OVERVIEW OF EPHESIANS CHAPTER 5
PERSONAL HOLINESS
This chapter contains a series of directions, which may be divided into two classes. The first would include five definite commands regarding Christian love, Eph. 5:1–5, Christian light, 5:6–14, Christian wisdom, 5:15–17, Christian gladness, 5:18–20, and Christian submission, 5:21. These have been described as a tablet or table of five commandments, embodying our duty towards God. But an examination of them will show that they are mainly self-regarding, as the five prohibitions in Eph. 4:25–32, were other-regarding. This second table is connected with the first by the word “therefore,” the imitation of God, which it enjoins, being based on the forgiveness of us by God in Christ. It is also connected with the passage, which follows, the Christian submission in Eph. 5:21, introducing that of wives to their husbands.
The chapters could indeed have been better divided by Stephen Langton, the cardinal archbishop of Canterbury, when he set his hand to the work in 1204 or 1205. In making the division at the end of 4:32, he does not follow that which Euthalius in 458 A.D., copied from a work, apparently made by Theodore of Mopsuestia in 396 A.D. And unfortunately Langton’s division obscures the relation between the directions at the close of the one chapter and those at the commencement of the other. From Eph. 4:25, there are precepts and prohibitions as to the new man and the old man, of whom the Apostle has just spoken, Eph. 4:24, 22. First, there is the fivefold series of other-regarding duties, Eph. 4:25–32. Then there is a fivefold series of duties, mainly self-regarding, and apparently in view of pagan pleasures and festivities, 5:1–21. And there follows a series of regulations for home life, Eph. 5:22–6:9, dealing with the father, the mother, the child and the slave. St. Paul then looks out upon the wider scene of Christian activity, and gives direction for the battle with preternatural powers, Eph. 6:10–18.
Eph. 5:1–5. Christian Love
We must recall Trench’s beautiful saying that ǎgǎpē, “love,” is “a word, born within the bosom of revealed religion.” It is not found in any pagan writer, but occurs in the Greek Vulgate of 2 Sam. 13:15, Cant. 2:4, Jer. 2:2, and Wisd. 3:9, and in Philo, On the Immutability of God xiv., this Alexandrian having learned the word from the Greek Vulgate. On the other hand, neither the pagan word ĕrōs, “love,” nor any of its cognate forms is ever found in the Greek Testament. The noun ǎgǎpē is not found in Mark, only once in Matthew 24:12, and only once in Luke 11:42. The corresponding verb ǎgǎpân, “to love,” has been distinguished from phileín, “to love,” for example in John 21:15–17, as the Latin diligo, “I love by an act of intelligent choice,” from amo, “I love with a personal affection.” St. Augustine, indeed, in his City of God xiv. 7, discusses with little positive result the difference between dilectio, “love” or “charity,” and amor, “love.” But the chief note of the former, in so far as it represents the Greek ǎgǎpē, would appear to be esteem, appreciation, respect and often even reverence. Yet in the present passage of the encyclical, St. Paul will be obliged to clarify the ǎgǎpē, the love, of which he speaks, from the uncontrolled impulse and passion, so often, in ancient and modern times, described as love.
The Apostle has just written,
Eph. 4:32a.
But be becoming kind unto one another.
Now he resumes the verb, saying
Eph. 5:1.
Be becoming, therefore, imitators of God,
As loved children.
Nearly six years ago, in the autumn of 55 A.D., he had twice bidden the Corinthian Christians,
1 Cor. 4:16, 11:1.
Be becoming imitators of me.
But now it is primarily the example of God’s readiness to give full forgiveness, that is in question. Indeed, more than this is also implied as the next couplet will show. It is more, too, than the command to be holy because of Jehovah’s holiness, Lev. 11:44, 19:2, quoted in 1 Pet. 1:16. It is based on the intimate relation between a child and its father, the word for children, těkna, implying sonship by birth and not by adoption or position. Such a rule of conduct would be fulfilled in acting according to that likeness of God, in which man was originally made, Gen. 1:26. This is the easier, because the ideal has already been embodied in the Messiah or Christ, who is both the image and the likeness of the Invisible God.
It was therefore fitting that the Christ Himself should say,
Matt. 5:48.
You shall, therefore, be perfect,
As your Father, the heavenly [Father] is perfect.
And so He says again,
Luke 6:36.
Be becoming compassionate,
According as your Father is compassionate.
It is also fitting that the Apostle, who understood the Master’s mind so well, and never hesitated to employ bold speech, should bid us,
Eph. 5:1.
Be becoming, therefore, imitators of God.
The word was taken up by St. Ignatius of Antioch, in 115 A.D., when he was on his way to martyrdom. Writing to the Ephesian Christians from Smyrna, he described them as “imitators of God,” 1:1. And again, he used the expression with regard to their Trallian neighbours, when he wrote to the church at Tralles, 1:2.
We may note also that the word “love” is the key-word of our present passage, for the “loved” children must walk “in love,” as the Christ “loved” them. Indeed, the command covers more than the sphere of forgiveness, since there is added,
Eph. 5:2.
And be walking in love,
According as the Christ also loved you;
And [as] He delivered up Himself
On behalf of us,
An offering and sacrifice to God
Unto odour of fragrance.
The “walking in love” would cover the whole field of conduct, and not that alone in respect of injuries. The word “also” is ambiguous. It may mean “the Christ also, as well as the Father,” or “the Christ also loved you, as you ought to love your neighbour.” The “also,” however, does not introduce a third person, but the second parallel in the comparison, in
John 13:34.
I am giving you a fresh commandment,
In order that you may love one another,
According as I loved you,
In order that you also may love one another.
Therefore, we do not explain the “also” in the present passage, Eph. 5:2, as referring to the Father. And our conclusion is confirmed by the parallel passage in the epistle, which St. Paul has just written to the Colossians,
Col. 3:13c.
If anyone has a complaint against anyone—
According as the Lord[for-]gave freely to you, so also you.
The connection between our Lord’s love and His delivering up Himself was expressed nearly twelve years ago, in 49 A.D., by the Apostle in his epistle to the churches of southern Galatia, when he spoke of the life, which he now lived in flesh, as one, that
Gal. 2:20.
I am living in faith,
The [faith] in the Son of God,
Who loved me,
And delivered up Himself on behalf of me.
And in the present epistle, he will again present it as a motive for married Christians, saying,
Eph. 5:25.
Husbands, love your wives,
According as also the Christ loved the Church,
And delivered Himself up on behalf of her,
In order that He might sanctify her.
Then, in describing that Divine sacrifice, St. Paul falls naturally into the language of the Old Testament, presenting our Lord as
Eph. 5:2.
An offering and sacrifice to God.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the order of the words is
Heb. 10:5.
A sacrifice and offering,
because they are quoted accurately from Psalm 40:6. That reference, however, will help us to see what Hebrew words underlie St. Paul’s Greek. The offering, the Greek prǒsphǒrá, is the Hebrew minchāh, or meal-offering, a bloodless sacrifice. And the sacrifice, the Greek thŭsía, is the Hebrew zébhach, literally “a slaying,” and so the act or victim of sacrifice. By the phrase, then, St. Paul implies the completeness of our Lord’s sacrifice, as realising what was represented in both forms of the typical rite.
The Apostle adds another phrase, “an odour of fragrance,” to express God’s acceptance of the sacrifice. Within a few months, he will employ the same language in a letter to the Philippian Christians.
Phil. 4:18.
But I have all things in full,
And I overflow.
I have been filled—
When I received from Epaphroditus
The [things] from you,
An odour of fragrance,
An acceptable sacrifice,
Well-pleasing to God.
The phrase, “an odour of fragrance,” is very common in the Greek Vulgate, being found about forty times in the Pentateuch, for example in Gen. 8:21, Exod. 29:18, and Lev. 1:9, 13, 17, besides four times in Ezekiel. Its occurrence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, “Levi,” 3, written originally between 109 and 105 B.C., may be an interpolation. In any case, the phrase, wherever it occurs, is to be explained by the Hebrew rêach-nîchôach, “an odour of rest,” or “acquiescence,” that is, of satisfaction, or even of delight. The origin of the metaphor, no doubt, may be found in the language and ideas, connected with pagan sacrifices. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to a comparatively late work, such as Homer’s Iliad i. 317, viii. 549, xxiv. 69, 70, written between 950 and 900 B.C., that is, about the time of Solomon, 960 to 931 B.C. But when such figures of speech are adopted into revealed religion, they can no longer be interpreted in a crude, material fashion. And this phrase, “an odour of fragrance,” in the epistles of St. Paul, has not only been raised from a pagan expression to a Jewish figure, but also from a Jewish figure to a Christian symbol.
Having spoken of Christian love positively, the Apostle proceeds to deal with it negatively by forbidding sinful love, whether sensual or avaricious. In this, he sums up the commandment against adultery and that against coveting a neighbour’s property, Ex. 20:14, 17, Deut. 5:18, 21. There is therefore a reference now to gain, though we found none in
Eph. 4:19.
Unto a working of all uncleanness in greediness.
So, we now find the notion of “fornication” completed by “uncleanness”; and “greediness” stands by itself.
Eph. 5:3.
But fornication and every uncleanness,
Or greediness,—
It shall not even be named among you,
According as becomes holy [ones].
4.
And let [there not be] shamefulness and foolish-talk,
Or ‘versatility,’
Which were not fitting—
But rather [let there be] thanksgiving.
In Gal. 5:19, the Apostle has already connected fornication and uncleanness. In 2 Cor. 12:21, he conjoins unclcanness, fornication and licence. Now he adds greediness, or covetousness, because the desire of having more goods shares with the desire of sensual pleasure the bad eminence of false love. When we presently add to these false light, and its effect in false enlightenment, Eph. 5:6–14, then we shall have the sensuality, the avarice and the intellectual pride, that is, the flesh’s desire, the eyes’ desire, and life’s pretension, 1 John 2:16, which are the three principal means of men’s fall.
When it is said that none of such things may be named among those who are holy saints and separated unto God, there is indeed an external resemblance to the Persian rule, as given by Herodotus 1:138, about 444 B.C., that it is not lawful even to speak of those things, which it is not lawful to do. But St. Paul adds a motive, loftier and more effective than any known to those Persians, who, according to the same authority, i. 135, indulged in those very uncleannesses, forbidden by revelation and nature.
St. Paul’s word “named” has hardly been suggested by
Ps. 16:4.
I will not take up their names upon my lips,
the “names” being those of the apostates, who had abandoned Jehovah for heathen gods. It was indeed forbidden to name the idols, for the “Book of the Covenant,” Exodus 20–23, contains the prohibition,
Ex. 23:13.
And you shall not mention the name of other gods;
It shall not be heard upon thy mouth.
But when the Apostle urges those, who are in the position of God’s holy ones, to observe a similar silence regarding certain sins, he does not require it as a matter of moral obligation, Heb. 2:17, or of logical necessity, Heb. 2:1, but of fitness, Heb. 2:10.
Then St. Paul adds the names of three other offences against Christian love,
Eph. 5:4.
And [let there not be] shamefulness and foolish talk,
Or versatility.
It is hardly necessary to supply the words, “let there not be,” as the sense of the passage is quite plain without them.
The word “shamefulness” renders the Greek aischrǒtēs, never found elsewhere in the Greek Text of the New Testament, or in the Greek Vulgate of the Old. It is formed from aischrǒs, “causing shame” or “shameful,” and is used in Plato’s Gorgias 525 A, c. 170, to describe the soul of an Asiatic, who had lived basely. Dying, it appeared before Rhadamanthus, who saw it to be full of disproportion and shamefulness through power, luxury, wantonness and intemperance. So the shamefulness is the ugliness, resulting from vice, not a vice itself. But in the present Pauline passage, it is equally clear that the word is used in the sense of shameful conduct.
From conduct, the Apostle passes on to speech. The word for “foolish-talk,” mōrǒ-lǒgía, like that for “shamefulness,” is not found elsewhere in Biblical Greek. About 340 B.C., it was used by Aristotle in his History of Animals i. 11, and by Plutarch, who died about 120 A.D., in his Morals 504 B. Plautus, who died in 184 B.C., Latinised the adjective as morólogus in his Persa I. i. 50, and rendered it as stultiloquium in his Miles Gloriosus II. iii. 25.
From shameful conduct and foolish speech, the Apostle passes into the mind itself, and forbids eutrǎpělía. As there has been much discussion about this word, we have rendered it simply as “versatility.” This is in accordance with its etymology, for it is compounded from eu-, “well,” and trěpō, “I turn,” to imply turning easily, “versatility,” as in the Ethics IV. viii. 3, of Aristotle, who died in 322 B.C. Earlier, indeed, Pindar, who died about 442 B.C., had in his fourth Pythian Ode 104, presented his hero Jason as able to declare that he had never in twenty years spoken one eutrápělon word to his comrades. But Pericles, a little later, at the end of 431, and according to Thucydides ii. 41, applied the adverb in acomplimentary sense to the Athenians. Plato, in his Republic 563 A, 8:14, begun before 389 B.C., does not employ the noun so favourably. Speaking of democratic liberty as passing into democratic licence, he pictures the old men as condescending to the young men, and as satisfied with eutrapelía and pleasant jesting in imitation of the young men. Evidently, he applies the word to a form of banter and repartee, still popular among those, unable to put away childish things.
Aristotle, in his Rhetoric ii. 12, which is not later than 338 B.C., says that the young are eutrápěloi, because they are fond of mirth. He defines eutrǎpělía as chastened insolence, or, as a schoolboy might render the phrase, “well-trained cheek.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, in his commentary written between 415 and 429 A.D., if we may judge from the Latin version, in which his comment exists, explained the word as “scurrility,” which he defined as “detraction,” apparently, as Swete suggests in his edition, i. 177, understanding the Greek word as “ill-natured wit.” In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the noun is found in II. vii., 13, and the adjective in II. vii., 13, IV. viii. 3, 4, 10, VIII. iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 5, X. vi. 3. There eutrǎpělía is distinguished from the one extreme, bōmǒ-lǒchía, literally “altar-lurking,” that is, for scraps, and applied to a low parasite, a buffoon. The notion is fully expressed in Kipling’s The Mary Gloster, 85, 86,
“Weak, a liar, and idle, and mean as a collier’s whelp
Nosing for scraps in the galley.”
Again Aristotle distinguishes it from the other extreme, agrŏikía, “rusticity,” boorishness, supposed to be characteristic of an agr-oikos, one dwelling in the agrŏs, or country. He confesses, however, that those who love, not for moral good, nor for utility, but for pleasure, love the eutrǎpěloi, because such persons are pleasant to them, VIII. iii. 1; and he describes those who are eutrápěloi in idle pastimes as in favour with despots, X. vi. 3. But Aristotle makes another statement, which explains St. Paul’s condemnation of eutrǎpělía. In IV. viii. 6, he looks for a parallel to the relation between the boyish play of the eutrápĕlos, free and educated, and similar behaviour on the part of a slave and an uneducated man. He finds it in the relation between the New Comedy, which was laughable through covert suggestion, and the Old Comedy, which was laughable through shameful speech. So the “jesting “of the Revised Version fails to indicate the matter of eutrǎpĕlía and “scurrility” ignores the subtlety of the double meaning. In lack of an equivalent English word, we follow the etymology and most general sense of the term in rendering it “versatility.”
There is an illustration of the eutrápĕlos in P. Volumnius, a friend of Cicero and Mark Anthony. This man, mentioned in Cicero’s Familiar Letters 32, was known as Eutrápelus, because of his wit. Of this, we have an example in Horace’s Epistles I. xviii. 31–36, where we read that
… Eutrápelus, when he was desirous of injuring anyone,
Used to give him costly robes; for now, said he, happy
With beautiful garments, he will take up new plans and hopes
He will sleep till sunrise. He will prefer a prostitute to honourable
Duty. He will live by borrowing. At the end,
He will be a gladiator, or lead a kitchen-gardener’s nag for hire.
If we may gather from this instance, that the eutrápĕlos may still be found in taverns and smoking-rooms, we may also see the incompatibility of his character with Pauline heroism.
The Apostle says of such things that they are not befitting. He employs the word an-ēkĕn, the imperfect tense of an-ēkō. In classical writers, as Lightfoot argues in his commentary on Col. 3:18, that imperfect would have implied that what ought to have been done had been left undone. But St. Paul’s use of the form is more like our use of the past tense, “ought,” and “perhaps implies an essential a priori obligation.”
Instead of eu-trăpĕlía, “versatile jesting,” St. Paul urges eu-chăristía, “thanksgiving.” The similarity of the forms suggests a contrast between the meanings. The Apostle has just written to the Colossians, saying,
Col. 3:15.
And the peace of the Christ,
Let it umpire in your hearts—
Unto which [peace] you were also called in one body,
And be becoming thankful [eucháristol].
And now he adds a conclusion to this section of his encyclical,
Eph. 5:5.
For you know about this, knowing
That no fornicator, or unclean [man],
Or greedy [man]—
Which [word implies one who] is an idolater—
Has possession in the kingdom
Of the Christ and God.
In the first line, we have two Greek verbs for knowing. The first is oîda, that is, scire, wissen, savoir, “to know about.” The second is ginōscō, that is, noscere, kennen, connaítre, “to know.” The two are combined to produce the strength and intensity, obtained in Hebrew by placing the verb in its absolute infinitive before the finite form. This Hebrew construction may be represented in Biblical Greek by such phrasing as “with desire I desired,” implying “I greatly desired,” Luke 22:15, or by similar forms of expression, Gen. 31:30, Ex. 21:20, Deut. 7:26, Matt. 13:14, 15:4, John 3:29, Acts 5:28, 23:14, James 5:17. The particular Hebrew phrase, “to know you will know,” for “you will surely know,” is found fourteen times in the Old Testament. It is generally rendered in the Greek Vulgate as “knowing, you will know”; and this representation of the Hebrew infinitive absolute by the Greek participle is found in Heb. 6:14. In Jeremiah 42:22, however, the Hebrew phrase is translated “you know about, knowing,” in several Greek manuscripts. But in them, the Greek words are marked with an asterisk, showing that they had been interpolated in the Greek Vulgate by Origen, when he at Cæsarea prepared the nearly fifty volumes of his Hexaplar, or “Sixfold,” edition, which included the Hebrew Text, the Hebrew Text in Greek letters, with the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint or Greek Vulgate, and Theodotion. Generally, his additions are taken from Theodotion’s version, made about 180 A.D., but sometimes from Aquila’s, made about 125 A.D., or from that of Symmachus, about 200 A.D. We may, however, argue that the form, interpolated in Jer. 42:22, was suggested by S. Paul’s expression in our present passage, Eph. 5:5; and it is consequently useful as showing that his phrase was regarded as equivalent to the Hebrew for “you certainly know.”
There is another Hebrew idiom in the Greek Text; but it is hidden in our translation, because we must render “every fornicator has not possession” as “no fornicator has possession.”
As the relative pronoun in the fourth line is in the neuter form, according to the reading, which we adopt and will justify, it cannot refer to “greedy [man],” but to the word for such, or his character. In the Epistle to the Colossians, St. Paul has just said,
Col. 3:5.
Deaden, therefore, the members,
The [members] on the earth—
[Put from yourselves] fornication, uncleanness,
Passion, bad desires,
And [especially] the greediness,
Which [greediness is such that it] is idolatry.
Now he writes, as we see,
Eph. 5:5.
For you certainly know
That no fornicator, or unclean [man],
Or greedy [man],
Which [word implies one who] is an idolater—
Has possession in the kingdom
Of the Christ and God.
And as the Apostle, within a few months, will write of those who make a god of the belly, Phil. 3:19, there is nothing strange in his speaking now of those who make a god of their neighbour’s possessions to the loss of their own possession in the kingdom. This kingdom is the Christ’s, for He is the King. It is God’s, for it has its goal in Him, 1 Cor. 15:24, and it had its origin in the Father’s design for His Incarnate Son. But the Messiah, or Christ, and the Father are one, John 10:30. Hence both can be placed together under the one article, as “the Christ and God.” The phrase is, indeed, unique; and it is very significant, for we cannot imagine a case in which the Creator and a mere creature could be ranged together under one article.
Eph. 5:2. Disputed Readings, “you,” “which.”
We decided to treat the question of the pronoun in Eph. 4:32d, in connection with the similar questions in 5:2. It is noteworthy that humeîs, “you,” in the nominative, and hēmeîs, “we,” are pronounced alike in Modern Greek, as are also humâs, “you,” in the accusative, and hēmâs, “us.” The variants in the manuscripts suggest that the copyists were very liable to write one for the other. So we have a question between “you” and “us” in 4:32d, 5:2b, 5:2d.
We have another question in Eph. 5:5d. There are three variants, “which is idolater,” “who is idolater,” and “which is idolatry.” Now we can explain the second and third variants, if the first was the original. The relative clause, “which is idolater,” needs interpretation as “which [word or character implies one who] is idolater.” It could be simplified in two ways. An s could be added to the ho, changing “which” into “who,” agreeing with the antecedent, “greedy [man].” Or less effectively, the word for “idolater” could be changed into “idolatry,” which is found in the parallel passage, Col. 3:5. The latter solution was adopted by some Old Latin manuscripts. It is preserved for us by St. Cyprian, consecrated for Carthage about 248, by Victorinus and Ambrosiaster at Rome, about 360, by St. Ambrose of Milan in his treatise on the Faith, in 379, vol. ii. p. 3, of the Benedictine edition, by St. Jerome in his Latin Vulgate of the Pauline epistles, a modified form of the Old Latin, in 385, by the Gothic version, which became affected by the Old Latin Text after 568, and by the twin uncials, the Augien F and the Boernerian G, both of Italy and the ninth century. The reading “idolatry,” therefore, does not call for serious attention. In Eph. 5:5d, we are only concerned with the question between “which” and “who,” or, as they would appear in the uncials, between O and OC.
We have, therefore, four questions; and it will be interesting to note how the various witnesses testify in their regard. We have read “you” in 4:32d, “you” in 5:2b, “us” in 5:2d, and “which” in 5:5d. The alternative readings are respectively “us,” “us,” “you” and “who.” None of these affects a doctrine; but each is important, as every clue is important, for determining the character and value of particular manuscripts.
We may say that the Old Latin readings are “you,” “us,” “us,” “which.” So we learn from the Claromontanus d, of Cent. vi. and its ninth century copy, the Sangerman e, from the Augien f and its twin the Boernerian g, both of Cent. ix., as well as from St. Cyprian’s testimony to “which,” and that of his master, Tertullian, about 210, in his Resurrection of the Flesh 45, to “you,” in the first place. We can therefore overlook the singular action of the Speculum, or “Mirror,” of Cent. ix. or x., in reading “you” in the second and third places. And our conclusion is confirmed by the Latin Vulgate of 385, although “us” was substituted in the first place by the Fuldensis about 540, and by the Amiatinus just before 716. Not only so, but the Gothic version, Ambrosiaster of Rome under Pope Dámasus, 366–384, the Augien uncial F, and the Boernerian uncial G, indicate the series “you,” “us,” “us,” “which,” as the Old Latin. It would indeed appear that the manuscript, from which the Augien F and the Boernerian G were copied, was made in Italy by a Latin, who adapted the Greek Text to the Latin version, and may even have derived much of the Greek from the Latin, as Erasmus in 1516 sent forth the first printed Greek Testament with several words and the last six verses of the Apocalypse, translated by himself from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.
The Syrian readings are “us,” “us,” “us,” “who.” These we find in the Syriac Peshitta or Vulgate of 411, the Syrian Theodoret, consecrated about 423, the Armenian version, made after 431, the Harclean Syriac of 616, the ninth-century uncials, the Moscovian K and the Angelic L, and the eleventh century cursive, 47. St. Basil, about 370, and St. Chrysostom, before 398, read “us” in the second and third places. This series is indeed found in the Claromontanus D, of Cent. vi. and its copy, the Sangerman E, of cent. ix., but may fairly enough be described as Syrian.
The Alexandrian readings are “you,” “you,” “us,” “who.” So read St. Clement, the Athenian convert, who became head of the Alexandrian school about 189. Origen supports him by reading “you” in the first place and “us” in the third. It is true that Cramer’s Caténæ 6 p. 188, of 1842, represents Origen as using “us” in the first place, but Origen’s Latin interpreter, iv. 671, at the end of the fourth century, read “you.” The evidence of St. Clement is supported by the Alexandrian manuscript A of the fifth century and by the Porphyrian P of the ninth.
Further, we find
in the Sinaitic Aleph,
you,
you,
us,
which,
in the Vatican B,
us,
you,
you,
which,
in the Bohairic version,
you,
us,
us,
who,
We have already found
the Western Reading to be,
you,
us,
us,
which,
the Syrian Reading,
us,
us,
us,
who,
the Alexandrian Reading,
you,
you,
us,
who,
In the first case, we accept “you,” as supported by the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Sinaitic uncial, and the Bohairic version. It is a matter of little consequence, that it is confirmed by Euthalius of Alexandria in 458. The chief point is the weakness of a Syrian reading in opposition to the other types.
In the second case, we again accept “you,” as supported by the Alexandrian Text, and by the Neutral Text of the Sinaitic Aleph and Vatican B.
In the third case, we read “us” with the Alexandrian, Western, and Syrian Texts, supported by the Sinaitic uncial and the Bohairic version.
In the fourth case, we noted a scribe’s motive for changing “which” into “who.” And as there is no reason for changing “who” into “which,” we regard the internal evidence as favourable to the latter. We are quite prepared to find “who” in the polished Alexandrian Text. But viewing the internal and external evidence as a whole, we seem bound to read “which.”
Eph. 5:6–14. Christian Light
The second of the self-regarding directions has regard to Christian Light, as the first had reference to Christian Love.
Only four years ago, on Saturday, April 30, 57, the Apostle warned the Ephesian presbyters against false teachers, Acts 20:30. After his release, early next year, 62, and his visit to Spain, he will leave St. Timothy in Ephesus as a defence against misleaders, 1 Tim. 1:3. Yet, in the summer of 66, he will write from his Roman prison, and tell how all they of Roman Asia have forsaken him. Then, too, he will point to Hymenaeus and Philetus as preachers of heresy, 2 Tim. 1:15, 2:17. At a later date, 95 A.D., the Apocalyptic Epistles to the Seven Churches will show the great inroads of false doctrine.
Now, he has just written to the Colossians,
Col. 2:8.
Look you, lest there shall be anyone who leads you off as spoil
By means of the philosophy and empty deceit,
that is, as the position of the two nouns under one preposition and article shows,
By means of his philosophy, which is empty deceit.
And here in the encyclical, the Apostle will describe the same thing by the very phrase which Plato employed in his Laches 169 B, sometime between 385 and 348 B.C. But that expression, “with empty words,” meaning “with false words,” as in Galen’s de diff. puls. iii. 6, about 170 A.D., is not such as to indicate any connection between the epistles of St. Paul and the dialogues of Plato. Further, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics II. vii. 1, ought not to be quoted in this connection, because the true reading there, according to the best manuscripts, Bekker’s K and L, is “more general.” The same question of variants is found in the Ethics III. viii., 6. But we may quote the Eudemian Ethics I. vi., 4, where the expression, “empty words,” is used in a bad sense. However the Apostle’s words are sufficiently simple.
Eph. 5:6.
None shall deceive you with empty words—
For on account of these [sins], the wrath of God is coming
On the sons of disobedience—
7.
Be not therefore becoming co-partakers with them,
that is, in their disobedience, and consequently in the wrath or judgement of God. It is plain that we must understand sins as those things, on account of which the judgement of God is coming now and at the Final Judgement. If there were any doubt about the matter, it would be settled by the parallel passage in Colossians 3:5, 6, where the mention of those sins is followed by the statement,
Col. 3:6.
On account of which things, the wrath of God is coming.
St. Paul has already mentioned “the sons of disobedience,” the disobedient men in revolt against God’s revelation and their own conscience, Eph. 2:2. The recurrence of their name recalls his theme of the Gentile’s position as members of the Church. And again, as in Eph. 2:11–22, and 4:17–24, he contrasts the new condition of his readers with their old. The three verses, in which he does so, form a parenthesis, into which he inserts another parenthesis as a parenthesis within the parenthesis, or a vinculum within the bracket, to tell what are the effects, by which supernatural light may be known. So he dictates,
Eph. 5:8.
(For you were sometime darkness,
But now [you are] light in [the] Lord.
Be walking as children of lilght—
9.
For the fruit of the light is in every [form of] goodness
And justice and truth—
10.
Proving what is well-pleasing to the Lord.)
As so many writers, including Darby, in his Synopsis iv. 430, Moule and Westcott, in their commentaries, have pointed out, the Apostle does not say that his readers had been in darkness, but that they had been darkness, their social effect being that of moral darkness. But now, “in [the] Lord,” in union and communion with Him, they are light. He indeed is the Light of the world, John 8:12. Because they are in Him, they also “are the light of the world,” Matt. 5:14. And as St. Paul has just told the Colossians, 1:12, they were made sufficient to receive their part of the saints’ lot “in the light,” that is, “in the kingdom of supernatural light.”
Now, for the sixth time, the Apostle uses the word “walk” as the Hebrew hālákh, “to walk,” in reference to conduct. And he urges his readers to be walking as children of light. The source of that phrase, “children of light,” seems to be in the “Parable of the Unjust Steward,” where “the sons of the light” are contrasted with “the sons of this age,” Luke 16:8. St. Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, about May, 52, said,
1 Thess. 5:5.
For you all are sons of light
And sons of day.
And St. John, at the end of the century, will record how our Lord said,
John 12:36.
As you are having the Light,
Be believing on the Light,
In order that you may become sons of light.
But the word “children,” though it represents the same Hebrew or Aramaic word as “sons,” is used here, Eph. 5:8, as suggesting a natural relationship rather than an official position.
The passage illustrates St. Paul’s readiness to pass from one metaphor to another. First of all, he speaks of his readers as light. Then they are children of light. And now “the fruit of the light” consists in every form of goodness and justice and truth. Beyond question, as we propose to show, the true reading is “the fruit of the light,” and not “the fruit of the spirit,” the latter phrase being taken from Gal. 5:22. Our Lord used the word “fruit” of His disciples as branches in Him, the True Vine, John 15:2. St. Paul has employed it in reference to the result of sin, Rom. 6:21. And within a few months, he will dictate the phrase, “fruit of justice,” Phil. 1:11.
The fruit of the Light consists in goodness, justice and truth. Of “justice” we have already spoken, Eph. 4:24. “Goodness,” agǎthōsúnē, has been excellently discussed by Trench in his Synonyms lxiii. It is only found in Greek versions of the Old Testament, in St. Paul, and in books dependent on these. In the Greek of Ecclesiastes 9:18, it is used in the sentence, “One man, sinning, will destroy much goodness.” But in the same book, 6:3, 6, a man’s life, however long it may have been, is counted vanity, if his soul was not “satisfied with goodness,” and if “he did not see goodness,” this last word, as Wright says in his Ecclesiastes p. 375, evidently standing for the enjoyment of life, and not for any moral or spiritual good. In the Greek of Psalm 37:21, according to the Alexandrian manuscript, and in that of Psalm 52:3, the word is used of moral conduct, opposed to wickedness or malice. And in the Greek of Nehemiah, 9:25, 35, it is used of God’s beneficence towards Israel.
St. Paul, alone of New Testament writers, uses the word. He does so four times. In Gal. 5:22, written about the summer of 49, he places the word between kindness and faith or faithfulness. In 2 Thess. 1:11, written about August, 52, he prays for his readers that God may fulfil every delight in goodness and work of faith in power. In Rom. 15:14, written about January, 57, he tells his readers of his conviction,
Rom. 15:14.
That yourselves also are full of goodness.
Having been filled with all the knowledge,
Being able also to admonish one another.
Apparently, then, the word implies something more active than chrēstǒtēs, “kindness,” or “benevolence”; and we may render it as “goodness,” in the sense of active goodness or beneficence.
The parenthesis within the parenthesis was formed by the lines,
Eph. 5:9.
For the fruit of the light is in every [kind of] goodness
And justice and truth.
Now the Apostle resumes the original parenthesis, the new I line forming a parallel to that already given.
Eph. 5:8c.
Be walking as children of light,
10.
Proving what is well-pleasing to the Lord.
To the Thessalonians, he has already said,
1 Thess. 5:21.
But be proving all things.
And later, he urged the Roman Christians, saying,
Rom. 12:2.
But be being transformed in regard to the renewing of the intelligence,
Unto the end that you may prove what [is] the will of God—
[That is, what is] the good and well-pleasing and perfect
Here, in Eph. 5:10, as in that passage to the Romans, he connects the proving with what is well-pleasing to our Lord and God the Father. The verb, rendered “prove,” means primarily to assay metals, so to test with good results, and hence to approve. Godet, in his commentary on Romans, explains the verb in 12:2, as “appreciate,” “discern.”
As to the Greek word for “well-pleasing,” eu-árestos, Deissmann, in his Bible Studies p. 215, has shewn that it is found in a possibly pre-Christian inscription of Nisÿros. The adverbial form occurs in Xenophon’s Memorabilia III. v. 5, in a pre-Christian inscription, 2885 in the Corpus of Greek Inscriptions, and in Epictélus.
The parenthesis is closed; and St. Paul resumes his original theme of the disobedient. He broke off at the line,
Eph. 5:7.
Be not therefore becoming co-partakers with them.
The Divine Lamp 