Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:6 - 4:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:6. Observe the climactic advance in Eph_4:4-6 : the Church, Christ, God;—and at the same time the climax in the divine Triad: Spirit, Lord, Father. Only the dominion of the Father is the absolute one, that of the Son is the derived, conferred, obtained (Php_2:9; 1Co_15:24 ff; 1Co_3:23, al.; comp. Ernesti, Ursprung d. Sünde, I. p. 194 ff.), in which He also disposes of the Spirit (2Co_3:18). See also Gess, von der Person Christi, p. 158 ff.
πάντων ] i.e. of all believers, as those who have the υἱοθεσία (Eph_1:5; Rom_8:15; Gal_3:26; Gal_4:5), so that God is their God and Father. Holzhausen erroneously (seeing that the context treats of the Christian ἑνότης ) thinks that all men are intended. Not even the spiritually dead members of the church are included (in opposition to Münchmeyer), as results from the sequel indicated by διά and ἐν , since they have not the Spirit and belong not to Christ (Rom_8:9), but are aloof from connection with Him and stand outside of grace (Gal_5:4 f.; Joh_15:2; Joh_15:6), consequently have no share in the body of Christ (Eph_1:23) and in the living temple of God (Eph_2:22 f.).
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων κ . τ . λ .] The relation of the Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων to the πᾶσι in threefold manner. Comp. Rom_11:36, where, however, the prepositions define the subject, not, as here, the object. πάντων , πάντων , and πᾶσιν are equally to be taken as masculine, because the preceding πάντων was masculine, and because the discourse continues in Eph_4:7 with ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν , wherein the πάντες are individualized. Wrongly, therefore, many (including Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, Rückert, Baumgarten-Crusius) have taken the first two as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zachariae, Koppe, et al., give the second point alone as neuter, and Matthies, on the other hand, explains all three elements of the relation of God to the world and mankind, consequently as neuter.
ἐπὶ πάντων ] ἐπάνω πάντων , Chrysostom; τὴν δεσποτείαν σημαίνει , Theodoret. Comp. Rom_9:5. See Wessel, ad Diodor. xiii. 14; Lobeck, ad Phryn p. 474; Winer, p. 335 [E. T. 521]. After this relation of transcendence there follows, in διὰ … πᾶσιν , that of immanence.
διὰ πάντων ] cannot, since the πάντες are the Christians and the relation of God to what is Christian is characterized, apply either to the creation (Estius, Wolf, and others), so that we should have to think of the all-penetrating creative power of God, or to providence (Chrysostom and his successors; Beza, Grotius: “per omnes diffundit providam suam gubernationem”); but the charismatic presence of God by means of the Holy Spirit, pervading and ruling all Christians, is meant. See also Eph_4:7, and comp. 1Co_12:6. The distinction from the following ἐν πᾶσιν lies not in the thing itself, since both elements denote the immanent ruling of God by virtue of His Spirit, but in the form of conception, since with ἐν the relation is conceived of as operative indwelling, and with διά as operative movement throughout all Christian hearts (“Deus enim Spiritu sanctificationis diffusus est per omnia ecclesiae membra,” Calvin). According to Harless, the thought expressed in διὰ πάντων is, that God as head works through the members. But of the conception of the head and the members there is absolutely nothing in the context; further, though mention is made of God as Father, it is not the Father, but Christ, that is Head of the members; lastly, in place of the simple ὤν , which is to be mentally supplied, there would be insensibly introduced a wholly different supplement, namely, ἐνεργῶν , or a similar verb.[202] At the bottom of this explanation there lies, indeed, the presupposition, that the relation of the Trinity is expressed in the three prepositions, as Jerome, Thomas, and many of the older expositors would have it. Against this altogether arbitrary supposition, however, Theophylact already rightly declared himself. See also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 201. Olshausen, too, finds here, as at Rom_11:36, the Trinity; holding that God is described in His various relations to the creature [rather to the Christians] as Lord over all things, as instrument by which they are (this being held to apply to the Son), and as the element in which they are. Thus, moreover, the prepositional relation of the last two clauses is exactly reversed, inasmuch as not διὰ πάντων κ . τ . λ . is explained, but διʼ οὗ πάντες κ . τ . λ .! According to Beyschlag, Christol. d. N.T. p. 250, there is expressed, at least in the form of hint, the threefold mode of existence of God (“self-preservation, self-disclosure, self-communication”). But apart from the fact that such a threefold form of existence is not the expression of the New Testament triad, the self-communication, in fact, is implied not only in ἐν πᾶσιν , but necessarily already in διὰ πάντων . Lastly, Koppe is wrong in an opposite way: “Sententia videtur una, tantum variis formulis synonymis (!) expressa haec: cui vos omnes debetis omnia.”
Observe, further, that the great fundamental elements of unity, Eph_4:4-6, are matters of fact, historically given with Christianity itself, and as such are not affected by differences of doctrine; hence without reason there have been found here traces of the later age, when “upon the basis of the Pauline thought a Catholic church was built,” of which the centralization in doctrine and constitution was not derived from the adherents of Paul, but was a Petrine thought (Schwegler). The Catholic idea in our passage is just the Pauline one (1 Corinthians 12), cherished by Christ Himself (Joh_17:20 f.).
[202] This also in opposition to Winzer: “qui per omnes operatur, quasi unoquoque utitur ad declarandam suam majestatem, ad consilia sua exsequenda.” So, in the main, de Wette (comp. Bengel): it applies to the operation brought about by means of all; and Reiche: “omnibus utitur quasi instrumentis, quibus … res Christiana stabilitur, augetur, consummatur.”