Translated using ChatGPT
Eph 5:1
“Be therefore imitators of God, as most beloved children.” Here he takes up that theme, that we should be irreprehensible. The careful reader should notice that in proposing this, he immediately joins it to charity, that is, to love. For when he treated of our unity in Christ, he introduced charity; when he spoke of purity, he concluded in charity; and now, beginning his discourse on irreproachableness, he begins from love—not just any love, but love unto the imitation of God, just as children ought to imitate their father. And he adds, according to the likeness of Christ: “And walk in love, as Christ also loved us.”
He explains the quality of Christ’s love by adding: “And gave Himself up for us, an offering”—for thanksgiving and for the obtaining of blessings—“and a sacrifice”—for sins—“to God for an odor of sweetness.” Paul speaks of Christ’s sacrifice upon the altar of the Cross according to the manner of the ancient sacrifices, of which it is written that they were received by God “as an odor of sweetness.” The expression is metaphorical, after a human fashion, signifying a most acceptable sacrifice, like the fragrance of a most sweet odor.
Eph 5:3–4
“But fornication and all uncleanness.” A man is rendered irreprehensible by avoiding those things which are worthy of reproof. Therefore Paul, in seeking that the Ephesians be irreproachable, runs through certain vices, warning them to avoid those which among the Gentiles were either not considered sins at all or were regarded as trivial. He does not treat all vices, but those which the Gentiles either did not judge to be sins or thought little of. Hence he mentions fornication, which the Gentiles did not consider a sin; and also all carnal uncleanness. He does not mention adultery and incest, because even among them these were reckoned sins; but shamelessness, effeminacy, and the like were lightly esteemed.
“Or covetousness.” He does not speak here properly of covetousness as opposed to liberality, but as opposed to justice. That among the Gentiles it was not reckoned a sin is evident from the fact that they called the expansion of empire a reasonable cause for war—where it is clear that the greatest covetousness intervened. Moreover, civil laws permit covetousness in contracts up to less than half the just price.
“Let it not even be named among you.” He commands not only that it not be done, but that it not even be named, “as befits saints.” Here is the reason: because it does not befit those cleansed by Baptism in any way to approach such vices.
“Or filthiness.” Because of many shameful deeds and words admitted among the Gentiles, he says “or filthiness.” Likewise he adds, “or foolish talking, or jesting.” But note that the term translated “jesting” is eutrapelia. In the fourth book of the Ethics, Aristotle calls eutrapelia a virtue, holding the mean in games and jokes. Yet Paul and Aristotle use the word equivocally. For eutrapelia in Paul is taken in the sense of an act or habit provoking laughter for pleasure’s sake; whereas in Aristotle it is the name of a virtue, which Paul does not forbid—for virtue is not contrary to virtue. Hence the ancient interpreter rendered it “scurrility.” More fittingly it might be translated “buffoonery” or something similar, which is the matter of the virtue of eutrapelia, though it rarely occurs with the moderation of virtue. Therefore he adds, “which are not fitting.” By appending “not fitting” to these three, he makes it clear that he speaks not of the virtue of eutrapelia, but of its matter abused.
“But rather thanksgiving.” Against the vices of speech he sets thanksgiving. Jerome, considering the context, thinks that it signifies not thanksgiving strictly, but gracious speech, so that in contrast to the vices of the tongue he directly proposes speech seasoned with grace. Indeed, this fits the subject well.
Eph 5:5
“For this you know and understand.” He gives the reason for the three first prohibitions, adding: “That every fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous man—who is a servant of idols,” that is, an idolater—“has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” He calls the covetous man an idolater because both agree in worshiping one and the same thing. The worshiper of idols worships silver and gold, according to the Psalm: “The idols of the nations are silver and gold”; for apart from silver and gold, idols are nothing in the world, as Paul says to the Corinthians. The covetous man also worships silver and gold, since his god is gold; just as “the god of the glutton is his belly,” so the god of the covetous is gold. In gold indeed consists the whole confidence of the covetous.
From this it is clear that these are mortal sins, since they exclude from the heavenly kingdom. Therefore he does not repeat the other three—filthiness, foolish talking, and jesting—because those are not mortal according to his intention here. He says “of Christ and of God” because the kingdom is God’s as natural King, and Christ’s as man constituted King, the kingdom having been communicated to Him by God.
Eph 5:6–7
“Let no one deceive you with empty words.” From this it is evident that there were not lacking those who taught that these things were not to be taken seriously, but were small or no sins.
“For because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience,” that is, of unbelief or obstinacy. “Comes” is in the present tense. He does not cite past punishments, but announces a present and continuous one. It may be understood of the punishment which God exercises in this present life for these crimes, though we do not always discern that it comes for this cause. But whatever may be said of present punishment, certainly the wrath of God continually comes at death upon such obstinate men.
“Therefore do not become partakers with them,” that is, co-participants both in guilt and in punishment.
Eph 5:8–9
“For you were once darkness.” Paul adds reason to reason. Having first argued from the kingdom of God and then from divine wrath, he now strives to make them irreproachable by contrasting their former state with their present one. He describes their former state as dark—indeed as darkness itself—to signify the dominion of darkness over them. But the Christian state he describes by adding: “Now you are light in the Lord.” He says “in the Lord” to signify the light of grace perfecting natural light.
“Walk as children of light.” In Hebrew manner he calls them “children of light,” that is, those who pursue light. It is fitting that those translated from darkness into light should follow light in life and deed.
“For the fruit of the light”—that is, of the Spirit. Paul does not leap from subject to subject, but explains light by Spirit, so that to walk in light in the Lord is the same as to bear fruit in the Spirit; thus we understand this light to be the light of the Spirit, not of the body.
“Is in all goodness and justice and truth.” The fruit of the Spirit is not any work that lacks goodness, or justice, or truth in some respect. The fruit of the Spirit requires that according to all its circumstances it be good, just, and true. Therefore he says “in all.” The distinction between truth and justice is clear: truth pertains to the intellect, justice to the will; it remains then that goodness pertains to conduct and morals. These things which he now proposes, Paul will explain individually in what follows.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment