to the thought and feeling of the subject introduced by μνημονεύετε, ver. II, 'having (as you must have felt) no hope;' comp. Winer, Gr. § 59. 4, p. 562, Herm. Viger, No. 267, and the good collections of exx. in Gayler, Partic. Neg. cap. ix.

ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] ' without God in the world;' objective negation (ȧ = où c. adj., Harl.-though not necessarily, see esp. Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 35), forming the climax and coacervation of the misery involved in xwpis Χριστοῦ; they were without church and without promise, without hope | and-in the (wicked) world-without God. "Aeos may be taken either with active, neuter, or passive reference, denying (see exx. Suicer, Thes. s. v.), ignorant of (Gal. iv. 8; pro Tŷs Ocoyvwσlas, Theodoret, comp. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 14), or forsaken by God (Soph. Ed. Rex, 661, ã0eos, ǎpiλos): the latter seems best to suit the passive tenor of the passage, and to enhance the dreariness and gloom of the picture. 'Ev T x. is in antithesis to the πολιτεία τοῦ Ἰσρ. (Harl.), and similarly involves an ethical reference the profane wicked world' )(a holy and spiritual Toλirela. The religious aspects of heathenism are ably depicted by Harless in loc.

13. νυνὶ δέ] In opposition to τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ, ver. 12. ἐν Χρ. 'Inooû] 'in Christ JESUS.' The prominent position of this significant clause seems clearly to indicate a contrast to xwpis Xp. ver. 12, and an immediate connexion with vuvi (not ¿yevýonte, Mey.), which it both qualifies and characterizes. The addition of 'Inooû, far from being an argument against the contrast with xwpis Xp.

(Mey.), is, in fact, almost confirmatory of it. Such an addition was necessary to make the circumstances of the contrast fully felt. Then, they were without Christ,' the Messiah,now they were not only 'in Christ,' but 'in Christ Jesus,' Messiah and Saviour,-in Him who was no longer their future hope, but their present salvation. The reference is appropriately continued by ἐν τῷ αἵματι, not merely αὐτοῦ, but τοῦ Χρ.: He who poured out His blood, Jesus of Nazareth, was truly Christ. μakpáv, ¿yyús] The use of these words in designating Gentiles and Jews (compare pooýλUTO) is abundantly illustrated by Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. I. p. 761 sq. and Wetst. in loc.: see Isaiah lvii. 19, Dan. ix. 7, and Valck. on Acts ii. 39 (cited by Grinfield, Schol. Hell.). ἐν τῷ alμari] by the blood;' ev instrumental: see Winer, Gr. § 52. a, p. 465. No very precise distinction can be drawn between this use and dià Toû alu. ch. i. 7. We may perhaps say the latter implies simple and unconditioned, the former, immanent instrumentality; comp. Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3, and Winer, l. c. note.

14. αὐτὸς γάρ] For He—and none other than He.' De Wette appears certainly incorrect in transferring the emphasis to εἰρήνη ὑμῶν. The prominent position of ἐν Χρ. 'Ιησ. and repetition of XpToû, in ver. 13, seem decisively to show that in the present verse avròs is no mere unaccented pronoun (compare Thiersch, de Pentat. p. 98) but has its regular and classical emphasis: see Winer, Gr. § 22. 4, obs. p. 174. εἰρήνη pav] 'our Peace.' Though the con

text and the causal participle, ò Tońoas ('quippe qui fecit') seem to prove that cipnun is here used metonymically (comp. 1 Cor. i. 30, Col. i. 27), and in a sense but little differing from eipnvoπolos (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 253), the abstract subst. still has and admits of a fuller and more general application. Not only was Christ our 'Pacificator,' but our 'Pax,' the true Dib, Isaiah ix. 6, the very essence as well as the cause of it: comp. Olsh. in loc. Thus considered, elpývη seems to have here its widest meaningpeace between Jew and Gentile, and between both and God. In ver. 15 the context limits it to the former reference; in ver. 17 it reverts to its present reference to both.

τà áμþóтeρa] 'both,' Jews and Gentiles; explained by τοὺς δύο and τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους, ver. 15, 16. We have here no ellipsis of γένη, ἔθνη κ.τ.λ., but only the abstract and generalizing neuter: see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 27. 4, p. 204.

Kal] epexegetic;

see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, Vol. II. p. 339, Winer, Gr. § 57. 2, obs. p. 515. τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ] ‘the middle wall of the fence or partition.' The genitival relation has been differently explained. There is (of course) no real (Pisc.) or virtual (Beza) hypallage for τὸν φρ. τοῦ μεσοτ. Nor does the genitive appear to be the characterizing or adjectival, i. q. diappáσσov (Harl., comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. VI. 13, p. 793, τὸ διορίζον), the appositive (Mey.), or gen. objecti (Rück.), but subjecti (De W.), scil. Tò ảπò TOÛ ppayμoû, Chrys. (who, however, also gives the participial solution, ed. Oxf.), 'the wall which originated, resulted from the fence (opayμós, 10, see Buxtorf, Lex. s. v. p. 1447), which existed

between Jew and Gentile: see Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 126. The

payuós, then, would certainly seem to be the Law, not merely the ceremonial (Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 49, ed. Bohn), nor the 'discrimen præputii,' Beng., but the whole Mosaic Law: comp. Chrys. in loc., who appositely cites Isaiah v. 2. Whether there is any reference to the épкiov Spuppákтov Xilivov, Joseph. Antiq. XV. II. 5, between the courts of the Jews and Gentiles (Hamm.) is doubtful; see Meyer. The use of the (rare) local subst. would seem to hint at such an external exemplification, especially as it would so well define the point of view under which the Apostle regards the λύσις. The φραγμὸς in its highest sense remained (Matth. v. 17); the μεσοτ. τοῦ φρ.,—the φραγμός viewed under its Jewish aspects and restrictions, was done away with. It may be remarked that the temple was, as it were, a material embodiment of the law; its outward structure symbolized spiritual distinctions, and once at least (Matth. xxvii. 51) had borne outward witness to spiritual change: see Stier, p. 322, 323.

15. τὴν ἔχθραν] ‘Ponenda hic VπоσтIYμý,' Grot. Obviously an epexegesis of Tò μeo. Toû pp., 'to wit, the root of the enmity between Jew and Gentile;' see Usteri, Lehrb. II. 2. 1, p. 253. The exact reference of ex@pav has been greatly debated. That it cannot imply the enmity of Jews and Gentiles against God' (Chrys.), seems clear from the context, in which one idea, and one only-the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile-is at present dwelt upon. That it cannot denote simply the reciprocal enmity of Jew and Gentile' (Meyer), seems also clear

from its appositional relation to μeo. TOû pp. and the subsequent explanation afforded by τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντ. ἐν doyu. The reference then must be to the law, of which the ex@pa was the result and working (comp. eipńvn), yet neither specially to the moral, nor specially to the ceremonial law; in a word, not simply to the ppayuós, but the μεσοτ. τοῦ φρ., the whole Mosaic law viewed under its Judaical aspects, limitations, and antagonisms.

ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ must be connected closely with καταργ. as а modal, or perhaps rather instrumental, predication, in His crucified flesh:' comp. Col. i. 22, ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ, διὰ τοῦ θανάτου. Stier (comp. Chrys.) extends the reference of rape to Christ's incarnate state and the whole tenor of His earthly life ('Fleisches-lebens'); comp. Schulz, Abendm. p. 95 sq. This is doubtful: the context appears to refer alone to His death; comp. ver. 13, Ev TŴ αἵματι, ver. 16, διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. On the distinction between the ràp and the σῶμα (the σὰρξ δοθεῖσα) of Christ, comp. Lücke on John vi. 51, Vol. II. p. 149 sq.

τὸν νόμον τῶν

ἐντ. ἐν δόγμ.] ‘the law of ordinances expressed in decrees,' i. e. 'the law of decretory ordinances.' The Greek commentators join ἐν δόγμ. with καταργ., referring δόγματα (scil. τὴν πίστιν, Chrys., τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν διδαOкaliav, Theod.) to Christian doctrines: this meaning of doyua in the N. T. is, however, untenable. Harless (comp. Olsh.) retains the same construction, but regards év dóyμ. as defining the sphere in which the action of Christ's death was manifested 'on the side of, in the matter of decrees.' This is plausible, and much to be pre

ferred to Fritzsche's expl. 'nova præcepta stabiliendo' (Dissert. 2 Cor. ii. p. 168); still the article seems indispensable, for, as Winer observes, both the law and the side or aspect under which it is viewed are fairly definite. We retain, therefore, the ordinary explanation, according to which ev dóyμ. is closely united with τῶν ἐντολῶν, and therefore correctly anarthrous: see Winer, Gr. § 19. 2, and notes ch. i. 15. The gen. ¿vтoλ. thus serves to express the contents (Bernhardy, Synt. III. 45, p. 163), èv dóyμ. the definite mandatory form ('legem imperiosam,' Erasm.) in which the evroλal were expressed: see Tholuck, Beiträge, p. 93 sq., and esp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 7, rem. I, p. 249, 250. ἵνα τοὺς δύο κ. τ. λ.] that He might make the two in Himself into one new man;' comp. Scholef. Hints, p. 99 (ed. 3). First purpose of the abrogation: peace between Jew and Gentile by making them (οὐκ εἶπε, ‘μεταβάλῃ ̓ ἵνα δείξῃ τὸ ἐνεργὲς τοῦ γενομένου, Chrys.) in Himself, in His person (not d' éavтoû, Chrys.) into-not merely one man, but one new man; ἕνα ἀνήνεγκε θαυ μαστόν, αὐτὸς τοῦτο πρῶτον γενόμενος, Chrys. Meier's assertion that Kawos has here no moral significance is obviously untenable. ποιῶν elpývηv] 'so making peace between the two parts;' not aorist (as in ver. 16), but present; the 'pacificatio' is not mentioned as in modal or causal dependence on the 'creatio,' but simply as extending over and contemporaneous with, the whole process of it; comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 31. 2, a, p. 310.

16. καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ] and might reconcile us;' second purpose, though really from the nature of the

case the first, the divine procedure being, as De W. observes, stated regressively, ἵνα κτίσῃ......ἵνα ἀποκατ.

ἀποκτείνας. The double compound ȧτокαт. is used only here and Col. i. 20, 21. In both cases ἀπὸ does not simply strengthen (e.g. ȧπоθαυμάζω, ἀπεργάζομαι, Mey., Eadie), but hints at a restoration to a primal unity, reduxerit in unum gregem,' Calv.; comp. ver. 13. Chrys. gives rather a different and perhaps doubtful turn, δεικνὺς ὅτι πρὸ τούτου ἡ ἀνθρω πίνη φύσις εὐκατάλλακτος ἦν, οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου. In estimating the preposition, however, the tendency of later Greek to double compounds without any obvious increase of meaning must not be forgotten; Thiersch, de Pentat. II. I. p. 83. The profound dogmatical considerations connected with καταλλαγή (alike active and objective, and passive and subjective, comp. 2 Cor. v. 18 with ib. 20), are treated perspicuously by Usteri, Lehrb. II. I. I, p. 102 sq.: see also Jackson on the Creed, Book X. 49, 3, Pearson ibid. Vol. I. p. 430 sq. (Burton). ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι]

in one (corporate) body,' i. e. in the Church. The reference to the human σŵμа тоû Xp. (Chrys.) is plausible, but on nearer examination not tenable. Had this been intended, the order (comp. the position of ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ aŮTOû) would surely have been different, if only to prevent this very connexion of τοῦς ἀμφοτ. and ἑνὶ σώμ. which their present juxtaposition so obviously suggests. Moreover, the query of B. Crus., why Christ's human body should be here designated ev oŵua, has not been satisfactorily answered, even by Stier: the application of it to the mystical body is intelligible and appro

17 καὶ ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο

priate, comp. ch. iv. 4. 'Ev is not consequently equivalent to eis, but preserves its proper meaning: they were κτισθέντας εἰς ἕνα ἄνθρ.; thus κτισθέντας, Christ.reconciles them both ἐν ěv oúμ. (scil. Ŏvтas, Olsh.) to God: see Winer, Gr. § 54. 5, P. 494. άπоктElvas] 'having slain,' i. e. 'after He had slain;' contrast with Tov, ver. 15. The use of the particular word has evidently been suggested by διὰ σταυροῦ; not λύσας, not ἀνελών, but ȧToкTelvas, 'quia crux mortem adfert,' Grot.; and thus in the words, though not the application of Chrys., ὥστε μηκέτι αὐτὴν ἀναστῆναι. Ἔχθρα is of course, as in ver. 15, the enmity between Jew and Gentile, engendered by the law viewed under its Judaical aspects. ἐν αὐτῷ] “ in it, i. e. upon it,' Hamm.; not 'in corpore suo,' Bengel. In F, G, Vulg. ('in semet ipso'), Syr. (Philox.) and several Latin Ff., we find ἐν ἑαυτῷ; the reading probably owes its origin and support to the reference of ev σώμα to Christ.

17. καὶ ἐλθών] ‘Αnd He came, &c.' not 'and came,' Auth. Ver. (see Scholef. Hints, p. 100), or ' and coming,' Eadie (compare Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 382). This verse seems clearly to refer back to ver. 14, A&TÒS yáp K. T.., there being, as B. Crus. suggests, a faint apposition between Χρ. ἐστιν εἰρήνη, ver. 14, and εὐηγγελ. eiρývηv, ver. 17; still, as ver. 15 and 16 cannot be considered parenthetical, the connexion is carried on by kal, and the verse is linked with what immediately precedes. 'EXO thus following ȧTOкTelvas will more naturally refer to a spiritual advent (see esp. Acts xxvi. 23), or a mediate advent in the person of His Apostles, than to

18 ὅτι

His actual preaching when on earth. The participle Xov (no mere redundancy, Raphel, Vol. II. 471) in fact serves to give a realistic touch to the whole group of clauses, Christ is our peace; yes, and He came and by His Spirit and the mouths of His Apostles He preached it.' εἰρήνην] Not only τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Chrys., but also τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους: see notes ver. 14. The repetition of eiρývny is rightly maintained by Tisch. with ABDEFG (not H [Eadie], a fragmentary MS. which contains no part of this Ep.), Vulg. It. Goth. Copt., Æth. Arm. and many Ff. It gives an emphasis and solemnity to the passage, which is here (though denied by Stier, p. 370, comp. Bengel) especially appropriate. Meyer compares Rom. iii. 31, viii. 15.

nor

18. 8T] Not epexegetic, 'to wit, that we have, &c.,' Baumg., directly causal, because we have, &c.,' Beng., but demonstrative, 'for through Him we have, &c.;' compare 2 Cor. i. 5. The 'probatio,' as Calvin observes, is 'ab effectu;' the principal moment of thought, however, does not rest on ἔχομεν, on the reality of the possession (Harl.), or on any appeal to inward experience, 'for-is it not so?' Stier; but, as the order suggests, on δι' αὐτοῦ, on the matter of fact that it was through Him, and none but Him, that we have this προσαγωγή. xoμev] Present; the action is still going on. Contrast ἐσχήκαμεν, Rom. v. 2, where the reference is to the period when they became Christians, and where, consequently, the Tроσαywyn is spoken of as a thing past. τὴν προσαγωγήν] our introduction, admission; the transitive meaning

seems, both here and Rom. v. 2, preferable to the intransitive 'access,' Auth. Ver., accessum,' Vulg. The former is the primary and more proper meaning of the word: see (appy.) Xen. Cyrop. VII. 5. 45, ToÙs éμoùs φίλους δεομένους προσαγωγῆς, comp. I. 3. 8, and the various applications of the word in Polybius, e. g. Hist. 1. 48. 2, τῶν μηχανημάτων πρ., XIV. 10. 9, τῶν ὀργάνων. Christ then is our προσαγωγεὺς to the Father; οὐκ εἶπεν • πρόσοδον ἀλλὰ προσαγωγήν, οὐ γὰρ ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν προσήλθομεν, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπ ̓ аνтоû πроonxonμev, Chrys. on ver. 21: see 1 Pet. iii. 18, ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγαγῇ TOE. There may possibly be here (less probably, however, Rom. v. 2) an allusion to the προσαγωγούς (admissionalis,' Lampridius, Sever. 4) at Oriental courts, Tholuck, Rom. 1. c., and Usteri, Lehrb. II. 1. 1, p. 101; at any rate, the supposition does not merit the contempt with which it has been treated by Rückert. The uses of προσαγωγὴ are illustrated by Bos, Obs. Misc. 35, p. 149 sq.

ἐν ἔνι Πνεύματι] ' in one Spirit, common to Jew and Gentile;' not for dia, Chrys., comp. Ecum., Calv., al., but 'united in,' Olsh. The Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital sphere or element in which both parties have a common προσαγωγή to the Father. The mention of the three Persons in the blessed Trinity, with the three prepp. διὰ, ἐν, πρός, is distinct and noticeable.

19. apa ouv] Accordingly then,' 'so then;' 'rebus ita comparatis igitur:' the conclusion follows from ver. 1418, and expands the ideas of ver. 13. On the use of ἄρα οὖν, see notes on Gal. vi. 10, and comp. Rom. v. 18,