Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 1:4 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_1:4. Further amplification of ὁ εὐλογήσας κ . τ . λ . on to Eph_1:14. See the contents.
καθώς ] even as, denotes that that εὐλογεῖν has taken place in conformity with the fact that, etc., and is consequently argumentative; see on 1Co_1:6; Joh_13:34.
ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ] He has chosen us (from the collective mass of men) for Himself (sibi). Comp. 1Co_1:27; Rom_9:11; Rom_11:5; Rom_11:7; Rom_11:28; Joh_15:19; 1Pe_2:9 f. Entirely without reason does Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 223, deny that ἐκλέγεσθαι here has reference to others not chosen, and assert that it applies only to that which we, in the absence of election, should not have become. This is according to the very notion of the word quite impossible. Ἐκλέγεσθαι always has, and must of logical necessity have, a reference to others, to whom the chosen would, without the ἐκλογή , still belong. Even in Act_6:5; Act_13:17; 1Ti_5:21; Exo_18:25; Deu_4:37, it sets forth the distinctive separation from the remaining mass, just as also Christ, as one who is chosen out from all that is man, is called the ἐκλεκτός of God (Luk_9:35; Luk_23:35).
ἐν αὐτῷ ] for in nothing else and in no one else than in Christ, whose future work of redemption God has foreknown and decreed from eternity (Act_15:18; Rom_16:25; 2Ti_1:9; 1Pe_1:20, al.), lay the ground, that the electing grace (Rom_11:5) chose us (comp. Eph_3:11); hence God had, as respected the subjects to be affected by the election, to deal, not in any arbitrary manner, but according to His πρόγνωσις of the same (praecognovit credituros). See on Rom_8:29. Christ is not, however, here conceived of as Himself chosen of God, and we as included in Him ( ἐν αὐτῷ ), as Hofmann, p. 229, thinks; but, as the more precise explanation in Eph_1:5 shows, the divine act of our election has in Christ its determining ground, so that to us by this act there is assigned and allotted no other than the salvation to be gained through Christ (who in the fulness of the times was out of His preexistence to be sent as Incarnate and was to accomplish the work of salvation). Apart from this connection of the divine election with Christ we should not be chosen; but in Christ lay for God the causa meritoria of our election.[95] The reference of ἐν αὐτῷ to God (Al. Morus, Holzhausen: with Himself, in His heart) is to be rejected on account of the utter superfluousness of this definition, and on account of the preceding ἐν Χριστῷ .
πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ] thus before all time, already in eternity. Comp. Col_1:15 ff.; 2Th_2:13; Mat_25:34; also 1Co_2:7; 2Ti_1:9. The expression is nowhere else found in Paul; but see Mat_13:35; Luk_11:50; Joh_17:24; Heb_4:3; 1Pe_1:20; Rev_13:8.
εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους κ . τ . λ .] Infinitive of the design: in order that we should be, etc. See Winer, p. 298 f. [E. T. 399 f.]. The predicates ἅγιος and ἄμωμος (blameless, Herod, ii. 177; Theoc. xviii. 25) exhaust the conception positively and negatively. Comp. Plut. Pericl. p. 173 D: βιός … καθαρὸς καὶ ἀμίαντος , and see on Col_1:22; Eph_5:27. It is not, however, to be explained of the holiness conditioned by morality and virtue (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Calixtus, and many others, including Flatt, Rückert, Matthies, Meier, Schenkel), in which case reservations on account of human imperfection are often arbitrarily inserted, or it is referred, as by Rückert, to the ideal point of view of the apostle; but rather of the holiness and blamelessness brought about through the atoning death of Christ by means of the δικαιασύνη Θεοῦ thereby attained (Rom_3:21 ff; Rom_5:1 ff; Rom_8:1; Rom_8:33 ff; 1Co_6:11; Heb_10:10; Heb_10:14; Heb_10:29), in favour of which the very εἶναι (not γίνεσθαι ) and the whole context are decisive (Eph_1:5-7). We may add that, if the emphasis with which our Epistle brings into prominence the holiness of the church (comp. Eph_5:27) is to be held as betraying the standpoint of the second century (see Schwegler in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1844, p. 382), for which especial reference is made to Eph_3:10; Eph_3:21, with equal reason the like suspicion may be thrown even on the most fully acknowledged Epistles (such as the Epistles to the Corinthians).
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ] before God’s eyes, judice Deo (Col_2:14; Rom_3:20; Rom_4:5). It is God’s judgment, which has posited the reconciled as holy and blameless, and that by imputation of faith unto righteousness; thereupon He gives to them every εὐλογία πνευματική , Eph_1:3. The reference of αὐτός successively recurring to different subjects cannot surprise us (Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 179]); and so it is not to be written αὑτοῦ (as Harless still does), but αὐτοῦ , from the standpoint of the author (Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 276; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 49).
ἐν ἀγάπῃ ] is attached by many to Eph_1:4, so that it is connected either with ἐξελέξατο (Oecumenius, Thomas, Flacius, Olearius, Baumgarten, Flatt, and others), but in how isolated and awkward a way! or with εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους κ . τ . λ . (Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others, including Rückert,—but with hesitation,
Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius), so that ἐν ἀγάπῃ would be the ground, or rather the element (evangelii τὸ πᾶν , says Grotius, lies in love), of the holiness and blamelessness. But this is not compatible with the correct explanation of ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους , as a state brought about by the ἱλαστήριον of Christ, according to which, not ἐν ἀγάπῃ , but ἐν πίστει , would have been a definition of the element of holiness in keeping with the context. Hence the connection with προορίσας , Eph_1:5, remains as the only correct one. So the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustine, Estius (but with hesitation), Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, and others, including Lachmann, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Tischendorf, Schenkel, Bleek. The only one of the objections made to this view which is plausible is that of Matthies and Meier, that the following κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελημάτος αὐτοῦ would render the preceding ἐν ἀγάπῃ in this connection superfluous. But see on Eph_1:5.
[95] Beyschlag (Christol. d. N.T. p. 141) finds in ἐν αὐτῷ the thought, “that the divinely conceived prototypes of perfected believers are from eternity posited by God in the One Prototype of humanity acceptable unto Him, as the countless multiplications of the same, to be thereupon brought through the historically realized One Prototype to their realization and perfection.” In opposition to this view we may simply urge the context, according to which ἐν αὐτῷ denotes Christ as the personal ground of the ἐκλογή made before all time, in so far as He, as Reconciler, is the bearer of the divine grace, vv. 6, 7.