restoration of the one body, restored the whole body; and the greatest significance of redemption consists in this, that it is not merely a restoration of the life of this earth, but a restoration of the harmony of the universe." But this interpretation leaves unresolved the principal difficulty, viz., how Paul could say that all have a share in redemption, that it is a restoration of the harmony of the universe, if he shared the common view that the numberless hosts of angels who fell, along with the by far greatest part of mankind (Matth. vii. 13, 14), are eternally damned, and thus shut out from the harmony of the universe. The defenders of "universal restoration" understand "the harmony of the universe" seriously in its literal meaning, and seem, according to that, to be here in the right. Certainly, if taken in their isolation, the two passages, Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20, cannot be explained otherwise. But the interpreter has the task not merely of explaining separate passages, but also of elucidating the separate passages from the general tenor of the ideas of the writer to whom they belong, and again of throwing light on the ideas of the individual writer (of course without encroaching on his individuality), in connexion with the expressions of the primitive Christian doctrine in all the writers of the New Testament, According to this, it may perhaps be affirmed that Paul is the writer in the New Testament who touches on the doctrine of eternal damnation most rarely, leaves it most in the background, and contains most of the expressions which, considered per se, seem to teach a general restoration. Still, we cannot say he teaches that doctrine decidedly; partly, because he nowhere enunciates it outright, but always in such a way only that we are led to it by inference; partly, because the other writers of the New Testament, and especially in the Gospels our Lord himself, so expressly maintain the contrary. Now, as regards the two passages (Eph. i. 10, and Col. i. 20), it might be the most simple plan to make the meaning we obtain from them harmonize with the general doctrinal type of the Scriptures, by putting prominently forward in the infinitives ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι, ἀποκαταλλάξαι, the purpose of God, which, in the establishment of that redemption which is furnished with infinite power, tends to the restoration of universal harmony, and to the recovery of all that was lost, so that the sense would be the same as in the passages 1 Tim. i. 4, 6. "God will have all men to be saved, he has given himself a ransom for all." But that, through the unfaithfulness and wickedness of man, this purpose is not fulfilled, and that many men are not benefitted by it, is a subject that the apostle has no occasion to put forward. It cannot be objected to this, that surely God, in his omniscience, foreknows that the fallen angels would not be converted, for he knows that just as well of men, who continue in unbelief; but a reference of Divine

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 έTÌ [for ev] Toiç ovpavois, in which he follows B.D.E. But the connexion of ¿πí with oúpavoïç 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 avr@ concludes the sentence with a retrospect to ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, an one side, but, with ἐν ᾧ καί, also makes a transition to what follows. But here the question is, first of all, whether ἐκλήθημεν οι ἐκληρώθημεν should be read. A.D.E.F.G., and the Itala (Italic version) are in favour of έkλý¤nuɛv, which, therefore, Lachmann also has received into the text, and, indeed, according to his principles, was obliged to do. But έkλnpw0nμev, though less supported by critical authorities, is yet favoured by its rareness, and the difficulty of explaining it. The origin of kλñonuev in an ἐκλήθημεν explanatory gloss, which was written in the margin on ἐκληρώθημεν, is very simply brought about; the origin of ¿kλŋpw0nμev, on the contrary, in case it is not genuine, admits no explanation. Now there is, doubtless, couched in the word kλnpovola, as most and the best interpreters acknowledge, a reference to the Old Testament phrase, which the LXX. translate by кλñρos Oɛov (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. Kanpovolat, therefore, here denoted the realization, in time, of the kλoyn v Xploтy, 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 Tà пáνта Éνеруоvνтoç), 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 пáνra led further to a reprobatio impiorum also. But the determining clause κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήμαToç avтov, 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 βουλή recognize the Almighty's influence on evil. (The connexion of ßovλý with TO≈ 0ελýμatos is to so be explained that the Divine will, in an active sense, is represented as shewing itself in individual actions Oéλnua is, therefore, the more general, ßovλý 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 nueis in comprehensive generality denoted "all believers and elect," without reference to their origin, here it appears in opposition to vuɛis 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 ρоɛλπíšε 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 hère is whether the participle τους προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ is merely an apposition to ἡμᾶς, or the predicate of the proposition εἰς τὸ εἶναι ημãs, K. T. 2. The former is the more usual construction, but it is ἡμᾶς, κ. convincingly proved by Harless that the other deserves the preference; for since mention has already been made above, vers. 5 and 9, of the πρооρíšεv and the πрólɛois 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 έv & kaÌ Èkλŋрú0ŋμεv проoρισ0évτεs, 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 uɛïs to the special one appears somewhat more strongly marked in Toùs πропλпIкÓтαс. However, this can be no decisive argument against that explanation, because the transition to the special meaning of quels is, at all events, a gradual one.

ἐκληρώθητε.

Ver. 13.-With this contrast of Jews and Gentiles, the latter of whom are here denoted by iusic, and the connexion of vers. 11 and 12, we can, at έv & kaì vμεis, only suppply from ver. 11 the leading term KλnρWONTε. 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

=

66

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 пvεõμa τñs 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 (λnpovouía). 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 πеρоηoews passively, and to assume that the abstract is put for the concrete, περɩπоinois, possession, for tepitoinfévtes, 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 пvεvμa äуtov. 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 drove 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, Tǹy кal' vμãs πίστιν, a repetition of the article before ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ, as in τὴν ἀγάTηV Tην 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 pɩλadɛλpía, 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 dýn vμĩv πνεõμα, 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 ppóvnois, 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 (πvεõμа σоpíaç) seems, like "word of wisdom," 1 Cor. xii. 8, to stand for the charisma.