Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 5:5 - 5:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_5:5. Paul returns to the vices mentioned Eph_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 Eph_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. Mat_6:24). Comp. Php_3:19; Col_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 Col_3:5, bring it into special relief, in order with thoroughly deterrent force to make this felt ΚΑΤʼ ἘΞΟΧΉΝ as antichristian (comp. 1Ti_6:10). For Paul, in particular, whose all-sacrificing self-denial (2Co_6:10; 2Co_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 Col_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 Eph_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 (1Co_15:27) until the final consummation, whereupon He yields it up to God as the sole ruler (1Co_15:24; 1Co_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 , 1Co_6:9-10; 1Co_15:50; Gal_5:21), and Christ, in accordance with the strict monotheism of the apostle (comp. Eph_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 Rom_9:5; Col_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 Gal_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. Gal_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.