γ.
6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς " ἀπατάτω "κενοῖς λόγοις: διὰ ταῦτα ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς
ἁσὶοὺς τῆς 3 ἀπειθείας.
d Ch. ii. 2 reff.
1Xprorov 14, al. ; θ. κ. X. Ar.-erp., Ambrst., al. ; X. τον θεον Eth., Ar.-pol., Thdrt.,.
their consciousness.—éti was πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος : that no fornicator or unclean person. On the Hebr. formula was... οὐκ, “every One . . . shall not,’’ see on iv. 29 above and Win.-Moult., p. 209.— ἢ πλεονέκτης : or covetous man, The πλεονέκτης appears here again to have its proper sense, and not any secondary application. —6s ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης : who is an idolater. This reading of the TR has the support of ADKLP, Syr.- Harcl., Boh., Arm., Chrys., etc. But there are two interesting variants, viz., ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία, which is the reading of G, Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Pes. (probably), and ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, which is given by BN, 673, Jer., etc. The choice must be between this last andthe TR. Onthe whole the former is to be preferred (with LTTrWHRY) 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. iii. 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 synony- mous with the εἰδωλολάτρης in order to stigmatise avarice as a specifically anti-Christian vice, essentially incom- patible with the spirit of self-sacrifice which is of the very being of Christianity and was inculcated so strenuously by Paul himself.—otx 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, appro- priate here as the expression of a principle or law; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 331.—év τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ: in the Kingdom of Christ απᾶὰ Οοά. 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., Riick., Harl.); and some, with this view of its import, have held it to be an example of the application of
Sharp’srule, 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 βασιλεία Θεοῦ (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, xv. 50; Gal. ν. 21). Θεοῦ has the same climactic force here as in 1 Cor. iii. 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 (1 Cory. XV. 24, 28). Ver. 6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς λόγοις : let no one deceive you with vain words. A solemn warning, made the more pointed by being given without any connecting particle. κενός is “vain” in the sense of empty, without the substance of truth or reality, and so = sophistical ; cf. κενολογεῖν in Isa. viii. 19. But what is the reference? Some think heathen philosophers and Fews are in view (Grot.), or Fudaisers in particular (Neand.), or antinomian Christians (Olsh.), or teachers of Gentile tendencies (Meyer), or false rethren in the Churches (Abb.). But the expression is a general one, applying to all who sought by their sophistries to palliate the vices in question or make them ap to be novices. These would be found mostly (though by no manner of necessity exclusively) among the heathen, especially among such Gentiles as heard the truth and remained unbelieving. This is most accordant with the μονό κνν terms which follow, υἱς.--υϊοὺς τῆς ἀπει- θείας; μὴ . . . συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν; ἦτε dp ποτε σκότος. (So Mey., Ell., etc.)— διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ: Sor because of these things cometh the wrath of God. The διὰ ταῦτα, which is placed emphatically first, refers of course to the sins in question; not to the “vain words," as Chrys., ¢.g., strangely thought. The certainty of the Divine retribution is added as an enforcement of the previous warnings. It is given in terms of a solemn present (ἔρχεται) and in the form of “τε wrath of God"—an expression which occupies a very large place both in the OT and in the NT. This ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ is not to be limited (with Ritschl.) to the judgment of the last day, or taken as synonymous with the vindicta Dei, or resolved into a figure