Charles Hodge · 17 of 30

Chapter IV. An Exhortatin to Unity, vs. 1-16—An Exhortation to Holiness and to Specific Virtues, vs. 17-32 · Part 2

There are two serious difficulties connected with this citation. The first is, that the quotation does not agree with the original. In the Ps. 68, 18, the passage is, "Thou hast received gifts among men." Paul has it, "He gave gifts to man." To get over this difficulty some have supposed that the apostle does not quote the Psalm, but some Hymn which the Ephesians were in the habit of using. But this is not only contrary to the uniform usage of the New Testament writers, but also to the whole context, for the apostle argues from the passage quoted as of divine authority. Others have assumed an error in the Hebrew text. Rationalists say it is a misquotation from failure of memory. Others argue that the word לָקַח, used by the Psalmist, means to give as well as to take. Or, at least, it often means to bring; and therefore, the original passage may be translated, "Thou hast brought gifts among men;" the sense of which is, ‘Thou hast given gifts to men.’ The difference is thus reduced to a mere verbal alteration, the sense remaining the same. It is a strong confirmation of this view that the Chaldee Paraphrase expresses the same sense: dedisti dona filiis hominum. Dr. Addison Alexander in his comment on Ps. 68, 18 remarks, "To receive gifts on the one hand and bestow gifts on the other are correlative ideas and expressions, so that Paul, in applying this description of a theocratic triumph to the conquests of our Saviour, substitutes one of these expressions for the other." This is perhaps the most natural solution. The divine writers of the New Testament, filled with the same Spirit, which moved the ancient prophets, are not tied to the mere form, but frequently give the general sense of the passages which they quote. A conqueror always distributes the spoils he takes. He receives to give. And, therefore, in depicting the Messiah as a conqueror, it is perfectly immaterial whether it is said, He received gifts, or, He gave gifts. The sense is the same. He is a conqueror laden with spoils, and able to enrich his followers.

The second difficulty connected with this quotation is that Ps. 68 is not Messianic. It does not refer to the Messiah, but to the triumphs of God over his enemies. Yet the apostle not only applies it to Christ, but argues to prove that it must refer to him. This difficulty finds its solution in three principles which are applicable not only to this, but also to many similar passages. The first is the typical character of the old dispensation. It was a shadow of good things to come. There was not only a striking analogy between the experience of the ancient people of God, in their descent into Egypt, their deliverance from the house of bond. age, their journey through the wilderness, and their entrance into Canaan, and the experience of the church, but this analogy was a designed prefiguration—God’s dealings as the head of the ancient theocracy, were typical of his dealings with the church. His delivering his people, his conquering their enemies, and his enriching his followers with their spoil, were all adumbrations of the higher work of Christ. As the passover was both commemorative of the deliverance out of Egypt and typical of the effected by Christ; so, many of the descriptions of the works and triumphs of God under the old economy are both historical and prophetic. Thus the Psalm quoted by the apostle is a history of the conquests of God over the enemies of his ancient people, and a prophecy of the conquests of the Messiah.

The second principle applicable to this and similar cases, is the identity of the Logos or Son manifested in the flesh under the new dispensation with the manifested Jehovah of the old economy. Hence what is said of the one, is properly assumed to be said of the other. Therefore, as Moses says Jehovah led his people through the wilderness, Paul says Christ led them. 1 Cor. 10, 4. As Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah in the temple, John says he saw the glory of Christ. John 12, 41. As it is written in the prophets, "As I live, saith Jehovah, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God," Is. 45, 23, Paul says, this proves that we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Rom. 14, 10. 11. What in Ps. 102, 25, &c., is said of God as creator, and as eternal and immutable, is in Hebrews 1, 10, applied to Christ. On the same principle what is said in Ps. 68, 18, of Jehovah as ascending to heaven and leading captivity captive, is here said to refer to Christ.

There is still a third principle to be taken into consideration. Many of the historical and prophetic descriptions of the Old Testament are not exhausted by any one application or fulfilment. The promise that Japheth should dwell in the tents of Shem, was fulfilled every time the descendants of the former were made to share in the blessings temporal or spiritual of the latter. The predictions of Isaiah of the redemption of Israel were not exhausted by the deliverance of the people of God from the Babylonish captivity, but had a direct reference to the higher redemption to be effected by Christ. The glowing descriptions of the blessings consequent on the advent of the Messiah, relate not merely to the consequences of his first advent, but to all that is to follow his coming the second time without sin unto salvation. The prediction that every knee shall bow to God and every tongue confess to him, is a prediction not only of the universal prevalence of the true religion; but also, as the apostle teaches, of a general judgment at the last day. In like manner, what the Old Testament says of Jehovah descending and ascending, of his conquering his enemies and enriching his people, is not exhausted by his figurative descending to manifest his power, nor by such conspicuous theophanies as occurred on Sinai and in the Temple, or in the triumphs recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, but refer also to his personal advent in the flesh, to his ascension and his spiritual triumphs. It is, therefore, in perfect accordance with the whole analogy of Scripture, that the apostle applies what is said of Jehovah in Ps. 68 as a conqueror, to the work of the Lord Jesus, who, as God manifested in the flesh, ascended on high leading captivity captive and giving gifts unto men.

Vs. 9. 10. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.

The obvious design of these verses is to show that the passage quoted from the Psalmist refers to Christ. The proof lies in the fact that ascension in the case of a divine person, a giver of spiritual gifts to men, implies a previous descent. It was Christ who descended, and therefore, it is Christ who ascended. It is true the Old Testament often speaks of God’s descending, and therefore, they may speak of his ascending. But according to the apostle, the divine person intended in those representations was the Son, and no previous descent or ascent, no previous triumph over his enemies, included all that the Spirit of prophecy intended by such representations. And, therefore, the Psalmist must be understood as having included in the scope of his language the most conspicuous and illustrious of God’s condescensions and exaltations. All other comings were but typical of his coming in the flesh, and all ascensions were typical of his ascension from the grave.

The apostle, therefore, here teaches that God, the subject of the sixty-eighth Psalm, descended "into the lower parts of the earth;" that "he ascended up above all heavens," and that this was with the design "that he might fill all things."

The Hebrew phrase תַחְתִּיוׄת אֶרֶץ to which the apostle’s τὰ κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς, (the lower parts of the earth,) answers, is used for the earth in opposition to heaven, Is. 44, 23; probably for the grave in Ps. 63, 10; as a poetical designation for the womb in Ps. 139, 15; and for Hades or the invisible world, Ez. 32, 24. Perhaps the majority of commentators take this last to be the meaning of the passage before us. They suppose the reference is to the desensus ad inferos, or to Christ’s "descending into hell." But in the first place this idea is entirely foreign to the meaning of the passage in the Psalm on which the apostle is commenting. In the second place, there as here, the only descent of which the context speaks is opposed to the ascending to heaven. ‘He that ascended to heaven is he who first descended to earth.’ In the third place, this is the opposition so often expressed in other places and in other forms of expression, as in John 3, 13, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven." John 6, 38, "I came down from heaven." John 8, 14, "I know I came and whither I go." John 16, 28, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." The expression of the apostle therefore means, "the lower parts, viz. the earth." The genitive τῆς γῆς is the common genitive of apposition. Compare Acts 2, 19, where the heaven above is opposed to the earth beneath; and John 8, 23.

He that descended to earth, who assumed our nature, is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens. Ὑπεράνω, longe supra, expressing the highest exaltation. As the Hebrew word for heaven is in the plural form, the New Testament writers often use the plural even when the heavens are considered as one, as in the phrase βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. But often there is a reference to a plurality of heavens, as when the expression "all heavens" is used. The Jews reckoned seven heavens, and Paul, 2 Cor. 12, 2, speaks of the third heavens; the atmosphere, the region of the stars, and above all the abode of God. Above all heavens plainly means above the whole universe; above all that is created visible and invisible; above thrones, principalities, and powers. All things, all created things, are subject to the ascended Redeemer.

He is thus exalted, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα, that he might fill all things. As the word πληρόω signifies to fill, to fulfil, to render perfect, and to accomplish, these words may mean—1. That he might fill all things, i. e. the universe with his presence and power. 2. That he might fulfil all the predictions and promises of God respecting his kingdom. 3. That he might render all perfect, replete with and goodness. 4. That he might accomplish all things necessary to the consummation of his work. The first interpretation is greatly to be preferred. Τὰ πάντα properly means the universe; and if taken to mean any thing else, it must be because the context demands it, which is not the case here. Secondly, this passage is evidently parallel with ch. 1, 21, where also it is said of Christ as exalted, that "he fills the universe in all its parts." Thirdly, the analogy of Scripture is in favour of this interpretation. The omnipresence and universal dominion of God are elsewhere expressed in a similar way. "Do I not fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord." Jer. 23, 24. The same grand idea is expressed in Matt. 28, 18, "All power is given unto me in heaven and upon earth;" and in Phil. 2, 9. 10, and in many other places. It is not of the ubiquity of Christ’s body of which the apostle speaks, as the Lutherans contend, but of the universal presence and power of the ascended Son of God. It is God clothed in our nature, who now exercises this universal dominion; and, therefore, the apostle may well say of Christ, as the God, that he gives gifts unto men.

V. 11. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκε, and He gave. He, the ascended Saviour, to whom all power and all resources have been given—he gave, some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. These were among the gifts which Christ gave his church; which, though implying diversity of grace and office, were necessary to its unity as an organized whole. These offices are mentioned in the order of their importance. First the apostles the immediate messengers of Christ, the witnesses for him, of his doctrines, his miracles, and of his resurrection; infallible as teachers and absolute as rulers in virtue of the gift of inspiration and. of their commission. No man, therefore, could be an apostle unless—1. He was immediately appointed by Christ. 2. Unless he had seen him after his resurrection and had received the knowledge of the Gospel by immediate revelation. 3. Unless he was rendered infallible by the gift of inspiration. These things constituted the office and were essential to its authority. Those who without these gifts and qualifications claimed the office, are called "false apostles."

2. Prophets. A prophet is one who speaks for another, spokesman, as Aaron was the prophet of Moses. Those whom God made his organs in speaking to men were prophets, whether their communications were doctrinal, preceptive, or prophetic in the restricted sense of the term. Every one who spoke by inspiration, was a prophet. The prophets of the New Testament differed from the apostles, in that their inspiration was occasional, and therefore their authority as teachers subordinate. The nature of their office is fully taught in 1 Cor. 14, 1-40. As the gift of infallibility was essential to the apostolic office, so the gift of occasional inspiration was essential to the prophetic office. It is inconceivable that God should invest any set of men with the authority claimed and exercised by the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, requiring all men to believe their doctrines and submit to their authority, on the pain of perdition, without giving the inward gifts qualifying them for their work. This is clearly stated by Calvin in his comment on this verse; to a certain difficulty, he says, "Respondeo, quoties a Deo vocati sunt homines, dona necessarie conjuncta esse officiis; neque enim Deus, apostolos aut pastores instituendo, larvam illis duntaxat imponit; sed dotibus etiam instruit, sine quibus rite functionem sibi injunctam obire nequennt. Quisquis ergo Dei auctoritate constituitur apostolus, non inani et nudo titulo, sed mandato simul et facultate praeditus est."

And some, evangelists. There are two views of the nature of the office of the evangelists. Some regard them as vicars of the apostles—men commissioned by them for a definite purpose and clothed with special powers for the time being, analogous to the apostolic vicars of the Romanists; or to the temporary superintendents appointed after the Reformation in the Scottish church, clothed for a limited time and for a definite purpose with presbyterial powers, i. e. to a certain extent, with the powers of a presbytery, the power tc ordain, install and depose. Evangelists in this sense were temporary officers. This view of the nature of the office prevailed at the time of the Reformation.

According to the other view, the evangelists were itinerant preachers, οἱ περιΐοντες ἐκήρυττον, as Theodoret and other early writers describe them. They were properly missionaries sent to preach the Gospel where it had not been previously known. This is the commonly received view, in favour of which may be urged—1. The signification of the word, which in itself means nothing more than preacher of the Gospel. 2. Philip was an evangelist, but was in no sense a vicar of the apostles; and when Timothy was exhorted to do the work of an evangelist, the exhortation was simply to be a faithful preacher of the Gospel. Acts 21, 8; Eph. 4, 11; and 2 Tim. 4, 5, are the only passages in which the word occurs, and in no one of them does the connection or any other consideration demand any other meaning than the one commonly assigned to it. 3. Εὐαγγέλισθαι and διδάσκειν are both used to express the act of making known the Gospel; but when as here, the εὐαγγελιστής is distinguished fromr the διδάσκαλος, the only point of distinction implied or admissible is between one who makes known the Gospel where it had not been heard, and an instructor of those already Christians. The use of εὐαγγέλισθαι in such passages as Acts 8, 4; 14, 7; 1 Cor. 1, 17, and 2 Cor. 10, 16, serves to confirm the commonly received opinion that an evangeli1st is one who makes known the Gospel. That Timothy and Titus were in some sense apostolic vicars, i. e. men clothed with special powers for a special purpose and for a limited time, may be admitted, but this does not determine the nature of the office of an evangelist. They exercised these powers not as evangelists, but as delegates or commissioners.

And some pastors and teachers, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους. According to one interpretation we have here two distinct offices—that of pastor and that of teacher. The latter, says Calvin, "had nothing to do with discipline, nor with the administration of the , nor with admonitions or exhortations, but simply with the interpretation of Scripture." Institutes IV, 3, 4. All this is inferred from the meaning of the word teacher. There is no evidence from Scripture that there was a set of men authorized to teach but not authorized to exhort. The thing is well impossible. The one function includes the other. The man who teaches duty and the grounds of it, does at the same time admonish and exhort. It was however on the ground of this unnatural interpretation that the Westminster Directory made teachers a distinct and permanent class of jure divino officers in the church. The in New England endeavoured to reduce the theory to practice, and appointed doctors as distinct from preachers. But the attempt proved to be a failure. The two functions could not be kept separate. The whole theory rested on a false interpretation of Scripture. The absence of the article before διδασκάλους proves that the apostle intended to designate the same persons as at once pastors and teachers. The former term designates them as ἐπίσκοποι, overseers, the latter as instructors. Every pastor or bishop was required to be apt to teach. This interpretation is given by Augustin and Jerome; the latter of whom says: Non enim ait: alios autem pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse debeat et magister. In this interpretation the modern commentators almost without exception concur. It is true the article is at times omitted between two substantives referring to different classes, where the two constitute one order—as in Mark 15, 1, μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ γραμματέων, because the elders and scribes formed one body. But in such an enumeration as that contained in this verse, τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺ δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας, the laws of the language require τοὺς δὲ διδασκάλους, had the apostle intended to distinguish the διδάσκαλοι from the ποιμένες. Pastors and teachers, therefore, must be taken as a two-fold designation of the same officers, who were at once the guides and instructors of the people.

V. 12. Having mentioned the officers Christ gave his church, the apostle states the end for which this gift was conferred—it was πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων, εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, for the perfecting of the , for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

Both the meaning of the words and the relation of the several clauses in this verse, are doubtful. The word καταρτισμός, rendered perfecting, admits of different interpretations. The root ἄρω, means to unite or bind together. Hence ἄρτιος signifies united, complete, perfect; and the verb καταρτίζω is literally to mend, Matt. 4, 21; to reduce to order, to render complete, or perfect, Luke 6, 40; 2 Cor. 13, 11; to prepare or render fit for use, Heb. 10, 5; 13, 21. The substantive may express the action of the verb in the various modifications of its meaning. Hence it has been rendered here-1. To the completion of the saints, i. e. of their number. 2. To their renewing or restoration. 3. To their reduction to order and union as one body. 4. To their preparation (for service). 5. To their perfecting. This last is to be preferred because agreeable to the frequent use of the verb by this apostle, and because it gives the sense best suited to the context.

The word διακόνια, service, may express that service which one man renders to another—Luke 10, 40, "with much serving;" or specially the service rendered to Christians, 1 Cor. 16, 15, "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints;" or the official service of the ministry. Hence the phrase εἰς ἔργον διακονίας may mean ‘to the work of mutual service or kind offices,’ or to the work of the ministry—in the official sense. The latter is the common interpretation, and is to be preferred not only on account of the more frequent use of the word in that sense, but also on account of the connection, as here the apostle is speaking of the different classes of ministers of the word.

The principal difficulty connected with this verse concerns the relation of its several clauses. 1. Some propose to invert the first and second so that the sense would be, ‘Christ appointed the apostles, &c., for the work of the ministry, the design of which is the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ.’ But although the sense is thus good and pertinent, the transposition is arbitrary. 2. Others regard the clauses as coordinate. ‘These officers were given for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ.’ To this is objected the change in the prepositions (πρὸς, εἰς—εἰς), and the incongruity of the thoughts—the expressions not being parallel. 3. The two latter clauses may be made subordinate to the first. ‘Christ has appointed the ministry with the view of preparing the saints, for the work of serving one another,’ (compare εἰς διακονιαν τοῖς ἁγίοις, 1 Cor. 16, 15,) and for the edification of his body. This however assumes διακονία to have a sense unsuited to the context. 4. Others make the two clauses with εἰς explanatory of the first clause, ‘Christ appointed these officers for the preparation of the saints, some for the work of the ministry, and some for the edifying of his body.’ But this is inconsistent with the structure of the passage. It would require the introduction of τοὺς μὲν—τοὺς δὲ, ’some, for this, and some, for that.’ 5. Others again, give the sense thus, ‘For the sake of perfecting the saints, Christ appointed these officers to the work of the ministry, to the edification of his body.’ The first clause πρὸς κατ. expresses the remote, εἰς—εἰς the immediate end of the appointment in question. The "work of the ministry" is that work which the ministry perform, viz. the edifying of the body of Christ. This last view is perhaps the best.

"He could not," says Calvin, "exalt more highly the ministry of the Word, than by attributing to it this effect. For what higher work can there be than to build up the church that it may reach its perfection? They therefore are insane, who neglecting this means hope to be perfect in Christ, as is the case with fanatics, who pretend to secret revelations of the Spirit; and the proud, who content themselves with the private reading of the Scripture, and imagine they do not need the ministry of the church." If Christ has appointed the ministry for the edification of his body, it is in vain to expect that end to be accomplished in any other way.

V. 13. The ministry is not a temporary institution, it is to continue until the church has reached the goal of its high calling. This does not prove that all the offices mentioned above are permanent. By common consent the prophets were temporary officers. It is the ministry and not those particular offices, that is to continue. The goal of the church is here described in three equivalent forms—1. Unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God. 2. A perfect man. 3. The measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

1. Till we all come to the unity, &c., μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες. The all here mentioned is not all men, but all the people of Christ. The reference is not to the confluence of nations from all parts of the earth, but to the body of Christ, the company of saints of which the context speaks. The church is tending to the goal indicated. Our version has in unity, but the Greek is εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα, and therefore should be rendered, to or unto, just as in the following clauses, εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον and εἰς μέτρον, κτλ. The unity of faith is the end to which all are to attain. The genitive υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ belongs equally to πίστις and ἐπιγνωσις. The Son of God is the object both of the faith and of the knowledge here spoken of. Many commentators understand knowledge and faith as equivalent, and therefore make the latter member of the clause explanatory of the former: ‘to the unity of the faith, that is, to the knowledge of the Son of God.’ But this overlooks the καὶ. The apostle says, "faith and knowledge." Thus distinguishing the one from the other. And they are in fact different, however intimately related, and however often the one term may be used for the other. Faith is a form of knowledge, and therefore may be expressed by that word. But knowledge is not a form of faith, and therefore cannot be expressed by it. Knowledge is an element of faith; but faith, in its distinctive sense, is not an element of knowledge. The Greek word here used is not γνῶσις but ἐπιγνωσις. We have no word to express the distinction as the Germans have in their Kennen and Erkennen. It is not merely cognition but recognition. Faith and knowledge, πίστις and ἐπιγνωσις, express or comprehend all the elements of that state of mind of which the Son of God, God manifested in the flesh, who loved us and gave himself for us, who died on Calvary and is now enthroned in heaven, is the object. A state of mind which includes the apprehension of his glory, the appropriation of his love, as well as confidence and devotion. This state of mind is in itself eternal life. It includes excellence, blessedness, and the highest form of activity, i. e. the highest exercise of our highest powers. We are like him when we see him. Perfect knowledge is perfect . Therefore when the whole church has come to this perfect knowledge which excludes all diversity, then it has reached the end. Then it will bear the image of the heavenly.

The object of faith and knowledge is the Son of God. This designation of our Lord declares him to be of the same nature with the Father, possessing the same attributes and entitled to the same honour. Were this not the case the knowledge of Christ as the Son of God, could not be eternal life; it could not fill, enlarge, , and render blessed the soul; nor constitute the goal of our high calling; the full perfection of our nature.

It has excited surprise that the apostle should here present unity of faith as the goal of perfection, whereas in ver. 6, Christians are said now to have "one faith," as they have one Lord and one baptism. Some endeavour to get over this difficulty by laying the emphasis upon all. The progress of the church consists in bringing all to this state of unity. But Paul includes all in his assertion in ver. 6. And if the "one faith" of that verse, and "unity of faith" here are the same, then the starting-point and the goal of the church are identical. Others say that "the unity of faith and knowledge" means not that all should be united in faith and knowledge, but that all should attain that state in which faith and knowledge are identified—faith is to be lost in knowledge. The unity, therefore, here intended, is unity between faith and knowledge, and not the unity of believers. But this is evidently unnatural. "We all come to unity," can only mean, " we are all united." There is no real difficulty in the case. Unity is a matter of degrees. The church is now and ever has been one body, but how imperfect is their union! Our Lord’s praying that his people may be one, does not prove that they are not now one. It is here as in other cases. Holiness is the beginning and holiness is the end. We must be holy to belong to the church, and yet holiness is the ultimate perfection of the church. The unity of faith is now confined to the first principles; the unity of faith contemplated in this place is that perfect unity which implies perfect knowledge and perfect holiness.

Unto a perfect man, εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον. This clause is explanatory of the former and determines its meaning. Perfection is the end; perfect manhood. Τέλειος signifies ad finem perductus; when used of a man, it means an adult, one who has reached the end of his development as a man. When applied to a Christian it means one who has reached the end of his development as a Christian, Heb. 12, 23; and the church is perfect when it has reached the end of its development and stands complete in glory. In 1 Cor. 13, 10, τὸ τέλειον stands opposed to τὸ ἐκ μέρους, and there as here indicates the state which is to be attained hereafter when we shall know even as we are known. The standard of perfection for the church is complete conformity to Christ. It is to attain εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. These words are explanatory of the preceding. The church becomes adult, a perfect man, when it reaches the fulness of Christ. However these words may be explained in detail, this is the general idea. Whether ἡλικία means stature or age depends upon the context. Most commentators prefer the latter signification here, because τέλειος in the preceding clause means adult, in reference to age rather than to stature, and νήπιος in the following verse means a child as to age and not as to size.