Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Ephesians 5:1 - 5:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
5:1γνσεονμμτὶτῦΘο. “Become therefore imitators of God.” γνσεresumes the γνσεof 4:32. The words of that verse, “forgiving …as God forgave you,” show that the imitation inculcated is in respect of this particular virtue, and the ον therefore, connects this verse with that immediately preceding, not with the whole foregoing subject. Imitators of God! The idea is a grand and ennobling one; and our Lord Himself sets it before us, and in the same aspect, when He says, “Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” namely, in that “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Mat_5:45, Mat_5:48). So that we also should love our enemies.
The forgiveness inculcated is obviously free forgiveness, as in the passage just cited and in the Lord’s Prayer. That this is here placed on the ground of imitation of God’s forgiveness is a decisive proof that St. Paul did not view the Atonement in the light of payment of a debt or endurance of a penalty demanded by Divine justice. The most unforgiving of men, if not actually vindictive, might say, I am quite ready to forgive on the same terms on which you say that God forgives, viz. that the debt be fully paid, the offence fully atoned for. Chrysostom has a fine comment on this “forgiving one another.” There is a great difference, he says, between God’s forgiveness and ours, “for, if thou forgivest, the other will in turn forgive thee; but to God thou hast forgiven nought. And thou to thy fellow-servant, but God to His servant, and His enemy, and him that hateth Him. And He did not for give simply without peril, but with the peril of His Son. For that He might forgive thee He sacrificed the Son,— τνΥὸ ἔυε — but thou, although often seeing forgiveness to be without peril or expense, dost not exercise it.”
ὡ τκαἀαηά i.e. as children beloved of God. He adds, says Chrys., another obligation of imitating God, not only because He has conferred benefits on us, but because we are His children, nay, His beloved children. “If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”
2. κὶπρπτῖεἐ ἀάῃspecifying, further, wherein the imitation of God is to be shown. Love is to be the rule of our life.
κθςκὶὁχιτςἠάηε ὑᾶ κὶπρδκνἑυὸ ὑὲ ἡῶ. Compare Joh_13:34, “as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” κὶπρδκνexpresses wherein this love was shown. So ver. 25, “loved the Church, and gave Himself for it”; Gal_2:20, “loved me, and gave Himself for me.” The verb requires no supplement, such εςθντνor τ Θῷsee Rom_8:32; Gal_2:20, and ver. 25. ὑέ “on behalf of.”
ποφρνκὶθσα τ Θῷ τ Θῷis best connected with these words for the reason just mentioned; not with the following, since this would suppose the words placed emphatically before εςὀμν as if to exclude the idea of human pleasure, which is out of the question. ποφρ and θσαare sometimes said to specify respectively an unbloody and a bloody offering; but such a distinction cannot be maintained either in classical or biblical Greek. The idea of “sacrifice” in θωis not derived from that of slaying, but of “smoking,” “burning incense.” This was, according to Aristarchus, the meaning of the verb in Homer; cf. Latin “fumus,” “subfio,” which are from the same root. For biblical usage see Gen_4:3; Num_7:49, Num_7:73, etc. The alleged sense would be especially out of harmony with the figurative use of θσαin St. Paul, θσαζσ, Rom_12:1; cf. Php_2:17, Php_4:18. Ellicott supposes that ποφρ is used as the more general term, relating, not to the death only, but to the life of obedience of our blessed Lord, His θσαζσ; while θσαrefers more particularly to His atoning death. The words appear, however, to be borrowed from Psa_40:6 (quoted Heb_10:5), where they are used simply as together including all kinds of ceremonial offering.
εςὀμνεωίς “For a sweet-smelling savour.” The figure was founded originally on the heathen idea that the smell of the burnt sacrifice did literally ascend to the gods, who thereby participated with the worshipper in the sacred feast. So in Homer often; see especially Il. xxiv. 69, 70, ο γρμίπτ βμςἐεεοδιὸ εσς Λιῆ τ κίη τ·τ γρλχμνγρςἡες It is appropriate only to a burnt-offering.
That St. Paul here speaks of Christ as a sacrifice cannot, of course, be denied. But does he do so by way of stating the nature or manner of the atonement? Surely not. There is not one word to hint at the relation of this sacrifice to God’s forgiveness. On the contrary, God in Christ forgiving us, and Christ showing His love by His offering of Himself, are put forward as exactly parallel examples; indeed, in view of the parallel in Col.,ὀΚρο ἐαίαο we might say as one and the same. It is this single aspect of Christ’s sacrifice as a supreme exhibition of love on the part both of the Father and of the Son that is here presented. Indeed, in Rom_8:32 the very same word πρδκ is used of the Father that is here used of the Son. And if we cannot argue as if the apostle were here stating the essential nature of the atonement, still less are we justified in assuming that he had in his mind the “substitutionary” view of sacrifice. Whatever the original idea of sacrifice may have been (and certainly the substitutionary view is not the only one possible), neither psalmists nor apostles seem to have had this idea present to their minds whenever they spoke of sacrifice. The psalmist speaks of sacrificing thanksgiving and praise (Psa_50:14); St. Paul, of his offering of the Gentiles (Rom_15:16). In Rom_12:1, already quoted, he calls on his readers to present their bodies as a sacrifice. In Php_2:17 he represents himself as offering their faith as a sacrifice; and in the same Eph_4:18, he calls their present to him a sacrifice, an odour of a sweet savour. With the exception of 1Co_10:18 (“they that eat of the sacrifices”), these are the only passages beside the present in which he uses the words. This gives little support to the notion that we are to interpret his words here as if we were dealing with a treatise on scientific theology.
Chrysostorn certainly does not err in this way. He observes: ὁᾷ τ ὑὲ ἐθῶ πθῖ, ὅιὀμ εωίςἐτ, κὶθσαεποδκό κνἀοάῃ ττ ἔῃθσα τῦομμσσα ἐτ τνΘό.
3-11. Special warnings against sins of impurity
3. πρεαδ κὶἀαασαπσ ἢπενξαμδ ὀοαέθ ἐ ὑῖ.
πρεαis mentioned as being a sin of little account amongst the Gentiles. On πενξαsee 4:19. This passage, says Moule, more perhaps than any other, suggests that the word(πενξα acquired by usage, in St. Paul’s time, a familiar though not fixed connexion with sensual greed, just such as our word “covetousness” has acquired with the greed of material property. It is urged here that ἤindicates that the two words between which it stands belong to different classes. But in the following verse we have ἤbetween μρλγαand εταεί, which do not belong to different classes.
μδ ὀοαέθ. Herodotus says of the Persians: ἅσ δ σιπιενοκἔετ, τῦαοδ λγι ἔετ (i. 138). But St. Paul’s precept refers to particular classes of sin only. Compare ver. 12. of ο γρλγιτνπαμτνεσνὁο Chrys. Bengel suggests for ὀο. “mentioned as committed,” “ut facta”; cf. ἀοεα ἐ ὑῖ πρεα 1Co_5:1. But, besides that ὀο can hardly mean this,μδ, “not even,” is decisive against it.
4. κὶασρτςκὶμρλγαἢεταεί.
The MSS. and Vss. vary between κίand ἤin the first and second places.
AD* G,It, Vulg., Sah. have ἤ…ἤ
א B Dc K, Boh., Eth. have teal κί…κί
א P, Syr-Harcl., Arm. have Κί…ἤ
Lachmann writes ἤ…ἤ Tischendorf, RV. κί…ἤ WH. κί…κί
ασρτςis not merely “foolish talking,” which would be ασρλγα but “shameful conduct.” Plato has (of Rhadamanthus inspecting the souls of the dead): ἀυμτίςτ κὶασρττςγμυα τνψχνεδν(Gorg. 525 A); but there the word means the hideousness stamped on the soul by the vices of the living man.
μρλγα “stultiloquium,” only here in bibl. Grk. It is a rare word also in classical writers, but occurs in Arist. (Hist. An. i. 11) and Plutarch (Mor. 504 B). Plautus uses “morologus,” “Amoris vitio non meo nunc tibi morologus flo” (Pers i. 1. 50).
εταεί. Aristotle defines ετ. as ππιεμν ὔρς ο ἐμλ πίοτͅετάεο ποαοεοτι But he adds that, since most persons are pleased with excessive jesting, ο βμλχιετάεο ποαοεοτι(Eth. Nic. 414), i.e., as in many other cases, the extreme usurps the name of the near. This would justify St. Paul’s usage, were there nothing else. But for the adjective compare also Pindar, Pyth. 1178, μ δλθςεταέοͅέδσʼand 4:104, where Jason boasts that he has never spoken ἒο ετάεο. According to Dissen, the word was used “cum levitatis et assentationis, simulationis notatione”; but this does not seem to be the meaning here, where the context clearly points to licentious speech; see ver. 5. Trench compares the history of the Latin “urbanitas” and the English “facetious.” He notes that in the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus, the old man who describes himself as “cavillator facetus” says: “Ephesi sum natus; non enim in Apulis, non Animulae.”
ἄοκἀῆ So אA B P. Rec. has τ οκἀήοτ, with D G K L and most.
ἀλ μλο εχρσί. Clement of Alex. understands εχ here of “gracious speech”; and so Jerome (but with a “foisitan”): “juxta quam grati save gratiosi et salsi apud homines appellamur,” —an opinion followed by Calvin, Hammond, and many others, “gracious, pious, religious discourse in general,” Hammond; who points to the ἵαδ χρντῖ ἀ. in 4:29, and “let your speech be always ἐ χρτ” in Col_4:6. In Pro_11:16 we have γν εχρσό, “a gracious, pious woman.” The adjective is sometimes so used in classical authors: εχρσόαο λγι Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1. This would suit the context very well; but as it only against St. Paul’s use of the word elsewhere, but, moreover, there is no example of the substantive in this sense, it would be too bold to adopt it. We have to understand a suitable verb from ὀοαέθ, both for this and the preceding substantives. The sense is not: “let not foolish speech be mentioned but thanksgiving,” but: “let there not be,” etc. Bengel understands ἀήε to εχρσί; and so Braune; which with the reading ἃοκἀῆε is not unnatural, but more harsh. In these cases of brachylogy there is really no need to look for a verb, the sense is obvious to the reader.
5. τῦογρἴτ γνσοτς ἴτ is the reading of אA B D* G P, It Vulg., Goth., Sah., Boh., Arm., Chrys.
ἔτ, that of Dc K L, Theodoret, Theoph. Internal as well as external evidence favours the former. ἔτ γν would be a feeble periphrasis for οδτ or γνσεε since there is no hint here of an emphasis on the present tense.
The combination of the two verbs is not to be explained by reference to the Hebrew idiom, which combines a finite verb with the infinitive absolute (imitated in Greek by the participle with the finite verb), since the verbs here are different. Xenophon’s ὁῶ κὶἀοω οδ (Cyr. iv. 1. 14) is nearer, but not exactly parallel, since there the participles define the kind of knowledge: “I know by observation and hearsay.” The meaning is clear: “ye know full well, of your own knowledge.” ἴτ is not imperative, as in the Vulgate and Bengel, etc., which does not at all agree with the addition γνσοτς Hofmann puts a stop after ἴτ, so as to make τῦοrefer to the preceding.
On πςοκcf. 4:29.
ὅἐτνεδλλτη.
There are three readings—
ὅἐτνεδλλτη, אB 672, Jerome.
ὅ ἐτνεδλλτη, A D K L P, Syr-Harcl., Boh., Arm., Chrys.
ὅἐτνεδλλτεα G, It, Vulg., Goth.; Syr-Pesh (printed text) has “or,” which points to ὅ
The last is supposed by Meyer to have been an explanation of the second, which he thinks genuine, the first being produced from this by restoring εδλλτη. But it is quite as easy to account for the third variety as arising from the first, because εδλλτη was thought unsuitable to ὅ If the second reading had been the original, it is not easy to see why it should have been changed; but ὅwould readily be changed to ὅ for grammatical reasons.
With the reading ὅ some commentators (Harless, Braune, etc.) refer the relative to all three antecedents; but this is not so natural as the reference to πενκη, which also corresponds with Col_3:5, πενξα, ἥι ἐτνεδλλτεα although there also Harless regards ἥι as by attraction for ἅια as Eph_3:13. With the reading ὅ the latter reference must, of course, be adopted. On the designation of π. as idolatry, see above on 4:19. The passages from Rabbinical writers, quoted by Schö and Wetstein, do not throw much light on the matter. They represent all kinds of wickedness and vice as idolatry; pride, anger, refusal to give alms. If πενξαis simply “covetousness,” the question is, why should this, any more than fornication and impurity, be singled out to be called idolatry? Meyer says that πρεαand ἀαασαare also subtle idolatry (certainly not “more subtle forms,” Ellicott), but that it was natural for St. Paul, whose own self-sacrificing spirit was so opposed to this self-seeking, to brand this especially as idolatry in order to make it κτ ἐοή abominable. There is nothing in his language elsewhere to support this idea. One of Chrysostom’s explanations shows how difficult he found it to answer the question. Wouldst thou learn, says he, how π. is idolatry, and worse than idolatry? Idolaters worship God’s creatures, but thou worshippest thy own creature, for God did not create πενξα
If we give πενξαand πενκη the wider sense advocated on 4:19, there is no difficulty.
οκἔε κηοοίν As κηοοί does not necessarily imply actual possession, but the title to possession, it is not necessary to say that the present is used to express the certainty of future possession.
ἐ τ βσλί τῦΧιτῦκὶΘο. Many expositors (Bengel, Harless, etc.) argue from the absence of the article before Θο that the words mean “the kingdom of Him who is Christ and God.” But Θό is one of the words that do not require an article; comp. 1Co_6:9, 1Co_6:10, βσλίνΘο: also ib. 15:50 and Gal_5:21. See also Gal_1:1, δὰἸσῦΧιτῦκὶΘο πτό: Rom_15:8, ὑὲ ἀηεα Θο: 13:4, Θο δάοο, etc. There is in the context no dogmatic assertion about Christ, and to introduce such a prediction in this incidental way would be out of place. Nor does the apostle’s language elsewhere lead us to suppose that he would thus absolutely designate Christ, God. Comp. 4:6, “one Lord, one God.” The absence of the article gives more unity to the conception; it is not “the kingdom of Christ, and also the kingdom of God,” but being the kingdom of Christ it is the kingdom of God.
6. μδὶ ὑᾶ ἀαάωκνῖ λγι. λγικνί “sermones a veritate alieni.” Aeschines speaks of a decree written by Demosthenes as κντρντνλγνοςεωελγι κὶτῦβο ὃ ββωε(Cont. Ctes. p. 288); and Plato says: τςἐ ξνυί τιδ μτνκνῖ λγι ατςατνκσο; (Laches. 169 B).
To what persons do these words refer? Grotius thinks, partly heathen philosophers, partly Jews, who thought that all Jews would have part in the world to come. Meyer sees in them the unbelieving heathen, which view he supports by reference to the following words; and so Eadie. But the Christians, as such, were separate from the unbelieving heathen, and the Epistle gives no reason to suppose that they would need to be warned against immoral teaching proceeding from them. Rather, we must understand persons amongst themselves who made light of sins of impurity, as too many in Christian communities still do. As Bullinger (ap. Harless) says: “Erant apud Ephesios homines corrupti, ut hodie apud nos plurimi sunt, qui haec salutaria Dei praecepta cachinno excipientes obstrepunt; humanum esse quod faciant amatores, utile quod foeneratores, facetum quod jaculatores, et idcirco Deum non usque adeo graviter animadvertere in istiusmodi lapsus.” The context perfectly harmonises with this: “Be not ye Christians misled into such vices, for it is just these, etc., and by falling into them ye would be σμέοο with those who are in the darkness from which ye have been delivered.”
δὰτῦαγρ “for it is on account of these things"; not this teaching, but these sins.
ἔΧτιἡὀγ τῦΘο. ὀγ is not to be limited to the ordinary judgments of this life, “quorum exempla sunt ante oculos ”(Calv.); nor is there reason to limit it to the wrath of God in the day of judgment (Meyer). The wrath of God will be manifested then, but it exists now.
ἐὶτὺ υοςτςἀεθίς see 2:2.
7. μ ονγνσεσμέοο ατν “Do not therefore become partakers with them.” ατνrefers to the persons, not the sins (as Braune). This sharing is by some understood of sharing in their punishment, but by most expositors of sharing in their sins; Stier combines both, and not unreasonably, since it has just been said that these sins bring punishment, and the sense naturally is : Have nothing in common with them, for ye surely do not desire to share the wrath with them.
8. ἦεγρπτ σόο. μνis quite properly absent. To quote Fritzsche: “Recte ibi non ponitur, ubi aut non sequitur membrum oppsitum, aut scriptores oppositionem addere nondum constituerant, aut loquentes alterius membri oppositionem quacunque de causâlectoribus non indixerunt” (Rom_10:19, vol. ii. p. 423).
ἦε The emphasis is on the time past; cf. “Troja fuit, fuimus Troes.” σόο. Stronger than “were in darkness.” They were not only in darkness; darkness was also in them. So ννδ φςἐ Κρῳ The whole nature of light was to belong to them as formerly the whole nature of darkness; they were not only in the light, but penetrated by it, so that they themselves became “the light of the world,” Mat_5:14.
ἐ Κρῳ “in fellowship with the Lord.”
ὡ τκαφτςπρπτῖε With τκαφτςcf. υο ἀεθίς ver. 6 and 2:3. Alford argues from the absence of the article before φτς(in contrast with τῦφτς ver. 9 and Luk_16:8), that “it is light as light that is spoken of.” But the absence of the article is in accordance with the settled rule stated by Apollonius, that (subject to certain qualifications) nouns in regimen must have the article prefixed to both or to neither (see Middleton, On the Greek Article, iii. 1, 7; 3, 6).
9. ὁγρκρὸ τῦφτς The walk to which I exhort you is that which becomes children of the light, for etc.
The Rec. Text. has πεμτςfor φτς with Dc K L, Syr-Pesh, Chrys. and most cursives.
φτςis the reading of אA B D* G P 672, It, Vulg., Goth., Boh., Arm., Origen, Jerome.
It might be thought possible that φτςhad come in from recollection of the same word just preceding, but the figure of “light” governs the whole passage, and ἔγ ἄαπ σόος ver. 10, corresponds to κρὸ φτςhere. Κρὸ πεμτςundoubtedly came in from the parallel, Gal_5:22, where the contrast is with ἔγ σρό, ver. 19; cf. 17, 18. The variation is an important one for the estimate of the character of the authorities that support the two readings respectively.
ἐ πσ ἀαωύῃκὶδκισν κὶἀηεᾳ“In all (i.e. every kind of) goodness and righteousness and truth,” the opposites of κκα ἀιί, ψῦο. ἀαωύηis not found in classical Greek, but is used by St. Paul in three other places, viz. Rom_16:14; Gal_5:22; 2Th_1:11. The use of it in the Sept. gives us little help. In Eccles., where it occurs several times, it is used for “enjoyment.” In Neh_9:25, Neh_9:35, it is used of the goodness of God. In Psa_3:3 (li. Sept.) it is “good “in general as opposed to “evil”; and so in 38(37):20. In St. Paul it would seem to mean “goodness” in the special sense of benevolence; and thus the threefold enumeration here would correspond to that in the Gospels: “justice, mercy, and truth,” and to Butler’s “justice, truth, and regard to common good” (comp. Rom_5:7).
As a metaphor the expression “fruit of the light” cannot be called “strictly correct,” as if it referred to the necessity of light for the production of fruit, etc. The words “children of light” convey no intimation of such a figure.
10. δκμζνε τ ἐτνεάετντ Κρῳ Compare Rom_12:2, εςτ δκμζι ὑᾶ τ τ θλμ τῦΘο, τ ἀαὸ κὶεάετνκὶτλιν
Putting to the proof, partly by thought and partly by experience. Stier and some others take the words imperatively, supplying ἐτ, as Rom_12:9-13 and vv. 19, 20; but here between two imperatives this is less natural.
11. κὶμ σγοννῖετι ἔγι ἀάπι τῦσόος “Have no fellowship with.” The thought joins on to ver. 7. The verb with the dative means (like the simple κιωεν to have fellowship or partnership with. In the sense, “to have part in a thing,” it takes the genitive. ἀάπι, for vice has no κρό. Thus Jerome: “Vitia in semet ipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes frugibus pullulant et redundant.”
11, 12. μλο δ κὶἐέχτ, τ γρκυῆγνμν ὑʼατνασρνἐτ κὶλγι. κυῆγνμν cannot be merely synonymous with ἔγ σόος as Harless and Olshausen hold; σόο and κυῆare distinct notions, and ἔγ σόοςmight be open offences. Besides, this would make κυῆquite superfluous. κὶλγι, “even to mention.”
ἐέχτ is usually taken to mean “reprove.” This seems to imply reproof by words; but then the reason assigned seems strange; they are to be reproved, because even to speak of them is shameful. If the conjunction had been “although” and not “for,” it would be intelligible. Hence some expositors have actually supposed that γρhere means “although,” which is, of course, impossible. Another view that has been taken is “rebuke them openly, for to speak of them otherwise is shameful”; but this puts too much into λγι. Bengel’s view is that the words assign, not the reason for ἐ., but the reason of the apostle’s speaking indefinitely of the vices, whilst he enumerates the virtues. This is forced, and against the emphatic position of κυῆ Stier’s view is that the reproof is to be by the life, not by words: “Ye would yourselves be sinning if ye were to name the secret vices”; hence the necessity for walking in the light, that so these deeds may be reproved. But St. Paul is not deterred by such scruples from speaking plainly of heathen vices when occasion required. Harless’ view, that the words are connected with μ σγ., “Do not commit these sins, for they are too bad even to mention,” assumes that τ κυῆγνμν Simply = τ ἔγ τῦσόος which we have seen is untenable.
Meyer and Eadie assign as the connexion, “By all means reprove them; and there is the more need of this, for it is a shame even to speak of their secret sins.” This seems to leave the difficulty unsolved. Barry says: “In such reproof it should be remembered that it would be disgraceful ‘even to speak’ in detail of the actual ‘things done in secret.’ ” This again supposes that γρassigns a reason for what is not expressed, namely, for some qualification of ἐέχτ, not at all for ἐέχτ itself.
There is, however, another meaning of ἐέχ very common, especially when the object is a thing, not a person, and more particularly in connexion with derivatives of κύτ, viz. to expose or bring to light. Artemidorus, in his interpretations of dreams, when speaking of those dreams which forebode the revealing of secrets, always speaks of τ κυτ ἐέχσα, e.g. ii. 36, ἥιςἀὸδσω ἐααέλντ κυτ ἐέχιτνλλθνιδκύτν Polybius says: ἐέχσα φσντςφσι ὑὸτνπρσάεν(p. 1382). He opposes to it δακτῖθι(p. 1383). And Phavorinus defines ἐέχ. τ κκυμννἀόηάτνςεςφςἄω Cf. Aristoph. Eccles. 483.
So the substantive ὁἔεχς= proof. The connexion of this signification with that of “convict” is obvious. The Etym. M. has ἔεχςἐτνὁτ πάμτ σφνζν…ὁγρἔ. εςφςἄε τ πάμτ.
This appears to be the meaning of the verb in Joh_3:20, οκἔχτιπὸ τ φς ἵαμ ἐεχῇτ ἔγ ατῦ Compare in the following verse, ἔχτιπὸ τ φς ἵαφνρθ ατῦτ ἔγ. Compare also 1Co_14:22, ἐέχτιὑὸπνω …τ κυτ τςκρίςατῦφνρ γντι The occurrence of κυῆhere in the immediate context suggests that this meaning was present to the apostle’s mind. Adopting it, we obtain as the interpretation : Have no participation with the works of darkness, nay, rather expose them, for the things they do secretly it is a shame even to mention; but all these things when exposed by the light are made manifest in their true character. Then follows the reason, not for 13a, but for the whole exhortation. This ἐέχι is not useless, for it leads to φνρῦθι and so turns σόο into φς This is Soden’s interpretation. A remarkable parallel is Joh_3:20, just quoted. There also ἔγ are the object, ἔγ whose nature is σόο (ver. 19); and it is the φςwhich effects ἐέχι, ver. 20, and φνρῦ, ver. 21.
13. τ δ πναἐεχμν ἡὸτῦφτςφνρῦα·πνγρτ φνρύεο φςἐτ. The difficulty in tracing the connexion continues to be felt here. Meyer interprets: But everything ( = those secret sins) when it is reproved is made manifest by the light; that is, by the light of Christian truth which operates in your reproof, it is brought to the light of day in its true moral character; I say, by the light, for—to prove that it can only be by the light—whatever is made manifest is light; it has ceased to have the nature of darkness. Assuming, namely, “quod est in effectu (φςἐτ) id debet esse in causa (ὑὸτῦφτς” This is adopted by Ellicott. But it is open to serious objection: first, ὑὸτῦφτςis not emphatic; on the contrary, its position is as unemphatic as possible; secondly, ἐεχμν is on this view not only superfluous but disturbing; thirdly, the assumption that what is in the effect must be in the cause, is much too recondite a principle to be silently assumed in such a discourse as this; and, lastly, this treats φνρύεο as if it were πφνρμνν Meyer, in fact, endeavours to obtain, by the help of a hidden metaphysical assumption, the same sense which Eadie and others obtain by taking φνρύεο as middle (=AV.).
Ellicott adds, “whatever is illumined is light.” But φνρωdoes not mean “to illumine,” but to make φνρς It occurs nearly fifty times in the N.T. and never = φτζι. True, it is allied to φς but not closely, for its nearest connexion is with the stem of φίω viz. φν which is already far from φς Again, when it is said by Alford (in reply to Eadie’s objection that the transformation does not always take place) that, “objectively taken, it is universally true: everything shone upon is Light” (whether this tends to condemnation or not depending on whether the transformation takes place or not), this surely is just what is not true. A dark object shone upon does not become lux (the English word is ambiguous). He adds that the key text is Joh_3:20, but in order to fit this in he interprets “brought into light” as “made light.”
Bengel, followed by Stier, takes φνρύεο as middle, “quod manifestari non refugit; confer mox, ἔερικὶἀάτ”[the correct reading is ἔερ]; and on πν “Abstractum pro concreto nam hic sermo jam est de homine ipso, coll. v. seq. propterea.”
We seem almost driven (with Eadie, after Beza, Calvin, Grotius, etc.) to take φνρύεο as middle, in this sense, “whatever makes manifest is light.” The examples, indeed, of φνρῦ θιas middle, adduced by Eadie, are not quite to the point, viz. such as ἐαεώηin Mar_16:12, where the medial sense is much more marked than in the present passage. Bleek thinks it necessary to suppose an active sense here, but he proposes to read φνρῦ τ. Oltramare interprets: “All the things done in secret, when reproved, are brought into open day by the light [which is salutary], for whatever is so brought out is light.”
14. Δὸλγι “Wherefore it is said.” It is generally held that this formula introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. Here the difficulty arises that this is not a quotation from canonical Scripture. Jerome admits this, saying, “omnes editiones veterum scripturarum ipsaque Hebraeorum volumina eventilans nunquam hoc scriptum reperi.” He therefore suggests that it is from an apocryphal writing; not that the apostle accepted such a writing as authoritative, but that he quoted it as he has quoted Aratus, etc. He, at the same time, mentions others who supposed the words to be spoken by the apostle himself under inspiration. Many moderns, however, think that the original text is Isa_10:1, “Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the lord is risen upon thee,” the words being, it is said, quoted, not verbally, but in essence. It would be more correct to say that the resemblance is verbal rather than in essence; for the differences are important. The very word ὁΧιτςis fatal to the idea of a quotation. Alford, indeed, says that it is a necessary inference from the form of the citation (viz. ὁΧ.) that St. Paul is citing the language of prophecy in the light of the fulfilment of prophecy, which obviously assumes the point in question. It is said, moreover, that no surprise can be felt at finding Christ substituted for the Lord (Jehovah) of the O.T., and the true Israel for Jerusalem. True: if the question were of the application of words from the O.T., as in 1Pe_3:15, or of interpretation added to the quotation, as in Rom_11:6-8. Moreover, the words here are not addressed to the Church (ὁκθύω), they seem rather addressed either to recent converts or to those who do not yet believe. And, further, there is nothing in Isaiah about awaking from sleep or arising from the dead (though Alford asserts the contrary); nor is the idea, “shall give thee light,” at all the same as Isaiah’s, “the glory of the Lord has risen upon thee.”
Hence other commentators find it necessary to suppose a reference to other passages either separately or combined with this, viz. Isa_9:2, Isa_26:19, Isa_52:1. Such conjectures, in fact, refute themselves; for when the words of a prophet are so completely changed, we can no longer speak of a quotation, and λγιwould be quite out of place. Nor can we overlook the fact that the point of the connexion seems to lie in the word ἐιασι
Others have adopted Jerome’s suggestion as to an apocryphal source, some even going so far as to suggest the actual name of the book, Epiphanius naming the Prophecy of Elijah; George Syncellus, a book of Jeremiah; the margin of Codex G, the Book of Enoch. It is hardly sufficient to allege against this view that λγιalways introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. But ὁΧιτςis inconsistent with the idea of an O.T. apocryphon, and apart from that the whole expression has a Christian stamp.
Meyer endeavours to reconcile the assertion that λγιintroduces a citation from canonical Scripture with the fact that this is not such a citation, by the supposition that by a lapse of memory the apostle cites an apocryphon as if it were canonical. But was St. Paul’s knowledge of the Scriptures so imperfect that he did not know, for example, that the promised deliverer is never in the O.T. distinctly called ὁΧιτς
Others conjecture that it may be a saying of Christ Himself that is quoted. The use of Χιτςin the third person is not inconsistent with this; nor, again, the fact that St. Paul does not elsewhere quote the sayings of Christ. Why might he not do it once? But it is impossible to supply ὁΧιτςor Ἰσῦ as a subject without something to suggest it. It is too forced to meet this by taking φςas the subject.
The difficulties disappear when we recognise that λγιneed not be taken to mean ὁΘὸ λγι—an assertion which has been shown in 4:8 to be untenable. It means “it says,” or “it is said,” and the quotation may probably be from some liturgical formula or hymn,—a supposition with which its rhythmical character agrees very well. That the words were suggested originally by Isa_60:1 may be admitted. Theodoret mentions this opinion: τνςδ τνἑμνυῶ ἔαα πεμτκςχρτςἀιθνα τνςψλοςσγρψι referring to 1Co_14:26. He seems to have taken this from Severianus (Cramer, vi. 197), who concludes: δλνονὃιἐ ἑὶτύω τνπεμτκνψλῶ ἤο ποεχνἔετ τῦοὃἐνμνυε (compare also Origen in the Catena, ib.). Stier adopts a similar view, but endeavours to save the supposed limitation of the use of λγιby saying that in the Church the Spirit speaks. As there are in the Church prophets and prophetic speakers and poets, so there are liturgical expressions and hymns which are holy words. Comparing vv. 18, 19, Col_3:16, it may be said that the apostle is here giving us an example of this self-admonition by new spiritual songs.
The view that the words are from a liturgical source is adopted by Barry, Ewald, Braune, v. Soden, the last-mentioned suggesting (after some older writers) that they may have been used in the reception after baptism. Compare 1Ti_3:16, which is not improbably supposed to have a similar source.
ἔερ is the reading of a decisive preponderance of authorities, אA B D G K L P, apparently all uncials, ἔεριbeing found only in cursives. In the other places where the word occurs (Mat_9:5; Mar_2:9, Mar_2:11, Mar_2:3:3, Mar_2:5:41; Luk_5:23; Joh_5:8), ἔερ is likewise supported by preponderant authority, a third variation ἐερνoccurring in some places. Fritzsche on Mar_2:9 has ably defended the propriety of ἔερ, which is not to be understood either as active for middle or as if σατνwere understood, but as a “formula excitandi,” “Up !” like ἄε ἔεγ (Eurip. Orest. 789). So in Eurip. Iph. Aul. 624, ἔερ ἀεφςἐʼὑέαο ετχς and Aristoph. Ran. 340, ἔερ φοέςλμάα ἐ χρἰ…τνσω. This use is limited to the single form ἔερ. ἔερι says Fritzsche, would mean “excita mihi aliquem.”
ἀάτ for ἀάτθ = Act_12:7. This short form is also found in Theocritus and Menander. Compare κτβ, Mar_15:30 (in some MSS. including A C), and ἀάα Rev_4:1.
κὶἐιασισιὁΧιτς ἐιασιfrom ἐιασω which is found several times in Job (Sept.); D* d e and MSS. mentioned by Chrysostom and by Jerome read ἐιασι τῦΧιτῦ Jerome (quoted by Tisch.) relates that he heard some one disputing in the church, in order to please the people with something new, saying that this was said with reference to Adam, who was buried on Calvary, and that when the Lord on the Cross hung above his grave, the prophecy was fulfilled, “Rise Adam, who sleepest, and rise from the dead and Christ shall touch thee, ἐιασι” i.e. that by the touch of Christ’s body and blood he should be brought to life. This story probably indicates how this reading arose.
15—21. General exhortation to regulate their conduct with wisdom, to make their market of the opportunity, and, avoiding riotous indulgence, to express their joy and thankfulness in spiritual songs
15. βέεεονἀρβςπςπρπτῖε
This is the reading of א B 17 and some other MSS., Origen, and probably Chrys. But πςἀρβς א A D G K L P, with most MSS., Vulg., Syr. (both), Arm., Theodoret, Jerome, etc. Chrysostom has ἀρβςπςin text and comment, but in the latter πςἀρβςoccurs presently after, also βέεεπςπρπτῖε As πςἀρ is the common later reading, it is probable that its occurrence in the second place in the comm. is due to a copyist of Chrys. The variation in the original text may have arisen from an accidental omission of πςafter -βς(it is actually om. in Eth.), it being there inserted in the wrong place. In Eadie’s comment. Exo_2, πςis similarly om.
ονis resumptive, “to return to our exhortation.” Some, however, regard this as an inference from what immediately precedes, viz. “since ye are enlightened by Christ” (Ewald, Braune); but as the substance of the exhortation is clearly the same as in vv. 8-10, it is unnecessary to look on this as an inference from ver. 14. Harless follows Calvin, who says: “Si aliorum discutere tenebras fideles debent fulgore suo, quanto minus caecutire debent in proprio vitae instituto?” But this would seem to require an emphatic ατί
On ἀρβςcompare Act_26:5, κτ τνἀρβσάη αρσν As πρπτῖεis a fact, the indicative is correctly used, and is exactly parallel to 1Co_3:2, ἕατςβεέωπςἐοκδμῖ Most commentators expound the other reading. Fritzsche’s view of this has been generally adopted (Opuscula, p. 209 n.), viz. that ἀρ πρ = “tanquam ad regulam et amussim vitam dirigere,” the whole meaning πςτ ἀρβςἐγζσε= “videte quomodo circumspecte vivatis h. e. quomodo illud efficiatis, ut provide vivatis.” He exposes the fallacy of Winer’s contention (subsequently abandoned), that the words were a concise expression for βέεεπςπρπτῖε δῖδ ὑᾶ ἀρβςπρπτῖ. He thinks the reading ἀρβςπςwas a correction on the part of those who, being familiar with ἀ. βέεν εδνι etc., were offended with ἀρ πρπτῖ. which is, he says, most suitable to this place.
μ ὡ ἄοο, explaining πς and so dependent, like it, on βέεε hence the subjective negation (Winer, §55. 1). Then ωρπτῦτςneed not be supplied.
16. ἐαοαόεο τνκιό. “Seizing the opportunity,” “making your market to the full from the opportunity of this life” (Ramsay, St. Paul as Traveller, etc., p. 149). The same expression is used in Col_4:5 with special reference to conduct towards those outside the Church, ἐ σφᾳπρπτῖεπὸ τὺ ἔω τνκ ἐα. Lit. “buying up for yourselves,” ἐ being intensive, and corresponding to our “up.” κιὸ ὑεςἀοάεεoccurs Dan_2:8, but in a different sense, viz. “wish to gain time.” More parallel as to sense is κρατο τ πρν Antonin. vi. 26. ἐαοάω in the sense “buy up,” is found in Polyb. ii. 42. 2, ἐηόαεπρ ατντ τ μνξλ ποαπνα κτλ In Mart. Polyc. 2 it has the wholly different sense: “buy off,” δὰμᾶ ὥα τναώινκλσνἐαοαόεο. Chrysostom says the expression is obscure, and he illustrates it by the case of robbers entering a rich man’s house to kill him, and when he gives much to purchase his life, we say that he ἐηόαε ἑυό. So, he proceeds, “thou hast a great house, and true faith; they come on thee to take all; give whatever one asks, only save τ κφλιν that is τνπσι.” This completely ignores τνκιό. Oecum. is more to the point: ὁκ οκἐτνἡῖ ββις…ἀόαο ονατνκὶπίσνἴιν So Theodore Mops., and so Severianus in Catena, adding that “the present opportunity δυεε τῖ πνρῖ, buy it up, therefore, so as to use it for piety.” But it is futile to press the idea of “purchasing,” or the force of ἐ, so as to inquire from whom the opportunity is to be bought, as “from evil men” (Bengel, cf. Severianus, above), “the devil,” Calvin; or what price is to be paid (τ πνα Chrys.). The price is the pains and effort required.
ὅια ἡέα πνρίεσν So that it is the more necessary τνκιὸ ἐα. The moments for sowing on receptive soil in such evil days being few, seize them when they offer themselves. πνρίis “morally evil,” not “distressful” (Beza, Hammond, etc.),—an idea foreign to the context, which contrasts the walk of the Christians with that of the heathen.
17. δὰτῦο Viz. because it is necessary to walk ἀρβς ε γρἔεθ ἄρνςἀρβςο πρπτστ, Schol. ap. Cat. Not “because the days are evil,” which was only mentioned in support of ἐα. τνκιό.
μ γνσεἄρνς “Do not show yourselves senseless.” ἄρνdiffers from ἄοο as referring rather to imprudence or folly in action.
ἀλ σνεε So אA B P 17, 672, etc. Rec. has σνέτς with Dc E K L and most MSS., It, Vulg., Syr-Pesh; while D* G have σνοτςwhich Meyer, with little reason, prefers as the less usual form.
Somewhat stronger than γνσεε “understand.” τ τ θλμ, cf. ver. 10.
18. κὶμ μθσεθ ον. κίmarks a transition from the general to the particular, as in επτ τῖ μθτῖ ατῦκὶτ Πτῳ Mar_16:7; πσ ἡἸυααχρ, κὶο Ἱρσλμτι Mar_1:5