Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

Ver. 13. After this description of the greatness of the Christian conflict, Paul again takes up the exhortation of verse 11: "therefore (because the struggle is so severe and of a spiritual nature) take unto you the armour which God through his Spirit bestows on his warriors against the power of darkness; it is only in it we can offer resistance to attacks." The addition" in the evil day" is not to be understood of the day of the conflict; for that can surely be also a good, a successful day; it rather denotes a point of time in which temptation, and consequently the danger of succumbing, is especially great, the day therefore "in which darkness has power" (Luke xxii. 53). Self-observation enables us plainly to distinguish different times, at which the soul feels itself alternately more free and triumphant, more fettered and assailed; seasons of the latter sort are called evil days. This contrasting of good and evil days is found even in the Old Testament. (See Eccles. vii. 15; Ps. xlix. 6; Prov. xvi. 4.) In the last words, kaì åпavтa kaтepуaσáμɛνοι στῆναι, κατεργασάμενοι cannot be taken of the preparation for the fight, for this preparation is already presupposed in dvτισTvai; nor of "well performing" all that the Christian is charged with, as, among others, Luther interprets, for the following orva shews that Paul still maintains the metaphor of the fight. The only right way is, with Beza, Calovius, Koppe, Flatt, Rückert, Holzhausen and Harless, to take κατεργάζεσθαι = καταπολεμεῖν, in the sense of "to overpower, beat down," so that ȧvriorñvai denotes the negative aspects of the struggle, the repulse of the attack, äпаνта katepyaσáμevoi oτñvaι, on the contrary, its positive aspect, the overcoming of the enemy, and the victorious maintenance of one's own position connected with it.

Vers. 14-17.-Now follows the carrying out of the figure of the armour in its separate parts. That it is not to be too much forced, as if every individual Christian virtue must be compared exactly with that piece of armour and no other, is shewn by the comparison of 1 Thess. v. 8, where faith and love are designated as a breastplate, whereas here righteousness is called the breast-plate, and the shield is brought into a parallel with faith; the helmet is there compared with the hope of salvation, here with salvation itself. Paul handles with freedom such figures, and hence applies them variously according to the existing exigency. As the entire image is taken from the warrior, and indeed, as we have seen, probably from the Roman prætorian guards, all its individual features must also necessarily be referred to pieces of armour. First, then, Paul describes in detail the defensive armour of the believer against the attacks of his spiritual enemies; the only weapon of attack which is named is the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. The most vulnerable part of the body, and the one least defended

[ocr errors]

by nature herself, dopús, the space above the hip below the ribs, is first named as protected by the girdle, subligaculum. Then the breast covered by the breast-plate, the feet by the military boots (caliga). Here now, by strict rule, the helmet should have been named next as the close-fitting weapon of defence; but Paul further names the shield before it, and then with it the whole department of defensive armour is completed. With these separate pieces of armour the separate features of Christian character are compared. Paul first names truth, which, here taken quite generally, is the bias of mind which is opposed to falsehood as the element of the devil, therefore uprightness of disposition, whence everything else proceeds. Then follows righteousness; this cannot be here righteousness of faith, because faith is also named specially, but merely the díkaιov eival, as the most general result of truth, in opposition to the wickedness (Tovnpía) of the enemies (ver. 12). The third point, ¿v ἑτοιμασίᾳ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς εἰρήνης, is more difficult. It was natural to interpret Touaoía, as it is brought into parallel with the sandals (inоdhuao), of readiness to proclaim the gospel of peace, as, besides Chrysostom, Ecumenius, Theophylact, and Grotius, Luther, too, translates "ready to promote the gospel of peace." But this readiness cannot possibly be compared with a weapon, and that, too, a weapon of defence; the propagation of the gospel is here an entirely remote idea. After Beza's example Wolf, Bengel, Morus, Koppe, and Flatt take érouaoía, after the analogy of the Hebrew

, which the LXX. translate by Eropaσía (Ps. x. 17, lxxxix. 14, cxii. 17), in the sense of "foundation, firm ground-work,” or “base.” But even so the comparison is not appropriate; the weapon of defence must answer to a subjective state, not to a predicate of the gospel. The only correct way is to take &тouaoía, with Calvin, Baumgarten, Matthies, Holzhausen, and Harless, in the meaning of alacritas, and, in connexion with the genitive, as alacritas quam gignit evangelium pacis. A vigorous freedom of movement may properly be compared with sandals (rodijuaoi), as the latter promote ease and security in walking. The gospel of peace, i. e., that brings peace to the mind, is properly conceived as the cause of spiritual freedom of movement, because peace removes all obstructions of the spiritual life. That, fourthly, faith is compared to a shield is in itself clearly extremely suitable. Upon the shield the arrows of the enemy, i. e., here of the devil, are received. ('O пovηpós = diáẞoλos διάβολος in verse 11.) But here a definite class of especially dangerous arrows are named, which were enveloped in combustible materials and discharged burning, so-called Tvрpóрoi dioroí, fiery arrows (see Thucyd. ii. 75; Amm. Marcell. xxiii. 4). Against these it was usual to cover the shields with moist hides, in order to extinguish the fire in them. In this metaphor there seems to have been present to the

apostle's mind that form of satanic temptation in which abominable thoughts, like arrows of Satan, suddenly attack the soul, which by their fire can inflame desires, if they do not become extinct and lose their power on the shield of faith. Lastly, salvation is compared to the helmet. True, we cannot take σωτήριον = ἐλπὶς τῆς σωτηρίας (1 Thess. v. 8); still, Tò σwτýptov, like all the rest of the points named, must be taken subjectively; not, however, so much as a hope, as a possessing present salvation. Finally, the Spirit is named as the sole, but fully sufficient, weapon of attack (sword). Manifestly vεvua here is not the human, but the Divine Spirit, which the Christian alone receives; for it is the armour of the Christian that is described. That man is called upon to seize this sword of the Spirit, to carry it, therefore in a certain sense to control it, can be no argument against our here supposing the Divine Spirit, for he appears everywhere in Scripture, so far as he is active in man, as subject to consciousness, although this Holy Spirit is the principle of moral and religious life. With even more than necessary fulness Paul enounces this important principle, which must be considered as the rampart against all fanaticism, in that section (1 Cor. xiv.) which is so instructive as to the operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer's soul, where it is said (verse 32): Tvεúμата проÓητшν πроφήταις ὑποτάσσεται, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (See the Comm. on that passage.) Under this view we easily comprehend how the Spirit which fills the faithful can be considered as the sword with which they fight against the vεvuаTIKÀ Tns поvηpías; the nature of this uncreated Holy Spirit guarantees the victory over the created spirits of evil. But it is obscure how Paul can add : õ ¿στí þíμа Оεоv, as an explanation of the Spirit. For that this phrase designates any individual portion of the Divine Word, the Divine threats against the wicked, or the commands of Christianity, its unlimited character renders exceedingly improbable. Paul himself explains the phrase ῥῆμα Θεοῦ by Rom. x. 8, τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν. The revelation of God in the Word of truth is therefore, in the most comprehensive sense, the gospel of peace (verse 15). But how can this Word of God be designated as the Spirit itself? The Holy Spirit would seem to be something accompanying the Word of God, an influence which the Word of God produces, but not the Word of God itself. But, apart from the form of manifestation of the Divine Word in the letter of the Holy Scriptures, or in oral preaching, this is in its inward essence the manifestation of Divinity itself, consequently Spirit, as the efflux of God the Spirit. Whether it is taken as the Word of God the Father, or as the Word of Christ (Col. iii. 16), or as the Holy Ghost, depends merely on the writer's mode of viewing it; as man

[ocr errors]

ifestation of the triune God it reconciles also the different relations of the Trinity.

Vers. 18-20.-What follows describes the way and manner in which the sword of the Spirit is to be handled. Col. iv. 2, seq., is parallel with it. It is in prayer, and indeed perpetual' prayer, prayer in the Spirit, and relating to all the details of life, that the Christian wields the sword of the Spirit, and thus strives for himself and the whole church of God against the might of darkness and its powers. Again, by ev vεúμari is designated not the hyman spirit, as if the words meant, "with devout mind," but the Divine Spirit, in whose strength and by whose influences alone we can pray in a manner really well-pleasing to God. (On EV TAVтì KALOT = ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ пάντоτε проσεúɣeo0aι, see at Luke xviii. 1.-As to the two synonyms πроσενxý and dénois, the LXX. use the former constantly for ben, the latter, on the contrary, for . Ipooεvý is the more general Προσευχή expression, "prayer in general, communion with God;" on the other hand, denois is in specie a "petitioning prayer," in which a favour is solicited.) While, at first, the discourse was merely of prayer as relative to the person praying, it is conceived, in the words kaì eiç avTÒ ȧуρVπVOUνTES, K. T. 2., in the form of intercession; in this consists the progress of the thought. Eiç auró refers accordingly not to the following words, but to the preceding προσεύχεσθαι ἐν πνεύματι, "watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication." That is to say, the object of the supplication for all saints is that all may abide in continual spiritual prayer. This interpretation removes the apparent tautology involved in ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει, after διὰ δεήσεως προσευXóμevo had already preceded it. (In verse 18 the Touro after siç avtó is, no doubt, spurious, and probably came into the text here from verse 22. The origin also of the reading aúróv in D.F.G. is only to be explained by the original reading αὐτό.—On προσκαρτερεῖν see Rom. xii. 12; Acts i. 14.) Paul also solicits intercession for himself in a special relation viz., for a blessing on his labours, not for his personal religious life. We constantly find it so in Paul's epistles. He never solicits of his readers their intercession for the strengthening of his life in the faith, but only for the promotion of his ministry and for aid in external distresses. (Cf. Rom. xv. 30; Col. iv. 3; Phil. i. 19; 2 Thess. iii. 1.) The personal spiritual development of the apostles was sufficiently secured by the peculiar operation of the Holy Ghost in them. The object of the supplication for himself Paul expresses by ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματος, for the connexion of ἐν ἀνοίξει, κ. τ. λ., with what follows is to be considered as decidedly inadmissible. From the parallel passage, Col. iv. 3, ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου, it was proposed to translate v dvoíže oтóuaтoç here quite arbitrarily in ocasione data. Rather, regard seems to have been had here to pas

sages like Ps. li. 15, "Open thou my lips," and Matth. x. 19; Mark xiii. 11, where the Holy Ghost is promised the apostles in their discourses. Paul therefore wishes the church may by their prayers obtain for him that the gift of utterance may be given unto him, i. e., that the Spirit, which alone speaketh rightly on Divine things, may bestow on him all that is necessary on every occasion for his ministerial efficiency. The objection might here be raised that Paul had surely received the Holy Ghost once for all, and with it the due faculty of speaking, and thus required in respect to this no intercession of the church. But the Holy Ghost is not to be viewed in the apostles as a constantly operating power, but as a power which manifested itself at different times in different degrees and forms of efficacy. No doubt the Spirit was abiding in the apostles, not momentary as in the prophets of the Old Testament; but it operated now more now less urgently, at times even quite arresting outward action. (Cf. Acts xvi. 6, and the remarks on it in the Comm.) The sense of this request, therefore, of Paul's for intercession for himself is this: "Pray that the due faculty of speaking may be given to me in my present position, and, as far as is possible, always and everywhere." In fact this idea coincides with the prayer: "Pray that it may be given unto me to convert as many as possible to the kingdom of heaven." The consequence of this imparting of speech (δοθῆναι λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει στόματος) is afterwards the possibility of making known in all freedom the mystery of the gospel (yvwpíoaι ¿v παῤῥησίᾳ τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.) (See on παῤῥησία and μυστή pɩov iii. 12 and iii. 3.) We are not to think here of outward freedom (viz., from bonds), but of inward joyfulness of soul, which enhanced the power of his labours, and is for that reason so desirable to Paul, not on account of his subjective enjoyment. With this freedom the state of external bondage, of which Paul here makes mention, contrasts; mundus habet legatos splendidos, says Bengel, Christus vinctos. (To find in the singular, év áλúoa, an allusion to the manner of fettering Paul in his Roman imprisonment, as Flatt still insists-that is, to the circumstance that he was fastened by a chain to a Roman soldier [see the Comm. on Acts xxviii. 20]-is plainly unsuitable. In the parallel passage, Col. iv. 3, it is said: δι' ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι.) Finally, the last words, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παῤῥησιάσωμαι, κ. τ. λ., are usually taken as a resumption of the ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωpíoai, ver. 19. But that supposition would appear justified only if the words ran, for instance, iva kaì Ev avτy, “that even in my chains also I might have joyfulness." It is more suitable to place this conclusion parallel with the iva μoi do☺ñ, K. T. λ., and to look for the peculiarity of the idea here expressed in the ἐν αὐτῷ—ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. That is to say, the ἐν αὐτῷ is to be referred to μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγε Aíov; "to be joyful in the gospel" means "to make known the λίου

« ÖncekiDevam »