265
able, use of the article as distinguishing subject from predicate, and it turns the εἰς ἔπαινον κ.τ.λ. awkwardly into a paren- thetical sentence—‘to the end that we, to the praise of His glory, should be those who have before hoped in Christ”. It is to be further noticed that the προ in προηλπικότας must have its proper force, expressing a hope cherished before the event. Some understand this differently, taking the προ to express the fact that Jewish Christians preceded Gentile Chris- tians in hoping in Christ (Beza, Grot., Beng., etc.). Others (De Wette, etc.) would make the event in view as the object of hope the second Advent of Christ, the Parvousia of the Epistles. But the point appears to be that there were those, namely, pious Jews of OT times, who cherished a hope in the Christ of promise and prophecy before the appearance of Christin history. The words are entirely appropriate as a de- scription of those who looked for Christ before He came. The prep. ἐν is most naturally understood as is the ἐν after the simple ἐλπίζειν, e.g., in 1 Cor. xv. 19, and the ἐλπίζειν itself must have the natural sense of hoping, not believing or trusting. Yet, again, the object of the hope is here not Χριστὸς, but ὁ Χριστός, ‘* the Christ,” ‘the Messiah”. Thesense consequently is, ‘‘we, to wit, who have reposed our hope in the Christ before He appeared”’. These things help us to answer the question—Whoare the persons referred to? They are, say some, Chris- tians generally, as those who hope in the Christ who is to return, and of whom it may be said, speaking of them from the standpoint of the final fulfilment at Christ’s second Advent, that they are those who have reposed their hope in the Christ who is to come. This is urged specially on the ground that, as all through the preceding paragraph Paul has spoken of things pertaining to Christians generally and has used the terms ‘‘ we,” “15 of Christians without distinction, it is unreasonable to suppose that at this point he changes all and puts a restricted meaning on the ἡμᾶς. On this view the following ὑμεῖς must also be taken not as referring to a distinct class of Christians, but simply as applying to the Ephesian readers in particular what is said of all Christians as such. It must be allowed that much may be said in favour of this view. But on the other hand it is just at this point that Paul introduces a ὑμεῖς as well as a ἡμᾶς--- a fact that naturally suggests a distinction between two classes; as in chap. ii,
266