Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 2:16 - 2:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_2:16. Continuation of the sentence expressive of the design. Christ has by His death done away with the law, in order to make the Jew and the Gentile into one new man (Eph_2:15), and (and consequently) so to accomplish the reconciliation of both with God, that they should as one body be reconciled with God through the cross, after He has slain thereon the enmity which hitherto existed between them.
καί ] is the and of the sequence of thought; from what was before said resulted the way and manner of the reconciliation of the two with God; hence also ἀποκαταλλ . is prefixed.
ἀποκαταλλάσσω , only here and Col_1:20; in the other Greek writings only καταλλάσσω is preserved, which is not distinguished from διαλλάσσω (in opposition to Tittmann, Synon. p. 101; see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff.). The composition with ἀπό may, after the analogy of other compounds with ἀπό (comp. ἀποκαθίστημι , ἀποκατορθόω , al.), denote again (Calvin: “reduxerit in unum grogem,” also Harless), but it may also (comp. ἀποθαυμάζω , ἀποθεραπεύω , al.) strengthen the notion of the reconciliation. The latter is better adapted to the context ( ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι ; and see Eph_2:18). In opposition to Hofmann’s conversion of the notion into that of the restoration of fellowship with God, see on Col_1:20. We may add that ἀποκαταλλ . does not apply to the mutual reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles (Grotius, according to whom τῷ Θεῷ is then equivalent to ut Deo serviant!), but, as the express τῷ Θεῷ says (Rom_5:10; 2Co_5:18; 2Co_5:20), to the reconciliation of both with God, whose wrath, namely, against sinners Christ has by His ἱλαστήριον changed into grace. Comp. on Col_1:21; 2Co_5:18; Rom_5:10.
τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ] not again τοὺς δύο , because they are now conceived as united, comp. Eph_2:14; Eph_2:18.
ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι ] is held by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, Calovius, Calixtus, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, Koppe, Flatt, Rückert, Matthies, Harless, Hofmann, Lechler, and others, to be the body of Christ; by the offering up of one body both are reconciled with God. But how superfluous in that case would the διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ be![154] Moreover, Christ is in fact the subject, and how could it be said of Christ that by a single body He has reconciled both with God, or—as Hofmann gives to the meaning a turn quite departing from the N.T. and especially the Pauline doctrine of atonement—that He has made a single body (His body, namely) to be their unity embracing them in the like fellowship of God,[155] since in fact the case of a plurality of bodies on the part of Christ was not even as an abstraction conceivable? This inappropriateness, hardly excusable by the reference to τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους , and not removed by the pure invention of a contrast to the many bodies offered up under the O. T. (Calovius), would only cease to be felt, if God were the subject, so that Paul might say that God had by the surrender of one body reconciled the two (2Co_5:18; Col_1:21) with Himself. Hence Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, Photius, Anselm, Erasmus, Bucer, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Grotius, Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Winer, Bleek, have rightly found in ἓν σῶμα the unum corpus, which is formed of the Jews and Gentiles united into a εἷς καινὸς ἄνθρωπος . Comp. on ἓν σῶμα , Rom_5:12; 1Co_10:17; Eph_4:4; Col_3:15. Christ has reconciled the two in one body, i.e. constituting one body without further separation—the two portions of humanity as one whole—unto God. How entirely is this mode of taking it in keeping with the whole context! See especially Eph_2:15; Eph_2:14.
ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ ] after he shall have slain, etc.; for it is inserted in the second half of the affirmation of design which begins with the ἵνα of Eph_2:15, so that it is correlative to the ποιῶν εἰρήνην of the first half. On ἀποκτ . Grotius correctly observes: “idem hie valet, quod modo λύσας , sed crucis facta mentione, aptior fuit translatio verbi ἀποκτείνας , quia crux mortem adfert.” And the ἔχθρα (here personified) is not to be explained otherwise than in Eph_2:14; hence not the law (Michaelis, Koppe, Holzhausen), nor the hostile relation of the Jews and Gentiles towards God (most expositors, including Rückert, Meier, Harless, Hofmann), but the enmity of the two towards each other. The aim of the apostle was not to explain the nature of the atonement in general as such, but to show how Christ has reconciled with God the Jews and Gentiles combined into unity, and to this end it was pertinent to say that He had cancelled the enmity which had hitherto subsisted between them. The aorist participle, we may add, affirms not something simultaneous with ἀποκαταλλ . (ita ut interficeret), but something preceding (after that He has slain), so that the relation of time is conceived of otherwise than in the case of the correlative ποιῶν εἰρήνην , Eph_2:15. Paul, namely, has conceived the matter thus: Christ has desired by His death on the cross to cancel the mutual enmity between Jews and Gentiles (see on Eph_2:15), and then by means of this death to reconcile both, who should now in this manner be united into one aggregate, ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι with God. In reality these are indeed only different sides of the effect of the death of Christ on the cross, not separate and successive effects; but in the representation unfolding the subject, in which Paul will here, as in a picture, set the matter before us in its various elements, they appear so, and this is in keeping with the whole solemn pathos which is shed over the passage.
ἐν αὐτῷ i.e. on the cross. The reference to σώματι (Bengel, Semler, Hofmann, following Tertullian) falls with the correct explanation of ἐν ἐνὶ σώματι . The reading ἐν ἑαυτῷ (F G, 115, codd. in Jer. Arab. pol Vulg. It. Goth. Syr. p. Ambr. Aug.) would yield the same sense as that reference to σώματι , but is a conformation to Eph_2:15, in accordance with which Luther also translated “through Himself.”
[154] Hofmann, after Tertull. c. Marc. v. 17, attaches it to the following ἀποκτ ., by which, however, the emphasis that manifestly lies on ἀποκτ . is pushed forward to διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ .
[155] “In His person subsists the newness of human nature for them, and in His body, wherein [as a bodily living man] He has gone unto God, they have the place where mankind is restored to communion with God,” Hofmann, p. 380. With this explaining away of the atonement it was no doubt consistent to connect διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ with ἀποκτ ., and to refer back ἐν αὐτῷ to the ἓν εῶμα . The simply correct rendering is given, e.g., in the version of Castalio: “ut in sese ex duobus conderet unum novum hominem faciendo pacem, et ambos uno in corpore reconciliaret Deo per crucem peremtis in ea inimicitiis.”