Ephesians 5:5

Eph_5:5

For this we know, that no whoremonger nor unclean person.

Soul idolatry excludes men from heaven

There are thirteen acts of soul worship; and to give any one of them to anything besides the God of heaven is plain idolatry, and those idolaters that so give it.

1. Esteem. That which we most highly value we make our god; for estimation is an act of soul worship.

2. Mindfulness. That which we are most mindful of we make our god.

3. Intention. That which we most intend we make our god; for to be most intended is an act of worship due only to the true God; for He being the chief good, must be the last end.

4. Resolution. What we are most resolved for we worship as God.

5. Love. That, which we most love we worship as our god; for love is an act of soul worship. To love and to adore are sometimes both one. Love, whenever it is inordinate, is an idolatrous affection.

6. Trust. That which we most trust we make our god; for confidence and dependence is an act of worship which the Lord calls for as due only to Himself.

7. Fear. If you fear others more than Him, you give that worship to them which is due only to God.

8. Hope. That which we make our hope we worship as God; for hope is an act of worship. Those that make their own righteousness the foundation of their hope, they exalt it into the place of Christ, and honour it as God; and to honour anything as God is evident idolatry.

9. Desire. That which we most desire we worship as our god; for that which is chiefly desired is the chief good in his account who so desires it; and what he counts his chief good, that he makes his god.

10. Delight. That which we most delight and rejoice in, that we worship as God; for transcendent delight is an act of worship due only to God; and this affection, in its height and elevation, is called glorying.

11. Zeal. That for which we are more zealous we worship as our god; for such a zeal is an act of worship due only to God; therefore it is idolatrous to be more zealous for our own things than for the things of God.

12. Gratitude. That to which we are most grateful, that we worship as God; for gratitude is an act of worship.

13. When our care and industry is more for other things than for God. No man can serve two masters.

Argument

1. Such idolaters are not in covenant with God. It is the covenant of grace alone which gives right and title to the kingdom. Those that are not in covenant have no title to heaven; and those that have no right nor title to it, shall have no inheritance in it.

2. Such idolaters are not yet born again, are not yet converted; and without the new birth, no inheritance in the kingdom; those only are heirs of this kingdom who are born of God, who are born again. Try whether you be guilty of this soul idolatry or no.

And to stir you up to this examination, let me premise these two things, the danger and secrecy of this.

1. The danger. It is a sin will endanger your loss of heaven, make it exceeding difficult, or altogether impossible. If one should tell you of some mischievous person lurking in your house, with an intent to murder you, or set your house on fire, etc. The apostle tells you of something more mischievous; that which is more dangerous, and nearer to you; that which will endanger the loss of an inheritance, of a kingdom.

2. The secrecy of it calls for diligent search. Nothing more common or more concealed. (D. Clarkson, B. D.)

No inheritance for the unclean in Gods kingdom

1.That there is a kingdom of God. This notion implieth, on Gods part, His sovereign authority and right to command; and on our part, both duties and privileges.

2. There is no entrance into this kingdom but by coming into the kingdom of Christ.

3. The title or right to the privileges of Christs kingdom is by way of inheritance. If a son, then an heir of God through Christ (Gal_4:7; and Rom_8:17), If sons, then heirs, joint heirs with Christ.

4. By the tenor of the Christian doctrine it plainly appeareth that whoredom and all uncleanness excludeth men from this inheritance.

It appeareth plainly by these particulars--

1. Because it is contrary to that covenant by which all enter into Christs kingdom.

2. Because of Gods express exclusion. Surely they are excluded from this inheritance whom God excludes and Christ excludes (1Co_6:9-10).

3. From the heinous nature of the sin. It is a sin of great atheism and great infidelity.

4. It is idolatry. Primary idolatry is when Divine honours are given to any creature. But howls whoredom and uncleanness idolatry? Because by it men are addicted to some base thing which they prefer before God. Lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God (2Ti_3:4-5). Because they have not that spirit that should fit them and make them meet for heaven.

6. This exclusion is so absolute and peremptory that it admits no exception but that of sincere repentance, which is both a change of heart and life. No other repentance is true but a quitting and leaving these sins before they leave us.

Three things are apt to deceive you.

1. Some trouble for these sins while you go on still to commit them.

2. The next thing that will deceive you is some faint resistance or striving against sin, but it groweth upon you.

3. That which will deceive you is a hope to cry God mercy upon your death beds; and so, after an impure life, men hope still to go to heaven. (T. Manton, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 5:5-7. For this ye know — Of this ye cannot be ignorant, favoured as you have been with the light of the gospel, that no whoremonger, &c., hath any inheritance — Here or hereafter; in the kingdom of Christ or of God — That is, purchased by Christ, and bestowed by God. The reason why the apostle, in this and his other epistles, condemned fornication and every sort of uncleanness in such an express manner, was because the heathen avowedly practised these vices even in their temples as acts of worship, which they thought rendered them acceptable to their gods. But how different from such practices is the conduct enjoined in the gospel, which teaches that they who continue in such abominations, shall for ever be excluded from the presence and glory of God. Nor covetous man — That is, the man whose chief desire and care is to increase his wealth, either that he may spend it on the gratification of his lusts, or may hoard it up; who is an idolater — As placing that love, delight, and confidence in riches, which ought to be placed in God alone; or because he sets up something else, whatever may be the object of his covetous desires, and something comparatively very base and contemptible, in the place of God, as if it could be the ground of his dependance, and the source of his happiness. Let no man deceive you with vain words — Or sophistical arguments, as if you might live in the commission of such sins, and yet find mercy with God, or escape punishment. For because of these and the like things, cometh the wrath of God — And the dreadful effects thereof, on the children of disobedience — Even on the Gentiles, though not favoured with the light and aids which you have, demonstrating to you the infinite evil of all such practices, and affording you sufficient power to avoid them. Now, if even heathens are punished for such practices, much less can we suppose that professing Christians, who have so much greater advantages for practising purity and virtue in all their branches, and are under such strong and peculiar engagements so to do, shall escape with impunity if they pursue a similar line of conduct. Be not ye therefore partakers with them — In these abominations, if ye would not finally partake in that dreadful punishment which they are bringing on themselves thereby.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:5 Many similar statements describe the kind of person who will not inherit the Kingdom of . . . God: See 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Rev 22:15; cp. Col 3:5-6. • For a greedy person is an idolater: The things greedy people desire become their gods (see Matt 6:24).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Eph 5:5. Ἔστε, be ye) [knowing. Engl. V. makes it Indic., Ye know]. The imperative, Gal 5:21.—ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, who is an idolater) Col 3:5. Avarice (covetousness) is the highest act of revolt (desertion) from the Creator to the creature, Mat 6:24; Php 3:19; 1Jn 2:15: and it too in the highest degree violates the commandment concerning the love of our neighbour, which resembles the commandment respecting the love of God. It is then idolatry, and therefore the greatest sin, 1Sa 15:23.—τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ, of Christ and of God) The article only once expressed indicates the most perfect unity [of God and Christ], 1Ti 5:21; 1Ti 6:13; 2Th 1:12. Comp. Mar 14:33. Elsewhere it is double for the sake of emphasis, Col 2:2.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 5:5 . τοῦτο γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες : for this ye know, being aware that . The TR reads ἐστε = ye are (with [523] 3 [524] [525] , Theod., Theophyl., etc.), taking it with the participle as = “ye are aware”. But ἴστε (which is supported by [526] [527] [528] [529] * [530] [531] , Vulg., Goth., Sah., Boh., Arm., Chrys., etc.) must be preferred. The phrase ἴστε γινώσκοντες is explained by some as a Hebr. form, following the well-known use of the inf. with the fin. verb, or as having the force of the participle with the fin. verb in such expressions as γινώσκων γνώσῃ (Gen 15:13 ); and so the RV renders it “ye know of a surety”. But in such formulæ the same verb occurs in both cases, whereas here we have two distinct verbs. Hence it is best rendered “ye know, being aware that”. It is an appeal to their consciousness of the incompatibility of such sins with the inheritance of the Kingdom of God. It is not necessary, therefore (with von Hofmann), to put a full stop between the ἴστε and the γινώσκοντες , and make ἴστε refer to the preceding statement. Nor is there any reason for taking ἴστε as an imper. (so Vulg., Beng., etc.) instead of an indic. The τοῦτο refers to what follows , and the γάρ introduces a reason for the former injunctions. These injunctions are enforced by a reference to the reader’s own knowledge, and that reference to their knowledge is made in direct appeal to their consciousness. ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος : that no fornicator or unclean person . On the Hebr. formula πᾶς … οὐκ , “every one … shall not,” see on Eph 4:29 above and Win.-Moult., p. 209. ἤ πλεονέκτης : or covetous man . The πλεονέκτης appears here again to have its proper sense, and not any secondary application. ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης : who is an idolater . This reading of the TR has the support of [532] [533] [534] [535] [536] , Syr.-Harcl., Boh., Arm., Chrys., etc. But there are two interesting variants, viz. , ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία , which is the reading of [537] , Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Pes. (probably), and ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης , which is given by [538] [539] , 67 2 , Jer., etc. The choice must be between this last and the TR. On the whole the former is to be preferred (with LTTrWHRV) on textual grounds, and that reading will then have the force of “which is the same as an idolater”. Some (Harl., etc.) refer the relative ( ὅς ) to all three previous nouns; but the analogy of Col 3:5 is against that. It is true that fornication and uncleanness might also well be called forms of idolatry. But the point here seems to be that the covetous, grasping man in particular, who makes a god of Mammon, is much the same as the worshipper of an idol; and the πλεονέκτης is thus made synonymous with the εἰδωλολάτρης in order to stigmatise avarice as a specifically anti-Christian vice, essentially incompatible with the spirit of self-sacrifice which is of the very being of Christianity and was inculcated so strenuously by Paul himself. οὐκ ἔχει κληρονομίαν : has inheritance . The ἔχει is taken by Meyer as a case of present for future , marking a looked-for event as just as certain as if it were already with us. But it is rather a proper present, appropriate here as the expression of a principle or law; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 331. ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ : in the Kingdom of Christ and God . The clause has been understood as an affirmation of Christ’s Godhead, as if = “the Kingdom of Him who is at once Christ and God” (Beza, Beng., Rück., Harl.); and some, with this view of its import, have held it to be an example of the application of Sharp’s rule. But that rule is inapplicable here by reason of the fact that Θεός is independent of the article and occurs indeed without it in the phrase Θεοῦ (1Co 6:9-10 ; 1Co 15:50 ; Gal 5:21 ). Θεοῦ has the same climactic force here as in 1Co 3:22 , etc. The kingdom is Christ’s , committed to Him now, but to be delivered up at last to God, who is to be sole and absolute Sovereign (1Co 15:24 ; 1Co 15:28 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[530] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( δ ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.

[531] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .

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

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

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

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

[536] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .

[537] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( δ ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.

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

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

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_5:5

The apostle reverts to what he said in Eph_5:3, and enforces the exhortation there given. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. The form of expression is peculiar, ἴστε‹16› γινώσκοντες, ye know knowing. Many refer this to the familiar Hebrew idiom, in which the infinitive and finite tense of a verb are thus joined, which in Greek and English is imitated by uniting the participle and verb; as dying thou shalt die, multiplying I will multiply, blessing I will bless, etc. But in all these cases the infinitive and finite tense are different forms of the same verb. Here we have different words. The preferable interpretation is to refer ἴστε to what precedes in Eph_5:3, and γινώσκοντες to what follows This ye know, viz., that such vices should not be named among you, knowing that no one who indulges in them, etc.

Covetous man who is an idolater. The words ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης are by many referred to all the preceding nouns, so that the fornicator, the unclean person, and the covetous man, are all alike declared to be idolaters. This is possible so far as the grammatical construction is concerned; but it is not natural, and not consistent with the parallel passage in Col_3:5 where the apostle singles out covetousness from a list of sins, and says, It is idolatry. This too has its foundation both by nature and in Scripture. 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 every where 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.

It is of the covetous man no less than of the fornicator, the apostle says, he has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. That is, in that kingdom which Christ came to establish which consists of all the redeemed, washed in his blood, sanctified by his Spirit, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity. This kingdom is sometimes called the kingdom of Christ, and sometimes the kingdom of God; for where Christ reigns, God reigns. Here it is designated the τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ, that is, of him who is at once Χριστός and θεός; Christ and God. This is certainly the most natural interpretation. As everyone admits that τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί means to him who is at once God and Father. There is no reason why the same rule should not be applied in this case. Compare Tit_2:13. This view of the passage, which makes it a direct assertion of the divinity of our Lord, is strenuously insisted upon by some of the most eminent of modern interpreters, as Harless and Rückert, the one orthodox and the other rationalistic. Others, however, say that Christ here designates the Redeemer, and God, the divine Being; and that the kingdom is called not only the kingdom of Christ, but also the kingdom of God. This is the view more commonly adopted, though in violation of a general rule of grammar, the article being omitted before θεοῦ. If, in Tit_2:13, ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χπιστού, means that Jesus Christ is at once the great God and our Savior, and Winer admits (Gram. p. 148) that it is for doctrinal reasons only he dissents from that interpretation; then there can be no reasonable doubt in the present case, where the form of expression is so similar, the writer being the same, that the idea is the same. If it were a rare or uncertain thing for Paul to recognize Christ as God, it would be wrong to press rules of grammar to make him teach that doctrine. But since every page almost of his epistles teems with evidence that Christ was his God, it is wrong to depart from those rules in order to prevent his teaching it.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Because these sins are such that the most part of men count them not for sins, he awaketh the godly, to the end they should so much the more take heed to themselves from them, as most hurtful plagues.

A bondslave to idolatry, for the covetous man thinketh that his life standeth in his goods.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

this ye know--The oldest manuscripts read, "Of this ye are sure knowing"; or as ALFORD, "This ye know being aware."

covetous . . . idolater-- (Col 3:5). The best reading may be translated, That is to say, literally, which is (in other words) an idolater. Paul himself had forsaken all for Christ (Co2 6:10; Co2 11:27). Covetousness is worship of the creature instead of the Creator, the highest treason against the King of kings (Sa1 15:3; Mat 6:24; Phi 3:19; Jo1 2:15).

hath--The present implies the fixedness of the exclusion, grounded on the eternal verities of that kingdom [ALFORD].

of Christ and of God--rather, as one Greek article is applied to both, "of Christ and God," implying their perfect oneness, which is consistent only with the doctrine that Christ is God (compare Th2 1:12; Ti1 5:21; Ti1 6:13).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 5. For this ye know] Ye must be convinced of the dangerous and ruinous tendency of such a spirit and conduct, when ye know that persons of this character can never inherit the kingdom of God. See Clarke on Eph 5:3; and see the observations on the Greek article at the end of this epistle. See Clarke on Eph 6:24.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. For this ye know. If his readers were at all captivated by the allurements of those vices which have been enumerated, the consequence would be that they would lend a hesitating or careless ear to his admonitions. He determines, therefore, to alarm them by this weighty and dreadful threatening, that such vices shut against us the kingdom of God. By appealing to their own knowledge, he intimates that this was no doubtful matter. Some might think it harsh, or inconsistent with the Divine goodness, that all who have incurred the guilt of fornication or covetousness are excluded from the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. But the answer is easy. Paul does not say that those who have fallen into those sins, and recovered from them, are not pardoned, but pronounces sentence on the sins themselves. After addressing the Corinthians in the same language, he adds:

“And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11.)

When men have repented, and thus give evidence that they are reconciled to God, they are no longer the same persons that they formerly were. But let all fornicators, or unclean or covetous persons, so long as they continue such, be assured that they have no friendship with God, and are deprived of all hope of salvation. It is called the kingdom of Christ and of God, because God hath given it to his Son that we may obtain it through him.

Nor covetous man, who is an idolater. “Covetousness,” as he says in another place, “is idolatry,” (Colossians 3:5,) — not the idolatry which is so frequently condemned in Scripture, but one of a different description. All covetous men must deny God, and put wealth in his place; such is their blind greediness of wretched gain. But why does Paul attribute to covetousness alone what belongs equally to other carnal passions? In what respect is covetousness better entitled to this disgraceful name than ambition, or than a vain confidence in ourselves? I answer, that this disease is widely spread, and not a few minds have caught the infection. Nay, it is not reckoned a disease, but receives, on the contrary, very general commendation. This accounts for the harshness of Paul’s language, which arose from a desire to tear from our hearts the false view.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(5) For this ye know.—The true reading of the original is curiously emphatic. It runs thus: For this ye know, knowing . . . But, as it uses two different words, in the former clause properly “ye know” and the latter “learning to know,” the sense seems to be: “For this ye know, learning it afresh 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.—Comp. Col_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.

Hath 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 awful responsibility; but in the true spiritual sense he is one “who hath not,” “from whom shall be taken that which he hath” (Mat_13:12).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. ye know] More lit., ye know with acquaintance, or recognition; as if to say, “you know it with full recognition of the fact and the right.” R.V. “ye know of a surety”; but the Gr. seems to imply, as above, the reasons along with the certainty.

no whoremonger … hath] Lit. every fornicator … hath not; a form of phrase which perhaps accentuates the individual exclusions from the kingdom. But it must not be pressed.

who] Read, which; the Gr. relative pronoun, in the probable reading, being neuter. As if to say, “which word means, or implies, idolater.”

an idolater] See the close parallel Col_3:5. Lightfoot there says, “The covetous man sets up another object of worship besides God,” or, more truly still, instead of God. And this is so, whatever is the object of his avarice. Monod remarks that this clause points rather to the miser than the seducer; and most certainly it includes the miser. But there is a terrible fitness also in the other application; and we cannot but think that “covetousness” had, in the apostolic age, a familiar reference, among other references, to immoral cupidity. See on Eph_4:19.

inheritance] On the Gr. word, see note on Eph_1:18. It conveys regularly the thought of possession by title, whether actually enjoyed or in prospect. An “inheritor” (clêronomos) may be thus either a present occupant, or an expectant “heir,” as context may indicate. Here probably the expected possession of glory is mainly in view, though we cannot exclude some reference to the organic antecedent to glory—the present possession of “life eternal.” See further next note.

the kingdom of Christ and of God] the realm of the Son, Who “gave Himself for our sins,” that He might be our “Lord” (Gal_1:4; Rom_14:9); and of the Father, Who gave the Son that the redeemed might “yield themselves unto God” (Rom_6:13). The secret of admission to this kingdom, and of congenial life in it, is “to know the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom He hath sent” (Joh_17:3). The more common phrase “kingdom of God” is here displaced by one specially suggestive of the holy conditions of membership implied in the mention of Christ.—See note on Eph_4:32, on the word “God” in such collocations.

What is the “Kingdom” here? On the whole, the glorified state, the goal of the process of grace. True, the word often, with obvious fitness, includes the period of grace in this life, in which most truly the Christian is a subject of the King (see e.g. Mat_11:2; Mat_13:41; Mat_21:43; Rom_14:17; Col_1:13). But usage gives the word a special connexion with the final state, glory; cp. esp. Mat_25:34 (specially in point here); 1Co_15:50. See also the passages, closely akin to the present, 1Co_6:9-10; Gal_5:21; where the “shall not inherit” (as in 1Co_15:50) points to the idea of a coming “kingdom.” Doubtless the state of will and life here in view excludes man, from God’s point of view, from the present phase of His kingdom, in its spiritual essence (see 1Jn_3:6; 1Jn_3:15 &c.; though the imagery is different). But the phase to come, that of perfect and eternal result and development, is naturally the predominant phase of the word. The practical meaning here, then, is “no such moral rebel can be, while such, a citizen of and pilgrim to the heavenly city.” See Rev_21:27.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this ye know,.... Or, "know ye this", as the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read:

that no whoremonger, nor unclean person; anyone that is guilty of fornication, adultery, incest, &c.

Nor covetous man, who is an idolater: as every man is, that indulges his lusts, the idols of his own heart; and who serves divers lusts and pleasures, and gives up himself to work all uncleanness with greediness; never having his fill of sin, but is ever craving and coveting it; as well as he who is immoderately desirous of worldly things: the covetous man may be called an idolater, because the idolater and he worship the same in substance, gold and silver, and brass, or what is made of them; the covetous man admires his gold, lays it up, and will not make use of it, as if it was something sacred; and through his over love to mammon, whom he serves, he neglects the worship of God, and the good of his own soul, and puts his trust and confidence in his riches: now no such person

hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, and of God; meaning either a Gospel church state, in which persons of such characters, and living in such sins, ought not to be; or else the kingdom of heaven and of glory, which may be called the kingdom of Christ, because it is in his hands, for his people; and it is his righteousness that gives a title to it, and his Spirit and grace which make meet for it; and it is by his power saints are preserved unto it; and he will put them into the possession of it; and which will greatly consist in the enjoyment of him: and this is also the kingdom of God, either of Christ who is God, or of God the Father; it being of his preparing and giving, and which he calls unto, and makes meet for; and this may be said to be an inheritance, because it is peculiar to children, the bequest of their heavenly Father, and is not purchased or acquired by them, but comes to them from the free donation of God, through the death of Christ; and to have an inheritance in it, is to have a right unto it, a meetness for it, and to be possessed of it: now the meaning of these words is, not that all who have been guilty of these sins shall be excluded the kingdom of God, but all such who live and die in them, without the grace of God, and righteousness of Christ.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Ver. 5. Who is an idolater] Dancing about his golden calf, and saying to his wedge of silver, "Thou art my confidence," Job 30:24; which yet shall prove but as Achan’s wedge to cleave his soul in sunder, and as that Babylonish garment to be his winding sheet.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this ye know - Be assured of this. The object here is to deter from indulgence in those vices by the solemn assurance that no one who committed them could possibly be saved.

Nor unclean person - No one of corrupt and licentious life can be saved; see Rev 22:15.

Nor covetous man, who is an idolater - That is, he bestows on money the affections due to God; see Col 3:5. To worship money is as real idolatry as to worship a block of stone. If this be so, what an idolatrous world is this! How many idolatrous are there in professedly Christian lands! How many, it is to be feared, in the church itself! And since every covetous man is certainly to be excluded from the kingdom of God, how anxious should we be to examine our hearts, and to know whether this sin may not lie at our door!

Hath any inheritance, ... - Such an one shall never enter heaven. This settles the inquiry about the final destiny of a large portion of the world; and this solemn sentence our conscience and all our views of heaven approve. Let us learn hence:

(1) That heaven will be “pure.”

(2) That it will be a “desirable” place for who would wish to live always with the licentious and the impure?

(3) It is right to reprove these vices and to preach against them. Shall we not be allowed to preach against those sins which will certainly exclude people from heaven?

(4) A large part of the world is exposed to the wrath of God. What numbers are covetous! What multitudes are licentious! In how many places is licentiousness openly and unblushingly practiced! In how many more places in secret! And in how many more is the “heart” polluted, while the external conduct is moral; the soul “corrupt,” while the individual moves in respectable society!

(5) What a world of shame will hell be! How dishonorable and disgraceful to be damned forever, and to linger on in eternal fires, because the man was too polluted to be admitted into pure society! Here, perhaps, he moved in fashionable life, and was rich and honored, and flattered; there he will be sent down to hell because his whole soul was corrupt, and because God would not suffer heaven to be contaminated by his presence!

(6) What doom awaits the “covetous” man! He, like the sensualist, is to be excluded from the kingdom of God. And what is to be his doom? Will he have a place apart from the common damned - a golden palace and a bed of down in hell? No. It will be no small part of his aggravation that he will be doomed to spend an eternity with those in comparison with whom on earth, perhaps, he thought himself to be pure as an angel of light.

(7) With this multitude of the licentious and the covetous, will sink to hell all who are not renewed and sanctified. What a prospect for the “happy,” the fashionable, the moral, the amiable, and the lovely, who have no religion! For all the impenitent and the unbelieving, there is but one home in eternity. Hell is less terrible from its penal fires and its smoke of torment, than from its being made up of the profane, the sensual, and the vile; and its supremest horrors arise from its being the place where shall be gathered all the corrupt and unholy dwellers in a fallen world; all who are so impure that they cannot be admitted into heaven. Why then will the refined, the moral, and the amiable not be persuaded to seek the society of a pure heaven? to be prepared for the world where holy beings dwell?

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Nor covetous person, which is a serving of idols. It is clear enough by the Greek that the covetous man is called an idolater, whose idol in mammon; though it may be also said of other sinners, that the vices they are addicted to are their idols. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Nor covetous man, who is an idolater; because he serves Mammon instead of God, loves his riches more than God, and placeth his hope in them.

Hath any inheritance; without repentance; for he speaks of those that persevere in such sins, whom he calls children of disobedience, Eph 5:6.

In the kingdom of Christ and of God; not two distinct kingdoms, but one and the same, which belongs to God by nature, to Christ as Mediator. By this phrase he intimates, that there is no coming into the kingdom of God but by Christ.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. For—A deep and solemn reason for these prohibitions.

Ye know— However ignorant and forgetful the Gentiles may be, ye know.

That no— The same triad of vile transgressors as in Eph_5:3 : the debauchee, the shameless, the business knave.

An idolater—Who worships the round, molten image, the dollar, as his god. Note on Mat_6:24, and Col_3:5. It belongs to St. Paul’s self-sacrificing nature, as Meyer finely remarks, to condemn gain-greed as the most shameful ungodliness.

Inheritance… kingdom—Notes on Eph_1:10-14.

Of Christ and of God—The kingdom of eternal glory beyond the judgment day.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this ye know well; an appeal to their own consciences, made confidently, as beyond all doubt. That no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom. Covetousness, the twin-brother sin of uncleanness, is denounced as idolatry. It is worshipping the creature more than the Creator, depending on vast stores of earthly substance in place of the favor and blessing of God. It must receive the doom of the idolater; instead of inheriting the kingdom, he must die the death. The doom in this verse is not future, but present not shall have, but hath, inheritance, etc.. (comp. Eph_1:11, Eph_1:18) The lust of greed overreaches itself; it loses all that is truly worth having; it may have this and that lands, houses, and goods but it has not one scrap in the kingdom. Of Christ and God. The two are united in the closest way, as equals, implying the divinity of Christ and his oneness with the Father in the administration of the kingdom.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our apostle, considering how exceeding common the fore-mentioned sins were among the Gentiles, and how ready persons were to esteem lightly of them, advises the Ephesians here not to entertain in their minds light thoughts of them, or to believe any libertines which should represent them as small and inconsiderable matters; for how can a little sin be committed against a great God? or that sin be accounted light, which brings down the heavy wrath of God upon the person, and shuts him out of the kingdom of God?

Note here, 1. The description of heaven; it is a kingdom, for its eminency and glory, for its fulness and sufficiency, for its safety and security, for its duration and perpetuity, so called; and it is the kingdom of Christ, and of God, that is, either the kingdom of Christ by purchase, and the kingdom of God by free donation.

But mark, The kingdom of Christ and of God; of Christ first, because there is no coming into the kingdom of God but by Christ. Christ is first named, because we enter by him into the kingdom, and in his right.

Note, 2. The sins enumerated, which will assuredly shut persons out of his kingdom; and they are not external and corporeal sins only, as whoredom and uncleanness, but internal and spiritual; covetousness, which is idolatry.

As a man may be guilty of adultery, and yet never touch a woman, and of murder, yet never strike his neighbour; so he may be guilty of idolatry, and yet never bow his knee to an idol: secret idolatry, soul idolatry, will shut out of heaven, as well as open idolatry. Any thing that has our highest esteem and regard, our extreme love and delight, and is the special object of our hope, our affiance and trust, of our fear and care, this we make our god.

And thus the covetous man is an idolater, for he gives these acts of soul-worship to the creature, to something in the world which is not God. Every natural man is an idolater; either the world, or some worldly lust, is his god, and no idolater can have, while such, any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Note, 3. The seasonable advice which St. Paul gives the Ephesians, and us in them, not to be partakers of other men’s sins: Be not ye therefore partakers with them, lest ye be also partakers with them in their plagues and punishments.

Quest. But when may we be said to be partakers of other men’s sins?

Ans. When we consent to them, connive at them, rejoice in them, give counsel or command for them, by not mourning over them, but especially by joining with them in the sinful practice of them; all these ways are we partakers of other men’s sins.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. No fornicator. No person of licentious life, words or thoughts. Nor covetous man, who is an idolater. See note on verse 3. The covetous man gives his heart to the object of his greed rather than to God, and hence is virtually an idolater. Hath any inheritance. None of these are heirs of the kingdom and hence have no promise of heaven.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

inheritance

Receiving what God has promised believers is spoken of as if it were inheriting property and wealth from a family member. (See: Metaphor)

empty words

words that have no truth to them

translationWords

sexual immorality

false god

inherit

kingdom

disobey

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

5. τοῦτο γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες. ‘Ye know by your own observation’ or ‘Observe and know.’ It is interesting to notice with Robinson that this combination is found once or perhaps twice in LXX. as the rendering of a familiar Hebrew idiom. It is even probable that the idiom may have suggested the combination to St Paul. None the less the phrase has a natural meaning of its own in Greek which is fuller than that of the Hebrew to which it corresponds. For the two words for knowing are distinct and are each used in their proper signification, εἰδέναι (to know) describes the result, γινώσκειν (to perceive) the process in the acquisition of knowledge. ‘You know the fact and you are daily observing instances of its application,’ or perhaps better as imperative (with Hort on Jas 1:19) ‘Take note of this fact by observing.’

πᾶς—οὐκ ἔχει. Cf. Eph 4:29. ‘Every—is excluded from.’ Similar lists are found in 1Co 5:11; 1Co 6:9; Gal 5:21; Rom 1:29; Col 3:5; 1Ti 1:10; 2Ti 3:2; Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15; cf. Mar 7:22; Mat 15:19. Some of these follow the lines of the Decalogue. But some are independent. As Robinson points out the language here and in Gal. and 1 Cor. suggests that there was a recognized body of moral teaching in use in the different Churches. The material however does not seem sufficient to enable us to determine its contents.

πλεονέκτης, ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης. Cf. Col 3:5 and Lightfoot’s note. The covetous man sets up another object of worship besides God. Though there is no trace of ‘Mammon’ as the object of any established cult, our Lord certainly in Mat 6:24 (= Luk 16:13) treats it as claiming a service from men inconsistent with whole-hearted devotion to God, i.e. He implies that covetousness is idolatry. The reminder is necessary for those whether Jews or Gentiles who were tempted to imagine that there could be no question of their loyalty to Jehovah as long as they turned their backs on the established forms of heathenism.

οὐκ ἔχει κληρονομίαν. Cf. on Eph 1:14. The Kingdom and the inheritance come together in Mat 25:34. In 1Co 6:9; Gal 5:21 the inheritance is future.

ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ. References to the Kingdom are found in the records of St Paul’s preaching at Derbe etc. (Act 14:22), Corinth (Act 19:8), Ephesus (Act 20:25) and Rome (Act 28:23 and Act 28:31). It is also mentioned by name in 1Th 2:12; 2Th 1:5; 1Co 4:20; 1Co 6:9 f., 1Co 15:24; 1Co 15:50; Gal 5:21; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13; Col 4:11; 2Ti 4:1; 2Ti 4:18. It is sometimes definitely future as in 2Th 1:5; 1Co 6:9 f., 1Co 15:50; Gal 5:21; 2Ti 4:18 (τὴν ἐπουράνιον). It is sometimes present, 1Co 4:20; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13, as it seems to be here. In the other passages it is indeterminate. It is generally ‘the Kingdom of God.’ It some cases 1Co 15:24; Col 1:13; 2Ti 4:1; 2Ti 4:18 it is by implication the Kingdom of Christ. The actual title however ‘the Kingdom of Christ’ does not appear elsewhere. (Similarly αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ χριστοῦ is only found in Rom 16:16.)

τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ, ‘of Christ and of God.’ This is better than the other possible rendering ‘of Him who is Christ and God.’ There is no clear instance in St Paul where Christ is called θεὸς absolutely. In Rom 9:5 the punctuation is at best uncertain. In relation to the Kingdom the Son expressly shares the sovereignty with His Father, Rev 3:21; Rev 11:15; Rev 20:6.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5.] Appeal to their own knowledge that such practices exclude from the kingdom of God: see below. For this ye know (indicative, not imperative: this to my mind is decided 1) by the context, in which an appeal to their own consciousness of the fact is far more natural than a communication of the fact to them: 2) by the position of the words, which in the case of an imperative would more naturally be ἴστε γὰρ τοῦτο γινώσκοντες: 3) by the use of the construction ἴστε γινώσκοντες, which almost necessitates a matter of fact underlying γινώσκοντες.—ἴστε γιν. is not an example of the γινώσκων γνώσῃ (Gen 15:13 al.) of Hebrew usage, the two verbs being different) being aware that every fornicator or (ἤ now, not καί, for individualization of each) unclean man, or covetous man, which is (i.e. ‘that is to say,’—‘quod;’ meaning, the word πλεονέκτης. This reading necessarily confines the reference to that one word) an idolater (cf. Col 3:5, which shews that even ὅς ἐστιν would apply to the πλεονέκτης only, not, as Stier, al., to the three: see Job 31:24; Psa 52:7; Mat 6:24. Mey. remarks well, that it was very natural for St. Paul, whose forsaking of all things (2Co 6:10; 2Co 11:27) so strongly contrasted with selfish greediness, to mark with the deepest reprobation the sin of πλεονεξία), hath not inheritance (the present implying more the fixedness of the exclusion, grounded on the eternal verities of that Kingdom,—than mere future certainty: see 1Co 15:25) in the Kingdom of Christ and God (not ‘and of God’ (κ. τοῦ θ.) as E. V. 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 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 κ. 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).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. τοῦτο γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες. ἴστε is the reading of א A B D* G P, It Vulg., Goth., Sah., Boh., Arm., Chrys.

ἔστε, that of Dc K L, Theodoret, Theoph. Internal as well as external evidence favours the former. ἔστε γιν. would be a feeble periphrasis for οἴδατε or γινώσκετε, since there is no hint here of an emphasis on the present tense.

The combination of the two verbs is not to be explained by reference to the Hebrew idiom, which combines a finite verb with the infinitive absolute (imitated in Greek by the participle with the finite verb), since the verbs here are different. Xenophon’s ὁρῶν καὶ ἀκούων οἶδα (Cyr. iv. 1. 14) is nearer, but not exactly parallel, since there the participles define the kind of knowledge: “I know by observation and hearsay.” The meaning is clear: “ye know full well, of your own knowledge.” ἴστε is not imperative, as in the Vulgate and Bengel, etc., which does not at all agree with the addition γινώσκοντες. Hofmann puts a stop after ἴστε, so as to make τοῦτο refer to the preceding.

On πᾶς οὐκ cf. 4:29.

ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης.

There are three readings—

ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, א B 672, Jerome.

ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, A D K L P, Syr-Harcl., Boh., Arm., Chrys.

ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία, G, It, Vulg., Goth.; Syr-Pesh (printed text) has “or,” which points to ὅ.

The last is supposed by Meyer to have been an explanation of the second, which he thinks genuine, the first being produced from this by restoring εἰδωλολάτρης. But it is quite as easy to account for the third variety as arising from the first, because εἰδωλολάτρης was thought unsuitable to ὅ. If the second reading had been the original, it is not easy to see why it should have been changed; but ὅ would readily be changed to ὅς for grammatical reasons.

With the reading ὅς some commentators (Harless, Braune, etc.) refer the relative to all three antecedents; but this is not so natural as the reference to πλεονέκτης, which also corresponds with Col 3:5, πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, although there also Harless regards ἥτις as by attraction for ἅτινα, as Eph 3:13. With the reading ὅ, the latter reference must, of course, be adopted. On the designation of πλ. as idolatry, see above on 4:19. The passages from Rabbinical writers, quoted by Schöttgen and Wetstein, do not throw much light on the matter. They represent all kinds of wickedness and vice as idolatry; pride, anger, refusal to give alms. If πλεονεξία is simply “covetousness,” the question is, why should this, any more than fornication and impurity, be singled out to be called idolatry? Meyer says that πορνεία and ἀκαθαρσία are also subtle idolatry (certainly not “more subtle forms,” Ellicott), but that it was natural for St. Paul, whose own self-sacrificing spirit was so opposed to this self-seeking, to brand this especially as idolatry in order to make it κατʼ ἐξοχήν abominable. There is nothing in his language elsewhere to support this idea. One of Chrysostom’s explanations shows how difficult he found it to answer the question. Wouldst thou learn, says he, how πλ. is idolatry, and worse than idolatry? Idolaters worship God’s creatures, but thou worshippest thy own creature, for God did not create πλεονεξία.

If we give πλεονεξία and πλεονέκτης the wider sense advocated on 4:19, there is no difficulty.

οὐκ ἔχει κληρονομίαν. As κληρονομία does not necessarily imply actual possession, but the title to possession, it is not necessary to say that the present is used to express the certainty of future possession.

ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ. Many expositors (Bengel, Harless, etc.) argue from the absence of the article before Θεοῦ that the words mean “the kingdom of Him who is Christ and God.” But Θεός is one of the words that do not require an article; comp. 1Co 6:9, 1Co 6:10, βασιλείαν Θεοῦ: also ib. 15:50 and Gal 5:21. See also Gal 1:1, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός: Rom 15:8, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας Θεοῦ: 13:4, Θεοῦ διάκονος, etc. There is in the context no dogmatic assertion about Christ, and to introduce such a prediction in this incidental way would be out of place. Nor does the apostle’s language elsewhere lead us to suppose that he would thus absolutely designate Christ, God. Comp. 4:6, “one Lord, one God.” The absence of the article gives more unity to the conception; it is not “the kingdom of Christ, and also the kingdom of God,” but being the kingdom of Christ it is the kingdom of God.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye know [ιστε γινωσκοντες] . The A. V. fails to give the whole force of the expression, which is, ye know recognizing. Rev., ye know of a surety.

Idolater. Compare Col 3:5, and see on 1Co 5:10.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.