Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 1:17 - 1:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_1:17. Ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς κ . τ . λ .] contains the design cherished by Paul in the μνείαν … προσευχ . μου : in order that God might give you, etc. In this expressed design is implied the intercessory tenor of the μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι ; hence ἵνα is not here to be deprived of its notion of design, nor is it to be explained (Harless; comp. Rückert, Olshausen, Winer, and others) by supplying before it the conception of “praying.” The apostle would say that what he has heard of their faith, etc., induces him to unceasing thanksgiving on their behalf, while he makes mention of it in his prayers to the end that God might give them, etc. The telic ὅπως , Phm_1:6, stands in another connection than the ἵνα in our passage. See on Philem. l.c. The optative δῷη (on this form of later Greek instead of δοίη , see Buttmann, I. p. 507; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 346) is used, because the design is thought of as subjective conception and expectation, the realization of which is dependent entirely upon the will of God, and consequently belongs only to the category of what is wished and possible. On ἵνα with an optative[110] after the present or future, see, generally, Hermann, ad Soph. El. 57; ad Aj. 1217; Reisig, ad Oed. Ch. p. 168 ff.; Bernhardy, p. 407; and especially Klotz, ad Devar. p. 622 ff.
ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ . Ἰ . Χ .] for God has sent Christ—who, having before all time proceeded from His essential nature (Col_1:15), was the creative organ of the Father—forth in the fulness of the time in pursuance of His decree, to which the Son was obedient (Php_2:8), has given Him up to death, raised and exalted Him, and is continually the Head of Christ (1Co_11:3), who even as σύνθρονος of the Father is subordinate to the Father (Rom_8:34), and finally will give back to God the dominion which God has given to Him (1Co_15:27-28). In the consciousness of His relation of dependence on God, Christ Himself calls the Father Θεός μου , Joh_20:17; Mat_27:46. Comp. Col_2:2, Lachm. The opinion extorted in the anti-Arian interest from the Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 944), that ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρ . applies to Christ’s human nature, and ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης to the divine ( δόξαν γὰρ τὴν θείαν φύσιν ὠνόμασεν ! Theodoret and Oecumenius; comp. even Bengel and Bisping), is to be mentioned only as matter of history, as are also the forced construction, to which Menochius and Vatablus were induced by a like prejudice to resort, that Θεὸς and τῆς δόξης are to be taken together ( τοῦ κυρίου … πατήρ being inserted), and the at least more skilful turn of Estius: “Deus, qui est Domini nostri Jesu Christi pater gloriosus.”
ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης ] the Father (namely, of Christians) to whom the glory (the majesty κατʼ ἐξοχήν ) belongs. See on Act_7:2, and 1Co_2:8. The resolution into an adjective pater gloriosus (Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, and others) is in itself arbitrary, does not exhaust the eminent sense of ἡ δόξα , and fails to perceive the oratorical force (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887) of the substantival designation. Others take πατήρ in the derived sense of auctor (Erasm. Paraphr.; Bucer, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Wolf, and others, including Holzhausen and Olshausen), so that God is designated as He, from whom the glory of the Christians (according to Grotius: of Christ and the Christians) proceeds. Certainly the idea of auctor may be expressed, specially in the more elevated style, by πατήρ (Job_38:28; Jam_1:17, where the φῶτα are personified; Pind. Pyth. iv. 313, where Orpheus is called ἀοιδᾶν πατήρ ; and see Ast, Lex Plat. III. p. 66; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 392 f.; Joh_8:44 is not here applicable); but as this is nowhere else done by Paul, so here he has no reason for resorting to such an usage, to which besides the analogous expressions, Θεὸς τῆς δόξης (Psa_29:3; Act_7:2), βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης (Psa_24:7), κύριος τῆς δόξης (1Co_2:8), Χερουβὶμ δόξης (Heb_9:5), are opposed. We may add, that the description of God by ὁ Θεὸς … δόξης stands in appropriate relation to the design of the intercession; for of the God of Christ and Father of glory it is to be expected that He will do that, which the cause of Christ demands, and which serves to the manifestation of His own glory. Oecumenius rightly remarks: καὶ πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον ὀνομάζει τὸν Θεόν .
πνεῦμα σοφίας κ . ἀποκαλύψ .] The Holy Spirit, too (for it is not the human spirit that is here meant, as Michaelis, Rückert, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek would take it[111]), Paul is wont to characterize πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον , Rom_7:2; Rom_7:15; 2Co_4:13; Gal_6:1. Comp. 2Ti_1:7. Here: the Spirit who works wisdom and gives revelation (1Co_2:10). The latter is a greater result of the work of the Spirit,[112] in accordance with which He not only by His enlightening operation furnishes wisdom ( γνῶσις θείων κ . ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτίων , 4Ma_1:16; conceived of, however, by Paul in reference to the Christian economy of salvation, comp. Eph_1:8), but further, as the organ of God, effects also special revelations of divine saving truths and purposes not otherwise known. Harless regards κ . ἀποκαλ . as the objective medium, which brought about the state of σοφία , so that the character of the σοφία is more precisely defined by κ . ἀποκαλ . But in passages like Rom_1:5, χάριν κ . ἀποστολήν , Rom_11:29, τὰ χαρίσματα κ . ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ Θεοῦ , the discourse advances from the general to the special, not from the thing itself to its objective medium. Logically more natural, besides, would be the advance from the objective medium to the subjective state, according to which Paul would have written: ἀποκαλύψεως καὶ σοφίας . Finally, the climactic relation, which is brought out in the two words under our view, makes the wish of the apostle appear more fervid and full, and so more in keeping with his mood. It is obvious of itself, we may add, that Paul here desires for his readers, to whom in fact the Spirit has been already given from the time of their conversion (Eph_1:13), a continued bestowal of the same for their ever increasing Christian enlightenment. Comp. Col_1:9. Baur, p. 437, conjectures here something of a Montanistic element. But it was not by the Montanists that the πνεῦμα was first regarded as the principle of Christian wisdom, etc.; it is so already in the teaching of the whole N.T.
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ ] That αὐτοῦ does not apply to Christ (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Baumgarten, Flatt), but to God (although we have not to write αὑτοῦ ), is clear from the αὐτοῦ of Eph_1:18-19; it is only at Eph_1:20 that the discourse passes over to Christ. Nor is ἐν ἐπιγν . αὐτοῦ , with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zachariae, Koppe (with hesitation), Lachmann, Olshausen (who was forced to this by his explaining πνεῦμα σοφ . κ . ἀποκαλ . in the sense of extraordinary charismata), to be attached to what follows, whereby the parallelism ( πνεῦμα σοφ . κ . ἀποκ . is parallel with πεφωτ . τ . ὀφθ . τ . καρδ . ὑμ ., and ἐν ἐπιγν . αὐτ . with εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι κ . τ . λ .) would without reason be destroyed (see Harless); but it denotes the sphere of mental activity, in which they, already at work therein (and that likewise through the Spirit, Eph_1:13), are to receive the spirit of wisdom and revelation. Comp. 2Pe_1:2. Erroneously ἐν is taken for εἰς (Luther, Castalio, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Rosenmüller, and others), or as per (Erasmus, Calovius, and others), which latter would represent the knowledge of God as bringing about the communication of the Spirit, and so invert the state of the case. No doubt Calovius remarks: “quo quis magis agnoscit Christum, eo sapientior fit et revelationem divini verbi magis intelligit;” but the question is one, not of an agnitio, but of a cognitio, and not of understanding the revelation of the word, but of a revelation to be received through the agency of the Holy Spirit.
In ἐπίγνωσις observe the force of the compound, which implies an exact and penetrating γνῶσις , as is very evident especially from 1Co_13:12, and is wrongly denied by Olshausen.[113] Comp. Col_1:9.
[110] Lachmann and Rückert (as also Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 230) write δώῃ with an iota subscriptum under η , so that it would thus be the Ionic subjunctive (Od. xii. 216). But often as the aorist subjunctive of δίδωμι occurs in the N.T., this Homeric form never presents itself. The form δῷ in B is a manifest emendation.
[111] Rückert: “God grant you a heart wise and open for His revelations;” de Wette: “the quality of mind which consists in wisdom (mediate knowledge) and revelation (susceptibility for the immediate knowledge of divine truth).” According to Schenkel, it is the spirit wrought in the regenerate by the Holy Spirit. All this is opposed to the N.T. use of πνεῦμα with the genitivus abstracti. And nowhere in the N.T., where the being given is predicated of the πνεῦμα , is it anything else than the objective πν ., whether it be divine or demoniacal (Luk_11:13; Joh_3:34; Act_8:18; Act_15:8; 1Th_4:8; 2Ti_1:7; 1Jn_3:24; Rom_5:5; Rom_11:8). The presence or absence of the article with πνεῦμα makes no difference; see on Gal_5:16. As to the singular expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης , used of the Spirit of Christ, in Rom_1:4, see on that passage.
[112] But not, as Olshausen (comp. Grotius) maintains, the χάρισμα of prophecy, of which the more detailed exposition, ver. 18 ff., shows no trace. And Paul, in fact, is praying for all his readers. See, however, 1Co_12:29.
[113] Olshausen appeals to the fact that, just where the most exalted form of knowledge—the charismatic—is spoken of, the word employed is not ἐπίγνωσις , but γνῶσις , 1Co_12:8; 1Co_13:8. Γνῶσις , however, in the charismatic sense was the name—as it were, the terminus technicus for the thing—which as such was meant to denote the essence, not the degree.