Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:14 - 4:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:14. Ἵνα ] cannot, at all events, introduce the design of the attained goal in Eph_4:13, in opposition to which αὐξήσωμεν , Eph_4:15, clearly testifies; since, in the case of him who has already become the ἀνὴρ τέλειος , the αὐξάνειν no longer has place. But it is also arbitrary to refer the affirmation of aim to Eph_4:11-12 (Koppe, Flatt; comp. Michaelis and Zanchius), as Harless would do (comp. Bleek), who holds Eph_4:13 and Eph_4:14 ff. as co-ordinate, so that Eph_4:13 describes the final goal up to which the arrangement endures, and Eph_4:14 ff. the design of this same. That Eph_4:14 stands in a subordinate relation to Eph_4:13, is shown by the retaining of the same figure, as by ἵνα itself, which is not preceded by another ἵνα , or something similar, to which it would be parallel. If Paul had referred ἵνα to Eph_4:11-12, it would have been logically the most natural course to arrange the verses thus: Eph_4:11-12; Eph_4:14-15; Eph_4:13; Eph_4:16. The relation of our sentence expressive of aim to the preceding is rather as follows: while in Eph_4:13 there was expressed the terminus ad quem, which is appointed to the labour-task, contained in Eph_4:12, of the teachers given according to Eph_4:11 by Christ, there is now adduced that which is aimed at in the case with a view to the ultimate attainment of that terminus ad quem, namely, the change, which meanwhile, in accordance with that final aim, is to take place in the—till then still current—condition of the church. This change, divinely aimed at, is characterized Eph_4:14 in its negative nature ( μηκέτι κ . τ . λ .), and Eph_4:15 in its positive nature ( ἀληθεύοντες δὲ κ . τ . λ .).
μηκιέτι ] no longer, as this is still at present the case. It points to the influence, which had at that time not yet ceased, of false teachers in the Christian church at large (see Eph_4:13). Of false teachers in Ephesus itself there is in our Epistle still no trace, although in Act_20:29 f. Paul had already expressed their future emergence.
νήπιοι ] for, in order to attain to full maturity, one must first emerge out of the state of childhood. What Paul here represents as νηπιότης , namely, the dependence on false teachers, in connection with which the ἑνότης described in Eph_4:13 cannot set in, he himself expresses by κλυδωνιζόμενοι , becoming tossed by waves (Isa_57:20) and driven to and fro (as a ship abandoned to the breakers), on which figurative representation of restless passive subjection to influences, comp. Heb_13:9; Jam_1:6; Jud_1:12 f.; Josephus, Antt. ix. 11. 3; Aristaenet. i. 27; Dio Chrys. Orat. 32.
παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλ .] τῇ τροπῇ δὲ ἐμμένων καὶ ἀνέμους ἐκάλεσε τὰς διαφόρους διδασκαλίας , Theophylact. Comp. Plut. de aud. poet. p. 28 D: μὴ παντὶ λόγῳ πλάγιον , ὥσπερ πνεύματι , παραδιδοὺς ἑαυτόν . The use of the article with διδασκαλ . denotes the doctrine in abstracto. In the fact that now this, now that, is taught according to varying tendencies, there blows now this, now that, wind of doctrine. That Paul false teachers before his mind, is evident from the context.
ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπ .] instrumental: becoming tossed and driven to and fro by every wind of doctrine in virtue of the deceit of men. After διδασκ . no comma is to be placed (comp. Lachmann and Tischendorf). κυβεία , from κύβος (cubus), a die, means properly dice-play (Plato, Phaedr. p. 274 D; Xen. Mem. i. 3. 2; Athen. x. p. 445 A); then in a derived signification fraudulentia (Arrian. Epict. ii. 19, iii. 21, and see Oecumenius). Comp. the German Spiel. In this signification the word has also passed over to the language of the Rabbins ÷åÌáÀéÈà . See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 775; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1984. Others have explained it as: levitas, temeritas (Beza, Salmasius, Morus, Flatt, and others),—which notion (like the German auf’s Spiel setzen: to put at stake) κυβεύειν really expresses in Plat. Prot. p. 314 A; Meleag. 73 (see Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 89),—but this is opposed to the context, which represents the false teachers as deceivers.
τῶν ἀνθρώπων ] Instead of being under the gracious influence of Christ (Eph_4:13), and thereby becoming strong and firm (comp. Eph_3:16 ff.), one is given up to the deceptive play of men!
ἐν πανουργίᾳ πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλάνης ] more precisely defining parallel to the preceding: by means of cunning, which is effectual for the machination of error. On πανουργία , comp. 1Co_3:19; 2Co_4:2; 2Co_11:3; Plat. Menex. p. 247 A. μεθοδεία is preserved only here and Eph_6:11, but from the use of μέθοδος (2Ma_13:18; Esth. 16:13; Plut. Mor. p. 176 A; Artem. iii. 25; Aristaen. i. 17) and μεθοδεύω (2Sa_19:27; Aquila, Exo_21:13; Diod. Sic. vii. 16; Charit. vii. 6) is not doubtful as to its signification. πλάνη means error, also at Mat_27:64; Rom_1:27; 2Pe_3:17; 2Pe_2:18; Jam_5:20. Whether this has been brought about through the fault of lying and immorality (Harless) must be decided by the context, as this must in reality be assumed to be the thought of the apostle in the present case, both from the connection and from the view which Paul had formed on the basis of experience (not, as Rückert pronounces, from a certain dogmatical defiance, which had remained with him as his weak side; comp. on the other hand, on 2Co_11:12) with regard to the false teachers of his time (2Co_2:17; 2Co_11:13 f.; Gal_2:4; Gal_6:12; Php_2:21), although it is not involved in the word in itself. To take πλάνη as seduction (Luther, Beza, and others, including Rückert, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette) is not to be justified by linguistic usage, since it always (also 2Th_2:11) means error, delusion, going astray; as with the Greek writers also it never has that active meaning.
πλάνης is genitivus subjecti; the πλάνη , which μεθοδεύει , is personified, in which, case, however, it would be quite arbitrary to say, with Bengel: erroris, i.e. Satanae. Compare rather the frequent personifications of ἁμαρτία , δικαιοσύνη , (Rom_6:16 ff., al.), and the like. The article is not necessary before πρὸς τ . μεθοδ . (in opposition to Rückert), since πανουργ . has no article; hence no reason whatever exists for attaching πρὸς τ . μεθοδ . κ . τ . λ ., with Rückert, to the participle (“driven about … according to the several arts of seduction”), by which ἐν πανουργ . is singularly isolated.
We may add that, when it is said that the fluctuation between different doctrinal opinions, here presupposed as a matter of fact, is not suitable to the apostolic age (Baur, p. 448), too much is asserted. Paul had experienced enough of this sort of wavering: all his Epistles testify of it.