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

05 Chapter 5
Verse 1

(Ephesians 5:1.) γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ—“Do ye then become followers of God.” The collective οὖν connects this verse with the preceding exhortation, and its γίνεσθε δέ-indeed μιμητής is usually accompanied with γίνομαι. The example of God's forgiving generosity is set before them, and they are solicited to copy it. God for Christ's sake has forgiven you; “become ye then imitators of God,” and cherish a forgiving spirit towards one another. God's example has an authoritative power. The imitation of God is here limited to this peculiar duty, and cannot, as Stier thinks, have connection with the long paragraph which precedes, especially as the verb περιπατεῖτε, which is so commonly employed, need not be taken as resumptive of περιπατῆσαι in Ephesians 4:1. The words μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ are peculiar, and occur only in this place, though the terms, in an ethical sense, and with reference to a human model, are to be found in 1 Corinthians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 6:12. Ye should forgive, as God forgives, and thus be imitators of Him, or, as Theodoret says- ζηλώσατε τὴν συγγένειαν. And they are enjoined to study and perfect this moral resemblance by the blessed thought that, in doing so, they feel and act-

ὡς τέκνα ἀγαπητά—“as children beloved;” as children who, in their adoption, have enjoyed so much of a father's affection. They cannot be imitators of God as Creator. They may resemble Him as the God of Providence, in feeding and clothing the indigent; but especially can they copy Him in His highest character as Redeemer, when, like Him, they pardon offenders, and so imitate His royal and lofty prerogative. Disinterested love is a high element of perfection, as described by the great Teacher Himself. Matthew 5:45-48. Tholuck, Bergpredigt, Matthew 5:45. This duty of imitation on the part of God's children is well expressed by Photius—“To institute an action against one who has injured us is human; not to take revenge on him is the part of a philosopher: but to compensate him with benefit is Divine, and shows men of earth to be followers of the Father who is in heaven.”

Verse 2

(Ephesians 5:2.) καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ—“And walk in love.” The same admonition under another and closer aspect is continued in this verse. The love in which we are to walk is such a love in kind as Christ displayed in dying for us. The apostle had just spoken of “God in Christ” forgiving men, and now, and very naturally, that Christ in the plenitude and glory of His love is also introduced-

καθὼς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς—“as also, or even as, Christ loved us.” Tischendorf, after A and B, reads ὑμᾶς, and on the authority of B reads also ὑμῶν in the following clause; but the ordinary reading is preferable, as the direct form of address may have suggested the emendation. The immeasurable fervour of Christ's love is beyond description. See under Ephesians 3:19. That love which is set before us was noble, ardent, and self-sacrificing; eternal, boundless, and unchanging as its possessor-more to Him than the possession of visible equality with God, for He veiled the splendours of divinity; more to Him than heaven, for He left it; more to Him than the conscious enjoyment of His Father's countenance, for on the cross He suffered the horrors of a spiritual eclipse, and cried, “Why hast Thou forsaken me?” more to Him, in fine, than His life, for He freely surrendered it. That love was embodied in Christ as He walked on earth, and especially as He bled on the cross; for He loved us-

καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν—“and gave Himself for us”-in proof and manifestation of His love- καί being exegetical. The verb implies full surrender, and the preposition ὑπέρ points out those over whom or in room of whom such self-tradition is made. Usteri, Lehrb. p. 117; Meyer on Romans 5:6; Ellicott on Galatians 3:13. John 15:13; Romans 5:8; Galatians 2:20. The general idea is, that Christ's love led to His self - surrender as a sacrifice. He was no passive victim of circumstances, but in active and spontaneous attachment He gave up Himself to death, and for such as we are-His poor, guilty, and ungrateful murderers. The context and not simply ὑπέρ shows that this is the meaning. The manner of His self-sacrifice is defined in the next words-

προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν—“an offering and a sacrifice”-oblationem et hostiam. Vulgate. The words are in the accusative, and in apposition with ἑαυτόν, forming its predicate nouns. Madvig, § 24. A similar combination of terms occurs in Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 10:8, while δῶρα, a noun of kindred meaning, is used with θυσία in Hebrews 5:1; Hebrews 8:3; Hebrews 9:9. δῶρον usually represents in Leviticus and Numbers the Hebrew קָרַבָּן, H7933, and is not in sense different from προσφορά . Deyling, Observ. 1.352. The first substantive, προσφορά, represents only the Hebrew מִנַחָה, H4966, once in the Septuagint, though oftener in the Apocrypha. It may mean a bloodless oblation, though sometimes in a wider signification it denotes an oblation of any kind, and even one of slain victims. Acts 21:26 ; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:18. θυσία, as its derivation imports, is the slaying of a victim-the shedding of its blood, and the burning of its carcase, and frequently represents ‡ ֶזבַח, H2285, in the Septuagint; Exodus 34:15 ; Leviticus 2, 3 passim, 7:29; Deuteronomy 12:6; Deuteronomy 12:27; 1 Samuel 2:14; Matthew 9:13; Mark 12:33; Luke 2:24; Luke 13:1; Acts 7:41-42; 1 Corinthians 10:18; Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:23; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 10:12. It sometimes in the Septuagint represents חַטָּאת, H2633, sin-offering, and often in representing מִנַחָה, H4966, it means a victim. See Tromm. Concord. We do not apprehend that the apostle, in the use of these terms, meant to express any such precise distinction as that now described. We cannot say with Harless, “that Jesus, in reference to Himself and His own free-will, was an offering, but in reference to others was a sacrifice.” On the other hand, “the last term,” says Meyer, “is a nearer definition of the former.” We prefer the opinion, that both terms convey, a nd are meant to convey, the full idea of a sacrifice. It is a gift, and the gift is a victim; or the victim slain is laid on the altar an offering to God. Not only is the animal slain, but it is presented to God. Sacrifice is the offering of a victim. The idea contained in προσφορά covers the whole transaction, while that contained in θυσία is a distinct and characteristic portion of the process. Jesus gave Himself as a sacrifice in its completest sense-a holy victim, whose blood was poured out in His presentation to God. In the meantime it may be remarked, that the suffering involved in sacrifice, such unparalleled suffering as Christ endured as our sacrifice, proves the depth and fervour of His affection, and brightens that example of love which the apostle sets before the Ephesian church.

τῷ θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας—“to God for the savour of a sweet smell”-the genitive being that of characterizing quality. Winer, § 30, 2; Scheuerlein, § 16, 3. Some, such as Meyer and Holzhausen, join τῷ θεῷ to the verb παρέδωκεν, but the majority connect them with the following phrase:-1. They may stand in close connection with the nouns προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν, with which they may be joined as an ethical dative. Harless says indeed, that εἰς θάνατον is the proper supplement after παρέδωκε, but θυσία here implies it. εἰς θάνατον may be implied in such places as Romans 4:25; Romans 8:32, but here we have the same preposition in the phrase εἰς ὀσμήν. The preposition εἰς occurring with the verb denotes the purpose, as in Matthew 24:9; Acts 13:2. Winer, § 49; Bernhardy, p. 218. In those portions of the Septuagint where the phraseology occurs, κυρίῳ follows εὐωδίας, so that the connection cannot be mistaken. 2. Or the words τῷ θεῷ may occupy their present position because of their close connection with ὀσμή, and we may read—“He gave Himself an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.” It is not easy to say which is preferable, τῷ θεῷ being peculiarly placed in reference both to the beginning and the end of the verse. The phrase is based on the peculiar sacrificial idiom of the Old Testament-˜ ֵריחַאּנִיחָוֹחַ . Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 1:13; Leviticus 1:17; Leviticus 2:9; Leviticus 2:12; Leviticus 3:5. It is used tropically in 2 Corinthians 2:14, and is explained and expanded in Philippians 4:18—“a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.” The burning of spices or incense, so fragrant to the Oriental senses, is figuratively applied to God. Not that He has pleasure in suffering for its own sake. Nor can we say, wi th Olshausen, that the Divine pleasure arises wholly from the love and obedience which Jesus exhibited in His sufferings and death. This idea of Olshausen is to some extent similar to that of several recent writers, who do not give its own prominence to the vicarious suffering of our Lord, but, as we think, lay undue stress on several minor concomitants.

Now the radical idea of sacrifice is violent and vicarious suffering and death. But the theory referred to seems to place the value of Christ's sufferings not in their substitutionary nature, but in the moral excellence of Him who endured them. This is a onesided view. That Jehovah rejoiced in the devoted and self-sacrificing spirit of His Son-in His meekness, heroism, and love, is most surely believed by us. And we maintain, that the sufferings of Christ gave occasion for the exhibition of those qualities and graces, and that without such sufferings as a dark setting, they could never have been so brilliantly displayed. The sacrifice must be voluntary, for forced suffering can have no merit, and an unwilling death no expiatory virtue. But we cannot say with Dr. Halley—“that the sufferings, indirectly, as giving occasion to these acts, feelings, and thoughts of the holy Sufferer, procured our redemption.” Congregational Lecture-The Sacraments, part ii. p. 271, Lond. 1852. The virtues of the holy Sufferer are subordinate, although indispensable elements in the work of atonement, which consisted in His obedience unto the death. That death was an act of obedience beyond parallel; yet it was also, and in itself-not simply, as Grotius held, a great penal example-but a propitiatory oblation. The endurance of the law by our Surety is as necessary to us as His perfect submission to its statutes. The sufferings of the Son of God, viewed as a vicarious endurance of the penalty we had incurred, were therefore the direct means of our redemption. In insisting on the necessity of Christ's obedience, the equal necessity of His expiatory death must not be overlooked. That Jesus did suffer and die in our room is the fact of atonement; and the mode in which He bore those sufferings is the proof of His holy obedience, which was made “perfect through suffering.” But if the manifestation of Christ's personal virtues, and not the satisfaction of law, is said to be the prime end of those sufferings, then do we reckon such an opinion subversive of the great doctrine of our Lord's propitiation, and in direct antagonism to the theology taught us in the inspired oracles. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him”—“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain”—“He suffered once for sins,” etc. The uniform testimony of the word of God is, that the sufferings of Jesus were expiatory-that is, so borne in the room of guilty men, that they might not suffer themselves-and that this expiatory merit lies in the sufferings themselves, and is not merely or mainly dependent on those personal virtues of love, faith, and submission, which such anguish evoked and glorified. True, indeed, the victim must be sinless-pure as the fire from heaven by which it is consumed; but its atoning virtue is not to be referred to the bright display of innocence and love in the agonies of immolation, as if all the purposes of sacrifice had been to exhibit unoffending goodness, and bring out affection in bold relief. No; in the sufferings of the “Holy One,” God was glorified, the law magnified, the curse borne away, and salvation secured to believers.

Nor do we deem it correct on the part of Abelard and Peter Lombard in the olden time, or of Maurice recently, to regard the love of Christ alone as the redeeming element of the atonement, overlooking the merit of all that spontaneous and indescribable anguish to which it conducted. Such a hypothesis places the motive in the room of the act. It is true, as Maurice remarks, that we usually turn the mind of sinners to the love of Christ, and that this truth comforts and sustains the heart of the afflicted and dying; but he forgets that this love evolved its ardour in suffering for human transgressors, and derives all its charm from the thought that the agony which it sustained was the endurance of a penalty which a guilty world has righteously incurred. The love on which sinners lean is a love that not only did not shrink from assuming their nature, but that feared not to die for them. The justice of God in exacting a satisfaction is not our first consolation, but the fact, that what justice deemed indispensable, love nobly presented. If love alone was needed to save, why should death have been endured? or would a love that fainted not in a mere martyrdom and tragedy be a stay for a convicted spirit? No; it is atoning love that soothes and blesses, and the objective or legal aspect of the work of Christ is not to be merged in any subjective or moral phases of it; for both are presented and illustrated in the inspired pages. Even in the first ages of the church this cardinal doctrine was damaged by the place assigned in it to the devil, and the notion of a price or a ransom was carried often to absurd extremes, as it has also been in some theories of Protestant theology, in which absolute goodness and absolute justice appear to neutralize one another. But still, to warrant the application of the term “sacrifice” to the death of Christ, it must have been something more than the natural, fitting, and graceful conclusion of a self-denied life-it must have been a violent and vicarious decease and a voluntary presentation. Many questions as to the kind and amount of suffering, its necessity, its merits as satisfactio vicaria, and its connection with salvation, come not within our province.

Harless and Meyer have well shown the nullity of the Socinian view first propounded by Slichting, and advocated by Usteri (Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 112) and Rückert, that the language of this verse does not represent the death of Christ as a sin-offering. But the Pauline theology always holds out that death as a sacrifice. He died for our sins- ὑπέρ-1 Corinthians 15:3; died for us- ὑπέρ-1 Thessalonians 5:10; gave Himself for our sins- περί-Galatians 1:4; died for the ungodly- ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν-Romans 5:6; died for all- ὑπὲρ πάντων-2 Corinthians 5:14; and a brother is one on whose behalf Christ died- δἰ ὃν χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν-1 Corinthians 8:11. His death is an offering for sin- προσφορὰ περί-Hebrews 10:18; one sacrifice for sin- μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίαν-Hebrews 10:12; the blood of Him who offered Himself- τὸ αἷμα, ὃς ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν-Hebrews 9:14; the offering of His body once for all- διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος ἐφάπαξ-Hebrews 10:10. His death makes expiation- εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι-Hebrews 2:17; there is propitiation in His blood- ἱλαστήριον-Romans 3:25; we are justified in His blood- δικαιωθέντες ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ-Romans 5:9; and we are reconciled by His death- κατηλλάγημεν-Romans 5:10. He gave Himself a ransom- ἀντίλυτρον-1 Timothy 2:6; He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us- γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα-Galatians 3:13; Christ our passover was sacrificed for us- ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐτύθη-1 Corinthians 5:7. So too in Matthew 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18-19. The view of Hofmann, which is not that commonly received as orthodox, is defended at length by him against Ebrard and Philippi in his Schriftb. 2.329. See Ebrard, Lehre von de r stellvertretenden Genugthuung, Königsberg, 1857, or a note in his Commentary on 1 John 1:9, in which some important points in the previous treatise are condensed; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, § 57, dritter Theil; and Bodemeyer, Zur Lehre von der Versöhnung und Rechtfertigung, mit Beziehung auf den Hofmann-Philippischen Streit über die Versöhnungs-lehre, Göttingen, 1859; Lechler, das Apost. Zeit. p. 77. The death of Christ was a sacrifice which had in it all the elements of acceptance, as the death of one who had assumed the sinning nature, and was yet possessed of Divinity-who could therefore place Himself in man's room, and assume his legal liabilities-who voluntarily obeyed and suffered in our stead, in unison with God's will and in furtherance of His gracious purposes. What love on Christ's part! And what an inducement to obey the injunction—“walk in love”-in that love the possession of which the apostle inculcates and commends by the example of Christ! And, first, their love must be like their Lord's love, ardent in its nature and unconquerable in its attachment; no cool and transient friendship which but evaporates in words, and only fawns upon and fondles the creatures of its capricious selection; but a genuine, vehement, and universal emotion. Secondly, it must be a self-sacrificing love, in imitation of Christ's, that is, in its own place and on its own limited scale, denying itself to secure benefits to others; stooping and suffering in order to convey spiritual blessing to the objects of its affection. Matthew 20:26-28. Such a love is at once the proof of discipleship, and the test and fruit of a spiritual change. John 13:35; 1 John 3:14.

In a word, we can see no ground at all for adopting the exegesis of Stier, that the last clause of the verse stands in close connection with the first, as if the apostle had said—“Walk in love, that ye may be an odour of a sweet smell to God.” Such an exegesis is violent, though the idea is virtually implied, for Christian love in the act of self-devotion is pleasing to God.

Verse 3

(Ephesians 5:3.) πορνεία δὲ, καὶ πᾶσα ἀκαθαρσία, ἢ πλεονεξία—“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness.” Again the apostle recurs by δέ, which is not without a distinct adversative force, to vices prevalent in the heathen world. πορνεία—“fornication,” a sin which had eaten deep into the Gentile world (Acts 15:20; Acts 15:29) - καὶ ἀκαθαρσία - “and uncleanness”- πᾶσα-in every form and aspect of it. πλεονεξία is not insatiable lust, as many maintain, but “covetousness.” See Ephesians 4:19. The word was the matter of a sharp encounter between Heinsius (Exercitat. Sac. 467) and Salmasius (De Foenere Trapezitico, 121), the latter inflicting on the former a castigation of characteristic severity, because he held that πλεονεξία denoted inordinate concupiscence. The apostle uses the noun in Colossians 3:5, and in all other passages it denotes avaricious greed. Luke 12:15; Romans 1:29; 2 Corinthians 9:5. And it is joined to these preceding words, as it springs from the same selfishness, and is but a different form of development from the same unholy root. It is a dreadful scourge-saeva cupido, as the Latin satirist names it. More and more yet, as the word denotes; more may be possessed, but more is still desired, without limit or termination. Yet Conybeare affirms that πλεονεξία in the meaning of covetousness “yields no intelligible sense.” But, as de Wette and Meyer remark, the disjunctive ἤ shows it to belong to a different class of vices from those just mentioned. It is greed, avarice, unconquerable love of appropriation, morbid lust of acquisition, carrying in itself a violation of almost every precept of the decalogue. See Harris' Mammon. As for each of those sins-

μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν—“let it not be named even among you.” ΄ηδέ—“not even.” Mark 2:2; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Herodotus, 1.138- ποιέειν οὐκ ἔξεστι, ταῦτα οὐδὲ λέγειν ἔξεστιν. Not only were these sins to be avoided in fact, but to be shunned in their very name. Their absence should be so universal, that there should be no occasion to refer to them, or make any mention of them. Indelicate allusion to such sins should not soil Christian lips. For the apostle assigns a reason-

καθὼς πρέπει ἁγίοις—“as becometh saints.” Were the apostle to say, Let despondency be banished, he might add, as becometh believers, or, Let enmity be suppressed, he might subjoin, as becometh brethren; but he pointedly says in this place, “as becometh saints.” “Saints” are not a higher class of Christians who possess a rare and transcendental morality-all genuine believers are “saints.” See under Ephesians 1:1. The inconsistency is marked and degrading between the purity and self-consecration of the Christian life and indulgence in or the naming of those sensual and selfish gratifications. “Let their memorial perish with them.”

Verse 4

(Ephesians 5:4.) καὶ αἰσχρότης—“And filthiness”-immunditia, Vulgate. Some MSS., such as A, D¹, E¹, F, G, read ἢ αἰσχρότης, and there are other variations which need not be noted. Tischendorf retains the Textus Receptus, on the authority of B, D³, E², K, L, and almost all mss. Some, such as OEcumenius, imitated by Olshausen, Rückert, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius, regard, without foundation, αἰσχρότης as equivalent to αἰσχρολογία. Colossians 3:8. αἰσχρότητος γέμουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν εἶδεν-Plato, Gorg.; Op. vol. ii. p. 366, ed. Bekker. The noun denotes indecency, obscenity, or wantonness; whatever, not merely in speech but in anything, is opposed to purity.

καὶ μωρολογία—“and foolish talking.” The MSS. just quoted insert ἤ before this noun too, but καί is found in the majority, and in those already named. Not mere gossip or tattle, but speech wretched in itself and offensive to Christian decency and sobriety is condemned. The noun occurs only here, but we have not only the Latin compound stultiloquium in Plautus (Miles Gloriosus, 2.3, 25, the scene of which drama is laid at Ephesus), but also the Latin form morologus in the same dramatist. Persa, 1.1, 50. The Emperor Hadrian, in his well-known address to his departing spirit, ends the melancholy ode with these words-

“Nec, ut soles, dabis jocos.”

The term may look back to Ephesians 4:29, and is, as Trench says, the talk of fools, which is folly and sin together. Synon. § 34.

ἢ εὐτραπελία - “or jesting” - the disjunctive being employed. This noun is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον as well as the preceding. It denotes urbanity - urbanitas - and as its derivation implies, dexterity of turning a discourse- παρὰ τὸ εὖ τρέπεσθαι τὸν λόγον; then wit or humour; and lastly deceptive speech, so formed that the speaker easily contrives to wriggle out of its meaning or engagements. Josephus, Antiq. 12.4, 3; Thucyd. 2.41; Plato, Pol. 8.563; Arist. Ethic. Nicom. 4.8; Pindar, Pythia, Carmen 1.176, 4.186; Cicero, Ep. ad Div. 7.32, Opera, p. 716, ed. Nobbe, 1850. It is defined in the Etymologicon Magnum- ἡ μωρολογία, κουφότης, ἀπαιδευσία - levity, or grossness. Chrysostom's amplified definition is- ὁ ποικίλος, ὁ παντοδαπός, ὁ ἄστακτος, ὁ εὔκολος, ὁ πάντα γινόμενος—“the man called εὐτράπελος is the man who is versatile, of all complexions, the restless one, the fickle one, the man who is everything or anything.” Jerome also says of it-vel urbana verba, vel rustica, vel turpia, vel faceta. It is here used evidently in a bad sense, almost equivalent to βωμόλοχος, from which Aristotle distinguishes it, and denotes that ribaldry, studied artifice, and polite equivoque, which are worse in many cases than open foulness of tongue. The distinction which Jerome makes between μωρολογία and εὐτραπελία is indicated by the Latin terms, stultiloquium and scurrilitas. Pleasantry of every sort is not condemned by the apostle. He seems to refer to wit in connection with lewdness-double entendre. See Trench on the history of the word. Synon. § 34. The vices here mentioned are severely reprobated by Clement in the sixth chapter of the second book o f his παιδαγωγός. Allusions to such “jestings” are not unfrequent in the classics. Even the author of the “Ars Amoris” pleads with Augustus, that his writings are not so bad as others referred to-