Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 6:3 - 6:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_6:3. After Paul has just said: “the first commandment with promise,” he now adduces the definite promise, on account of which this predicate pertains to that commandment, and that according to the LXX. of Exo_20:12, Deu_5:16, with immaterial variation (LXX.: καὶ ἵνα μακροχρ . γένῃ ἐπὶ τ . γ .), and with omission of the more precise designation of Palestine, which in the LXX. follows after γῆς . This omission, however, was not occasioned by the circumstance that the promise was to bear upon long life in general (Calvin, Koppe, Rückert, Matthies, Schenkel, and many), in which case, indeed, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς might also have been left out; but Paul could so fully presuppose acquaintance with the complete words of the promise, that with the mere ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς enough was said to preclude any misunderstanding which should depart from the original sense: in the land, i.e. Palestine. So, namely, in accordance with the sense of the original text well known to the readers, is ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς to be understood, not as “upon earth;” for the promise is here adduced historically. Hence its original sense is not at all to be altered or spiritualized, or to be taken conditionally, as e.g. was done by Zanchius: if the promise is not fulfilled simpliciter, yet it is fulfilled commutations in majus; or by Calovius: “Promissiones temporales cum conditions intelligendae, quantum sc. temporalia illa nobis salutaria fore Deus censuerit;” comp. also Estius, who at the same time remarks (so again typically Olshausen, comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that the land of Canaan prefigures the kingdom of heaven (comp. Mat_5:5), and the long life everlasting blessedness. Nor is it to be said, with Bengel, Morus, Stolz, Rosenmüller, Flatt, and Harless, that the earthly blessing is promised not to the individual, but to the people. For in the summons “thou shalt” in the Decalogue, although the latter on the whole (as a whole) is directed to the people, the individual is withal addressed, as is evident from the very commandments in which the neighbour is mentioned, and as is the view underlying all the N.T. citations from the Decalogue-law, Mat_15:4; Mat_5:21; Mat_5:27; Rom_7:7; Rom_13:9.
εὖ σοι γένηται ] Comp. Gen_2:13; Deu_4:40; Sir_1:13. A Greek would employ εὖ πάσχειν , εὖ πράττειν , or the like, or even ἀγαθά σοι γένηται .
καὶ ἔσῃ κ . τ . λ .] is regarded by Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 361], and de Wette (comp. already Erasmus), not as dependent upon ἵνα , but as a direct continuation of the discourse. But this expedient is unnecessary, inasmuch as ἵνα with the future actually occurs in the case of Paul (see on 1Co_9:18; Gal_2:4); and is, moreover, here out of place, since there is not any direct continuation of the discourse in those passages of the O. T., the sense of which Paul reproduces. At Rev_22:14 also the future and subjunctive are interchanged after ἵνα , as also in classical writers the same variation after ὅπως is well known (see on the erroneous canon Dawesianus, Bremi, in Schaef. Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 277; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 335 f.; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 184 [E. T. 213]). And how aptly do the two modes of construction here suit the sense, so that γένηται expresses the pure becoming realized, and ἔσῃ μακροχρόν . the certain emergence and continued subsistence (Kühner, II. p. 491). The change is a logical climax.