In chapter 1:1 The common class is obscured by putting in “the” before “faithful,” like Dean Alford, though less than in the Authorized Version, reproduced by Bishop Ellicott. Mr. Green is more accurate.-I do not think that τὴν ἀπολ. in verse 7 is rightly rendered “our” redemption, though no doubt it is ours. The article simply designates redemption as a distinct object which we have in Christ, like παρρ. in chapter 3:12 where the Revisers do not say “our,” and this properly. But passing over questionable points, is not the version of verse 11 distinctly for the worse as compared with the Authorized Version? It is exactly one of the marked points of contrast between the faithful now and Israel of old, that these are designated the inheritance of Jehovah, those are styled God's heirs and Christ's joint-heirs. Hence the force of ἐκληρώθημεν is that we were allotted our inheritance, not “made a heritage,” the καί adding this to our being called. For there are two main parts in the blessing: our calling, and also our inheritance, which embraces the universe as put under Christ (cf. verse 10), given as Head over all things to the church which is His body. The church is in God's grace and purpose the heavenly Eve of the Last Adam, to possess all things, not merely the things on the earth like the first man, but the things in the heavens. Here accordingly it will be noticed that the apostle speaks not of the glory of God's grace (ver. 6), nor of the riches of His grace (ver. 7), but of His glory (vers. 12, 14). He looks not at present privilege, but onward to the redemption of the purchased possession which will be then, as distinguished from the redemption we have now through His blood, the forgiveness of our offenses. There is no doubt that God purchased the church with the blood of Christ, and that the believers from among the Jews are now reckoned a people of possession, or peculiarly His own, as indeed are all saints; but this does not at all decide the true force of the purchased possession here, which is really the inherited universe when His glory dawns. There is no need for introducing the italic supplement “God's” here or elsewhere. Of our inheritance in that day the Holy Spirit of promise is meanwhile earnest, because we are not yet in possession.-Next we have an instance of what seems nothing less than hardihood in the Company, due probable to scholastic influence overriding all right spiritual feeling: a too common fault in the Revised New Testament. Three of the primary copies with later uncials, also a single cursive, and a few Fathers, omit ἀγαπὴν τήν: an omission obviously accounted for by one of the most frequent causes of various readings, homeoteleuton. The omission, to my mind, gives us no sense; and this has positively passed muster as the collective judgment of the Company “For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and which ye shew toward all the saints.” Of course they say in the margin that many ancient authorities insert “the love;” but what temerity in adopting for their text what Lachmann alone (now followed by Westcott and Hort), never hindered by the least apprehension of divine truth, ventured to endorse! No doubt Bishops Ellicott and Wordsworth, and Drs. Brown and Scrivener, and one would hope others, protested, but were outvoted. Tischendorf and Tregelles were daring, especially after the Sinaitic MS gave sometimes its voice in accordance with the occasionally wild readings of the Vatican copy; but even they, in spite of their tendencies, here withstood this idolatry of ancient documents to the destruction of truth. Love “toward all the saints” (Col. 1:44Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, (Colossians 1:4)) should have guarded against such an error in their thoughts of Ephesians 1:15,15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, (Ephesians 1:15) though each scripture has its peculiar form. There are other things by no means sure in the chapter; but we pass on.
With chapter 2: 18 compare chapters 1: 7 and 3: 12. They are right in adopting ἐστε (verse 19), and εἰρήνην (verse 17), omitted in Text. Rec. Against their dropping the article, though sustained by àcorr. A C P many cursives, &c., in verse 21, I have anything save objection; but their version, as so often in such cases, is in no way justified, though it might seem so on a first glance at the anarthrous form. But πᾶσα ἡ οἰκ. would imply that the building was complete, in contradiction to the express teaching of the clause that it is only in process— “groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.” So the Revisers themselves render πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ in Acts 2: 36, though they give “every house” in the margin. This they might have done here with less opposition to God's word generally; for “each several building” is irreconcilable with what is everywhere else insisted on. There is no such thought in scripture as ecclesiastical independency, but inter-communion. It may not be here the church as one, but as a whole, not every part. (Cf. the revision of Matt. 3: 15; Eph. 1: 1; and many like cases.)
In chapter 3: 7 was there any real need to say “that” grace of God?—Of course in verse 9 it is “dispensation” not “fellowship” as in Text. Rec. and Authorized Version, and “by Jesus Christ” disappears. In verse 14 they appear to be justified in rejecting “of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as also in saying (not all the, but) “every family.” But they do not seem right in verse 18, which should be “being rooted and grounded in love in order that ye,” &c. This adds to the clearness of the truth, if it be not absolutely needful. External authority is confessedly strong for the insertion of αί before ἐν Χ. Ἰ. in verse 21; but one does not wonder that Ellicott, Green and Wordsworth rejected, and that Alford hesitated to accept it even in the face of à A B C and other witnesses.
In chapter 4:6 most editors, like many copyists, have lost the finely drawn truth by a misapplied love of uniformity. It is exceedingly hard to suppose the insertion of ἡμῖν (not ὑμῖν as in Text. Rec. and Auth. Ver.) unless it were really of God. Man would be prone to remove it even in the early days, as we find it wanting in à A B C 0corr. P and not a few cursives, &c. But the mass of testimony in MSS uncial and cursive, Versions and Fathers, favors “us all.” And so beyond cavil does the internal requirement. For as the apostle had traced vital or intrinsic unity in verse 4, and external unity in verse 5, he closes with the unity of the God and Father of all, universally supreme and permeating, and withal most intimate for “us all,” but this limited to us all (them who believe).
No blunderer, still less a forger, could have hit on a shade of truth so unexpected beforehand, yet so momentous and happy when expressed. If people had introduced a gloss, they would have extended the pronoun to all three. In verse 10 “due” measure seems hardly allowable. Do not verses 22, 23, set forth truth in the person of Jesus “Your putting [or having put] away,” &c. (Compare Col. 3: 9, 10.) For the Christian it is a fact already accomplished in the Savior, of which faith lays hold; as mysticism always strains after it in man's own feelings. And what is the meaning, verse 30, of “the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed"? &c. The sealing was in His power, or in virtue of Him. The Revisers rightly say in verse 32, “even as God also in Christ forgave you.”
In chapter 5:1 They correctly say “imitators” of God, and in verse 4 “befitting” for the obsolete synonym “convenient.” In verse 5 they read ἴστε (not ἐστε) λ.; as also the fruit of “light” in verse 9, so agreeable to the context. But whether their view of the end of verse 13 is sound may be doubted. With verse 20 compare note on 1 Corinthians 15:2424Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (1 Corinthians 15:24). “Christ” is right in verse 21; and the more correct “washing” stands in the text of the Revisers as in the Authorized Version. Only they say “with” for “by” the word, which is regrettable perhaps. In verse 29 it is “Christ,” not “the Lord,” as in the Authorized Version, followed by Text. Rec. In verse 30 they leave out the latter half in Text. Rec., as in the Authorized Version also.
In 6 but little appears to demand notice. See verse 5 for a change of order, and verse 9 for a necessary correction of the Text. Rec. and of the Authorized Version. The rendering of verse 12 is also much better, “high” places being unequivocally wrong. The last verse ends rightly with “in uncorruptness,” or incorruption. “Sincerity” is misleading.
The Epistle To The Philippians
Chapter 1: 5 is more correctly translated “in furtherance of,” not “in” (εἰς), the gospel, as the same preposition should be “for” (Rev. Ver. “unto"), not “till” (Auth. Ver.) the day of Christ in verse 10. In verse 13, instead of “in all the palace, and in all other places,” the Revisers prefer “throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest.” The interference with the true order of verses 15-17, to give a more mechanical exactitude, is rectified, whereas as originally written it is more forcible. But verse 22 seems ill represented. Does not καρπὸς ἔργου = operae pretium, worth while? Thus the connection would run: If to live in the flesh (fall to me), this (is) to me worth the while; and what I shall choose I know not, whereas not only does the arrangement of the Revisers seem cumbrous but the result is unsatisfactory. “But if to live in the flesh—if this is the fruit of my work, then what I shall choose I wot not.” What does this mean, if the sentence would bear so awkward and violent a construction? Even the literal sense given in the margin appears far preferable, “this is the fruit of my work,” or this is to me fruit of my work. It gives me opportunity for longer labor and its yield in the Lord's harvest.-Nor are the Company happy in their rendering of the last words in verse 27, where they miss the apostle's animated identification of the saints with the faith of the gospel, personified as the agent engaged in conflict. Striving “with,” that is, in concert with, is much better than “for.”
In chapter 2: 1 “comfort” and “consolation” rightly change places:-In verse 6 “a prize to be on an equality” is mote correct than “robbery to be equal,” as also “emptied himself” in verse 7.—In verse 9 the right reading “the” (not a) name is adopted, and “in” (not at) the name in verse 10.—But why “things” instead of “beings” when we have the knee and tongue called to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? Is not this very distinct from the personification of universal nature in Psalm 148 or elsewhere? The groaning or deliverance of creation in Rom. 8 is quite another thing, and ὑποκὰτω τῆς γῆς in Revised Version is not at all the same as καταχθενίων here, being things which burrow, not the lost infernal beings.—In verse 30 it is surprising the Revisers did not see that the Rescript of Paris in giving simply “the work” preserves the true reading, to which others added XY or KY. But others must here have overborne the Bishop of Durham. The insertions are easily accounted for.
Chapter 3:3 “worship by the Spirit of God” is right; and “have I counted” in verse 7.-Of course in verse 11 it is the resurrection from (or from among) the dead, not “of” as in the Authorized Version, following the bad reading τῶν ν. instead of τὴν ἐκ ν., not to speak of the intensified form of the word (ἐξαωάστασις) here, only occurrent in the New Testament, as has been often noticed and is obvious.
[But let me here express my astonishment at a very learned Reviser's comment on verses 12-16, as if the Apostle Paul (!) held “the language of hope, not of assurance My brothers, let other men vaunt their security. Such is not my language,” &c. What surprising ignorance even of the gospel practically! How could men so short of ordinary Christian faith be expected to translate the New Testament adequately, no matter what their scholastic attainments? They may be pious, but do not see that the apostle treats of enjoying Christ experimentally, and then of being actually in glory with Christ, not in the least of assurance as to eternal life in Christ or the forgiveness of sins, which are matters of common Christian knowledge. (1 John 2:12, 1812I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. (1 John 2:12)
18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18).) He could not rest in anything short of what characterized Christ—the out-resurrection and glory—to be with and as Himself on high. It was this prize he had not already obtained, in this respect he was not already perfected. There is no question of false security, but of eye and heart set on the goal above, instead of the profession of Christ combined with the minding of earthly things. Other scriptures denounce fleshly license; here judaizing or fleshly religion. The Right Rev. Reviser is quite mistaken (pp. 70, 151, 152) in the apostle's drift. It is unChristian nomianism, not corrupt antinomianism, of which he here writes such solemn and even stern words of warning.]
The version of verse 20 is an improvement on the Authorized Version, but is it not feeble? We await as Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation in this epistle is regarded as incomplete till the body of our humiliation has its fashion changed into conformity with the body of His glory.
The Authorized Version is duly corrected in chapter 5:2, 8, in its misunderstanding of the female names, a false reading, and a false rendering.-There are also corrections of misreadings in verses 13 and 23, but nothing of special moment.—The rendering is improved especially in verses 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17.