grace, which reaches its highest climax in Christ and his work, to the evil spirits, must, according to God's universal all-embracing compassion, necessarily be supposed; although this very grace, in consequence of their continued resistance, effects the very opposite of reconciliation, viz., the utmost obduracy. (Lachmann reads ¿πì [for ev] Toiç oupavois, in which he follows B.D.E. But the connexion of ení with oupavoiç is so entirely unusual and unsuitable in itself that we can scarcely take the reading for anything more than a copyist's error.)

Ver. 11. The v air concludes the sentence with a retrospect to ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, on one side, but, with ἐν ᾧ καί, also makes a transition to what follows. But here the question is, first of all, whether ἐκλήθημεν οἱ ἐκληρώθημεν should be read. A.DE.F.G., and the Itala (Italic version) are in favour of ¿kλýnuev, which, therefore, Lachmann also has received into the text, and, indeed, according to his principles, was obliged to do. But Ekλnpwonμev, though less supported by critical authorities, is yet favoured by its rareness, and the difficulty of explaining it. The origin of kλýŋuev in an ἐκλήθημεν explanatory gloss, which was written in the margin on έkλŋpú0ŋuev, is very simply brought about; the origin of kλŋpwoŋμev, on the contrary, in case it is not genuine, admits no explanation. Now there is, doubtless, couched in the word Kanpovola, as most and the best interpreters acknowledge, a reference to the Old Testament phrase, which the LXX. translate by Kλñроç Оɛov (Deut. iv. 20, ix. 26, 29). To this we are also led especially by the parallel passage, Col. i. 12, by which we must certainly be very greatly guided in the interpretation of our expression, since both were written at one time, and from one circle of ideas. Kinpovola, therefore, here denoted the realization, in time, of the ikλoyǹ ¿v Xpioty, which was treated of above. But the προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν, being predestinated according to the purpose, has a reference to God's eternal decree (see on vers. 5, 9), which, as a decree of the Almighty (TO тà пávтa ¿vepyovvτoç), necessarily includes its realization also. The prædestinatio sanctorum, as we defined it on Rom. ix. 1, is again quite unmistakably couched in this passage. It might seem, however, that the тà ñáντа led further to a reprobatio impiorum also. But the determining clause κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήμαToç avτov, according to the counsel of his will, excludes that. Evil, as such, is against God's will; it is only in giving it a concrete shape that God's hand is manifest in regard to it; in regard to the form of evil, we cannot hesitate, as has been already said at Rom. ix. 1, to recognize the Almighty's influence on evil. (The connexion of Bovλý with To≈ 0ɛλýμatoç is to so be explained that the Divine will, in an active sense, is represented as shewing itself in individual actions; Оéλnua is, therefore, the more general, Bovλn the more special)

;

Ver. 12. As in ver. 5 so here again too the praise of the Divine glory is set forth as the object of the calling of men; but whereas hitherto queis in comprehensive generality denoted "all believers and elect," without reference to their origin, here it appears in opposition to vucic in ver. 13. That Paul by this word does not mean to designate merely himself and his immediate companions, in opposition to the readers of the epistle, is unmistakably shewn by the limitation τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, who had previously hoped in Christ. But in ¬ρоɛλ¬íčε we find merely a reference to the position of the Jews in opposition to the Gentiles. Whilst in the history of the people of Israel from the very beginning a constant reference to the coming of the Messiah may be traced, the Gentiles lived without this hope. It was only when they heard the preaching of Christ, who had then already appeared, that they received the first knowledge of him. The details of the relative position of the Gentiles to the Jews, and their fusion into a higher unity in the church of Christ, occupy Paul afterwards (ii. 11, seq.) But the most difficult question here is whether the participle τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ is merely an apposition to ἡμᾶς, or the predicate of the proposition εἰς τὸ εἶναι huas, K. T. 2. The former is the more usual construction, but it is convincingly proved by Harless that the other deserves the preference; for since mention has already been made above, vers. 5 and 9, of the poopiεv and the póleos in general, it would be strange to see those ideas repeated here just in the same way. On the other hand, the connexion presents itself in an entirely different way if we take the passage thus: "predestined, that we to the praise of his glory should be those who already beforehand hoped in Christ." The only objection to this otherwise entirely satisfactory construction, is, as appears to me, that according to it év & Kaì èkλNpúОŋμεv проopιolévτεs, in the former sentence, must, according to Paul's meaning, denote the Jews alone, in which case there is no transition to them intimated; whereas, in the other version of the construction, the transition from the general meaning of queis to the special one appears somewhat more strongly marked in roùs πроηλπIKÓταг. However, this can be no decisive argument against that explanation, because the transition to the special meaning of queis is, at all events, a gradual one.

Ver. 13. With this contrast of Jews and Gentiles, the latter of whom are here denoted by vues, and the connexion of vers. 11 and 12, we can, at έv ó̟ kaì vμeiç, only suppply from ver. 11 the leading term ἐκληρώθητε. To the Jews, as the first called, the Gentiles are added, but only by their hearing the preaching of the word of truth; whereas the former had previously learnt to hope through the predictions of the Prophets. It seems, then, unnecessary to inclose, with Griesbach, the clause ἀκούσαντες—σωτηρίας ὑμῶν in

brackets, and indeed Lachmann has rightly cancelled them. For in the ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες the previous ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς is not merely resumed, but the idea is carried out materially further; that is to say, πιστεύειν, together with σφραγισθῆναι τῷ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, is joined to ἀκούειν. (See, on the use of σφραγίζειν = βεβαιοῦν, “ to confirm, corroborate," the remarks on John iii. 33, vi. 27; 2 Cor. i. 22.) The Holy Ghost, who is here designated as пvεvμa τis έпayyeXíaç, inasmuch as he had been already promised to mankind through the prophecies of the Old Testament [Joel iii. 1; Zach. xii. 10], is the Author of the sealing of the Faithful.)

Ver. 14.-Finally, Paul closes these introductory words, and that series of propositions which are linked together by means of relatives, beginning with ver. 6, with the more accurate characterization of the Holy Ghost as an earnest of the inheritance which awaits the Faithful. Paul calls the Spirit appaßóv in 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, also. (See the Comm. on those passages.) But here it is at the same time more definitely declared of what he is the earnest viz., of the inheritance (Kanpovouía). That by this Paul understands final salvation, and especially the kingdom of God, has been already remarked on Gal. v. 21. (See also Eph. v. 5.) Then the believer becomes entirely an element of the spiritual life, of which what he receives here from the Spirit is only the foretaste; then will the earthly sphere be covered by the Spirit as the waves of the sea. The two concluding parallel clauses beginning with eis, point to the ultimate aim of all spiritual activity, to the final redemption of the people of the possession, and to the praise of the glory of God. (Cf. vers. 5, 12.) That redemption here does not denote the beginning of the new life, as in ver. 7, is clear from the context; it is the final, complete redemption, not only of the individual, but also of the whole, just as at Rom. viii. 23; 1 Cor. i. 30. It is best to take the addition Tйs TερITоnoεws passively, and to assume that the abstract is put for the concrete, περιποίησις, possession, for περιποιηθέντες, those possessed. There is couched, no doubt, in the choice of the word a reference to the Old Testament denomination of the people of Israel. See Exod. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2; Tit. ii. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9. ("Os in the beginning of ver. 14 refers not to Christ, but to пvεvua äytov. The masculine stands with reference only to the following appaßúv, and also, we may suppose, as in John xiv. 26 [on which see the Comm.], to the Holy Spirit regarded as a person.)

§ 2. THANKSGIVING FOR THE FAITH OF THE READERS.

(i. 15-ii. 10.)

Vers. 15, 16.—Whilst the section from ver. 3 to ver. 14 was properly only an effusion of love annexing itself to the usual thanksgiving at the beginning of the epistle, Paul only comes now to the formal commencement of the epistle, as the parallel passage, Col. i. 3, 4, 9, shews. He expresses himself, however, as to the faith and love of his readers in such a way, that we see he did not know many of them personally. (See Introd. § 1.) To attribute to drove the meaning "to know of one's-self, to know by one's own observation," is, of course, entirely inadmissible. Col. i. 4 shews that drovεiv is rather opposed to personal knowledge, for Paul had certainly not been in Colossæ. Faith and love are, we may add, named here as the two chief utterances of religious life, to which hope is further joined at 1 Thess. i. 2, 3. Finally, the beginnings of the epistles in 1 Cor. i. 4; Phil. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 2, 3, are just like that of this epistle. (In ver. 15 the kayó is to be referred to the prayer of all other believers, whom Paul supposes to exist, "as all thank, so do I also thank." We might expect in the first clause, Tiν кa✪ vμãs πίστιν, a repetition of the article before ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ, as in τὴν ἀγάTηV TẦν εiç. See on this point Harless, p. 84. Similar instances are found Rom. iii. 25; 2 Cor. vii. 7; Col. i. 4.-Love is here described primarily as piλadɛλpía, but true brotherly love in general love of man is necessarily implied. See 2 Pet. i. 7.)

Ver. 17. The theme then of the prayer for the readers is, that God may vouchsafe them the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, i. e., that God may call forth among them the highest and noblest fruits of the Spirit. As just before (ver. 14), believers are represented as being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, and possessing him as an earnest of the future inheritance, the iva dún iμïv πvεμα, that he may give to you the Spirit, cannot be here understood of the Spirit being given to them for the first time; but only of his working in them in a peculiar and deeper way. Therefore, when wisdom is again named here (as in ver. 8), it seems to be used of the charisma of wisdom, which we could not suppose at ver. 8, for this reason, if for no other, that there is not, and cannot be, a charisma of prudence (opóvnois). (See on 1 Cor. xii. 8.) But the two words, oopía and opóvnois, are in ver. 8 so united that either both or neither must be understood of a charismatical working of the Spirit. But here Spirit of wisdom (vεμa σopíaç) seems, like "word of wisdom," 1 Cor. xii. 8, to stand for the charisma.

Paul, therefore, distinguishes the ordinary influences of the Holy Spirit, as they are even now active in the church, which rouse, heighten, and sanctify all men's powers, from their particular charismatical efficiency, which was exhibited only in the earliest times of the church. (IIvevua occurs directly for charismata in 1 Cor. xiv. 12 also.) This interpretation of ἵνα δῴη ὑμῖν πνεῦμα σοφίας is also the only way of explaining the difficult use of κaí, scil. Tvεõμa ȧTоkaλvεws, which otherwise cannot be expounded at all satisfactorily. For the charisma of drокáhvчis, revelation, is here, as at 1 Cor. xiv. 6, 26, the capacity for receiving revelations, therefore for being a prophet. Would we, on the contrary, take drоkáλviç here in the entirely general meaning, "revelation of God to man," the following collocation of the words would be necessarily required: δῴη ὑμῖν ἀποκάλυψιν πνεύματος σοφίας. Το resort to hendiadys can plainly not soften the harshness of the collocation.

Harless thinks Rom. xi. 29 most like our passage: no doubt the kλños, which occurs further on in that passage, contains the basis of the xapíopara, but the ȧñoкáλviç here does not so contain the ground for the copía; on the contrary, according to this interpretation, πνεῦμα is limited and determined by ἀποκάλυψις. That this can be thus brought in afterwards is certainly not established by any example. ("Iva with the following don is not to be taken TeλKoç, but to be explained by the later less forcible use of the particle after words of commanding, begging, etc. See Winer's Gr. § 44, 8.-On ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου see at ver. 3. The addition πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, father of glory, is explained, as to the sense, by the fact that the subsequently named charismata are precisely operations of the Divine glory; but the form is unusual. We find in Acts vii. 2 the phrase ó Oεòs τns dóns, which is found Ps. xxix. 3, also, in the LXX. for the Hebrew. On the other hand, there is found Ps. xxiv. 7 ỏ Baoiλevs Tñs dóšns, the king of glory, for the Hebrew, but our phrase & Taτǹp τñs dóns is without analogy. The assumption of a hendiadys, rendering it = πаTǹp Evdošos, is not very probable; the purpose is not here to add a laudatory epithet of God, but to express that the doğa proceeds from God, that he is the source of it. It is therefore fittest to take Tarp here in the more extended sense of auctor, fons, just as at 2 Cor. i. 3, Tаτηρ Tv оikтipμāv. In like manner, at John viii. 44, the devil is called & πaτip toũ þeúdovs, because lies proceed from him. The assumption of the Fathers, to which Bengel also assents, that doğa is here a name of Christ, requires no refutation, since it will scarcely find further approval.)

Ver. 18.—After the reference of πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως to the gifts of wisdom and prophecy, Ev ¿пуvúσɛɩ avtov cannot, of course, be joined with what precedes (as those are wont to suppose, who take ver. 17 to allude only to the general working of