Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 3:5 - 3:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_3:5. Not an explanation, to what extent he was speaking of a mystery (Rückert, Meier): for that the readers knew, and the design of bringing in a mere explanation would not be in keeping with the elevated solemn style of the whole verse; but a triumphant outburst of the conscious exalted happiness of belonging to the number of those who had received the revelation of the mystery—an outburst, which was very naturally called forth by the sublime contents of the μυστήριον .
ἑτέραις γενεαῖς ] may be either a definition of time, like the dative at Eph_2:12 (so taken usually); in that case γενεαῖς is not periodis or temporibus in general, but: in other generations (comp. on Eph_3:21); or it may express the simple dative relation, so that γενεαῖς is generationibus (Vulgate): which to other generations was not made known, according to which τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρ . would form a characteristic epexegesis (Lobeck, ad Aj. 308; Bernhardy, p. 55; Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, pp. 272, 307). This was my previous view. Yet the former explanation, as being likewise linguistically correct, and withal more simple and more immediately in keeping with the contrast νῦν , is to be preferred. The ἕτεραι γεν . are the generations which have preceded the νῦν ; and τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρ . (not elsewhere occurring with Paul) has the significance, that it characterizes men according to their lower sphere conditioned by their “ortum naturalem” (Bengel), under which they were incapable in themselves of understanding the μυστήριον . Comp. Gen_11:5; Psa_8:5; Psa_11:5; Wis_9:6. That specially the O. T. prophets are meant by τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπ ., as Bengel supposed,[169] is wrongly inferred from τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις κ . τ . λ ., since the contrast does not lie in the persons,[170] but in the time ( ἑτέραις γενεαῖς … νῦν ). It is true Ezekiel often bears the name áÌÆïÎàÈãÈí (Eze_7:1; Eze_12:1, al.), not, however, as prophet, but as man; and thereby likewise his human lowliness and dependence upon God are brought home to him.
Ὡς ] By this expression, which (in opposition to Bleek) is to be left as comparative, the disclosure made to Abraham and the ancient prophets of the future participation of the Gentiles in Messiah’s kingdom (Gal_3:8; Rom_9:24-26; Rom_15:9 ff.) remains undisputed; for “fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum,” Beza; hence the prophetic prediction served only as means for the making known of the later complete revelation of the mystery (Rom_16:26).
ΝῦΝ ] in the Christian period. Comp. 1Pe_1:12.
ἈΠΕΚΑΛΎΦΘΗ ] not a repetition of ἘΓΝΩΡΊΣΘΗ , but the distinguishing mode in which this manifestation took place, is intended to be expressed: ΚΑΤᾺ ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙΝ ἘΓΝΩΡΊΣΘΗ , Eph_3:3.
ΤΟῖς ἉΓΊΟΙς ἈΠΟΣΤ . Κ . Τ . Λ .] is not to be divided by a comma after ἉΓΊΟΙς (Lachmann, Bisping), so that ἈΠΟΣΤ . ΑὐΤ . Κ . ΠΡΟΦ . would be apposition or more precise definition, whereby the flow of the expression would be only needlessly interrupted. The predicate holy was already borne by the Old Testament prophets (2Ki_4:9; Luk_1:70; 2Pe_1:21), and this appellation at our passage by no means exposes the apostolic origin of the Epistle to suspicion (de Wette derives ἁγίοις from the passage Col_1:26 recast in post-apostolic times; Baur: from the post-apostolic reverential looking back to the apostles); but it is very naturally called forth by the context, in order to distinguish the recipients of the revelation amidst the mass of the υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων , in accordance with the connection, as God’s special messengers and instruments, as ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι (2Pe_1:21); whereupon the apostolic consciousness in Paul was great and decided enough not to suppress the predicate suggested by the connection,[171] while he is speaking of the apostles and prophets in general, whereas, immediately afterwards, at Eph_3:8, in speaking of himself in particular, he gives full play to his individual deep humility. How can we conceive that the author should thus in one breath have fallen out of his assumed part at Eph_3:5 with τοῖς ἁγίοις , by a “slip” (Baur), and then have resumed it at Eph_3:8 with ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ !
αὐτοῦ ] not of Christ (Bleek), but of God, whose action is implied in ἐγνωρίσθη and ἀπεκαλύφθη .
καὶ προφήταις ] quite as at Eph_2:20.
ἐν πνεύματι ] The Holy Spirit is the divine principle, through which the ἀπεκαλύφθη took place. Comp. Eph_1:17; 1Co_2:10 ff. Rückert wrongly takes it as: in an inspired state, which πνεῦμα never means, but, on the contrary, even without the article is the objective Holy Spirit. Comp. on Eph_2:22. Koppe and Holzhausen connect ἐν πνεύματι (sc. οὖσι ) with προφήταις . In this way it would be an exceedingly superfluous addition, since prophets, who should not be ἐν πν ., are inconceivable, whereas a revelation was conceivable even otherwise than through the Spirit (by means of theophany, angel, vision, ecstasy, etc.). Meier connects ἐν πν . even with ἁγίοις , so that the sense would be: in sacred enthusiasm! and Ambrosiaster (comp. Erasmus) with the following εἶναι κ . τ . λ . Baur, p. 440, knows how to explain ἐν πνεύματι from a Montanistic view, and thinks that it is only on account of the prophets that it is applied to the apostles also.
[169] In quite an opposite way Jerome would exclude the ancient patriarchs and prophets from the υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρ .; for these were rather sons of God!
[170] The ἀπόστολοι and προφῆται were also υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρ ., but a sacred ἐκλογή of the same.
[171] A side-glance at the Jews, who would have seen a blasphemy in the apostolic message of the joint-heirship of the Gentiles (Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 128), is utterly remote from the connection.