People of the Land of Bees 5

The Greek μιμηταὶ translated as "imitators" or "mimics" can, in certain philosophical contexts (esp. Platonic), carry pejorative overtones of deceptive imitation (cf. Sophist 235a; Republic 598d), often associated with γόητες (sorcerers, impostors). In rhetorical and ethical literature, however (e.g., Isocrates, Aristotle), and in this usage, it clearly denotes emulation. Hence, "emulators of God" is better than "mimics," or "imitators."

“Mimics/imitators” in English suggests shallow reproduction, artifice, or even deception, evoking the γόης or charlatan imagery from Plato's Sophist. There has been enough of this within the religious realm, that it needs no mention.

The term “emulators” better captures the intentional, aspirational character of μίμησις in ethical discourse (cf. Isocrates, Aristotle, Epictetus). A transformation is implied by this usage — not mimicry of God’s being or power, but partakers of his nature, especially ἀγάπη (Eph 5:2).

The textual variants in Ephesians 5:2 concerning the pronouns exhibit significant manuscript divergence. The phrase “He loved you all” (ἠγάπησεν ὑμᾶς) and “gave himself up for you all” (παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) appears in critical editions such as Nestle 1904, Westcott-Hort 1881, Tischendorf, and is favored by most modern critical texts (e.g., NA27, UBS4), reflecting a reading aligned with direct address to the Ephesian recipients. Conversely, the Byzantine Majority Text and the Greek Orthodox Church text have “He loved us” (ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς) and “handed over for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), which universalizes the statement to include both author and audience.

Contextually, the second-person pronouns (ὑμᾶς, ὑμῶν) better harmonize with the hortatory tone of the passage. The first-person plural pronouns (ἡμᾶς, ἡμῶν) likely represent scribal altering aiming at theological inclusivity and are considered less original on text-critical grounds. Thus, the reading “you” is preferred in most modern critical editions for its coherence with the epistolary context and rhetorical purpose.

Stupid Talk

The noun μωρολογία (morologia, feminine, ἡ) is a compound word in Ancient and Koine Greek meaning “foolish talk”, “silly speech”, or “stupid discourse.” It appears rarely in earlier literature but is preserved clearly in moral and rhetorical contexts—namely in Ephesians 5:4.

• μωρός: "moronic", "dull", "stupid", "silly" (a cognitive and moral term; cf. Latin stultus)

• -λογία: from λέγω, “to speak” → "-logia" = speech, talk, discourse

μωρολογία literally = fool-talk, i.e., discourse characterized by lack of sense or dignity.

• Aristotle, HA 492b2

  • In a biological context, used figuratively to denote unscientific or ridiculous remarks in observation—“silly opinions.”

• Plutarch, De Garrulitate 2 (Moralia 504b)

  • A treatise against talkativeness: μωρολογία appears in the critique of those who speak too much, too lightly, or without thought.

• Sextus Empiricus, M. 1.174

  • Used in epistemological polemic: μωρολογία is attributed to illogical or uncritical assertions.

Witty Charm

The term εὐτραπελία typically carries a positive connotation in classical Greek. In Plato, Republic 563a, it denotes an urbane and pleasant wit, appropriate to civil discourse. Aristotle treats it as the ethical mean between ἀγροικία (boorishness) and βωμολοχία (buffoonery): “εὐτραπελία δὲ ἐστὶ παίδων ἦθος πεπαιδευμένων” (Eth. Nic. 4.8, 1128a21), “eutrapelia is the playfulness of the cultivated.” Similarly, in Plutarch (Antony 43.5), the trait is admired as charming sociability. The later negative nuance in Ephesians represents a semantic narrowing—likely shaped by early Christian ascetic ideals—in which even light-heartedness could be construed as morally unseemly if it distracts from piety and reverence.

There is a significant textual variant in Ephesians 5:9 between τοῦ φωτός (“of the light”) and τοῦ πνεύματος (“of the Spirit”). The reading τοῦ φωτός is supported by early and reliable Alexandrian witnesses, including 𝔓46, Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ), and Codex Vaticanus (B), and is adopted by critical editions such as NA28 and UBS5, as well as by Westcott and Hort. This reading coheres closely with the immediate context (Eph. 5:8: “νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ”), and is considered the lectio difficilior—scholars may have been inclined to harmonize the phrase with Galatians 5:22 (“the fruit of the Spirit”). By contrast, τοῦ πνεύματος, found in later Byzantine manuscripts and the Textus Receptus, likely represents such a harmonization. The critical consensus favors τοῦ φωτός as original.

Mutual hierarchy is an oxymoron.

The participial clause ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ is traditionally rendered “submitting to one another,” yet this creates a logical tension, to put it lightly. Mutual subordination or subjection is structurally incoherent and self-canceling: subordination presupposes asymmetrical relational hierarchy, which cannot be sustained if reciprocal. Attempting avoid heirarchy and "submit to each other" never seems to work. Someone always seems to take the alpha position. Ask any Presbyterian board of elders. Such a saying leaves the reader with suspended over nothing: "Do I submit first, or they?" It leads in a downward cycle, and is just as nonsensical as saying "rule over each other" (which would lead to chaos).

However, ὑποτάσσω in the passive voice with a dative (cf. τοῖς φθόγγοις in Epicur. Ep. 1p.4U.; Phld. Po. 5.26, 27) also bears the sense of underlying, being associated with, or being structurally aligned with. On this reading, ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις denotes not authority-yielding but a mutual correspondence or underlying relatedness—an interpretive move supported by philosophical and rhetorical usage from Hellenistic and later periods. (cf. LSJ ὑποτάσσω II.3)

This broader sense—“being structurally coordinated with one another” or “being implied in one another”—speaks more logically and theologically to the shared participation in the divine nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4), whereby each member of the body is not subordinated to the other but ordered with the other in the same underlying nature. Such an understanding coheres with the metaphor of ecclesial unity elsewhere in Ephesians (e.g., 4:16), and avoids flattening the rich communal language into a frustrating pit of "reciprocal submission."

Glued Within Her

The Greek verb προσκολληθήσεται (future passive, 3rd sg. of προσκολλάω) is traditionally rendered "he shall cleave to" or "be joined to". However, the prepositional prefix πρός denotes directional movement toward (not necessarily adhesion to), and thus "be glued toward" preserves the original semantic range more faithfully. The verb stems from κόλλα, meaning "glue," suggesting an intentional and dynamic movement toward union rather than inert attachment. This is also the reading of Genesis 2:24:

Upon an upright one each man is leaving the self eternal father of himself and the self eternal mother of himself, and he has glued within the Woman of himself, and they have become a flesh of one.

The two are glued not to each other, but the two, within herself.

Moreover, the phrase καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν ("and the two shall be into one flesh") features the masculine οἱ δύο, which refers not to a man and a woman, but to the composite self. This reading resonates with the preceding identification of the woman as "self of my self and flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23), implying identity and essence, not alterity.

To speak of the man being "stuck to" a "woman" as a separate entity introduces a logical rupture: it posits a bifurcation where the text itself emphasizes same essence, same self. Thus, the verb προσκολλάομαι should not be flattened into the juridical or patriarchal frameworks of external submission or subordination, as all have done, but understood as a movement of the self toward its own fullness—toward the 'woman' as the womb of the man’s own being.

Understood this way, the passage does not prescribe a hierarchical relational order (i.e., man as subject, woman as object), but rather articulates an ontological revelation, wherein the masculine seeks reunion with what is of himself, and is himself,—his own flesh. Misreading this as hierarchical subordination not only contradicts the logic of the passage but also lays the groundwork for dysfunctional models of human relationship, where identity, autonomy, and reciprocity are undermined in favor of asymmetric attachment—the infamous "trapping" of the woman.