Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 1:23 - 1:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_1:23 gives information ( ἥτις , ut quae, denotes the attribute as belonging to the nature of the ἐκκλησία ; see Kühner, II. p. 497) as to the relation in which the church stands to this Head given to it. It is the body of the Head.
τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ] namely, in the mystical sense, according to the essential fellowship of spirit and of life, which unites the collective mass of believers with Christ, their Ruler, into an integrant and organic unity, wherein each single individual is a member of Christ in Christ’s body. Comp. Eph_2:16, Eph_4:4; Eph_4:12; Eph_4:16, Eph_5:23; Eph_5:30; Col_1:18; Col_1:24; Col_2:19; Col_3:15; Rom_12:5; 1Co_6:15; 1Co_10:17; 1Co_12:13; 1Co_12:27.
τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμ .] a significant explanatory parallel to τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ , which more precisely characterizes the relation of the church to Christ, in so far as the latter, as Head over all, is also its Head; and that in non-figurative language. The church, namely, is the Christ-filled, i.e. that which is filled by Him,[118] in so far, namely, as Christ, by the Holy Spirit, dwells and rules in the Christians, penetrates the whole Christian mass with His gifts and life-powers, and produces all Christian life (Rom_8:9-10; 2Co_3:17; Joh_15:5; Eph_3:17; Col_1:27). His presence and activity, through the medium of the Spirit, fills the collective Christian body. And Christ, by whom the Christian church is filled, is the same who filleth the all (i.e. the rerum universitas, whose Head He is, Eph_1:22) with all (omnibus rebus); for by Him was the world created, and by Him, as the immanent ground of life (Heb_1:3), is it maintained and governed (1Co_8:6; Col_1:16 ff.; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 315 ff.); hence this interpretation of ἐν πᾶσι yields no intolerable sense (Schenkel), but is entirely Pauline. Accordingly, by the fact that the church is named the πλήρωμα of Christ, the idea that Christ is the Head of the church, of His body, receives elucidation; and by the characteristic designation τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμ ., is elucidated the conception, that He as Head over all is Head of the church, Eph_1:22.
τὸ πλήρωμα is here (comp. generally on Eph_1:10) equivalent to τὸ πεπληρωμένον . Thus, as is well known, not only are ships’ cargoes or crews (Dem. 565, 1), but also the ships themselves—so far as they are freighted or manned—called πληρώματα (Lucian, V. H. ii. 37, 38); thus it is said in Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 920, of the soul: γενομένη δὲ πλήρωμα ἀρετῶν ; thus among the Gnostics the supersensible world is called τὸ πλήρωμα , the filled, in opposition to τὸ κένωμα , the empty, the world of the senses (Baur, Gnosis, pp. 157, 462 ff.). See also Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 470. ἐν πᾶσι is not: everywhere (Baumgarten-Crusius), in all modes of manifestation (de Wette, Bleek), in all points (Harless), or the like; but instrumental,[119] as at Eph_5:18 : with all; and πληρουμένου is middle, as in Xen. Hell. v. 4. 56, vi. 2. 14; Dem. p. 1208, 14; 1221, 12, in connection with which the medial sense is not to be overlooked: qui sibi implet; for Christ is Lord and final aim (Eph_1:22; Col_1:16; Heb_2:10) of all. Comp. Barnabas, Ep. 12: ἔχεις καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ , ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ εἰς αὐτόν . The ubiquity of the body of Christ, which our text was formerly employed to defend (see especially Calovius), and even now is once more adduced to prove (Philippi, Dogm. IV. 1, p. 434), is the less to be found here, seeing that the ἐν πᾶσι , to be taken instrumentally, makes us think only of the all-penetrating continuous activity of Christ. The continuity of this activity is implied in the present πληρουμ ., in which Hofmann, II. 1, p. 539, finds a gradual development, and that of the restoration of the world; of which last there is here no mention at all, but, on the contrary, of the upholding and governing of the world, as Col_1:17; Heb_1:3. Comp. Hermas, Past. sim. iii. 9. 14. As regards the explanations that differ from ours, we may remark—(1) Many, who have rightly apprehended τὸ πλήρωμα and ΠΛΗΡΟΥΜΈΝΟΥ , wrongly restrict ΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙ to the spiritual operations in the Christians, either, as Grotius: “Christus in omnibus, credentibus sc., implet omnia, mentem luce, voluntatem piis affectibus, corpus ipsum obsequendi facultate, ad quae dona perpetua accedebant primis temporibus etiam χαρίσματα illa ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΆ , etc.,” or, as Flatt (comp. Zachariae and Morus): “who fills all without distinction of nations, Jews and Gentiles, everywhere, or always [ ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙ ?], with good.” In this view the fact is overlooked that ΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ , after the preceding ΚΕΦΑΛῊΝ ὙΠῈΡ ΠΆΝΤΑ , admits of no sort of limitation, and that, if ΤΟῦ … ΠΛΗΡΟΥΜΈΝΟΥ were designed only to say how far the church is the ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ of Christ, this whole addition would be quite as superfluous for the Christian consciousness as it would be indistinctly expressed. We have, on the contrary, in ΤῸ ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ ΤΟῦ Κ . Τ . Λ . a climax of the representation, which advances from that which the church is in relation to Christ ( τό πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ ) to His relation towards the universe (hence, too, τὰ πάντα is prefixed).[120] (2) Since αὐτοῦ and ΤΟῦ ΤᾺ Π . ἘΝ Π . ΠΛΗΡΟΥΜ . are significantly parallel, and no change of subject is indicated; and since, on the other hand, the thought, that the church is the ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ of God, would be inappropriate here, where the idea: Christ is its head, is dwelt on,—all explanations fall to the ground which refer τοῦ πληρουμ . to God, such as that of Theodoret: ἐκκλησίαν … προσηγόρευσε τοῦ μὲν Χριστοῦ σῶμα , τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς πλήρωμα · ἐπλήρωσε γὰρ αὐτὴν παντοδαπῶν χαρισμάτων κ . τ . λ ., and of Koppe, by whom the sense is alleged to be: “the whole wide realm of the All-Ruler!” Comp. Rosenmüller. Homberg, Parerg. p. 289, Wetstein (“Christus est plenitudo, gloria patris omnia in omnibus implentis”), and Meier refer the genitive to God, but regard τὸ πλήρωμα as apposition to ΑὐΤΌΝ ; Meier: “Him, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all; for in Christ there dwells the fulness of God (Col_2:9), and it is God who fills the universe” (Jer_23:24, al.). This explanation is manifestly involved, makes ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ an insertion which, if nothing further were to be added to it, would be after ἜΔΩΚΕ ΚΕΦΑΛῊΝ … Τῇ ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊᾼ quite aimless and idle, and leaves ΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙ without more precise analysis. The same reasons hold also in opposition to Bengel, who regards ΤῸ ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ as accusative absolute (comp. on Rom_12:1), as epiphonema of what was said from Eph_1:20 onwards: “Hoc, quod modo explanavi, inquit apostolus, repraesentat nobis plenitudinem Patris omnia implentis in omnibus, ut mathematici dicunt: id quod erat demonstrandum.” (3) Since it is self-evident that Christ, as Head of the church, is not without this His body, and since it could not therefore enter the apostle’s mind, at the solemn close, too, of the section, to bring forward the fact that the body belongs to the completeness of the head,—all those explanations fell to the ground as quite inappropriate, which take τὸ πλήρωμα as supplementum (Mat_9:16; Mar_2:21),[121] in which case some were consistent enough to take πληρουμένου likewise in the sense of completing, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Menochius, Boyd, Estius,[122] and others; and some inconsistent enough to explain it, incompatibly with the paronomasia, by implere, and thus differently from πλήρωμα , as Beza,[123] Calovius, comp. Calvin, Balduin, Baumgarten; also Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. p. 219 f.: “His destination, to fill all in all, is completely attained only in the church.” (4) The necessity for taking πλήρωμα in one and the same sense is fatal to the explanation of πλήρωμα as equivalent to πλῆθος , copia, coetus numerosus (Storr, Morus, Stolz, Koppe, Rosenmüller[124]), or even: full measure (Cameron, Bos). Further, (5) the passive construction of πληρουμένου (Vulg.) leaves absolutely no tolerable explanation of τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι ; for which reason not only the exposition of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, and others (see above, under No. 3), but also the similar one of Jerome[125] and that of Holzhausen, are to be rejected. The last-mentioned discovers the meaning: “Christ carries in Himself the fulness of eternal blessings” ( τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι , signifying the eternal!). Yet, again, (6) seeing that τὸ πλήρωμα neither in itself nor in accordance with the context, denotes the Divine δόξα , of which the ùëéðä was the real presence (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2394 ff.), there falls to the ground not only the explanation of those who treat ΤῸ ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ as equivalent in meaning to temple, like Michaelis and Bretschneider, but also that of Harless: “the apostle designates the church with the same word, by which he elsewhere [?] designates the abundance of the glory dwelling in Christ and God, and issuing from Him. It, however, is the fulness of Christ, not as though it were the glory which dwelt in Him, but because He causes His glory to dwell, as in all the universe, so also in it. It is the glory, not of one who without it would starve, but of Him who fills the universe in all respects;[126] πλήρης πᾶσα ἡ γῆ δόξης αὐτοῦ (Isa_6:3); but it is the glory of Christ, because He is united with it alone, as the head with its body.” Lastly, (7) Rückert also proved unsuccessful in his attempt to explain it: the church, in his view, is designated as the means ( τὸ πλήρωμα , that whereby the ΠΛΗΡΟῦΝ comes about) by which Christ carries out in all ( ΠᾶΣΙ , masculine) that which is committed to Him for completion ( τὰ πάντα ), as “the means of His accomplishing the great destination which devolves upon Him, namely, the universal restoration and bringing back to God.” Against this may be urged both the language itself, since ΤῸ ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ never signifies the means of accomplishment, and the context, which neither speaks of a restoration and bringing back to God nor furnishes any limitation of ΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ to that which is implied in the divine plan.
We may add that there cannot be shown here as regards the use of ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ , any more than previously as regards the classes of angels, any direct or indirect polemic preference to Gnosticism. To the later speculations of Gnosticism, however, the forms of the transcendent doctrines of the apostle could not but be welcome; not as if Gnosticism had thought out its material in accordance with such Scriptural forms (Tertull. de praescr. 38), but it poured it into their mould, and, moreover, further developed and amplified the forms which it found ready to hand.
[118] Not, as Elsner (Obss. p. 204) would take it: that, by which Christ is filled, against which there would be doubtless no linguistic objection (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469 f.), but it may be urged that the church is not to be thought of as dwelling in Christ, but Christ as dwelling in the church (1Co_3:16; 2Co_6:12; Eph_2:22), and that the following paraphrastic designation of Christ would not be in keeping with that conception.
[119] Comp. Plut. de plac. phil. i. 7. 9: ἐπλήρωτο ἐν μακαριότητι . Paul himself has employed πληροῦν with such varied construction (with the dative, Rom_1:29; with the genitive, Rom_15:14; with the accusative, Col_1:9), that even the combination with ἐν cannot surprise us,—a combination which he has also in Php_4:19.
[120] It is the more mistaken a course, in spite of this advance, yet again to refer ἐν πᾶσι to the Christians. This error has misled Schenkel to put into our passage the thought: “in all members of the Christian community [ ἐν πᾶσι ] the Divine aim of the Creator, underlying the structure of the universe, receives its accomplishment through the life of the exalted Redeemer flowing into them.” But little skill is attributed to the apostle, when it is supposed that he designed to express this thought by means of the words he has written.
[121] So also Schwegler in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 387, where, moreover, the comparison of the union of Christ and the church to marriage (Eph_5:25 ff.) is brought in quite unwarrantably. As man and wife supplement each other to form the totality of the species (as head and body), so, too, the church (as the body of Christ) is held to be the complementum of Christ (as the head of the church). Baur, too (Paulus, p. 426), takes the union of Christ with the church here as marriage (as a syzygy), and explains πλήρωμα entirely from the Gnostic point of view. By τὸ πλήρ . τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμ ., in his view, nothing else is affirmed than that “Christ is the πλήρωμα (the totality of the aeons) in the highest absolute sense, in so far as it is all in an absolute manner ( τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι ), which He fills with Himself as the absolute contents thereof.” Accordingly, πλήρωμα is to be taken neither simply in an active nor simply in a passive sense, but in such wise that the two notions pass over the one into the other; because, in fact, that which makes full is in turn that which is made full,—that which is filled with its definite contents. “As πληρούμενος τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι , Christ is the πλήρωμα , filling the πάντα ἐν πᾶσι with its definite contents; and this πλήρωμα itself is the absolute totality filled with its absolute contents.” Comp. Baur, d. Christenth. d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 296, and Neutest. Theol. p. 258. Operations of this sort, which do not exegetically educe their results, but import them, are too much dominated by the presupposition of post-apostolic relations not to be safely left to their own fate, to which they have already been consigned.
[122] “Qui secundum omnia, s. quoad omnia in omnibus sui corporis membris adimpletur. Nisi enim essent hic quidem pes ejus, ille vero manus, alius autem aliud membrum … non perficeretur Christus secundum rationem capitis,” Estius. He is followed by Bisping, who here finds the basis and germ of the doctrine of the treasure of the merits of the saints!
[123] “Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus re vera,” Beza.—Calovius: “Tanto in pretio Christus suam habet ecclesiam, tam tenere amat, ut se quodammodo imperfectum et mancum reputet, nisi nobis conjungatur, et nos ipsi tanquam corpus capiti uniamur ceu πλήρωμα ejus.” Comp. Luther’s gloss; also Apol. Conf. A, p. 145. Calvin, moreover, prefers to limit τὰ πάντα to the spiritualis gubernatio ecclesiae.
[124] Morus: “Quae proinde est societas subditorum ejus et hominum magna copia, quae colit hunc (quae subest huic, quae sub hoc rege vivit), qui omnes omnino in hoc coetu omnibus generibus bonorum accumulare de die in diem solet.” Rosenmüller: “Coetus numerosus illius, qui omnes (homines) omnibus bonis replet,” by which God is held to be meant.
[125] “Sicut adimpletur imperator, si quotidie ejus augetur exercitus, … ita et Dominus noster Jesus Christus in eo, quod sibi credunt omnia et per dies singulos ad fidem ejus veniunt, ipse adimpletur in omnibus, sic tamen, ut omnia adimpleantur in omnibus, i.e. ut qui in eum credunt, cunctis virtutibus pleni sint.”
[126] According to Harless, ἐν πᾶσι means in every way, and implies that not in one way (only) is the sphere of earth full of the glory of Christ; the glory of the Creator is one, that of the Enlightener before the incarnation (Joh_1:3) another, that of the Redeemer another. But how is the limitation of τὰ πάντα to the earth to be justified? And are, then, these three modes of glory adduced, which after all the reader must have guessed at without any hint, sufficient to exhaust the quite unlimited ἐν πᾶσι ? and is the thought of the glory of the Creator and the Enlightener before the incarnation in keeping with the present participle? The whole explanation pours into the simple words a series of thoughts and reservations, in presence of which the words remain a very riddle of the Sphinx.