Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 6:19 - 6:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_6:19. Καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ] καί : and in particular. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11, 713. The special point which, in connection with the intercession embracing all Christians, he would have to be made matter of supplication for himself, is stated in what follows. ὑπέρ expresses, as previously the περί in current use, the sense in commodum (see Schaefer, App. ad Dem. I. p. 190; Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188); and only the form of sensuous perception, which underlies the two prepositions, is different, as in the case of the Germ. über and um; comp. 1Pe_3:18. It is wrongly assumed by Harless that only ὑπέρ expresses in itself the relation of care for, and not περί . The notion of the latter—that of encircling—in fact sensuously embodies such care; hence with classical writers too, especially with Demosthenes, περί and ὑπέρ are interchanged without any difference of sense, e.g. phil. ii. p. 74, 35: μὴ περὶ τῶν δικαίων μηδʼ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἔξω πραγμάτων εἶναι τὴν βουλήν , ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ , 10. 16: οὐ περὶ δόξης οὐδʼ ὑπὲρ μέρους χώρας πολεμοῦσι , Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17: ὑπὲρ τούτων περὶ αὐτοῦ παραγνῶναι , Thucyd. vi. 78. Ephesians 1 : ὑπέρ γε τῆς ἐμῆς κινδυνεύειν , ἐνθυμηθήτω οὐ περὶ τῆς ἐμῆς μᾶλλον .
ἵνα μοι δοθῇ κ . τ . λ .] Aim of the καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ , and consequently contents of the intercession for the apostle (comp. on Eph_3:16): in order that utterance may be given to me on the opening of my mouth, i.e. that there may not be withheld from me by God, but may on the contrary be conferred, that which I ought to speak when I open my mouth. That Paul means the speaking with a view to the proclamation of the gospel, is from the context (see ἐν παῤῥησ . γνωρ . κ . τ . λ .) clear. The emphasis, however, is upon δοθῇ , to which, in the sequel, ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ significantly corresponds; for this freedom of speech is the consequence wished for by Paul from that bestowal. Comp. Luk_21:15. As to ἀνοίγειν τὸ στόμα , which in itself represents nothing else than the opening of the mouth to speak, comp. on Mat_5:2; 2Co_6:11; on the substantive ἄνοιξις , comp. Thuc. iv. 67. 3. The expression is graphic, and has here something of a pathetic nature, without, however, containing a qualitative feature of the discourse itself, not even the character of unpremeditated utterance (Oecumenius: ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ἀνοῖξαι ὁ λόγος προήει ), which would have been expressed by ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀνοίξει τοῦ στ ., or in a similar significant way. This at the same time in opposition to Calvin, Boyd, Zanchius, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others, including Koppe, Rückert, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, Schenkel, who explain: unreservedly, frankly, which would have to be attached not to what follows (see below), but closely to λόγος , and thereby, again, the ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρ . would be unwarrantably anticipated. Following Bullinger, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others,[313] Harless and Olshausen understand the ἌΝΟΙΞΙς ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς as the act of God (comp. Eze_3:27; Eze_29:21; Eze_32:22; Psa_51:17), holding it to denote: the bestowed capacity of speaking in contrast to an earlier bound state of the tongue. Paul would thus have said: “in order that utterance may be given unto me through my mouth being opened.” But what needless diffuseness of expression, since ΔΟΘῇ ΛΌΓΟς and ἌΝΟΙΞΙς ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς would be just the same thing! Kypke and Koppe attach ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στ . μ . to what follows; in which case Kypke regards ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ as epexegesis of ἀνοίξει τ . στ . μ ., and Koppe, following Grotius,[314] refers ἐν παῤῥ . to the outward freedom: “non vinculis constrictus in carcere latens.” The latter explanation is logically erroneous, since, thus understood, ἐν παῤῥησ . would be something quite other than the ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματος , and thus could not be added by way of apposition, without καί ; and linguistically erroneous, since παῤῥησία never denotes outward freedom, and here especially its signification of boldness is rendered clear by the παῤῥησιάσωμαι of Eph_6:20. Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 99 f. In opposition to Kypke, it may be urged that an addition of so purely exegetical a character, as ἐν παῤῥ . would be to ἐν ἀνοίξ . τ . στόμ . μ ., would not be in keeping with the elevated style of the discourse, which is not couched in anything like a didactic tone. Köster (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 317), with whom, in the main, Bleek agrees, attaches ἐν ἀνοίξ . τ . στόμ . μ . to what follows, and takes δοθῇ λόγος in the well-known classical sense: to allow one to come to speech, to let him speak (Dem. 26, 18; 27, 9; 508, 16; 1220, 20; comp. λόγου τυχεῖν , 229, 13); so that Paul is supposed to say: “that opportunity to speak may be given to me, namely, at the opening of my mouth (that is, when I wish to speak) frankly to proclaim,” etc. But even in this way ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόμ . μου . would be only a needless and cumbrous addition.
ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι κ . τ . λ .] with frankness to make known the mystery of the gospel, i.e. the mystery (see on Eph_1:9) which forms the contents of the gospel. The opportunity of preaching was not taken from the apostle in his captivity at Caesarea (Act_24:23), nor yet afterwards at Rome (Act_28:30 f.). Should we attach ἐν παῤῥ . to what precedes (Vatablus: “ut detur mihi aperto ore loqui libere, ut notum faciam,” etc.), γνωρίσαι would be without a necessary modal definition.
[313] Grotius also regards the ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματος as the act of God: “sic Deus labia aperire dicitur, ubi materiam suppeditat sibi gratias agendi, Psa_51:15,” yet makes out of it, after the Rabbinical ôúçåï ôä (see Capell. Spicileg. p. 112; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1872), occasione (loquendi) data. But the sense, “opportunity to speak,” could only so be brought out in the event of the words running thus: ἵνα μοι δοθῇ ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματός μου .
[314] “Ut ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem evang.,” etc.
REMARK.
If the Recepta δοθείη were genuine, the statement of aim, introduced by ἵνα , would be adduced from the mind of the persons praying, thus in the character of the oratio obliqua. See on Eph_1:17.