Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:16 - 4:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:16. Harmony of what is said, Eph_4:15, for all individuals, with the objective relation of Christ to the whole as the organism growing by way of unity out of Christ. Comp. Col_2:19.
From whom the whole body, becoming fitly framed together and compacted (becomes compacted and), by means of each sensation of the supply (of Christ), according to an operation proportionate to the measure of each several part, bringeth about the growth of the body, to the edifying of itself in love.
ἐξ οὗ ] is equivalent neither to εἰς ὅν (Koppe), nor to per quem (Morus, Flatt, Holzhausen), but denotes the causal going forth, as Col. l.c.; 1Co_8:6; 2Co_5:1; 2Co_13:4; and frequently. See Bernhardy, p. 225.
πᾶν τὸ σῶμα ] πᾶν has the emphasis: the whole body, thus no member being excepted; it glances back to οἱ πάντες , Eph_4:13.
συναρμολ . κ . συμβιβαζ .] Present participle, expressing what was continuously in actu. As to συναρμολ ., comp. on Eph_2:21; συμβιβάζω is employed by classical writers of men or of single parts of things, which one brings together into an alliance, to reconciliation, to a unity (Herod, i. 74; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Plato, Rep. p. 504 A; comp. Col_2:2), and might be employed here the more aptly, inasmuch as the single parts of which the collective mass designated by πᾶν τὸ σῶμα consists, are the different Christian individuals. A distinction in the notion of the two words, such as is asserted by Bengel ( συναρμολ . denotes the fitting together, and συμβιβ . the fastening together) and Grotius (the latter denotes a closer union than the former), is arbitrarily assumed. The distinction consists only in this, that συναρμολ . corresponds to the figure, and συμβιβ . to the thing figuratively represented. With regard to the former, observe that ἁρμονία also, with the Greeks often denotes the harmonious relation of unity between the body and its parts. See Jacobs, Delect. epigr. vii. 3.
The verb to ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμ . κ . συμβιβ . is τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώμ . ποιεῖται , in which the repetition of τοῦ σώματος is neither negligence (Rückert) nor a Hebraism (Grotius), but is introduced for the sake of perspicuity on account of the intervening definitions, as is often the case with classical writers (see Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxv.; Krüger, Anab. p. 27; Ellendt, ad Arrian. Exp. Al. i. 55).
διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγ .] belongs not to συμβιβαζ . (so ordinarily), to which connection the erroneous interpretation of ἁφή as band (see below) led, but to τὴν αὔξησιν ποιεῖται (Zanchius, Bengel, and others). It is not the union that is brought about by the ἁφαὶ τῆς ἐπιχορηγ ., but the growth, inasmuch as Christ, from whom as Head the union proceeds, bestows the ἐπιχορηγία for the growth. ἁφή is usually explained junctura (Vulgate), commissura, means of connection, joint, and the like. But without any support from linguistic usage. It may signify, as in Lucian, de luctu 9, and often in Plutarch, contact, also holding fast, adhesion, and the like[229] (comp. Augustine, de civ. Dei, xxii. 18: “tactum subministrationis,” and see Oecumenius: ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατιοῦσα πνευματικὴ δύναμις ἑνὸς ἑκάστου μέλους αὐτοῦ ἁπτομένη ), but it never means vinculum ( συναφή ). Rightly Chrysostom and Theodoret have already explained it by ΑἼΣΘΗΣΙς , feeling, perception. See Plato, Locr. p. 100 D, E; Pol. vii. p. 523 E; and the passages in Wetstein. So also Col_2:19. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 132, prefers the signification: contact, and understands the connection of the several parts of the body, whereby the one supplies to the other that which is necessary to growth, which supply in the case of the recipient takes place by means of contact with it. In this way πᾶσα ἁφὴ τῆς ἐπιχορηγ . would be every contact which serves for supplying, and the ἐπιχορηγία would be the communication of the requisites for growth by one part of the body to the other. But the former Paul would have very indistinctly expressed by the mere genitive (instead of τῆς ἐπιχορ . he might have written Τῆς ΠΡῸς ΤῊΝ ἘΠΙΧΟΡΗΓΊΑΝ ), and the latter is imported, since the reader after ἘΞ ΟὟ could only understand the ἘΠΙΧΟΡΗΓΊΑ proceeding from Christ. If we were to take ἁφή in the sense of contact, the above explanation of Oecumenius would be the simplest (every contact, which the body experiences through the ἐπιχορηγία of Christ); but there may be urged against it, that the expression instead of the mere ΔΙᾺ ΠΆΣΗς ἘΠΙΧΟΡΗΓΊΑς would be only diffuse and circumstantial without special reason, while the expression: “sensation of the ἐπιχορηγία ,” very appropriately points to the growth through the influence of Christ from within outward.
τῆς ἐπιχορηγ .] Genit. objecti: every feeling in which the supply is perceived, experienced. What supply is meant by the ἐπιχορηγία with the article becomes certain from the context, namely, that which is afforded by Christ (through the Holy Spirit), i.e. the influence of Christ, by which He supplies to His body the powers of life and development necessary to a growth in keeping with its destiny ( ἐπιχορηγεῖ , 2Co_9:10; Gal_3:5, exhibet; the substantive occurs only further at Php_1:19, not in Greek writers). Those who understand ἁφή as bond, take τῆς ἐπιχορηγ ., partly correctly in this same sense (Rückert, Harless, Olshausen), save that they explain the genitive as a genitive of apposition, partly (so Luther and most expositors, including Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette) of the reciprocal service-rendering of the members,—an explanation which,[230] originating in the erroneous interpretation of ἁφή , introduces into the context something heterogeneous. Beza transmutes τῆς ἐπιχορηγ . into an unmeaning participle: “per omnes suppeditatas commissuras.”
κατʼ ἐνέργ . ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς ἑκ . μέρ .] belongs neither to τῆς ἐπιχορηγ . (Koppe, Meier, de Wette, and many), in which case, it is true, the non-repetition of the article, might be justified on the ground of a blending of ἡ ἐπιχορηγία κατʼ ἐνέργειαν κ . τ . λ . into one conception, but on the other hand may be urged the fact that ἐν μέτρῳ κ . τ . λ ., as a specification of measure, points of itself to the growth, not to the ἐπιχορηγία ; nor to συμβιβαζ . (Harless), to which even what precedes did not belong, but: after Paul has stated whereby the body grows ( διὰ πάσ . ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγ .), he now also adds the relation in which it brings about its growth, namely, according to an efficacy in keeping with the measure of each several part, i.e. so that the growing body in its growth follows an activity of development in keeping with the measure peculiar to each several part of the body,—consequently no disproportioned monstrous growth results, but one which is pursuant to proportion, adapted to the varied measure of the several parts (so that, e.g., the hand does not grow disproportionately larger than the foot, etc.). Without figure: From Christ the church accomplishes its progressive development according to an efficacy, which is not equal in all individuals, but appropriate to the degree of development appointed for each several individual. Rückert and Bretschneider take κατʼ ἐνέργειαν adverbially: after a powerful manner. But ἐνέργεια in itself does not denote powerful working, but efficacy, activity in general, so that it would need a more precise definition for the sense supposed (Eph_1:19, Eph_3:7; Php_3:21; Col_1:20; Col_2:12; 2Th_2:9; 2Th_2:11).
ἐν μέτρῳ ] according to measure, pro mensura; see Bernhardy, p. 211; Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 483].
μέρους ] is held by Harless to denote the several parts, which again in their turn appear as having the control of the other members (pastors, etc., Eph_4:11). Against this is ἑνὸς ἑκάστου . It denotes, according to the context, in contradistinction to the whole of the body each part of the body, whether this part may be a whole member or in turn only a portion of a member (comp. Luk_11:36), and is hence of wider meaning than μέλους .
αὔξησιν ] in the N.T. only further at Col_2:19, often with Greek writers,[231] also 2Ma_5:16.
ποιεῖται ] produces for itself (sibi), hence the middle; comp. subsequently εἰς οἰκοδομ . ἑαυτοῦ .
The sense: for the perfecting of itself (aim of τὴν αὔξησ . ποιεῖται ), is expressed, as at Eph_4:12, in another, dissimilar, but likewise very familiar figure, by εἰς οἰκοδ . ἑαυτοῦ .
ἐν ἀγάπῃ ] Love of all one to another is the ethical sphere, within which the αὔξησιν ποιεῖσθαι εἰς οἰκοδ . ἑαυτοῦ on the part of the whole body proceeds—outside of which this cannot take place. Comp. Eph_4:15. On account of Eph_4:15, the connection with ΤῊΝ ΑὔΞΗΣΙΝ ΠΟΙΕῖΤΑΙ ΕἸς ΟἸΚΟΔ . ἙΑΥΤΟῦ is more in keeping with the context than the usual one with the mere ΕἸς ΟἸΚΟΔ . ἙΑΥΤΟῦ .
We may add, that the mode of regarding the church in our passage is not “genuinely Gnostic,” as Baur pronounces, but genuinely Pauline. Comp. especially 1Co_12:14-27.
[229] In virtue of this signification there was denoted by ἁφή also the fine sand with which the oiled athletes sprinkled each other, in order to be able to take a firm grasp (see Steph. Thesaur. s.v.). Thence Bengel derives the interpretation: ansae ad mutuum auxilium. An arbitrary abstraction from a conception entirely foreign to the context.
[230] In which case the genitive τῆς ἐπιχ . would have to be taken, with Grotius, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, as genitive of definition (on behalf of). But see above, in opposition to Hofmann.
[231] More classic, however, is αὔξη . See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. vi. p. 509 B.