Charles Ellicott Commentary Ephesians 5

In Ephesians 4:31-5:2, he deals with malignity, as utterly unworthy of the love of God manifested to us in Jesus Christ.

Followers of God.—The phrase is unique and very striking; literally, imitators of God: and the word “therefore” implies that this imitation of God must be chiefly in His essential attribute of love. It is instructive to observe that our Lord’s startling command, Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48), is explained both by the context and the parallel passage in St. Luke (Luke 6:36) to mean, Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father in heaven is merciful. See in Hooker’s Ecc. Pol., i. 5, a striking passage on the imitation of God as the law of all moral progress in man. In this idea, indeed, lies the essential and distinctive principle of a religious morality as such.

As dear children.—Literally, as children beloved of Him. The knowledge of the love of God to us is the first source, as of our love to Him (1 John 4:19), so also of our love to men as brethren under His fatherhood (1 John 4:11). As being His “children,” and therefore partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), we can imitate Him; as His “beloved children” we imitate Him most naturally in love, and especially in that form of love which we call “mercy,” and which, as being ourselves sinners, we especially crave and receive from Him.

As Christ also hath loved us.—To this idea of the “imitation of God,” essential to all true religion, St. Paul now adds an exhortation to follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that special exhibition of love by suffering and self-sacrifice, which is impossible to the Godhead in itself, but which belongs to the incarnate Son of God, and was the ultimate purpose of His incarnation. There is a similar connection of idea in John 15:12-13, This is My commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. The imitation of God is in free and natural beneficence; the imitation of Christ is in that power of showing mercy, which is bought by suffering and sacrifice. He not only “loved us,” but “gave Himself for us.”

An offering and a sacrifice to God,—The same words, “sacrifice and offering,” are found in close connection in Hebrews 10:5, which is a quotation from Psalms 40:7. Comparing these with the Hebrew words which they represent, and looking also to the etymology of the Greek words themselves, we see that the word “offering” signifies simply a gift offered to God, and is applied especially, though not exclusively, to unbloody sacrifices; while the word “sacrifice” distinctly implies the shedding of blood.

Each word, when used alone, has constantly a more general sense. Thus “offering” is used in Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 10:14, and Hebrews 10:18 for the sacrifice on the cross; while “sacrifice,” in Acts 7:42, is made to translate the word commonly rendered as “offering.” But when placed in juxtaposition they must be held as distinctive; and hence we may conclude that our Lord made Himself “an offering” in the perfect obedience of His great humility, coming to do God’s will (according to the prophetic anticipation of Psalms 40:7-8), and gave Himself a “sacrifice,” when He completed that offering by shedding His blood on the cross. Both are said to be offered “for us,” i.e., on our behalf. We have, therefore, here a complete summary—all the more striking and characteristic because incidental—of the doctrine of the Atonement.

For a sweet-smelling savour.—The sense of this phrase is explained in Philippians 4:18 by the addition of the words a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. It is the translation of an expression, frequent in the Old Testament (Exodus 29:18; et al.), signifying “a smell of acquiescence” or “satisfaction.” It describes the atoning sacrifice as already accepted by God.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or Christian light covetousness.—Fornication” is closely joined (as in 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5) with “uncleanness,” of which general sin it is a flagrant species. It is distinguished (as also in Colossians 3:5) from “covetousness,” or greediness. “Uncleanness” is a sin against our own body and soul (see 1 Corinthians 6:18); “covetousness” (literally, the insatiable desire for more) is a sin against our neighbour. At the same time, the constant connection of the two words suggests the truth which is conveyed by the union of the two kinds of “coveting” in the Tenth Commandment, namely, that the temper of selfish and unbridled concupiscence has a twofold direction—to the covetousness of lust, and to the covetousness of avarice—the one perhaps especially a vice of youth, and the other of old age.

On Ephesians 5:3-14:

(3b)Ephesians 5:3–14 warn, with even greater fullness and emphasis, against the sins of impurity and lust, as incompatible with membership of the kingdom of heaven, as works of darkness, impossible to those who are children of light.

Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting.—The word “filthiness” (unlike the filthy communication of the parallel passage in Colossians 3:8) is in itself a general word. But the connection with the words following, and the distinction from those going before, appear to show that Saint Paul here uses it for “filthy talking.” He is passing from impurity of the inward soul to impurity in outward expression.

Of such foul speaking he appears to distinguish two forms. There is, first of all, “foolish talking,” or the talk of “the fool,” in the worst sense in which that word is used in Scripture (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 23:17), as implying something worse than mere emptiness or blindness—describing the condition of the soul which has lost its savour (Matthew 5:13), that is, has ceased to distinguish what is right or wrong, wise or foolish, noble or base.

There is then “jesting,” that is, properly, the more polished “versatility,” which will find occasion for wit or levity in anything, however sacred, fearing nothing so much as to be dull, and mistaking all seriousness and reserve for dullness. It is notable that in classical Greek the word is sometimes used in a good sense, as a mean between “churlishness” and “obsequiousness,” but yet hovers on the border of that condemnation which Christian gravity here pronounces unhesitatingly. The former kind of foul talking is coarse and brutal; the latter refined and deadly. Of both kinds Greek and Roman literature provide all too many striking examples.

Which are not convenient.—That is, “which are out of character” in a Christian—a milder repetition (perhaps suggested by the ambiguous meaning of “jesting” noted above) of the indignant declaration in Ephesians 5:3, that it becomes not saints that these foul things should be even named among them. They pollute the Christian mind and tongue even in condemning them.

But rather giving of thanks.—The opposition is striking. “The foolish talking and jesting” aim at mirth and play of mind; Saint Paul will not austerely condemn such light-heartedness, but he finds a wholesome and spiritual vent for it in the habitual expression of thankfulness to God, which proceeds from a natural and childlike cheerfulness. Exactly in the same spirit below (Ephesians 5:18–20) he contrasts the excitement of drunkenness with the being filled with the Spirit . . . giving thanks always for all things.

For this you know.—The true reading of the original is curiously emphatic. It reads as follows: For this you know, knowing... But, as it uses two different words, in the former clause properly “you know” and in the latter “learning to know,” the sense seems to be: “For this you know, learning it anew so as to know it better.” Whatever else is doubtful, this is certain; yet it admits of an ever-growing certainty.

Covetous man, who is an idolater.—Compare Colossians 3:5, Covetousness, which is idolatry. Whatever becomes the chief object of our desire, so as to claim our chief fear and love, is, of course, an idol; for ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Perhaps in this metaphorical idolatry, as in the literal, there are two distinct stages, passing, however, by invisible gradations into each other—first, the resting on some visible blessing of God, as the one thing in which and for which we serve Him, and so by degrees losing Him in His own gifts; next, the absolute forgetfulness of Him, and the setting up, as is inevitable, of some other object of worship to fill the vacant throne.

Has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.—The phrase “the kingdom of Christ and God,” though probably it does not in strict technicality declare the identity of “Christ” and “God,” yet implies that the “kingdom of the Christ” is, as a matter of course, “the kingdom of God,” for “the Christ” is by prophetic definition “Emmanuel,” i.e., God with us. The unworthy Christian has indeed “an inheritance” in it, to his own grave responsibility; but in the true spiritual sense he is one who hath not, from whom shall be taken that which he hath (Matthew 13:12).