Ephesians 3:14-19

2. The Apostle’s petition with an exhortation for the church

(Ephesians 3:14-19)

14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ [omit 15of our Lord Jesus Christ],33 Of [From] whom the whole [every] family in heaven and [on] earth is named, 16That he would grant34 you, according to the riches35 of his glory, to be strengthened with might by [through] his Spirit in the inner man; 17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by [through] faith; that ye, being rooted 18and grounded in love,36 May be [fully] able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;37 19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge [or the knowledge-surpassing-love of Christ], that ye might be filled with [may be filled up to] all the fulness of God.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Ephesians 3:14. The connection. For this cause, τούτου χάριν.—Thus Paul connects with Ephesians 3:1, where the construction is interrupted. Still with ὑπερ ὑμῶν (Ephesians 3:13) ha has already resumed what was expressed in Ephesians 3:1, and with “which are your glory,” referred to the previous current of thought (Ephesians 2:22 : “ye are builded together”). Comp. Ephesians 3:1. [Eadie: “The prayer must be regarded as immediately following that section, and its architectural terms and allusions will thus be more clearly understood.” Meyer however explains: on this account that you faint not, etc.—R.]

The prayer, Ephesians 3:14-15.

I bow my knees, κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά μου.—So Philippians 2:10. It describes τὴν κατανενυγμένην δέησιν (Chrysostom). Bengel: “Si præsens adfuisset Paulus, genua flexisset, exardescente pectore. Acts 20:36. Here the reference is to genua mentis (Jerome); the idea of “praying” is so prominent, that the accusative sometimes follows the verb γονυπετεῖν (Matthew 17:14; Mark 10:17).

Unto the Father, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.—The phrase is found thus without any qualification in Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 1:12. [On πρός, denoting the direction, see Winer, p. 378. The metaphorical sense of the phrase justifies the preposition; were the idea merely that of bending the knee, a dative would probably follow.—On the phrase: of our Lord Jesus Christ, see Textual Note1.—R.]

From whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.38—Ἐξ οὑ̄ πᾶσα πατριὰ—ὀνομάζεται is a paronomasia to πατέρα, which cannot be reproduced, except as Luther (1545) has so beautifully and correctly expressed it: Der der rechte Vater ist über Alles, was da kinder heisst; all editions from 1522–1541 read: was Vater heisst. Evidently “from whom,” ἐξ οὑ̄, refers to “Father,” from Him (ἐξ) originates the name borne (ὀνομάζεται) by him who stands at the head of a group, πατριά, which is thus termed from πατήρ. The etymology must be well considered here. While φυλαί (מַטּוֹת) designates the tribes descending from the sons of Jacob, πατριαί (מִשְׁפָחוֹת) denotes the families in the several tribes, descending from the sons of Jacob’s sons; οἶκοι (בֶּית־חָאָבוֹת) is yet more special in its meaning. Hence the reference here is to larger groups. The word designates a lineage, family, springing from one father and bearing his name. [Eadie: “Every circle of holy and intelligent creatures having the name of πατριά takes that name from God as ΙΙατήρ.” So Alford, Ellicott.—R.] Accordingly something concrete and living is treated of, so that it is not=πατρότης, Fatherhood (Theodoret, John of Damascus, Anselm, Luther, 1522–41; Meyer: He is the original Father, the Father of all fathers; Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount, p. 394; Nitzsch, Prakt. Theol. 1. p. 269).

ΙΙᾶσα without the article (Winer, p. 110) necessarily refers to the multiplicity of the families: every family. Bengel is excellent: omnis, angelorum, hominum ceterorum, ex ipso, ut patre, pendens; as David’s family from David (Luke 2:4) and from Abraham, so the blessing comes, like that of a father upon all the families of the earth (Acts 3:25). The phrase: “in heaven and on earth,” ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, joined closely to πατριά without the article, points to the world of angels and of men, referring to the groups dependent on heads and chiefs. We must then understand here classes of angels (comp. on Ephesians 1:21), since the angels also are called sons, children of God (Job 38:7; Luke 20:36) and call God their Father, not merely their Creator, and races of people as national families, although “children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 5:6) are not wanting. For “all angels, all Christians, aye, all children of men are God’s children, for He has created them all” (Luther) in Christ, the Son of filiation. The word πατριά, which by the addition of πᾶσα and ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, has received an extension of meaning reaching far beyond bodily descent, must be understood not merely in a natural, but also in an ethical sense, as indeed the idea: “Father” is thus used. Since “fatherhood” has not a concrete meaning, it cannot be translated by this word, but Stier thus attempts to preserve the concrete force, der rechte Vater uber Alles, was nach Vätern heisst.

It is incorrect and ungrammatical to understand by it the whole world family (Meyer, Olshausen and others), or only two groups, angels and men (Calvin), or the saints in heaven and the elect on the earth (Calov.),39 since in that case the article would be found before ἐν οὐρανοῖς and before ἐπὶ γῆς, as in the first case it should stand after πᾶσα. It is incorrect to ignore altogether the idea of groups, families, which Luther’s version throws into the background, and to make of God an “All-father” (Meyer). Luther has given occasion to this mistake, but corrected it through his translation; for he says there that God is Father over all, that is called children, of course maintained, cared for, as we are, in Christ. It respects more the right Father than the right children (Harless). Finally all polemical reference, such as against the particularism of the Jews (Calvin), angel-worship (Michael), must be rejected. The passage is ironical rather. Comp. Doctr. Note 2.

Ephesians 3:16. The purport of the supplication. Ephesians 3:16-17.—That he would grant you.—Ἵνα δῷ ὑμῖν marks the purpose and consequently the purport of the supplication, indicating at the same time the confidence of him who prays, that He who is implored will fulfil his request. Comp. Ephesians 1:17. [The subject and the purpose thus blended as so often when ἵνα follows a verb signifying (even metaphorically) to pray.—R.]

According to the riches of his glory.—Κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ defines the δῷ more closely, as a rich and glorious giving. He should give, not merely announce, according to, in the proportion of His riches in glory. See Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 1:17; Colossians 1:11. “Glory” here embraces the whole glorious perfection of God (Meyer); there is no ground for limiting it to power (Grotius) or grace (Calvin).

To be strengthened with might.—Δυνάμει, “with might,” placed first for emphasis, cannot anticipate either the phrase “by his spirit,” or “in the inner man,” nor can it be an instrumental dative (Meyer), nor does it refer to the will or moral being over against knowledge (Harless), which also belongs to the inner man and is given prominence in Ephesians 3:18-19. It qualifies the verb “strengthened,” κραταιωθῆναι, which is antithetical to the term ἐγκακεῖν, “faint” (Ephesians 3:13) thus not merely excluding discouragement and weakness, but marking also the external efficiency, the influence on the world, the overcoming as well as the standing fast, like ἀνδρίζεσθε before κραταιοῦσθε (1 Corinthians 16:13) See Ephesians 6:10; Col 1:11; 1 Peter 5:10. Hence the passage does not refer to mere passivity, so that δυνάμει is merely a strengthening of the verb (Rueckert). Luther is incorrect: “That he may give you strength—to become strong.” [The instrumental sense is adopted by Ellicott, Hodge, Alford, Eadie and many others. Braune’s view virtually resolves the dative into an adverb. Ellicott: It defines “the element or influence of which the spirit is the ‘causa medians.’ ” The contrast with ἐγκακεῖν, though plausible, must not be pressed. Eadie. who finds a reference to the figure of the temple in Ephesians 3:18, sees an architectural allusion here.—R.]

Through his Spirit [διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ].—The means of imparting such strength is indicated thus (αὐτοῦ θεοῦ, who is implored); God’s Holy Spirit makes us strong within, and thus prepares not only the actual fellowship in the kingdom of God, but also the powerful demonstration of the same; hence Bengel well says: δυνάμεί bene congruit cum mentione spiritus.

In the inner man.—[Εἰς here is not=ἐν, nor=in regard of (Meyer, Winer, De Wette, Hodge: as to), but “to and into,” marking “the direction and destination of the prayer for gift of infused strength” (Ellicott).—R.] ‘Ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (so also Romans 7:22) is the antithesis of ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος (2 Corinthians 4:16), which “perishes,” while “the inward man is renewed day by day.” It is not something physical, but moral, hence too, not=νοῦς, which can have a “vanity” (Ephesians 4:17), of which “corrupt” can be predicated (1 Timothy 6:5), which is impossible in the case of the inner man. It is rather=“the hidden man of the heart” (1 Peter 3:4) and refers to the concealed, displaced and obscured image of God within us. Accordingly the Apostle says εἰς τὸν ἔσω, to become strong so far as to reach within to this; the preposition thus marking the aim towards which the becoming strong should be constantly and renewedly directed. See Winer, p. 389. Accordingly “the inner man” cannot be used interchangeably with “the new man” (Ephesians 4:24); the latter is the new creature, in which the former lives again, rises anew out of the death of sin which has come upon it: “the inner man” does not stand in antithesis to the “body,” but includes so much of it as God in the creation has prepared and designed for the life in glory, in the new creation ‘for the resurrection of the body. See Doctr. Note 3. [Comp. Lange, Romans 7:7-25, especially my Excursus, pp. 232–236.40—R.]

Ephesians 3:17. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.—This verse forms an explanatory, further developing, parallel to the infinitive clause of Ephesians 3:16. We have here a second petition, in continuation of the first, hence Luther is not altogether incorrect in inserting an epexegetical “and.” [See below.] Κατοικῆσαι denotes a permanent indwelling of one taking entire possession, as Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9; Matthew 12:45; Luke 11:26; 2 Peter 3:13; James 4:5. The expression οἰκεῖν, Romans 7:20 (Ephesians 3:17 : ἐνοικοῦσα), Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 3:16, is weaker. Here it stands first for emphasis and refers to κατοικητήριον, Ephesians 2:21-22. Comp. John 14:21-23. Bengel is excellent: in perpetuum. It corresponds to “strengthened with might,” which precedes it; as the former is marked as an effect from without, from above, by “into the inner man,” so the latter is distinguished by “in your hearts,” as an internal condition.

Διὰ τῆς πίστεως [almost=through your faith] denotes in any case a power of the Spirit which has been appropriated by the Christian; accordingly the previous petition was διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, “through the Spirit,” to whom the initiative belongs, the Spirit of Christ, preparing for Him (Bengel: ubi spiritus Dei, ibi etiam Christus), while πίστις, “faith,” is wrought by the Spirit in the human spirit, is the power of man, awakened, directed, strengthened by the Holy Spirit, to appropriate Christ, to become Christ’s. Hence it is neither idem per idem (Matthies), nor something entirely different (Rueckert), nor yet a consequence from what precedes, independent of δῷ, but dependent on κραταιωθῆναι (Bleek).

[The connection has been much discussed. Meyer (following Calvin: declarat, quale sit interioris hominis robur) takes the clause as Braune does: parallel to the last clause of Ephesians 3:16, with an explanatory force. De Wette explains the infinitive as one of design, an opinion to which Eadie formerly inclined. Notwithstanding Braune’s objection, the simplest explanation is that of Bleek, adopted previously however by Alford and Ellicott among others. This accepts the clause as one expressive of the result (“so that”) of the inward strengthening. The emphasis resting on the infinitive seems to demand this (Alford). This is a somewhat lax construction, but clearly admissible (Winer, p. 298).—The view which connects “the inner man” with this verse (Syriac, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius): “In order that Christ may inhabit the inner man by the faith which is in your hearts,” is altogether untenable. On καρδία, comp. Ephesians 1:18; Delitzsch, Bib. Psychologie, II. p. 203 f.: “the seat and centre of the moral life viewed on the side of the affections.” Calvin: “Partem etiam designat ubi legitima est Christus sedes; nempe cor: ut sciamus, non satis esse, si in lingua versatur, aut in cerebro volitet.”]

The end of the supplication; Ephesians 3:18-19 a.

Ephesians 3:18. That ye.—Ἵνα, “that,” is placed after the closer definition of the subject, as ἕως, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and as ἵνα is put after the object in 2 Corinthians 2:4; Galatians 2:10; Acts 19:4. Similarly 1Co 11:14-15; 1 Corinthians 14:7 (ἐάν), 16 (πῶς). [So Romans 11:31, where however Dr. Lange denies the trajection. This view of the construction is accepted by Beza, Camerarius, Grotius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Rosenmueller, Flatt, Meier, Meyer, Winer (Exodus 6:7), Buttmann, Schenkel, Hodge. It is however adopted by none of the ancient versions except the Gothic, is rejected by Origen expressly. The other view joins this clause to what precedes, as a consequence of the indwelling of Christ, accepting an irregular nominative. So in the main: Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, Estius, Morus, Koppe, Rueckert, Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, B-Crusius, De Wette, Bleek, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford. Our preference is for the former construction. See below.—R.]41

Being rooted and grounded in love.—The perfect participles, ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι, denote a state, in which they already are and continue to be, which is the pre-supposition, in order that they may be able to know. This state is effected by what has been prayed for in Ephesians 3:15-16; hence according to the sense and the context it is impossible to connect these participles with what precedes (Chrysostom, Luther: “and to become rooted and grounded through love,” Rueckert, Harless, Bleek and others), even if it were grammatically admissible to join a nominative to ὑμῶν, as in Ephesians 4:23 : ὑμᾶς—ἀνεχόμενοι—σ̔πουδάζοντες. Colossians 2:2; Colossians 3:16. See Winer, p. 532. This position gives especial weight to the participles, which introduce two figures borrowed from a tree and a building. They mark that a profoundly penetrating life (ἐῤῥιζωμένοι) and a well-grounded, permanent character (τεθεμελιωμένοι) are necessary. [The first may be regarded as used “without any other allusion to its primitive meaning than that of fixedness, firmness at the base or foundation” (Ellicott).—R.]. Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:9; Colossians 2:7.

The double figure strengthens the notion of the relation to love; this latter (ἐν ) is made prominent by being placed first. “In” marks “love” as the soil, in which they are rooted, and as the foundation, on which they are grounded. This implies moreover that it is not their own love which is referred to, but one which corresponds with the soil afforded to the tree, the foundation given to the house; and this would undoubtedly be, in accordance with the context, the love of Christ (Bengel), were not all closer definition wanting, even the article. Accordingly this substantive rendered general by the absence of the article corresponds with the verbal idea: in loving, i.e. in that love, which is first God’s in Christ and then that of men who become Christians, who are rooted in Him and grounded on Him through faith. [The reference to the Christian grace of love (Eadie, Alford, Ellicott) is preferable since it does not lay too much stress on the absence of the article, as is done by both Meyer (in amando) and Harless (subjective, because anarthrous), and does not confound two things (God’s love to us and our love in response), either of which might be represented as soil and foundation, scarcely both.—R.] But it is not necessary to supply “in Christ” (Harless) in thought, as if “in love” could be instrumental and the preposition could be repeated with two different references and used in joining two distinct definitions. Nor should it be limited to “love of the brethren” (Calvin, Schenkel, Bleek and others), as is still further evident from what follows.

May be fully able to comprehend [ἴνα εξισχύσητε καταλαβέσθαι.—Καταλαβέσθαι here means more than a mere intellectual apprehension, a perception, as in Acts 4:13; Acts 25:25; Acts 10:34, but pre-eminently an inward experience: it corresponds with γνῶναι, which is conjoined to it with τε; but differs from it however, the first word denoting the inward experience, the latter the spiritual perception [The tense of this verb perhaps implies the singleness of the act, and the voice the exercise of the mental power, a dynamic middle (Krueger), indicating the earnestness or spiritual energy with which the action is performed (Ellicott).—R.] The verb έξισχύσητε, placed in emphatic position, adds the idea of exertion, an energetic pressing through; Bengel: evaleatis.

Something important is treated of, which cannot be comprehended in solitude, for one’s self alone, but only in fellowship: with all saints, σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἁγίοις.—Like all science, the science of God’s love, the study of God, is a joint labor.

What is the breadth and length and depth and height, τί τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάθος καὶ ὕψος.—The lively, roused spirit of the Apostle here borrows the figure of a body, a mathematical magnitude [sacra illa Pauli mathematica], as in Job 11:8-9, it is applied to God’s wisdom and perfection; it is instead of and=τί τὸ μέγεθος, what is the greatness. Since the article occurs but once, the unity of the object referred to is strongly indicated. Very naturally the “breadth” comes first, to this the “length” corresponds; then the “depth” is the nearest dimension, and the “height” closes the series: what is the object then whose dimensions Paul notices here? It is not directly designated, and hence must be taken from the context. The added clause connected with this by τε points at once to “the love of Christ.” The dimensions set forth here then become clear: “breadth” refers to the nations lying beside each other on the earth, over all of whom the love of Christ will extend itself; “length,” to the successive ages during which it will reach; “depth,” to the misery and corruption of sin, into which it will descend; “height” to the glory at God’s throne and near His heart to which it would elevate all.

To return to Ephesians 3:9 and accept “the mystery” as the object (Chrysostom, Calovius, Rueckert, Harless and others) is as unfounded as to find a reference to “the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:19), and with Revelation 11:1; Revelation 21:15-16, to understand the Church of Christ, the temple of God (Bengel, Stier, [Eadie], and others), or merely to supply “of God” or “of Christ” (Matthies, and others); Holzhausen alone suggests “our love!” Arbitrary as many of the explanations of the four dimensions undoubtedly are, the opinion of Meyer, that every special interpretation is unpsychological, only opening the door to subjective speculations, is equally unjustifiable. Abusus non tollit usum. The thought of the Apostle is clear: Loved and loving thou knowest the love of Christ. Certainly it is not: In the love to the brethren thou wilt know God’s love. Comp. 1 John 4:10; 1 John 4:16; John 15:9-11.

[This simple view of the object whose dimensions are here predicated is held in the main by Calvin, Calixtus, Morus, Storr, Hodge, Meyer, Ellicott. Eadie strangely enough opposes it because τε follows: see his notes for a good resumé of opinions. Ellicott says: “The consequent clause, without being dependent or explanatory, still practically supplies the defining genitive: Paul pauses on the word ὕψος, and then, perhaps feeling it the most appropriate characteristic of Christ’s love, he appends, without finishing the construction, a parallel thought which hints at the same conception (ὑπερβάλλουσαν), and suggests the required genitive.” Alford, less correctly, leaves the object indefinite: “of all that God has revealed or done in or for us,” a view which results from his insisting on the subordinate character of the clause introduced by τε. This little word really settles the question the other way.—An allusion to the temple of Diana (Macknight, Chandler) is exceedingly improbable, and the reference to the Christian Church finds no support in the context, foregoing or subsequent. Augustine gives the fanciful explanation: sacramentum cruces, which Estius elaborates. Comp. that of Severianus (in Alford), and the various homiletical applications given in Hom, Notes.—R.]

Ephesians 3:19. And to know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ [γνῶναί τε τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ̄ιστοῦ.—Τνῶναί τε adds something closely related, giving prominence to the perception of what has become a matter of internal experience. The object is “the love of Christ,” obviously Christ’s love, not our love to Him. To the former alone is the attribute “knowledge-surpassing” applicable. Bengel: Suavissima hæc quasi correctio est; dixerat: cognoscere, statim negat cognitionem idoneam haberi posse. The participle, which is here placed between the article and substantive, must evidently be taken as an adjective, governing with its comparative meaning the genitive which follows, superiorem cognitione. See Winer, p. 324. It is=ὑπέχουσαν πάντα νοῦν, “which passeth all understanding” (Philippians 4:7). Comp. Philippians 3:8-10. It is an oxymoron, like 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 1:25; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Galatians 2:19; 1 Timothy 5:6, and refers to an (adequate) apprehension of the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge (i.e., the particular abstract knowledge, which is possible to man of himself). Harless: “Love fully solves the mystery of love; only love experiences love and knows love. The γνῶσις of the reflecting understanding finds its limit here; the γνῶσις of love understands the love of Christ, which otherwise far transcended γνῶσις.” Luther (1522–41): also to know the love of Christ, which yet exceeds all knowledge; in 1545 the incorrect rendering first appeared, which goes too far in the attempt to popularize the Scriptural language: and to know that to love Christ is better than all knowing. This is contrary both to the language and the context. Yet it cannot be said, that the love of Christ is the object of a knowledge, which never attains its full end (Rueckert). Against this is the previous expression: “that ye may be able,” as well as the remainder of the verse. [Nor can we accept the view of Harless and Olshausen: “that ye may know that the love of Christ is knowledge-surpassing,” since the participle, which is properly taken as an adjective, is thus twisted into an infinitive, and since the Apostle’s prayer is thus unnecessarily shorn of its fulness.—R.]

The final end of the supplication; Ephesians 3:19 b.

That ye may be filled up.—This phrase connects itself with “that ye may be able … to know,” and designates the highest, last favor which the Apostle implores for the Church. With what are they to be filled?

To all the fulness of God [εις πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ θεοῦ.]—Ἐἰς designates that toward and unto which the becoming filled proceeds, and πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, meta est (Bengel), to which the Church should attain, when it is filled. It is therefore in her, not without her. Hence the Apostle is treating of a fulness in them which God grants, and which is unincumbered, unabridged. They must themselves, through the experience and knowledge of the love of Christ, be prepared, expanded, strengthened and fitted to receive πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, “all the fulness,” which God will impart, has determined and ordained to impart. What God imparts is indeed in Him, from His own character and glory He imparts. Luther: “That is according to the Hebrew mode of speech as much as to say, that we are filled in every way, by which He makes full—that He alone completely rules and works in us.”

It is a bolder expression than 2 Peter 1:4 : “partakers of the Divine nature.” Comp. Ephesians 4:13; Colossians 2:9-10. Chrysostom: πληροῦσθαι πάσης , ἦς πλήρης ἐστὶν ὁ θεός. Theodoret: ἵνα τελείως αὐτὸν ἔνοικον δέξησθε. It is not to be limited to the presence of grace (Harless), or to charisms (Meyer), nor to be pantheistically extended or applied to the universe, filling itself in God, i.e., reaching the highest expression of its perfection, and reflecting itself in the Church, so that in it there is no more defect to be discovered (Schenkel). A fulness of God, which complements His Godhead, as though God’s Being were first perfected through the Church, is as little the subject treated of as a pantheistic deification of men. See Ephesians 1:23. The Apostle undoubtedly refers to the persons and personal culture of the individual members of the Church. See Doctr. Note. 4.

[Meyer and De Wette take πλήρωμα in the sense of πλῆθος, and the genitive as that of origin. But the Greek Fathers, and Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, Hodge, among late commentators, prefer to take πλήρωμα in the strict sense of id quo res impletur, and the genitive as a possessive, implying: “that ye may be so filled as God is filled,” the reference being not to charismatic gifts, but to the spiritual perfections of God. The only objection is, that such a fulness could not be realized here in a state of imperfection, but εἰς shows that a standard is here set up, and none but a perfect one would be thus held before them. The other view is too tame for the climactic position and force of the clause. Alford: “All the fulness of the Godhead abides in Christ, Colossians 2:9. Christ then abiding in your hearts, ye, being raised up to the comprehension of God’s mercy in Him and of His love, will be filled, even as God is full—each in your degree, but all to your utmost capacity, with Divine wisdom, might and love.”—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The fervency of the worship (κάμπτω τἀ γόνατά μου) does not lose itself in the joyous sense of the love of God (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα), but becomes more deep and clear in love to the neighbor, in unselfish supplication, which in the scale of prayer rises above the lowest grade, which is a cry of need, a cry for help, above the grade of a pupil, the petition for supply of needed good and protection from threatening evil, and approaches in its best feature the master-prayer of thanksgiving, which is so often forgotten, and of praise, that so often is not understood.

2. The Father who is here supplicated is not the All-father of the 18th century or of the rationalists, nor the Father of the heathen. For He is not that weak father, who on account of His goodness consents to withdraw all the demands of His righteousness; nor is He merely the Creator, as if He were, like Jupiter, a father of the trees and animals, of the flowers of earth and the stars of heaven, as well as of angels and men, and as if the idea of “Father” included only that of the Creator, who calls into being. The father is more than the begetter, he is also the provider, the teacher, the guardian in preserving sacred love. Where such paternal care exists, it comes from God, it points to Him, the original Father. Even the most scanty traces of such fatherhood, i.e., of such companies with a father at their hand, point to Him, who has ordained and still sustains such relations. The children may be lost and not permit Him to work within them; still traces of Him, kindnesses from Him are so little wanting, that even among the heathen “an altar with this inscription, To the unknown God,” points to them. The Church sings and speaks of a λόγος σπερματικός, and sees a great family in different groups, in different circumstances, conditions and attitudes, but at the head, over all and for all the One Father in Christ.

3. The inner man (ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος) is the remnant of the man created in the image of God, which is found in all men, even though extremely disfigured or shrivelled up into insignificance. On this account is Redemption possible, man is capable as well as in need of redemption. Hence the inner man is to be thus distinguished from the new man (ὄ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος): the former is the remnant of the original man as created by God in His own image, the latter is the beginning of the regenerated man, new born in Christ; that is still present in all men, this not yet existing in all, though it might and should be; that is found without the Church also, this begins only within it; the former is the starting-point for the latter, the latter is the result of the reviving of the former obtained in Christ; that is the first creation, conceived in retrospect, this the “new creature,” conceived as rising; the former is accordingly of nature, which God in holy love has created, preserved and guided, the latter of grace, in which He has had mercy upon the former. But universal as the need of redemption and the capacity for redemption are, man is, on account of this need and in spite of this capability, not in a condition to win the gracious right of sonship, or obligated thereto (Schenkel), but on account of this need notwithstanding this capability only in a state to receive the gift of renewed sonship. See Exeg. Notes, Ephesians 3:16.

4. In the economy of salvation,—in which our passage, being addressed to believers, presupposes justification and antecedent repentance, and regards only the growing renewal, the strengthening of the inner man, his growth in the grace and truth of Christ—the Father constantly, at every stage, takes the initiative, and the recovering man takes no step forward without power received from God. Hence the supplication, that He would “grant” and that too “through His Spirit” to the inner man: thus the renewal within begins from above. Then the awakened, renewed power of the inner man appears in faith, in dependence draws Christ into himself, into his heart, as a guest into his house, for continued intercourse with Him, carefully directing himself by Him in all respects. The inner man, when once, he has actually, with saving effect, become the object (εἰς) of the working of the Holy Ghost, becomes the subject of transforming activity in faith, which like a screw binds Christ to the soul. Though we may not, with the mystics, accept a union essentialis et corporalis, still we should not, with the rationalists, deny the conjunctio substantiæ hominis fidelis cum substantia sanctæ trinitatis and affirm only a dynamic or operative presence of Christ.

5. The work of salvation is a difficult one, and demands the power of God and man. Of God: hence Paul prays (Ephesians 3:16): “that he would grant you according to the riches of His glory.” Of man: hence Ephesians 3:18 : “that ye may be fully able.”

6. Knowledge and Love are not to be separated. There is not merely an “illumination” before conversion and repentance, but also after justification through faith. In the enjoyment of the love of Christ, which we experience, our lovers strengthened, forgetting itself and yet with a profound remembrance of itself it knows what it has experienced, denying itself it is thus strengthened to a clear knowledge of the love of Christ. Human things one must know, in order to love but Divine things one must love, in order to know (Pascal). Love, hastening before, ever gains new material and light for knowledge. “The more I love, the more I find that I ought to love Thee.”

7. The connection of faith and love is also presupposed here, and in such a way that the former is the mother’s lap for the latter; the faith in that love of God in Christ, which we experience and enjoy, must impel to love, to love in return again and again.

8. Christ’s Love surpasses all knowledge and understanding, that only toilsomely attains to seeing. Hofmann: “There is really but one love in the world, because but one actual entering in of person into person. The eternally personal God, who is Love, who has entered into humanity as the personal Christ, who in the Holy Ghost personally flows into the personal life of men, so that we have Him and are His, He loves and is loved. Only where this archetypal fountain of love exists, can man exercise toward his fellow man a copied love.” Only so far as it is felt, can it be known in our weakness.

9. The completion of fellowship with God points into eternity, from the militant to the triumphant church; there the children become heritors, are taken on His throne and heart. Here many radial lines already proceed from the circumference, grace, peace and joy, truth and freedom, sonship and the sense of sonship, life-power and life-fulness, yet they come together in the center only above. Let us only hold fast to the unity of the family of God in heaven and on earth, the oneness of the Father through Christ in the Holy Ghost.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Had not the Apostle said so, no one would have discovered from his tone, that he was in bonds and chains, looking death in the face. To him affliction is a clear winter night, in which the stars of promise only shine the brighter. Has he tears in his eyes, they become a telescope to carry his sight into the far distant heavens, to open heaven to him and permit him to gaze into the depth of its wonders. It does not occur to him, to pray for release; he asks only for the perfecting and ennobling of the church.—In outward woe he thinks, feels and prays about inward weal alone; in evil, that concerns himself, about the good of the church alone.—God, the true Father, is not nearer to heaven with its angels and saints than to earth with its sons of men; were we but nearer to Him!—He is the Rich One, who can and will give; we are the poor ones, who should receive and—will not!—It were better if thou didst not care so much how to adorn the outer man through the spirit of the world and of fashion; God can through His Spirit re-animate and strengthen the inner man.—Above all see how it stands within thee, so that what God has created after His image in thee be not stunted and starved out. Thine outer man may laugh and sing and dance, while the inner man laments and sighs and goes to destruction.

Christ wishes to dwell with thee, not as a mere passing guest; so order thy work and recreation and mode of life after His example, that it may please Him to dwell there and not to hasten away. He is willing to belong to thee; it is not enough then that thou hearest Him, hearkenest to Him, thou must also belong to Him as His possession, must submit thyself and all thou hast to His disposal.—Bind thyself in faith to Him and hold communion with those who believe in Him, that thou mayest grow in the knowledge of His love. Root thyself ever deeper in that love, ground thyself ever more firmly upon it.—Do like Ernest the Pious, who in 1636 had a medal struck in commemoration of his marriage with Elizabeth Sophia of Altenburg, with this inscription on the one side: Christum lieben ist das beste wissen (Living Christ is the best knowledge), and on the other: Gott, lehr erkennen mich und Dich (God, teach me to know myself and Thee)!—Holy love alone lets us understand and use the Scriptures ever better and better! If we look at God’s word and world without love; we see them only remotely.—Three-fold aim of Christian supplication: 1. Strengthening of the inner man; 2. Knowledge of the love of Christ; 3. Fulness of Divine glory.

Starke:—In praying the outward posture is indeed of little importance; it is left to Christian liberty to take this or that position with the body; yet no kind of posture seems better fitted for fervent, earnest prayer, than kneeling.—Thou hast indeed a merciful, gracious and loving Father: Thinkest thou, He can ever forsake thee? That is an idle thought. As little as He can take Love out of His heart so little can He forget thee. See, what is the best thing a teacher can ask for his flock; but also what thou too, O soul, must seek after, to be strengthened through the Spirit of God in the inner man.—It is not enough to have come into a state of grace through conversion, there must be added a strengthening and fortifying, which however is not the work of man, since Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith. Though our sins were so broad, so long, so deep, so high, as heaven and earth, yet is the grace and mercy of God deeper, broader, higher and longer, so that it cannot be measured.—The mystery of the love of God is incomprehensible: in future perfection we will understand it. Because we still await that time, let us meanwhile imitate such love in its depth, by helping those who are in the deepest misery and least deserving; in its breadth, by showing to all men without distinction, for God’s sake, kindness and affection, in its length, by never ceasing or becoming weary; in its height, by looking up to God, devoting to Him all our efforts, and having His glory as our purpose.—In Christianity more depends upon taking in faith, than upon giving and doing in love. For the more we take of the fulness of God, the more we can give.

A. Mueller:—He who lets Christ dwell in his heart, only that, he may have from Him a household blessing or a joyful consolation, sells Him his heart; but he who surrenders himself to Christ out of pure love, at the same time thinking himself unworthy of the least look of His grace, gives Him his heart.

Rieger:—God oftentimes indeed begins in a very small way in His works of grace, because He will effect nothing according to absolute power, but so as to lead men to faith and obedience.—Christ dwelling in the heart, and His Spirit lay claim also to the members of the body, putting them into the service of righteousness, to bring forth fruit unto God in holiness.—Being rooted and grounded in love we obtain the ability to comprehend, not merely to know, but also with other powers of soul so to appropriate something as to be filled therewith. Faith widens the heart, so that more and more can be grasped. But with these enlarged views, which are imparted to us, we should not sunder ourselves from other saints, nor attach to anything such an immoderate value, as to sever the bond which unites us with other saints, but apply all to the edification of the body of Christ.

Heubner:—It is a truly proud misery of Kant’s, his denying kneeling as a slavish Orientalism. He can scarcely have felt the impulse of a praying heart. Lichtenberg judges very differently, when he says: “When the body falls upon its knees, the spirit lifts itself to God.”—We have too little bending of the knee; the Catholics perhaps too much, so that a Catholic may occasionally be recognized by the looks of his clothes at the knees. Spener wished that kneeling devotion was more common among us.—What a comfort for fatherless children and widows, what hope for affectionate fathers, to know that their dear children hare in heaven a better Father than themselves. Still the human relation can best teach the true “Father-theology.”—A church can be good outwardly and apparently and yet be without inward life. This inward life comes from the Spirit of God. Christianity should be learned not by heart, but in the heart.42—Christ will dwell, not in stone churches, but in living hearts; the heart should live and move in Him, His Spirit should animate our spirit in constant intercourse with Him.—When Christ dwells in the heart, every one has his Christ in his neighbor.—Breadth: the Church of Christ should stretch itself over the whole circle of the earth, over all lands. The length refers to time; she continues throughout all centuries. The depth points to her foundation; she has it in the unfathomable abyss of Divine mercy, and her height reaches into heaven, it is unassailable, for the church on earth and in the spirit world is one. This is the greatness and the origin of the spiritual temple.—Love to Christ, a simple heart full of faith and love to Him, is better than all science. This love has an unconditioned value, is in itself the highest: not so with knowledge; it can give a kind of enlightenment, without at all affecting the heart. The heart excels the understanding. Science should not be over-estimated, and made an idol. Science can never conquer the enemies of the Kingdom of God, she should be a handmaid. The true science is only where the cross is. Only the theologus crucis is the theologus lucis.

Passavant:—With a narrow heart we cannot pray with confidence. Hence everything demands that we should receive Divine riches, which enlightens our mind, expands our heart and makes God great in us.—How worthy of admiration, how highly exalted above man is this inner man of the heart! Faith is his reason and his light; love his heart and his life; the Holy Ghost his soul and strength; Jesus Christ his ego and his nature; God his Father and at the same time his heritage, his glory, his riches, his eternal dwelling-place; God makes him, His work in His own good time, and this through a power whose working corresponds with the riches and the glory of His grace.—Did Christ dwell in us, what would we become to our friends, to our enemies, to the world, to the heavens!—Only the Spirit of God in us can disclose to us what God is; only faith, through the Holy Ghost, can apprehend Christ and His life in us; only pure, holy love in us can comprehend what is transcendent and blissful, the wonders of the love of God in Jesus Christ.—There is a breadth and length and depth and height; for this no worlds are too broad, no paths too long, no space too wide, no abyss, no hell too deep, no heaven too high, that it may not reach thither, and penetrate there with might and almightiness, with light and life, with comfort and salvation and peace from eternal compassion—“fulness of God” the destination and end of man, the aim and end of all the decrees of God, of all the mysteries of Christ. Canst thou not satisfy man? Must he still fill himself with a thousand trifles besides, that his happiness may be complete?

Stier:—The higher his petition seeks to ascend above all understanding to Him, who is able to do above all, the deeper he bows himself.—The indwelling of Christ: Its beginning—through faith; means—Christ’s love, which becomes ours; aim—according to the widest extension of the plan (knowledge) and inmost depths of the foundation (Christ’s love).

Gerlach:—The love of Christ to us precedes all our love and knowledge.

Nitzsch:—The essential petition, which we, each for all and all for each, should bear in our hearts, during the varieties and vicissitudes of our life-path. 1. Its purport: a) To become strong in the inner man; b) To have vital fellowship with the Redeemer; c) To know His love. 2. The effect.

Wolters (Dedication sermon at Godesberg): The proper prayer for a young congregation: 1) that its members become strong in the inner man: 2) that Christ lives in their hearts; 3) that they understand His love in its greatness and blessedness.

Genzken (Preparatory Lecture43 on Ephesians 3:13-21): St. Paul our example in prayer. 1) He bows his knees, so we under the burden of our guilt; 2) He addresses himself to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; so there is no other name for us; 3) He asks power for the inner man to strengthen in faith, in love, and for every good work; so we.

Löhe:—St. Paul’s request to the Ephesians, his prayer to God, his song of praise to Him, all in relation to the great mystery of building the church on earth.

Westermeier:—The best prayer: 1) to whom it is addressed; 2) the gifts it desires; 3) the basis on which it rests.

Kluge:—Seek the kingdom of God, not in external things, but in the inner man—1) in judging of the contest of the gospel against the world; 2) of the blessing of the gospel in yourselves.

Rabus:—A glance into the closet of the Apostle: 1) How we should approach God in prayer; 2) how supplicate Him; 3) how praise Him.

Rautenberg:—What Paul does in his tribulations, that his disciples may not become weary in the walk of faith: 1) He is far from them—yet sends them his mighty word; 2) He suffers the contempt of the world—but endures it for their glory; 3) He cannot give them his hand, but he bows his knee for them.

Dr. Meier (Baptismal discourse on Ephesians 3:18): On the breadth, length, depth, height of the love of God.

Pröhle:—Paul’s pious wish for the Church at Ephesus: 1. That they might not become weary in their Christian course (Ephesians 3:13). 2. That God would give them power to become strong in the inner man (Ephesians 3:14-16). 3. That Christ may dwell in their hearts (Ephesians 3:17). 4. That they may be able to comprehend with all saints the breadth=the universality, embracing all, the length=the endlessness from eternity to eternity, the depth and height=the immeasurable and incomprehensible greatness of the love of Christ.

[Hodge:—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 fellowship of domestic life.—The love of Christ 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.—R.]

[Eadie:

Ephesians 3:15. They lose the cold and official name of subjects in the familiar and endearing appellation of sons, and they are united to one another not dimly and unconsciously, as different products of the same Divine workman-ship, but they merge into one family—“all they are brethren.”

Ephesians 3:17. When Ignatius was asked, on his trial, by the Emperor, what was the meaning of his name—Theophorus—he promptly replied, “He who has Christ in his breast.”—Love is the fundamental grace.

Ephesians 3:19. As the attachment of a man, it may be gauged; but as the love of a God, who can by searching find it out? Uncaused itself, it originated salvation; unresponded to amidst the “contradiction of sinners,” it neither pined nor collapsed. It led from Divine immortality to human agonies and dissolution, for the victim was bound to the cross, not by the nails of the military executioner, but by the “cords of love.” It loved repulsive unloveliness, and, unnourished by reciprocated attachment, its ardor was unquenched, nay, is unquenchable, for it is changeless as the bosom in which it dwells. Thus it may be known, while yet it “passeth knowledge;” thus it may be experimentally known, while still in its origin and glory it surpasses comprehension, and presents new and newer phases to the loving and inquiring spirit. For one may drink of the spring and be refreshed, and his eye may take in at one view its extent and circuit, while he may be able neither to fathom the depth nor mete out the volume of the ocean whence it has its origin.—R.]

Footnotes:

Ephesians 3:14; Ephesians 3:14.—[The phrase: τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which follows πατήρ in Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Romans 15:6, should be rejected here. The weight of diplomatic authority is against it (omitted in א1 A. B. C. 17, 67; found in א3 D. F. K. L. and all other cursives). A number of fathers reject it (Jerome expressly speaks of the omission), while the best versions retain it. It is scarcely credible, as De Wette urges, that it was omitted because coming between παρέρα and πατριά, since it really disturbs the rhythmical connection; while on the other hand no addition would be more likely than this from the common formula. If internal grounds have any weight, it must be rejected. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Rückert, Harless, Meyer, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott; Eadie inclines to this view. Reiche and De Wette retain it, as does Hodge, who says: “the majority of recent editions and commentators retain them,” a statement surprisingly unwarranted.—R.]

Ephesians 3:16; Ephesians 3:16.—[The Rec. reads δῴη with D. K. L., and most fathers, but δῷ (א. A. B. C. F.) is to be preferred. Comp. Ephesians 1:17.—R.]

Ephesians 3:16; Ephesians 3:16.—[Here also as in Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:8, the Rec. gives the masculine form (D.3 K. L., cursives), but א. A. B. C. D.1 F. support the neuter.—R.]

Ephesians 3:17; Ephesians 3:17.—[Another view of the construction requires the following translation: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, ye having been rooted and grounded in love, in order that,” etc. See Exegetical Notes.—R.]

Ephesians 3:18; Ephesians 3:18.—[The order of the Rec. (βάθος καὶ ὕψος) is sustained by א. A. K. L., most cursives; adopted by Tischendorf, Ellicott, Meyer and Braune, as lectio difficilior. B. C. D. E. F. G., most versions, give the reverse order, which as more natural and prevalent (Romans 8:39) is open to suspicion. It is accepted by Lachmann, Alford and others.—R.]

[38][Ellicott renders: “From whom every race in heaven and on earth is thus named,” while the German text of Braune runs thus in a literal translation: “whose name every family in heaven and on earth bears.”—R.]

[39][So Bodius and Hodge, both insisting upon the exclusive reference to the redeemed. The argument of the latter rests altogether on the incorrect reading he accepts. Admitting that the omission of the article favors the rendering: “every family,” he adds that it may still be omitted where the sense is “the whole family,” provided the context is so clear as to prevent mistake. But it is not so clear, else the great body of commentators would not have mistaken it; hence the condition is not met. Besides the context does not teach, except critical judgments are to give way to exegetical preferences, “that those who are here contemplated as children, are those who are by Jesus Christ brought into this relation to God.” “Consequently” it ought not to be affirmed that “the word πατριά cannot include any but the subjects of redemption.”—Undoubtedly there is an underlying thought of redemption; “it is not in virtue of God’s creative power that the Apostle here prays to Him, but in virtue of His adoptive love in Christ” (Alford). The thought of an “All-Father” is remote enough, but any unnecessary limitation of πᾶσα πατριά is at the same time a limitation of the wider results of Redemptive Love so frequently hinted at by Paul and not very remote here (Ephesians 3:10). Alford: “The Apostle seems, regarding God as the Father of us His adopted children, to go forth into the fact, that He, in this His relation to us, is in reality the great original and proto-type of the paternal relation, wherever found.” And in an ethical sense this relation may be readily conceived of as existing in heaven among other than those redeemed from earth—R.]

[40][Dr. Hodge, very sweepingly, intimates that all those interpretations which distinguish this “inner man” from the renewed man, belong to “the theory of Semi-Pelagianism, embodied and developed in the theology of the Church of Rome.” But this is based on a mere assumption, viz., that this view of “the inner man” as the seat of spiritual influences implies the actual sinlessness and unfallen status of “that inner man,” an implication distinctly denied by many of the supporters of this theory, among whom are expositors, who cannot be classed among the advocates of Semi-Pelagianism. I append the statement of Ellicott, which agrees with my own view, referred to above: “The expression ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (Romans 7:22) is nearly identical with, but somewhat more inclusive than ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος (1 Peter 3:4), and stands in antithesis to ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρωπος (2 Corinthians 4:16); the former being practically equivalent to the νοῦς or higher nature of man (Romans 7:23), the latter to the σάρξ or μέλη: see Beck, Seelenlehre, III. 21, 3, p. 68. It is within this ἔσω ἄνθρωπος that the powers of regeneration are exercised (Harless, Christl. Ethik, § 22a), and it is from their operation in this province that the whole man (‘secunda interna spectatus,’ Bengel) becomes a νέος ἄνθρωπος (as opposed to a former state), or a καινὸς ἄνθρωπος (as opposed to a former corrupt state), and is either ὁ κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθείς (Ephesians 4:24), or ὁ ʼ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (Colossians 3:10), according to the point of view under which regeneration is regarded. The distinction between this and the partially synonymous terms πνεῦμα and νοῦς may perhaps be thus roughly stated: πνεῦμα is simply the highest of the three parts of which man is composed; νοῦς the πνεῦμα regarded more in its moral and intellectual aspects, ‘quatenus intelligit, cogitat, et vult;’ ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος the πνεῦμα or rather the whole immaterial portion, considered in its theological aspects, and as the seat of the inworking powers of grace.” To which may be added that owing to the fact that πνεῦμα has also a second meaning (the human spirit as inwrought upon by the Divine Spirit), Paul does not use it in Romans 7:7-25, but rather νοῦς and ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος. This view of the phrase is adopted by Eadie and Alford, and may be regarded as the prevalent one in Germany, perhaps now among English commentators.—R.]

[41][Eadie thus states his view: The change of syntax indicates a change of connection, and the use of the irregular nominative makes the transition easy to the form adopted with ἵνα. The clause thus changed becomes a species of independent proposition, giving a marked prominence to the sense, and connected at once with the preceding context as its result, and with the following context as its starting idea. So Ellicott, who in his translation puts a dash before and after the clause. The course of thought then is: “Christ dwelling in their hearts—they are supposed, as the effect of this inhabitation, to have been now rooted and grounded in love; and as the design of this confirmation in love—they are then and there qualified to comprehend,” etc. This construction is certainly admissible, although Harless is fanciful in accounting for it by the reference to both the dative and genitive which precede. Meyer presents the forcible objection that the present participles would occur were this the connection. When to this it is replied, “that the clause does express the state which must ensue upon the indwelling of Christ before what is expressed in the next clause can in any way be realized, and that therefore the perf. part. is correctly used” (Ellicott), I find in this but a confession of that subordinate relation of the clause to the next one, which is implied in the other view. If the ideas are so nearly similar, a trajection seems a better explanation, than to complicate the relation of the clauses further (we have already a leading clause in Ephesians 3:14, a clause of purport in Ephesians 3:16, containing a finite verb followed by an infinitive, on which infinitive a clause of result depends, Ephesians 3:17. The view under discussion would make an irregular sub-subordinate clause of result to be followed (Ephesians 3:18) by a clause of design, which the other view would append directly to the purport of the prayer). On the other hand this metathesis is open to objection. Such a trajection implies an emphasis on the words thrown in advance, and it is asserted that there is no necesssity for such emphasis here, but this is no real objection, since the words can be emphatic (notwithstanding Alford’s denial). Again, it is said that the premised words in all such cases form the objective factor of the sentence and are not connected with the subject as here (Ellicott). Ellicott’s remark is true as regards the other cases where ἵνα is trajected, but in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, ἕως is put after the subject, which it not strictly parallel, is certainly analogous.—R.]

[42][ The German has a similar paronomasia: Man soll das Christenthum nicht auswendig, sondern inwendig lernen.—R.]

[43][Beichtrede is literally a discourse at confession but among Protestants means the service preparatory to the communion, during the previous week. The etymology confirms the view, that our preparatory lecture is borrowed from the Romanist usage of confessing before the communion, though in reality a proper mode of obeying the injunction: Let a man examine himself.—R.]