Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 2:21 - 2:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_2:21. An elucidation to ὄντος ἀκρογ . αὐτοῦ Ἰ . Χ ., bearing on the matter in hand, and placing in yet clearer light the thought of Eph_2:19 f.; in whom each community, in whom also yours (Eph_2:22), organically developes itself unto its holy destination.[161]
ἐν ᾧ ] means neither by whom (Castalio, Vatablus, Menochius, Morus, and others, including Flatt), nor upon whom (Estius, Koppe, and others), but: in whom, so that Christ (for ᾧ applies neither to ἀκρογ ., as Castalio, Estius, and Koppe suppose, nor to τῷ θεμελίῳ , as Holzshausen would have it, but to the nearest and emphatic αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χ .) appears as that wherein the joining together of the building has its common point of support (comp. Eph_1:10).
πᾶσα οἰκοδομή ] not: the whole building (Oecumenius, Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek), which would be at variance with linguistic usage, and would absolutely require the reading (on that account preferred by Matthies, Winer, and others) πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή (see the critical remarks), but: every building. The former interpretation, moreover, the opposition of which to linguistic usage is rightly urged also by Reiche,[162] is by no means logically necessary, since Paul was not obliged to proceed from the conception of the whole body of Christians to the community of the readers (Eph_2:22), but might pass equally well from the conception “every community” to the conception “also ye” (Eph_2:22), and thus subordinate the particular to the general. The objection that there is only one οἰκοδομή (de Wette) is baseless, since the collective body of Christians might be just as reasonably, as every community for itself, conceived as a temple-building. The latter conception is found, as in 1Co_3:16, so also here, where the former is linguistically impossible. Chrysostom, however, is wrong in holding that by πᾶσα οἰκοδ . is signified every part of the building (wall, roof, etc.), since οἰκοδομή rather denotes the aggregate of the single parts of the building, the edifice, and since not a wall, a roof, etc., but only the building as a whole which is thought of, can grow unto a temple.
συναρμολ .] becoming framed together; for the present participle represents the edifice as still in the process of building, as indeed every community is engaged in the progressive development of its frame of Christian life until the Parousia (comp. on 1Co_3:15). The participle is closely connected with ἐν ᾧ : every building, while its framing together, i.e. the harmonious combination of its parts into the corresponding whole, takes place in Christ, grows, etc. The compound συναρμολογεῖν (with classical writers συναρμόζειν ) is met with only here and Eph_4:16, but ἁρμολογεῖν in Philipp. Thess. 78.
αὔξει ] On this form of the present, read in the N.T. only here and at Col_2:19, but genuinely classical, see Matthiae, p. 541.
εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ] Final result of this growth. It is not, however, to be translated: unto a holy temple, for the conception of several temples was foreign to the apostle with his Jewish nationality, but: unto the holy temple, in which there was no need of the article (see on 1Co_3:16). To realize the idea of the one temple—that is the goal unto which every community, while its organic development of life has its firm support in Christ, groweth up.
ἐν κυρίῳ ] By this not God is meant, as Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Holzshausen, and others suppose, but Christ (see the following ἐν ᾧ ). By the majority it is connected with ἅγιον , in which case it would not have, with Beza, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Flatt, to be taken for the dative, but (so also de Wette, Hofmann, Bleek) would have to be explained of the ἁγιότης of the temple, having its causal ground in Christ, thus specifically Christian. But the holiness of the temple lies in the dwelling of God therein (see Eph_2:22); it does not, therefore, first come into existence in Christ, but is already existent, and the church becomes in Christ that which the holy temple is, inasmuch as in this church the idea of the holy temple realizes itself. Others have rightly, therefore, connected it with αὔξει , although ἐν is not, with Grotius, Wolf, et al., to be translated by per. In the case of every building which is framed together in Christ, the growing into the holy temple takes place also in Christ (as the one on whom this further development depends). The being framed together and the growing up of the building to its sacred destination—both not otherwise than in the Lord.
[161] Observe the apostle’s view of the church, as a whole and in its single parts, as one living organism. Comp. Thiersch, die Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 154, 162; Ehrenfeuchier, prakt. Theol. I. p. 55 ff.
[162] The admissibility of the anarthrous form πᾶσα αἰκοδομή , in the sense of “the whole building,” cannot be at all conceded, since οἰκοδομή is neither a proper name, nor to be regarded as equivalent to such. See Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 140]; Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 78 [E. T. 86]. In general πᾶς in the sense of whole can only be without an article, when the substantive to which it belongs would not need the article even without πᾶς (Krüger, § 50, 11. 9). Hence πᾶσα οἰκοδ . can only signify either every building, or else a building utterly. In the latter sense Chrysostom appears, very unsuitably, no doubt (see above), to have taken it. According to Hofmann, II. 2, p. 123, πᾶσα οἰκοδ . is meant to signify “whatever becomes a constituent part of a building” (thus also the Gentiles who become Christians). As if οἰκοδομή could mean constituent part of a building! It signifies, even in Mat_24:1, Mar_13:1 f., edifice. And as if πᾶσα , every part of the building, when in fact only two constituent parts, namely Jews and Gentiles, could be thought of, were in harmony with this relation! The rendering is linguistically and logically incorrect.