Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:5 - 4:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:5. Continuation. There are not several Lords, but One, who is Lord of all believers, even Christ; not several kinds of faith, but one faith, inasmuch as all place their confidence upon the atoning death of Christ, on account of which they are justified and obtain salvation (Rom_3:23 ff.); not several kinds of baptism, but one baptism, namely, into Christ (Rom_6:3; Gal_3:27; Act_10:48; Act_19:5).
εἷς κύριος at the head; because μία πίστις and the ἓν βάπτισμα accomplished in the case of those who have become believers are consequentia of εἷς κύριος .
To make of πίστις the doctrine of the faith (Grotius, Zachariae, and others), is at variance with linguistic usage; comp. on Gal_1:23; Rom_1:5. The ἑνότης τῆς πίστεως is here represented as present, but in Eph_4:13 as future. Both with justice; inasmuch as here the Christian faith in the narrower sense is intended, the fides salvifica, which in all Christians was essentially the same, while at Eph_4:13 it is the Christian faith in the wider sense, within the compass of which there was diversity of convictions (as respects the validity of the law, the resurrection, veneration of angels, asceticism, partaking of flesh offered to idols, and other matters).
Of the Lord’s Supper, the unity of which might likewise appear as a suitable element in the connection (1Co_10:17), Paul does not make mention: according to Calovius, because it was comprehended “uno baptismatis sacramento ex paritatis ratione;” according to Harless, because Paul was mentioning only the fundamental conditions of the Christian fellowship, as they exist from the outset, at the first entrance upon it; according to Olshausen, because the specific act of the Supper, the partaking (rather, the communion, 1Co_10:16) of Christ, is included in εἷς κύριος , μία πίστις ; according to de Wette, because it was less a something conditioning the unity, than something representing this unity itself.[201] But, in opposition to Calovius and Olshausen, it may be urged that, if Paul had adopted the synecdochic point of view in the selection, he would not have needed to mention πίστις , since baptism presupposes faith; in opposition to Harless, that the fundamental conditions of the Christian communion which Paul mentions are such, not specially for the beginning of it, but for its whole duration; in opposition to de Wette, finally, that the Lord’s Supper is, precisely as a representation of the unity, at the same time a powerful ethical incitement thereto, and hence would have been admirably appropriate in the series of points adduced. The ground of its not being mentioned is rather to be sought in the fact that the adducing of the Lord’s Supper would have disturbed the threefold triad of the elements adduced, and have broken through the whole rhythm of the passage. And the holy meal might the more easily remain unmentioned, because it was at that time not yet an observance subsisting by itself, but was combined with the common meals; hence, doubtless, in a context where the Lord’s Supper is spoken of, the εἷς ἄρτος (1Co_10:17) is brought forward as a symbol of the unity of Christians, but in another context the thought ἓν δεῖπνον κυρίου or μία τράπεζα κυρίου —because the Supper was not something subsisting alone like baptism, which as the constituent element of Christian standing could not remain unmentioned—did not so necessarily suggest itself.
[201] Most mistakenly of all, Schenkel holds that Paul did not regard a uniform observance of the Supper as necessary, and would not stand in the way of the varied development of a rite. In that case, doubtless, Paul would have done well not to mention baptism either.