Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 2:22 - 2:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_2:22. Ἐν ᾧ ] applies to ἐν κυρίῳ , and is to be explained quite like ἐν ᾧ in Eph_2:21. The reference to ναόν (Calixtus, Rosenmüller, Matthies) appears on account of the immediately preceding ἐν κυρίῳ arbitrary, and, according to the correct apprehension of πᾶσα οἰκοδ ., as well as with regard to the following εἰς κατοικητήριον κ . τ . λ ., impossible.
συνοικοδομεῖσθε ] is indicative, not imperative (Calvin, Meier), against which Eph_2:19-20 are decisive,[163] according to which Paul says not what the readers ought to be, but what they are; hence he, at Eph_2:22, attaches in symmetrical relative construction the relation of the readers to that which subsists in the case of every Christian community, Eph_2:21. The compound, however, may mean either: ye are built along with (the others), comp. 3 Esdr. 5:68 ( συνοικοδομήσωμεν ὑμῖν ), so that the church of the readers would be placed in the same category with the other churches (so it is ordinarily understood); or: ye are builded together, so that σύν relates to the putting together of the single parts of the building (comp. Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 928 E: οἰκίαν εὖ συνωκοδομημένην κ . συνηρμοσμένην , comp. Thuc. i. 93. 3; Dio Cass. xxxix. 61). The latter is to be preferred, because the parallelism of Eph_2:21-22 makes the attaching of different senses to the two compounds ΣΥΝΑΡΜΟΛΟΓ . and ΣΥΝΟΙΚΟΔ . appear groundless.
ΕἸς ΚΑΤΟΙΚΗΤΉΡΙΟΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ] unto the dwelling of God, quite the same, only with a variation of expression, as before εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον was (comp. Mat_23:21), and pertaining to ΣΥΝΟΙΚΟΔ . The supposition of Griesbach and Knapp, that ἘΝ ᾯ Κ . ὙΜ . ΣΥΝΟΙΚΟΔ . is an interpolation, and ΕἸς ΚΑΤΟΙΚ . Κ . Τ . Λ . still belongs to ΑὔΞΕΙ ; as, again, the expedient of Koppe and Rückert, that ΕἸς ΚΑΤΟΙΚ . ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ means, in order that a dwelling of God may arise; and finally, the assertion of Harless, that κατοικ . τοῦ Θεοῦ is not identical with the ΝΑῸς ἍΓΙΟς , but that the individual Christians were so termed because God dwells in them and the whole forms a ναὸς ἅγιος ,—are only different forced interpretations, resulting from the linguistically unwarranted explanation of the above ΠᾶΣΑ ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΉ as the whole building.
ἐν πνεύματι ] receives from most expositors an adjectival turn: “a spiritual temple, in opposition to the stone one of the Jews,” Rückert. How arbitrary generally in itself! how arbitrary, in particular, not to refer ἐν πνεύματι to the Holy Spirit! since we have here, exactly as in Eph_2:18, the juxtaposition of the Divine Trias, while the context presents nothing whatever to suggest the contrast with a temple of stone. Harless (comp. Meier and Matthies): “a dwelling, which is in the indwelling of the Spirit;” and this, forsooth! is held to mean: “inasmuch as the Spirit dwells in them, they are a dwelling of God and of Christ.” But, apart from the fact that of this “and of Christ” there is nothing whatever in the text, in this way ἐν πνεύματι , which according to the literal sense could only be the continens, would in fact be made the contentum! From this the very analogies, in themselves inappropriate (because they are abstracta), which Harless employs: χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι , ἈΓΆΠΗ ἘΝ ΠΝ ., ought to have precluded him. The true view is to connect it not merely with ΚΑΤΟΙΚ . ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , but with ΣΥΝΟΊΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΣΘΕ ΕἸς ΚΑΤΟΙΚ . ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , and ἘΝ is instrumental. Ye are being builded together unto the dwelling-place of God by virtue of the Holy Spirit; in so far, namely, as the latter dwells in your Christian community (see on 1Co_3:16; 2Co_6:16 f.; comp. Jam_4:5), and thereby the relation of being the temple of God is brought about—a relation, which without this indwelling of the Spirit would not occur, and would not be possible. For the Spirit of God is related to the ideal temple as the Shechinah to the actual temple, and is the conditio sine qua non of the same. Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, likewise connects ἐν πν . only with ΚΑΤΟΙΚ . Τ . Θ . The objections of Harless to the instrumental rendering of ἘΝ are not valid; for (a) the circumstance that ἐν πνεύματι was placed only at the end not only very naturally resulted from the parallelism with Eph_2:21, seeing that in Eph_2:21 there is not contained an element corresponding to the ἐν πνεύματι , and consequently this new element is most naturally appended at the end, but the position at the close imparts also to the ἐν πνεύμ . an unusual emphasis (Kühner, II. p. 625), comp. also Eph_3:5; and (b) the suggestion that πνεῦμα , as the objective medium, must have the article, is incorrect, seeing that ΠΝΕῦΜΑ , with or without an article (in accordance with the nature of a proper noun), is the objective Holy Spirit.
[163] In and of itself the relative clause would not exclude the imperative (in opposition to Hofmann). See, e.g., Soph. Oed. Col. 735 (al. 731): ὃν μήτʼ ὀκνεῖτε , Herod, i. 89. Comp. the familiar οἶσθʼ ὃ δρᾶσον , and the imperative often standing after ὥστε .