Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:9 - 4:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
is not a (Rabbinical) argument to show that the subject of the passage in the psalm is no other than Christ, in so far as of Him alone could be predicated that descending which, in speaking of ascending, must be presumed to have gone before (Michaelis, Koppe; Güder, von der Erschein
Eph_4:9 is not a (Rabbinical) argument to show that the subject of the passage in the psalm is no other than Christ, in so far as of Him alone could be predicated that descending which, in speaking of ascending, must be presumed to have gone before (Michaelis, Koppe; Güder, von der Erschein. Christi unter den Todten, p. 83; also my own earlier view). Such an argument would have been aimless, since the subject of the passage of the psalm in its Messianic fulfilment was self-evident; it would, moreover, not have even logical correctness, since, in fact, God Himself, as often in the O. T., might be thought of as the καταβάς who ἀνέβη . Paul rather brings out in Eph_4:9 what the ascension of Christ prophetically meant in Psalms 68 contains as its presupposition; and this for the end of showing[210] how the matter affirmed and supported by the passage of the psalm in Eph_4:7, namely, Christ’s bestowal of grace on all individuals respectively, stands in necessary connection with His general position of filling the whole universe; a function upon which He must have entered by His very descending into the depths of the earth and His ascending above all heavens (Eph_4:10).
δέ ] carrying forward the argument: “but the ἈΝΈΒΗ , in order now to show you what is therewith said,” etc.
τὸ ἀνέβη ] not: the word ἀνέβη , for this does not occur in the passage of the psalm, but the predicate ἀνέβη , which was contained in ἀναβάς .
τί ἐστιν ] not: what of an extraordinary nature (Hoelemann), but simply: what is said therewith, what is implied in it? Comp. Mat_9:13; Joh_16:17 f., Joh_10:6, al.
ὅτι καὶ κατέβη ] that He also (not merely ascended, but also) descended. The having ascended presupposes the having descended. The correctness of this conclusion rests upon the admitted fact that the risen Christ had His original dwelling not upon earth, as Elijah had, but in the heaven, whither He went up; consequently He could not but have descended from this, if He has ascended. Comp. Joh_3:13.
The depth, however, into which He descended—whether, namely, merely to the earth, or deeper still into the subterranean world—is not to be inferred from the ἀνέβη itself, but was fixed with historic certainty in the believing consciousness of the readers; hence Paul could with good reason write not merely ὍΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤΈΒΗ , but ὍΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤ . ΕἸς ΤᾺ ΚΑΤΏΤΕΡΑ Τῆς Γῆς , i.e. into that which is deeper down than the earth, into Hades ( κατέβην δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω , Hom. od. xxiii. 252; Ἀΐδαο δόμους ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίης ἔρχεαι , Il. xxii. 482; comp. Od. xxiv. 204; Soph. Ant. 816, Trach. 1088). He might also have designated Hades by τὰ κατώτατα τῆς γῆς , the lowest depth of the earth ( úÌÇçÀúÌÄéÌåÉú äÈàÈøÆõ , LXX. Psa_63:10; Prayer of Azar. 13; not Psa_139:15, where “in the depths of the earth” is only a sensuous form of the conception “in secret”); but has purposely chosen that comparative expression—in which the genitive is that of comparison, not the partitive genitive—in order to impart as strong a colouring as possible to the depth of Hades, in contradiction to that heaven from which Christ descended; He descended deeper than the earth is (the earth being conceived of as a plane), in that He descended even into the sub terranean region beyond, into Hades. The goal of the humiliation Paul here designates locally, whereas at Php_2:8 he specifies it as respects the degree, namely, by μέχρι θανάτου κ . τ . λ ., which, however, is as to substance in agreement with our passage, since the death of Christ had as its immediate consequence His descent into Hades (Luk_23:43; Mat_12:40; Act_2:27; 1Pe_3:19), as, indeed, also at Php_2:10 ( καταχθονίων ) this descent is presupposed as having taken place in death. The explanation of the so-called descent into hell (Irenaeus in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, I. p. 7; Tertullian, Jerome, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, and many others, including Rückert, Olshausen, Delitzsch, Lechler, Ewald, Hoelemann, Bleek; Baur scenting Gnosticism) is therefore the right one,[211] because the object was to present Christ as the One who fills the whole universe, so that, with a view to His entering upon this His all-filling activity, He has previously with His victorious presence passed through the whole world, having descended from heaven into the utmost depth, and ascended from this depth to the utmost height—a view, which of necessity had to extend not merely to the earth, but even into the nether world, just because Christ, as was historically certain for every believer, had been in the nether world, and consequently, by virtue of His exaltation to the right hand of God, really had the two utmost limits of the universe, from below upwards, as the terminos a quo and ad quem of His triumphal progress. Further, had Paul intended only the descent to earth (Thomas, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Hammond, Michaelis, Fischer, de vitiis Lex. N.T., and many, including Winer, p. 470 [E. T. 666], Holzhausen, Meier, Matthies, Harless, Raebiger, p. 68 ff., Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hofmann, p. 345, Bisping, Schenkel, Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 291, Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 174 f., Beyschlag, Christol. d. N.T. p. 228), it would not be easy to see why he should not have written merely κατέβη , or at any rate simply κατέβη εἰς τὴν γῆν or κατέβη εἰς τὴν γῆν κάτω (Act_2:19), instead of employing the circumstantial and affected, but yet only feebly paraphrasing expression: into the lower regions, which are the earth (for so we should have to explain εἰς τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς , understood only of the earth; see Winer, l.c. [E. T. 666]). This expression is only accounted for, sharp and telling, when it points the reader to a region lower than the earth, to that Hades, whither every reader knew that Christ had descended. Doubtless the apostle might have written simply εἰς ᾅδου (Act_2:27) or ἕως ᾅδου (Mat_11:23), or also εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον (Rom_10:7) or εἰς τὴν καρδίαν τῆς γῆς (Mat_12:40); but the whole pathos of the passage, with its contrast of the extremes of depth and height, very naturally suggested the purposely chosen designation εἰς τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς . The ordinary objection, that, in fact, Christ did not ascend from Hades, but from earth to heaven, is of no effect, because He has in reality returned, arisen and ascended from Hades, consequently Hades was the deepest terminus a quo of His ascension, as it had previously been the deepest terminus ad quem of His descent, and on this deepest turning-point all here depended, even apart from the fact that the long interval of forty days between resurrection and ascension is historically very problematic (see Remark subjoined to Luk_24:51). Nearest to our view come Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Bullinger, Drusius, Zachariae, and others, who, however, refer the passage only to the death and the burial (comp. also Erlang. Zeitschr. 1856, p. 284); whereas Calomesius, Witsius, Calixtus, and others (already Beza, by way of suggestion), appealing to Psa_139:15, strangely enough interpret it of the descent into the womb.
[210] The view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, again taken up by Olshausen (comp. also Hofmann, l.c. 343), that Paul would by the example of Christ exhort to humility, is quite at variance with the context. And Rückert also is wrong in holding that ver. 9 contains only an incidental remark, which might equally well have been wanting.
[211] Thomasius, II. p. 262, is still doubtful on the question; Kahnis, I. p. 508, regards it as preponderantly probable. Calvin called it inepta, and Reiche falsa.