, require the reference of the words to the creation generally.
But for what purpose does Paul here exalt the creative energy of
God ? In order, we may suppose, to make it observed that the in-
stitution of the redemption in Christ himself is a creative act of God,
and could emanate from him only who has made all things ; the
Creator alone could also be the Redeemer. (On fyuri&iv see at i.
18. A.B.C.D.E.F.G. and other important critical authorities read
olKovojj,ia, so that there can be no question whatever as to the decis-
ion for it and against noivuvia. In addition to dtib TOJV aiuvuv =
tY'**, G" en - vi. 4, F.G. read also nal drrb rtiv yevetiv. But this addi-
tion is quite incongruous, for it points to the historical development
of humanity ; while Paul intends, as the iv TU> 0u> shews, to speak
of absolute eternity, of the decree of redemption as God conceived
it in his eternal being, which in the following verse is called KpoOeoi?
T&V alb)VG)V.
Ver. 10. The following idea is clear, it is true, when taken lit-
erally, but it contains a difficulty, partly in itself, partly in the con-