Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 6:20 - 6:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_6:20. For which (to conduct its cause) I discharge the office of ambassador in a chain. Comp. on 2Co_5:20. It is to be explained neither as though ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύων ἐν ἁλύσει εἰμί (Zachariae, Rückert, Matthies) were written, nor as though ὑπὲρ οὗ καὶ ἐν ἁλύσει πρεσβεύω were the reading (Grotius: “nunc quoque non desino legationem,” etc.); nor is οὗ to be referred, as is usually the case, merely to τοῦ εὐαγγελ ., but to τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγ ., seeing that this was the object of γνωρίσαι , and to this γνωρίσαι the πρεσβεύω significantly corresponds. Comp. Col_4:3 : λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ , διʼ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι .
πρεσβεύω ] whose ambassador he is, was at once understood by the reader, namely, Christ’s; and equally so to whom his embassy was addressed, namely, to all peoples, specially the Gentiles (Act_9:15; Act_22:15; Rom_1:14; Rom_11:13; Gal_2:9). The opinion of Michaelis, that Paul designates himself as delegate of Christ to the Roman court, would, even if he had written the Epistle in Rome, be imported, since no reader could find anything else than the apostle denoted by πρεσβεύω without more precise definition.
ἐν ἁλύσει ] On ἐν , comp. phrases like εἰς τὴν ἅλυσιν ἐμπίπτειν , Polyb. xxi. 3. 3. Wetstein, we may add, aptly observes: “alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant.” To infer, however, from the use of the singular (Baumgarten, Paley, Flatt, Steiger) the custodia militaris, in which Paul was at Rome (Act_28:20; 2Ti_1:16), is too hasty; partly for the general reason that the singular must by no means be urged, but may be taken collectively (Bernhardy, p. 58 f.), and partly for the special reason that we have to think of Paul at Caesarea too, and that from the very beginning of his captivity there (see on Act_24:23), as in the custodia militaris; Act_24:27; Act_26:29.[315] The significant bearing of the addition ἐν ἁλύσει is to make palpable the so much greater need of the παῤῥησία , and so the more fully to justify the longing for the intercessory prayer of the readers.
ἽΝΑ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΑῤῬΗΣ . Ὡς ΔΕῖ ΜΕ ΛΑΛ .] Parallel to the ἵνα μοι δοθῇ … εὐαγγελίου , Eph_6:19, and indeed not tautological (in opposition to Harless), but, by means of Ὡς ΔΕῖ ΜΕ ΛΑΛῆΣΑΙ , more precisely defining the thought already expressed. As similar parallels by means of a second ἵνα , comp. Rom_7:13; Gal_3:14; 1Co_12:20; 2Co_9:3. Harless regards this second ἽΝΑ as subordinate to the first. Thus the words would express not the aim on account of which Paul summons his readers to prayer, as stated by Harless, but the aim of the δοθῇ λόγος κ . τ . λ . But this would be inappropriate, since ΔΟΘῇ ΛΌΓΟς Κ . Τ . Λ . has already the definition of aim appropriate to it, namely, in ἐν παῤῥ . γνωρ . κ . τ . λ . Bengel and Meier make ἽΝΑ dependent on ΠΡΕΣΒΕΎΩ ἘΝ ἉΛΎΣΕΙ (in which case Meier imports the sense, as if the words were ἽΝΑ ΚΑῚ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ ΠΑῤῬ .); but the clause expressive of the aim: “in order that I may therein speak as boldly as I am bound to speak,” does not logically correspond to the πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει , because without any reference to ἘΝ ἉΛΎΣΕΙ . Had Paul merely written: ἽΝΑ ΠΑῤῬΗΣΙΆΣΩΜΑΙ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ (without Ὡς ΔΕῖ ΜΕ ΛΑΛῆΣΑΙ ), by which the ΠΑῤῬΗΣ . would have become emphatic,[316] or: ἽΝΑ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ ΠΑῤῬΗΣ . ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ , the logical relation would be satisfied.
ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ] namely, in the mystery of the gospel, i.e. occupied therewith, in the proclamation thereof (Matthiae, p. 1342). Comp. Act_9:27. Harless understands ἐν of the source or ground of the παῤῥησία , which has its basis in the message itself [rather: in the mystery of the gospel; see on ὙΠῈΡ ΟὟ ]. But the context represents the ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓ . as the object of the bold discourse (Eph_6:19); and the source of the παῤῥησία is in God (see 1Th_2:2), which is not indeed here expressed, but is implied in the fact that it is to be obtained for the apostle by prayer on the part of the readers.
ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι ] to be taken together (comp. Col_4:4); and after με there is not to be put any comma, by which ΛΑΛῆΣΑΙ would be connected with ΠΑῤῬΗΣ . (Koppe),—a course, which is impossible just because ΠΑῤῬΗΣ . already expresses the bold speaking; and thus λαλῆσαι , if it were to be more precisely defining, could not but of necessity have with it a modal definition (comp. 1Th_2:2). See Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 100 f.
[315] In the latter passage the plural τῶν δεσμ . τούτων is not at variance with this view, as it is rather the categoric plural, and leaves the question entirely undecided, whether Paul was bound with one or more chains.
[316] This seems also to have been felt by Bengel, who connected ὡς δεῖ με λαλ . with γνωρίσαι , which certainly could not occur to any reader.