Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 6
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Eph_6:5. τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα ] Lachm. and Rück.: τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις , following A B à , min. Clem. Dam. Theophyl. From Col_3:22.
Eph_6:6. The article before Χριστοῦ is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with preponderating testimony, to be deleted.
Eph_6:7. ὡς , which is wanting with Elz., is decidedly attested.
Eph_6:8. ὃ ἐάν τι ἓκαστος ] Lachm. and Rück. have ἓκαστος ὃ ἐάν , which was also recommended by Griesb., following A D E F G, min. Vulg. It. Bas. Dam. Other variations are, ἓκαστος ἐάν τι (B), ἐὰν ποιήσ . ἕκαστος ( à *), ἐάν τι ποι . ἓκ . ( à **), ὃ ἐάν τις ἓκαστος (1, 27, 32, al.), ἐάν τι ἕκαστ . (46, 115, al., Theoph. ms.), ἐάν τις ἓκαστ . (62, 197, al.), ἐάν τις (or τι ) ἄνθρωπος (Chrys. in Comment.). The best attested reading is accordingly ἓκαστος ὃ ἐάν . But if this had been the original one, it would not be at all easy to see how it could have given rise to variations, and specially to the introducing of the τι . The Recepta, on the other hand (again adopted by Tisch.), became very easily the source of the other readings, if the copyist passed over from OTI at once to the subsequent TI. Thus arose the corruption ὃτι ἓκαστος ποιήσῃ κ . τ . λ ., and thence, by means of different ways of restoring what had been omitted, were formed the variations, in which case ἄνθρωπος came in instead of ἓκαστος as a gloss, designed to indicate the general sense of ἓκαστος .
κομιεῖται ] A B D* F G * à Petr. alex.: κομίσεται .[291] So Lachm. Tisch. Rück. In Col_3:25, likewise, these two forms are found side by side in the critical witnesses. Nevertheless here, as there, κομίσεται is more strongly attested, and hence to be preferred. κομιεῖται may have originated in a reminiscence of 1Pe_5:4
Eph_6:9. ἱμῶν αὐτῶν ] many variations, among which αὐτῶν κ . ὑμῶν (so Lachm. Tisch. Rück, and Harless; recommended also by Griesb.) is that most strongly attested, namely, by A B D* min. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Copt. Clem. Pet. Chrys. (alicubi) Damasc. Jer. Aug. Pel. Rightly. The mention of the slaves ( αὐτῶν ) appeared here partly in itself, partly from a comparison with Col_4:1, not relevant; hence the Recepta (anew defended by Reiche) ὑμῶν αὐτῶν , in which case αὐτῶν applies to the masters, just as αὐτῶν ὑμῶν in E F G, and merely ὑμῶν in 17. Others, leaving the καί standing, at least prefixed ὑμῶν (L, min. Syr. p. Fathers: ὑμῶν καί αὐτῶν ). à * testifies in favour of Lachmann’s reading by ἑαυτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν , whereas à **, like the others, has regarded the prefixing of ὑμῶν (thus ὑμ . κ . ἑαυτ .) as necessary.
Eph_6:10. τὸ λοιπόν ] Lachm. and Rück. read τοῦ λοιποῦ , following A B à * 17, 73, 118, Cyril, Procop. Dam. Thus at least not preponderantly supported. In favour, however, of τὸ λοιπόν , testifies also the reading δυναμοῦσθε , which is found in B 17, instead of the following ἐνδυναμοῦσθε , and probably has arisen from the confounding on the part of the copyist of the N in λοιπόν with the N in ΕΝδυναμοῦσθε . Since, moreover, τὸ λοιπόν better accords with the sense than τοῦ λοιποῦ (see on Gal_6:17), I hold the latter to be a mechanical repetition from Gal. l.c.
The following ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ ΜΟΥ is wanting in B D E à * Aeth. Arm. Clar. Germ. Goth. Cyril, Damasc. Lucifer, Ambrosiast. Jerome; while in A[292] F G, codd. Ital. Syr. p. Vulg. Theodoret, only ΜΟΥ is wanting. ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ ΜΟΥ , which Griesb. also holds suspected, and Lachm. Tisch. Rück. have deleted, is an addition from Php_3:1; Php_4:8; 2Th_3:1; 2Co_13:11. And this addition, too, tells in favour of the originality of ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ .
Eph_6:12. ἩΜῖΝ ] B D* F G, 52, 115, Syr. Ar. pol. Slav. ant. It. Goth. Lucif. Ambrosiast.: ὙΜῖΝ . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rück. But how naturally would ὙΜῖΝ suggest itself to the copyists, inasmuch as the whole context speaks in the second person!
ΤΟῦ ΣΚΌΤΟΥς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ ] Elz. has ΤΟῦ ΣΚ . ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ , in opposition to decisive witnesses. Expansion by way of gloss.
Eph_6:16. ἘΠῚ ΠᾶΣΙΝ ] Lachm. reads ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙΝ , for which more current expression, however, only B à , min. Vulg. It. and some Fathers testify, and several vss. are doubtful.
ΤΆ before ΠΕΠΥΡ . is wanting, indeed, in B D* F G, and is deleted by Lachm., but was easily regarded as superfluous and thus passed over.
Eph_6:17. ΔΈΞΑΣΘΕ ] is wanting in D* F G, codd. It. and various Fathers, while A D*** K L and min. read ΔΈΞΑΣΘΑΙ (so Matth.), and Arm. places ΔΆΞΑΣΘΕ before ΤῊΝ ΠΕΡΙΚΕΦ . Suspected by Griesb. But if no verb had stood, and a gloss had been supplied, we should most naturally expect ἀναλάβετε to be added. In consideration, however, of the seeming redundancy, it is much more likely that the omission was made. The infinitive has come in after the preceding ΣΒΈΣΑΙ .
Eph_6:18. ΑὐΤῸ ΤΟῦΤΟ ] A B à , min. Basil, Chrys. (in commentary) Damasc. have only ΑὐΤΌ ; D* F G have ΑὐΤΌΝ , and Latins in illum or in illo s. ipso, which readings likewise tell in favour of the simple ΑὐΤΌ . With reason (in opposition to Reiche) ΤΟῦΤΟ is disapproved by Griesb., and rejected by Lachm. Tisch. Rück. An exegetical, more precise definition in accordance with Paul’s practice elsewhere.
Eph_6:19. ΔΟΘῇ ] Elz. has ΔΟΘΕΊΗ , in opposition to decisive testimony. Perhaps occasioned by a mere repetition of the H in copying.
Eph_6:21. ΕἸΔῆΤΕ ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς ] Lachm. and Rück. read ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς ΕἸΔῆΤΕ . So A D E E G à , min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Lat. Fathers. In what follows Lachm. and Rück. place ΓΝΩΡΊΣΕΙ before ὙΜῖΝ , following B D E F G à , min. It. Goth. Ambrosiast. The latter from Col_4:7. And the former is to be explained from the circumstance that ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς was, through inattention to the reference of the ΚΑΊ , omitted as superfluous (so still in cod. 17), and was thereupon reintroduced according to the order of the words which primarily suggested itself, by which means it came before εἰδῆτε .
[291] A reads ΚΟΜΙΣΕΤΕ , and thus testifies indirectly in favour of κομίσεται .
[292] A has ἀδελφοί only after ἐνδυναμοῦσθε .
CONTENTS.
How the children (Eph_6:1-3), the fathers (Eph_6:4), the slaves (Eph_6:5-8), and the masters (Eph_6:9) are to demean themselves. Concluding exhortation to the acquiring of Christian strength, for which purpose the readers are to put on the whole armour of God, and thus armed to stand forth, in order victoriously to sustain the conflict with the diabolic powers (Eph_6:10-17); in connection with which they are ever to apply themselves to prayer, and to make intercession for all Christians, and, in particular, for the apostle (Eph_6:18-20). Sending of Tychicus (Eph_6:21-22). Concluding wishes (Eph_6:23-24).