Ephesians 1:23

Ephesians 1:23. Which. ‘Which indeed,' or, ‘by which I mean;' explaining the word ‘church.'

Is his body. The thought occurs repeatedly in Paul's writings; see references. The relation of Christians to Christ is that of vital union, akin to, yet in reality and intimacy exceeding, that existing between the parts of any living organism, such as a vine and its branches, the head and its members. This union, called ‘mystical,' is above and beyond any representative union, or intellectual and ethical union. This is the reality, of which all other vital organic relations are but designed parables and illustrations. (The true fellowship of Christians with each other rests on this fundamental fact.)

The fulness of him, etc. This clause, which defines further the word ‘church,' has occasioned voluminous discussion. The word ‘fulness' was a favorite one among the ancient Guostics, but in itself need not occasion great difficulty. Of the three meanings, given under Ephesians 1:10, we accept the simple passive sense, marked (2), ‘that which is filled' (so Fritzsche, Delvette, Olshausen, Stier, Meyer, Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Braune). The purely active sense, ‘the filling up' is altogether inappropriate, and the other sense, ‘that by which anything is filled,' the ‘complement,' though quite usual in the New Testament, is here open to two objections: (1.) The thought is strange; how can Christ be filled, or ‘complemented,' by the church, when He fills all in all. (2.) This interpretation compels us to take ‘who filleth' in the passive sense, ‘who is filled,' and this is quite objectionable. We therefore explain: ‘The Church is that which is filled by Him,' etc.

Who filleth. This is certainly not passive. It is taken by some as active, but is more properly reflexive (so in form). The sense may be: of Him who fills ‘from Himself,' or, ‘through Himself,' or most probably, ‘for Himself.' The present tense serves to mark this as a process now going on. The phrase is rightly applied to Christ by most modern commentators. To refer it to God seems to disturb the parallelism and to mar the logical accord of the conclusion.

All in all. Explanations: (1.) ‘All things with all things,' the preposition ‘in' being taken as instrumental, denoting ‘the thing with, or by, or in which as an element the filling takes place' (Alford). This is not open to any serious objection and gives a very appropriate sense. ‘The Church is the veritable mystical Body of Christ, yea the recipient of the plenitudes of Him who filleth all things, whether in heaven or in earth, with all the things, elements and entities, of which they are composed' (Ellicott). (2.) The second ‘all' is taken as masculine (the Greek form does not decide the question): ‘All things in all persons.' This preserves the strict sense of ‘in,' but ‘all things' occurs so frequently in the context that the masculine seems improbable here. This view presents ‘His filling efficiency in persons, in heavenly spirits and human souls, of which also His relation as Head of the Church obliges us to think' (Braune). (3.) Others limit ‘all' to the members of the Body of Christ, and then explain ‘in all' as referring to all parts, places, faculties, etc. This is entirely too limited. A mass of incorrect interpretations of the clause might be collected, but the views of recent commentators seem to be converging toward substantial agreement. The wider reference well expands Ephesians 1:22: ‘The Head of the Church is at the same time Lord of the universe. While He fills the Church fully with those blessings which have been won for it and are adapted to it, He also fills the universe with all such gifts as are appropriate to its welfare gifts which it is now His exalted prerogative to bestow' (Eadie). It is knowledge of what God did to this Head of the Church and what that pledges to us, that the Apostle asks for his readers. Not to know such truth is to be spiritually blind; to ignore it is to be unspeakably ‘narrow.'