Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 6:12 - 6:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_6:12. I am warranted in saying πρὸς τὰς μεθοδ . τοῦ διαβόλου ; for we have not the wrestling with feeble men, but we have to contend with the diabolic powers. This contrast Paul expresses descriptively, and with what rhetorical power and swelling fulness! Observe, moreover, that the conflict to which Paul here refers is, according to Eph_6:13, still future; but it is by ἔστιν realized as present.
οὐκ … ἀλλά ] The negation is not non tam, or non tantum (Cajetanus, Vatablus, Grotius, and others), but absolute (Winer, p. 439 ff. [E. T. 622]); since the conflict on the part of our opponents is one excited and waged not by men, but by the devilish powers (though these make use of men too as organs of their hostility to the kingdom of God).[299]
ἡ πάλη ] The article denotes generically the kind of conflict, which does not take place in the case of the Christians ( ἡμῖν ); they have not the wrestling with blood and flesh. Nothing else, namely, than lucta, a wrestling, is the meaning of the πάλη (Hom. Il. xxiii. 635, 700 ff.; Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 27; Plat. Legg. vii. 795 D; and Ast, ad Legg. p. 378), a word occurring only here in the N.T., and evidently one specially chosen by the apostle (who elsewhere employs ἀγών or ΜΆΧΗ ), with the view of bringing out the more strongly in connection with ΠΡῸς ΑἿΜΑ ΚΑῚ ΣΆΡΚ . the contrast between this less perilous form of contest and that which follows. Now, as the notion of the ΠΆΛΗ is not appropriate to the actual conflict of the Christians ΠΡῸς ΤᾺς ἈΡΧΆς Κ . Τ . Λ ., because it is not in keeping either with the ΠΑΝΟΠΛΊΑ in general or with its several constituent parts afterwards mentioned Eph_6:14 ff., but serves only to express what the Christian conflict is not; after ἀλλά we have not mentally to supply again Ἡ ΠΆΛΗ , but rather the general notion of kindred signification ἡ μάχη , or ΜΑΧΕΤΈΟΝ ,[300] as frequently with Greek writers (see Döderlein, de brachyl. in his Reden u. Aufs. ii. p. 269 ff. Krüger, Regist. zu Thucyd., p. 318), and in the N.T. (Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 336 [E. T. 392]) we have to derive from a preceding special notion an analogous more general one. What we have to sustain, Paul would say, is not the (less perilous) wrestling contest with blood and flesh, but we have to contend with the powers and authorities, etc. We have accordingly neither to say that with πάλη Paul only lighted in passing on another metaphor (my own former view), nor to suppose (the usual opinion) that he employed πάλη in the general sense of certamen, which, however, is only done in isolated poetic passages (Lycophr. 124, 1358), and hence we have the less reason to overlook the designed choice of the expression in our passage, or to depart from its proper signification.
πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα ] i.e. against feeble men, just as Gal_1:16. Only here and Heb_2:14 (Lachmann, Tischendorf) does αἷμα stand first, which, however, is to be regarded as accidental. Matthies (so already Prudentius, Jerome, Cajetanus) understands the lusts and desires having their root in one’s own sensuous individuality; but this idea must have been expressed by πρὸς τὴν σάρκα alone without αἷμα (Gal_5:17; Gal_5:24, al.), and is, moreover, at variance with the context, since the contrast is not with enemies outside of us, but with superhuman and superterrestrial enemies.
πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς ] This, as well as the following πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας , designates the demons, and that according to their classes (analogous to the classes of angels),[301] of which the ἀρχαί seem to be of higher rank than the ἐξουσίαι (see on Eph_1:21), in which designation there is at the same time given the token of their power, and this their power is then in the two following clauses ( πρὸς τοὺς … ἐπουρανίοις ) characterized with regard to its sphere and to its ethical quality.[302] The exploded views, according to which human potentates of different kinds were supposed to be denoted by ἀρχ ., ἐξουσ . κ . τ . λ ., may be seen in Wolf.
πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτ . τοῦ σκότ . τούτου ] i.e. against the rulers of the world, whose domain is the present darkness. The σκότος τοῦτο is the existing, present darkness, which, namely, is characteristic of the αἰὼν οὗτος , and from which only believers are delivered, inasmuch as they have become φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ , τέκνα τοῦ φωτός (Eph_4:8-9), being translated out of the domain opposed to divine truth into the possession of the same, and thus becoming themselves ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ (Php_2:15). The reading τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου is a correct gloss. This pre-Messianic darkness is the element adverse to God, in which the sway of the world-ruling demons has its essence and operation, and without which their dominion would not take place. The devils are called κοσμοκράτορες (comp. Orph. H. viii. 11, xi. 11), because their dominion extends over the whole world, inasmuch as all men (the believers alone excepted, Eph_2:2) are subject to them. Thus Satan is called ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου , 2Co_4:4, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου , Joh_12:31; Joh_16:11 (comp. Joh_14:30), and of the world it is said that ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ Πονηρῷ κεῖται , 1Jn_5:19. The Rabbins, too, adopted the word ÷æîå÷øèåø , and employed it sometimes of kings, while they also say of the angel of death that God has made him κοσμοκράτωρ . See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 790; Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud, p. 2006 f.; Wetstein, p. 259. Later also the Gnostics called the devil by this name (Iren. i. 1), and in the Testamentum Salomonis (Fabricius, Pseudepigr. i. p. 1047) the demons say to Solomon: ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα , οἱ κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου . The opinion that the compound has been weakened into the general signification rulers (Harless) is not susceptible of proof, and not to be supported by such Rabbinical passages as Bresh. rabba, sect. 58 f., 57. Ephesians 1 : “Abrahamus persecutus quatuor κοσμοκράτορας ,” where κοσμοκράτ . denotes the category of the kings, and this chosen designation has the aim of glorifying. See also, in opposition to this alleged weakening, Shir. R. 3, Ephesians 4 : “Tres reges κοσμοκράτορες : dominantes ab extremitate mundi ad extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnezar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar.”
ΠΡῸς ΤᾺ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚᾺ Τῆς ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑς ] against the spirit-hosts of wickedness. The adjective neuter, singular or plural, is collective, comprehending the beings in question according to their qualitative category as a corporate body, like τὸ πολιτικόν , the burgess-body (Herod. vii. 103); τὸ ἱππικόν , the cavalry (Rev_9:16); τὰ ληστρικά , the robbers (Polyaen. v. 14, 141), τὰ δοῦλα , τὰ αἰχμάλωτα κ . τ . λ . See Bernhardy, p. 326. Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 299], correctly compares τὰ δαιμόνια according to its original adjectival nature.
Τῆς ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑς ] genitivus qualitatis, characterizing the spirit-hosts meant; ἐπειδὴ γάρ εἰσι καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι πνεύματα , προσέθηκε τῆς πονηρίας , Theodoret. Moral wickedness is their essential quality; hence the devil is pre-eminently ὁ πονηρός . The explanation spirituales nequitias (Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Clarius, Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and others) is impossible, since, if ΤᾺ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΆ expressed the quality substantively and raised it to the position of subject (see Matthiae, p. 994; Kühner, II. p. 122), we should have to analyse it as: the spiritual nature, or the spiritual part, the spiritual side of wickedness, all of which are unsuitable to the context.
ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἘΠΟΥΡΑΝΊΟΙς ] Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Castalio, Camerarius, Heinsius, Clarius, Calovius, Glass, Witsius, Wolf, Morus, Flatt, and others incorrectly render: for the heavenly possessions, so that it would indicate the object of the conflict, and ἐν would stand for ὑπέρ or διά . Against this view we may urge not the order of the words, since in fact this element pushed on to the end would be brought out with emphasis (Kühner, II. p. 625), but certainly the ἘΝ , which does not mean on account of,[303] and τὰ ἐπουράνια , which in our Epistle is always meant in a local sense (see on Eph_1:3). The view of Matthies is also incorrect, that it denotes the place where of the conflict: “in the kingdom of heaven, in which the Christians, as received into that kingdom, are also constantly contending against the enemies of God.” τὰ ἐπουράνια does not signify the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Matthies, but the heavenly regions, heaven. Rückert, too, is incorrect, who likewise understands the place where of the conflict, holding that the contest is to be sustained, as not with flesh and blood, so also not upon the same solid ground, but away in the air, and is thus most strictly mars iniquus. Apart from the oddness of this thought, according to it the contrast would in fact be one not of terrestrial and superterrestrial locality, but of solid ground and baseless air, so that Paul in employing ἐν τοῖς ἐπουραν . would have selected a quite inappropriate designation, and must have said ἐν τῷ ἀέρι . Baumgarten-Crusius gives us the choice between two incorrect interpretations: the kingdom of spirits, to which the kingdom of Christ too belongs, or the affairs of that kingdom. The correct connection is with τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας , so that it expresses the seat of the evil spirits. So Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Vatablus, Estius, Grotius, Erasmus Schmid, Bengel, Koppe, and many, including Usteri, Meier, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek. This “in the heavenly regions” is not, however, in accordance with the context, to be understood of the abode of God, of Christ, and of the angels (Eph_3:10);[304] but, according to the popular view (comp. Mat_6:26)—in virtue of the flexible character of the conception “heaven,” which embraces very different degrees of height (compare the conception of the seven heavens, 2Co_12:2)—of the superterrestrial regions, which, although still pertaining to the domain of the earth’s atmosphere, yet relatively appear as heaven, so that in substance τὰ ἐπουράνια here denotes the same as ὁ ἀήρ , by which at Eph_2:2 the domain of the Satanic kingdom is accurately and properly designated.[305] This passage serves as a guide to the import of ours, which is wrongly denied by Hahn (Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 336 f.) on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of ἀήρ , Eph_2:2. According to the Rabbins, too, the lower of the seven heavens still fall within the region of the atmosphere. See Wetstein, ad 2Co_12:2. And the reason why Paul does not here say ἐν τῷ ἀέρι is, that he wishes to bring out as strongly as possible the superhuman and superterrestrial nature of the hostile spirits, for which purpose to name the air as the place of their dwelling might be less appropriate than to speak of the heavenly regions, an expression which entirely accords with the lively colouring of his picture.[306] Semler and Storr, ignoring this significant bearing and suitableness of the expression, have arbitrarily imported a formerly, as though the previous abode of the demons had any connection with the matter! Schenkel has even imported the irony of a paradox, which has the design of making the assumption of divine power and glory on the part of the demons ridiculous, as though anything of the sort were at all in keeping with the whole profound seriousness of our passage, or could have been recognised by any reader whatever! Hofmann finally (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 455) has, after a rationalizing fashion, transformed the simple direct statement of place into the thought: “not limited to this or that locality of the earthly world, but overruling the same, as the heavens encircle the earth.” The thought of this turn so easily made Paul would have known how to express—even though he had but said: τὰ ὄντα ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις , or more clearly: τὰ ὄντα πανταχοῦ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν . The absence of a connective article is not at all opposed to our interpretation, since τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις might the more be combined into one idea, as it was the counterpart of such spirits upon earth. Comp. τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι , 1Ti_6:17, and see on Eph_2:11, Eph_3:10.
The πρός , four times occurring after ἀλλά , has rhetorical emphasis, as it needed to be used but once. Comp. Dem. 842, 7: πρὸς παίδων , πρὸς γυναικῶν , πρὸς τῶν ὄντων ὑμῖν ἀγαθῶν , Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 524]; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 341 [E. T. 398].
As at Eph_2:2, so here also, Gnosticism is found by Baur in expression and conception, because, forsooth, Marcion and the Valentinians designated the devil as the κοσμοκράτωρ , and the demoniac powers as τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας (Iren. i. 5. 4, i. 28. 2). This is the inverting method of critical procedure.
[299] Comp. already Augustine, De verbo Dom. 8: “Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, i.e. adversus homines, quos videtis saevire in nos. Vasa sunt, alius utitur; organa sunt, alius tangit.”
[300] Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 249 C: πρός γε τοῦτον παντὶ λόγῳ μαχετέον .
[301] “As every kingdom as such is inwardly organised, so also is the kingdom of the evil spirits,” Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 347.
[302] Observe how in our passage every word rises up as a witness against all attempts to make of the devil a mere abstraction, a personified cosmic principle, and the like. Beyschlag too, Christol. d. N.T. p. 244 f., contests, without, however, at the time entering into a detailed argument, the personality of Satan, as of the world of angels and spirits in general, and regards him as the vital principle of matter, the self-seeking of nature, etc.
[303] Where it is rendered so according to the approximate sense, the analysis follows another course. See on Mat_6:7; Joh_16:30; Act_7:29; 2Co_9:4.
[304] In opposition to Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 345.
[305] Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. III. p. 309 f. Prudentius has already, Hamartigenia, S13 ff., in a poetic paraphrase of our passage, correctly apprehended the meaning:—
[306] Entirely uncalled for, therefore, and less in keeping with the colouring of the passage, would be the alteration already discussed in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 94, whereby, namely, τίνες had changed the ἐπουρανίοις into ὑπουρανίοις —a conjecture approved by Erasmus, Beza, and Grundling (in Wolf). Luther, who translates “under the heaven,” probably did so, not as taking ἐν for ὑπό ,—like Alting subsequently (in Wolf),—but by way of explanation. Already in Homer οὐρανός is, as is well known, employed of the higher region of air (under the firmament). See Nägelsbach, Hom. Theol. p. 19.
“Sed cum spiritibus tenebrosis nocte dieque
Congredimur, quorum dominatibus humidus iste
Et pigris densus nebulis obtemperat aër.
Scilicet hoc medium coelum inter et infima terrae,
Quod patet ac vacuo nubes suspendit hiatu,
Frena potestatum variarum sustinet ac sub
Principe Belial rectoribus horret iniquis.
His conluctamur praedonibus, ut sacra nobis
Oris apostolici testis sententia prodit.”
Comp. Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 144.
According to Ascens. Isaiah 10, it is the Jirmamentum, in which the devil dwells.