Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:15 - 4:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:15. Still connected with ἵνα , Eph_4:14.
δέ ] after the negative protasis: on the other hand, yet doubtless. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 360 f. In order that we … on the other hand, confessing the truth, may grow in love, etc. ἀληθεύειν means nothing else than in Gal_4:6, verum dicere, opposite of ψεύδεσθαι (comp. Xen. Anab. i. 7. 18, iv. 4. 15; Mem. i. 15; Plat. Demod. p. 383 C; Phil. Leg. Alleg. II. p. 84 A; de resip. Noë, p. 280 E), which here, as contrast to the περιφέρεσθαι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας , is the confession of the evangelic ἀλήθεια . ἐν ἀγάπῃ belongs to αὐξήσ . (comp. already Lucifer: “crescamus in caritate”), the ethical element of which it denotes; for love (to the brethren) is the sphere, apart from which the growth of the mystic body, whose members are held together by love (comp. Chrysostom), does not take place, Eph_3:18; 1Co_12:12 ff., comp. 1Co_13:1. With how great weight is this element here placed at the beginning and Eph_4:16 at the end; and how definitely is the hint already thereby given to take ἐν ἀγάπῃ together with αὐξήσ ., in keeping with its connection in Eph_4:16! Others, nevertheless, connect it with ἀληθεύοντες , in doing which some explain, yet not without diversities in specifying the sense,[226] veritatem sectantes cum caritate (Valla, Erasmus, Calvin, Bullinger, Calovius, Wolf, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Rückert, Bleek, de Wette? et al.), others: sincere diligentes (Luther, Bucer, Grotius, Loesner, Morus, et al.; comp. also Beza and Matthies). But neither of these interpretations is to be linguistically justified, since ἀληθεύειν never means to strive after truth, or to hold fast the truth, to possess the truth, or the like, but always to speak the truth (comp. also Pro_21:3; Sir_31:4), to which, likewise, the sense of to verify, to prove as true, found e.g. in Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 25, Isa_44:26, may be traced back. Against the second of these interpretations (Luther, etc.) there is also in particular the context, seeing that sincere love would be a quite unsuitable contrast to the spiritual immaturity given up to the false teachers, which is described Eph_4:14. If, however, we should seek to connect ἀληθεύειν in the correct sense of verum dicere with ἐν ἀγάπῃ (confessing the truth in love), then only the love not towards others in general (this in opposition to Hofmann), but towards those of another confession, could be meant; and this too, would here, where the latter are described as deceptive teachers of error, be at variance with the context. Harless, it is true, rightly connects ἐν ἀγάπῃ with αὐξήσ ., but explains ἀληθεύοντες : being true in evangelical disposition, and then brings ἐν ἀγάπῃ εἰς αὐτόν together. Against this may be urged, not indeed the hyperbaton (Bernhardy, p. 460; Kühner, II. p. 627 f.), but the fact that ἀληθ . is not taken in accordance with correct linguistic usage, and that the definition “in evangelical disposition” is imported at variance with the context (since we have here a contrast not to the πανουργία of the false teachers, but to the childish περιφέρεσθαι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ κ . τ . λ .); as also that the corresponding ἐν ἀγάπῃ of Eph_4:16 shows that ἐν ἀγάπῃ in Eph_4:15 does not mean love to Christ. Wrongly also Baumgarten-Crusius, although connecting with αὐξ ., renders: possessing the truth.
αὐξήσωμεν ] dependent on ἵνα , Eph_4:14, is not to be taken, according to classic usage, transitively (1Co_3:6 f.; 2Co_9:10), as Valla, Moldenhauer, and others held, but intransitively (comp. Eph_2:21, and see Wetstein, I. p. 335), to grow; for, in keeping with the figure ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι , it represents the progressive development of the Christian life. Comp. Eph_4:16. Bengel aptly observes: “haec αὔξησις … media est inter infantes et virum.”
εἰς αὐτόν ] in reference to Him. Christ is indeed the Head of the body, the growth of the members of which thus stands in constant relation to Christ, can never take place apart from relation to Him as determining and regulating it, to whom the course of the development must harmoniously correspond. The commentary to εἰς αὐτόν is furnished by the following ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα κ . τ . λ .; the relation of the growth to the head, which is expressed in an ascending direction by, εἰς αὐτόν , is expressed in a descending direction by ἐξ οὗ .[227] The sense: into the resemblance of Christ (Zanchius and others), is opposed to the context (since Christ is thought of as head); as also the explanation of Koppe and Holzhausen (comp. de Wette and Bleek): “to grow up in Him,” is inappropriate, since the body as little grows up to the head, or reaches forth to the head (Hofmann), as it grows into the head (in opposition to Matthies: “to grow into Him, i.e.… ever more deeply to become absorbed into His infinitely true and holy nature”). Others have taken εἰς for ἐν ,[228] but this was a mistaken makeshift, whether it was explained with Cornelius a Lapide: “Christi capitis virtute et influxu,” or even with Grotius: “ipsius cognitione.”
τὰ πάντα ] is rightly explained: in all points, in every respect (comp. 1Co_9:25; 1Co_10:33; 1Co_11:2, and see on Act_20:35), in which case, however, the article has not generally been attended to (so still Meier and Matthies). Harless refers it to the previously mentioned ἑνότης in its contrast to the wavering of unsettled knowledge. But since the ἑνότης of Eph_4:12 appears as the goal to be attained by the growth, and since, moreover, not several things (a plurality) are thereby denoted, to which the plural τὰ πάντα might relate, this view cannot appear in keeping with the context. The explanation which most naturally suggests itself is: in all the points of our growth, wherein the emphasis remains upon εἰς αὐτόν . Our growth shall, in all points in which we grow, proceed in relation to Him, who is the Head, etc. Koppe, Wahl, and Holzhausen regard τὰ πάντα as nominative, explaining it of all the members. But in that case οἱ πάντες must have been written. Comp. Eph_4:13.
ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ Χριστός ] significant more precise definition and very emphatic naming of the subject intended by εἰς αὐτόν , although this subject was self-evident. Paul did not write τὸν Χριστόν (as apposition to αὐτόν ), but in accordance with the usual Greek construction he drew the apposition into the accessory clause. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 41 A: εὑρήσει τοὺς ὡς ἀληθῶς δικαστάς , οἵπερ καὶ λέγονται ἐκεῖ δικάζειν Μίνως τε καὶ Ῥαδάμανθος καὶ Αἴακος . Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 771. Comp. 2Co_10:13; Winer, p. 469 [E. T. 669]; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 368. According to de Wette, ὁ Χρ . is merely to serve for facilitating the construction with the following ἐξ οὗ , and thus to have merely a formal significance. But of such a facilitating there was no need whatever.
[226] Calvin and most expositors: “veritatis studio adjungere etiam mutuae communicationis studium, ut placide simul proficiant.” Castalio, Bullinger, Rückert: “to hold fast to the truth received and investigated … so that … our firmness may be tempered by a friendly consideration for the weaker.”
[227] This treating of εἰς αὐτόν and (ver. 16) ἐξ οὗ as parallel is not “paradoxical” (de Wette), but represents the relation as it is.—Christ the goal and source of the development of life in the church, i.e. to Christ withal is directed the whole aim which determines this development, and from Christ proceeds all endowment, by which it is rendered possible and takes place. Analogous, and just as little paradoxical, is the conjunction of ἐν ( διά ) and εἰς , Col_1:16 f.
[228] Luther, in the original editions, has not: “an dem das Haupt ist,” but “an den, der das Haupt ist.”