Take heed therefore unto yourselves - a caution reminding us of the apostle's warning style to Timothy (2 Tim., passim).
And to all the flock. Observe here how the personal is put before the pastoral care. Over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you, 'We are not informed (to use the words of Lechler) how the elders at Ephesus were ordained to the ministry; but from analogy (Acts 6:2-6; Acts 14:23) it is to be supposed that they were chosen under the apostle's direction, and not without the church's cooperation, and were set apart by prayer and the imposition of hands. This was the human and visible side of the transaction; but the apostle draws attention to the invisible and divine side. It was the Holy Spirit who acted. He properly appointed and commissioned the persons; they were bound and responsible to Him ... And if He works and decides, so must He dwell in the members of the Church who act; accordingly the appointment of elders to the pastoral office by the Holy Spirit rests on the universal priesthood of believers as a presupposition, instead of being, as it might at first sight appear, a hierarchical idea.'
Overseers , [ episkopous ] - or 'bishops.' This word-which occurs five times in the New Testament (here, and Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25) - is in every, other place rendered by our translator, a 'bishops:' here only they have rendered it "overseers." Why? Beyond doubt to avoid the obvious inference that the same persons are here called "elders" (Acts 20:17) and "bishops." So early did the hierarchical views of the clergy find this passage to be in their way, that Irenaeus (in the second century) says that Paul on this occasion 'convened the bishops and presbyters;' and since only, one class is mentioned in the text, Irenaeus adds, 'who were from Ephesus and from the other neighbouring towns' (Adv. Haer. 2: 14. 2). 'Here (says Alford candidly) we see, first, the two distinguished-bishops and presbyters-as if both were sent for, in order that the titles might not seem to belong to the same persons; and, second, other neighbouring churches brought in, in order that there may not seem to be "bishops" in one church only.
That neither of these was the case is clearly shown by the plain words of this verse, "he sent to Ephesus and summoned the elders of the church." So early did interested and disingenuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical questions. The English version has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text, in rendering by the word "overseers," what is rendered in all other places (and ought to have been here) "bishops," that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous might be apparent to the ordinary English reader, which now it is not.' To the same effect speak all other candid writers. Whether, consistently with these admissions, an episcopal superiority of one presbyter over several others can he shown to have apostolic sanction, this is not the place to inquire. Enough it is hero to insist that not a vestige of it is to be found in this place, and that the plain sense of Scripture shall not be tampered with to meet the requirements of any system, either of doctrine or of ecclesiastical polity.
To feed , [ poimainein ] - a word denoting the whole pastoral care (see the note at Matthew 2:6, and at John 21:16),
The church of God - or, 'the Church of the Lord.'
Which of these two very important readings [ tou Theou , or tou Kuriou ] is the true one, is a question of great difficulty, which has long divided, and still divides, the best critics. The external evidence in favour of both readings is pretty nearly equal, though perhaps slightly preponderating in favour of 'the Church of the Lord,' ['Aleph (') and B, with about 20 cursive manuscripts, have tou Theou , supported by the Vulgate, in all its undoubted copies, the Peshito Syriac, and the Philoxenian Syriac in the text. Of Patristic authorities, Ignatius, about 107 AD (if we can depend on the genuineness of the Epistle) uses the phrase, 'the blood of God.' and several of the fathers must have so read. On the other hand, A C (of the first hand) D E, and 14 or 15 cursives have tou Kuriou , supported by the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, the two Egyptian versions (the Memphitic and Thebaic), and some later versions. Of the fathers, Athanasius, the great champion of the proper divinity of Christ in the fourth century (if the reading hitherto acquiesced in be the true one), says that the Scriptures, as we have them, have by no means transmitted the expression, 'the blood of God' (contra Apollinar.); and even though another reading of these words of Athanasius should neutralize it as a testimony against the received reading of our text, it is hardly credible that that father could have read as we do, 'the blood of God,' without using it in controversy with the Arians, or rather (as the Arians themselves would very likely urge it as in favour of their views) repelling the argument against the supreme divinity of Christ which it might seem to furnish. In Chrysostom the readings fluctuate; nor is the genuineness of the commentary on Acts by any means beyond doubt.]
Since, then, the external evidence is so nearly balanced, the decision must rest on the internal evidence. And how does that stand? In favour of 'the Church of God' it is pleaded, first, that Paul never uses the phrase 'Church of the Lord,' but ten times the phrase "Church of God;" and next, that "the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood." is an idea so startling that it was much more likely to be afterward softened into 'Church of the Lord,' than this smooth expression to be thrust out of the text (supposing it genuine), in favour of the much more harsh one of our Received Text. There is certainly great force in these considerations. But, on the other hand it is argued, that the very frequency with which the apostle uses the phrase, "Church of God," was just the thing which would lead transcribers to conclude, if they found 'Church of the Lord' in this one place, that it must be a copyist's mistake, and so to change it into the familiar one, "Church of God." So that if it is alleged that the 'purchase of the Church with the blood of God' was so very unusual an expression that it was not likely ever to get into the text if not genuine, it may just as well be affirmed that 'the Church of the Lord' was with Paul so unusual a phrase that it was not likely to get into the text here if not genuine.
Thus, the internal evidence seems to us to be about as equally balanced as the external; at all events, we can see no ground for the dogmatic confidence with which Scrivener pronounces in favour of the one, and Lechler for the other. (Lachmann and Tregelles, who usually follow the Vulgate, decide in this case against it, and in favour of 'Church of the Lord,' and so does Tischendorf. Griesbach approves of a reading evidently made up of both-`the Church of the Lord and God'-which, though the later external authority for it is tolerable, has no pretensions to equality with the one or the other of the two naked terms. And though Scrivener thinks that all the copies which have this double reading are testimonies in favour of the received one, we may just as well argue that they are testimonies in behalf of the other reading. Bengel decides in favour of "Church of God;" and so Alford now, though formerly his view was the reverse.
Scrivener says the received reading, though, different from that of the majority of copies, 'is pretty sure to be correct;' and after fairly stating the whole evidence, he concludes by saying that when all is weighed, 'there will remain little room for hesitation.' Lechler, on the other hand, considers 'Church of the Lord' to be certainly the true reading;` as do Olshausen, Meyer, and DeWette, who consider the blood of God' an expression quite foreign to the New Testament. No doubt it is, if this passage be excepted; but to conclude against it here on that ground would oblige us to stand in doubt of whatever happens to be but once expressed. On the whole, though we slightly incline to 'the Church of the Lord' as the true reading, we find it extremely difficult to decide in favour of either of the two against the other, and should prefer to see them both printed in the text as alternative readings: thus training the general reader to know that in certain cases it is almost impossible to decide with certainty which of two readings was the original one. The bearing of each of them on the Person and Work of Christ will be seen presently.
Which he hath purchased , [ peripoieesato ]. The word (in the middle voice) signifies, not strictly to buy [= agorazesthai , 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Peter 2:1; Revelation 5:9], but anyhow to 'acquire for one's self,' to 'gain possession of,' as one's own.
With his own blood. "His own" is emphatic; but it is even more so in the true reading [not dia tou idiou haimatos , but dia tou haimatos tou idiou , which is read by 'Aleph (') A B C D E, etc.] - q.d., 'That glorified Lord who from the right hand of power in the heavens is gathering and ruling the Church, and by His Spirit, through human agency, hath act you over it, cannot be indifferent to its welfare in your hands, seeing He hath given for it His own most precious blood, thus making it His own by the dearest of all ties.' The transcendent sacredness of the Church of Christ is thus made to rest on the dignity of its Lord and the consequent preciousness of that blood which He shed for it. And as the sacrificial, atoning character of Christ's death is here plainly expressed, so His supreme dignity is implied as clearly by the second reading as it is expressed by the first. What a motive to pastoral fidelity here furnished!