Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:2 - 4:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:2. Μετὰ πάσ . ταπεινοφρ . κ . πραότ .] the characteristic dispositions accompanying this περιπατῆσαι ; see Winer, p. 337 [E. T. 471], and with regard to πάσης , on Eph_1:8; it belongs to both substantives. On the subject-matter, comp. Mat_11:29; Col_3:12. The opposite of humility: τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν , Rom_12:16; Rom_11:20; 1Ti_6:17; δοκεῖν εἶναί τι , Gal_6:3. On the notion of πραότης , gentleness, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 140.
μετὰ μακροθ .] is attached by Calvin, Estius, Zeltner, Calixtus, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Zachariae, Rückert, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, to the following ἀνεχόμενοι . But the very repetition of the preposition, to which appeal is made, most naturally points backwards, so that μετὰ μακροθ . appears as parallel to μετὰ π . ταπεινοφρ . κ . πραότ ., inasmuch, namely, as Paul makes the general be followed by the special, and then gives to the latter the elucidation ἀνεχόμενοι κ . τ . λ . Besides, μετὰ μακροθ ., if it belonged to ἀνεχόμ ., would have an undue emphasis, since without long-suffering the ἀνέχεσθαι ἀλλήλων would not exist at all; Col_3:12 f. Bengel and Matthies, following Theodoret and Oecumenius, have attached the whole μετὰ π . ταπ . κ . πραότ ., μετὰ μακροθ . to ἀνεχόμενοι . But in this way we lose the gradual transition from the general ἀξίως περιπατ . τ . κλ . to the special ἀνεχόμ . ἀλλήλ ., which under our construction is very naturally brought about.
ἀνεχόμ . ἀλλήλ . ἐν ἀγάπῃ ] The reciprocal forbearance in (ethical habit) love (comp. Rom_15:1; Gal_6:2) is the practical expression of the μακροθυμία . Comp. Col_3:13. It consists in the fact that we “aliorum infirmitates aequo animo ferimus, nec ob ea, quae nobis in proximo displicent, ab ejus amicitia recedimus, sed personam constanter amamus, etsi vitia in odio habeamus,” Calovius. The nominative of the participle (comp. Col_1:10) is put κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον , because the logical subject of ἀξίως περιπατ ., Eph_4:1, is ὑμεῖς . See on Eph_3:18; comp. on 2Co_1:7, and Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 970. Ignoring this familiar construction, Heinsius, Knatchbull, and Homberg have placed a full stop after Eph_4:1, and then supplied estote to the participles—a course, which would only be admissible if, as in Rom_12:9, this concise, pregnant mode of expression were implied in the context.
ἐν ἀγάπῃ ] belongs to the preceding. On the thing itself, comp. 1Co_13:4. Lachmann, Holzhausen, and Olshausen attach it to σπουδάζοντες . The reason given by Olshausen, that, as the μακροθ . is only a form of expression of love, ἐν ἀγάπῃ could not belong to what precedes, would be set aside, even if it were in itself valid, by the correct separation of μετὰ μακροθ . from ἀνεχόμ . And ἀνεχόμ . ἀλλήλ ., taken alone, renders the discourse simply abrupt. How harmonious is the structure, when both participial clauses begin with the participle and close with the definitions attached by ἐν , in which definitions there is opened up the whole ethical domain (love and peace) to which the before-named special virtues belong (1 Corinthians 13)!