Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 5:1 - 5:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_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, Eph_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 (Joh_13:34; Joh_15:13). Accordingly, Eph_5:1 corresponds to the καθὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν Χρ . ἐχαρίσατο as a whole, and Eph_5:2 to the ἐν Χριστῷ in particular; γίνεσθε οὖν at the same time corresponds emphatically to the γίνεσθε δέ of Eph_4:32, introducing in another form—flowing from the last words of Eph_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 (1Jn_3:1; Rom_5:8; Rom_5:5, al.)! Now, to be God’s beloved child, and not to become like the loving Father, how contradictory were this! See Rom_6:1 ff.; 1Jn_4:7 ff.; Mat_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. Eph_5:25; Rom_5:8 f.; Gal_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. Exo_29:18; Lev_1:9; Lev_1:13; Lev_1:17; Lev_23:13; Lev_23:18; Gen_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 Rom_5:6; Gal_3:13.
προσφορὰν κ . θυσίαν ] as an offering and a sacrifice. The latter ( æÆáÇç ) 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 ( îÄðÀçÈä ). Comp. Sir_14:11. Of the sacrifice of Christ, also Heb_10:10; Heb_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 Psa_40:7; Heb_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. 1Pe_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 øÅéçÇÎðÄéçÉçÇ (Lev_1:9; Lev_1:13; Lev_1:17; Lev_2:12; Lev_3:5), which was the original real, anthropopathic basis of the idea of the acceptableness of a sacrifice to God. See Gen_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 , Rom_3:25 (comp. also Mat_20:28; Mat_26:28; 1Pe_1:18; 1Ti_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 Lev_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.