Ephesians 5:2

καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ : and walk in love. Here, again, καί explains in connecting and adding. The “imitation” must take effect in the practical, unmistakable form of a loving course of life. καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς : even as Christ also loved us [you]. The reading ὑμᾶς (with [489] [490] 1 [491], Sah., Eth., etc.; TTrWHRV) is to be preferred to the ἡμᾶς of TR (with [492] [493] [494] [495] [496] 3, etc.). The aor. should have its proper historical force, “loved,” not “hath loved” (AV). Christ is now introduced as the great Example, instead of God, and the Divine love as openly seen in Christ is given as the motive and the pattern of the love that should mark our walk. καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν : and gave Himself up. Statement of the act in which Christ's love received its last and highest expression, viz., the surrender of Himself to death. The καί has something of its ascensive force. The idea of death as that to which He gave Himself up is implied in the great Pauline declarations, e.g., Romans 4:25; Romans 8:32; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν : for us. The ἡμῶν of the TR, supported by [497] [498] [499] [500] [501] [502], etc., is to be preferred on the whole to the ὑμῶν of [503], m, 116, etc., which is regarded by WH as the primary reading and given in marg. by RV. The prep, ὑπέρ seldom goes beyond the idea of “on account of,” “for the benefit of”. In classical Greek, however, it does sometimes become much the same as ἀντί (e.g., Eurip., Alc., 700; Plato, Gorg., 515 c), and in the NT we find a clear instance in Philemon 1:13. In some of the more definite statements, therefore, on Christ's death as a sacrifice (2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13, and here) it is thought that the more general sense is sharpened by the context into that of “in place of”. But even in these the idea of substitution, which is properly expressed by ἀντί (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), is not in the ὑπέρ itself, although it may be in the context; cf. Win.-Moult., pp. 434, 435; Mey. on Romans 5:6; Galatians 3:13; Ell. on Galatians 3:13. προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ : an offering and a sacrifice to God. The primary idea in the whole statement is the love of Christ, and that love as shown in giving Himself up to death. This giving up of Himself to death is next defined in respect of its character and meaning, and this again with the immediate purpose of magnifying the love which is the main subject. The acc., therefore, is the pred. acc., = “as an offering”. The defining τῷ Θεῷ, as its position indicates, is best connected with the προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν; not with παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, to which εἰς θάνατον is the natural supplement; nor with εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, for that would place τῷ Θεῷ in an emphatic position not easy to account for. The term προσφορά is used in the NT of offerings of all kinds, whether bloody or unbloody, whether of the meal offering, מִנְחָה (Hebrews 10:6; Psalms 40:7), or of the bloody offering (Hebrews 10:10) and the expiatory sacrifice (Hebrews 10:18). When it has the latter sense, it has usually some defining term attached to it (περὶ ἁμαρτίας (Hebrews 10:18), τοῦ σώματος Ἰ. Χ. (Hebrews 10:10)). The term θυσία in like manner is used for different kinds of offerings. In the LXX it represents both מִנְחָה and זֶבַח, and in the NT in such passages as Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7, etc., it is used generally. Sometimes it is applied to unbloody oblations (Hebrews 11:4). Again (e.g., Hebrews 9:23; Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 10:26) it is sin-offerings, expiatory offerings that are in view. The two terms, therefore, cannot in themselves be sharply distinguished, but they get their distinctive sense in each case from the context. Here, as in Hebrews 5:8, etc., it is possible that the two terms are used to cover the two great classes of offerings; in which case, as in Psalms 40:6; Psalms 40:8, the θυσίαν will refer to the sacrifice of slain beasts. If that is so, the sin-offering, or oblation presented with a view to the restoration of broken fellowship will be in view. And this is in accordance with the particular NT doctrine of Christ's death as a propitiation, which has a distinct and unmistakable place in Paul's Epistles, though not in his only (Romans 3:23; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10), and a reconciliation (Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19), as well as with the OT view of sacrifice offered in order to effect forgiveness and removal of guilt (Leviticus 4:20; Leviticus 4:26; Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:10; Leviticus 5:13; Leviticus 5:16, etc.). εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας : for a savour of sweet smell. So Ell.; “for an odour of a sweet smell” (RV); “for a sweet smelling savour” (AV, Gen., Bish.); “in to the odour of sweetness” (Wicl.); “in an odour of sweetness” (Rhem.); “sacrifice of a sweet savour” (Tynd., Cov., Cranm.). Statement of the acceptability of Christ's sacrifice, taken from the OT רֵיהַ־נִיחו̇חַ, Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 1:13; Leviticus 1:17; Leviticus 2:12; Leviticus 3:5, etc. (cf. Genesis 8:21; Philippians 4:18), where ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας is defined as θυσίαν δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ. The foundation of the phrase is of course the ancient idea that the smoke of the offerings rose to the nostrils of the god, and that in this way the Deity became partaker of the oblation along with the worshipper (Hom., Il., xxiv., 69, 70). The phrase was naturally used oftenest of the burnt offering (Leviticus 2:9; Leviticus 2:13), and some have argued that there is nothing more in view here than the idea of self-dedication contained in that offering. But the phrase is used also of the expiatory offering (Leviticus 4:31).

[489] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[490] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[491] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[492] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[493] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.

[494] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.

[495] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

[496] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[497] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[498] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[499] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[500] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.

[501] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.

[502] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

[503] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.