“Awake, sleeper,

5 1 Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, 2 and walk in love, just as Christ loved you and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a fragrant odor.

3 But immorality and impurity of any kind, or greed, let it not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among saints, 4 also filthiness and silly talk or wittiness in telling coarse jokes, which things are improper, but rather the expression of thankfulness. 5 For of this you can be very sure, that no immoral or impure person or greedy individual — which is the same as an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words; for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be their partners, 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now (you are) light in the Lord; as children of light ever walk 9 — for the fruit of light (consists) in all goodness and righteousness and truth — 10 verifying what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 And do not take any part in the unfruitful works of darkness but instead even expose them, 12 for the things done by them in secret it is a shame even to mention. 13 But when all these (wicked practices) are exposed by the light they are made visible; for everything that is made visible is light. 14 Therefore he says,

“Awake, sleeper,

And arise from the dead,

And Christ will shine on you.”

15 Be most careful therefore how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of the opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish but understand what (is) the will of the Lord. 18 And do not get drunk on wine, which is associated with unrestrained living, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody from your heart to the Lord; 20 giving thanks always for all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to (our) God and Father, 21 subjecting yourselves to each other out of reverence for Christ.

The theme renewal is suggested by 4:23, where Paul tells the Ephesians, “You must be renewed.” This renewal, moreover, implies a complete, basic change, a detachment from the world which they had formerly served, and an attachment to Christ, their newly confessed Lord and Savior. In Paul’s own words, it is a putting off of the old man and a putting on of the new man (4:22, 24). Now the idea of this Spirit-born total transformation governs the entire section: 4:17–6:9. Throughout what Paul is saying is, “Be done with the old and adopt the new.” He is continually contrasting these two kinds of disposition and behavior. Thus he urges that falsehood be replaced by speaking the truth (4:25); sinful anger, by that which is not sinful (4:26); stealing, by sharing (4:28); corrupt speech, by edifying words (4:29); bitterness, anger, and wrath, by kindness, tenderness and love (4:31–5:2); filthiness and coarse wittiness, by the expression of thankfulness (5:3, 4), etc.

When the general admonitions (4:17–5:21) are ended and those to special groups (5:22–6:9) are issued, the idea of renewal continues. Husbands must love, not hate, their wives (5:28, 29). Fathers should not provoke their children to anger but should rear them tenderly in the discipline and admonition of the Lord (6:4). Slaves ought to render service not as to men but as to the Lord (6:5–8). Masters must stop threatening and must treat their slaves with consideration (6:9).

Although, to be sure, this renewal is a matter of strenuous, continuous, effort on the part of believers, a process of daily conversion, yet, as already stated, it is throughout a work of the Holy Spirit (4:30; 5:18), for it is only through the Spirit that men are able to put forth the needed effort and to succeed. Hence, it is a transformation or sanctification full of glory, nothing less than a change from dismal darkness to glorious light (5:7–14). Accordingly, I cannot find a better sub-title for this section than that of (the Church’s) Glorious Renewal.

The section that covers the general admonitions has four parts, which may be divided as follows: 4:17–24; 4:25–5:2; 5:3–14; and 5:15–21.

a. 4:17–24

“Put off the old man. Be renewed. Put on the new man”

17. The paragraph begins as follows: This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk. This “therefore” connects the present paragraph with all that has gone before in 4:1–16. “Because of your high calling, your duty to render service with a view to the building up of Christ’s body, no longer conduct yourselves as do the Gentiles.” The apostle introduces this admonition with all the authority he is able to summon. He says, “I say and testify.” As Bengel has pointed out: when the apostle admonishes he does it so that those addressed may act freely; when he encourages, so that they may act gladly; and when he testifies, so that they may act reverently (with a proper respect for the will of God). Note also “in the Lord.” He is speaking and testifying in the sphere of the Lord, with his authority, and in the interest of his cause. Cf. Acts 20:26; Gal. 5:3; I Thess. 2:12.

They must no longer behave as Gentiles,¹²⁰ for they no longer are Gentiles. When this statement is analyzed it becomes clear that two ideas are combined here: a. Lay aside your former manner of life (cf. 2:1–3, 12; 4:14, 22); and b. do not imitate your present evil environment. With reference to Gentile conduct Paul adds: in the futility of their mind. The rendering “vanity” instead of “futility” is not wrong, since the latter is one of the meanings of the former. Nevertheless, inasmuch as “vanity” also has another, very different and yet very common, meaning, namely, excessive pride, conceit, “futility” is to be preferred. The apostle emphasizes a very important point, namely, that all those endeavors which the Gentiles put forth in order to attain happiness end in disappointment. Their life is one long series of mocked expectations. It is a pursuing and not achieving, a blossoming and not bearing fruit. Cf. Rom. 8:20. All the rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never filled. The eye is never satisfied with seeing nor the ear with hearing. All this chasing after riches, honor, mirth, etc., is nothing but “a striving after wind” (Eccles. 1:7, 8; 3:9). Their mind or intellect is fruitless. It produces naught that can satisfy. Continued: 18, 19. being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts, because they have become callous and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness for the greedy practice of every type of impurity. In order to see the entire picture of tragic hopelessness, these two verses should be viewed as a unit. It then becomes clear that the futility that characterizes the Gentile mind is a product of darkened understanding and estrangement from the God-given life, these two, in turn, resulting from a type of ignorance that is by no means excusable but is due to willful hardening and surrender to unbridled license of every description. Being darkened is something that took place in the past but has continuing effect.¹²¹ The “understanding” or power of discursive reasoning had been affected by sin. This understanding is treated here as if it were an eye that had become blind. This darkening, moreover, is far worse than physical blindness, for the man who is physically blind knows it and admits it, but the person who is spiritually and morally darkened is blind even to the fact that he is blind (John 9:40, 41). Not only is it true that people of this kind dwell in the darkness, but the darkness dwells in them. They have imbibed it, just as one day they will imbibe (“drink”) God’s wrath (Rev. 14:10). Contrast these blind eyes with the “enlightened” eyes of believers (2:18). They are, moreover, alienated or estranged,¹²² and this not only from “the commonwealth of Israel” as was pointed out earlier (2:12) but also from “the life of God,” that is, from God as the Source of eternal life. This darkening and alienation can be traced to their culpable ignorance, a condition they had brought upon themselves by hardening their hearts against the will of God. At one time, long, long ago their ancestors had had God’s special revelation, but had rejected it. Many centuries had gone by. And now these distant descendants were suppressing even the light of God’s general revelation in nature and conscience with terrible results. The picture, in all its lurid details, is drawn in Rom. 1:18–32; cf. 2:12 and 11:7. The very center of their being, their hearts, had become “callous” by their own deliberate action. For “callous” the A.V. and A.R.V. have “past feeling,” which is also an excellent rendering, the root meaning of this perfect participle being “having arrived at a condition of freedom from pain,” and thus, in general, “having become insensible” with reference here to the divine voice, to God’s truth.

Some there are who over-emphasize feeling. Their religion never reaches any deeper than the emotions. Their picture is drawn in Matt. 13:5, 6, 20, 21. They are not firmly rooted. They lack conviction. The Gentiles whom Paul here describes as a warning example have followed the exactly opposite course, which, if anything, is even worse. By constantly saying “No” to God’s voice in conscience and in the lessons which nature and history had provided, they had at last become hard as stone, dead to all responsiveness to that which is good and uplifting; not, however, dead to all feeling and all desire. Now there have been many people throughout the course of history who have taken pride in the stifling of all feeling. They were ashamed of shedding tears and even of revealing any but the most indifferent reaction to any outside influence. Thus, for example, the Stoic’s ideal was release from every emotion (“apatheia”). Again, according to a familiar story, the Spartan youth who had stolen a young fox and had hid it beneath his tunic, allowed the animal to tear out his vitals, without betraying himself by the movement of a muscle. In the camp of the Buddhists the best virtue is passion-lessness, and heaven (“Nirvana”) has been defined as the cessation of all natural desires. And among the American Indians a captured Iroquois did his level best not to break down under torture, but instead to react to it with perfect equanimity. What we have here, in 4:18, 19, however, is something far worse. The people of whom Paul was writing did not try to squelch all feeling. Far from it! They did not oppose every type of desire. On the contrary they suppressed only those feelings that are connected with goodness. They were down on all desires that would have brought them into closer harmony with the will of God. By constantly arguing with conscience, stifling its warnings and muffling its bell, they had at last reached the point where conscience could no longer bother them. It was seared (I Tim. 4:2). They did have feeling and they did keep alive desire, namely, feeling and desire for evil indulgence. They had abandoned themselves to vice. They gave themselves up to it (thus literally, in the original). The result of such base surrender is always this, that, if persisted in, God gives the sinner up to suffer the full consequences of his sin, as Exod. 8:15, 32, cf. 9:12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28 (where the same verb, “give up,” is used as here in Eph. 4:19) clearly teach. See also Rev. 22:11. The vice to which they abandoned themselves is called licentiousness or “lasciviousness” (see also Rom. 13:13; II Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19). The literature of the day was deeply immoral. So corrupt had the Roman world become that somewhat later Origen states that when the people of his day committed adultery and whoredom they did not regard themselves as violating good manners. It has been remarked that it was not lava but lewdness that buried Herculaneum. And the frescoes found amid the ruins of nearby Pompeii show that this city was not any better.

The apostle says that the Gentiles of whom he speaks had abandoned themselves to licentiousness “for the greedy practice [literally: practice in greed] of every type of impurity.” The greedy person is the one who overreaches. He wishes “to have more than his due.” He disregards the rights and feelings of all other people. He goes beyond what is proper and has no respect whatever for any laws of dignity or propriety. Cf. 5:3, 5; Col. 2:5; I Thess. 4:6. By means of his unbridled lust and wanton self-assertion he is digging his own grave. Note particularly: every type of impurity. For an enumeration of these types see 4:25–31; 5:3–11, 15, 18; cf. Rom. 1:26–32.

20. In principle, however, the people whom Paul addresses belong to a different category. This had been the case ever since Christ entered into their hearts and lives. Hence, Paul continues: You, however, did not so learn Christ. In the original the sentence begins with the word you, on which, accordingly, great emphasis is placed, as if to say, “You did not learn Christ so as to continue to live as the Gentiles are doing.” To learn Christ is more than to learn about Christ. Not only had the Ephesians received a body of teaching, namely, about Christ, and not only had they observed in the lives of those who brought it what this doctrine was able to achieve, but in addition, they themselves by an act of Spirit-wrought faith had welcomed this Christ into their hearts. Joyfully they had received the sacrament of holy baptism. And by constant and systematic attendance upon the means of grace, by prayer and answers to prayer, by daily living in accordance with the principles of the truth of the gospel, they had learned Christ, yes, Christ himself in very person.

Paul here presents the appropriation of Christ and of salvation in him as the result of a learning process, a learning with heart and mind. Believers, in other words, are not saved at one stroke. They do not become completely transformed all at once. They learn. There was the basic change wrought by the power of God. This was followed by a constant progress in sanctification, constant but not necessarily uniform. In one person it had been more clearly evident than in another. At one time the progress had been by leaps, but at another time at snail’s pace. At times, in all likelihood, there had been reverses, retrogressions. The point which the apostle emphasizes, however, is that whatever had been their degree of advance in learning, they had definitely not learned Christ as an advocate of sin and selfishness, of lewdness and licentiousness. No longer were their minds futile, no longer was their understanding dark. Continued: 21.… for surely you heard of him and were taught in him. Justification for this translation — “for surely,” where A.V. and A.R.V. have “if so be” — was offered in the explanation of 3:2 where a similar “for surely” occurs. Many of the Ephesians had been taught by Paul himself during his lengthy ministry at Ephesus (Acts 19; 20:17–35). The apostle had been able to reach not only those who were actually living within the city of Ephesus but also people from the surrounding territory. Many had flocked to the city to attend feasts, for business, or for other purposes. Some, no doubt, had gone there for the very purpose of seeing and hearing Paul. But in addition there had been other multitudes, in surrounding cities and villages, who heard the gospel from the lips of those who had received it from Paul (Acts 20:17). It should be borne in mind constantly that this epistle is, in all probability, a letter addressed to a vast multitude of people, many of whom did not live in Ephesus. It was probably a circular letter. See Introduction, pp. 58–61. The addressed, then, had heard of Christ and had been taught not only about but “in” him; that is, the entire atmosphere had been Christian. Christ, speaking through his ambassadors, was the teacher. He was also the theme. Continued: just as it is in Jesus that truth resides. The truth with reference to man’s fall into sin, his desperate condition by nature, the salvation procured by Christ, the necessity of faith working through love, principles of Christian conduct, etc.: all these doctrines had Christ as their very center. In Christ’s suffering and death by crucifixion the addressed had been able to read how deeply fallen they were, necessitating the death of God’s only-begotten Son, a death both painful and shameful. In his triumphant resurrection, ascension, and coronation they had received proof positive that salvation had been achieved. In Christ’s constant emphasis upon the fact that men must come to him and rely on him completely, they had been given a lesson in the necessity of faith as appropriating organ of salvation. The Master’s marvelous example in humility, self-sacrifice, love, etc. had been given for their instruction. Moreover, had not Jesus himself said, “I am the way and the truth and the life”? (John 14:6). Was not he the very embodiment of the truth, the truth in person? Were not “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” hidden in him, hidden in order to be revealed? (Col. 2:3). Was not he the active and living truth, the truth that sets men free (John 8:32; 17:17), the very answer to Pilate’s question (John 18:38)?

Verse 21b was parenthetical in character. Continuing now with the main idea expressed in verse 21a: “for surely you heard of him and were taught in him,” Paul writes: 22–24. (having been taught) that with respect to your former manner of life you¹²³ must put off the old man, which is being corrupted through deceitful lusts, and must be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new man, created after (the likeness of) God in true righteousness and holiness.

What the Ephesians had been taught “in Christ” was this, that nothing less than a radical change in their mental outlook and manner of life was necessary, a complete turnabout. Their former manner of life (2:2, 3; 4:17–19; 5:8, 14; cf. Col. 1:21; 2:13; 3:7) must cease. The directive which, from the moment of their vital contact with Christ, was meant to control their entire being in all its manifestations, and to confront them every day and every hour, was curt and crisp: “Put off the old man,” that is, “the old nature, whatever you are apart from grace” (Col. 3:9; cf. Rom. 6:6), and “Put on the new man,” that is, “the new nature, whatever you have become, must be, and can become because of grace” (Col. 3:10; cf. Gal. 3:27). It was a summary formulation¹²⁴ of a tremendously large order. In a sense, they had already put off the old man and put on the new man, namely, when they had given their hearts to Christ, and had professed him openly at the time of their baptism. But basic conversion must be followed by daily conversion. Even though in principle the believer has become a new creature (or “creation”), he remains a sinner until he dies. The old nature, with which the Ephesians had been on such intimate terms for so many years, is not easy to shed. Getting rid of it is difficult and painful. It amounts, in fact, to a crucifixion (Rom. 6:6). This is true all the more because it is always promising so much. It is being “continually corrupted” through lusts’ illusions, those deceptive evil desires¹²⁵ with their mighty promises and minimal performances. This corrupting deceptiveness is present, moreover, wherever the old nature is represented, whether in the unbeliever or in the believer. Cain’s murder of his brother, a deed which had appeared so attractive when planned, brought nothing but a curse. Absalom’s prospective crown, so dazzling at first, resulted in his gruesome death. The vineyard, so luscious and so conveniently located that Ahab, in order to obtain this coveted prize, had not hesitated to sacrifice Naboth’s life, brought ruin to the king’s household and posterity. The thirty pieces of silver which had shimmered so brightly in Judas’ scheming, once in his possession had burned his hands, tortured his soul, and sent the traitor himself scurrying on his way to hanging and to hell. And, not to omit one of God’s chosen ones, David, in a moment of weakness, filled with passionate delight in the thought of pleasant days ahead with the object of his lustful yearning, was forced to listen to the words of the Lord which like thunder-bolts fell from the lips of the prophet: “You are the man. The sword will not depart from your house.” Truly, the old nature flaunts a golden cup, but upon inspection it is found to contain nothing but filth and abomination (cf. Rev. 17:4). Hence, the Ephesians had been warned most solemnly to put off the old man, to fight him with unrelenting and undiminished vigor in order to divest themselves completely of him.

But while “the old man” is wholly evil, “the new man” is wholly good. He is “created after (the likeness of) God.” Cf. Col. 3:10. Other explanatory passages are Eph. 2:10; II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; and Titus 3:5. Day by day this new creation is advancing “in true righteousness and holiness.” The Colossian parallel (3:10) adds “full knowledge.” Grace restores what sin has ruinously impaired. God not only imputes but also imparts righteousness to the sinner whom he pleases to save. Thus, the believer begins to perform his duties toward his fellow-men. But righteousness never walks alone. It is always accompanied by holiness, so that the regenerated and converted person performs his duties with reference to God also. Cf. Luke 1:75; I Thess. 2:10; Titus 1:8. Moreover, the righteousness and holiness which God bestows are true,¹²⁶ not deceptive, as are the lusts spawned by the old nature. They bring life to its true, predestined fulfilment. They satisfy.

As to the figure underlying “putting off” and “putting on,” it refers, of course, to what one does with a garment. Frequently such a robe indicates a person’s nature or character: either good (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 11:5; 61:10) or evil (Ps. 73:6; cf. Ps. 35:26; 109:29). How it clings to him! The figure is by no means confined to Scripture. It has become part of general literature. It also occurs in the prayers of God’s children: “Disrobe us of ourselves and clothe us with thyself, O Lord.”

Both the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man are necessary. Some people constantly stress the negative. Their religion is one of don’t. Others turn their backs upon every don’t, and take peculiar pride in overstressing the positive. Scripture avoids both of these extremes. Ephesians contains many a do and many a don’t. Here in this life both are needed. They are inseparable and point to simultaneous activities. That is what Paul means when he states that the Ephesians had been taught to “put off” the old man and to “put on” the new man. A person can do very little with one scissorblade. Twin blades, operating in unison, compose the scissors that will work. He who says “Yes” to Christ is saying “No” to Satan. But though both are necessary, Paul’s emphasis throughout is on the positive: “Overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21; cf. 13:14). So it is also here in Eph. 4:22–24, for we are taught that the only way in which one can progressively succeed in putting off the old man and putting on the new¹²⁷ man is by being renewed in the spirit of one’s mind. This renewel is basically an act of God’s Spirit powerfully influencing man’s spirit, here, as also in I Cor. 4:21; Gal. 6:1; and I Peter 3:4, mental attitude, state of mind, disposition, with respect to God and spiritual realities.

b. 4:25–5:2

“Do not give the devil a foothold. Be imitators of God”

25. The apostle now advances from the general to the particular: Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each (of you) with his neighbor. That there is a connection between this admonition and the preceding paragraph is clear from the repetition of the word “putting off” or “laying aside” (same verb in the original; cf. verses 22 and 25) and of the reference to “truth” (cf. verse 25 with verses 15, 20, 24). Based upon this evident connection one might interpret Paul’s thinking at this point as follows: “In view of the fact that ‘in Christ’ you have been taught to put off the old man and to put on the new man, therefore, put off (or: lay aside) falsehood and speak truth.”

One is, however, immediately confronted with a rather incisive difference of opinion among commentators with respect to the translation and meaning of these words. Perhaps the best way to bring out this difference would be to summarize the view of one representative of each of the two opposing theories. The first view is this: What Paul is saying is that since the Ephesians have once for all laid aside falsehood, namely, when they accepted the truth of the gospel, they should now speak truth each with his neighbor. The second is: “There is no need to render ‘having put away,’ which would seem to imply a separation in time between the two actions [that is, between laying aside falsehood and speaking truth].”¹²⁸ Grammatically both renderings — “having put away” and “putting away” (or: “laying aside”) — are possible. In favor of the first view it can be argued that the Ephesians had experienced basic conversion. They had, therefore, already decisively repudiated the lie, namely, when they accepted the truth. The meaning of 4:25 could therefore be: “Be consistent. Let your life adorn your confession. Having put away falsehood, now practice the truth.” This line of reasoning would also be entirely in harmony with Paul’s logic as expressed, for example, in 4:1 ff. and elsewhere.

Nevertheless, although the possibility of the correctness of this theory must be granted, it would seem to me that the opposite view has the best of the argument. Why is it that so very many translators and interpreters have adopted it? With minor variations the rendering which I also favor, namely, “Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each (of you) with his neighbor” is that which one will find in A.V., A.R.V., R.S.V., and in substance also in the versions of those who use two imperatives: “Have done with falsehood; tell the truth to one another” (Bruce; and cf. Phillips, N.E.B., Williams, Beck, etc.). The reasons, no doubt, are as follows: a. it is felt that putting away falsehood and telling the truth are simply two sides of one and the same coin; and b. it is also rather apparent that the apostle, on the basis of his previous paragraph, is now beginning to list particular areas in which Christian conduct must reveal itself, one of them being the practice of truthfulness. To most interpreters these facts must have seemed so obvious that in their comments on this passage they do not even discuss the possibility of the opposite view.

Every missionary who has worked for a while with those still living in darkness can testify that not only thinking false thoughts but also definitely telling lies and spreading false rumors is characteristic of the heathen world. For those who had been converted rather recently it must not have been easy to break away from this evil habit. That could well be the reason why Paul, whether directly or indirectly, refers again and again to the necessity of putting a decisive end to the past manner of behavior in this respect, and of adopting an entirely new set of rules. Some, with an appeal to 4:15, 22, 25; 6:14, have even suggested that in and around Ephesus church-members behaved rather dishonestly (see Grosheide, op. cit., p. 69). However that may have been, falsehood and dishonesty are typical of the Gentile way of life (Rom. 1:29) then as now.

The best way to kill the lie is by telling the truth. That is what Paul is actually saying, as by “Speak truth each (of you) with his neighbor” he is substantially quoting Zech. 8:16. Especially for those in the congregations addressed who were acquainted with the Old Testament, that is, for the Jewish Christians, the fact that this was a quotation from sacred literature must have added strength to the exhortation. In the opinion of Hodge the word “neighbor,” though having the general sense of fellow-man of any creed or nation, here refers to fellow-Christian (op. cit., p. 268); not as if it would be perfectly proper to lie to unbelievers, but because the context demands this interpretation. I believe Hodge is right, the context being: for we are members of one another. This recalls 2:13–22; 3:6, 14, 15; 4:1–6, 16, all of which stress the idea that though believers are many, they are also one, namely, one body with Christ as head. Lying is not only wrong because it makes light of the intrinsic excellence of the truth, but also because it causes trouble, friction, disunity and sadness in the church. The law of love certainly implies truthfulness.

26, 27. The next specific admonition has to do with such matters as anger and resentment: Be angry but do not sin. These words recall Ps. 4:4 (LXX: Ps. 4:5), which the apostle is here applying for his own use. The words should not be interpreted separately, as if the sense were, a. “Be sure to be angry once in a while”; and b. “do not sin.” Much less is it true that all anger is here forbidden. Those who, by means of strange reasoning, favor this “interpretation” (?) do so with an appeal to verse 31, but see on that verse. The sense is simply, “Let not your anger be mixed with sin.” Anger as such need not be sinful. It is ascribed even to God (I Kings 11:9; II Kings 17:18; Ps. 7:11; 79:5; 80:4, 5; Heb. 12:29), and to Christ (Ps. 2:12; Mark 3:5; John 2:15–17). In fact, the age in which we are living could use a little more “righteous indignation” against sin of every type. Also, the more angry every believer is with his own sins, the better it will be. However, anger, especially with reference to the neighbor, easily degenerates into hatred and resentment. To love the sinner while one hates his sin requires a goodly supply of grace. The exclamation, “I cannot stand that fellow,” is at times uttered even by one church member with reference to another. It is for that reason that the apostle immediately adds: let not the sun go down on that angry mood¹²⁹ of yours. Having spoken about anger, the apostle now turns to that into which anger may easily degenerate, namely, the spirit of resentment, the angry mood, the sullen countenance that is indicative of hatred and of the unforgiving attitude. The day must not end thus. Before another dawns, nay rather, before the sun even sets — which to the Jew meant the end of one day and the beginning of another — genuine forgiveness must not only have filled the heart but must, if at all possible, have come to open expression so that the neighbor has benefited from its blessing. Phillips, though not really translating, does give the sense of the passage when he paraphrases it as follows: “Never go to bed angry.” Continued: … and do not give the devil¹³⁰ a foothold. Literally, “And do not give a place to the devil.” The devil will quickly seize the opportunity of changing our indignation, whether righteous or unrighteous, into a grievance, a grudge, a nursing of wrath, an unwillingness to forgive. Paul was very conscious of the reality, the power, and the deceitfulness of the devil, as 6:10 shows. What he means, therefore, is that from the very start the devil must be resisted (James 4:7). No place whatsoever must be given to him, no room to enter or even to stand. There must be no yielding to or compromise with him. He must not be given any opportunity to take advantage of our anger for his own sinister purpose.

28. From the warning against falsehood and the angry mood the apostle proceeds now to that against stealing. He writes: Let him who steals steal no longer. He does not say, “Let him that stole” (A.V.) but “Let him who steals.” He is probably referring to people who before their conversion were used to enriching themselves by means of petty larceny, etc., and who were now in danger of falling back into defalcations of various types. But must we then assume that there were thieves in the congregations here addressed? My answer is that at least the danger that some would slip back into this sin was very real. It must not be forgotten that some, perhaps many, of these early converts were slaves. Now lack of trustworthiness in matters material was characteristic of slaves, just as even today “servants” in heathen lands are not always honest, but will snitch things away from their employers when the latter happen not to be looking. According to Philem. 18 — a letter written during this same imprisonment and delivered at about the same time — Paul suspected Onesimus, the runaway slave, of having wronged his master in this respect. And after the release from the present (first Roman) imprisonment Paul was going to write to Titus: “Urge slaves to be submissive in every respect to their own masters … not pilfering, but evincing the utmost trustworthiness” (Titus 2:9, 10). Is it altogether improbable that even the “converted” slave might, in a moment of weakness, say to himself, “My master has left home. This is my opportunity to take something away from him. After all, he owes me much more, for by what right does he exact all this labor from me? Therefore, when I relieve him of some treasure, I am simply depriving him of that to which he has no right”? But we should not think exclusively of slaves. The sin against which Paul issues his warning was and is today, characteristic of heathenism.

What is Paul’s solution? He wants the Ephesians to stop stealing and to practice honesty. But he wants more than that. He realizes that back of this sin of stealing lies a more basic fault, namely, selfishness. Hence, he strikes at the very root of the evil, for, by turning the attention of the thief, whether actual or potential, away from himself to the needs of other people, he strives to give him a new interest in life, a new joy. So he writes: but rather let him labor, with his own hands accomplishing what is good, so that he may have something to share with the needy one. The thief must stop stealing and begin to do some hard, honest labor. Paul uses this word labor or toil in connection with manual labor (I Cor. 4:12; II Tim. 2:6; cf. the noun in I Thess. 1:3; 2:9; II Thess. 3:8); and also in connection with religious work (Rom. 16:12 twice; I Cor. 15:10; Gal. 4:11; Phil. 2:16; I Thess. 5:12; I Tim. 4:10; 5:17). Here in 4:28 he has reference to manual labor, as the phrase “with his own hands” indicates. By using his hands in honest work, the worker will be accomplishing something that is good instead of doing that which is bad, contrary to God’s law. As to working for a living, Paul himself had set an excellent example. Not only did he perform an amount of religious labor, of the highest quality, that is almost beyond belief, but in addition he at times even worked with his own hands in order to supply his own needs and those of others. He was able to say to the Thessalonians, “For you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship: by night and by day (we were) working at a trade (or: “working for a living”), in order not to be a burden to any of you while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God” (I Thess. 2:9; cf. Acts 20:33, 34). For a detailed account of Paul’s teaching with respect to work and receiving remuneration for it, see N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, pp. 65, 66, 201, 202.

Paul stresses the fact that the laborer should think not only of himself but also of his brother, especially of the one who is in need. The apostle himself was a man of tender and far-reaching sympathies (Gal. 6:10). He was “eager to help the poor” (Gal. 2:10). And he actually helped them! In fact, the very missionary tour which had resulted in his present imprisonment had been a benefit-journey in the interest of the Jerusalem poor. He had been gathering funds for the needy in that city. These needy ones were very dear to him, and by encouraging even those churches whose membership was drawn mostly from the Gentile world to extend a helping hand he was at the same time trying to do his part in welding the various churches into a fellowship of love and mutual helpfulness (Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:26; I Cor. 16:1–9; II Cor. 8; 9). In all this he was but following the example of his Lord and Savior, who while still on earth, spoke of the work of mercy again and again and whose pitying heart was deeply moved by the plight of the poor (Matt 5:7; 19:21; 25:35, 36; Luke 4:18; 6:20; 14:13, 14; 16:19–31; John 13:29).

29. See also on 5:4. From a warning against the improper attitude toward material things Paul proceeds to an admonition against the improper use of the tongue, also in this case setting the positive over against the negative, in the spirit of Rom. 12:21, “Overcome evil with good.” He writes: Let no corrupt speech proceed from your mouth. Corrupt speech is that which is putrid, rotten; hence also corrupting, defiling, injurious (Matt. 15:18). We may well assume that for many years these rather recent converts to the Christian faith had been living in an impure environment, where foul conversation, at feasts and other social gatherings and parties, had been the stock in trade of everyone present. The change from this toxic environment to the pure and wholesome atmosphere of Christian fellowship must have been nothing short of revolutionary. Even believers who are well advanced in sanctification have at times complained about the fact that it was difficult for them to cleanse their minds entirely from the words and melody of this or that scurrilous drinking song. They hated it, fought against it, were sure at last that they had expelled it forever from their thoughts, and then suddenly there it was again, ready to plague and torture them by means of its reappearance. Thus also certain vile phrases or catch-words, sometimes even profanity, all too common in the pre-conversion period of life, have the habit in unguarded moments to barge right in and to befoul the atmosphere. Think of Simon Peter who, although a disciple of the Lord, “began to curse and to swear” when he thought that his life was in danger (Matt. 26:74). Here, too, the only remedy, in addition to prayer, is to fill mind and heart with that which is pure and holy, in the spirit of Gal. 5:22 and Phil. 4:8, 9. Accordingly, Paul continues: … but (only) such (speech) as is good for edification, that is, for “building up the body of Christ” (4:12), as fits the need (literally, “edification of the necessity,” meaning: edification required by a concrete or specific need), that it may impart grace to the listeners, that is, that it may spiritually benefit them. This recalls Col. 4:6, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer each individual.” See also Col. 3:16.

We notice an interesting parallel between verses 25, 28, and 29. In each case the apostle urges the addressed to be a blessing for those with whom they have daily contact. Merely refraining from falsehood, stealing, and corrupt speech will never do. Christianity is not a mere “don’t” religion, and believers must not be content to be mere zeros. Instead, they should copy the example of their Master, whose words were so filled with grace that the multitudes were amazed (Luke 4:22). “A word in due season, how good it is!” (Prov. 15:23).

30. When the apostle warns against ill behavior and urges Christian conduct upon all the addressed, he is never forgetting about all the “interested” parties. He has already mentioned the neighbor, the devil, the needy one, and the listeners (verses 25, 27, 28, and 29). It does not surprise us, therefore, that he now refers to one more interested party, most interested indeed, namely, the Holy Spirit. He writes: And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. It is said at times that the church has failed to do full justice to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; that it has neglected to bestow upon him the attention given to the Father and to the Son. There may be truth in this. As for Paul, however, he has no share in this blame. The term “the Holy Spirit” occurs about thirty times in his epistles, if we include such synonymous appellatives as “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Jesus Christ,” etc. In addition I have counted at least seventy instances in which I, for one, would interpret the term pneúma (occurring without the adjective “holy”) as referring to the third person of the Holy Trinity. On that subject, however, there is some difference of opinion among commentators. Be that as it may, the epistle to the Ephesians mentions the Holy Spirit again and again, using the very term (1:13; 4:30) or simply the designation: “the Spirit” (1:17; 2:18, 22; 3:5, 16; 4:3, 4; 5:18; 6:17, 18). In most of these cases there is general agreement that the reference is to the Paraclete.

The reason for this frequency of occurrence is obvious: Paul wishes to impress upon us that apart from God we cannot be saved; that is, that whatever good there is in us has its origin in the Holy Spirit. He both imparts life and sustains it. He causes it to develop and to reach its ultimate destination. It is he, therefore, who is the Author of every Christian virtue, every good fruit. Hence, whenever the believer pollutes his soul by any deceitful, vengeful, covetous, or filthy thought or suggestion, he is grieving the Holy Spirit. This is all the more true because it is the Spirit that dwells within the hearts of God’s children, making them his temple, his sanctuary (2:22; I Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19). By means of every evil imagination, cogitation, or motivation that indwelling and sanctifying Spirit is therefore, as it were, cut to the heart. Besides, not only does the Spirit save us but he also fills us with the joy, the assurance, of salvation; for, as was made clear earlier, and as is repeated in substance here in 4:30, it was “in” him (“in connection with,” hence also “by means of,” him) that we were “sealed for the day of redemption,” that great day of the consummation of all things, when our deliverance from the effects of sin will be completed. It is the day of Christ’s return, when our lowly body, refashioned so that it will have a form like Christ’s glorious body, will rejoin our redeemed soul in order that in soul and body the entire victorious multitude may inhabit the new heaven and earth to glorify God forever and ever. The very meditation on the fulfilment of this hope should have a purifying effect on us (I John 3:2, 3). For further explanation see on 1:13, 14; cf. Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23. Hence, reversion to pagan attitudes and practices is a sign of base ingratitude. How this must grieve the indwelling Spirit! We may call this a highly anthropomorphic expression, and so it is, both here and in Isa. 63:10 from which it is borrowed. It is, however, in a sense, a most comforting anthropomorphism, for it cannot fail to remind us of “the love of the Spirit” (Rom. 15:30), who “yearns for us even unto jealous envy” (James 4:5). That is also the context in Isaiah. Read Isa. 63:10 in connection with the verse which precedes it. To be sure, “grieving the Spirit” may not be as strong a term as “resisting” the Spirit (Acts 7:51); which, in turn, is not as trenchant as “quenching the Spirit” (I Thess. 5:19). Nevertheless, one step in the wrong direction easily leads to the next. Let the Ephesians, and all those down the centuries for whom the epistle was intended, take this to heart! Note also with what emphasis the Comforter’s full name is spelled out: “the Holy Spirit of God,” or, even more literally, “the Spirit, the Holy One, of God,” with special emphasis on his holiness. The stress is both on his majesty and on his sanctifying power. He is “holy” and this not only as being spotlessly sinless in himself, but also as the very Source of holiness for all those in whose hearts he deigns to dwell!

31. Paul now returns once more to the sins of the tongue (cf. verses 25 and 29 above). Six specific items are mentioned, as he continues: Let all bitterness and anger and wrath and brawling and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Bitterness is the disposition of the person with a tongue sharp as an arrow, keen as a razor. He resents his neighbor, and so he “needles” him, is ever ready to “fly off the handle” with a reply that bites or stings. Anger or fury (Latin: furor), is a strong feeling of antagonism which is expressed in the tumultuous outburst, the hot retort. As here used, occurring in the evil company of words like bitterness and brawling (contrary to its use in verse 26), it is potential murder (Matt. 5:21, 22). Wrath (Latin: ira) is settled indignation, when the heart is like a roaring furnace. Brawling (cf. Acts 23:9) is the violent outburst of the person who has completely lost his temper and begins to yell at others. Slander or reviling is abusive speech, whether directed against God or against man.¹³¹ This catalogue of the evil use of the tongue is summarized in the words “along with all malice.” Malice is not merely “mischief” but, in general, the evil inclination of the mind, the perversity or baseness of disposition that even takes delight in inflicting hurt or injury on one’s fellowmen. “Let all of these things be put away from you,” says Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

32. Now, in the final analysis, the putting away of the aforementioned evil dispositions, words, and actions can be accomplished only by the acquisition and development of the opposite virtues. Accordingly, turning once more to positive exhortations, the apostle states: And be kind to each other, tender-hearted. This may be compared with Col. 3:12, 13: “Put on, therefore, as God’s elect, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness …, forgiving each other if anyone have a complaint against anyone. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so do you also.” Kindness is Spirit-imparted goodness of heart, the very opposite of the malice or badness mentioned in verse 31. The early Christians by means of kindness commended themselves to others (II Cor. 6:6). God, too, is kind (Rom. 2:4; cf. 11:22), and we are admonished to become like him in this respect (Luke 6:35). When the kind person hears a piece of malicious gossip, he does not run to the telephone to let others in on the delectable tidbit. When someone’s faults are pointed out to him, he tries, if he can at all do so in honesty, to offset these failings by pointing out the criticized individual’s good qualities. Kindness marks the man who has taken to heart I Cor. 13:4. Tenderheartedness (cf. I Peter 3:8 and “the heart of compassion” of Col. 3:12) indicates a very deep feeling, “a yearning with the deeply-felt affection of Christ Jesus.”¹³² Paul adds: forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you. Colossians says, “just as the Lord”; Ephesians, “just as God in Christ.” There is no essential difference. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. They co-operate in all of these activities that concern our salvation. To forgive “just as God in Christ” forgave means: just as freely, generously, wholeheartedly, spontaneously, and eagerly. For a justification of this interpretation see such passages as Matt. 18:21–27, 35 and Luke 23:34. Moreover, all the injuries that we have ever suffered because of the ill-will of our fellow-men can never be compared with the abuse he, the sinless One, endured: being spit upon, maligned, crowned with thorns, crucified. Yet he forgave! In doing this he left us an example (I Peter 2:21–25).

But he did more than this. He also left us a motive for exercising forgiveness. Having been forgiven so much, should not we forgive? See again Matt. 18:21–35. That example and that motive, however, relate to more than our duty to forgive. They touch the entire broad area of love, of which the exercise of forgiveness is only one manifestation, though a very important one. In every area of life love should manifest itself, the love patterned after, and motivated by, God’s love in Christ. Hence, Paul continues: 5:1, 2.¹³³ Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children. Again and again Jesus and the apostles emphasized that believers should strive to be imitators of God. Now to people who are living in an age which proudly proclaims, “We have conquered space,” and which drags God down to the level of a benign Santa Claus, it may not seem at all outrageous to strive to imitate God. But if, by the grace of the really living God, the words, “Be still and know that I am God!” have retained some meaning for us, this crisp command to imitate him may baffle us. We stand in awe before his majesty. How can we imitate him whom we cannot even fathom? With Zophar we are inclined to say, “Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than Sheol; what canst thou know?” (Job 11:7, 8). With Isaiah we see the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and we hear the voices of the flying seraphim, as they cover their faces and their feet, and are crying continually, “Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of hosts; the fulness of the earth is his glory.” And we, too, answer, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips … for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts” (Isa. 6:1–5). Rather than even faintly to imagine that we, creatures of the dust, would ever be able to imitate God, we feel like falling down upon our knees and saying, with Simon Peter, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luke 5:8). And we understand why John, when similarly overcome, said, “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead” (Rev. 1:17).

It is only in that spirit of awe and humble reverence that we can properly study this glorious theme of “the imitation of God.” It is only then that the Lord will lay his right hand upon us and say, “Fear not!” Obedience to the command to imitate him is, after all, possible. This is true for the following reasons: a. we are created as his image; b. his enabling Spirit dwells within us; and c. by his regenerating and transforming grace we have become his children, that is, imitators. To be sure, we cannot imitate God by creating a universe and caring for it day by day, or by devising a method of satisfying the demands of justice and of mercy in saving men from the pit into which they have cast themselves, or by raising the dead, or by creating a new heaven and earth. But in our own finite way we can and must imitate him; that is, we must copy his love.

It is amazing how often Jesus and the apostles emphasized that believers should strive to be imitators of God (Matt. 5:43–48; Luke 6:35; I John 4:10, 11), and of Christ, which essentially amounts to the same thing (John 13:34; 15:12; Rom. 15:2, 3, 7; II Cor. 8:7–9; Phil. 2:3–8; Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:13; I Peter 2:21–24; I John 3:16; a list of passages by no means complete). By adding that those addressed should do so as children, the idea is greatly strengthened, as if to say, “Are not children great imitators, and are not you God’s children?” Moreover, the modifier “beloved” adds even more weight to this admonition, for, other things being equal, it is exactly the child who is the object of love that will be the most eager imitator of those who love him. Paul adds: and walk in love, that is, let love be the very tenor of your life. Let it characterize all your thoughts, words, and deeds. For walking see also 2:10; 4:1, 17; 5:8, 15. Continued: just as Christ loved you. Not just anything which men may wish to dignify with the name “love” should be the pattern for our thought and conduct, but very distinctly Christ’s own purposeful, self-sacrificing love must be our example. And, to be even more specific, there is added: and gave himself up for¹³⁴ us. Here it must not escape our attention that when Paul urges the addressed to imitate God he, in one and the same breath, illustrates this love of God by directing our attention to that which Christ had done for us. This surely indicates not only that Father and Son are the same in essence but also that what the Father does he does in connection with the Son (4:32) and that neither loves us less than the other.

In his great love Christ gave himself up, surrendering himself willingly, to his enemies, and thus to his Father. This surrender is genuine. It was not forced upon him (John 10:11, 15). Among those for whom Christ had thus yielded himself as an offering for sin was also the great persecutor Paul. The thought of Christ’s great love grips him to the extent that he changes the pronouns, so that you (“just as Christ loved you”) now becomes us (“and gave himself up for us”). The apostle never writes in the abstract. Compare Gal. 2:20: “the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself up for me.” See also Gal. 1:16. It is this spirit of giving oneself sacrificially and voluntarily which believers are urged to imitate.

The voluntary self-sacrifice of Christ during the entire period of his humiliation and especially on the cross is here called an offering and a sacrifice¹³⁵ to God. It was an offering for he willingly brought it (Isa. 53:10). It was a sacrifice, and as such could well remind one of the fumes rising from the altar when the burnt-offering was consumed whole, symbolizing entire surrender to God. But though the word used in the original does not always refer to sacrifices consumed on the altar but may also have a more general reference (for which see footnote 135), we learn from other passages of Scripture (e.g., Matt. 26:36–46; 27:45, 46; II Cor. 5:21; cf. Isa. 53) that as to his human nature Christ was indeed consumed by the wrath of God in the sense that “the weight of our sins and of the wrath of God pressed out of him the bloody sweat in the garden” and caused him to suffer “the deepest reproach and anguish of hell, in body and soul, on the tree of the cross, when he cried out with a loud voice: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” Thus he had accomplished his task and had fulfilled the prophecies, with special reference now to Ps. 40:6 (LXX: Ps. 39:7, 8). In that passage the same two words, offering and sacrifice, are used, but now in reverse order, sacrifice and offering, in connection with the Messiah’s offering of himself to God: “Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in.… Then said I, Lo, I am come; in the roll of the book it is written of me.” By the author of the epistle to the Hebrews that passage is appropriately applied to Christ and his self-sacrifice (Heb. 10:5–7). In connection, then, with this offering and sacrifice to God, as an example and motive for us, Paul adds: for a fragrant odor; literally, “an odor of a sweet smell.” Cf. Exod. 29:18; Ezek. 20:41; Phil. 4:18. The meaning is that this offering and sacrifice was — and is in our case, when we imitate the spirit in which Christ presented it — well-pleasing to God. Every deed done out of love and gratitude to God, whether it be Abel’s (Gen. 4:4), or Noah’s (Gen. 8:21), or that of the Israelites of old (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17) or that of new dispensation believers who dedicate themselves to God (II Cor. 2:15, 16), pleases God. Unique among them all is Christ’s self-sacrifice. Yet, the latter’s spirit must be reflected every day and every hour in the hearts and lives of his followers,¹³⁶ for a fragrant odor.

c. 5:3–14

“You were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; as children of light ever walk”

The Glorious Renewal of which Paul is speaking in this entire section (4:17–6:9) calls for self-sacrifice instead of self-indulgence. Since in the preceding verses great emphasis was placed on self-sacrifice in imitation of Christ, the attention is now shifted to its very opposite: self-indulgence. Stating it differently, the admonition to “walk in love” is followed here by the condemnation of love’s perversion. Paul minces no words as he proceeds:3. But immorality and impurity of any kind, or greed, let it not even be mentioned among you. The list of vices which begins here may be compared with similar ones in Paul’s other epistles (Rom. 1:18–32; I Cor. 5:9–11; 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19–21; Col. 3:5–9; I Thess. 4:3–7; I Tim. 1:9, 10; II Tim. 3:2–5; and Titus 3:3). Christ, he alone, supplies the example, motive, and power to overcome them. Verse 3 centers around sexual perversion of every description. Though immorality (cf. Matt. 5:32; 15:19; 19:19; John 8:41; I Thess. 4:3) refers basically to unlawful sexual intercourse, it probably includes illicit, clandestine relationships of every description. Evil in the sexual realm was, and is today, a characteristic feature of paganism. It is often closely associated with idolatry. That even those who had turned to Christ had not thoroughly shaken off this sin is clear from I Cor. 5:1 ff. Is it also implied in the present epistle: 5:27? Impurity or uncleanness, not only in deeds but also in words, thoughts, intents of the heart, desires, and passions, is here condemned. The phrase “of any kind” covers a very large territory! For greed (cf. 4:19) the apostle uses a word which means over-reaching. Greed is selfishness. It characterizes the money-grubber. Nevertheless, in the present connection, because of its close association with immorality and impurity, it may well apply especially to ravenous self-assertion in matters of sex, at the expense of others: the going beyond what is proper and defrauding the brother (cf. I Thess. 4:6 where the related verb is used in a similar connection). “Let it not even be mentioned among you,” says Paul, meaning: so far should you be removed from the sin of this type that the very suspicion of its existence among you should be banished once and for all. He cannot have meant that sex must never be discussed, and that warnings with respect to the evil of immorality and its attendant sins must never be heard, for he himself is at this very moment discussing it and issuing such a warning. With respect to the desirable absence of transgression in this area Paul adds: as is fitting among saints. Are not “saints” (cf. 1:1) those who have been set apart by God to be his very own? Have they not, by the power of the sanctifying Spirit, dedicated themselves completely to their Lord; hence also to a new walk of life?

4. Among the sins that should not even require mention are also filthiness and silly talk or wittiness in telling coarse jokes. Filthiness or shamefulness covers more than “shameful language” (Col. 3:8). It includes any thought, imagination, desire, word, or deed of which a believer who is sensitive to the demands of God’s holy law and who views himself as living constantly in his presence would be ashamed. Silly talk is the kind of conversation one could expect to hear from the lips of a fool or of a drunkard. The next term is hard to translate. Judged on the basis of its derivation it is very innocent, for it means literally “that which turns easily.” The closest to it as to etymological significance would be versatility; for this, too, has reference to turning easily. The versatile person is able to turn with ease from one subject to another, being at home in all of them. Similarly, the word which the apostle employs was often used in a favorable sense, to indicate the nimble-witted individual. However, it is also possible for certain speakers to move very easily into the mire of unbecoming expressions. They seem to have a garbage can type of mind, and every serious topic of conversation reminds them of an off-color jest or anecdote. The word used in 5:4 has therefore come to mean coarse jesting, wittiness in telling coarse jokes. There need be nothing wrong with a joke. Good humor is what everybody needs. But the kind to which Paul refers should be thoroughly avoided. Regarding such practices the apostle adds: which things are improper. They are improper because they are not worthy of the calling with which believers were called. See on 4:1. What, then, is the remedy for the vices mentioned? The apostle answers this question by stating: but rather the expression of thankfulness. See further on 5:20. When mind and heart are centered on “all things bright and beautiful” which God grants to us and still has in store for us, the interest in squalid indecency will vanish. So the apostle places thankfulness over against wittiness. This translation not only gives the sense but preserves, to some extent, the wordplay of the original (eucharistía over against eutrapelía) Clarion praise should be substituted for the clever (but vulgar) phrase. Continued: 5. For of this you can be very sure, that no immoral or impure person or greedy individual — which is the same as an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. The apostle wishes to emphasize this very important point, namely, that immorality and salvation are opposites. Hence, he says what literally could almost be translated, “For this you know, knowing.” However, since in the original the finite verb and the participle which follows it are not forms of the same word, a better literal rendering would be, “For this you know, recognizing.” Many translators and interpreters, though differing in their views of this expression, have, however, felt that the reason why the apostle makes use of these two words where ordinarily one would have sufficed is that he wished to lay special stress on what he is about to say. If we accept this position, the rendering would be: “For of this you can be very sure.”¹³⁷ The fact of which the Ephesians can be very sure is this, that no one who practices the sins mentioned in verse 3 (and elaborated in verse 4) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. One of these sinful practices is greed. That calling a person “a greedy individual” is the same as calling him “an idolater” (cf. Col. 3:5) is clear even on the surface, for such a person is worshiping someone else than the true and living God. That someone else is himself. He has made of himself an idol and is therefore an idolater. To a Jew, like Paul and some of the Ephesians, there was no greater sin than that of idolatry (cf. I John 5:21).

Though conditions among those addressed cannot have been very bad morally or spiritually — for Paul praises the Ephesian believers in no uncertain terms (1:15) and has nothing to say by way of direct adverse criticism —, yet the impression is left that there was still considerable room for improvement. The danger of falling into the errors of licentious gnosticism was never far removed. This seems to have been especially the case in Asia Minor. A few years later, during his second Roman imprisonment, Paul was going to remind Timothy of this peril (II Tim. 3:1–9). Timothy was probably carrying on a ministry at Ephesus at that time. John, too, writing to people in this same region, would have to combat this nefarious error (I John 3:4–10; Rev. 2:6, 14, 15, 20). See also II Peter 2:12–19 and Jude 4, 8, 11, and 19.

With a pastor’s loving heart, therefore, Paul issues his warning. No one who continues to practice the pagan vices, whether because he is following old habit and the course of least resistance or else because he has adopted a reasoned excuse (Rom. 6:1), has a share in the one and only kingdom, namely, that of Christ and of God. Cf. Rev. 21:27; 22:15. It is, of course, impossible to speak about the kingdom of Christ without speaking about the kingdom of God. In principle this kingdom is already present in the hearts and lives of God’s children. One day it will be theirs in full measure (1:18; 3:6). See N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 63, 64, especially footnote 47. Continued: 6. Let no one deceive you with empty words. Cf. Col. 2:4, 8; I Tim. 2:14; James 1:26. “Empty” words are those that are void of truth and filled with error. When heeded they will prove the sinner’s downfall: for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Cf. Col. 3:6. By means of what has been called “a prophetic present tense” (cf. John 4:21; 14:3) Paul stresses the fact that the coming of the wrath of God, to be visited upon those who live in the sins mentioned in verses 3–5 and who listen to empty words assuring them that all is well, is so certain that it is as if that wrath had already arrived, and in principle it actually has arrived. These sinister practices attract God’s displeasure like a fully lit up enemy target attracts bombs. The wrath spoken of here, though in a sense already present, is also ever on the way, until on the day of the great consummation of all things it will be fully revealed (cf. John 3:36; Rom. 2:5–11; II Thess. 1:8–10; Rev. 14:9–12), for “sons of disobedience” are “children of wrath” (see on 2:2).

It should not escape our attention, however, that even this stern warning has repentance as its object, as the tender admonition which immediately follows in verses 7 and 8 clearly shows. See also verses 10, 14–17; and cf. Rev. 2:16, 21, 22; 3:19; 9:20, 21. As a father pleads with his children whom he dearly loves, so this prisoner of Christ Jesus, a hero of the faith who is facing the possibility of a death sentence and therefore weighs every word, continues: 7. Therefore do not be their partners, “fellow-sharers” (cf. 3:6) in their sin, their guilt, and their everlasting punishment. Cf. II Cor. 6:4–18. Meaning: in the light of God’s marvelous love and mercy in Christ, the upward call that was extended to you, your own profession of faith, and the wrath of God coming upon the sons of disobedience, think on your way, walk in paths of light and be done forever with the works of darkness. Continued: 8. for you were formerly darkness. In earlier days (2:1–3, 11, 12; 4:14, 17) the Ephesians had been darkness. Cf. 4:18, “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God,” etc. Not only had they been in darkness as in an evil environment, but they themselves had been part of that realm. The darkness had been in them, namely, the darkness of lack of the true knowledge of God (II Cor. 4:4, 6), depravity (Acts 26:18), and despondency (Isa. 9:1, 2). Continued: but now (you are) light in the Lord. Now they belong to the realm of light, for they now have the true knowledge of God (Ps. 36:9), righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24), happiness (Ps. 97:11; Isa. 9:1–7). It is only “in the Lord,” that is, in vital connection with him, that they are now light. Moreover, since now they are light, they have also become light-transmitters: from them light radiates forth to all those with whom they come into contact. Ever since Jesus, “the light of the world” (John 8:l2), entered their hearts (II Cor. 4:6), they, too, in their own small way, had become “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14). In their entire conduct they reflect Christ, as the moon reflects the sun. Hence, as children of light ever walk. Here is another and beautiful Semitism: they are now, by God’s grace, the very offspring of him who is the light. No longer are they “children of wrath” (2:3) or “sons of disobedience” (2:2; 5:6), but “children of light.” Then let them be consistent. Let them in their daily life be and constantly remain true to what in principle they have become. Let them walk and keep on walking as children of light; that is, let the true knowledge of God and of his will be their standard constantly; let righteousness and holiness characterize all their attitudes, words, and actions; and let the joy of salvation be the very tenor of their lives. On “walking” see also 2:10; 4:1, 17; 5:2, 15. That this is what they are and how they should walk is evident, as the apostle brings out in a parenthetical statement: 9. — for the fruit of light¹³⁸ (consists) in all goodness and righteousness and truth —. How does one know whether or not he is walking as a child of light? The answer is that light bears fruit, and this fruit will supply the needed evidence (Matt. 5:16; 7:20). The qualities of heart and life from which good works proceed are to be considered light, fruit. Paul mentions all goodness, a very general term, the opposite of “all malice” (4:31). Such goodness is Spirit-created moral and spiritual excellence of every description. Another way of looking at this goodness is to call it righteousness, the joy in doing what is right in the eyes of God, walking the straight path and never deviating from it. And still another description is truth: integrity, reliability, over against the sham, falseness, and hypocrisy that characterized the old way of life in which the Ephesians had formerly walked (4:14, 25; 5:6).

Returning now to the main clause of verse 8b, “As children of light ever walk,” Paul adds: 10. verifying what is pleasing to the Lord. Meaning: by walking constantly as children of light, and thus producing the fruit of light, you will, by your very attitudes and action, be verifying or proving¹³⁹ what is pleasing to the Lord. That is Paul’s glorious answer to the question, “How can I know whether I am really a child of God, one with whom God is pleased?” The answer amounts to this: “Do not worry or speculate or philosophize or argue. Just go right ahead and do the will of God as he has revealed it. The proof or evidence for which you are looking will then be abundantly supplied to you. You will have the verification in your heart. The assurance or peace will be distilled into your life as the dewdrops are distilled and impearled upon the leaves.” This is Scripture’s answer throughout (Rom. 8:16; 12:1, 2; II Cor. 5:9; Phil. 4:6, 7, 18; Col. 1:10; and II Peter 1:5–11). Since Jesus as the world’s light, was ever walking in the light and doing the will of his Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38), it is not at all surprising that more than once he was given the assurance that the Father was pleased with him (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; cf. 12:18). And, although in the present life we, his followers, should not expect to hear what he heard, namely, an audible voice from heaven, the Holy Spirit will nevertheless impart that assurance also to us when we walk in the light.

Another tender warning, the negative side of what in verses 8–10 was expressed in positive terms, follows, an admonition which recalls verse 7. Paul lovingly pleads: 11. And do not take any part in the unfruitful works of darkness. By works of darkness are meant such things as immorality, impurity, greed, filthiness, silly talk, etc. (5:3, 4), and also those mentioned in 4:25–32; briefly, any and all works belonging to the realm of depravity and inspired by its prince. Such works are called unfruitful. They are sterile in the sense that they do not glorify God, do not win the neighbor for Christ, and do not bring inner peace or satisfaction. Note that Paul recognizes no twilight zone. Although according to Scripture there are degrees of sinfulness and also degrees of holiness, nevertheless, there is no region of the shades. A person is either a believer or an unbeliever. Works belong either to the light or to darkness. Those who have sworn allegiance to the Ruler of the realm of light must take no part whatever in the empty, futile, thoroughly disappointing, works of darkness.

Does this mean now that the Ephesians should withdraw themselves from the men of the world; that they should become hermits and move as far as possible away from wicked men? Not at all! Though they are not of the world, yet they are in the world and have a mission to fulfil. Says Paul: but instead even expose¹⁴⁰ them, that is, these unfruitful works of darkness. Those who belong to the realm of light cannot be neutral with respect to the work of darkness. Compromise, too, is definitely ruled out. For example, when God says, “Worship me alone,” and another says, “Worship idols,” it will not do to try to worship Jehovah under the symbolism of images which are on the way to becoming idols. The sin of Jeroboam was an abomination to Jehovah (I Kings 12:25–33). Sin must be exposed. One is not being “nice” to a wicked man by endeavoring to make him feel what a fine fellow he is. The cancerous tumor must be removed, not humored. It is not really an act of love to smooth things over as if the terrible evil committed by those still living in the realm of darkness is not so bad after all. With respect to this Paul continues: 12. for the things done by them in secret it is a shame even to mention.

But if one feels ashamed even to mention the horrible deeds of those who live in darkness, how then can he expose these deeds? Lenski’s answer is, “To state them in our reproof is shameful not for us who make the statement in reproof, but for those who engage in these works” (op. cit., p. 609). This explanation, however, impresses me as being unnatural. I wonder whether any unbiased reader of Scripture would ever have drawn that conclusion. When the apostle tells the Ephesians to expose the works of darkness, does he not mean that they (and all others for whom the letter was intended throughout the course of history) should expose them? So when he now adds in one breath that it is a shame even to mention these secret practices, is not the obvious meaning: “You should expose them, for they are so very wicked, that for anyone even to mention them is shameful”? But how were they able to expose them and yet not mention them? The answer which is clear from the entire context is that by means of a life of goodness and righteousness and truth (verse 9) they must reveal what a vast contrast there is between the works of those who walk in the light and the works of those who walk in darkness. There are sins so altogether repulsive that it is better by far never to mention them. Conditions in the pagan world of Asia Minor seem to have been particularly bad. Roland Allen, in his work, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?, London, third edition, 1953, p. 49, remarks, “If the moral atmosphere of Greece was bad, in Asia Minor it was even worse.” Continued: 13. But when all these (wicked practices) are exposed by the light¹⁴¹ they are made visible. Meaning: when, by means of contrast with the conduct of believers as “children of light,” the terrible deeds of wickedness that mark “the sons of disobedience” are thus exposed, these horrible practices are shown up for what they really are. That this is true is shown by the rule expressed in the following statement: for everything that is made visible is light; that is, whatever, whether attitudes, words, practices, etc., is made manifest by having been thus contrasted loses its hidden character, takes on the nature of light, and is seen for what it really is.

In verses 11–13 the emphasis has been on deeds rather than on the doers. It was the deeds that were exposed. However, it is readily understandable that when wicked men’s evil deeds are thus laid bare, the doers are indirectly reproved. They are made to see how great their sins and miseries are; hence, how desperately they need a radical change of life. The transition to the next line is therefore very natural: 14. Therefore he says:

“Awake, sleeper,

And arise from the dead,

And Christ will shine on you.”

There is no sound reason here to interpret “he says” in any other way than in 4:8; hence, “God says,” for the apostle is obviously referring to these words as authoritative, What is their source? Among the many answers given the two most popular ones are: a. Isa. 60:1 (and perhaps certain somewhat similar passages, as Isa. 9:2; 26:19: 52:1); b. an early Christian hymn. As to the first, favored by Calvin, Findlay, Hodge, and others, today it seems to be in style to dismiss this at once with the remark that there is no, or only very slight, similarity between Eph. 5:14 and Isa. 60:1. For myself, the more I study Isa. 60:1 in the light of its own context the more I begin to see certain resemblances. It is perhaps instructive to place the two passages alongside of each other:

Isa. 60:1	Eph. 5:14
Arise, shine;	Awake, sleeper,
For your light has come,	And arise from the dead,
And the glory of Jehovah has risen upon you.	And Christ will shine on you.

1. In the context of the Isaiah passage the daughter of Zion is represented as forsaken, her land as desolate (Isa. 62:4). We read about captives and prisoners (Isa. 61:1). Also the Ephesian passage presupposes a condition of wretchedness, the sleep of death which has or had befallen the one addressed.

2. In both passages the one who is pictured as lying down in sleep or death is commanded to arise. Cf. Rom. 13:11; I Thess. 5:6.

3. In both the one addressed receives encouragement.

4. The substance of this encouragement is the same in both cases, namely, that light will be imparted to the one who heretofore has been in darkness.

5. In Isaiah the One who imparts this light is Jehovah, in a context which by Jesus himself was interpreted as referring to himself. Cf. Isa. 61:1, 2a with Luke 4:16–21. See also footnote 108. In Ephesians it is Christ who shines upon the formerly wretched one.

6. In Isaiah 40–66 deliverance from the Babylonian captivity through Jehovah’s anointed Cyrus (see especially chapters 40–48) seems to be a symbol of deliverance from spiritual captivity through the gloriously anointed “Servant of Jehovah” (see especially chapters 49–57). Chapters 58–66, in which 60:1 occurs, speak of the glory of redeemed Zion. It is not impossible, therefore, that the early church of the new dispensation saw Christ in this passage (Isa. 60:1) as the One who causes the light of salvation to shine forth upon those who arise from their death-sleep of sin. If Jesus was able to interpret a passage from chapter 61 as referring to himself, as has just been indicated (see under 5.), why should it be impossible to explain or at least apply a passage from the immediately preceding chapter similarly?

It is my conviction, therefore, that the theory according to which, either directly or indirectly, the Ephesian passage has its root in Isa. 60:1 must not be readily dismissed as if it were entirely out of the question. There may not be sufficient reason to consider the connection between the two passages to have been definitely established, but there certainly is no ground whatever for rejecting even the possibility of this connection.

Even so, however, there could be an element of truth in theory b. It is conceivable that though Eph 5:14 is in the final analysis rooted in Isa. 60:1, the form in which the latter passage is here reproduced by Paul was that of lines from an early Christian hymn. The hymn, in other words, may have been based on the Isaiah passage. It is clear at any rate that when Paul was writing what is now called the fifth chapter of Ephesians he had hymns in mind, for he mentions them only a few verses later, namely, in 5:19. Now if Eph. 5:14 was taken from a hymn, was it an Easter hymn, according to which the commemoration of Christ’s physical resurrection reminded the one addressed to live a life in harmony with his spiritual resurrection, the two resurrections being related to each other as cause and effect? Or was it perhaps a song chanted in connection with the baptism of those who professed to have been awakened out of their sleep and to have been raised from the dead when they accepted Christ, and who were by means of this hymn urged to die more fully and constantly to “the old man” and increasingly day by day to put on “the new man”? We must confess that no one really knows for sure either the origin of these lines or the extent and manner of their use in the early church. What is certain, however, is the fact that they do not seem out of place in the present context. They apply to the man who is still living in paganism. When the wicked deeds of such a person have been exposed, the only way of escape must be clearly pointed out to him, so that he may wake up out of his sleep, may arise from the dead (cf. Luke 15:32) and Christ may shine on him.

In the light, however, of the entire preceding context (see especially verses 3–11) it is clear that the apostle has in mind not only the pagan but also and especially the convert. Paul’s aim is to show that he who has renounced the wicked ways of the world should live a life consistent with his new standing. Therefore, instead of any longer taking part in the unfruitful works of darkness, he should emerge completely from his sleep and arise and withdraw in every respect from the wicked ways of the company of the spiritually dead. The blessed result will be that Christ will shine upon him. That would seem to be the meaning of the passage.

This, however, introduces another question. Do not these lines which the apostle is quoting with approval reverse the proper order of the elements in the process of becoming saved? Do they not seem to teach that it is man who turns to God before God turns to man? The sinner, so it would seem, is urged to wake up out of his spiritual sleep, and to arise from the dead (implying a resurrection from his death in sin), and only then will Christ shine upon him. The answer is: a. There is a long list of passages, both Old and New Testament, to which the same objection, if valid, would apply (for example, Deut. 4:29; 30:1–10; Ps. 50:14, 15; 55:16; Isa. 55:6, 7; Jer. 18:5–10; Matt. 11:28–30; Acts 16:31; Rev. 3:20). b. These passages stress human responsibility. c. None of them teaches that man is able, in his own power, to wake up or to arise from the dead. He can do this only by means of the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. The very fact that he is called upon to arise from the dead implies this (see what was said about this in the interpretation of 2:1–9). In the process of becoming saved God always takes the lead. No one is able to become converted unless God first regenerates him. Also, after basic conversion has taken place there is never a moment in a person’s life when he can do anything of spiritual value apart from his Lord. d. Christ, however, is not only the Alpha (beginning) of his salvation; he is also the Omega (the end); that is, he is not on]y salvation’s Originator; he is also its Rewarder. Hence, when by divine grace and power the sinner puts off the old nature and puts on the new, when more and more he awakens and arises from the dead, the light from Christ shines upon him, illumining his entire life with tender, marvelous, mellow radiance, the radiance of the Savior’s loving presence. It is thus that “the path of the righteous is as the dawning light that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).

d. 5:15–21

“Do not get drunk on wine, but be filled with the Spirit”

Continuing his tender admonitions with respect to the church’s Glorious Renewal Paul writes: 15. Be most careful therefore how you walk.¹⁴² Here again, in complete harmony with what has gone before, we are shown how very necessary it is for believers to show in every way and at all times that they have repudiated their old nature and have embraced the new and godly life. That is the only effective way of verifying one’s own state of salvation, exposing the unfruitful works of darkness, calling the workers to repentance, and doing all this to the glory of God. Continued: not as unwise but as wise. Cf. 1:8, 17; Col. 1:9, 28; 3:16; 4:5. The unwise are those who, having no insight into things that pertain to God and salvation, are not aiming to reach the highest goal and therefore do not know and do not even care to know what are the best means to reach it. They regard as very important what is in reality of minor value or may even be harmful, and they do not appreciate what is indispensable. They conduct themselves accordingly. Those who are wise, on the other hand, have the proper insight and walk in harmony with it. They also make a judicious use of their time. In that trend Paul continues: 16. making the most of the opportunity. They should not wait for opportunity to fall into their laps but should buy it up, not counting the cost. In the light of the entire context the opportunity referred to is that of showing by means of their life and conduct the power and glory of the gospel, thus exposing evil, abounding in good works, obtaining assurance of salvation for themselves, strengthening the fellowship, winning the neighbor for Christ, and through it all glorifying God. The opportunity missed will never return. Let it therefore be used to the full. Read Mark 1:21–34 and see how much work Jesus was able to crowd into a single day, and what he did very early the next morning (Mark 1:35). Paul adds: because the days are evil. A single glance at the preceding context (see especially 4:14, 17–19, 25–31; 5:3–7, 10–12; cf. Rom. 1:18–32) will show how indescribably evil were the days when this letter was written. Similar admonitions are found in Rom. 13:11–14; I Cor. 7:29; II Cor. 6:14–18; Gal. 6:9, 10; and Col. 4:5. Continued: 17. Therefore do not be foolish but understand what (is) the will of the Lord. The admonition of verse 15 — “not as unwise” — is repeated in slightly different language. The Ephesians must not be “without reflection or understanding.” They must not show “want of sense,” which amounts to saying that they must not be foolish. The connective “therefore” in the light of the preceding context may be interpreted as meaning: because the danger is so great, the wickedness so appalling, the opportunity so precious, and because constant watchfulness, earnest effort, and unwavering zeal are so necessary, do not be absurd. On the contrary, understand what is the will of the Lord, that is, of the Lord Jesus Christ. See 2:21; 4:1; 5:10. Do not depend on your own acumen. Do not regard the advice of other people as the ultimate touchstone of the truth. Let the will of your Lord as he has revealed it by means of his own word and example and by the mouth of his chosen messengers be your standard and guide. See 5:10; cf. Rom. 12:2; I Peter 2:21.

One outstanding manifestation of “want of sense” is drunkenness. Its antidote, being “filled with the Spirit,” indicates a far better avenue to true understanding. Hence, there is a double connection between verses 17 and 18. Paul writes: 18. And do not get drunk on wine, which is associated with unrestrained living, but be filled with the Spirit. There are times when exhilaration of heart and mind is entirely proper. Scripture makes mention of shouting for joy (Ps. 5:11; 32:11; 35:27; etc.), fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11), good tidings of great joy (Luke 2:10), joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8). Exhilaration is wrong, however, when the method of inducing it is wrong. Thus it is improper to seek excitement from the excessive use of wine. It is the abuse of wine that is forbidden, not the use (I Tim. 5:23). That such abuse was a real danger in the early church, as it certainly is also today, appears from such restrictions as the following: “The overseer therefore must be above reproach … not (one who lingers) beside (his) wine” (I Tim. 3:3; cf. Titus 1:7); “Deacons similarly (must be) dignified, not … addicted to much wine” (I Tim. 3:8); and “Urge aged women similarly (to be) reverent in demeanor … not enslaved to much wine” (Titus 2:3).

Intoxication is not the effective remedy for the cares and worries of this life. The so-called “uplift” it provides is not real. It is the devil’s poor substitute for the “joy unspeakable and full of glory” which God provides. Satan is ever substituting the bad for the good. Has he not been called “the ape of God”? Getting drunk on wine is “associated with unrestrained living” or “dissolute behavior,” “recklessness” (Titus 1:6; I Peter 4:4). It marks the person who, if he so continues, cannot be saved.¹⁴³ But he need not so continue. The prodigal son of the unforgettable parable lived recklessly (an adverb cognate with the noun recklessness or unrestrained living occurring here in Eph. 5:18). Extravagance and lack of self-control were combined in his behavior, just as in all likelihood they are combined in the meaning of the word “unrestrained living” used in this passage from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Nevertheless, there was salvation for him when he repented. Let anyone who may read this take courage (Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 33:11; I John 1:9).

The real remedy for sinful inebriation is pointed out by Paul. The Ephesians are urged to seek a higher, far better, source of exhilaration. Instead of getting drunk let them be filled. Instead of getting drunk on wine let them be filled with the Spirit. Note the double contrast. Although it is true that the apostle makes use of a word, namely, pneúma, which in the translation should at times be spelled with, at other times without, a capital letter (hence “Spirit” or “spirit”), it should be capitalized in this instance, as is often the case. Paul was undoubtedly thinking of the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Evidence in support of this view: a. the expression “filled with” or “full of” the pneúma, when the reference is to the Holy Spirit, is very common in Scripture (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; 4:1; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3; 7:55; 9:17; 13:9);¹⁴⁴ and b. the very contrast here in 5:18 between getting drunk on wine and being filled with the pneúma occurs also, though in a slightly different form, in Acts 2:4, 13, where the reference can only be to the Holy Spirit.¹⁴⁵

By the ancients, moreover, an overdose of wine was often used not only to rid oneself of care and to gain a sense of mirth but also to induce communion with the gods and, by means of this communion, to receive ecstatic knowledge, not otherwise obtainable. Such foolishness, often associated with Dionysiac orgies, is by the apostle contrasted with the serene ecstasy and sweet fellowship with Christ which he himself was experiencing in the Spirit when he wrote this letter to the Ephesians (see on 1:3; 3:20). What he is saying therefore is this: getting drunk on wine leads to nothing better than debauchery, will not place you in possession of worthwhile pleasure, usable knowledge, and perfect contentment. It will not help you but hurt you. It leaves a bad taste and produces no end of woe (cf. Prov. 23:29–32). On the other hand, being filled with the Spirit will enrich you with the precious treasures of lasting joy, deep insight, and inner satisfaction. It will sharpen your faculties for the perception of the divine will. Note the immediate context, verse 17. So, “do not get drunk on wine, but be filled with the Spirit.”¹⁴⁶

Being thus filled with the Spirit believers will not only be enlightened and joyful but will also give jubilant expression to their refreshing knowledge of the will of God. They will reveal their discoveries and their feelings of gratitude. Hence Paul continues: 19. speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. The term psalms in all probability has reference, at least mainly, to the Old Testament Psalter; hymns, mainly to New Testament songs of praise to God and to Christ (verse 14 above, in which Christ is praised as the Source of light, containing perhaps lines from one of these hymns); and finally, spiritual songs, mainly to sacred lyrics dwelling on themes other than direct praise to God or to Christ. There may, however, be some overlapping in the meaning of these three terms as used here by Paul.

The point to note is that by means of these psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, Spirit-filled believers must speak to each other.¹⁴⁷ They are not merely reciting what they have committed to memory. “Daughter, do you know that your Redeemer lives?” said the director to the soloist. After an affirmative answer he continued, “Then sing it again, and this time tell us about it.” She did, and there were tears of joy and thanksgiving in every eye. Continued: singing and making melody from your heart to the Lord. The idea of some¹⁴⁸ that in the two parts of this one verse the apostle has reference to two kinds of singing: a. audible (“speaking”) and b. inaudible (“in the stillness of the heart”), must be dismissed. If that had been his intention, he would have inserted the conjunction and or and also between the two parts. The two are clearly parallel. The second explains and completes the first: when believers get together they should not be having wild parties but should edify each other, speaking to one another in Christian song, and doing so from the heart, to the praise and honor of their blessed Lord. They should make music with the voice (“singing”) or in any proper way whatever, whether with voice or instrument (“making melody”). Cf. Rom. 15:9); I Cor. 14:15; James 5:13. For further details of interpretation see N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 160–163 where a closely similar passage (Col. 3:16) is discussed more at length.

By means of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs believers reveal their gratitude to God. On this theme Paul now enlarges as follows: 20. giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to (our) God and Father. See what has been said about this passage earlier, on p. 45. In addition, the following:

Proper Thanksgiving

(1) What is it? Thanksgiving is grateful acknowledgment of benefits received. It presupposes that the person who engages in this activity recognizes three things: a. that the blessings which he enjoys were bestowed upon himself, so that in all honesty he cannot give himself the credit for them; b. that he is totally unworthy of them; and c. that they are great and manifold.

Paul has mentioned the giving of thanks once before in this chapter (5:4). He refers to it again and again in his epistles. So important does he regard it that he wants believers to be “overflowing with thanksgiving” (Col. 2:7). Gratitude is that which completes the circle whereby blessings that drop down into the hearts and lives of believers return to the Giver in the form of unending, loving, and spontaneous adoration. Properly pursued, such giving of thanks is a self-perpetuating attitude and activity, for it implies a review of blessings received. Naturally, such a review, the purposeful concentration of attention upon benefits, causes them to stand out more clearly, resulting in increased thanksgiving. The expression of gratitude is therefore a most blessed response to favors undeserved. While it lasts, worries tend to disappear, complaints vanish, courage to face the future is increased, virtuous resolutions are formed, peace is experienced, and God is glorified.

(2) When must it take place? The apostle says, “always.” It is proper to give thanks after the blessing has been received, that is, when the situation that caused alarm has passed and quiet has been restored, as did the Israelites after their passage through the Red Sea (Exod. 15); as did the author of Ps. 116 after the Lord had heard his prayer; and as one day the glorious multitude will do on the shores of the sea of crystal (Rev. 15). It is also proper to give thanks in the very midst of distress, as did Jonah when he was in “the fish’s belly” (Jonah 2:1, 9). It is even proper to sing songs of praise and thanksgiving before the battle has commenced, as Jehoshaphat ordered (II Chron. 20:21). Always believers can and should give thanks because there is never a moment when they are not under the watchful eye of Jehovah whose very name indicates that his mercies are unchangeable and will never fail.

(3) For what must thanks be given? Paul answers, “for all things.” Hence, gratitude must be felt and expressed for blessings physical and spiritual; “ordinary” and extraordinary; past, present, and future (the latter, because they are included in an infallible promise); and even for things withheld and for things received. It should be constantly borne in mind that the one who, under the guidance of the Spirit, issued this admonition was himself a prisoner while he so commanded. But in spite of his chain, nay rather for his chain, he thanked God (Phil. 1:12–14). He was able to “take pleasure in weaknesses, injuries, hardships, and frustrations” (II Cor. 12:10). Again and again during this imprisonment Paul thanks God and exhorts those whom he addresses to be thankful also (Eph. 1:16; 5:4, 20; Phil. 1:3, 12–21; Col. 1:3, 12; 2:4; 3:17; 4:2; Philem. 4). This may seem very strange. It is, however, entirely consistent with the rest of Paul’s teachings, for it harmonizes beautifully with the assurance that “to them that love God all things work together for good” and that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us” with a love from which we can never be separated (Rom. 8:28–39).

(4) How must thanks be given? The answer is “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” because it was he who earned all these blessings for us, so that we receive them all “together with him” (Rom. 8:32). It is also he who will purify our petitions and thanksgivings and, thus purified, will present them, together with his own intercession, before the countenance of the Father.

(5) To whom must it be offered? The answer is “to (our) God and Father.” There are those who never give thanks at all. Like the rich fool in the parable that is recorded in Luke 12:16–21 they seem to give themselves the credit for everything they possess or have accomplished. There are others, however, who sense their obligations to their neighbors. They recognize secondary causes, but never the First Cause (Rom. 1:21). Since, however, the Ephesians knew that all their blessings were constantly coming from God, the God who in Christ Jesus is their Father and since they also were aware of the fact that they constituted part of “the Father’s Family” (see on 3:14, 15), so that every benefit which they had received, were now receiving, or would still receive, proceeded from his love, they must have been able to understand the reasonableness of the exhortation that to this God and Father of theirs they should ascribe constant thanksgiving and praise.

Having exhorted the Ephesians with respect to their duty to God, Paul very logically concludes this section by admonishing them in regard to their obligation toward each other. He does this in words which at the same time form an excellent transition to the thoughts with which he will be occupied in the next paragraph.¹⁴⁹

Paul has been urging the Ephesians to express their thanksgiving to God by means of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Now in order that this may be done successfully two things are necessary: a. that the thanksgiving and praise be addressed in the proper manner to the proper person, and b. that there be harmony among the singers. In a choir every singer must know his place so that his voice may blend with that of others. In an orchestra there must be no discord. Hence, Paul states: 21. subjecting yourselves¹⁵⁰ to each other out of reverence for Christ.¹⁵¹ Again and again our Lord, while on earth, emphasized this very thought, namely, that each disciple should be willing to be the least (Matt. 18:1–4; 20:28) and to wash the other disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17). Substantially the same thought is also expressed in Rom. 12:10: “in honor preferring one another” and in Phil. 2:3: “(doing) nothing from selfish ambition or from empty conceit, but in humble-mindedness each counting the other better than himself.” Cf. I Peter 5:5. Affection for one another, humility, and a willingness to cooperate with other members of the body are the graces that are implied here in Eph 5:21. The thought of the passage recalls what the apostle had said earlier in this same letter: “with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, enduring one another in love, making every effort to preserve the unity imparted by the Spirit by means ob the bond (consisting in) peace” (4:2, 3). Paul knew by experience what would happen in a church when this rule is disobeyed (I Cor. 1:11, 12; 3:1–9; 11:17–22; 14:26–33). He therefore stresses the fact that “out of reverence for Christ,” that is, with a conscious regard for his clearly revealed will, every member of the body should be willing to recognize the rights, needs, and wishes of the others. Thus believers will be able to present a united front to the world, the blessing of true Christian fellowship will be promoted, and God in Christ will be glorified.

Chapter 4:17–6:9

Verses 5:22–6:9

Theme: The Church Glorious

II. Exhortation

urging

G lorious Renewal

2. upon special groups

5:22–6:9

Wives, (be subject) to

you

r own husbands as to the Lord,

for the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church, he himself (being) the Savior of the body.

Then, just as the church is subject to Christ so also wives (should be subject) to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love

you

r wives just as also Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her;

that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water in connection with the spoken word;

in order that he might present the church to himself brilliant in purity, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and faultless.

That is the way husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

for no one ever hated his own flesh; on the contrary, he nourishes it and cherishes it, just as also Christ (does) the church,

because we are members of his body.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.”

This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

Nevertheless, let each one of

u also love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see to it that she respects her husband.

¹²⁰ The reading upon which A.V. bases its rendering “not as other Gentiles,” is weak.

¹²¹ That is the sense of the perfect periphrastic. It should not be necessary to remark that ὄντες in verse 18 and οἵτινες in verse 19, masculines, refer to τὰ ἔθνη neuter. This is not at all unusual and is a construction ad sensum.

¹²² Another perfect participle, construed like darkened.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

¹²³ Because of the parenthetical clause (“just as it is in Jesus that truth resides,” verse 21b) intervening between the main verb “you were taught” (verse 21a) and the infinitives governed by it, namely, “to put off” (aorist middle, verse 22), “to put on” (aorist middle, verse 24) and “to be (constantly) renewed” (present passive, verse 23), the subject of these infinitives “you” (ὑμᾶς) is written out.

¹²⁴ These aorists “to put off” and “to put on” do not indicate that the actions to which they refer are done once for all, at this or that moment in the life of the addressed. They simply summarize. They give a snapshot view. They do not indicate anything at all with respect to whether putting off the old man and putting on the new man takes place in a moment or covers a lifetime. The aorist in John 2:20 refers to an activity that had already lasted forty-six years! Here in Eph. 2:22–24 it is the nature of the indicated actions and the context in which the aorists occur — the fact that they are joined by means of the present durative infinitive referring to the continuing process of mental renewal — that establish the lifelong character of the putting off and putting on.

¹²⁵ With reference to the word ἐπιθυμία see N.T.C. on II Tim. 2:22, especially footnote 146, pp. 271, 272.

¹²⁶ Literally “righteousness and holiness of the truth” (according to what is probably the best reading). So also in verse 22 “lusts of the deceit.” In view of the presence of the article before deceit and before truth some deny the adjectival character of these modifiers. The meaning would then become “lusts springing from (the) deceit (or: deception),” and “righteousness and holiness springing from (the) truth.” It is doubtful, however, whether there is good ground for this refinement. In any case it is clear that lusts, on the one hand, and righteousness and holiness, on the other, are here contrasted as to their character and value.

¹²⁷ In verse 23 note νέος-ον as a component element of the verb renew, while in verse 24 the adjective that modifies “man” is καινός-ον. In Col. 3:10, however, the roles are reversed. Accordingly, though it is true that basically νέος indicates new as to time, while καινός refers to new as to quality, it is obvious that the distinction cannot be pressed either here or in Colossians.

¹²⁸ The first view is that of Lenski, argued with usual forcefulness, op. cit., pp. 573, 574. He even states, “The participle is … aorist, hence not: ‘putting away falsehood.’ ” But surely he must have been aware of the fact that there is also such a thing as an aorist participle of simultaneous action! The second view is that of Abbott, op. cit., p. 139.

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

N.E.B. New English Bible

¹²⁹ By means of this translation both the sense and the sound-similarity of the words used in the original for “anger” and “angry mood” are preserved.

¹³⁰ When diábolos is preceded by the article it is definitely “the devil” who is indicated. As an adjective it is rendered “slanderous (persons),” hence, “slanderers” (I Tim. 3:11; II Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3). To avoid misunderstanding, therefore, the rendering “the devil” here in 4:27 is required.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

¹³¹ The Greek word used is blasphemy. But in Greek this word has a somewhat broader meaning than in English. While in our language it refers to abusive language with respect to God or things religious, that is, to defiant irreverence, in the original it refers to insults directed either against God or against men. In the present instance, as the context indicates, the latter is clearly meant: scornful and insolent language directed against a neighbor, slander, defamation, detraction.

¹³² The tenderhearted person has “good or strong bowels” that is, those that are the seat of, or affected by, deep and powerful feelings of love and pity. That indicates the derivation of the word here used in the original. As to the problem in connection with this use of the term “bowels” see N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 58, footnote 39.

¹³³ Whether with Lenski, etc., we should begin an entirely new section here, to coincide with the chapter-division, on the basis of the circumstance that Paul’s “therefore” often introduces something new (4:1, 17; 5:15; and so also 5:1), or should rather, with Bruce, Hodge, Scott, and many others, include 5:1, 2 with the preceding verses (so that, for example, 4:25–5:2 would form one paragraph), is largely a matter of choice. A good argument can be advanced for either position. The presence of “therefore” in 5:1 is not conclusive for the former of these two positions, for that word by no means always introduces a new paragraph (see 5:7). Also, why should it be necessary to accept a wide gap between 4:32 and 5:1, but an easy transition between 5:2 and 5:3? The new thought introduced in 5:1 is, after all, a logical conclusion and further development of that expressed in 4:32. Simpson remarks, “There is no real break here” (op. cit., p. 114). But with respect to 5:3 Grosheide states, “With the mention of immorality the apostle arrives at an entirely new subject.” One good way to treat 5:1, 2 may well be that followed by several exegetes, namely, to regard it as a sub-paragraph within the paragraph 4:25–5:2.

¹³⁴ In connection with the preposition ὑπέρ two extremes must be avoided: a. to say that ὑπέρ = ἀντί. Though, on the basis of the occurrence of ὑπέρ in such passages as Gal. 2:20; 3:13 and in ancient letters in which one individual signs for another, this absolute identity of meaning has been maintained, it is extremely doubtful whether the two prepositions as such ever have exactly the same force. Moreover, we do not need Eph. 5:2 to prove the substitutionary atonement. Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 1:29; Acts 20:28; I Cor. 6:20; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:28; I Peter 1:18, 19; 2:24 teach this clearly enough, especially when interpreted in the light of Exod. 12:13; Lev. 1:4; 16:20–22; 17:11; and Isa. 53. To be avoided also, however, is b. to deny that, in the light of all of Scripture, ὑπέρ, as here used, implies Christ’s substitutionary death. The vicarious death of Christ is certainly implied here, for, according to the doctrine of Scripture throughout, in what other way could Christ have died for us — that is, for our benefit, in our interest — than by dying in our stead?

¹³⁵

The word προσφορά is very general in meaning. It might include peace, meal, and drink offerings such as were offered by (or for) those who wished to be released of a temporary Nazirite vow (Acts 21:26). It could also refer to alms or gifts to the poor, of whatever character (Acts 24:17), or even to the offering up of the Gentiles, now Christians, to God (Rom. 15:16). In Heb. 10:10, 14 it refers to Christ’s offering of himself for sin, once for all.

The word θυσία, too, is very comprehensive in connotation. Its association with bloody sacrifices or with the altar upon which these are offered is common (Mark 12:33; Luke 2:24; Luke 13:1; Acts 7:42; I Cor. 10:18). Thus, it also suits Christ’s bloody self-sacrifice upon the cross (Heb. 7:27; 10:12; cf. 10:27). But its use is not limited to bloody offerings or to anything that is consumed on the altar. Abel’s offering was associated with blood; not that of Cain. Yet the same word θυσία refers to both of these offerings or sacrifices (Heb. 11:4). This is also the word used to describe the gift which Paul received from the Philippians by the land of Epaphroditus (Phil. 4:18). In Phil. 2:17; Heb. 13:15, 16; and I Peter 2:5 the word is used in a definitely figurative sense. Christian life and conduct, springing from faith, the sacrifice of praise, goodness and generosity, all such things, when offered to God in the proper spirit of humility and gratitude, are sacrifices.

¹³⁶ On the imitation of Christ see also Willis P. De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, An Exegetical Study, doctoral dissertation submitted to the Free University of Amsterdam; Kampen, 1962.

¹³⁷ With Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. IV, p. 542, I regard ἴστε to be not imperative but present indicative. His rendering is, “You know recognizing by your own experience.” Implied in this translation is the fact that basically the finite verb refers to a knowledge by intuition or by reflection, the participle to a knowledge by observation and/or experience. Hodge (op. cit., p. 285) believed that the finite verb referred to what Paul had said in verse 3, the participle to what follows it in verse 5. Though this separation may appear somewhat unnatural, yet the very wording of verse 5 proves that Paul reverts to what he had said in verse 3. Still others refer to the familiar Hebrew idiom according to which two forms of the same word occurring in immediate sequence strengthen the idea that is being expressed: Thus, “dying thou shalt die” means “thou shalt surely die”; cf. “blessing I will bless” and “multiplying I will multiply.” However, the idiom used here in 5:5 is not exactly the same, since the finite verb and the participle are forms of different verbs. As many translators see it, the combination of the two Greek forms so closely related in meaning could still convey an emphasis similar to that of the Hebrew idiom. If not, then Robertson’s more literal rendering must be regarded as correct.

¹³⁸ The variant “fruit of the Spirit,” though supported not only by many late and definitely inferior manuscripts but even by the valuable p⁴⁶, is probably an assimilation to Gal. 5:22.

¹³⁹ The verb δοκιμάζω has various meanings: a. to put to the test, examine (I Cor. 11:28; II Cor. 13:5); b. to prove or verify by means of testing (I Cor. 3:13; I Peter 1:7); and c. to approve (I Cor. 16:3). Here the second meaning best suits the context.

¹⁴⁰ For a discussion of the verb ἐλέγχω and a tabulation of its seventeen New Testament occurrences see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, pp. 324, 325, footnote 200.

¹⁴¹ As I see it the phrase ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός modifies the immediately preceding ἐλεγχόμενα, just as in verse 12 the parallel phrase ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν should be construed with the similarly immediately preceding γινόμενα.

¹⁴² Should we read, “Look therefore how carefully you are walking”? Or rather, “Look therefore carefully how you walk”? In other words, is the correct reading πῶς ἀκριβῶς or is it ἀκριβῶς πῶς? A good case can be presented in defense of either. For myself I like Foulkes’ reasoning in favor of the second reading. He writes, “This is a command that is essentially more likely to come from Paul’s pen than that they should walk ‘precisely’ or ‘strictly’. Paul could well use this word in its superlative form of his former life as a Pharisee (Acts 26:5), but to use it of the Christian life would have conveyed too much of a suggestion of renewed legalism” (The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, An Introduction and Commentary, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963, p. 149). Either way, however, the emphasis is on the importance of Christian conduct.

¹⁴³ There are those who point out that etymologically ἀσωτία describes the condition of the person who cannot be saved. But here one would have to determine first of all what the word saved actually means in such a case. And even if this were determined, it would still remain true that, although derivations and word histories are instructive and do shed some light on meanings, actual use of a word in a given context is far more important. When, accordingly, I state that the person in question, if he so continues, cannot be saved, this conclusion is based not on etymology, nor on semantics, but on clear scriptural teaching (I Cor. 6:9, 10).

¹⁴⁴ The fact that here, in 5:18, by way of exception, we read ἐν πνεύματι does not invalidate this conclusion. The preposition ἐν covers a very wide area, especially in Koine Greek, in this case an area probably even broadened by the influence of Hebrew b^e, either directly, or indirectly via the LXX. Also, the suggestion that in the present case the unusual phrase was selected in order to convey the fact that the Holy Spirit is not only the agent by whom believers are filled but also the One in whom they are filled must not be lightly dismissed.

¹⁴⁵ This rather generally accepted view as to the reference here in 5:18 to the Holy Spirit must therefore be maintained over against Lenski who calls it “impossible” (op. cit., p. 619).

¹⁴⁶ On this passage see also J. M. Moffatt, “Three Notes on Ephesians,” Exp, Eighth Series, No. 87 (April, 1918), pp. 306–317.

¹⁴⁷ The reflexive ἑαυτοῖς is here used as a reciprocal as was the case in 4:32; hence, not “for yourselves” (Lenski) nor “to yourselves” (A.V.), but “to one another.” See N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, p. 161, footnote 137.

¹⁴⁸ See Salmond, op. cit., p. 364.

¹⁴⁹

With A.R.V. and Lenski I include this verse in the present section, contrary to the paragraphing found in R.S.V., Hodge, etc. The reasons given by Lenski for so doing are mine also, namely, a. the sentence simply continues, with durative present participle similar to those that precede; b. the mention of mutual subjection here in verse 21 differs from subjection of wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters, discussed in the next section; and c. a new subject begins with verse 22: table of household duties.

It is necessary to add, however, that the relation between verse 21 and those that follow is close, since in both cases the matter of willingness to subject oneself is discussed. In fact verse 22 borrows its implied predicate from verse 21. Note how N.E.B., probably to indicate the transitional nature of verse 21, makes of it a little paragraph all by itself.

¹⁵⁰ The simplest construction would be to regard all these five present participles — speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, and subjecting (yourselves) — as governed by “be filled with the Spirit” (5:18). So construed, all of them have the force of present imperatives. When one is filled with the Spirit he will wish to engage in the activities indicated by the participles. A hostile attitude toward these activities, or an attempt at unconcern or so-called neutrality, shows that the individual to whom this would apply is not Spirit-indwelt.

¹⁵¹ The better manuscripts read Χριστοῦ, not θεοῦ on which A.V. “in the fear of God” is based.

↑ Back to top