Bible Commentaries

Ephesians 1 overview — Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους A B D E F G K א , min. have the shorter and older superscription: πρὸς Ἐφεσίους . I, min.: τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ἐφεσ . CHAPTER 1 Ephesians 1:1 . ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ] See Introd. § 1. Tisch. has put it in brackets. Ephesians

Ephesians 1:7 — Ephesians 1:7 . More precise elucidation, on the basis of experience ( ἔχομεν ), of what had just been said, ἐχαρίτ . ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπ . ἐν ᾧ ] so that in Him our possession of the redemption has its ground. He it is, without whose person and work

Ephesians 1:9 — Ephesians 1:9 . In that He has made known to us the mystery of His will . The aorist participle signifies an action coincident and completed at the same time with ἐπερίσσ . See on Ephesians 1:5 . ἡμῖν ] applies, as in the whole connection, to the

Ephesians 2 overview — CHAPTER 2 Ephesians 2:1 . After ἁμαρτίαις , B D E F G א , min. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Lucif. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pel. have ὑμῶν , which Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly received into the text. On account of the redundancy

Ephesians 2:1 — Ephesians 2:1 . Connection : After Knatchbull and others (mentioned by Wolf, Cur. on i. 19) had attached καὶ ὑμᾶς to εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας , Ephesians 1:19 , and Bengel to ἣν ἐνήργ ., Ephesians 1:20 (both arbitrarily confusing, and the former

Ephesians 2:4 — Ephesians 2:4 . Now begins, after the intervening clauses, Ephesians 2:2-3 , the resumption, and that with the subject , which Paul already had in mind at Ephesians 2:1 . See on Ephesians 2:1 . It is not, however, by οὖν , but by δέ , that the thought

Ephesians 3 overview — CHAPTER 3 Ephesians 3:3 . ἐγνωρίσθη ] Elz. Matth. Reiche have ἐγνώρισε , in opposition to decisive testimony. A more precisely defining gloss. Ephesians 3:5 . Before ἑτέραις Elz. has, likewise against decisive testimony, ἐν , which was attached on

Ephesians 3:11 — Ephesians 3:11 . Κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων ] belongs neither to πολυποίκιλος (Holzhausen) nor to σοφία (Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius), nor does it relate to Ephesians 3:9 (Michaelis), nor yet to all that precedes from Ephesians 3:3 or Ephesians 3:5 (Flatt,

Ephesians 3:3 — Ephesians 3:3 . In this more detailed specification of the οἰκονομία meant in Ephesians 3:2 , κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν has the emphasis: by way of revelation , expressing the mode of the making known, in accordance with a well-known adverbial usage (Bernhardy,

Ephesians 4 overview — CHAPTER 4 Ephesians 4:6 . After πᾶσιν Elz. has, with min. Chrys. Theodoret, ὑμῖν ; for which D E F G K L and many min., also several vss. and Fathers, read ἡμῖν . So Griesb. and Scholz. But neither pronoun is present in A B C א and several min. vss.

Ephesians 4:1 — Ephesians 4:1 . See on Ephesians 4:1-6 , Winzer, Commentat. , Lips. 1839. παρακαλῶ ] “Parte doctrinae absoluta venit, ut solet, ad adhortationes,” Grotius. No doubt, there presently begins again at Ephesians 4:4 a doctrinal exposition

Ephesians 4:14 — Ephesians 4:14 . Ἵνα ] cannot, at all events, introduce the design of the attained goal in Ephesians 4:13 , in opposition to which αὐξήσωμεν , Ephesians 4:15 , clearly testifies; since, in the case of him who has already become the ἀνὴρ τέλειος ,

Ephesians 4:17 — Ephesians 4:17 . That οὖν , like the Latin ergo , here resumes Ephesians 4:1 (Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 718), is rightly assumed; since the exhortation begun Ephesians 4:1-3 is really interrupted by the digression, Ephesians

Ephesians 5 overview — CHAPTER 5 Ephesians 5:2 . ἡμας … ἡμῶν ] Tisch.: ὑμᾶς … ὑμῶν . But the witnesses for this are of unequal value and not strong enough, specially as the pronoun of the second person naturally presented itself from the context. Ephesians 5:4 καὶ αἰσχρ

Ephesians 5:10 — Ephesians 5:10 . Δοκιμάζοντες ] after the parenthesis in Ephesians 5:9 , a modal definition of the walk called for in Ephesians 5:8 , which is to be prosecuted under a searching consideration of what is well-pleasing to Christ ( τῷ κυρίῳ ), as to which subjectively the Christian conscience (Romans 14:23 ) and objectively the gospel of Christ (Ephesians 4:20 ; Romans 1:16 ; Philippians 1:27 ) give the decision. Comp. Ephesians 5:15 ; Romans 12:2 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:21 .

Ephesians 5:33 — Ephesians 5:33 . Πλήν ] is usually explained to the effect, that it leads back to the proper theme after the digression of Ephesians 5:30-32 , or merely Ephesians 5:32 (Olshausen). “Paulus prae nobilitate digressionis quasi oblitus propositae

Ephesians 5:7 — Ephesians 5:7 . Οὖν ] since on account of these sins, etc. συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν ] αὐτῶν can, in keeping with the context, only be referred to the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθ ., whose co-partners the Christians become, if they practise the same sins , whereby they

Ephesians 6 overview — CHAPTER 6 Ephesians 6:1 . After ὑμῶν Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ἐν κυρίῳ , in opposition to B D * F G, It. Marcion, Cyril, Cypr. Ambrosiast. Rejected by Mill, suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Rück., but defended (on the ground of Colossians

Ephesians 6:16 — Ephesians 6:16 . Ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ] not: before all things (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, and others), but: in addition to all . Comp. Luke 3:20 ; Polyb. vi. 23. 12: ἐπὶ δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις προσεπικοσμοῦνται πτερίνῳ στεφάνῳ . See Wetstein, ad Luc. xvi. 26; Matthiae,

Ephesians 6:22 — Ephesians 6:22 . Ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ] namely, that he should travel from Colossae to you, Colossians 4:7-9 . See Introd. § 2. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ] in this very design . See on Ephesians 6:18 , and Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 12. 2; Pflugk, ad Eur. Androm.