Ephesians 5:3-5

2) Look into thyself and think of purity

(Ephesians 5:3-5)

3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once [even] 4named among you, as becometh saints; Neither7 filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor 5[or] jesting, [things] which8 are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know [of this ye are sure,9 knowing] that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who10 is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of [omit of] God.11

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The exhortation; Ephesians 5:3-4.

Ephesians 5:3. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness [πορνεία δὲ καὶ πᾱσα ].—“But,” δέ, indicates the transition to another part of the exhortation (Meyer). Πορνεία cannot here, where Christians are addressed, be taken in the heathen sense; the Scriptural meaning (in both Old and New Testament) is the prominent one. Hence it refers not to the coarsest exhibition, but to what is within, to the heart. It comes first as something general and comprehensive; applying to act, word, disposition, as indeed the context combines temper and walk in one, to men among themselves and in relation to God. “And all uncleanness” gives prominence to one particular side of this, pointing to every form and mode of the same. “Or covetousness” marks the other side, which is to be clearly distinguished, hence the disjunctive ἤ12, “or,” which indicates that πᾶσα, “all,” belongs here also. The former refers to impure, unchaste, ungodly, dalliance and contact, solitary uncleanness; the latter to greedy lusting, from a distance and ungratified. This accords with Ephesians 4:19, where both substantives are found.

Let it not be even named among you, μηδὲ ὁνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν.—Comp. Ephesians 5:12; Psalms 16:4. Such a thing should not even be taken up in speech, much less be done. ̓Εν ὑμῖν ἐν μέαῳ ὑμῶν. The prohibition is of course to be limited: sine necessitate (Bengel). It is incorrect to explain: Such a thing should not be told of them, as 1 Corinthians 5:1 (Grotius, Bengel).

As becometh saints.—Καθώς, as in Ephesians 5:2; with τρέπει ἁγίοις, we should compare ἀξίως (Ephesians 4:17) and ὁαιότης (Ephesians 4:24), with which the introduction of such things into the speech is irreconcilable. [“Were the Apostle to say, Let despondency be banished, he might add, as becometh believers, or, Let enmity be suppressed, he might subjoin, as becometh the brethren; but he pointedly says in this place, “as becometh saints” (Eadie).—R.]

Ephesians 5:4. Neither filthiness, αἰσχρότης.—This evidently includes more than αἰσχρολογία (Colossians 3:8). Although the antithesis (εὐχαριστία) points to shameful words (Luther), neither the context, which places αἰσχρότης beside μωρολογία nor the word itself require an exclusive reference to speech. Still less is it to be limited to lewd talk. Bengel refers it also to gestus, etc.

Nor foolish talking, καὶ μωρολογία.—[Textual Note1. Should ἢ be accepted here, we should substitute or for nor, as is done in the case of the next substantive.—R.] According to the New Testament conception of μωρός, “fool” (Matthew 5:22; Psalms 14:1; Psalms 53:2), this means godless discourse; it is not merely stultiloquium, insipid talk, silly babbling (Calvin, [Hodge] Meyer, Schenkel). Luther hits the meaning with: Narrentheidinge, buffoonery, which denotes what is high-flown, pompous, in loose discourse. See Juetting: Bibl. Wörterbuch p. 189. [Trench, Syn. § Eph 34: “The talk of fools, which is folly and sin together.”—R.]

Or jesting, ἢ εὐτραπελία (from εὐ and τρέπω) means strictly urbanitas, a habit of cultivated people, not without adroitness and not without frivolity. Luther: jest. Bengel aptly says: subtilior ingenio nititur; this refers to the form, the previous term to the purport. The Vulgate is incorrect: scurrilitas. [Comp. Trench, § 34. on this word. He refers to “the profligate old man” of the Miles gloriosus (Plautus), who is exactly the εὐτράπελος, and remarkably enough an Ephesian, boasting as though such wit were an Ephesian birthright. See also Barrow’s famous sermon on wit from this text (Vol. 1, Serm. 14), an extract from which is given by Eadie in loco.—R.]

Things which are not convenient, τάοὐκ .—This gives prominence to the wider range, beyond the lewdness and the coarser forms. In spite of μὴ καθήκοντα (Romans 1:28) we found οὐκ here, because the negation has coalesced with the word in one conception. See Winer, p. 452. As a predicate we must borrow an absint (Bengel) from μὴ ὀνομαζέσθω. [This phrase is not to be limited to the last of the three substantives, but is “in apposition to the last two words, to both of which εὐχαριστία, as denoting oral expression yet implying inward feeling, forms a clear contrast.”—R.]

But rather giving of thanks, μᾶλλον δὲ εὐχαριστία—ἀνήκει, as Bengel aptly supplies out of the preceding context, remarking: linguæ abusus opponitur sanctus et tamen Iætus usus, Ephesians 5:18-19. Non conveniunt abusus et usus εὐτραπηλία et εὐχαριστία, concinna paronomasia; illa turbat animam (et quidem subtilis aliquando jocus et lepus tenerum gratiæ sensum, Iædit) hæc exhilirat.13 As “beloved children” they have ever again to thank God. The reference is not to grace of discourse (Jerome, Calvin, and others, Stier includes this with the other), nor to pudicitia (Heinsius).

Ephesians 5:5. Special motive. For this ye are sure, knowing [τοῦτο γὰρἴατε γινώσκοντες].—“For” adds a ground, in order to strengthen the exhortation as a consequence therefrom. Accordingly ἔστε [ἴστε] γινώσκοντες is to be taken as an indicative [Meyer, Eadie, Alford and others], not as imperative (Vulgate, Luther, Bengel and others). The participle indicates the mode of knowing as of their own perception (Meyer), insight. Τοῦτο, “this,” placed in advance, points to what is stated afterwards, the import of which cannot be unknown to Christians. Winer (p. 333) is therefore incorrect: What is said in Ephesians 5:3-4, ye know, since ye perceive, that, etc. [This reference of τοῦτο to what follows is doubtful to say the least. It seems quite correct to refer it, as the object of ἴστε, to what precedes, γινώσκοντες being joined with ὅτι. Braune takes no notice of the correct reading, an inadvertence which probably modifies his opinion of the construction. The combination of finite verb and participle is not to be explained as Hebraistic, since the verbs are different.—R.]

That no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man.—The concrete terms (πόρνος, ἀκάθαρτος, πλεονέλτης), here occurring instead of the abstract ones mentioned in Ephesians 5:3, must be taken in the same sense. [The literal sense is: “that every fornicator or (ἤ individualizes here) unclean man, or covetous man, who is an idolater, hath not inheritance.” The negation is transferred to the subject according to English usage.—R.]

Who is an idolater, ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης.—This relative clause not only characterizes, but also gives a reason for the fact to be stated. On this account and because “who” is limited to the last term altogether without warrant, the clause is to be applied to “every whoremonger, unclean person, covetous man.” It is not the covetous man alone who is an idolater, having this world’s goods as his god (Matthew 6:24; 1 Timothy 6:10); Paul holds “belly” and “glory” also as “god” for the enemies of the cross (Philippians 3:19). The proof lacks aptness, if that be not attributed to the first two, which is predicated of the third, who is not an idolater more especially than the former. The clause is incorrectly referred to the “covetous man” alone (Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek); Colossians 3:5 does not prove this, still less can it be said that Paul’s self-denial, which unselfishly offered up all, led him to affirm this of covetousness alone, since he was just as free from lust and uncleanness. [In this wide reference of the relative clause Braune is sustained by Harless, Stier and others, but the more limited view is that of Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott and most. It is more natural and obvious, since all that can be urged in favor of the other view but proves that the reference may be thus wide, not that it is. And covetousness is more specially idolatry, the other sins are but more subtle forms of this. If ὅ be accepted as the correct reading, then the reference is necessarily confined to the last word. See Alford in loco.—R.]

Hath any inheritance, οὖκ ἔχει κληρ ονομίαν.—See Ephesians 1:11. It is not=οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν, “shall not inherit” (Galatians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), nor κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύνανται (1 Corinthians 15:50). It is the fact respecting the status; permanent, prevalent sin excludes from the kingdom of God, effects the repelling of the arrhabo, the Holy Ghost (Ephesians 1:13-14); “hath an inheritance” is not=inherits the kingdom, since the former marks the heirship, the latter the entrance of the heir. To accept a certain future relation viewed as present, will not suffice (Bengel). [See Winer, p. 249. “Has no inheritance,” can have none, this being a law of God’s moral government of the world (Eadie, Ellicott), an eternal verity of that kingdom (Alford).—R.]

In the kingdom of Christ and God, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ Χριστοῦ καῖ Οεοῦ.—Βασιλεία means the kingdom, where God in Christ is the Ruler, and His people belong to Him, and hence to be distinguished from ἐκκλησία, to which the fornicator and such characters belong, without having part in the former. (See Doctr. Note 5.) Bengel is excellent: articulus simplex, summam unitatem indicans. The expression here depends on the fact that Christ’s and God’s kingdom is one (Ephesians 5:12), that Christ’s kingdom is also God’s kingdom; though this first appears at the end in glory (Revelation 9:15), the development advancing through the Church. Accordingly it is incorrect to explain it as meaning the kingdom of Christ, who is also God (Harless) [Hodge and many others] though Christ is termed God (Romans 9:5), or can be thus termed [against Meyer].

[Alford: “No distinction is to be made, Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ being in the closest union. Nor is any specification needed that the kingdom of Christ is also the kingdom of God, as would be made with the second article. This follows as a matter of course: and thus the words bear no legitimate rendering, except on the substratum of our Lord’s Divinity. But on the other hand we cannot safely say here that the same Person is intended by Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ, merely on account of the omission of the article. For 1) any introduction of such a predication regarding Christ would here be manifestly out of place, not belonging to the context: 2) θεός is so frequently and unaccountably anarthrous, that it is not safe to ground any such inference from its use here.” So Eadie, Ellicott and many others. The inferential proof of the Divinity of Christ thus afforded is well-nigh as strong as, certainly more defensible than, that resulting from the other view.—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The life of the Christian, like Christian ethics, must pursue sin in its coarsest forms and manifestations even into its most secret, refined propensities; it depends upon the substance; this is to be rejected in every form. Christian culture has a sharp eye and delicate perception for evil under its elegant appearance, and a powerful will and apt word for the refusal and overcoming of the same: it can have no pleasure in elegant forms under which wickedness conceals itself.2. What was of validity in the morals of the Persians (Herodotus I., 138): ἄσσα δέ σφι ποιέειν οὐκ ἐξεστι ταῦτα οὐδὲ λέγειν ἔξεστι, every Christian must accept as valid to this extent, that he says: What is more becoming to do or say, that thou shouldst not even think. A word often includes more evil in itself than an act, and a thought than a word; even if the evil thought be less mischievous than the act, because it is only a thought not an act. The sinful act of the non-christian is at all events as a rule less wicked than the Christian sinful word or temper; as the same is true of a neglected Christian child, over against one carefully trained, or of the same man, as different now and formerly, or on festival or fast day with its elevation and in the press of labor and the throng of the world.

3. The Christian’s position is dignity, which preserves the worthiness of the person in a pure life no less than in pure doctrine with tender conscientiousness.4. Every sin stands connected with idolatry: it remains the same, whether thou makest a god of the goods of this world in covetousness, or of the lust of this world in pursuit of pleasure, or of thine own Ego in pride. Paul terms covetousness not the (ἡ) but a root (ἥζα) of all evil (1 Timothy 4:10). The same is true of the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (1 John 2:16).

[Hodge is however perfectly correct in saying: “The analogy between this supreme love of riches, this service of mammon and idolatry, is more obvious and more distinctly recognized in Scripture than between idolatry and any other of the sins mentioned. It is well that this should be understood, that men should know that the most common of all sins is the most heinous in the sight of God; for idolatry, which consists in putting the creature in the place of God, is everywhere in His word denounced as the greatest of all sins in His sight. The fact that it is compatible with outward decorum, and with the respect of men, does not alter its nature. It is the permanent and controlling principle of an irreligious heart and life, turning the soul away from God. There is no cure for this destructive love of money, but using it for other than selfish purposes. Riches, therefore, must ruin their possessor, unless he employs them for the good of others and for the glory of God.”—R.]

5. The kingdom of Christ and of God is not precisely the church. The former marks the authority, the latter the people; that refers to the power, which orders, manages, governs, this to the grace which chooses, attracts, trains, guides and endows; the former has to do with powers, which are applied and with laws which are established and administered. Both however have one end: God’s glory and the creature’s salvation. The kingdom of God and Christ is wider and narrower than the church. It stretches itself over the time antecedent to the church, which should become the kingdom of God, and embraces all, who obey and permit themselves to be drawn by the will of the Ruler, God in Christ, so far as the same is known, in His laws given to His creatures in nature from the very creation, in their conscience and in the order about and above them. All moral natures of every kind, childlike, truth seeking souls belonging thereto (Matthew 8:12; Mark 12:34; John 18:36-37). To this belong all historical leadings of nations, all guidance to individuals, all the effects of power and wisdom, which prepare the way for the church. The kingdom is God’s as well as Christ’s (Matthew 13:41; John 18:36 f.). As before the church and for the church the kingdom is more extended. But at the same time it becomes less extended within the church. There it applies to those called as the people of God, to those who obey the call; those who resist, who are indifferent, who hold only externally to the church, even though they hold in high regard a moral life, as is done without the church as well, who undervalue or despise the faith of the Scriptures or the church, or rely on the latter and neglect the former,—all withdraw themselves from the “kingdom” within the church. The word is to be taken in this latter sense here (Ephesians 5:5). At the end of the world both come together: since that will be the fulness of time, when the Son of man shall appear in glory.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL.

Comp. Doctr. Notes.

From the wanderings of the flesh in the insubordination of its appetites and of society in loose talk, we should take occasion, not to run away and forsake the world, but to guard ourselves, and so to strive in ourselves, that God’s pardoning love is not in vain, and sanctification is not disturbed. Neither happiness, nor pleasure, nor property is the aim and task of life, but the formation of the character, of that stamp with His image received in creation and renewed in redemption. To be covetous in what is noblest, to be impure in what is most exalted, to be disorderly in what is spiritual and heavenly is an abomination of abominations. Such a condition excludes from God and God’s kingdom, in the Church, its service and government. Take heed to that, teacher and preacher. Be mindful of it always in prayer and public service.

Starke:—In Christianity exact bounds are placed upon our words, far more so than is done by mere reason; Matthew 12:36. Hear this, ye buffoons! ye cannot boast yourselves of Christianity.—You betray by this too well the bottom of your yet unsanctified hearts.—Could we find a register of those whom God as a just Judge will exclude from heaven, the first place as a rule would be given to those who break the Seventh Commandment.

Rieger:—The world often gives its uncleanness the name of love-affairs; but the word love in the Scriptures is far too good to be applied to any such things.

Heubner:—No man has such a horror of all sins of the flesh as the Christian; his destiny, his fellowship, his Exemplar, his future inheritance, all require him to be pure.—Paul describes the Christian’s propriety in speech, distinguishing three kinds of obnoxious talk: 1. Such as offends and injures the sense of virtue, that is, impure, indecent, shameless talking; 2. Such as opposes the reason and offends the sense of truth, that is, foolish, silly, senseless, insipid talking; 3. Such as hinders religious earnestness, designed only to raise a laugh.—Every prevailing sin removes us from God. The covetous commit idolatry with their money, the lustful with their flesh. If then it be asked which is more compatible with religion, a disposition to lust or avarice, the latter seems less reconcilable. The covetous man imagines, because he perhaps restrains himself from many vices, that he is better, and covetousness as something relative is more difficult to recognize.—The kingdom of Christ is the medium and condition of the king dom of God, through Christ the kingdom of God becomes predominant. The kingdom of Christ, in so far as it is an external institution, yields to the kingdom of God.

Passavant:—The Greeks loved a fine joke, seasoned and adorned with wit and grace. But under the jest and its elegant dress, an impure and low sense was often concealed.—Look, wit is a dangerous gift, and to give it play brings discomfort and pain.

Stier:—The worst in front, the obscenities, double entendres; there are also obscenities of mammon, nastinesses arising from pride and worldliness, for which the Holy Ghost has the same aversion in His saints.

[Eadie:—Into Christ’s kingdom the fornicator and sensualist cannot come; for, unsanctified and unprepared, they are not susceptible of its spiritual enjoyments, and are filled with antipathy to its unfleshly occupations; and specially into God’s kingdom “the covetous man, who is an idolater,” cannot come, for that God is not his God, and disowning the God of the kingdom, he is self-excluded. As his treasure is not there, so neither there could his heart find satisfaction and repose.—R.]

Footnotes:

Ephesians 5:4; Ephesians 5:4.—[The best established reading as respects the particles is (Rec.): καί—καί—ἤ (?Song of Song of Solomon 2:0 B. D.3 K. L., most cursives and versions). א1 has ἤ instead of the second και, while ἤ is found three times in A. D.1 F., fathers (Lachmann, Meyer, Braune), and in others καί throughout.—R.]

Ephesians 5:4; Ephesians 5:4.—[א. A. B., 3 cursives have: ἁ̓ οὐκ (accepted by Lachmann, Alford. and others) instead of τά οὐκ (Rec., D. F. K. L., Meyer, Ellicott, Braune and most). The latter is well supported and lectio difficilior, but neither external nor internal grounds are altogether decisive.—R.]

[9]Ver 5.—[The Rec. has ἔατε on the authority of D.3 K. L., but א. A. B. D. F. G., 30 cursives, good versions support ἴατε, which is accepted by nearly all recent editors. The emendation above conforms to the correct reading.—R.]

Ephesians 5:5; Ephesians 5:5.—[The reading ὅ is found in א. B., accepted by Lachmann and Alford. The Rec. has ὅς, which has more uncial support. In F. G. the neuter occurs with εἰδωλολατρεία, which helps to account for the change to the neuter.—R.]

Ephesians 5:5; Ephesians 5:5.—א. B. and most: Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ. We find also θεοῦ καῖ Χριστοῦ, Χριστοῦ θεοῦ, and simply Χριστοῦ. The first is not only better supported, but lectio difficilior. [The second of should be omitted to indicate the close connection implied in the omission of the article before θεοῦ.—R.]

[12][“The ἤ is not explanatory, but has its full disjunctive force, serving to distinguish πλεονεξία from more special sins of the flesh” (Ellicott). On the last noun see Ephesians 4:19. “It is greed, avarice, unconquerable love of appropriation, morbid lust of acquisition, carrying in itself a violation of almost every precept of the Decalogue” (Eadie). This original notion must not be overridden by the connection with sensual sins.—R.]

[13][Meyer and Ellicott supply γινέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν; Eadie suggests that ὀνομαζέσθω still guides the construction: “Rather let thanksgiving be named—let there be vocal expression to your grateful emotions.” Stier and Alford follow Bengal.—“There is a play perhaps on the similar sound of εὐτραπελία and εὐχαριστία, which may account for the latter not finding so complete a justification in the sense as we might expect: the connection being apparently, ‘your true cheerfulness and play of fancy will be found, not in buffoonery, but in the joy of a heart overflowing with a sense of God’s mercies.’ ”—Alford.—R.]