《Eadie’s Commentary on Ephesians (Vol. )》(John Eadie) 04 Chapter Introduction Chapter 4

06 Chapter 6
Introduction

Chapter 6

THE apostle, after expounding the duties that spring out of the conjugal relation, as one sphere in which the maxim-submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ-came into operation, naturally turns to another and kindred sphere of domestic life, and addresses himself to children. And he does not speak about them, or tell their parents of them, but he looks them in the face, and lovingly says to them—“children.” It is plainly implied that children were supposed by him to be present in the sanctuary when this epistle was read, or to be able to read it for themselves, when it should be transcribed and circulated.

Verse 1

(Ephesians 6:1.) τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ—“Children, obey your parents in the Lord”-that is, “in Christ.” The words ἐν κυρίῳ are wanting in B, D¹, F, G, and are, on that account, excluded by Lachmann, but they are found in A, D³, E, I, K, the major part of mss., and the Greek fathers. They describe the element or sphere of that obedience which children are to render to their parents, and certainly do not qualify γονεῦσιν-as if the reference were to fathers in the faith, in contrast to fathers after the flesh. Not merely natural instinct, but religious motive should prompt children to obedience, and guard them in it. The love which Jesus showed to children, when He took them in His arms and blessed them, should induce them, in a spirit of filial faith and fondness, to obey their parents, and to regard with special sacredness every parental injunction. And that obedience, if prompted, regulated, and bounded by a sense of religious obligation, will be cheerful, and not sullen; prompt, and not dilatory; uniform, and not occasional; universal, and not capricious in its choice of parental precepts.

τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον—“for this is right;” the νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν in ἐστιν, and other similar verbal forms being a general characteristic in the spelling of ancient MSS. The reference of the clause is not to ἐν κυρίῳ, but to the injunction itself. Filial obedience is “right,” for it is not based on anything accidental or expedient. The meaning is not that obedience is “according to the law of God, or Scripture”- κατὰ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ νόμον-as is said by Theodoret and Calvin, and virtually by Harless and Meyer, but that it has its foundation in the very essence of that relation which subsists between parents and children. Nature claims it, while Scripture enjoins it, and the Son of God exemplified it. It is in perfect consistency with all our notions of right and moral obligation- φύσει δίκαιον, as Theophylact rightly adds. For the very names τέκνα and γονεῖς point out the origin and essential reason of that filial duty which the apostle, in Colossians, calls “well-pleasing to the Lord.”

Verse 2

(Ephesians 6:2.) τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα—“Honour thy father and thy mother”-a quotation from the fifth commandment- בּדאֶתאּ אִָָביךָוַאֶתאּאִ־ֶמּךָ à כַּ. ֵ, Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16. This citation does not, as Harless supposes, give the ground of the preceding injunction, for δίκαιον contains a specific reason; but it is another form of the same injunction, based not upon natural right, but upon inspired authority. Honour comprehends in it all that respect, reverence, love, and obedience, which the filial relation so fully implies. Though the Mosaic law did not by any means place man and woman on the same level in respect of conjugal right, yet here, in special and delicate homage to maternal claim, it places the mother in the same high position with the father himself. Marcion, according to Tertullian, left out this quotation in his so-called Epistle to the Laodiceans, because it recognized the authority of the God of the Old Testament, p. 329, vol. ii., Op. ed. Oehler.

ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ—“for such is,” or “as it is the first command with promise;” ἥτις giving explanation, or expressing reason. Winer, § 24. Some critics give πρώτος the sense of prime or chief—“which is the chief commandment connected with promise.” Such is the view of Wetstein, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, Hodge, and Robinson. The adjective may bear this signification; but such cannot be its meaning here, for the fifth commandment cannot surely be deemed absolutely the most important which God has ordained with promise. Matthew 22:38-39; Romans 13:9. Stier regards it as a first command, in point of importance, to the children whom Paul directly addresses. Ambrosiaster, Michaelis, von Gerlach, and Holzhausen propose to take πρώτη as meaning first in a certain position; and the last affirms that ἐντολή denotes only the statutes which belong to the second table-duties not of man to God, but of man to man. This is only a philological figment, devised to escape from a theological difficulty. The division of the decalogue into first and second tables has no direct foundation in Scripture; but if it be adopted, we quite agree with Stier that the fifth commandment belongs to the first table. Its position in Leviticus 19:3, and its omission in Romans 13:9, seem to prove this. The second table is comprised in this, “Love thy neighbour as thyself;” but obedience to parents cannot come under such a category. The parent stands in God's place to his child. On the division of the ten commandments separately, and on that into two tables, see Sonntag and Züllig, Stud. und Kritik. 1836-37; and Kurtz, Geschichte des Alten Bundes, vol. iii. § 10. We are obliged to join πρώτη with ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ, and render—“whic h is the first command with a promise,” ἐν pointing to that in which the firstness consists, and the promise being expressed in the following verse. Such is the view of the Greek commentators, of Jerome, of the Reformers, of Bodius, a-Lapide, Aretius, Zanchius, Crocius, and of Harless, de Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Winer, § 48, a. It has been remarked by others, that what appears a promise in the second commandment is only a broad declaration of the great principles of the divine government, and that this is really, therefore, the earliest or first of the ten commands with a promise-first, as Chrysostom says, not τῇ τάξει ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ. It has been objected that there is only one command with a promise in the decalogue, and that the apostle, if he thought of the decalogue alone, would have said, not the “first,” but the “only” command with promise. Harless says that “first” refers to what precedes, not to what follows; and Meyer suggests that Paul included in his reckoning, not the decalogue alone, but other succeeding injunctions of the Mosaic code. As a “first” implies a second, we should be inclined to adopt the last view, limiting, however, the calculation of the apostle to the first body of commands delivered at Sinai. The fifth is thus the first commandment in point of promise. The article is not needed, for ordinals having a specific power in themselves often want it. Philippians 1:12; Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 100.

Verse 3

(Ephesians 6:3.) ῞ινα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς—“That it may be well with thee, and that thou be long-lived on the earth.” The quotation is from the Septuagint version of Exodus 20:12, but somewhat varied- the words omitted being- τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἧς κύριος ό θεός σου δίδωσί σοι. Such is the promise. The phrase “that it may be well with thee”-as in Genesis 12:13, Deuteronomy 4:40 -seems to have been a common mode of expressing interest in another's welfare. In the second clause, the apostle changes the construction of the Septuagint, which reads- καὶ ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ. It had been affirmed by Erasmus, and has been reasserted by Winer (§ 41, b, b, 1) and de Wette, that the apostle drops the construction with ἵνα and uses ἔσῃ in the simple future. We agree with Meyer, that there is no genuine grammatical ground for separating ἔσῃ from ἵνα, since the apostle has in some instances connected ἵνα with the future (1 Corinthians 9:18), and there is a change of construction similar to that which this verse presents, in the Apocalypse, Revelation 22:14. Klotz-Devarius, vol. 2.630. The future ἔσῃ stands here in its proper significance, but still connected with ἵνα; and such a use of the future tense may in a climactic form indicate the direct and certain result of the previous subjunctive. Obedience secures well-being, and this being the case, “thou shalt live long on the earth.” The longevity is the result and development of its being well with thee.

΄ακροχρόνιος is “long-lived” or “long-timed,” and belongs to the later Greek. What then is the nature of this promise annexed to the fifth commandment? In its original form it had reference to the peculiar constitution of the theocracy, which both promised and secured temporal blessings to the people. The words are, “that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” The promise in its first application has been supposed to mean, that filial obedience being the test and exponent of national religion and morality, would preserve the Hebrew nation from those aberrations and crimes which led to their deportation and their ultimate expulsion. Or if the command be supposed to possess an individualizing directness, then it may mean, that under Jehovah's special guardianship the coveted blessing of longevity would be the sure fruit and noble reward of filial piety. But what is the force of the promise now? The apostle gives it a present meaning and reality, and omits as if on purpose the clause which of old restricted it to the theocracy. It is out of the question on the part of Olshausen, Schrader, and Gauthey, preceded by Estius, to spiritualize the promise, and to suppose that as Canaan was a type of heaven, so the blessing here promised is happiness in a better world. Hints of this view are found in Jerome and Thomas Aquinas. The epithet μακροχρόνιος can never denote immortal duration, and the apostle omits the very words which placed the earthly Canaan in its peculiar position and meaning as a type. On the other hand, Meyer regards this omission as unessential, and pronounces that the words “in the earth or land” refer historically and only to the land of Canaan. Our question then is, Why did the apostle make the quotation? Does it merely record an ancient fact which no longer has any existence? or does that fact suggest lessons to present times? If the former alternative, that of Meyer and Baumgarten-Crusius, be adopted, then the language of the apostle loses its significance and applicability to Christian children. Meyer says that the apostle dropt the last clause of the commandment because he presumed that his readers were well acquainted with it-a presumption we can scarcely admit in reference to the Gentile portion of the church. Rather, as we have said, do we believe, with Calvin, Rückert, and Matthies, that the apostle omitted the last clause just to make the promise bear upon regions out of Palestine, and periods distant from those of the Hebrew commonwealth. Bengel, Rosenmüller, Morus, Flatt, Harless, and Baumgarten-Crusius regard the original promise as applicable not to individuals, but to the mass of the Jewish society. The meaning, says Morus, as applied to our times is simply, patriam florere diu, ubi liberorum sit erga parentes reverentia. This comment is certainly better, though it is in a similar strain: as if blessings were promised to the mass, in which the individual shares if he remain a part of it. But such views dilute the apostle's meaning, and proceed in their basis upon a misconception of the Hebrew statute. The command is addressed to individuals, and so is the promise. The language plainly implies it—“that thy days may be long.” Our Lord so understands it (Matthew 15:4-6), and thus in the sermon on the mount He expounds the other statutes. Is it so, then, that long life is promised to obedient children? The special providence of the theocracy could easily secure it in ancient times; nay, disobedient children were by law punished with death. Nor is the hand of the Lord slackened in these days. Under Ephesians 1:3 the reader will find a reference to the place which temporal blessings occupy under the Christian economy. Godliness has “the promise of the life which now is.” Matthew 6:25, etc.; Mark 10:29, etc. Obedient children sometimes die, as ripe fruit falls first. But the promise of longevity is held out-it is a principle of the Divine administration and the usual course of providence. Not that we can say with Grotius, that man therefore has it somewhat in his power to prolong his days; or with Stier, that the life would be long, quoad sufficientiam-for obtaining salvation; or as in the maxim, sat vixit diu, quem nec pudet vixisse, nec piget mori. We understand the command, as modified by its Christian and extra-Palestinian aspect, to involve a great principle, and that is, that filial obedience, under God's blessing, prolongs life, for it implies the possession of principles of restraint, sobriety, and industry, which secure a lengthened existence. It is said in Proverbs 10:27, “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days, but the years of the wicked shall be shortened;” and in Psalms 9:11, “By me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased;” and again in Psalms 55:23, “Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days.” Not that God shortens their days by an express and formal judgment from heaven, or that all of them without exception drop into a premature grave; but the principle of the Divine government does secure that sin is its own penalty, and that vicious or criminal courses either ruin the constitution, or expose their victim to the punishment of civil law, as in the case of men whose existence is early and suddenly broken off by intemperance, imprisonment, or exile, by the scourge or the gallows. The Greeks had apothegms similar to this of the apostle. Obedient children are guided and guarded by their very veneration for their parents, and prevented from these fatal excesses; whereas the “children of disobedience” are of necessity exposed to all the juvenile temptations which lead to vice and crime. God does not bribe the child to obedience, but holds out this special and blessed result to “tender und erstandings” as a motive which they can appreciate and enjoy. OEcumenius says- τί γὰρ ἡδύτερον παισὶ τῆς μακροχρονίας?

Verse 4

(Ephesians 6:4.) καὶ οἱ πατέρες, μὴ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν—“And ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.” The καί connects closely this injunction, as one parallel or complementary to the one preceding it. The address of the apostle is to fathers, not to parents, as Flatt, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Robinson, Wahl, and Bretschneider erroneously hold it. πατέρες can scarcely be supposed to change its signification from that which it bears in the 2nd verse, and why should the apostle not have employed γονεῖς, as in the 1st verse? Fathers are here singled out, not, as Rückert wrongly holds, because mothers were in no high position in the East. Proverbs 31:10, etc. Nor is the reference to “fathers” because the father as husband is head of the wife, and this idea of Meyer, Harless, and Stier is too vague, for the advice seems scarcely appropriate to mothers, who so usually err through fondness, if the apostle spoke to them through their husbands. Nor is there any ground for Olshausen's hypothesis, that Paul refers to the education of adolescent children, which, from the nature of the case, belongs to fathers more than mothers. But the training of children is the father's special function; for the duty is devolved upon him to select and put into operation the best means and methods for the culture of his offspring. And especially does the prohibition of this first clause apply to fathers. As Chrysostom remarks, He does not say-love them- τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἀκόντων αὐτῶν ἡ φύσις ἐπισπᾶται. Chastisement is within their province, and they are apt to administer castigation in a passion, as if to gratify their ill-humour. The caution does not apply so much to mothers, for they are apt, on the other hand, to spoil the child by indulgence.

The verb παροργίζω signifies to irritate-to throw into a passion. See under Ephesians 4:26. In Colossians 3:21 the apostle uses ἐρεθίζετε—“do not rouse or provoke.” The paternal reign is not to be one of terror and stern authority, but of love. The rod may be employed, but in reason and moderation, and never from momentary impulse and anger. Children are not to be moved to “wrath” by harsh and unreasonable treatment, or by undue partiality and favouritism. If they be uniformly confronted with paternal frown and menace, then their spirit is broken, and the most powerful motive to obedience-the desire to please-is taken from them. No-

ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου—“but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord” - in disciplina et correptione. Vulgate. The verb refers here to spiritual culture, and not as in Ephesians 5:29 to physical support. παιδεία may not signify discipline in itself, but rather the entire circuit of education and upbringing which a παῖς requires, and of which discipline is the necessary and prominent element. The sense of chastisement was taken from the Hebrew מוּסָר, H4592, which it represents in the Septuagint. Leviticus 26:18 ; Psalms 6:1; Isaiah 53:5; 2 Timothy 3:16. Augustine renders it per molestias eruditio. Ast, Lex. Plat., sub voce. Chastisement is thus quite consistent with obedience to the previous injunction. Children are not to be provoked, but yet are to be corrected. νουθεσία ( νουθέτησις being the earlier form-Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 512), as several expositors have remarked, is one special element or aspect of the παιδεία. It denotes, as the composition of the word indicates, “putting in mind, admonition, or formal instruction.” Job 4:3; Romans 15:14; Colossians 1:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 2 Thessalonians 3:15; Plutarch, De Cohib. Irâ, 2; Xenophon, Mem. 1.2, 21. Jerome says-admonitionem magis et eruditionem quam austeritatem sonat. Trench, Synon. § 32. Koppe, as usual, makes the two words synonymous. The philological commentators, such as Kypke, adduce some peculiar phraseology from the classical writers, but not with great pertinence, such as from Plutarch- οἱ ῥάβδοι νουθετοῦσι, and from Josephus- μάστιξιν νουθετεῖν. Stier adopts the opinion of Luther, who renders-mit Werk und Wort, a translation which has been followed by Grotius, who takes the first term as poena, and the second as verba. We have in Proverbs 29:15 - וַתוֹכַחַת £ שׁבֶט¢ - ֵ“the rod and reproof.” The genitive κυρίου belongs to both substantives, and refers not to God, but to Christ. See under Ephesians 1:2. It cannot signify “worthy of the Lord,” as Matthies wrongly understands it; nor can it bear the meaning which Luther and Passavant give it—“to the Lord.” Neither can we accede to the view of Erasmus, Beza, Estius, Menochius, Semler, Morus, and others, who render “according to the Lord,” or in harmony with Christianity-an idea, however, which is implied. Michaelis, Scholz, a-Lapide, Grotius, and Peile give the sense “about Christ” - instruction about Christ, making the genitive that of object. Olshausen, Harless, Stier, and Meyer rightly take it as the genitive of possession—“that nurture and admonition which the Lord prescribes,” or which belongs to Him and is administered by Him. Chrysostom refers especially to the Scriptures as one source of this instruction. Such training leads to early piety, and such is ever welcome to Christ and His church. For the sun shining on a shrub, in its green youth, is a more gladsome spectacle than the evening beam falling dimly on the ivy and ruins of an old and solitary tower. Harless, Christliche Ethik, § 53, 1860, 5th ed.

The apostle next turns to a numerous and interesting class of the community-the slaves- δοῦλος, which is distinct from μίσθιος or μισθωτός, and is opposed in Ephesians 6:8 to the ἐλεύθερος. Slavery existed in all the cities of Ionia and Asia Minor, and in many of them slaves were greatly more numerous than freemen. In fact, the larger proportion of artisans and manufacturers, and in general of the industrial classes, were in bondage. There is little doubt that very many of these bondmen embraced the gospel, and became members of the early churches. Indeed, Celsus said, and no doubt with truth, that those who were active proselytizers to Christianity were- ἐριουργοὺς καὶ σκυτοτόμους καὶ κναφεῖς-weavers, cobblers, fullers, illiterate and rustic men. Origen, Contra Celsum, lib. iii. p. 144, ed. Spencer, Cantab. 1677. But Christianity did not rudely assault the forms of social life, or seek to force even a justifiable revolution by external appliances. Such an enterprise would have quenched the infant religion in blood. The gospel achieved a nobler feat. It did not stand by in disdain, and refuse to speak to the slave till he gained his freedom, and the shackles fell from his arms, and he stood erect in his native independence. No; but it went down into his degradation, took him by the hand, uttered words of kindness in his ear, and gave him a liberty which fetters could not abridge and tyranny could not suppress. Aristotle had already described him as being simply ἔμψυχον ὄργανον-a tool with a soul in it; and the Roman law had sternly told him he ha d no rights, quia nullum caput habet-because he was not a person. He may have been placed on the πρατὴρ λίθος—“the auction block,” and sold like a chattel to the highest bidder; the brand- στίγμα, of his owner might be burned into his forehead, and he might bear the indelible scars of judicial torture-that βάσανος without which a slave's evidence was never received; but the gospel introduced him into the sympathies of a new brotherhood, elevated him to the consciousness of an immortal nature, and to the hope of eternal liberty and glory. Formerly he was taught to look for final liberation only in that world which never gave back a fugitive, and he might anticipate a melancholy release only in the grave, for “there the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary be at rest; there the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor; the small and great are there, and the servant is free from his master.” Now, not only was he to look beyond the sepulchre to a region of pure and noble enjoyments; but as he could even in his present servitude realize the dignity of a spiritual freeman in Christ, the friction of his chain was unfelt, and he possessed within him springs of exalted cheerfulness and contentment. Yes, as George Herbert sings-

“Man is God's image, but a poor man is

Christ's stamp to boot.”

At the same time, Christianity lays down great principles by the operation of which slavery would be effectually abolished, and in fact, even in the Roman empire, it was suppressed in the course of three centuries. Other references of the apostle to slavery occur in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; 1 Timothy 6:1; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9; the Apostle Peter also refers to it in 1st Ephesians 2:18.

Verse 5

(Ephesians 6:5.) οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα—“Slaves, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh.” The phrase κατὰ σάρκα, though the article be not repeated, qualifies κυρίοις, and so some MSS., such as A, B, read τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, imitating Colossians 3:22. Koppe, Olshausen, and Meyer suppose in the phrase a tacit contrast to a- κύριος κατὰ πνεῦμα. Still there is no need for such a supposition, for the contrast belongs, not to such a supposed formula, but pervades the entire paragraph—“the Master,” or “the Lord,” “the Master in heaven.” Various meanings have been attached to the phrase, many of which are inferences rather than explanations. The formula κατὰ σάρκα plainly denotes a corporeal or external relationship. 1 Corinthians 1:26; 2 Corinthians 5:16, etc. Their master's sway was only over the body and its activities, and the relation was one which was bounded by bodily limits in its sphere and exactions. So that, such being its nature, the inferential exegesis of Chrysostom is plain, that the tyranny endured by the slave was only δεσποτεία πρόσκαιρος καὶ βραχεῖα—“a temporary and brief despotism.” The exegesis of Harless is a mere deduction in the form of a truism, “that in the predicate lies this idea, though in one jurisdiction they were free, still they had masters in their earthly relations.” Not less an inference is the thought of Calvin, “mitigat quod potuisset esse nimis asperum in statu servili.” If the relation of master and slave be only κατὰ σάρκα, then it is also a just deduction on the part of Grotius, Rückert, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Kistmacher, and others, that such a relation has reference only to external or earthly matters, and leaves spiritual freedom intact. Even Seneca could say-Ser vitus non in totum hominem descendit; excipitur animus. Now, if the slave followed the apostle's advice, he acquired happiness, and commended the new religion; while sullenness and refractory insolence, on pretence of spiritual freedom, would have led to misery, and brought an eclipse on Christianity.

The apostle, in the following clauses, hits upon those peculiar vices which slavery induces, and which are almost inseparable from it. The slave is tempted to indolence and carelessness. When a man feels himself doomed, degraded, and little else than a chattel, driven to work, and liable at any moment to be sent to the market-place and sold as an ox or a horse, what spring of exertion or motive to obedience can really exist within him? The benevolent shrewdness of Seneca (Ep. 47) had led him to say-Arrogantiae proverbium est, totidem esse hostes quot servos. Non habemus illos hostes, sed facimus. The apostle urges this obedience to be-