Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 5

Ephesians 5:2. ἡμας … ἡμῶν] Tisch.: ὑμᾶς … ὑμῶν. But the witnesses for this are of unequal value and not strong enough, specially as the pronoun of the second person naturally presented itself from the context.

Ephesians 5:4 καὶ αἰσχρ. καί] A D* E* F G, min. Sahid. Vulg. It. and Fathers of some importance: ἢ αἰσχρ. ἤ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rück., and rightly so; the Recepta appears to be an old alteration in accordance with Ephesians 5:3, where also it is only at the third vice that ἤ comes in. א* has καὶ αἰσχρ. ἥ, as also Syr. p.

τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα] A B א, 31, 67, 73, Clem. Antioch. Ephr. Cyr.: ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν. So Lachm. and Rück.; commended also by Griesb. An interpretation, probably occasioned by the fact that the following ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαρ. was regarded as the contrast to τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα.

Ephesians 5:5. ἴστε] Elz.: ἐστέ, in opposition to far preponderant evidence. Defended, it is true, by Matth. (“pluribus Graecis in mentem venire poterat ἴστε”), but evidently a mechanical miswriting or alteration; rejected also by Reiche.

ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης] Lachm., following only B א, 67** lect. 40, Cyr. Jer., has ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρης, which Mill and Griesb. recommended. F G, Vulg. It. Goth. Victorinus, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster have ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία. By the latter the original ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, which seemed to require an explanation, that it might not be misunderstood, was explained, and subsequently εἰδωλολάτρης was restored, whereby the reading of Lachm. arose.

Ephesians 5:9. φωτός] Elz. Matth.: πνεύματος, in opposition to decisive witnesses. Gloss from Galatians 5:25.

Ephesians 5:17. συνίεντες] A B א, min. Chrys. ms. Damasc. Jer.: συνίετε. So Lachm. and Rück. Harless, however, has συνιόντες, after D* F G. The latter, though doubtless to be accented συνιόντες (see on Romans 3:11), is as the less common form to be preferred; the imperative is a gloss from the context, supported by no version.

Ephesians 5:19. πνευματικαῖς] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., and is bracketed by Lachm. It might have been introduced from Colossians 3:16; but the evidence for its omission is too weak, and the omission might easily be occasioned by the homoeoteleuton.

ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ] Lachm. and Rück.: ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, after important witnesses (not B). But the plural would in itself very naturally occur to the copyists, and still more from the comparison of Colossians 3:16.

Ephesians 5:21. Χριστοῦ] Elz.: Θεοῦ, in opposition to decisive witnesses, among which D E F G, codd. of It. Ἰησοῦ, some before, some after the Χρ. Mill already rightly judges that φόβος Θεοῦ was the more current conception, whereby Θεοῦ (K: κυρίου) was brought in; φόβος Χριστοῦ does not occur elsewhere.

Ephesians 5:22. After ἀνδράσιν, Elz. Scholz have ὑποτάσσεσθε, and Lachm. ὑποτασσέσθωσαν. The latter in accordance with A א, min. Copt. Vulg. Goth. Clem, (once) Basil, Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag. D E F G, lect. 19, It. Syr. have the Recepta, but before τοῖς ἰδίοις. These diversities only confirm the probability that the verb was originally wanting, as also B, codd. Gr. in Jer. Clem, (once) have no verb. The verb, deleted by Tisch. and rejected by Reiche, is an expedient to help the construction.

Ephesians 5:23. ἀνήρ (Elz.: ὁ ἀνήρ) and αὐτός (Elz.: καὶ αὐτός ἐστι) rest on decisive critical evidence; although Reiche again defends the Recepta, which is a smoothing of the text.

Ephesians 5:24. ἰδίοις] is, following B D* E* F G א, min. codd. It., with Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted as an addition from Ephesians 5:22.

Ephesians 5:25. ἑαυτῶν] is wanting in A B א, min. Clem. Orig. Cyr., Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. But if anything were added to γυναῖκας, it would be most natural to add ἰδίας from Ephesians 5:22. The ὑμῶν read in F G (Vulg. It. etc.: vestras) is an explanation of ἑαυτῶν, and tells in favour of this, the dropping out of which is to be explained from its superfluousness.

Ephesians 5:27. αὐτός] Elz.: αὐτήν, in opposition to far preponderating testimony; altered from a failure to understand the emphatic αὐτός.

Ephesians 5:28. Lachm. has rightly adopted, on decisive authority, οὕτως καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ὀφείλουσιν. B has the order οὕτως ὀφ. καὶ οἱ ἄνδρος.

Ephesians 5:29. Instead of Χριστός, Elz. has κύριος, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Ephesians 5:30. ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστ. αὐτοῦ] is wanting in A B א* 17, 67** al., Copt. Aeth. Method. and perhaps Ambrosiast. Deleted by Lachm., suspected also by Mill and Griesb., defended by Reiche. The omission has arisen either from mere accident, by passing in the process of copying from the first αὐτοῦ immediately to the third, or more probably through design, from want of perceiving the suitableness of the words in the context, and judging their meaning inappropriate. If they had been added from the LXX. Genesis 2:23, we should have found written ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ.

Ephesians 5:31. τὸν πατ. αὐτοῦ κ. τ. μητ.] Lachm. and Tisch. on preponderant testimony have merely πατέρα καὶ μητέρα. Rightly; the Recepta is from the LXX.

πρὸς τὴν γυν.] Lachm. and Rück.: τῇ γυναικί, in accordance doubtless with many and considerable witnesses (not B), but an alteration in conformity with the LXX. (according to A, Ald.) and Matthew 19:5.

CONTENTS.

Exhortation to the imitation of God, to love, as Christ through His sacrificial death has loved us (Ephesians 5:1-2). Warning against unchastity, avarice, and other vices, inasmuch as they exclude from the Messianic kingdom (Ephesians 5:3-5). The readers are not to let themselves be deceived by empty words, and not to hold fellowship with the vicious; for, as those who from being dark have become Christianly enlightened, they are under obligation to walk accordingly, and to have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but rather to rebuke them, which is a course as necessary as it is salutary (Ephesians 5:6-14). They are therefore to be careful in their walk as wise (Ephesians 5:15-17), and not to become drunken, but to become full of the Holy Spirit, which fulness must express itself by alternate utterance in psalms and hymns, by singing praise in the silence of the heart, and by continual Christian thanksgiving towards God (Ephesians 5:18-20). Subject the one to the other in the fear of Christ, the wives are to render to their husbands true Christian subjection (Ephesians 5:21-24), and the men to their wives true Christian love (Ephesians 5:25-33), in connection with which, however, the wife owes reverence to the husband (Ephesians 5:33).

Ephesians 5:1-2. If Paul has just said καθὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν, he now, on the ground of these words (οὖν), sums up under one head the duty of love expressed in detail, Ephesians 4:32, and that as imitation of God by a loving walk, such as stands in appropriate relation to the love shown to us by Christ, which serves as pattern for our conduct. With this is expressed the specific character and degree of the love required as an imitation of God (John 13:34; John 15:13). Accordingly, Ephesians 5:1 corresponds to the καθὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν Χρ. ἐχαρίσατο as a whole, and Ephesians 5:2 to the ἐν Χριστῷ in particular; γίνεσθε οὖν at the same time corresponds emphatically to the γίνεσθε δέ of Ephesians 4:32, introducing in another form—flowing from the last words of Ephesians 5:32—the same thing as was introduced by γίνεσθε δέ.

ὡς τέκνα ἀγαπ.] in accordance with your relation to God as His beloved children. ἀγαπητά denotes neither amabiles (Zanchius), nor good, excellent children, nor is it to be said with Vater: “ut solent liberi, qui tunc diliguntur;” but, what a love has God shown to us by the υἱοθεσία (1 John 3:1; Romans 5:8; Romans 5:5, al.)! Now, to be God’s beloved child, and not to become like the loving Father, how contradictory were this! See Romans 6:1 ff.; 1 John 4:7 ff.; Matthew 5:45. Yet the expression “imitators of God” is found with Paul only here.

καί] annexes wherein this imitation of God must consist, namely, therein, that love is the element in which their life-walk takes place—love, such as also Christ has displayed towards us.

καὶ παρέδωκεν κ.τ.λ.] Practical proof of the ἠγάπησεν. Comp. Ephesians 5:25; Romans 5:8 f.; Galatians 2:20. Paul, might have written παρέστησεν, but wrote παρέδωκ., because he thought of the matter as a self-surrender. The notion of sacrifice does not lie in the verb, but in the attributes (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection). We may add that with παρέδ. we have not to supply εἰς θάνατον (Grotius, Harless, and others), but τῷ Θεῷ (which Bengel, Hofmann, and others with less simplicity attach to προσφ. κ. θυσίαν) belongs to it, to the connecting of which with εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας (Luther, Koppe, Meier, Harless) the order of the words is opposed (comp. Exodus 29:18; Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 1:13; Leviticus 1:17; Leviticus 23:13; Leviticus 23:18; Genesis 8:21), since the emphatic prefixing of τῷ Θεῷ, if it belonged to εἰς ὀσμ. εὐωδ., would be quite without reason, inasmuch as there is not any kind of contrast (for instance, to human satisfaction) in the case.

ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] for our behalf, in order to reconcile us to God. The idea of substitution is not expressed in the preposition,[252] but lies in the conception of a sacrifice, under which the N.T. represents the death of Christ,[253] and that, indeed, as expiatory sacrifice. See on Romans 5:6; Galatians 3:13.

προσφορὰν κ. θυσίαν] as an offering and a sacrifice. The latter (זֶבַח) is a more precise definition of the former; for προσφορά is everything in general which is brought as an offering, whether it be bloody or unbloody (מִנְחָה). Comp. Sir 14:11. Of the sacrifice of Christ, also Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14. Harless explains the joining of the two substantives to the effect that Christ, as He was a sacrifice for others (θυσίαν), also presented himself as an offering (ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΆΝ). But, apart from the fact that thus Paul must logically have written ΘΥΣΊΑΝ Κ. ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΆΝ (as in Psalm 40:7; Hebrews 10:5), both words, in fact, state in what character Christ presented Himself to God, both express the objective relation, while the subjective relation of Christ is conveyed in παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Comp. 1 Peter 1:18.

εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας] so that it became for Him an odour of fragrance, figurative designation of its acceptableness to God (Php 4:18), after the Hebrew רֵיחַ־נִיחֹחַ (Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 1:13; Leviticus 1:17; Leviticus 2:12; Leviticus 3:5), which was the original real, anthropopathic basis of the idea of the acceptableness of a sacrifice to God. See Genesis 8:21; Ewald, Alterth. p. 31. The underlying notion of the burning of that which was offered did not of course come into account in the case of the ἱλαστήριον of Jesus, but the thought of the expression is in the sacrificial designation of the atoning deed independent of its origin.[254] Comp. on the expression itself the Homeric κνίσσης ἡδὺς ἀϋτμή, Od. xii. 369.

The question whether Christ is here in reality presented as an expiatory sacrifice, or merely as one who in His self-surrender well-pleasing to God has left us a pattern (so Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 113; Rückert), has been raised by the Socinians (see Catech. Racov. 484, ed. Oeder, p. 1006), who denied the former (see also Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 716 f.), is decided not merely by ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, but by the view prevailing throughout the N.T., and specially with Paul, of the death of Jesus as the ἱλαστήριον, Romans 3:25 (comp. also Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; 1 Peter 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:6), which also is contained here in θυσίαν (comp. Lechler, apost. und nachapost. Zeitalter, p. 11; Ebrard, Lehre von der stellvertret. Genugth. p. 68 ff.; Philippi, Dogm. IV. 2, p. 294 ff.). Certainly the main point in the connection of our passage is the love displayed by Christ, but the practical proof of this love is represented as that which it just really was, namely, as expiatory sacrifice; in opposition to which the addition εἰς ὀσμ. εὐωδ., which in the O. T., save in Leviticus 4:31 (see, with regard to this passage, Oehler in Herzog’s Encykl. X. p. 648), is not used of expiatory sacrifices, is not to be urged, inasmuch as—even apart from Lev. l.c.

Christ offered up Himself, consequently His expiatory sacrifice was at the same time a voluntary offering.

[252] See also van Hengel, ad Rom. I. p. 459 f.

[253] In opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 383 f., who makes the apostle merely say, “that Christ has gone the way of death, in order as our well-pleasing representative to come to God.”

[254] Without that which is symbolized in σμὴ εὐωδίας, the sacrifice of Christ would not have been propitiatory.

Ephesians 5:3. Δέ] leading over to another portion of the exhortation.

ἀκαθαρσία and πλεονεξία, quite as at Ephesians 4:19, the two main vices of heathendom. The latter thus is here neither insatiability in lust, as Heinsius (controverted by Salmasius, de foen. Trap. p. 121 ff.), Estius, Locke, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others would take it, nor “imprimis de prostibulis, quae sunt vulgato corpore, ut quaestum lucrentur,” Koppe, Stolz, but: avarice.

ἤ] is not equivalent to καί (Salmasius, Schleusner), nor yet explicative (Heinsius), but disjunctive, separating another vice from the correlative πορνεία καὶ πᾶσα ἀκαθαρσία (comp. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 275 f.); neither fornication and every kind of uncleanness, nor avarice, nor shamelessness (Ephesians 5:4), etc.

μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν] not once be named, etc.; ἱκανῶς τὸ μυσαρὸν τῶν εἰρημένων ὑπέδειξε, καὶ αὐτὰς αὐτῶν προσηγορίας τῆς μνήμης ἐξορίσαι κελεύσας, Theodoret. Comp. Ephesians 5:12. Dio Chrys. p. 360 B: στάσιν δὲ οὐδὲ ὀνομάζειν ἄξιον παρʼ ὑμῖν. Herod, i. 138: ἅσσα δέ σφι ποιέειν οὐκ ἔξεστι, ταῦτα οὐδὲ λέγειν ἔξεστι. Dem. 1259, 17: ἃ καὶ ὀνομάζειν ὀκνήσαιμʼ ἄν.

καθὼς πρέπει ἁγίοις] namely, that these vices should not once be mentioned among them. So αἰσχρὰ ὀνόματα (Plat. Rep. p. 344 B, and Stallbaum in loc.) are they!

Ephesians 5:4. Αἰσχρότης] abomination, disgraceful conduct, Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A. Most expositors, including Rückert, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen (not Matthies and Harless), limit it to disgraceful utterances, but without warrant of linguistic usage (this would be αἰσχρολογία, see Colossians 3:8; Xen. de rep. Lac. v. 6; Aristot. de rep. vii. 17; Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3); or in the context, in which it is only the following elements that contain the unchristian speaking.

μωρολογία] is the carrying on of insipid, foolish talk. Antig. de Mirab. 126: μωρολωγίας καὶ ἀδολεσχίας, Arist. H. A. i. 11; Plut. Mor. 504 A.

εὐτραπελία] signifies properly ready versatility (from τρέπω and εὖ), urbanity; then specially a witty, jesting manner; and in a bad sense, as here, the witticism of frivolity, scurrilitas. See in general, Wetstein ad loc.; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 180; Krüger on Thuc. ii. 41. 1.

τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα] as that which is unseemly. Comp. Winer, pp. 221, 338 f. [E. T. 610]. It refers only to μωρολογία and εὐτραπελία, since for αἰσχρότης such a characteristic description would be entirely superfluous, and ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία points back merely to those peccata oris.

ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία] From the preceding μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν we have here to supply ἔστω or γινέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν, which is contained therein, in accordance with a well-known brachylogy, Kühner, II. p. 604. εὐχαριστία is, according to standing usage (comp. also Loesner, Obss. p. 345 f.), not gracefulness of speech, as Jerome, Calvin,[255] Salmasius, Cajetanus, Hammond, Semler, Michaelis, Wahl, Meier, and others would take it, which would be εὔχαρι, but giving of thanks, in which case there results a contrast far more in keeping with the Christian character and the profoundly vivid piety of the apostle (comp. Colossians 2:7; Colossians 3:15; Colossians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:18). Gratitude towards God (for the salvation in Christ), expressing itself in their discourse, is to supersede among Christians the two faults before mentioned, and to sanctify their oral intercourse. “Linguae abusui opponitur sanctus et tamen laetus usus,” Bengel. Morus erroneously refers it to thanksgiving towards others; “the language of courtesy.”

[255] “Sermones nostros vera suavitate et gratia perfusos esse debere, quod fiet, si miscebimus utile dulci.”

Ephesians 5:5. Paul returns to the vices mentioned Ephesians 5:3, and assigns the reason for their prohibition.

ἴστε γινώσκοντες] indicative; Paul appeals to the consciousness of the readers, which, considering their familiarity with the principle laid down, was at all events more natural to him, and more in keeping with the destination as a motive (γάρ), than the imperative sense (Vulgate, Valla, Castalio, Vatablus, Erasmus Schmid, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, Rückert, Matthies, Olshausen, Bleek, and others). The participle, however, is not here to be explained from the well-known Hebrew and Greek mode of connecting the finite verb with its participle (Winer, p. 317 f. [E. T. 446]), inasmuch as γινώσκ. is another verb; but it denotes the way and manner of the knowing.[256]

Πᾶς … ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΙ] See on Ephesians 4:29, and Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 209].

Ὅ ἘΣΤΙΝ ΕἸΔΩΛΟΛΆΤΡΗς] applies to the covetous man, whom Paul declares in a metaphorical sense to be an idolater, inasmuch as such an one has made money and property his god, and has fallen away from the service of the true God (comp. Matthew 6:24). Comp. Php 3:19; Colossians 3:5; and the passages from Philo and the Rabbins, which express the same mode of regarding covetousness and other vices, in Wetstein, and Schöttgen, Horae, p. 779. Doubtless πορνεία and ἈΚΑΘΑΡΣΊΑ are also subtle idolatry; but only with regard to avarice does Paul, here and at Colossians 3:5, bring it into special relief, in order with thoroughly deterrent force to make this felt ΚΑΤʼ ἘΞΟΧΉΝ as antichristian (comp. 1 Timothy 6:10). For Paul, in particular, whose all-sacrificing self-denial (2 Corinthians 6:10; 2 Corinthians 11:27) stood so sharply contrasted with that self-seeking passion, such a peculiar branding of ΠΛΕΟΝΕΞΊΑ was very natural. Zachariae, Koppe,[257] Meier, Harless, as also Fritzsche (de conformat. N.T. critica Lachm. I. 1841, p. 46), refer ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλ. to all three subjects. Unnecessary deviation from that which after the singular of the relative must most naturally suggest itself to the reader, and opposed to the parallel Colossians 3:5, where ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία has its reference merely to the ΠΛΕΟΝΕΞΊΑ assured by the use of the article ΤῊΝ ΠΛΕΟΝΕΞΊΑΝ, and it is only afterwards that the comprehension of the before-named vices by means of the neuter plural ΔΙʼ Ἅ comes in.

ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΙ ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑΝ] Comp. on Ephesians 1:11. By means of the present tense the certain future relation is realized at present. See Bernhardy, p. 371.

ἐν τῇ βασιλ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ κ. Θεοῦ for the Messianic kingdom belongs to Christ and God, since Christ and God shall have the government of this kingdom. Christ opens it at His Parousia, and rules it under the supreme dominion of God (1 Corinthians 15:27) until the final consummation, whereupon He yields it up to God as the sole ruler (1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:28). But, after Beza, Zanchius, Glass, Bengel (comp. also Calovius), Rückert and Harless have explained it, on the ground of the non-repetition of the article: “of Him, who is Christ and God,” so that Christ is here spoken of as God.[258] Incorrectly, since ΘΕΌς had no need of an article (see Winer, p. 110 f. [E. T. 151]; comp. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ΘΕΟῦ, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:50; Galatians 5:21), and Christ, in accordance with the strict monotheism of the apostle (comp. Ephesians 4:6), could not be called by him Θεός in the absolute sense, and never has at all been called by him Θεός. See on Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:2. Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N.T. p. 203 f. The designation of the kingdom as βασιλεία of Christ and of God is climactic (comp. on Galatians 1:1), and renders the warning element more solemn and more powerful to deter, through the contrast with the supreme holiness of the kingdom.[259]

On the proposition itself, comp. Galatians 5:21.

[256] This you are aware of from your own knowledge, so that I need not first to instruct you with regard to it, that, etc. Comp. the classic ὁρῶν καὶ ἀκούων οἶδα, Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 14. Τοῦτο thus applies to the following ὅτι, not to ver. 3 f., as Winer maintains. See Kühner, II. § 631. 2.

[257] Koppe, we may add, allows a choice between two arbitrary alterations of the literal meaning. The sense in his view is either: “quae quidem flagitia regnant inter gentiles idololatras,” or: “as little as an idolater.”

[258] Yet Rückert is of opinion, inconsistently enough, that the question whether Paul in reality here meant it so cannot be decided, because he is not here speaking of Christ in general, but only incidentally making mention of His kingdom.

[259] Comp. also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 207 f.

Ephesians 5:6. Let no one deceive you with empty words! In those against whom the warning is here given, Grotius sees partly heathen philosophers, partly Jews, which last “omnibus Judaizantibus, quomodocunque vixissent, partem fore dicebant in seculo altera;” Olshausen (comp. Bleek) thinks of frivolous Christians of antinomian sentiments, who would in future emerge; Meier, of teachers of Gentile tendencies. In accordance with the context (ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας, συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν, ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος) we have to understand Gentiles who have remained unbelieving, who in their intercourse with the Christians sought to palliate those Gentile vices, to give them out as matters of indifference, to represent abstaining from the same as groundless rigour, and thereby to entice back the Christians to the Gentile life. Their discourses were κένοι, inasmuch as the corresponding contents, i.e. the truth, was wanting to them. Comp. Colossians 2:8; LXX. Exodus 5:9, al.; Plat. Lach. p. 196 B; Dem. 821, 11; Hom. Od. xxii. 249, and the passages in Kypke, II. p. 299 f.; also κενολογία, empty talk, Plut. Mor. p. 1069 C; κενολογεῖν, Isaiah 8:19.

διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] for certainly very serious consequences follow these vices: on account of these vices (διὰ ταῦτα emphatically prefixed) comes (down) the wrath of God upon the disobedient, for this vicious conduct piles up the load of guilt one day to receive punishment (Romans 2:5), from which they could be liberated only by means of faith in Christ, the despising of whom leaves them to abide under the wrath of God and to encounter the judicial execution of it. To refer ταῦτα to the deceiving with empty words (Chrysostom places both explanations side by side; comp. Theophylact and Oecumenius), has against it not so much the plural—since ταῦτα often also in classical writers denotes (see Winer, p. 146 [E. T. 201]) one notion or thought (according to the aggregate of its several marks)—as rather the unsuitability of the sense in itself and to the following μὴ οὖν γίνεσθε κ.τ.λ. as well as to the parallel Colossians 3:6.

ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ] Not the punishment of the present life is meant (Calvin, Meier, and others; Matthies combines present and future), since the ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ is the opposite of the βασιλεία, Ephesians 5:5; but the wrath of God in the day of judgment, which future, as in Ephesians 5:5, is realized as present. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:10.

The υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπειθ. are here those refusing faith to the gospel, and thereby disobedient to God. It is otherwise Ephesians 2:2. Comp. Romans 11:30; Romans 15:31.

Ephesians 5:7. Οὖν] since on account of these sins, etc.

συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν] αὐτῶν can, in keeping with the context, only be referred to the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθ., whose co-partners the Christians become, if they practise the same sins, whereby they fall from the state of reconciliation (Romans 11:22; 2 Peter 3:17) and incur the divine ὀργή (Ephesians 5:5). Koppe’s interpretation: “ejusdem cum iis fortunae compotem fieri,” is an importation at variance with the context (see Ephesians 5:8-11).

As to συμμέτοχος, see on Ephesians 3:6.

Ephesians 5:8. Reason assigned for the exhortation just given: For your former state of darkness (with which those vices were in keeping) is past; now, on the other hand, ye are Christianly enlightened; as befits such, let your walk be.

ἦτε] prefixed with significant stress, has the force of a ground assigned as praeterite, just as at Romans 6:17. Rückert incorrectly holds that Paul has omitted μέν, which is at variance with good composition. The non-use of μέν has its logical ground, and that in the fact, that the clause is not conceived in relation to that which thereupon confronts it by δέ Just so in classical writers, where μέν seems to be wanting. See Krüger, Anab. iii. 4. 41; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. iii. 2. 12, Goth.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 356 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 388.

σκότος] Abstractum pro concreto, to make the designation the stronger (Kühner, II. p. 25 f.): dark, by which the opposite of the possession of divine truth is denoted.

νῦν δὲ κ.τ.λ.] now on the other hand, since your conversion, how entirely different is it with you, how entirely different must your walk be! Light in the Lord are ye, i.e. furnished with divine truth in your fellowship with Christ, in whom, as the source and giver of light (Ephesians 5:14), ye live and move. Comp. Ephesians 1:18.

ὡς τέκνα φωτός] as children of light, i.e. as enlightened ones. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:5; Luke 16:8; John 12:36. As such they are now to show themselves in their walk. Without οὖν the exhortation comes in with the greater energy. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 C; Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. II. p. 276.