Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 5:26 - 5:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_5:26. Aim, which Christ had in view in giving up Himself for the church, and therewith continued statement of the pattern of love given by Him.
ἵνα αὐτ . ἁγ . κ . τ . λ .] “in order to sanctify it, after having cleansed it through the bath of water, by means of the word.” In His sacrificial death, namely, Christ’s intention with regard to His future church had this aim, that, after having by baptism brought about for its members the forgiveness of their pre-Christian sins, He would make it partaker of Christian-moral holiness by means of the gospel. That cleansing is the negative side of that, which Christ contemplated with regard to His church in His death, and this sanctification by means of the gospel constantly influencing the baptized is the positive side; the former the antecedens, the latter the consequens; and both are caused by the atoning death, which is the causa meritoria of the forgiveness of sins brought about by means of baptism, and the contents of the gospel as the word of the cross. The sanctifying influence of the latter is the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, who works by means of the gospel (Eph_6:17); but the Holy Spirit is subject to Christ (2Co_3:18), and Christ also communicates Himself in the Spirit to men’s hearts (Rom_8:9 f.); hence it is said with justice that Christ sanctifies the church through the word (comp. also Eph_2:21), in which case it is self-evident to the Christian consciousness that the operative principle therein is the Spirit operating by means of the word. The Vulgate translates καθαρ . mundans, and Zanchius says: “modum exprimit, quo eam sanctificet.” So, too, Harless, who holds ἁγιάσῃ and καθαρίσας not to be different notions, but the latter to be a more precise definition of the former, which signifies purum reddere a culpa peccati. The aorist participle would not be opposed to this view, because it could express that which is coincident in point of time with ἁγιάσῃ (see on Eph_1:9); but it is opposed by the fact that ἐν ῥήματι cannot be joined to καθαρίσας (see below), but sanctification by the word must of necessity be something other than the cleansing by baptism, as also at 1Co_6:11 (comp. Act_2:38; Act_22:16), the cleansing by means of baptism ( ἀπελούσασθε ) precedes the sanctification ( ἡγίασθητε ).[275] Comp. Tit_3:5-7. Hofmann, II. 2, p. 135, would, in opposition to the simple and clear course of the representation, combine καθαρίσας κ . τ . λ . with the following ἽΝΑ ΠΑΡΑΣΤΉΣῌ , but for the invalid reason that afterwards ΤῊΝ ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑΝ is repeated, and not the mere ΑὐΤΉΝ used. As if Paul might not have used the mere ΑὐΤΉΝ even with this combination! And how often do all writers repeat the noun with emphasis (so here), or for the sake of perspicuity, instead of using the pronoun! Comp. on Eph_4:16.
Τῷ ΛΟΥΤΡῷ ΤΟῦ ὝΔΑΤΟς ] (genitive materiae) denotes the well-known bath of water κατʼ ἐξοχήν , which is administered by baptism. We have thus here not simply an allusion to baptism (Grotius, Homberg), but a designation of the same (comp. Tit_3:5; 1Co_6:11), and an allusion to the bath of the bride before the wedding day; see on Eph_5:27.
ἐν ῥήματι ] belongs to ἉΓΙΆΣῌ (comp. Joh_17:17), but is not placed immediately after it, because the two verbal definitions ἉΓΙΆΣῌ and ΚΑΘΑΡΊΣΑς , and again the two instrumental definitions Τῷ ΛΟΥΤΡῷ ΤΟῦ ὝΔΑΤΟς and ἘΝ ῬΉΜΑΤΙ , are intended to stand together, whereby the structure of the discourse is arranged of set purpose conformably to the sense and with emphatic distinctness. ῬῆΜΑ is the gospel, τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως , Rom_10:8, comp. 17, Eph_6:17, Heb_6:5, and here stands without an article, because it, denoting the word ΚΑΤʼ ἘΞΟΧΉΝ , could be treated like a proper noun, such as νόμος , ΧΆΡΙς , and the like. The connecting of ἘΝ ῬΉΜ . with ἉΓΙΆΣῌ is followed also by Jerome, Castalio, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmüller, Winer, p. 125 [E. T. 172], Rückert, Bisping, Bleek.[276] Others, however, join it to τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος (Luther: “by the water-bath in the word”), in which case they understand by ῥῆμα either the baptismal formula (Chrysostom: ἐν ῥήματι ποίῳ ; ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ; comp. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ambrosiaster, Menochius, Calovius, Flatt, de Wette, and others), or the divine precept (“lavationem … nitentem divino mandato,” Storr), or the divine promise (“qua vis et usus signi explicatur,” Calvin; comp. Michaelis, Knapp, Tychsen), or “lavacro invocatione divini nominis efficaci” (Erasmus), or the gospel (Augustine, Estius, Flatt, Holzhausen, and others), or the divine power and efficacy in the word of truth, so that ἐν ῥήματι is equivalent to ἐν πνεύματι (! Olshausen). But all these explanations break down in presence of the fact, that we should need to read τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος τῷ , or τοῦ ἐν ῥήμ ., since neither τὸ λουτρόν nor τὸ ὕδωρ admits of being joined into unity of idea with ἐν ῥήματι (such as αἱ ἐντολαὶ ἐν δόγμασι , Eph_2:15, or ἡ πίστις ἐν Χρ ., or the like); as well as of the fact, that the special interpretations of ῥῆμα , except that of gospel, are purely invented. Others have combined ἐν ῥήμ . with καθαρίσας (Syriac, which inserts καί before ἐν ῥήμ .; Bengel, Baumgarten, Matthies, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann; perhaps also Beza and Calvin; Meier is quite indistinct), in which case likewise ἐν ῥήμ . has been explained by some of the words of the institution and their promise (Baumgarten), by others of the gospel (Syriac, Bengel: “in verbo est vis mundifica, et haec exseritur per lavacrum,” comp. Matthies and Baumgarten-Crusius, as also Schenkel), while Harless translates: “by way of utterance, by way of promise,” which can refer only to the promise given with the institution; and Hofmann: with a word, which is alleged to mean: so that Me uttered His effective will, that it should become clean. But it is altogether arbitrary, since καθαρίσας already has a modal definition, to attach ἐν ῥήματι thereto in addition, and on the other hand to leave ἁγιάσῃ isolated, although ἐν ῥήμ . can very suitably as regards sense be attached to ἁγιάσῃ ; further, that which cleanses, i.e. that which not merely symbolically represents the cleansing (Schenkel), but does away with the pre-Christian guilt of sin, is baptism,[277] comp. also 1Pe_3:21, Act_2:38; Act_22:16, and not the ῥῆμα , whether we understand thereby the gospel or the words of the institution; lastly, the sense by “way of promise” Paul would have known how to express otherwise than in so indefinite and enigmatic a manner, such as, possibly, by κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν , Gal_3:29; as, indeed, also the sense understood by Hofmann could not have been more indistinctly conveyed than by the bare ἐν ῥήματι .[278] Grotius combines ἘΝ ῬΉΜΑΤΙ with ΚΑΘΑΡ ., but supplies Ὡς before ἘΝ Τῷ ΛΟΥΤΡῷ : “verbo suo quasi balneo.” As if one could simply thus supply ὡς ! Lastly, Koppe is quite wrong in holding that ἘΝ ῬΉΜΑΤΙ ἽΝΑ is in accordance with the Hebrew òì ãáø àùø nothing more than the bare ἽΝΑ . Not even the LXX. have translated thus barbarously!
[275] In Act. Thom. p. 40 f.: κατάμιξον αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν σὴν ποίμνην καθαρίσας αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ σῷ λουτρῷ κ . τ . λ ., the act of the κατάμιξον κ . τ . λ ., is (in opposition to Harless) conceived of as immediately subsequent to the act of the καθαρίσας κ . τ . λ . The Fathers, too, separate the cleansing and the sanctifying of the person who receives baptism. So e.g. Justin Martyr, de resurrect. in Grabe, Spicil. II. p. 189. Tertull. de resurrect. 8: “Caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur; caro ungitur, ut anima consecretur.” Cypr. ad Donat. de gratia, p. Ephesians 3 : “Undae genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa in expiatum pectus serenum desuper se lumen infudit,” etc.
[276] Against de Wette’s objections is to be observed, (1) that, according to Rom_10:8; Rom_10:17, ῥῆμα can certainly be taken as the gospel; (2) that sanctification is wrought indeed through the Spirit, but the Spirit is mediated through the gospel, Gal_3:5; (3) that the order of the words is not forced, but purposely chosen.
[277] This also in opposition to Theile in Winer’s Exeget. Stud. p. 187: ἐν ῥήματι is a sort of correction of τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος .
[278] What Hofmann, II. 2, p. 191, oddly enough adduces by way of elucidation: “As the husband by the word, which expresses his will to make a woman his wife, takes away from her the reproach of her virgin state (comp. Isa_4:1; 1Co_7:36), so has Christ done for the church,” drags in something entirely foreign to the matter, and, indeed, something very unsuitable, as though the church were thought of as παρθένος ὑπέρακμος !