πνευματικῇ] ‘with every blessing of the Spirit;' agency by which the blessing was imparted, év here being appy. instrumental (see notes on I Thess. iv. 18), and perhaps not without some parallelism to the Hebrew 23; comp. the analogous construction, Tobit viii. 15, and James iii. 9, where however the instrumental sense is much more distinct. The meaning and force of πνευματικῇ is slightly doubtful. Chrys. and Theod.-Mops. find in it an antithesis to the blessings of the Old Covenant (τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἐνταῦθα αἰνίττεται εὐλογία μὲν γὰρ ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐ πνευματική. Chrys. ; comp. Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. I. p. 756); so distinctly Syr., Æth., and, with a detailed enumeration of the blessings, Theod. in loc.

It seems

however much more in accordance both with the present context and with the prevailing usage of the N.T. (see Rom. i. 11, χάρισμα πνευματικόν, and I Cor. xii. I, τῶν πνευματικῶν, compared with ver. 11), to refer the epithet directly to the Holy Spirit (Joel ii. 28 sq., Acts ii. 17). Bengel has not failed to notice the allusion to the Trinity, which, as Stier (Vol. I. p. 57) has clearly shown, pervades the whole of this sublime Epistle.

év Toîs éπovρavlois] 'in heavenly regions;' [in cœlo] Syr., 'in cœlis,' Æth. The exact meaning of these words is doubtful. Many of the ancient and several modern expositors explain τὰ ἐπουράνια, as “heavenly blessings (ἐπουράνια γὰρ τὰ Sapa Taûтa Theodoret), 'heavenly institutions' (J. Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. Vol. I. p. 198, A.-C. Libr.), and thus

as standing in ethical contrast to rà èñíyeɩa (Chrys.), see John iii. 12; but comp. I Cor. xv. 40, where the same words are in physical contrast. This is not grammatically untenable, and would not require the omission of Toîs (Rück., Eadie, al.), as the article would thus only correctly designate the class; see Middleton, Greek Art. III. 2. 2, p. 40, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 3, p. 99. As however such a specification of the sphere, and thence of the spiritual character of the action, would seem superfluous after the definite words immediately preceding; as in the four other passages in this Ep. (i. 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, and vi. 12, but contr. Chrys.) the expression seems obviously local; and lastly, as throughout St Paul's Epp. (even 2 Tim. iv. 18) ¿TOVpávios has that local or physical force which the preposition éπl (Harless) would also seem further to suggest, it will be best, both on contextual and lexical grounds, to retain that meaning in the present case. Ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ.

must then here be referred as a local predication to εὐλογ. πνευμ., defining broadly and comprehensively the region and sphere where our true home is (Phil. iii. 20), where our hope is laid up (Col. i. 5), and whence the blessings of the Spirit, the dwρeà ǹ Eπоvρávios (Heb. vi. 4), truly come :

see notes to Transl.

ἐν Χριστῷ] Not for διά Χρ. (Chrys., Hamm.), but, as in ver. 1, 'in Christ;' 'in quo uno spirituali et sanctificâ benedictione donamur;' Beza. Thus εὐλογήσας contains the predication of time (Donalds. Gr. § 574 sq.), év eůλoy. πVEνμ. the predication of manner, more exactly defined by the local predication ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ., while ἐν Χρ. is that mystical predication which, as Stier well observes, 'is the very soul of this

Epistle,' and involves all other conceptions in itself. For a good example of this species of analysis of clauses and sentences, see Donalds. Crat. § 304.

4. Kabós] 'even as,' 'sicut,' Vulg., Clarom., Copt., al.; explanation and expansion of the preceding εὐλογή σας κ.τ.λ., the particle καθώς, which in most cases has a purely modal, appearing here to have also a slightly explanatory or even causal force ('inasmuch as'), and to mark not only the accordance, but the necessary connexion of the evλoyia with the Ekλový: see Rom. i. 28, 1 Cor. i. 6, and compare kа0óтɩ (used only by St Luke), which has both a modal (Acts ii. 45, iv. 35) and a causal (Acts ii. 24) meaning. The form κa@ws is not found in the older Attic writers, or in Lucian; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 426, and notes on Gal. iii. 6.

ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς] chose us out for Himself;' 'elegit,' Vulg., Clarom., al., but with some sacrifice of the fullest meaning. Without entering into the profound dogmatical questions connected with the meaning of this verb (only used by St Paul here and I Cor. i. 27 bis, 28), it may be simply observed that in eşeλéşaтo three ideas are suggested: (a) selection (not necessarily of individuals, see Ebrard, Dogm. § 560) from, out of, others not chosen (EK TOû KÓσμον, John xv. 19; contr. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 198), suggested by the plain meaning of the word: (b) simple unrestricted preterition of the act (alike irrespective of duration or relation; Bernhardy, Syntax, x. 8, p. 380, and esp. Fritz. de Aor. p. 17 sq.), conveyed by the tense, and further heightened by the timelessness' (Olsh.) of the quasi-temporal

predication πρὸ καταβολῆς; compare

2 Thess. ii. 13, €ïλato àπ' áρxîs: God is ỏ xaλŵv (1 Thess. ii. 12) as well as o Kaλéoas (Gal. i. 6), but not ỏ ékλeyouevos: (c) reflexive action (for Himself; compare Eph. v. 27, Rev. xxi. 2), implied by the voice. While the primary meaning of ἐκλέγεσθαι and similar words is undoubtedly to be looked for in their general and national references in the O.T. (Usteri, Lehrbegr. II. 2. 2, p. 271; Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. p. 556), the modal clauses with which they are combined show the deeper and more distinctive sense in which they are used in the New Testament. On this profound subject, and on the estates of man (the estate of wrath, of reconciliation, and of election), see esp. Jackson, Creed, x. 37. 11 sq., Vol. IX. p. 312 sq., and comp. Hammond on God's Grace, Vol. I. p. 667 sq. (Lond. 1674), and Laurence, Bampt. Lect. for 1804.

22.

ἐν αὐτῷ] Not for δι' αὐτοῦ, scil. διὰ τῆς Eis AUTÒV TÍOTEws (Chrys., Hamm.), nor for eis avrov (comp. Eth.), nor yet with an instrumental force (Arm.), but, as Olsh. correctly and profoundly explains it, 'in Him;' in Christ, as the head and representative of spiritual, as Adam was the representative of natural humanity; comp. I Cor. xv. πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου] This expression, used three times in the N.T. (John xvii. 24, 1 Pet. i. 20), here serves to define the archetypal character of the New Dispensation, and the wide gulf that separated the πρόθεσις πρὸ χρόνων αιωνίων (2 Tim. i. 9) of God with respect to Christians, from His temporal èxλoyǹ of the Jews; see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 522 (Bohn). εἶναι ἡμᾶς K.T..] that we should be holy and

blameless;' object contemplated by God in His gracious ékλoy, the infin. being that of intention; scil. ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἵνα ἅγιοι ὦμεν καὶ ἄμωμοι· Chrys.: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2, Col. i. 22, and see Winer, Gr. § 44. 1, p. 284, Donalds. Gr. §607. a, p. 598. ἁγίους καὶ duáμovs] 'holy and blameless;' positive and negative aspects of true Christian life. The meaning of duwμos (äμεμπτος, καθαρός, ἄψεκτος Hesych.) is slightly doubtful; it may be (a) inculpatus, ὁ ἀνεπίληπτον βίον ἔχων (Chrys.), in accordance with its derivation (μῶμος, μέμφομαι); or (1) immaculatus' (Vulg., Clarom., Arm.; comp. Syr., Goth.), with possible reference to its application in the LXX to victims, Lev. i. 10, xxii. 19; comp. I Macc. iv. 42, iepeîs àμúμovs, and see Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The latter meaning is strongly supported by 1 Pet. i. 19, ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου, and Heb. ix. 14 still, as there is here no sacrificial allusion direct or indirect (comp. ch. v. 27), it seems best to retain the simple etymological meaning; see Col. i. 22, ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους, and comp. Wisd. x. 15, λαὸν ὅσιον καὶ σπέρμα ἄμεμπτον. It is more doubtful whether these epithets point to a moral condition, i.e. to the righteousness of sanctification (Chrys., Hamm.), or to the imputed righteousness of Christ (Olsh., Mey.). The former reference seems most consonant both with St Paul's general teaching (1 Thess. iv. 7), and the obvious inferences that may be drawn from other passages in the N. T., 1 Pet. i. 16, Rev. xxii. 11; see Stier in loc., and on the distinction between sanctifying and justifying righteousness, the excellent remarks of Hooker, Serm. II. 6, Vol. III. p. 611. KATEVάπTLOV AŮToû] 'before Him;' 'id

est vere, sincere,' Beza; dyiwoúvnv ¡nτεῖ ἣν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρᾷ. Chrys. The form auroû is here to be preferred, as the reference to the subject is obviously remote and unemphatic; comp. Bremi, Jahrb. der Philol. IX. p. 171 (Winer). The distinction however between the proper use of these two forms cannot be rigorously defined; see Buttı. Mid. Excurs. x. p. 140, and Tisch. Prolegom. p. LVIII.

ἐν ἀγάπῃ may be joined with ἐξελέξατο; more probably with ἁγ. καὶ ἀμώμ. (Vulg., Copt.); but appy. most probably with poopioas (Syг., Chrys., Theod.), as St Paul's object seems here not so much to define the nature of the required ἁγιωσύνη and ἀμεμφία on the part of man, as to reveal the transcendent principle of Love which (if we may so speak) was the moving principle of the προορισμὸς of God; καὶ προεῖδεν ἡμᾶς καὶ ἠγάπησε· Theod., comp. Theod.-Mops. The arguments derived from the collocation of the words are not decisive, for ev ảyáπ? could as well be joined with ἁγ. καὶ ἀμ. here, as ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ with ἀμέμTTOUS in Thess. iii. 13; and again could as easily precede emphasis gratia προορίσας here, as it does έῤῥιζωμένοι, ch. iii. 18. Lastly, it cannot be said that the second modal clause, κarà Th ed., is thus superfluous (Meyer): the two clauses point to two different attributes; ἐν ἀγάπῃ to the loving Mercy, κатà Thy evd. to the sovereign Power of God. For a good defence of the second form of connexion see Alford in loc.

5. προορίσας ἡμᾶς] ‘having foreordained us;' i.e. not 'prædestinans,' Beng., but 'quum prædestinasset,' Syr.Phil., the participle being most naturally regarded as temporal, not modal, and its action as prior to, not syn

chronous with (as in ver. 9) that of ežeλégaтo: comp. Rom. viii. 29, 30, and see Bernhardy, Synt. III. 9, p. 383, Donalds. Gr. § 574 sq. With regard to the prep. it would certainly seem that pò does not refer to others (Baumg.), nor appy. to existence before time (Eadie), but simply to the realization of the event: the decree existed before the object of it came into outward manifestation; comp. πроηλπIKÓтаs, ver. 12, and see Olsh. on Rom. ix. I. The distinction between ἐκλογὴ and προορισμός is thus drawn by Scherzer (cited by Wolf); 'differunt tantum ratione ordinativâ et objectivâ,' the K of the former referring to the mass from whom the selection was made, the pò of the latter to the pre-existence and priority of the decree. On Tроopioμbs, &c. see Petavius, Theol. Dogm. IX. 1, Vol. I. p. 565 sq., and Laurence, Bampt. Lect. VIII. p. 169 sq.

εἰς υἱοθεσίαν] ' for adoption, scil. ἵνα αὐτοῦ υἱοὶ λεγοί[ώ]μεθα καὶ χρηματίζωMev Theod.-Mops.; violeola however not being merely sonship (Ust. Lehrb. II. 1. 2, p. 186), but as usual, 'adoptionem filiorum,' Vulg.; see notes on Gal. iv. 5, and Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 477 (Bohn).

Els autóv] 'unto Him;' comp. Col. i. 20, ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς autóv. As the exact meaning of these words is slightly obscure, it will be best to premise the following statements. (a) Eis viol... eis aỶTòv must be regarded as a single compound clause expressive of the manner and nature of the προορισμός, δι ̓ Ἰησ. and els aur. being separate sub-clauses further defining the prominent idea εἰς υἱοθεσίαν. (6) Αὐτὸν (not αὑτὸν) is not to be referred to Christ (De W.), but, with the Greek expositors,

to God. (c) Els avròv is not merely equivalent to ¿v avтŵ (Beza), or i5, scil. in? (Holzh.); nor is the favourite transl. of Meyer, 'in reference to Him' (comp. Rück.), though grammatically tenable (Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354), by any means sufficient. In these deeper theological passages the prep. seems to bear its primary (els vs Donalds. Crat. § 170) and most comprehensive sense of 'to and into' (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v.); the idea of approach (τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν ȧváyovσav Theoph.) being also blended with, and heightened by, that of inward union; comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27. We may thus paraphrase, 'God predestinated us to be adopted as His sons; and that adoption came to us through Christ, and was to lead us unto, and unite us to God.' Stier compares what he terms the bold expression, 2 Pet. i. 4.

κατὰ

τὴν εὐδοκίαν κ.τ.λ.] 'according to the good pleasure of His will,' 'secundum placitum (propositum, Vulg.) voluntatis suæ,' Clarom.; the prep. Kaтá, as usual, marking 'rule, measure, accordance to,' Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 357. The exact meaning of

Evdokia is here doubtful. The Greek expositors (not Chrys.) refer it to the benevolentia (ἡ ἐπ ̓ εὐεργεσίᾳ βούλησις· Ecum,), the Vulg., Syr., Goth. ('leikainai'), al. to the voluntas liberrima of God. The latter meaning rarely if ever (not even Ecclus. i. 27, xxxii. 5) occurs in the LXX; in the N.T. however, though there are decided instances of the former meaning, e.g. Luke ii. 14 (not 'lætitia,' Fritz.), Phil. i. 15 (δι' εὐδ. opp. to διὰ φθόνον), still there is no reason to doubt (Harl.) that the latter occurs in Matth. xi. 26 (θέλησις καὶ ἀρέσκεια· Theoph.), Luke x. 21, and probably Phil. ii. 13.

Thus the context must decide. As here and ver. 9 evdoxla seems to refer exclusively to the actor (pooploas, yvwploas), not to the objects of the action, it seems best with De Wette (mis-cited by Eadie) to adopt the latter meaning, though not in the extreme sense, τὸ σφοδρὸν θέλημα, as advocated by Chrys. In this the idea of goodness (ἡ ἀρίστη καὶ καλλίστη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἑκούσιος θέλησις· Εtym. Μ.) is of course necessarily involved, but it does not form the prominent idea. For further details, see esp. Fritz. on Rom. x. 1, Vol. II. p. 369 sq., and Wordsw. in loc.

6. εἰς ἔπαινον κ. τ. λ.] ‘for the praise of the glory of His grace,' ' 'in' or rather ad [Clarom.; see Madvig, Opusc. Acad. p. 167 sq.; comp. Hand, Tursell. Vol. III. p. 317] laudem gloriæ gratiæ suæ,' Vulg.; va ǹ Tŷs χάριτος αὐτοῦ δόξα δειχθῇ. Chrys. : divine purpose of the προορισμός, εἰς here denoting the 'finis primarius' (Phil. i. 11), not 'consequens aliquid' (Grot.), as in 1 Pet. i. 7. It is scarcely necessary to say that neither is ἔπαι νος δόξης for ἔπαινος ἔνδοξος (Grot.), nor δόξα τῆς χάριτος for ἔνδοξος χάρις (Beza); both of them weak and, especially here, wholly inadmissible solutions. As Chrys. appears rightly to have felt, dóns is a pure subst., and serves to specify that peculiar quality or attribute of the xápis which forms the subject of praise; comp. Winer,

Gr. 34. 3, obs. p. 211. Thus then of the three genitives, the first is that of the object,' or more strictly speaking, of the point of view' (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129), while the last two are united (Winer, Gr. $30. 3. 1, p. 172), and form a common possessive genitive. Owing to the defining gen., the article is not indispensable; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 113, and compare Madvig, Synt. § 10. 2. ἐν ᾗ] ' in qua,

Vulg., Clarom., not 'e quâ,' Beza, or 'quâ,' Arm. (instrum. case); the antecedent here much more naturally marking the state in which, than the means by which God showed us His favour. ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμ.] 'He imparted His grace to us,' 'gratificavit,' Vulg., Clarom., largitus est,' Æth. The exact meaning of xapiτów is doubtful. From the analogy of verbs in ów, whether in reference to what is material (e.g. Xpvoów, &c.) or what is immaterial (e.g. Oavarów, &c., see Harless), χαριτόω must mean 'xápiri aliquem afficio.' As however Xápis is indeterminate, and may mean either the subjective state of the individual or the objective grace of God, ἐχαρίτωσε may still have two meanings: (α) ἐπεράστους ἐποίησε, Chrys., 'gratis sibi acceptos effecit,' Beza; comp. a somewhat similar use in Ecclus. xviii. 17, Psalm xviii. 26 (Symm.), and see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. II. p. 1504; or (b) gratia amplexus est,