assigns the reason for the demand just expressed,
ἐλέγχετε
, by pointing to what quite specially needed the
ἐλέγχειν
,—by pointing to the secret vicious acts of the unbelievers, which are so horrible, that one must feel ashamed even but to mention them
Eph_5:12 assigns the reason for the demand just expressed,
ἐλέγχετε
, by pointing to what quite specially needed the
ἐλέγχειν
,—by pointing to the secret vicious acts of the unbelievers, which are so horrible, that one must feel ashamed even but to mention them. Thus, consequently, the
ἐλέγχετε
has its ground assigned as concerns its great necessity.
κρυφῇ
] not elsewhere in the N.T. (but see Deu_28:57; Wis_18:9; 3Ma_4:12; Xen. Symp. v. 8; Pind. Ol. i. 75; Soph. Trach. 686, Antig. 85; to be written with Iota subscriptum, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 992; Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 6 f.), in the protasis has the emphasis,—hence it is prefixed,—and denotes that which takes place in secret, in the darkness of seclusion. More special references, such as to the horrible excesses in connection with the heathen mysteries (Elsner, Wolf, Michaelis, Holzhausen), or even to the “familiam Simonis Magi, quae erat infandarum libidinum magistra” (Estius), have just as little warrant in the context as the weakening of the meaning of the word by Morus, who understands thereby the mores domesticos of the Gentiles. According to Koppe (flagitia quaevis), Meier, Harless, and Olshausen, the
κρυφῇ
γινόμενα
are not meant to be specially the secret deeds of vice, but the
ἔργα
τοῦ
σκότους
in general, which are so designated in accordance with the view conditioned by
σκότος
(see Harless). But against this may be urged, first, the fact that
σκότος
(here in the ethical sense) and
κρυφῇ
are quite different notions, inasmuch as manifest vice also is an
ἔργον
τοῦ
σκότους
, whereas only the peccata occulta take place
κρυφῇ
; secondly, the emphasis, which the prefixing of
κρυφῇ
demands for this word, and which, if
κρυφῇ
denoted nothing special, would be entirely lost, so that Paul might have written merely
τὰ
γὰρ
γινόμενα
ὑπʼ
αὐτῶν
; thirdly, the contrast of the following
φανεροῦται
, which presupposes in the
ἐλέγχειν
something which had been done secretly (comp. Heliodorus, viii. p. 397:
ὁ
τῆς
δίκης
ὀφθαλμὸς
ἐλέγχων
καὶ
τὰ
ἀμήνυτα
κρύφια
καὶ
ἀθέμιτα
φωτίζων
); and lastly, that it would in fact be quite an exaggerated assertion to say of the sins of the Gentiles generally, that it is a shame even to mention them.
ὑπʼ
αὐτῶν
] by the
υἱοὶ
τῆς
ἀπειθείας
.
καὶ
λέγειν
] even only (see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 136) to say, what they in secret do, one must be ashamed. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 465 C:
ὀκνῶ
καὶ
λέγειν
, Dem. 1262, 11:
ἃ
πολλὴν
αἰσχύνην
ἔχει
καὶ
λέγειν
, and the passages in Wetstein. The tacit contrast is the
ποιεῖν
of the doers. Compare the
μηδέ
of Eph_5:3.
REMARK.
The relation, by way of ground, of Eph_5:12 to what precedes has been very variously apprehended, and with various definitions of the sense itself. Calvin, anticipating, holds that the intention is to state what is accomplished by the
ἔλεγξις
; thereby light is brought into their secret things, “ut sua turpitudine pudefiant,” comparing 1Co_14:24. Of this there is mention only in the sequel. Entirely at variance with the words is the view of Grotius (comp. Calovius): “nam nisi id fiat, audebunt etiam clam turpiora.” Bengel (comp. already in Oecumenius) finds in Eph_5:12 the cause adduced, “cur indefinite loquatur Eph_5:11 de operibus tenebrarum, cum fructum lucis Eph_5:9 definite descripserit.” Imported, and opposed to the emphatic
κρυφῇ
. While, moreover, Koppe translates
γάρ
by doubtless [zwar], Rückert wishes at least to supply a doubtless. “Doubtless their secret sins are not of such kind that they can be mentioned with honour, yet it belongs to you, as children of the light, to convince them of the wickedness of their actings.” But the supplying of
μέν
is pure invention. See on Eph_5:8. Quite mistaken also is the explanation of Meier: “Yes, reprove them severely and openly to the face; for the merely unconcerned speaking and telling of such deeds of shame secretly committed is likewise disgraceful, unworthy, and mean.” This Paul would at least have expressed thus:
τὸ
γὰρ
λέγειν
μόνον
(antithesis to
τὸ
ἐλέγχειν
)
τά
κρυφῇ
ὑπʼ
αὐτῶν
γινόμενα
αἰσχρ
.
ἐστι
. Impossible, likewise, is Holzhausen’s interpretation: “The sins committed in the darkness of the heathen mysteries the Christians are not to disclose; they are not even to utter the names thereof, they are too abominable.” Apart from the consideration how singular such a precept must appear face to face with the decidedly moral character of the apostle, apart also from the fact that the mysteries are purely imported (see above), such a view should have been precluded as well by the
γάρ
in itself (since, in fact, no counterpart of
κρυφῇ
precedes), as by the succeeding
τὰ
δὲ
πάντα
, which, according to Holzhausen, is meant to signify the vices, “which can endure your light.” Following Anselm, Piscator, Vorstius, Zanchius, Flatt, Harless finally discovers in Eph_5:12 the assigning of a reason not for the
ἐλέγχετε
, which is held to follow only with Eph_5:13, but for
μὴ
συγκοινωνεῖτε
τοῖς
ἔργοις
τοῖς
ἀκάρπ
.
τοῦ
σκότους
: “for even but to mention their secret deeds is a shame, to say nothing of doing them.” But against this the right apprehension of the emphatic
κρυφῇ
(see above) is decisive; moreover, the exhortation
μὴ
συγκοινωνεῖτε
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., has already, in what precedes, such repeated and such specifically Christian grounds assigned for it (Eph_5:3-5; Eph_5:8, as also further
τοῖς
ἀκάρποις
, Eph_5:11), that the reader, after a new thought has been introduced with
μᾶλλον
, could not at all expect a second ground to be assigned for the previous one, least of all such a general one—containing no essentially Christian ground—as would be afforded by Eph_5:12, but rather would expect a ground to be assigned for the new thought
μᾶλλον
δὲ
καὶ
ἐλέγχετε
which had just been introduced.