Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 3
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Eph_3:5. Before ἑτέραις Elz. has, likewise against decisive testimony, ἐν , which was attached on account of the double dative.
Eph_3:6. αὐτοῦ ] after ἐπαγγ . is, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence, to be deleted.
Eph_3:7. ἐγενόμην ] Lachm. Tisch. Rück, read ἐγενήθην , after A B D* F G à . With this preponderant attestation the more to be preferred, in proportion to the ease with which the more current form might involuntarily creep in.
τὴν δοθεῖσαν ] Lachm. and Rück.: τῆς δοθείσης , approved also by Griesb. Attested, it is true, by A B C D* F G à , min. Copt. Vulg. It Latin Fathers; but how readily would the genitive present itself to the mechanical copyist after Eph_3:2! comp. Eph_3:8.
Eph_3:8. ἐν τοῖς ] A B C à , min. Copt. have merely τοῖς . So Lachm. and Rückert. Strongly enough attested; specially as the parallel in subject-matter, Gal_1:16, offered ἐν as an addition.
The neuter τὸ πλοῦτος is also here and at Eph_3:16 preponderantly attested.
Eph_3:9. πάντας ] suspected by Beza, placed within brackets by Lachm. But it is wanting only in A à , two min. Cyr. Hilar. Jer. Aug. The omission, at any rate too feebly attested, may have been accidental, or even after ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν intentional.
οἰκονομία ] Elz. has κοινωνία , in opposition to almost all the witnesses. An interpretation.
After κτίσαντι Elz. has διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , which is defended, it is true, by Rinck (in whose view Marcion had deleted it) and by Reiche (who holds it to have been omitted by the orthodox), but is condemned by the decisive counter-testimony as an exegetico-dogmatic addition.
Eph_3:12. τὴν παῤῥησίαν κ . τὴν προσαγωγήν ] The second τήν is wanting in A B à * 17, 80, Lachm. Rück.; but its superfluousness occasioned the omission. F G have τὴν προσαγωγὴν εἰς τὴν παῤῥησίαν , a change produced by the absolute τὴν προσαγ .
Eph_3:14. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησού Χ . is wanting in A B C à 17, 67** Copt. Aeth. Erp. Vulg. ms. and important Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Rück. Harless. An addition to πατέρα readily offering itself, although defended by Reiche (on insufficient internal grounds).
Eph_3:16. δῴη ] A B C F G à , 37, 39, 116, and several Fathers have δῷ . So Lachm. and Rück. With this important attestation δῷ is here the more to he preferred, as δῴη offered itself to the copyists from Eph_1:17.
Eph_3:18. βάθος κ . ὕψος ] Lachm. reads ὕψος κ . βάθος , on considerable but not decisive evidence. But the sequence of thought, “height and depth,” was more familiar. Comp. Rom_8:39.
Eph_3:21. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ] So D** K L, min. Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. and other Greeks. But A B C à 73, 80, 213, Copt. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. Jer. Pel. have ἐν τ . ἐκκλ . καὶ ἐν Χ . Ἰ . (so Lachm. and Rück.). D* F G, It. Ambrosiast. have ἐν Χ . Ἰ . καὶ τῇ ἐκκλ . Only 46 and Oros. have ἐν Χ . Ἰ . merely, without ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ ., evidence which is far too weak to justify suspicion of ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ . (in opposition to Koppe and Rück.). The καί , although strongly attested, is an old unsuitable connective addition; and the placing of ἐν τ . ἐκκλ . after ἐν Χ . Ἰ . is a transposition in accordance with the sense of rank. Hence, with Tisch. and Reiche, the Recepta is to be upheld.
CONTENTS.
On this account am I, Paul, the prisoner of God for the sake of you, the Gentiles (Eph_3:1). Effusion over the nature of his office as apostle of the Gentiles (Eph_3:2-12), which concludes with the entreaty to the readers not to become discouraged at the sufferings which he is enduring on their behalf (Eph_3:13). On this account he beseeches God that they might be inwardly strengthened in the Christian character, in order that they may know the whole greatness of the love of Christ, and thereby become filled with all divine gifts of grace (Eph_3:14-19). Doxology, Eph_3:20-21.