SECTION II.—Vs. 14-21.
14. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15. of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16. that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17. that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith: that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18. may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19. and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21. unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
ANALYSIS.
The prayer of the apostle is addressed to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also in him our Father. He offers but one petition, viz. that his readers might be strengthened by the Holy Ghost in the inner man; or that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith. The consequence of this would be, that they would be confirmed in love, and thus enabled in some measure to comprehend the infinite love of Christ, which would enlarge their capacity unto the fulness of God; that is, ultimately render them, in their measure, as full of holiness and blessedness, as God is in his.
V. 14. This verse resumes the connection interrupted in verse 1st. The prayer which the apostle there commenced, he here begins anew. For this cause, tou'tou cha'rin, repeated from v. 1, and therefore the connection is the same here as there, i. e. because you Ephesians are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ. I bow my knees. The posture of prayer, for prayer itself. Unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.1 The peculiar Christian designation of God, as expressing the covenant relation in which he stands to believers. It is because he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our incarnate God and Saviour, that he is our Father, and accessible to us in prayer. We can approach him acceptably in no other character than as the God who sent the Lord Jesus to be our propitiation and mediator. It is therefore by faith in him as reconciled, that we address him as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
V. 15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. The word patria is a collective term for the descendants of the same father, immediate or remote. In Luke 2, 4, we read of the house and family of David, and in Acts 3, 25, of all the families of the earth. The most important question here is, whether pasa patria is to be rendered every family, or, the whole family. In favour of the latter are the considerations that the omission of the article, which usage doubtless demands, is not unfrequent where either the substantive has acquired the character of a proper name, or where the context is so clear as to prevent mistake. (See Winer's Gram. p. 131.) And secondly, the sense is better suited to the whole context. If Paul intended to refer to the various orders of angels, and the various classes of men, as must be his meaning if pasa patria is rendered every family, then he contemplates God as the universal Father, and all rational creatures as his children. But the whole drift of the passage shows that it is not God in his relation as creator, but God in his relation as a spiritual father—who is here contemplated. He is addressed as the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," and therefore our Father. It is plain therefore that those who are here contemplated as children, are those who are by Jesus Christ brought into this relation to God. Consequently the word patria cannot include any but the subjects of redemption. The whole family in heaven therefore cannot mean the angels, but the redeemed already saved, and the family on earth, the company of believers still living.
As children derive their name from their father and their relation to him is thereby determined, so the apostle says, the whole family of God derive their name from him and are known and recognized as his children.
V. 16. This verse contains the apostle's prayer in behalf of the Ephesians. He prays that God, according to the riches of his glory, would strengthen them with might by his Spirit in the inner man.
The riches of his glory, ploutos tes do'xes, means the plenitude of divine perfection. It is not his power to the exclusion of his mercy, nor his mercy to the exclusion of his power, but it is every thing in God that renders him glorious, the proper object of adoration. The apostle prays that God would deal with his people according to that plenitude of grace and power, which constitutes his glory and makes him to his creatures the source of all good.
duna'mei krataiothenai. Duna'mei may be rendered adverbially, "powerfully strengthened," or it may be rendered as to power, indicating the principle which was to be confirmed or strengthened; or, "with power," as expressing the gift to be communicated. They were to receive power communicated through the Holy Spirit. This is to be preferred, because the subject of this invigorating influence is not any one principle, but the whole " inner man."
There are two interpretations of the phrase krataiothenai eis to`n e'so a'nthropon, to be strengthened as to the inner man, the choice between which must depend on the analogy of Scripture. According to one theory of human nature, the higher powers of the soul, the reason, the mind, the spirit, the inner man, retain their integrity since the fall, but in themselves are too weak to gain the victory over the animal or lower principles of our nature, designated as the flesh, or outward man. There is a perpetual struggle, even before regeneration, between the good and evil principles in man, between the reason, or pneuma, and the flesh, or sarx. The former being the weaker needs to be strengthened by the divine Spirit. "The inner man," says Meyer, " is the nous, the rational moral Ego, the rational soul of man which harmonizes with the divine will, but needs to be strengthened by the Spirit of God (duna'mei krataiothe?nai dia` tou pneu'matos), in order not to be overcome by the sinful lusts of the sarx, whose animating or life principle is the psuche, the animal soul." This is the theory of semi-Pelagianism, embodied and developed in the theology of the church of Rome. The opposite, or Augustinian theory, adopted by the Lutheran and Reformed churches, is that of total depravity, i. e. that the whole soul, the higher, as well as lower powers of our nature, are the seat and subject of original sin, and that the natural man is thereby disabled and made opposite to all spiritual good. Consequently the conflict of which the Scriptures speak is not between the higher and lower powers of our nature,—but between nature and what is not nature, between the old and new man. The new principle is something supernatural communicated by the Spirit of God. The classical passages of Scripture relating to this subject, are Rom. 7, 14-25. 1 Cor. 2, 14. 15. Gal. 5, 17-26. In none of these passages does pneuma designate the reason as opposed to the sensual principle, but the Spirit of God as dwelling in the renewed soul and giving it its own character, and therefore also its own name. It is the soul as the subject of divine influence, or as the dwelling place of the Holy Ghost, that is called Spirit. By the "inner man," therefore, in this passage is not to be understood the soul as opposed to the body, or the rational, as distinguished from the sensual principle; but the interior principle of spiritual life, the product of the almighty power of the Spirit of God—as is clearly taught in ch. 1, 19 of this epistle. Even in 2 Cor. 4, 16, where the apostle says: "Though our outward man perish, our inward man is renewed day by day," the meaning is the same. That language could not be used of an unrenewed man. It does not mean simply that though the body was wasted, the mind was constantly refreshed. The inner man that was renewed day by day was the renewed or spiritual man; the soul as the organ and temple of the Spirit of God.
V. 17. That Christ may dwell in yours hearts by faith, katoikesai to`n Christo`n dia` tes pi'steos en tais kardi'ais umon. Christ dwells in his people—he dwells in their hearts; he dwells in them through faith. These are the truths contained in this passage.
As to the first, viz. the indwelling of Christ, it does not differ from what is expressed in the preceding verse, further than as indicating the source or nature of that spiritual strength of which that verse speaks. When Paul prayed that his readers might be strengthened in the inner man, he prayed that Christ might dwell in. them. The omnipresent and infinite God is said to dwell wherever he specially and permanently manifests his presence. Thus he is said to dwell in heaven, Ps. 123, 1; to dwell among the children of Israel, Numb. 35, 34; in Zion, Ps. 9, 11; with him that is of an humble and contrite spirit, Is. 57, 11; and in his people, 2 Cor. 6, 16. Sometimes it is God who is said to dwell in the hearts of his people, sometimes the Spirit of God, sometimes, as in Rom. 8, 9, it is the Spirit of Christ; and sometimes, as Rom. 8, 10, and in the passage before us, it is Christ himself. These varying modes of expression find their solution in the doctrine of the Trinity. In virtue of the unity of the divine substance, he that had seen the Son, hath seen the Father also; he that hath the Son hath the Father; where the Spirit of God is, there God is; and where the Spirit of Christ is, there Christ is. The passage in Rom. 8, 9. 10 is specially instructive. The apostle there says, "The Spirit of God dwelleth in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; and if Christ be in you, &c." From this it is plain that Christ's being in us, means that we have his Spirit; and to have his Spirit means that the Spirit of God dwells in us. When, therefore, the apostle speaks of Christ dwelling in our hearts, he refers to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, for Christ dwells in his people by his Spirit. They thus become partakers of his life, so that it is Christ that liveth in them, Gal. 2, 20. This is the true and abiding source of spiritual strength and of all other manifestations of the divine life.
Christ is said to dwell in en tais kardi'ais, the hearts of his people. The two common figurative senses of the word heart in Scripture, are, the feelings as distinguished from the understanding, and the whole soul, including the intellect and affections. It is in this latter sense the Scriptures speak of an understanding heart, 1 Kings 3, 9. 12. Prov. 8, 5; and of the thoughts, devices and counsels of the heart. Judges 5, 15. Prov. 19, 21; 20, 5. According to the Bible religion is not a form of feeling to the exclusion of the intellect, nor a form of knowledge to the exclusion of the feelings. Christ dwells in the heart, in the comprehensive sense of the word. He is the source of spiritual life to the whole soul; of spiritual knowledge as well as of spiritual affections.
By faith, dia` tes pi'steos, by means of faith. There are two essential conditions of this indwelling of Christ; a rational nature, and, so far as adults are concerned, faith. The former is necessarily presupposed in all communion with God. But it is not with every rational nature that God enters into fellowship. The indwelling of Christ includes more than the communion of spirit with spirit. It implies congeniality. This faith produces or involves; because it includes spiritual apprehension—the perception of the truth and excellence of "the things of the Spirit;" and because it works by love; it manifests itself in the exercise of complacency, desire and delight. The most beautiful object might be in the apartment of a blind man, and he not be sensible of its presence; or if by any means made aware of its nearness, he could have no delight in its beauty. Christ dwells in us by faith, because it is by faith we perceive his presence, his excellence, and his glory, and because it is by faith we appropriate and reciprocate the manifestations of his love. Faith is to this spiritual communion, what esteem and affection are to the fellowships of domestic life.
V. 18. The construction of the clause, en aga'pe errizome'noi kai` tethemeliome'noi i'na, ktl., is a matter of doubt. By many of the older and later commentators, it is connected with the preceding clause. The sense would then be: That thus Christ may dwell in the hearts of you, en tais kardi'ais umon, errhizome'noi, rooted and grounded in love.' This supposes the grammatical construction to be irregular, as errhiz does not agree with umon. The only reason urged for this interpretation is, that as Paul contemplates his readers as regenerated, he could not pray that Christ should dwell in their hearts, for such indwelling is inseparable from the new-birth which they already enjoyed. To pray for the indwelling of Christ would be to pray for their regeneration. The inward sense, therefore, despite the grammatical form of the words, requires such a construction as shall harmonize with that idea. Paul prays, not that Christ may dwell in their hearts, but that he may dwell in their hearts as confirmed in love. It is not, therefore, for the indwelling of Christ, but for their confirmation in love, for which he prays. There does not seem to be much force in this reasoning. The indwelling of Christ, is a thing of degrees. God manifests himself more fully and uniformly in the hearts of his people at one time than at another. Any Christian may pray for the presence of God, and what is his indwelling but the manifestation of his presence? The majority of commentators, therefore, assuming merely a trajection of the particle?i'na (comp. Acts 19, 4. Gal. 2, 10. 2 Thess. 2, 7), connect the clause in question with what follows; in order that, being rooted and grounded in love, ye may understand, &c. The effect of the inward strengthening by the Spirit, or of the indwelling of Christ, is this confirmation of love; and the effect of the confirmation of love, is ability to comprehend (in our measure) the love of Christ.
The love in which we are to be rooted is not the love of God or of Christ toward us, but either brotherly love or love as a Christian grace without determining its object. It is that love which flows from faith, and of which both God and the brethren are the objects. It is for the increase and ascendency of this grace through the indwelling of Christ, till it sustains and strengthens the whole inner man, so that the believer may stand as a well-rooted tree or as a well-founded building, that the apostle here prays.
exischu'sete katalabe'sthai, may be fully able (as the ek is intensive) to comprehend. Without being strengthened by the Spirit in the inner man, without the indwelling of Christ, without being rooted and grounded in love, it is impossible to have any adequate apprehension of the gospel or of the love of Christ therein revealed. The apostle therefore prays that his readers may be thus strengthened, in order that, with all saints, they may be able to comprehend the truth of which he speaks. The knowledge in question is peculiar to the holy, i. e. the saints. It is a spiritual knowledge, both because of its origin and of its nature. It is derived from the Spirit, and it consists in those views which none but the spiritual can experience. The object of this knowledge is infinite. "It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea?" Job 11, 8. 9. This language is used to express the infinitude of God. The apostle employs a similar mode of representation to indicate the boundless nature of the object of the believer's knowledge. To know what is infinite, and which therefore passes knowledge, can only mean to have some due appreciation of its nature, and of the fact that it is infinite. It is only thus that we can know space, immensity, eternity or God. Paul therefore would have us understand that the subject of which he speaks has a length and breadth, a depth and height, which pass all understanding. But what is this immeasurable theme? The answers given to this question are too numerous to be detailed. The main point is, whether the additional particular indicated by te, in the phrase gnonai te, is to be sought in the difference between katalabe'sthai and gnonai (between comprehending and knowing), or in the difference of the objects. In the former case, the sense of the passage would be: 'That ye may comprehend and know the length and breadth, the depth and height of the love of Christ which passes knowledge.' Just as we would say, That ye may know and feel.' In knowing, according to Scriptural usage, the idea of experimental knowledge, or knowledge united with appropriate feeling, may well be included. This is the simpler explanation and gives a very good sense. According to the other view, the meaning is: That ye may comprehend the length and breadth, the depth and height of—and also know the love of Christ;' something different from the love of Christ, being the object intended in the first clause. The great body of commentators, who adopt this view, suppose the reference is to the economy of redemption spoken of in v. 9. Paul prays that his hearers may comprehend the immensity of that plan of mercy, and know the love of Christ. Others refer to the manifold wisdom displayed in the salvation of men. Others to the unsearchable riches of Christ. All these subjects are indeed spoken of in the preceding context; but not in the prayer. At v. 14, there is such a change of the subject and in the progress of the discourse, as to make it harsh to go back of that verse to seek for an object. It is more natural to look for it in the following clause, where one is found which makes further search unnecessary. It is the love of Christ, i. e. his love to us which passes knowledge. It is infinite; not only because it inheres in an infinite subject, but because the condescension and sufferings to which it led, and the blessings which it secures for its objects, are beyond our comprehension. This love of Christ, though it surpasses the power of our understanding to comprehend, is still a subject of experimental knowledge. We may know how excellent, how wonderful, how free, how disinterested, how long-suffering, how manifold and constant, it is, and that it is infinite. And this is the highest and most sanctifying of all knowledge. Those who thus know the love of Christ towards them, purify themselves even as he is pure.
That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. The words, eis pan to` ple'roma tou Theou, are not properly translated, with all the fulness of God; but unto the complete fulness of God. That is the standard which is to be reached. Ple'roma may have its ordinary signification, that by which any thing is filled,'—or its secondary meaning, abundance, as we would say, the fulness of a stream.' If the latter sense of the word be retained, Theou is the genitive of the object,—and the fulness of God' is that fulness, or plenitude which flows from him, and which he communicates. If the former and ordinary sense be adhered to, then Theou is the genitive of the subject, and the fulness of God' is that fulness of which God is full. It is the plenitude of the divine perfection, as in Col. 2, 9, where the fulness of the Godhead is said to dwell in Christ bodily. The majority of commentators take the phrase here in the same general sense. The fulness of God is that excellence, says Chrysostom, of which God himself is full. The expression is then parallel to that in Matt. 5, 48, "Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." And the truth presented is the same substantially as that in Eph. 4, 13, "Until we all come—unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;" and 1 Cor. 13, 12, "Then shall I know even as also I am known." Absolute perfection is the standard to which the believer is to attain. He is predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son of God, Rom. 8, 29. He is to be perfect as man, as God is perfect as God; and the perfection of man consists in his being full of God; God dwelling in him so as absolutely to control all his cognitions, feelings, and outward actions. This is expressed in Theodoret's interpretation of the phrase in question:?i'na teleios auton enoikon dexesthe.
If, however, the other view be adopted the result is nearly the same. "The fulness of God," is then the abundance of gifts and grace which flows from God; and the meaning of the whole clause is: That ye may be filled until the whole plenitude of the divine beneficence has passed over to you.' The end contemplated is the reception of the donorum plenitudo, or the donorum Dei perfectio. "He who has Christ," says Calvin, "' has every thing that is required to our perfection in God, for this is what is meant by the fulness of God."
In favour, however, of the former view is the ordinary meaning of the word pleroma, the meaning of the phrase fulness of God, in other passages, the analogy of Scripture as exhibited in the parallel passages above quoted, and the simplicity of the interpretation, no paraphrase being necessary to bring out the sense. We are to grow to the stature of Christ; to be perfect as our Father is perfect; to be filled unto the measure of the fulness of God. When we are thus filled the distance between us and God will still be infinite. This is the culminating point of the apostle's prayer. He prays that they may be strengthened in order to comprehend the infinite love of Christ; and that they might comprehend the love of Christ, in order that they might be filled unto the measure of God's fulness.
Vs. 20, 21. Paul's prayer had apparently reached a height beyond which neither faith, nor hope, nor even imagination could go, and yet he is not satisfied. An immensity still lay beyond. God was able to do not only what he had asked, but infinitely more than he knew how either to ask or think. Having exhausted all the forms of prayer, he casts himself on the infinitude of God, in full confidence that he can and will do all that omnipotence itself can effect. His power, not our prayers nor our highest conceptions, is the measure of the apostle's anticipations and desires. This idea he weaves into a doxology, which has in it more of heaven than of earth.
There are two forms of expression here united; Paul says, to upe`r pa'nta poiesai du'nameno, to him who is able to do more than, all things; and as though this were not enough, he adds, uper ekperissou hon aitou'metha e` nooumen, exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think. God is not only unlimited in himself, but is unrestricted by our prayers or knowledge. No definite bounds, therefore, can be set to what they may expect in whom, Christ dwells, and who are the objects of his infinite love.
Kata` te`n du'namin te`n energoume'nen en emin, according to the power that worketh in us. The infinite power of God from which so much may be expected, is the same of which we are now the subjects. It is that power which wrought in Christ when it raised him from the dead, and set him at the right hand of God, ch. 1, 19-20; and which has wrought an analogous change in the believer in raising him from the death of sin, and making him to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; and which still sustains and carries on the work of salvation in the soul. The past is a foretaste and pledge of the future. Those who have been raised from the dead, who have been transformed by the renewing of their minds, translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son, and in whom God himself dwells by his Spirit, having already experienced a change which nothing but omnipotence could effect, may well join in the doxology to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all we can ask or think.
The glory; e do'xa is either the glory that is due, or the glory which God has. To give glory to God, is either to praise him, or to reveal his glory, i. e. cause it to be seen and acknowledged. Thus the doxology, To Him be glory—may mean either, Let Him be praised;' or, Let His glory be acknowledged.'
In the church by Christ Jesus.2 The original is, en te ekklesi'a kai` en Christo Iesou, which Luther renders, in the church which is in Christ, i. e. the Christian church. This interpretation is adopted by several modern commentators. But in that case the article te before en Christo. ought not to be omitted. Besides, as the Christian church is the only church which could be thought of, the addition of the words in Christ would be unnecessary. The ordinary interpretation, therefore, is to be preferred. Glory is to be rendered to God in the church, and in and through Christ Jesus, as her head and representative. The church is the company of the redeemed here and in heaven; which constitutes one body through which God is to manifest his manifold wisdom, and which is through all ages to ascribe unto him glory, honour, and dominion.
The idea of eternity or of endless duration is variously expressed in Scripture. Sometimes eternity is conceived of as one, and the singular aion is used; sometimes as an endless succession of periods or ages, and then the plural aiones is used. Thus eis ton aiona, to eternity, and eis tous aionas, or eis tous aionas ton aionon, to the ages indefinitely, i. e. endless ages, alike mean, for ever. So basileus tou aionos, king of eternity, and basileus ton aionon, king of endless ages, both mean the king eternal. The peculiarity of the case before us is, that the apostle combines these two forms: eis pa'sas ta`s genea`s tou aionos ton aio'non, to all the generations of an eternity of ages. This is in keeping with the cumulative character of the whole context. Finding no ordinary forms of expression suited to his demands, the apostle heaps together terms of the largest import to give some vent to thoughts and aspirations which he felt to be unutterable. These things belong to the stenagmoi alaletoi of which he speaks in Rom. 8, 26.
CHAPTER IV.
AN EXHORTATION TO UNITY, VS. 1-16.—AN EXHORTATION TO HOLINESS AND TO SPECIFIC VIRTUES, VS. 17-32.
SECTION I.—Vs. 1-16.
1. I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2. with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love;
3. endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. one God and Father of all, who is above 7. all, and through all, and in you all.
7. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12. for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ;
13. till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14. that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive:
15. but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16. from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body untc the edifying of itself in love.
ANALYSIS.
The apostle exhorts his readers to walk worthy of their vocation. Such a walk should be characterized by humility, meekness, long-suffering, and zeal to promote spiritual unity and peace, vs. 1-3. The church is one because it is one body, has one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father who is over, through, and in all its members, vs. 4-6. This unity, however, is consistent with great diversity of gifts, which Christ distributes according to his own will, v. 7. This is confirmed by a passage from the Psalms which speaks of the Messiah as giving gifts to men; which passage it is shown must refer to Christ, since it speaks of a divine person ascending to heaven, which necessarily implies a preceding descent to the earth, vs. 9-10. The gifts which Christ bestows on his church are the various classes of ministers, apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors who are teachers. v. 11. The design of the ministry is the edification of the church, and to bring all its members to unity of faith and knowledge, and to the full stature of Christ; that they should no longer have the instability of children, but be a firm, compact, and growing body in living union with Christ its head, vs. 12-16.
V. 1. Parakalo oun umas ego` o de'smios en Kuri'o. The exhortation is a general one; it flows from the preceding doctrines, and is enforced by the authority, and the sufferings of him who gave it. As you are partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, "I therefore beseech you." I the prisoner, not of, but in the Lord, en Kuri'o. He was a prisoner because he was in the Lord and for his sake. It was as a Christian and in the cause of Christ he suffered bonds. Compare the frequently occurring expressions, sunergos en Christo, agapetos en Kurio, dokimos en Christo, eklektos en Kurio. He speaks as a prisoner not to excite sympathy, not merely to add weight to his exhortation, but rather as exulting that he was counted worthy to suffer for Christ's sake. This is in accordance with the beautiful remark of Theodoret: tois dia ton Christon desmois enabrunetai mallon e basileus diademati, he glories in his chains more than a king in his diadem. I, the martyr Paul, the crowned apostle, exhort you,' &c. All is thus in keeping with the elevated tone of feeling which marks the preceding passage.
The exhortation is, axi'os peripatesai tes kle'seos hes ekle'thete, to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they were called. That vocation was to sonship; ch. 1, 5. This includes three things—holiness, exaltation, and unity. They were called to be conformed to the image of Christ, to share in his exaltation and glory, and to constitute one family as all are the children of God. A conversation becoming such a vocation, therefore, should be characterized by holiness, humility, and mutual forbearance and brotherly love. The apostle, therefore, immediately adds, with all lowliness and meekness. Undeserved honour always produces these effects upon the ingenuous. To be raised from the depths of degradation and misery and made the sons of God, and thus exalted to an inconceivable elevation and dignity, does and must produce humility and meekness. Where these effects are not found, we may conclude the exaltation has not taken place. Lowliness of mind, tapeinophrosu'nes, includes a low estimate of one's self, founded on the consciousness of guilt and weakness, and a consequent disposition to be low, unnoticed, and unpraised. It stands opposed not only to self-complacency and self-conceit, but also to self-exaltation, and setting one's self up to attract the honour which comes from men. This is taught in Rom. 12, 16, where ta` upsela` phronountes, seeking high things, is opposed to the lowliness of mind here inculcated. There is a natural connection between humility and meekness, and therefore they are here jcined together as in so many other places. Praotes is softness, mildness, gentleness, which when united with strength, is one of the loveliest attributes of our nature. The blessed Saviour says of himself, "I am meek (praos) and lowly in heart," Matt. 11, 29; and the apostle speaks of "the gentleness of Christ," 2 Cor. 10, 1. Meekness is that unresisting, uncomplaining disposition of mind, which enables us to bear without irritation or resentment the faults and injuries of others. It is the disposition of which the lamb, dumb before the shearers, is the symbol, and which was one of the most wonderful of all the virtues of the Son of God. The most exalted of all beings was the gentlest.
The third associated virtue which becomes the vocation wherewith we are called, is long-suffering; makrothumi'a, a disposition which leads to the suppression of anger, 2 Cor. 6, 6. Gal. 3, 22. Col. 3, 12; to deferring the infliction of punishment, and is therefore often attributed to God, Rom. 2, 4; 9, 22. 1 Pet. 3, 10; and to patient forbearance towards our fellow men, 2 Tim. 4, 2. 1 Tim. 1, 16. It is explained by what follows, forbearing one another in love. Or, rather, the three virtues, humility, meekness, and long-suffering, are all illustrated and manifested in this mutual forbearance. Anecho, is to restrain, anechomai to restrain oneself, anecho'menoi alle'lon en aga'pe, therefore, means restraining yourselves in reference to each other in love. Let love induce you to be forbearing towards each other.
The construction of the passage adopted by our translators is preferable to either connecting meta` makroth. with anech. "with long-suffering forbearing," or detaching en aga'pe from this clause and connecting it with the following one, so as to read en aga'pe spouda'zontes. The participle spouda'zontes is of course connected with what precedes. They were to walk worthy of their vocation, forbearing one another, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit. Of the phrase unity of the spirit, there are three interpretations. 1. Ecclesiastical unity, so Grotius: unitatem ecclesiae, quod est corpus spirituale. Instead of that discordance manifested in the church of Corinth, for example, not only in their division into parties, but in the conflict of "spirits," or contentions among those endowed with spiritual gifts, the apostle would have the Ephesians manifest in the church that they were animated by one spirit. But this is foreign not only to the simple meaning of the terms, but also to the context. 2. The word spirit is assumed to refer to the human spirit, and the unity of the spirit to mean, concordia animorum, or harmony. 3. The only interpretation in accordance with the ordinary usage of the words and with the context, is that which makes the phrase in question mean that unity of which the Spirit is the author. Every where the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is said to be the principle of unity in the body of Christ. This unity may be promoted or disturbed. The exhortation is that the greatest zeal should be exercised in its preservation; and the means by which it is to be preserved is the bond of peace. That is, that bond which, is peace. The peace which results from love, humility, meekness, and mutual forbearance, is essential to the union and communion of the members of Christ's body, which is the fruit and evidence of the Spirit's presence. As hatred, pride and contention among Christians cause the Spirit to withdraw from them, so love and peace secure his presence. And as his presence is the condition and source of all good, and his absence the source of all evil, the importance of the duty enjoined cannot be over-estimated. Our Lord said: "Blessed are the peace-makers." Blessed are those who endeavour to preserve among the discordant elements of the church, including as it does men of different nations, manners, names and denominations, that peace which is the condition of the Spirit's presence. The apostle labours in this, as in his other epistles, to bring the Jewish and Gentile Christians to this spirit of mutual forbearance, and to convince them that we are all one in Christ Jesus.3
As in Col. 3, 14, love is said to be "the bond of perfectness," many commentators understand "the bond of peace" in this passage to be love. So Bengel: Vinculum quo pax retinetur est ipse amor. But as the passages are not really parallel, and as in Colossians love is mentioned and here it is not; and as the sense is simple and good without any deviation from the plain meaning of the words, the great majority of interpreters adopt the view given above.
V. 4. Having urged the duty of preserving unity, the apostle proceeds to state both its nature and grounds. It is a unity which arises from the fact—there is and can be but one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God.
One body, e`n soma. This is not an exhortation, but a declaration. The meaning is not, Let us be united in one body, or in soul and body; but, as the context requires, it is a simple declaration. There is one body, viz. one mystical body of Christ. All believers are in Christ; they are all his members; they constitute not many, much less conflicting bodies, but one. "We, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Rom. 12, 5. 1 Cor. 10, 17; 12, 27. In ch. 1, 23, the church is said "to be his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." As all true believers are members of this body, and as all are not included in any one external organization, it is obvious that the one body of which the apostle speaks, is not one outward visible society, but a spiritual body of which Christ is the head and all the renewed are members. The relation, therefore, in which believers stand to each other, is that which subsists between the several members of the human body. A want of sympathy is evidence of want of membership.
One spirit, e`n pneuma. This again does not mean one heart. It is not an exhortation to unanimity of feeling, or a declaration that such unanimity exists, Quasi diceret, nos penitus corpore et anima, non ex parte duntaxat, debere esse unitos. The context and the analogy of Scripture, as a comparison of parallel passages would evince, prove that by spirit is meant the Holy Spirit. As there is one body, so there is one Spirit, which is the life of that body and dwells in all its members. "By one Spirit," says the apostle, "are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12, 13. Of all believers, he says, " The Spirit of God dwelleth in you." 1 Cor. 3, 16; 6, 19. Rom. 8, 9. 11. There is no doctrine of Scripture more plainly revealed than that the Spirit of God dwells in all believers, and that his presence is the ultimate ground of their unity as the body of Christ. As the human body is one because pervaded by one soul; so the body of Christ is one because it is pervaded by one and the same Spirit, who dwelling in all is a common principle of life. All sins against unity, are, therefore, sins against the Holy Ghost. They dissever that which he binds together. Our relation to Christ as members of his body; and our relation to the Holy Spirit who is our life, demands of us that we love our brethren and live at peace with them.
Even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. katho`s kai` ekle'thete en mia elpi'di tes kle'seos umon. Inasmuch as. That is, believers are one body and have one spirit, because they have one hope. The fact that they all have the same high destiny, and are filled with the same expectations, proves that they are one. The unity of their hope is another evidence and element of the communion of saints. The Holy Ghost dwelling in them gives rise to the same aspirations, to the same anticipations of the same glorious inheritance, to a participation of which they had been called. The word hope is sometimes used for the things hoped for, as when the apostle speaks of the hope laid up in heaven. Col. 1, 5. See also Titus 2, 13. Heb. 6, 18. Most frequently of course it has its subjective sense, viz. the expectation of future good. There is no reason for departing from that sense here, though the other is intimately allied with it, and is necessarily implied. It is because the object is the same, that the expectation is the same. Hope of your calling, is the hope which flows from your vocation. The inward, effectual call of the Holy Spirit gives rise to this hope for two reasons. First, because their call is to the inheritance of the saints in light. They naturally hope to obtain what they are invited to receive. They are invited to reconciliation and fellowship with God, and therefore they hope for his salvation; and in the second place, the nature of this call makes it productive of hope. It is at once an earnest and a foretaste of their future inheritance. See ch. 1, 14, and 1 Cor. 1, 22. It assures the believer of his interest in the blessings of redemption, Rom. 8, 16; and as a drop of water makes the thirsty traveller long for the flowing stream, so the first fruits of the Spirit, his first sanctifying operations on the heart, cause it to thirst after God. Ps. 42, 1. 2. Hope includes both expectation and desire, and therefore the inward work of the Spirit being of the nature both of an earnest and a foretaste, it necessarily produces hope.
Another ground of the unity of the church is, that all its members have ONE LORD. Lordship includes the ideas of possession and authority. A lord, in proper sense, is both owner and sovereign. When used in reference to God or Christ, the word expresses these ideas in the highest degree. Christ is THE LORD, i. e. omnium rerum summus dominus et possessor. He is our Lord, i. e. our rightful owner and absolute sovereign. This proprietorship and sovereignty pertain to the soul and to the body. We are not our own, and should glorify him in our body and spirit which are his. Our reason is subject to his teaching, our conscience to his commands, our hearts and lives to his control. We are his slaves. And herein consists our liberty. It is the felix necessitas boni of which Augustin speaks. It is analogous to absolute subjection to truth and holiness, only it is to a person who is infinite in knowledge and in excellence. This lordship over us belongs to Christ not merely as God, or as the Logos, but as the Theanthropos. It is founded not simply on his divinity, but also and specially on the work of redemption. We are his because he has bought us with his own most precious blood. 1 Cor. 6, 20. 1 Pet. 1, 1. For this end he both died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of dead and of living. Rom. 14, 9. Such being the nature and the grounds of the sovereignty of Christ, it necessarily binds together his people. The slaves of one master and the subjects of the same sovereign are intimately united among themselves, although the ownership and authority are merely external. But when, as in our relation to Christ, the proprietorship and sovereignty are absolute, extending to the soul as well as to the body, the union is unspeakably more intimate. Loyalty to a common Lord and master animates with one spirit all the followers of Christ.
One faith. This is the fifth bond of union enumerated by the apostle. Many commentators deny that the word pi'stis is ever used for the object of faith, or the things believed; they therefore deny that one faith here means one creed. But as this interpretation is in accordance with the general usage of language, and as there are so many cases in which the objective sense of the word is best suited to the context, there seems to be no sufficient reason for refusing to admit it. In Gal. 1, 23, Paul says, "He preached the faith;" in Acts 6, 7, men, it is said, "were obedient to the faith." The apostle Jude speaks of "the faith once delivered to the saints." In these and in many other instances the objective sense is the natural one. In many cases both senses of the word may be united. It may be said of speculative believers that they have one faith, so far as they profess the same creed, however they may differ in their real convictions. All the members of the Church of England have one faith, because they all profess to adopt the Thirty-Nine Articles, although the greatest diversity of doctrine prevails among them. But true believers have one faith, not only because they profess the same creed, but also because they really and inwardly embrace it. Their union, therefore, is not merely an external union, but inward and spiritual. They have the same faith objectively and subjectively. This unity of faith is not perfect. That, as the apostle tells us in a subsequent part of this chapter, is the goal towards which the church contends. Perfect unity in faith implies perfect knowledge and perfect holiness. It is only as to fundamental doe trines, those necessary to piety and therefore necessary to salvation, that this unity can be affirmed of the whole church as it now exists on earth. Within these limits all the true people of God are united. They all receive the Scriptures as the word of God, and acknowledge themselves subject to their teachings. They all recognize and worship the Lord Jesus as the Son of God. They all trust to his blood for redemption and to his Spirit for sanctification.
One baptism. Under the old dispensation when a Gentile became a Jew, he professed to accede to the covenant which God had made with his people, and he received the sign of circumcision not only as a badge of discipleship but as the seal of the covenant. All the circumcised therefore were foederati, men bound together by the bonds of a covenant which united them to the same God and to each other. So under the new dispensation the baptized are foederati; men bound together in covenant with Christ and with each other. There is but one baptism. All the baptized make the same profession, accept the same covenant, and are consecrated to the same Lord and Redeemer. They are, therefore, one body. " For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3, 27. 28.
V. 6. One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all and in us all, heis Theo`s kai` Pate`r pa'nton, o epi` pa'nton kai` dia` pa'nton kai` en pasin hemin. As the church is one because pervaded by one Spirit, and because it is owned and governed by one Lord, so it is one because it has one God and Father; one glorious Being to whom it sustains the twofold relation of creature and child. This God is not merely over us, as afar off, but through all and in us all, i. e. pervading and filling all with his sustaining and life-giving presence. There are many passages to which the doctrine of the Trinity gives a sacred rhythm, though the doctrine itself is not directly asserted. It is so here. There is one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father. The unity of the church is founded on this doctrine. It is one because there is to us one God the Father, one Lord, one Spirit. It is a truly mystical union; not a mere union of opinion, of interest, or of feeling; but something supernatural arising from a common principle of life. This life is not the natural life which belongs to us as creatures; nor intellectual: which belongs to us as rational beings; but it is spiritual life, called elsewhere the life of God in the soul. And as this life is common, on the one hand, to Christ and all his members—and on the other, to Christ and God, this union of the church is not only with Christ, but with the Triune God. Therefore in Scripture it is said that tile Spirit dwells in believers, that Christ dwells in them, and that God dwells in them. And, therefore, also our Lord prays for his people, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." John 17, 21.
It is obvious from the whole connection that the word pa'nton ("of all," and "through all"), is not neuter. The apostle does not refer to the dominion of God over the universe, or to his providential agency throughout all nature. Neither is the reference to his dominion over rational creatures or over mankind. It is the relation of God to the church, of which the whole passage treats. God as Father is over all its members, through them all and in them all. The church is a habitation of God through the Spirit. It is his temple in which he dwells and which is pervaded in all its parts by his presence. The preposition dia, therefore, does not here express instrumentality, but diffusion. It is not that God operates "through all" (dia pa'nton), but that he pervades all and abides in all. This is the climax. To be filled with God; to be pervaded by his presence, and controlled by him, is to attain the summit of all created excellence, blessedness and glory.
V. 7. This unity of the church, although it involves the essential equality of all believers, is still consistent with great diversity as to gifts, influence, and honour. According to the apostle's favourite illustration, it is like the human body, which is composed of many members with different functions. It is not all eye nor all ear. This diversity of gifts is not only consistent with unity, but is essential to it. The body is not one member but many. In every organism a diversity of parts is necessary to the unity of the whole. If all were one member, asks the apostle, where were the body? Summa praesentis loci est, says Calvin, quod Deus in neininem omnia contulerit; sed quisque certam mensuram receperit; ut alii aliis indigeant et in commune conferendo quod singulis datum est, alii alios mutuo juvent. The position, moreover, of each member in the body, is not determined by itself, but by God. The eye does not make itself the eye, nor the ear, the ear. It is thus in the church. The different positions, gifts, and functions of its members, are determined not by themselves but by Christ. All this is taught by the apostle when he says, "But (i. e. notwithstanding the unity of the church) unto every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ." There is this diversity of gifts, and the distribution of these gifts is in the hand of Christ. The grace here spoken of includes the inward spiritual gift, and the influence, function or office, as the case might be, flowing from it. Some were apostles, some prophets, some evangelists. The grace which made them such, was the inward gift and the outward office.
The giver is Christ; he is the source of the spiritual influence conferring power, and the official appointment conferring authority. He, therefore, is God, because the source of the inward life of the church and of its authority and that of its officers. He is sovereign in the distribution of his gifts. They are distributed, kata` to` me'tron tes doreas tou Christou, according to the measure of the gift of Christ; that is, as he sees fit to give. The rule is not our merit, or our previous capacity, nor our asking, but his own good pleasure. Paul was made an apostle, who before was a blasphemer and injurious. The duty, as the apostle teaches, which arises from all this is, that every one should be contented with the position assigned him; neither envying those above, nor despising those below him. To refuse to occupy the position assigned us in the church, is to refuse to belong to it at all. If the foot refuses to be the foot, it does not become the hand, but is cut off and perishes. Sympathy is the law of every body having a common life. If one member suffers, all suffer; and if one rejoices, all rejoice. We can tell, therefore, whether we belong to the body of Christ, by ascertaining whether we have this contentment with our lot, and this sympathy with our fellow members.
V. 8. The position which the preceding verse assigns to the Lord Jesus as the source of all life and power in the church, is so exalted, that the apostle interrupts himself to show that this representation is in accordance with what the Scriptures had already taught on this subject. The seventh verse speaks of Christ giving gifts. As this was his office, the Scriptures speak of him as a conqueror laden with spoils, enriched by his victories, and giving gifts to men. That the Psalmist had reference to the Messiah, is evident, because the passage speaks of his ascending. But for a divine person to ascend to heaven, supposes a previous descent to the earth. It was the Son of God, the Messiah, who descended, and therefore it was the Son of God who ascended, and who is represented by the sacred writer as enriched by his triumphant work on earth, and distributing the fruits of his conquest as he pleased. This seems to be the general sense of the passage in the connection, although it is replete with difficulties. The great truth is, that Christ's exaltation is the reward of his humiliation. By his obedience and sufferings he conquered the Prince of this world, he redeemed his people, and obtained the right to bestow upon them all needed good. He is exalted to give the Holy Ghost, and all his gifts and graces, to grant repentance and remission of sins. This great truth is foreshadowed and foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. Wherefore he saith, dio` le'gei, i. e. God, or the Scriptures. "Having ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." That is, what I have said respecting Christ being the distributor of spiritual gifts, is in accordance with the prophetic declaration, that the ascended Messiah should give gifts to men. The Messiah is represented by the Psalmist as a conqueror, leading captives in triumph, and laden with spoils which he distributes to his followers. Thus Christ conquered. He destroyed him that hath the power of death, i. e. the devil. He delivered those who through the fear of death were subject to bondage. Heb. 2, 15. Having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them. Col. 2. 15. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace; but when a stronger than he cometh upon him, and overcometh him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoil. Luke, 11, 21. 22. Such is the familiar mode of representation respecting the work of Christ. He conquered Satan. He led captivity captive. The abstract is for the concrete—captivity for captives—aichmalosia for aichmalotoi as summachia for summachoi. Compare Judges 5, 12, "Awake, awake, Deborah, awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam." These captives thus led in triumph may be either the enemies of Christ, Satan, sin, and death, which is the last enemy which shall be destroyed; or his people, redeemed by his power and subdued by his grace. The former is perhaps the more consistent with the figure, and with the parallel passages quoted above. Both are true; that is, it is true that Christ has conquered Satan, and leads him captive; and it is also true that he redeems his people and subdues them to himself, and leads them as willing captives. They are made willing, in the day of his power. Calvin, therefore, unites both representations: Neque enim Satanam modo et peccatum et mortem totosque inferos prostravit, sed ex rebellibus quotidie facit sibi obsequentem populum, quum verbo suo carnis nostræ lasciviam domat; rursus hostes suos, h. e. impios omnes quasi ferreis catenis continet constrictos, dum illorum furorem cohibet sua virtute, ne plus valeant, quam illis concedit. This clause of the quotation is, however, entirely subordinate. The stress lies on the last clause, "He gave gifts to men."
There are two serious difficulties connected with this citation. The first is, that the quotation does not agree with the original. In the Ps. 68, 18, the passage is, "Thou hast received gifts among men." Paul has it, "He gave gifts to man." To get over this difficulty some have supposed that the apostle does not quote the Psalm, but some Hymn which the Ephesians were in the habit of using. But this is not only contrary to the uniform usage of the New Testament writers, but also to the whole context, for the apostle argues from the passage quoted as of divine authority. Others have assumed an error in the Hebrew text. Rationalists say it is a misquotation from failure of memory. Others argue that the word lqch, used by the Psalmist, means to give as well as to take. Or, at least, it often means to bring; and therefore, the original passage may be translated, "Thou hast brought gifts among men;" the sense of which is, Thou hast given gifts to men.' The difference is thus reduced to a mere verbal alteration, the sense remaining the same. It is a strong confirmation of this view that the Chaldee Paraphrase expresses the same sense: dedisti dona filiis hominum. Dr. Addison Alexander in his comment on Ps. 68, 18 remarks, "To receive gifts on the one hand and bestow gifts on the other are correlative ideas and expressions, so that Paul, in applying this description of a theocratic triumph to the conquests of our Saviour, substitutes one of these expressions for the other." This is perhaps the most natural solution. The divine writers of the New Testament, filled with the same Spirit, which moved the ancient prophets, are not tied to the mere form, but frequently give the general sense of the passages which they quote. A conqueror always distributes the spoils he takes. He receives to give. And, therefore, in depicting the Messiah as a conqueror, it is perfectly immaterial whether it is said, He received gifts, or, He gave gifts. The sense is the same. He is a conqueror laden with spoils, and able to enrich his followers.
The second difficulty connected with this quotation is that Ps. 68 is not Messianic. It does not refer to the Messiah, but to the triumphs of God over his enemies. Yet the apostle not only applies it to Christ, but argues to prove that it must refer to him. This difficulty finds its solution in three principles which are applicable not only to this, but also to many similar passages. The first is the typical character of the old dispensation. It was a shadow of good things to come. There was not only a striking analogy between the experience of the ancient people of God, in their descent into Egypt, their deliverance from the house of bond. age, their journey through the wilderness, and their entrance into Canaan, and the experience of the church, but this analogy was a designed prefiguration—God's dealings as the head of the ancient theocracy, were typical of his dealings with the church. His delivering his people, his conquering their enemies, and his enriching his followers with their spoil, were all adumbrations of the higher work of Christ. As the passover was both commemorative of the deliverance out of Egypt and typical of the redemption effected by Christ; so, many of the descriptions of the works and triumphs of God under the old economy are both historical and prophetic. Thus the Psalm quoted by the apostle is a history of the conquests of God over the enemies of his ancient people, and a prophecy of the conquests of the Messiah.
The second principle applicable to this and similar cases, is the identity of the Logos or Son manifested in the flesh under the new dispensation with the manifested Jehovah of the old economy. Hence what is said of the one, is properly assumed to be said of the other. Therefore, as Moses says Jehovah led his people through the wilderness, Paul says Christ led them. 1 Cor. 10, 4. As Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah in the temple, John says he saw the glory of Christ. John 12, 41. As it is written in the prophets, "As I live, saith Jehovah, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God," Is. 45, 23, Paul says, this proves that we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Rom. 14, 10. 11. What in Ps. 102, 25, &c., is said of God as creator, and as eternal and immutable, is in Hebrews 1, 10, applied to Christ. On the same principle what is said in Ps. 68, 18, of Jehovah as ascending to heaven and leading captivity captive, is here said to refer to Christ.
There is still a third principle to be taken into consideration. Many of the historical and prophetic descriptions of the Old Testament are not exhausted by any one application or fulfilment. The promise that Japheth should dwell in the tents of Shem, was fulfilled every time the descendants of the former were made to share in the blessings temporal or spiritual of the latter. The predictions of Isaiah of the redemption of Israel were not exhausted by the deliverance of the people of God from the Babylonish captivity, but had a direct reference to the higher redemption to be effected by Christ. The glowing descriptions of the blessings consequent on the advent of the Messiah, relate not merely to the consequences of his first advent, but to all that is to follow his coming the second time without sin unto salvation. The prediction that every knee shall bow to God and every tongue confess to him, is a prediction not only of the universal prevalence of the true religion; but also, as the apostle teaches, of a general judgment at the last day. In like manner, what the Old Testament says of Jehovah descending and ascending, of his conquering his enemies and enriching his people, is not exhausted by his figurative descending to manifest his power, nor by such conspicuous theophanies as occurred on Sinai and in the Temple, or in the triumphs recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, but refer also to his personal advent in the flesh, to his ascension and his spiritual triumphs. It is, therefore, in perfect accordance with the whole analogy of Scripture, that the apostle applies what is said of Jehovah in Ps. 68 as a conqueror, to the work of the Lord Jesus, who, as God manifested in the flesh, ascended on high leading captivity captive and giving gifts unto men.
Vs. 9. 10. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
The obvious design of these verses is to show that the passage quoted from the Psalmist refers to Christ. The proof lies in the fact that ascension in the case of a divine person, a giver of spiritual gifts to men, implies a previous descent. It was Christ who descended, and therefore, it is Christ who ascended. It is true the Old Testament often speaks of God's descending, and therefore, they may speak of his ascending. But according to the apostle, the divine person intended in those representations was the Son, and no previous descent or ascent, no previous triumph over his enemies, included all that the Spirit of prophecy intended by such representations. And, therefore, the Psalmist must be understood as having included in the scope of his language the most conspicuous and illustrious of God's condescensions and exaltations. All other comings were but typical of his coming in the flesh, and all ascensions were typical of his ascension from the grave.
The apostle, therefore, here teaches that God, the subject of the sixty-eighth Psalm, descended "into the lower parts of the earth;" that "he ascended up above all heavens," and that this was with the design "that he might fill all things."
The Hebrew phrase tchtyvt 'rts to which the apostle's ta katotera mere tes ges, (the lower parts of the earth,) answers, is used for the earth in opposition to heaven, Is. 44, 23; probably for the grave in Ps. 63, 10; as a poetical designation for the womb in Ps. 139, 15; and for Hades or the invisible world, Ez. 32, 24. Perhaps the majority of commentators take this last to be the meaning of the passage before us. They suppose the reference is to the desensus ad inferos, or to Christ's "descending into hell." But in the first place this idea is entirely foreign to the meaning of the passage in the Psalm on which the apostle is commenting. In the second place, there as here, the only descent of which the context speaks is opposed to the ascending to heaven. He that ascended to heaven is he who first descended to earth.' In the third place, this is the opposition so often expressed in other places and in other forms of expression, as in John 3, 13, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven." John 6, 38, "I came down from heaven." John 8, 14, "I know whence I came and whither I go." John 16, 28, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." The expression of the apostle therefore means, "the lower parts, viz. the earth." The genitive tes ges is the common genitive of apposition. Compare Acts 2, 19, where the heaven above is opposed to the earth beneath; and John 8, 23.
He that descended to earth, who assumed our nature, is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens. Hupera'no, longe supra, expressing the highest exaltation. As the Hebrew word for heaven is in the plural form, the New Testament writers often use the plural even when the heavens are considered as one, as in the phrase basileia ton ouranon. But often there is a reference to a plurality of heavens, as when the expression "all heavens" is used. The Jews reckoned seven heavens, and Paul, 2 Cor. 12, 2, speaks of the third heavens; the atmosphere, the region of the stars, and above all the abode of God. Above all heavens plainly means above the whole universe; above all that is created visible and invisible; above thrones, principalities, and powers. All things, all created things, are subject to the ascended Redeemer.
He is thus exalted, i'na plero'se ta` pa'nta, that he might fill all things. As the word pleroo signifies to fill, to fulfil, to render perfect, and to accomplish, these words may mean—1. That he might fill all things, i. e. the universe with his presence and power. 2. That he might fulfil all the predictions and promises of God respecting his kingdom. 3. That he might render all perfect, replete with grace and goodness. 4. That he might accomplish all things necessary to the consummation of his work. The first interpretation is greatly to be preferred. Ta panta properly means the universe; and if taken to mean any thing else, it must be because the context demands it, which is not the case here. Secondly, this passage is evidently parallel with ch. 1, 21, where also it is said of Christ as exalted, that "he fills the universe in all its parts." Thirdly, the analogy of Scripture is in favour of this interpretation. The omnipresence and universal dominion of God are elsewhere expressed in a similar way. "Do I not fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord." Jer. 23, 24. The same grand idea is expressed in Matt. 28, 18, "All power is given unto me in heaven and upon earth;" and in Phil. 2, 9. 10, and in many other places. It is not of the ubiquity of Christ's body of which the apostle speaks, as the Lutherans contend, but of the universal presence and power of the ascended Son of God. It is God clothed in our nature, who now exercises this universal dominion; and, therefore, the apostle may well say of Christ, as the incarnate God, that he gives gifts unto men.
V. 11. Kai` auto`s e'doke, and He gave. He, the ascended Saviour, to whom all power and all resources have been given—he gave, some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. These were among the gifts which Christ gave his church; which, though implying diversity of grace and office, were necessary to its unity as an organized whole. These offices are mentioned in the order of their importance. First the apostles the immediate messengers of Christ, the witnesses for him, of his doctrines, his miracles, and of his resurrection; infallible as teachers and absolute as rulers in virtue of the gift of inspiration and. of their commission. No man, therefore, could be an apostle unless—1. He was immediately appointed by Christ. 2. Unless he had seen him after his resurrection and had received the knowledge of the Gospel by immediate revelation. 3. Unless he was rendered infallible by the gift of inspiration. These things constituted the office and were essential to its authority. Those who without these gifts and qualifications claimed the office, are called "false apostles."
2. Prophets. A prophet is one who speaks for another, spokesman, as Aaron was the prophet of Moses. Those whom God made his organs in speaking to men were prophets, whether their communications were doctrinal, preceptive, or prophetic in the restricted sense of the term. Every one who spoke by inspiration, was a prophet. The prophets of the New Testament differed from the apostles, in that their inspiration was occasional, and therefore their authority as teachers subordinate. The nature of their office is fully taught in 1 Cor. 14, 1-40. As the gift of infallibility was essential to the apostolic office, so the gift of occasional inspiration was essential to the prophetic office. It is inconceivable that God should invest any set of men with the authority claimed and exercised by the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, requiring all men to believe their doctrines and submit to their authority, on the pain of perdition, without giving the inward gifts qualifying them for their work. This is clearly stated by Calvin in his comment on this verse; to a certain difficulty, he says, "Respondeo, quoties a Deo vocati sunt homines, dona necessarie conjuncta esse officiis; neque enim Deus, apostolos aut pastores instituendo, larvam illis duntaxat imponit; sed dotibus etiam instruit, sine quibus rite functionem sibi injunctam obire nequennt. Quisquis ergo Dei auctoritate constituitur apostolus, non inani et nudo titulo, sed mandato simul et facultate praeditus est."
And some, evangelists. There are two views of the nature of the office of the evangelists. Some regard them as vicars of the apostles—men commissioned by them for a definite purpose and clothed with special powers for the time being, analogous to the apostolic vicars of the Romanists; or to the temporary superintendents appointed after the Reformation in the Scottish church, clothed for a limited time and for a definite purpose with presbyterial powers, i. e. to a certain extent, with the powers of a presbytery, the power tc ordain, install and depose. Evangelists in this sense were temporary officers. This view of the nature of the office prevailed at the time of the Reformation.4
According to the other view, the evangelists were itinerant preachers, hoi periiontes ekerutton, as Theodoret and other early writers describe them. They were properly missionaries sent to preach the Gospel where it had not been previously known. This is the commonly received view, in favour of which may be urged—1. The signification of the word, which in itself means nothing more than preacher of the Gospel. 2. Philip was an evangelist, but was in no sense a vicar of the apostles; and when Timothy was exhorted to do the work of an evangelist, the exhortation was simply to be a faithful preacher of the Gospel. Acts 21, 8; Eph. 4, 11; and 2 Tim. 4, 5, are the only passages in which the word occurs, and in no one of them does the connection or any other consideration demand any other meaning than the one commonly assigned to it. 3. Euangelisthai and didaskein are both used to express the act of making known the Gospel; but when as here, the euangelistes is distinguished fromr the didaskalos, the only point of distinction implied or admissible is between one who makes known the Gospel where it had not been heard, and an instructor of those already Christians. The use of euangelisthai in such passages as Acts 8, 4; 14, 7; 1 Cor. 1, 17, and 2 Cor. 10, 16, serves to confirm the commonly received opinion that an evangeli1st is one who makes known the Gospel. That Timothy and Titus were in some sense apostolic vicars, i. e. men clothed with special powers for a special purpose and for a limited time, may be admitted, but this does not determine the nature of the office of an evangelist. They exercised these powers not as evangelists, but as delegates or commissioners.
And some pastors and teachers, tou`s de` poime'nas kai` didaska'lous. According to one interpretation we have here two distinct offices—that of pastor and that of teacher. The latter, says Calvin, "had nothing to do with discipline, nor with the administration of the sacraments, nor with admonitions or exhortations, but simply with the interpretation of Scripture." Institutes IV, 3, 4. All this is inferred from the meaning of the word teacher. There is no evidence from Scripture that there was a set of men authorized to teach but not authorized to exhort. The thing is well nigh impossible. The one function includes the other. The man who teaches duty and the grounds of it, does at the same time admonish and exhort. It was however on the ground of this unnatural interpretation that the Westminster Directory made teachers a distinct and permanent class of jure divino officers in the church. The Puritans in New England endeavoured to reduce the theory to practice, and appointed doctors as distinct from preachers. But the attempt proved to be a failure. The two functions could not be kept separate. The whole theory rested on a false interpretation of Scripture. The absence of the article before didaska'lous proves that the apostle intended to designate the same persons as at once pastors and teachers. The former term designates them as episkopoi, overseers, the latter as instructors. Every pastor or bishop was required to be apt to teach. This interpretation is given by Augustin and Jerome; the latter of whom says: Non enim ait: alios autem pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse debeat et magister. In this interpretation the modern commentators almost without exception concur. It is true the article is at times omitted between two substantives referring to different classes, where the two constitute one order—as in Mark 15, 1, meta` ton presbute'ron kai` grammate'on, because the elders and scribes formed one body. But in such an enumeration as that contained in this verse, tous men apostolous, tous de prophetas, tou de euangelistas, tous de poimenas, the laws of the language require tous de didaskalous, had the apostle intended to distinguish the didaskaloi from the poimenes. Pastors and teachers, therefore, must be taken as a two-fold designation of the same officers, who were at once the guides and instructors of the people.
V. 12. Having mentioned the officers Christ gave his church, the apostle states the end for which this gift was conferred—it was pro`s to`n katartismo`n ton agi'on, eis e'rgon diakoni'as, eis oikodome`n tou so'matos tou Christou, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Both the meaning of the words and the relation of the several clauses in this verse, are doubtful. The word katartismos, rendered perfecting, admits of different interpretations. The root aro, means to unite or bind together. Hence artios signifies united, complete, perfect; and the verb katartizo is literally to mend, Matt. 4, 21; to reduce to order, to render complete, or perfect, Luke 6, 40; 2 Cor. 13, 11; to prepare or render fit for use, Heb. 10, 5; 13, 21. The substantive may express the action of the verb in the various modifications of its meaning. Hence it has been rendered here-1. To the completion of the saints, i. e. of their number. 2. To their renewing or restoration. 3. To their reduction to order and union as one body. 4. To their preparation (for service). 5. To their perfecting. This last is to be preferred because agreeable to the frequent use of the verb by this apostle, and because it gives the sense best suited to the context.
The word diakonia, service, may express that service which one man renders to another—Luke 10, 40, "with much serving;" or specially the service rendered to Christians, 1 Cor. 16, 15, "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints;" or the official service of the ministry. Hence the phrase eis e'rgon diakoni'as may mean to the work of mutual service or kind offices,' or to the work of the ministry—in the official sense. The latter is the common interpretation, and is to be preferred not only on account of the more frequent use of the word in that sense, but also on account of the connection, as here the apostle is speaking of the different classes of ministers of the word.
The principal difficulty connected with this verse concerns the relation of its several clauses. 1. Some propose to invert the first and second so that the sense would be, Christ appointed the apostles, &c., for the work of the ministry, the design of which is the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ.' But although the sense is thus good and pertinent, the transposition is arbitrary. 2. Others regard the clauses as coordinate. These officers were given for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ.' To this is objected the change in the prepositions (pros, eis—eis), and the incongruity of the thoughts—the expressions not being parallel. 3. The two latter clauses may be made subordinate to the first. Christ has appointed the ministry with the view of preparing the saints, for the work of serving one another,' (compare eis diakonian tois hagiois, 1 Cor. 16, 15,) and for the edification of his body. This however assumes diakonia to have a sense unsuited to the context. 4. Others make the two clauses with eis explanatory of the first clause, Christ appointed these officers for the preparation of the saints, some for the work of the ministry, and some for the edifying of his body.' But this is inconsistent with the structure of the passage. It would require the introduction of tous men—tous de, 'some, for this, and some, for that.' 5. Others again, give the sense thus, For the sake of perfecting the saints, Christ appointed these officers to the work of the ministry, to the edification of his body.' The first clause pros kat. expresses the remote, eis—eis the immediate end of the appointment in question. The "work of the ministry" is that work which the ministry perform, viz. the edifying of the body of Christ. This last view is perhaps the best.
"He could not," says Calvin, "exalt more highly the ministry of the Word, than by attributing to it this effect. For what higher work can there be than to build up the church that it may reach its perfection? They therefore are insane, who neglecting this means hope to be perfect in Christ, as is the case with fanatics, who pretend to secret revelations of the Spirit; and the proud, who content themselves with the private reading of the Scripture, and imagine they do not need the ministry of the church." If Christ has appointed the ministry for the edification of his body, it is in vain to expect that end to be accomplished in any other way.
V. 13. The ministry is not a temporary institution, it is to continue until the church has reached the goal of its high calling. This does not prove that all the offices mentioned above are permanent. By common consent the prophets were temporary officers. It is the ministry and not those particular offices, that is to continue. The goal of the church is here described in three equivalent forms—1. Unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God. 2. A perfect man. 3. The measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.
1. Till we all come to the unity, &c., me'chri katante'somen oi pa'ntes. The all here mentioned is not all men, but all the people of Christ. The reference is not to the confluence of nations from all parts of the earth, but to the body of Christ, the company of saints of which the context speaks. The church is tending to the goal indicated.5 Our version has in unity, but the Greek is eis te`n eno'teta, and therefore should be rendered, to or unto, just as in the following clauses, eis a'ndra te'leion and eis me'tron, ktl. The unity of faith is the end to which all are to attain. The genitive uiou tou Theou belongs equally to pistis and epignosis. The Son of God is the object both of the faith and of the knowledge here spoken of. Many commentators understand knowledge and faith as equivalent, and therefore make the latter member of the clause explanatory of the former: to the unity of the faith, that is, to the knowledge of the Son of God.' But this overlooks the kai. The apostle says, "faith and knowledge." Thus distinguishing the one from the other. And they are in fact different, however intimately related, and however often the one term may be used for the other. Faith is a form of knowledge, and therefore may be expressed by that word. But knowledge is not a form of faith, and therefore cannot be expressed by it. Knowledge is an element of faith; but faith, in its distinctive sense, is not an element of knowledge. The Greek word here used is not gnosis but epignosis. We have no word to express the distinction as the Germans have in their Kennen and Erkennen. It is not merely cognition but recognition. Faith and knowledge, pistis and epignosis, express or comprehend all the elements of that state of mind of which the Son of God, God manifested in the flesh, who loved us and gave himself for us, who died on Calvary and is now enthroned in heaven, is the object. A state of mind which includes the apprehension of his glory, the appropriation of his love, as well as confidence and devotion. This state of mind is in itself eternal life. It includes excellence, blessedness, and the highest form of activity, i. e. the highest exercise of our highest powers. We are like him when we see him. Perfect knowledge is perfect holiness. Therefore when the whole church has come to this perfect knowledge which excludes all diversity, then it has reached the end. Then it will bear the image of the heavenly.
The object of faith and knowledge is the Son of God. This designation of our Lord declares him to be of the same nature with the Father, possessing the same attributes and entitled to the same honour. Were this not the case the knowledge of Christ as the Son of God, could not be eternal life; it could not fill, enlarge, sanctify, and render blessed the soul; nor constitute the goal of our high calling; the full perfection of our nature.
It has excited surprise that the apostle should here present unity of faith as the goal of perfection, whereas in ver. 6, Christians are said now to have "one faith," as they have one Lord and one baptism. Some endeavour to get over this difficulty by laying the emphasis upon all. The progress of the church consists in bringing all to this state of unity. But Paul includes all in his assertion in ver. 6. And if the "one faith" of that verse, and "unity of faith" here are the same, then the starting-point and the goal of the church are identical. Others say that "the unity of faith and knowledge" means not that all should be united in faith and knowledge, but that all should attain that state in which faith and knowledge are identified—faith is to be lost in knowledge. The unity, therefore, here intended, is unity between faith and knowledge, and not the unity of believers. But this is evidently unnatural. "We all come to unity," can only mean, " we are all united." There is no real difficulty in the case. Unity is a matter of degrees. The church is now and ever has been one body, but how imperfect is their union! Our Lord's praying that his people may be one, does not prove that they are not now one. It is here as in other cases. Holiness is the beginning and holiness is the end. We must be holy to belong to the church, and yet holiness is the ultimate perfection of the church. The unity of faith is now confined to the first principles; the unity of faith contemplated in this place is that perfect unity which implies perfect knowledge and perfect holiness.
Unto a perfect man, eis a'ndra te'leion. This clause is explanatory of the former and determines its meaning. Perfection is the end; perfect manhood. Te'leios signifies ad finem perductus; when used of a man, it means an adult, one who has reached the end of his development as a man. When applied to a Christian it means one who has reached the end of his development as a Christian, Heb. 12, 23; and the church is perfect when it has reached the end of its development and stands complete in glory. In 1 Cor. 13, 10, to te'leion stands opposed to to ek merous, and there as here indicates the state which is to be attained hereafter when we shall know even as we are known. The standard of perfection for the church is complete conformity to Christ. It is to attain eis me'tron eliki'as tou plero'matos tou Christou. These words are explanatory of the preceding. The church becomes adult, a perfect man, when it reaches the fulness of Christ. However these words may be explained in detail, this is the general idea. Whether eliki'a means stature or age depends upon the context. Most commentators prefer the latter signification here, because te'leios in the preceding clause means adult, in reference to age rather than to stature, and ne'pios in the following verse means a child as to age and not as to size.
If the phrase "fulness of Christ," be explained according to the analogy of the phrases " fulness of God," " fulness of the Godhead," &c., it must mean the plenitude of excellence which Christ possesses or which he bestows. And the " age of the fulness of Christ," means the age at which the fulness of Christ is attained. Compare 3, 19, where believers ars said to be filled unto the fulness of God.
If, however, reference is had to the analogy of such expressions as "fulness of the blessing of the Gospel," Rom. 15, 29, which means the full or abundant blessing,' then the passage before us means the full age (or stature) of Christ.' The church is to become a perfect man, i. e. it is to attain the measure of the full maturity of Christ. In other words, it is to be completely conformed to him, perfect as he is perfect. This interpretation, which supposes plero'matos to qualify adjectively eliki'as, is in accordance with a familiar characteristic of Paul's style, who frequently connects three genitives in this way, the one governing the others, where one is to be taken adjectively. See Col. 1, 13, eis basilei'an tou uiou tes aga'pes autou, "Son of his love," for his beloved Son;' "age of fulness," for full age.' Col. 2, 2. 18. 2 Thess. 1, 9.
Commentators are much divided on the question whether the goal, the terminus ad quem of the church's progress here spoken of, is to be attained in this world or the next. Those who say it is to be attained here, rely principally on the following verse: We are to become men in order that we should be no longer children,' &c. To determine this question it would seem to be enough to state what the contemplated consummation is. It is perfection, and perfection of the whole church. We are to become perfect men, we are to attain complete conformity to Christ; and we are all to reach this high standard. The Bible, however, never represents the consummation of the church as occurring in this life. Christ gave himself for the church that he might present it to himself a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, but this presentation is not to take place until he comes a second time to be glorified in the saints and admired in all them that believe. The context instead of forbidding, demands this view of the apostle's meaning. It would be incongruous to say we must reach perfection in order to grow. But it is not incongruous to say that perfection is made the goal in order that we may constantly strive after it.
V. 14. What has been said may be sufficient to indicate the connection between this and the preceding verses, as indicated by i'na (in order that). This and the following verses are not subordinate to the 13th, as though the sense were, we are to reach perfection in order to grow,'—but they are coördinate—all relating to the design of the ministry mentioned in v. 12. Between the full maturity aimed at, and our present state is the period of growth—and Christ appointed the ministry to bring the church to that end, in order that we should be no longer children but make constant progress. This intermediate design is expressed negatively in this verse and affirmatively in the 15th and 16th. We are not to continue children, v. 13, but constantly to advance toward maturity, vs. 15. 16. The characteristic of children here presented is their instability and their liability to be deceived and led astray. The former is expressed by comparing them to a ship without a rudder, tossed to and fro by the waves, and driven about by every wind—kludonizo'menoi kai` periphero'menoi panti` ane'mo—or to two unstable things, a restless wave, and something driven by the wind. In the use of much the same figure the apostle in Heb. 13, 9 exhorts believers not "to be carried away with diverse and strange doctrines." And the apostle James compares the unstable to "a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed," 1, 6. One of the principal elements of the perfection spoken of in v. 13, is stability in the truth; and, therefore, the state of imperfection as contrasted with it is described as one of instability and liability to be driven about by every wind of doctrine.
Children are not only unstable but easily deceived. They are an easy prey to the artful and designing. The apostle therefore adds: en te kubei'a ton anthro'pon, through (en being instrumental) the artifice of men. Kubeia from kubos (cube, die) means dice-playing; in which there are many arts of deception, and therefore the word is used for craft or deceit. It is explained by the following phrase, en panourgi'a pro`s te`n methodei'an tes pla'nes, which, according to Luther's version, means Tauscherei damit sie uns erschleichen zu verfuhren, the cunning with which they track us to mislead. The artifice (kubeia) is that craft which is used by seducers or errorists. The preposition pros may mean according to. Cunning according to the craft which error uses; or which is characteristic of error.' Or it may agreeably to its common force indicate direction or tendency. The cunning which is directed to the craft of error, i. e. that craft which is designed to seduce.' The sense is the same. The word methodei'a occurs only here and in 6, 11—where in the plural form it is rendered wiles; "the wiles of the devil." It is derived from methodeuo (meta hodos), to follow any one, to track him, as a wild animal its prey. Hence the substantive means the cunning or craft used by those who wish to entrap or capture.
There are two things in this connection which can hardly escape notice. The one is the high estimate the apostle places on truth; and the other is the evil of error. Holiness without the knowledge and belief of the truth, is impossible; perfect holiness implies, as v. 13 teaches, perfect knowledge. Error, therefore, is evil. Religious error springs from moral evil and produces it. "False teachers" are in Scripture always spoken of as bad, as selfish, malignant, or deceitful. This principle furnishes incidentally one of the surest of the criteria of truth. Those doctrines which the good hold, which are dear to the spiritual, to the humble and the holy, and true. This is the only real authority which belongs to tradition. In this passage the apostle attributes departure from the truth to the cunning and deceit which are characteristic of error, or of false teachers. In Rom. 16,17. 18; 2 Cor. 2, 17; 11, 13; Gal. 2, 4; Col. 2, 8. 18, the same character is given of those who seduce men from the faith. Error, therefore, can never be harmless, nor false teachers innocent. Two considerations however should secure moderation and meekness in applying these principles. The one is, that though error implies sin, orthodoxy does not always imply holiness. It is possible "to hold the truth in unrighteousness;" to have speculative faith without love. The character most offensive to God and man is that of a malignant zealot for the truth. The other consideration is, that men are often much better than their creed. That is, the doctrines on which they live are much nearer the truth, than those which they profess. They deceive themselves by attaching wrong meaning to words, and seem to reject truth when in fact they only reject their own misconceptions. It is a common remark that men's prayers are more orthodox than their creeds.
V. 15. These remarks are not foreign to the subject; for the apostle, while condemning all instability with regard to faith, and while denouncing the craft of false teachers, immediately adds the injunction to adhere to the truth in love. It is not mere stability in sound doctrine, but faith as combined with love that he requires. The only saving, salutary faith is such as works by love and purifies the heart.
Aletheu'ontes de` en aga'pe our version renders "but speaking the truth in love." But this does not suit the context. This clause stands opposed to what is said in verse 14. We are not to be children driven about by every wind of doctrine, but we are to be steadfast in professing and believing the truth. This interpretation which is demanded by the connection is justified by the usage of the word aletheu'ein, which means not only to speak the truth, but also to be alethes in the sense of being open, upright, truthful, adhering to the truth. And the truth here contemplated is the truth of God, the truth of the Gospel, which we are to profess and abide by. The words en aga'pe are commonly and properly connected with aletheu'ontes, "professing the truth in love." They may however be connected with the following word, so as to give the sense, "let us increase in love." But this leaves the participle too naked, and is not indicated by the position of the words. Besides, in the next verse, which is part of the same sentence, we have au'xesin poieitai eis oikodome`n, en aga'pe, which would be a needless repetition of the same idea.
We are "to grow up into (rather unto) him," eis auton. This is to be explained by a reference to the expressions eis a'ndra te'leion, eis me'tron eliki'as, ktl. in v. 13. These are different forms of expressing the idea that conformity to Christ is the end to be attained. We are to grow so as to be conformed to him, ta panta, as to all things. Him, "who is the head, viz. Christ." We are to be conformed to our head—because he is our head, i. e. because of the intimate union between him and us. The slight confusion in the metaphor which presents Christ as the model to which we are to be conformed, and the head with whose life we are to be pervaded, is no serious objection to this interpretation, which is demanded by the context.
V. 16. From whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love. The church is Christ's body; he is the head. The body grows. Concerning this growth the apostle says—1. It is from him, (ex hou). He is the causal source, from whom all life and power are derived. 2. It depends on the intimate union of all the parts of the body with the head by means of appropriate bonds. 3. It is symmetrical. 4. It is a growth in love. Such is the general meaning of this passage; though there is much diversity of opinion as to the meaning of some of the terms employed, and as to the relation of the several clauses.
First as to the meaning of the words: Sunarmologeo (harmos and lego) to bind together the several parts of any thing. It is used of a building 2, 21, and of the human body. In both cases there is a union of parts fitted to each other. It is peculiarly appropriate here, as the church is compared to the body composed of many members intimately connected. Sumbibazo, to bring together, to convene, to join; figuratively, to combine mentally. It is properly used of bringing persons together, so as to reconcile them, or to unite them in friendship. It therefore serves to explain the preceding term. The church is figuratively a body composed of many joints or members; and literally, it is a company of believers intimately united with each other. Hence the apostle uses both terms in reference to it. Haphe (hapto) properly means touch, the sense of touch. Hence metonymically feeling. Therefore dia` pa'ses aphes epichoregi'as may mean, by every feeling, or experience of aid.' The word however is sometimes used in the sense of band or joint. The parallel passage in Col. 2, 19, dia` ton aphon kai` sunde'smon, by joints and bands, seems to be decisive for that sense here. The word epichoregi'a (choregeo, choros, ago), supply, aid, has no difficulty in itself. The only question is what aid or contribution is meant, and what is the force of the genitive. The word may refer to the mutual assistance furnished each other by the constituent members of the body. Thus Luther, who paraphrases the clause in question,—durch alle Gelenke, dadurch eins dem andern Handreichung thut—by every joint whereby one member aids another. Or it may refer to the supplies of vital influence received from Christ the head. "Through every joint of supply," then means, through every joint or band which is the means of supply. The parallel passage in Col. 2, 19, is in favour of the latter view. There it is said: to` soma dia` ton aphon epichoregou'menon, the body receiving nourishment or supplies through the joints or bands. The nourishing and sustaining influence, the epichoregia, is certainly in this case that which flows from Christ, and therefore the same interpretation should be given to the passage before us. As to the force of the case, it is by some taken as the genitive of apposition. "Joint or band of supply," would then mean, the band which is a supply. The divine influence furnished by Christ is the bond by which the members of his body are united. This is true, but in Col. 2, 19, which, being the plainer passage, must be our guide in interpreting this, the supply is said to be dia` ton aphon, through the joints. Here, therefore, the parallel phrase, dia` pases aphes tes epichoregias, must mean, through every joint for supply;' that is, which is the means or channel of the divine influence. There is an obvious distinction between "the bands" and "the aid" here spoken of. The latter is the divine life or Holy Spirit communicated to all parts of the church; the former (the haphaa) are the various spiritual gifts and offices which are made the channels or means of this divine communication.
The second point to be considered is the relation of the several clauses in this passage. The clause dia` pases aphes, ktl. may be connected with the last clause of the verse, au'xesin poieitai. The sense would then be, The body by means of every joint of supply makes increase of itself.' This sense is correct and suited to the context. This however is not the most natural construction. The relative position of the members of the sentence is in favour of referring this clause to the preceding participles. The body joined together and united by means of every joint of supply.' The parallel passage in Colossians determines this to be the apostle's meaning. He there refers the union of the body, and not its growth, to the bands (haphai) of which he speaks. He describes the body as sumbibazo'menon dia` ton aphog, and therefore here sumbib. dia` pases aphes, which are in juxtaposition, should go together.