1. Greetings (1:1-2) “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ]” “ca,rij u`mi/n kai. eivrh,nh” “grace and peace to you”
2. God the Father’s Sovereign Choice of Believers (1:3–6) “4…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless”.
3. Redemption Through Christ (1:7–10) “7…redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.”
4. The Holy Spirit As the Assurance of God’s Inheritance (1:11–14). “13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.”
1. Thanksgiving for the Saints (1:15, 16). “16 do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers.”
2. Prayer for Comprehending the Greatness of God’s Plan in Christ (1:17–23). “18…that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints.”
1. As Revealed to Individuals—Death to Life (2:1–10). “1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,…4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,… 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;…10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”
2. As Revealed to Races Corporately—Jews and Gentiles (2:11–2:22). “12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world… “16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.”[1]
1. Equality in the Body (3:1-7) “6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”
2. The Church ( 3:8-9). “9…to bring to light what is the administration (οἰκονομία, oikonomia)[2] of the mystery (μυστήριον, mystērion) [3] which for ages has been hidden in God.”[4]
3. Revealed to Angelic Powers (3:10-12). “10…through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.”
4. Of Christ in the Believer (3:13–21). “18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints.”
1. The Problem of Unity (4:1–16).
a) The Need for Unity in Experience, Producing the Fact of Unity in Position (4:1–6). “4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”
b) The Need for Unity in Diversity (of Spiritual Gifts) (4:7–16).[5] “11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.”
2. The Old Life and the New (4:17–5:21).
a) Putting Off the Old Life (4:17–22). “you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
b) Putting On the New Self (4:23, 24). “and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.”
c) Avoiding Particular Sins (4:25–5:14). “29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear…32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you…5:11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.”
d) Encouraging Believers (5:15–21). “18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.”
3. The Christian Home (5:22–6:9).
a) Wives and Husbands (5:22–33). “22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord…25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.”
b) Children and Parents (6:1–4). “4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
c) Slaves and Masters (6:5–9).
4. The Christian Warfare (6:10–20). “11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.”
Ephesians has been called the “crown of Paulinism,” only
Romans can match Ephesians as a candidate for exercising the most influence on
Christian thought.[7] Goodspeed spoke of it as “the Waterloo of
commentators,” but later wrote “a great rhapsody of the Christian salvation.”[8]
1. The internal claims of the epistle itself (1:1; 3:1).[10]
2. Its Pauline literary structure and style.
3. Its theological similarities to the other Pauline epistles, especially Colossians. (Many would say that Colossians was copied by a redactor, cf. Guthrie, 513).[11] Probably Ephesians was written shortly after Colossians[12] (see Carson, p. 308, contra Gromacki, 244, who sees the reference to Laodicea in Colossians referring to this letter).
4. The historical setting and the unchallenged tradition of the church (as well as heretics), until the rise of destructive criticism in the nineteenth century. [13]
1.
Doctrines that are not found in the rest of the Pauline
corpus.
a)
The church (3:10), evkklhsi,a
ekklesia, always refers to the universal Church, whereas in
Paul’s other writings it refers to a local body. (Contra D.N. Jackson as he
cites Eph 2:21, 4:4 “The word, "temple," means sanctuary, a building
dedicated to the purpose of worship…There is one kind of body -- not one in the
sense of a universal body composed of all professed Christians in the world.”). [15]
b) Parousia is refereed to in all the undisputed Pauline letters (but cf. 1:14, 4:30, 6:6-8; Lincoln referring to redemption in Eph 1:7 “Certainly some of the uses of ajπολύτρωσις apolytrōsis in the NT refer to God’s final eschatological deliverance in Christ”).[16]
c) Paul sees Christ as one foundation in 1 Cor. 3:11, but Ephesians has the church being built upon the Apostles and prophets (2:20 Christ as the chief cornerstone has the same effect).
d) Paul speaks of the unity of Jew and Gentile 3:2-6, whereas Paul stated he was an Apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:17-24 one olive tree).
2. Hapax legomena, but they are no more common in Ephesians than in another NT book.[17]
3. The letter seems impersonal for one who had such a close relation to the church (Acts 19:8, 10, 20:3) see C.2 below.
4. The controversy over the Judaizers, which may be why Paul ended up in Rome, seems to be resolved, and would thus give a post-apostolic date.[18]
5. Would Paul refer to the Apostles in v. 3:5 as holy? The word a[gioj hagios originally would have the meaning of set apart, and not the later church idea of holy (Gutherie, 524).
“At the present about 80 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write Ephesians."[19] Carson concludes his arguments by stating "the same man wrote. . . Ephesians a little later, with many of the same thoughts running through his head and with a more general application of the ideas he had so recently expressed" (Carson, 308). I agree with Carson and offer these thoughts for Pauline authorship:
1. Acts 21:20-25 the Gentile/Jewish controversy seems settled in Jerusalem, at least theologically.
2. Acts 19:10 “all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord.” Paul taught not only in Ephesus at the School of Tyrannus, but through out Asia Minor (or at least his disciples did). This was Paul’s greatest missionary endeavor, and thus personal names would be too numerous, and the letter may have very well been encyclical for this region.
3. Would a redactor, who thought well of Paul include a verse like “To me, the very least of all saints” Eph 3:8. Comparing the Laodicea forgery, there is no self deprecation by the author.[20]
A. As one of Paul’s “Prison Epistles,” the letter would be dated A.D. 60–63, corresponding to the time of his first Roman imprisonment (cf. Acts 28:16–31). It was probably written at about the same time as Colossians.[21]
B. Whether
Paul was imprisoned once or twice in Rome is debated, though two
imprisonments seem to fit the facts better. During the first, Paul was kept in
or near the barracks of the Praetorian Guard for two years (Acts 28:30). He
anticipated being released (Philem. 22), and following his release he made
several trips, wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, was rearrested, wrote 2 Timothy, and
was martyred [22]
C. The
above date is an early date, as most critical scholars would like to place it
towards the end of the first century.
Guthrie notes that an early date would “establish its Pauline
authorship,” which “cannot be disputed” (Guthrie, 520).
B. Aquila and Priscilla probably came to Ephesus bringing Christianity when Paul made a brief stop there on his second missionary journey (Acts 18:18-19). On the third journey he stayed in the city for about three years, involved in evangelizing all of Asia Minor (Acts 19:10). The city was a commercial, political, and religious center, of the great temple of Artemis (Diana, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world). As a major trading center, it ranked with Alexandria and Antioch. After Paul, Timothy had charge of the church in Ephesus for a time (1 Tim. 1:3), and later the apostle John made the city his headquarters.[23] Paul taught Scripture to both Jews and Greeks in the school of Tyrannus. Paul’s ministry at Ephesus was marked by several Spirit-empowered miracles. As a result, the city became a center for evangelistic outreach to the rest of the province of Asia (see Acts 19:18–20).[24]
C. Several things indicate that Ephesians was a circular letter, a doctrinal treatise in the form of a letter, to the churches in Asia Minor.
1. Some good Greek MSS. omit the words “at Ephesus” in 1:1. (Carson, 309)[25]
2. There is an absence of controversy in this epistle, and it does not deal with problems of particular churches.
3. “Since Paul had worked at Ephesus for about three years and since he normally mentioned many friends in the churches to whom he wrote, the absence of personal names in this letter strongly supports the idea of its encyclical character. It was likely sent first to Ephesus by Tychicus (Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-8) and is probably the same letter that is called “my letter … from Laodicea” in Col. 4:16”[26] (modern scholars think that Ephesians was written after Colossians (Carson, 310)).
D. The objections to a circular letter.
1. If the letter was designated for a group of churches in the Lycus valley, why did not Paul include some greetings of a general kind as he did to Colossians.
2. if separate copies were prepared for each church , why did the scribe not fill in the appropriate name? Galatians was not handled in this manner.
3. That theory of a blank would be more intelligible if ejn had not been omitted.
E. Since Ephesus was the chief city in Asia Minor, it is not unlikely that other manuscript copies would bear the name of the Ephesian church, probably inserted as copies of the original text were made.[27]
F. “The evidence of the great mass of the manuscript and the improbabilities of all the other views may drive us back to the view that it was meant for the church at Ephesus.” (Carson, 311)”[28]
1 Παῦλος
ἀπόστολος
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
διὰ θελήματος
θεοῦ τοῖς
ἁγίοις τοῖς
οὖσιν [ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ
πιστοῖς ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
2 χάρις
ὑμῖν καὶ
εἰρήνη ἀπὸ
θεοῦ πατρὸς
ἡμῶν καὶ
κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ.
ἐν ʼΕφέσῳ is omitted by p46 א*
B* 424c 1739. In addition. Origen and Basil. and, in all
probability Marcion and Tertullian, did not have the phrase in their texts.
[[Ephesians
1:1|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A2816.6.0|ref=bible.70.1.1|res=LLS%3A29.54.6]]
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God,
to the saints who are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus: 2
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now for the important question: How did these people at Ephesus become saints? The answer is found in two words: “faithful” and “grace” (Eph. 1:1-2). When Paul addresses his letter to the “saints . . . and faithful in Christ Jesus” he is not addressing two different groups of people.(See Hodge [[Ephesians 1:2|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A14.1705.0|ref=bible.70.1.2|res=LLS%3A29.54.2]] ) Ignatius [[Ignatius|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A4966.0.0|ref=ecf.1.1.4.1.0.1|res=LLS%3A6.50.1]] who was to face wild beast, later wrote to this Church in a similar manner admonishing them of Onesimus’ good behavior. The word faithful carries the meaning of “believers in Christ Jesus.” Living faithful lives did not save these people; rather they put their faith in Christ and were saved. This is clear from Ephesians 1:12-14, 19. Wiersbe; "Be Series"
Lincoln thinks that this was a [[circular letter|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A2821.12.0|ref=bible.70.1.3|res=LLS%3A29.54.6]], probably not written by Paul.
to the saints who are also faithful”
3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ
θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ
τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
ὁ εὐλογήσας
ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ
εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ
ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουρανίοις
ἐν Χριστῷ,
4 καθὼς
ἐξελέξατο
ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ
πρὸ καταβολῆς
κόσμου εἶναι
ἡμᾶς ἁγίους
καὶ ἀμώμους
κατενώπιον
αὐτοῦ ἐν
ἀγάπῃ,
5 προορίσας
ἡμᾶς εἰς
υἱοθεσίαν διὰ
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ
τὴν εὐδοκίαν
τοῦ θελήματος
αὐτοῦ,
6 εἰς
ἔπαινον δόξης
τῆς χάριτος
αὐτοῦ ἧς
ἐχαρίτωσεν
ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ
ἠγαπημένῳ.
Εὐλογητὸς is an adj. In the predicate position were the adjective is slightly more emphatic than the noun: God is worthy of praise (Wallace,307).[[Dana and Mantey|link.pos=aol%253DOEBP0%2C0%2C0|ref=page.224|res=%7BAFF43E62-361D-41B6-92FE-D518DD33D990%7D]] ἠγαπημένῳ is a passive perfect participle, the root for [[ ἀγαπάω|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A909.0.0|ref=page.4|res=LLS%3A46.30.2]]
Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual
blessing in the heavens in Christ, just as He choose us in Him before the
foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In
love He predestined us into the adoptions as sons through Jesus Christ to
Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the
glory of His grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the beloved.
“He is also called the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a great mystery. Think not that we shall ever understand the high relationship between the first and second Persons of the blessed Trinity, the Father and the Son. We speak of eternal filiation, which is a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance.” [[Spurgeon |link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A30.9186.0|res=LLS%3A36.0.1238]]Our election is based upon the work of God. “This makes it evident that their salvation was accomplished, not by any accidental or unlooked-for occurrence, but by the eternal and unchangeable decree of God.” [[Calvin Ephesians 1:3|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A99.2745.0|ref=bible.70.1.3|res=LLS%3A29.54.1001]] “Each book in the Bible has its own special theme and message, even though it may deal with many different topics. Genesis is the book of beginnings; Matthew is the book of the kingdom; Galatians is the book of liberty.” Ephesians 1:3 states its theme: the Christian’s riches in Christ. Wiersbe.
The Hebrew term for heaven is in the plural and this plural is often reflected in the Greek terminology of the NT, ejn toi`" oujranoi`", so that this need not indicate any dependence on specific apocalyptic or rabbinic speculations about the number of heavens, but maintains the general reference of the relatively unsophisticated OT perspective. The same applies to ejn toi`" ejpouranivoi". In this perspective heaven in its created aspect was involved in God’s plan for the ages.[[Ephesians 1:4|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A2837.1032.0|ref=bible.70.1.4|res=LLS%3A29.54.6]]
a) Not a Jewish idea, despite Jewish similarities to the Amidah [[Ephesians 1:3|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A210.288.0|ref=bible.70.1.3|res=LLS%3A29.3.2]] Also see [[Lincoln|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A2826.0.0|ref=bible.70.1.3|res=LLS%3A29.54.6]]
(1) Deut 7, Deut 26:16-18
(2) Ps 135:4-6
b) v.[[5|Bible:Eph 1:5]] Acts 4:28
(1) προορίζω [[prooridzo|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A54538.2.0|ref=vp.5.456|res=LLS%3A46.10.16]] this comparatively rare and late word is used in the Bible only 6 times in the NT in the sense “to foreordain,” “to predestinate.”
(2) oJρίζω [[oridzo|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A54534.0.0|ref=vp.5.452|res=LLS%3A46.10.16]] Eight occurrences; translates as “determine” “ordain”
7 Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν
τὴν
ἀπολύτρωσιν
διὰ τοῦ
αἵματος αὐτοῦ,
τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν
παραπτωμάτων,
κατὰ τὸ
πλοῦτος τῆς
χάριτος αὐτοῦ
8 ἧς
ἐπερίσσευσεν
εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἐν
πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ
φρονήσει,
9 γνωρίσας
ἡμῖν τὸ
μυστήριον τοῦ
θελήματος
αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν
εὐδοκίαν
αὐτοῦ ἣν
προέθετο ἐν
αὐτῷ
10 εἰς
οἰκονομίαν
τοῦ
πληρώματος
τῶν καιρῶν,
ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι
τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ
Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς ἐν αὐτῷ.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
Intro to the dispensation by Calvin [[Ephesians 1:1|link.pos=LLS-AOL%3A98.1906.0|ref=bible.70.1.1|res=LLS%3A29.54.1001]]
11 Ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν
προορισθέντες
κατὰ πρόθεσιν
τοῦ τὰ πάντα
ἐνεργοῦντος
κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ
θελήματος
αὐτοῦ
12 εἰς
τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς
εἰς ἔπαινον
δόξης αὐτοῦ
τοὺς προηλπικότας
ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ.
13 Ἐν
ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς
ἀκούσαντες
τὸν λόγον τῆς
ἀληθείας, τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον τῆς
σωτηρίας ὑμῶν,
ἐν ᾧ καὶ
πιστεύσαντες
ἐσφραγίσθητε
τῷ πνεύματι
τῆς
ἐπαγγελίας τῷ
ἁγίῳ,
14 ὅ
ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν
τῆς
κληρονομίας
ἡμῶν, εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν
τῆς περιποιήσεως,
εἰς ἔπαινον
τῆς δόξης
αὐτοῦ.
In whom also we have been claimed as God's own possession,, being predestined according to the purpose of the One who is working all things according to the counsel of His will; that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. . In whom also you, after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also having believed, you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
The
reason for the rendering "we were claimed by God as his portion"
(rather than "we were assigned our portion") is that it is in keeping
with OT precedent.[5] In the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:8-9) the nations of the
world are assigned to various angelic beings ("the sons of God"),[6]
but Yahweh retains Israel as his personal possession:
[[Bruce|link.pos=aol%253DOEBP0%2C0%2C0|res=%7B53CF4F71-6CF3-476D-A160-3B390DA7F7A9%7D]][29]
Hoehner (235) does not see a distinction between Jew and Gentile here, but
between those who are with Paul and those who are at Ephesus. He views the
believing and hearing occurring with the sealing. This is different than the
KJV.
15 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ ἀκούσας
τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς
πίστιν ἐν τῷ
κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ καὶ
τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν
εἰς πάντας
τοὺς ἁγίους
16 οὐ
παύομαι
εὐχαριστῶν
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν
ποιούμενος ἐπὶ
τῶν προσευχῶν
μου,
For this reason, I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers
17 ἵνα ὁ θεὸς τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
ὁ πατὴρ τῆς
δόξης, δώῃ ὑμῖν
πνεῦμα σοφίας
καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει
αὐτοῦ,
18 πεφωτισμένους[30]
τοὺς
ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς
καρδίας [ὑμῶν]
εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι
ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν
ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς
κλήσεως αὐτοῦ,
τίς ὁ πλοῦτος
τῆς δόξης τῆς
κληρονομίας
αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς
ἁγίοις,
19 καὶ
τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον
μέγεθος τῆς
δυνάμεως
αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς
τοὺς
πιστεύοντας
κατὰ τὴν
ἐνέργειαν τοῦ
κράτους τῆς
ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ.
20 Ἣν
ἐνήργησεν ἐν
τῷ Χριστῷ
ἐγείρας αὐτὸν
ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ
καθίσας ἐν
δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν
τοῖς
ἐπουρανίοις
21 ὑπεράνω
πάσης ἀρχῆς
καὶ ἐξουσίας
καὶ δυνάμεως
καὶ κυριότητος
καὶ παντὸς
ὀνόματος
ὀνομαζομένου,
οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι
τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι·
22 καὶ
πάντα
ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ
τοὺς πόδας
αὐτοῦ καὶ
αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν
κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ
πάντα τῇ
ἐκκλησίᾳ,
23 ἥτις
ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα
αὐτοῦ, τὸ
πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ
πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν
πληρουμένου.
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your heart being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of the strength of His might 20 which He worked out in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
When we see God in connection with Christ, we see
God through Christ, when we see God in Christ, then our hearts are all aflame,
and we burst out with, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” God apart from Christ — that is a great and glorious theme; but the
human mind fails to grasp it. The infinite Jehovah, who can conceive him? “Our
God is a consuming fire.” Who can draw near to him? But in the Mediator, in the
Person of the God, the Man, in whom we find blended human sympathy and divine
glory, we can draw nigh to God. There it is that we get our hands upon the
golden harp-strings, and resolve that every string shall be struck to the
praise of God in Christ Jesus.
But note carefully that God is described here as the God our Lord Jesus Christ. When Jesus knelt in prayer, he prayed to our God. When Jesus leaned in faith upon the promises, he trusted in God that he would deliver him. When our Savior sang on the passover night, the song was unto God. When he prayed in Gethsemane, with bloody sweat, the prayer was unto our God. Jesus said to Mary at the sepulcher, “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” How we ought to bless God when we think that he is the God, whom our Redeemer blesses! This is the God who said of Christ, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Delightful thought! When I approach Jehovah, I approach the God or our Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, when I see his blood-stained footprints there on the ground before me, though I put my shoe off from my foot, for the place is holy ground, yet I follow with confidence where my Friend, my Savior, my Husband, my Head has been before me; and I rejoice as I worship the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He is also called the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is a great mystery. Think not that we shall ever understand the high
relationship between the first and second Persons of the blessed Trinity, the
Father and the Son. We speak of eternal filiation, which is a term that does
not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance. How God
is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as God, we do not know; and perhaps to
wish to gaze into this tremendous mystery were as great a folly as to look at
the sun, and blind ourselves with its brilliance. It is so; that ought to be
enough for us. God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ as to his divine
nature: “Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee.” He is also his Father
as to the human side of his nature. He was begotten of the Holy Ghost. That
body of his, that human life, came of God; not of Joseph, not of man. Born of a
woman, God sent forth his Son; but he was his Son then. It was God’s son that
was born at Bethlehem. Gabriel said to the Virgin Mary, “That holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Now take the two natures
of their wondrous blending in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you see
how the great God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, sweet
thought, he is my Father, too; my Father is Christ’s Father. Jesus Christ’s
Father is our Father, and he teaches us all to call him, “Our Father, which art
in heaven.” Often in prayer he said, “Father”; and he bids us say the same,
putting the plural pronoun before it, “Our Father.” Now will you not bless the
Lord, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Do you not feel a
glowing in your hearts, as you think of the near and dear relationship into
which you are brought through Jesus Christ? The God of Jesus Christ, the Father
of Jesus Christ, is my God, my Father, too. Blessed, blessed, blessed, for ever
blessed be that dear name!Spurgeon, Charles, Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 38,
OCT 26th, 1890.
This God who is to be praised is the One who has
blessed us. This is a verbal form (ho
eulogeµsas) of the adjective “praise” (eulogeµtos),
at the beginning of the verse. The verb means “to speak well of,
eulogize, extol”; here it means “to benefit, prosper.” This word is not used in
classical Greek literature. For example, Zeus is not said to have bestowed any
specific act of blessing on anyone. Rather he is said to have caused good luck
or good fortune. However, the verb eulogeoµ
is used over 400 times in the Old Testament, indicating that God bestows
benefits to His children in every Age. Mary was said to be “blessed” among
women and to be bearing the “blessed” Child (Luke 1:42).
Paul’s use of the past tense participle “has blessed”
points to this blessing or prospering of believers as having occurred in
eternity past. With what are believers blessed? With every spiritual
blessing (in the Gr., this phrase precedes the words “in the heavenly
realms”). “Every spiritual blessing” (eulogia) refers to every spiritual
enrichment needed for the spiritual life. Since these benefits have already been
bestowed on believers, they should not ask for them but rather appropriate them
by faith. Similarly Joshua was not to ask for land since God had already
promised it to him (Josh. 1:3-4). But he was to enter into the enjoyment of
that provision.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge
Commentary, 1983, 1985.
Col 3:1If then you were raised with Christ,
seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand
of GodThe Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
NASB: Eph 1:4
4 just as He chose
us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
blameless before Him. In love
The number and variety of words used in this passage to
describe God’s purpose is impressive: ejxelevxato, “chose” (v 4); proorivsa",
“predestined,” eujdokiva, “good pleasure,” qevlhma, “will” (v 5); qevlhma, eujdokiva, proevqeto,
“purposed” (v 9); ejklhrwvqhmen, “appointed,” proorisqevnte", “predestined,” provqesi",
“plan,” boulhv,
“purpose,” qevlhma
(v 11). God’s sovereign purpose in choosing out a people for himself is of
course a familiar idea in the OT (e.g., Deut 7:6–8; 14:2), which witnesses to
Israel’s consciousness of God’s choice of her in the midst of the twists and
turns in her historical fortunes. God had chosen Abraham so that in him the
nations of the earth would be blessed, and Israel’s election was not for her
own self-indulgence but for the blessing of the nations: it was a privilege but
also a summons to service. Christian believers also had this consciousness of
being chosen to be the people of God. The new element is signaled by the ejn aujtw`/
phrase. Their sense of God’s gracious choice of them was inextricably
interwoven with their sense of belonging to Christ. God’s design for them to be
his people had been effected in and through Christ. They saw him as God’s
Chosen One (see below on “in the Beloved,” 1:6). Indeed, Paul in Gal 3 treats
Christ as in a sense fulfilling Israel’s election. Christ is the offspring of
Abraham par excellence (3:16), and in Christ the blessing of Abraham has
come to the Gentiles (3:14) so that they too, because they are Christ’s, are
Abraham’s offspring (3:29). The notion of being chosen in Christ here in
Ephesians is likely then to include the idea of incorporation into Christ as
the representative on whom God’s gracious decision was focused. In respect to
that merciful decision of love, which governs God’s plan for his
creation,Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
In Him indicates the sphere (cf. “in Christ” in
Eph. 1:3) of election, as He is the Head and Representative of spiritual
humanity (vv. 10, 22; Col. 1:18). The time of election is in eternity past, and
the purpose of election is that believers will be holy and blameless in His
sight for eternity. What God has begun in the past will be accomplished and
completed in the future. Christians are “holy” (hagious; cf. hagiois,
“saints,” Eph. 1:1), that is, set apart to God, which is the purpose of His
electing grace. In addition, the purpose of His election is to make Christians
“blameless.” This word amoµmous, “without
blemish,” is used eight times in the New Testament (v. 4; 5:27; Phil. 2:15;
Col. 1:22; Heb. 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19; 2 Peter 3:14; Rev. 14:5). In the Septuagint
it is used of sacrificial animals; only those without blemish could be offered
to God.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
God’s choice of his people in Christ is said to have taken
place “before the foundation of the world.” This phrase indicates an element in
the thinking about election which cannot be found in the OT and occurs only
later in Jewish literature, e.g., Joseph and Asenath 8.9 (A); Midr.
Ps. 74.1; Midr. Ps.93.3; Gen Rab. 1.5 (cf. also Hofius, ZNW
61 [1971] 125–27). Elsewhere in the NT the phrase “before the foundation of the
world” is used of God’s love for Christ (John 17:24) and his purpose for Christ
(1 Pet 1:20), but in regard to believers passages elsewhere in the Pauline
corpus provide the closest parallels. In 2 Thess 2:13 the best reading is
probably “from the beginning” and its best interpretation is probably as a
reference to God’s choice from the beginning of time. In 2 Tim 1:9 grace is
said to have been given to believers before eternal times, while in Rom 8:29
the prefix in proginwvskein,
“to foreknow,” is usually held to indicate that God’s electing knowledge of
believers precedes not simply their knowledge of him but the creation of the
world. In comparison with Rom 8:28–30 and its eschatological focus, the
language of Eph 1:4, by making the pretemporal aspect of election explicit,
sets salvation in protological perspective.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
reasons for
connecting “in love” with the goal of election, see the discussion under Form/Structure/Setting
above. In Phil 1:9, 10 and 1 Thess 3:12, 13 Paul prays for these same features
to characterize believers’ lives—love in the present and holiness and
blamelessness in view of the Parousia. The actual wording of the latter
qualities in Ephesians, aJgivou" kai; ajmwvmou" katenwvpion aujtou`, is taken from
Col 1:22, where, as here, there is no clear connection with the Parousia and
the words describe believers’ present lives.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
This is primary truth, and as John Stott, a man known for
measured sensibility, says: “The doctrine of election is a divine
revelation, not a human speculation.” It was not dreamed up by Martin
Luther or John Calvin or St. Augustine, or by the Apostle Paul for that matter.
It is not to be set aside as the imagination of some overactive religious
minds, but rather humbly accepted as revelation (however mysterious it may be)
from God. We must never allow our subjective experience of choosing Christ
water down the fact that we would not have chosen him if he had not first
chosen us. (Cf. John 6:44, John 15:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2, 1
Thessalonians 1:4–7.) The doctrine of election presents us with a God who
defies finite analysis. It is a doctrine which lets God be God. Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word:
Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
NASB: Eph 1:5
5 He predestined
us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind
intention of His will,
1:5. The
cause of election is God’s predestination of believers unto sonship (cf.
“predestined” in v. 11). Predestined is from proorisas, “marked
out beforehand.” Thus the emphasis of predestination is more on the what than
the who in that the believers’ predetermined destiny is their being adopted
as full-fledged sons of God through Jesus Christ, the Agent
of the adoption.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge
Commentary, 1983, 1985.
That is why the telltale evidence of one’s election is
holiness. Harold Ockenga, pastor of Park Street Church and founding president
of Fuller Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Seminary, put it in no uncertain terms:
If God has elected us He
has not elected us to remain sinners but to become holy. It is an anomaly or an
error to speak of the elect living in sin. God never chose us to continue in
sin. We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before
ordained that we should walk in them. Therefore, the test of our election is
the holiness of our lives. Christ “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
works.” We ought not to delude ourselves into believing that we belong to the elect
of God if we are not living holy lives before Him.… The proof of this is that
we become holy, that we approximate the character of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus John was able to say, “Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known
him.… He that committeth sin is of the devil.… Whosoever is born of God doth
not commit [practice] sin.” Hughes,
R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
The term uiJoqesiva, “adoption as sons,” is a Pauline one
found also in Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; and Gal 4:5. It is a term taken from
Greco-Roman law where it referred to the adoption as sons of those who were not
so by birth. The word can be found in second century b.c.e. inscriptions and in the first century b.c.e. writings of Diodorus Siculus and
Nicolaus Damascenus. A well-to-do but childless adult who wanted an heir would
adopt a male, usually at an age other than in infancy and frequently a slave,
to be his son. In Paul this is applied to the privileged new relationship
believers have with God, but must also be seen against the OT background of
Israel’s relationship with God. Indeed in Rom 9:4 adoption as sons is listed
among Israel’s privileges by Paul. It becomes a corresponding privilege of the
Church also (cf. Rom 9:26; also 2 Cor 6:18). The relationship awaits completion
(Rom 8:23) but has the present witness of the Spirit in the meantime (Rom 8:14,
15). Ephesians emphasizes that by God’s free predestining choice he adopts
believers, taking them into his family and intimate fellowship, establishing
them as his children and heirs. It stresses that this privileged relationship
of knowing God as Father for those who at one time were “sons of disobedience,”
“children of wrath” (cf. 2:2, 3) is through the agency of Christ (dia; ÆIhsou` Cristou`).
Such an assertion sums up the thought of passages such as Gal 3:26, 4:4, 5; and
Rom 8:29 that link believers’ reception of adoption as sons with the life and
work of Christ as God’s Son. Sonship is a benefit of the salvation of the
end-time and it comes to those included in the Son through whom that salvation
has been inaugurated—cf. also “in the Beloved” (1:6)Lincoln, Andrew T., Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
NASB: Eph 1:6
6 to the praise of
the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
1:6. The
ultimate goal of God’s election is that believers will be to the praise of
His glorious grace. A similar expression of praise is also given after the
description of the work of the Son (v. 12) and of the Spirit (v. 14). “His
glorious grace” (undeserved favor; cf. v. 7) had been freely given us. The
words “freely given” translate the verb echaritoµsen,
from the noun “grace” (charis). The verb form is used only one
other time in the New Testament (Luke 1:28, where Mary is said to be “highly
favored”). Literally, Ephesians 1:6a might be rendered “to the praise of His
glorious grace which He graced¯ to us.” Since salvation is all of God’s grace,
Christians certainly ought to praise Him for it! And that is why they were
chosen: to give Him praise (cf. “Praise be to . . . God,” v. 3). Walvoord, John
F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
ejn tw`/ hjgaphmevnw/, “in the Beloved,” expresses how this grace
has come to believers and continues the idea already found in ejn Cristw`/ (1:3), ejn aujtw`/
(1:4), and dia;
ÆIhsou` Cristou` (1:5). This variation uses a term which seems to have
been understood as a title for Christ. J. A. Robinson (229–33) and Schlier (56)
believe it was a messianic title current among the Jews during the first
century c.e., though neither can
offer any hard evidence for its pre-Christian usage in such a way. It is safe
to say that it became a messianic title among early Christians (cf. also Ign., Smyrn.
inscr.; Barn. 3.6; 4.3, 8). In the LXX it was used of Israel where it
translates the hypocoristicon or “pet name” ÷wrvy
, yeðsûuruÆn
(Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26; Isa 44:2), and more generally designates Israel as God’s
beloved people (Deut 33:12; Isa 5:1, 7; Jer 11:15; 12:7). In the Pauline corpus
this designation for Israel can be transferred to believers, frequently in
close association with the concept of election, cf. 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13;
Rom 9:25; Col 3:12. Ephesians reflects a transference of the title to Christ as
well as to Christians, a transference no doubt facilitated by the closeness of
this title to the designation of Jesus as the beloved Son prominent in early
Christian tradition—cf. Mark 1:11 par.; Mark 9:7 par., oJ uiJov" mou oJ
ajgaphtov"; also Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13. Ephesians appears to be in
indirect contact with this tradition through Col 1:13—tou` uiJou` th`"
ajgavph" aujtou`, on which it is a variation. In any case the title
makes clear Christ’s status as God’s specially chosen one, his beloved
Son.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 1:7
7 In Him we have
redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to
the riches of His grace,
Col 1:14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness
and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14in
whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.The Holy
Bible, New King James Version,
1982.
ajpoluvtrwsi", “redemption,” is a rare word in nonbiblical
Greek and appears only once in the LXX, in Dan 4:34, yet it occurs ten times in
the NT, seven of these in the Pauline corpus. The Pauline concept of redemption
has its roots in the OT, where in particular the divine act of deliverance from
Egypt was often described in terms of redemption (cf. Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:5;
15:15; 24:18; 1 Chr 17:21). The term’s general significance as “deliverance,
liberation” is clear. There is a dispute among scholars, however, whether it
also has the more specific connotation of the payment of a ransom. In regard to
Eph 1:7 some insist this connotation is present (e.g., L. Morris, The Apostolic
Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. [London: Tyndale Press, 1965] 42; Bruce,
31; I. H. Marshall, “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New
Testament,” Reconciliation and Hope, FS L. Morris, ed. R. J. Banks
[Exeter: Paternoster Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974] 165), while others
hold that the term simply signifies deliverance (e.g., Abbott, 11–13; J. A.
Robinson, 148; F. Büchsel, “luvw ktl.,” TDNT 4 [1967] 354–55; D. Hill, Greek
Words and Hebrew Meanings [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967]
73–74; Caird, 36–37; Gnilka, 75). It is true that often in their LXX usage lutrou`sqai
and its cognates retain the sense of release through paying back. This sense is
also frequently clear in the nonbiblical usages of ajpoluvtrwsi",
among which are references to the manumission of slaves which involved payment.
In addition, Paul does speak of believers as having been bought with a price in
1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; and he uses the verb ejxagoravzein in Gal 3:13; 4:5, in which this idea
is also present. On the other hand, many of the LXX usages of the redemption
word-group are references to deliverance from danger and especially deliverance
from Egyptian bondage and Babylonian exile where no notion of a ransom price is
involved. The use of ajpoluvtrwsi" in LXX Dan 4:34 does not contain this idea, and
it would be natural for Paul to see parallels between God’s acts of liberation
in the OT and his act of liberation in Christ and use this term in that sense.
Certainly some of the uses of ajpoluvtrwsi" in the NT refer to God’s final
eschatological deliverance in Christ where notions of a ransom payment are not
present and have to be read into the text (cf. Luke 21:28; Rom 8:23; and the
other two occurrences in Eph 1:14; 4:30). It is hard to decide this issue, but
it appears to be overdogmatic to insist on ransom connotations for all uses of ajpoluvtrwsi"
in the NT. It is safer to see these only where they are explicit in the
context. They do not appear to be explicit in Col 1:14, which lies behind the
Ephesian reference. As we have noted, in taking this up, the writer has added a
reference to Christ’s blood, and some see this as making the ransom price
connotations of redemption clear.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
7 Paul proceeds to list some of the blessings that
flow from the matchless grace of God. It may be that an early confession of
faith underlies the text. These blessings are all "in Christ" as
being not only their source but their sphere (cf. Col
1:14). They are enjoyed by the believer in the present. The tense is
continuous--"we have and are still having."
Redemption (apolytrosis) has to do with the emancipation either of slaves or of prisoners. The NEB has "release." By derivation, the term also implies the payment of a ransom price and this factor is frequently reflected in its usage. Here it is specified as being "through his blood" (Col 1:20). The price paid for man’s redemption from bondage to sin was costly beyond measure. It was the very lifeblood of Christ himself, poured out in death. As Leon Morris has shown, the Hebrews understood blood in the sense of "violent death" or "bloodshed" (The Cross in the New Testament [Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1965], p. 219). In a sacrificial context the likeliest meaning is not simply "life" but "life yielded up in death." Leviticus 17:11 is to be interpreted in these terms. What was foreshadowed in the Levitical system was realized at the Cross when the Son of God laid down his life in death and ransomed men from sin.
Forgiveness (aphesis)
is loosing someone from what binds him. It stems from a verb meaning to send
away (John 20:23). When God deals with our sin,
it is dispatched into the wilderness like the scapegoat (Lev 16:20-22). Here, however, the reference is not to
sin (harilartia) as in Colossians 1:14,
but to sins (paraptoma) or deviations from the right path. The first
term denotes a sinful condition; the second, sinful acts. Forgiveness deals
with both. The magnanimity of God displayed in redemption and remission of sins
is in proportion to the rich abundance of his grace. EBCNT.
Through the shedding of his blood, we are set free.
One of the Hebrew words corresponding to Greek lutroÆsis (“redemption, ransom”) is “padut,” of which another form is “pidyon” (as in “pidyon-haben,” redemption of the
[firstborn] son, referred to at Lk 2:22–24&N). Moshe Ben-Maeir (1904–1978),
a pioneer Israeli Messianic Jew, explained the connection between ransom and
blood in a short commentary on Ephesians:
“Pidyon has in it the idea of exchange, of substitution. In the Torah the Law of Ransom is stated at Exodus 13:13, 34:20. Every firstborn male and donkey must be ransomed. In Numbers 3, 22,000 Levites became substitutes for 22,000 of Israel’s firstborn males, and the remaining 273, for whom there were no Levites, were ransomed by 1,365 shekels. In 1 Samuel 14, Jonathan came under sentence of death for transgressing a public oath his father made in his absence. Yet although King Saul condemned him to die, the sentence was not carried out, because the people objected. But law is law, not to be ignored. So they ransomed him, and thus legally prevented his being put to death.
“We too, like Jonathan, have come under the sentence of death. Jonathan was condemned to death even though he had been unaware of King Saul’s oath and order. We are condemned to death, even though we have not sinned after the manner of the first Adam (see Romans 5:12–14). Like Jonathan, we must either die or be ransomed. Jonathan and the Israel firstborn were ransomed with money. Money equals blood. One of the names for money in Hebrew is damim, plural of dam, blood, because it represents man’s labor and risks. It is a Mishnaic term.
“But money cannot redeem
from eternal death. Man has nothing with which to ransom himself or others
(Psalm 49:8–9(7–8)); God himself must redeem him from the power of the grave
(Psalm 49:16(15)). But of God it is written, ‘I have found a ransom’ (Job
33:24); and that ransom is the blood of the Messiah.” (Adapted from Moshe
Ben-Maeir, How A Jew Explains Ephesians, Netivyah, P.O. Box 8043,
Jerusalem 91080, 1978, pp. 23–25) The Jewish New Testament Commentary, 1996.
NASB: Eph 1:8
8 which He
lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight
Reading
from the New International Commentary on the New Testament, by F. F. Bruce:
"the unstinting bestowal of God’s grace is accomplished by other spiritual
gifts: wisdom and understanding are mentioned here because of their relevance
to what follows. Wisdom and
understanding are gifts of God, but they must be cultivated in order to become
effective. Therefore it is not inconsistent
for Paul to pray, as he does in the parallel passage in Colossians 1:9, that
believers may be filled ’ with all wisdom and spiritual understanding’."
Reading
from D. Martyn Lloyd -- Jones, he has
use the term redemption; and then proceeds to say that the first element in
redemption is the forgiveness of sins.
Redemption is ultimately going
to end in the glorification of my body; but it begins with the forgiveness of sins. This is the essential preliminary to
sanctification and also to glorification.
We must therefore start with forgiveness and emphasize it. It is the first vital step, the key which
opens the door to everything that follows.
ejn pavsh/ sofiva/ kai; fronhvsei, “with all wisdom and insight.”
God’s lavish grace not only provides redemption but also supplies, along with
this, all necessary wisdom and insight to understand and live in the light of
what he has done in Christ and its implications (elaborated in vv 9, 10).
Reasons for taking this phrase with what precedes rather than as qualifying the
following participle have been given above under Form/Structure/Setting.
The phrase is a variation on the language of Col 1:9, ejn pavsh/ sofiva/ kai;
sunevsei pneumatikh`/, which uses a common LXX combination (cf. Exod
31:3; 35:31; 1 Chr 22:12; 2 Chr 1:10–12; Isa 11:2). Here frovnhsi"
substitutes for the second part and is itself a term which can be found in
close association with sofiva in the LXX (cf. Prov 1:2; 3:19; 8:1; 10:23; Jer 10:12; Dan
2:21; 4 Macc 1:18). Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 6.6.7) distinguishes sofiva as more
general intellectual understanding and frovnhsi" as related to more practical
application, but in biblical Greek such a distinction cannot be maintained and
the terms function synonymously. Here in Ephesians we have noted that it is
characteristic of the writer’s style to use two or more words of similar
meaning when one would do, and so it is likely that “wisdom and insight”
constitute a hendiadysLincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume
42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 1:9
9 He made known to
us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed
in Him
Mystery" is a recurring term in Ephesians (3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; 6:19). Here, as in the rest of the NT, it simply
means a truth once hidden but now made known (Rom
11:25; Col 1:26; cf. Matt 13:11, 35). Both
in Jewish apocalyptic literature and in the Qumran documents the word denotes
the secret plan of God that will become apparent at the end of the age. But in
the NT the unlocking of the mystery has now taken place in Christ and there is
no need to wait till the last day in order to know what God’s strategy is
(TDNT, 4:819-822).
EBCNT
The usage of musthvrion in LXX Daniel, where it translates the
Aramaic zr
, raµz,
forms a major aspect of its Semitic background (cf. Dan 2:18, 19, 27–30, 47)
and provides some parallels with its use in Ephesians, since in Daniel it
refers to God’s purpose, which is a unified plan with eschatological and cosmic
dimensions (cf. also Caragounis, Mysterion, 134–35). “Mystery” occurs
frequently in other apocalyptic writings (e.g., 2 Apoc. Bar. 81.4; 4
Ezra 14:5; 1 Enoch 51.3; 103.2; 104.10) and in the Qumran literature
with the terms zr
(rz), “mystery,” and dws
(swd), “marvel,” (e.g., 1QpHab 7.4,
8, 13; 1QM 3.8; 16.9; 1QS 3.21–23; 4.18; 11.34; 1QH 7.27; 10.4; 11.9, 16). In
one place there is a phrase which comes close to Ephesians’ “mystery of his
will”—÷xpj yzrl
(lrzy h\ps\w) “the mysteries of his
good pleasure” (1QH Frag 3.7). In apocalyptic writings “mystery” usually refers
to an event which will only be revealed at the end of history, although since
it is already prepared in heaven the seer can have knowledge of it at present
(e.g. 4 Ezra 14:5; 1 Enoch 9.6; 103.2). At Qumran, however, as here in
Ephesians, “mystery” can refer to an event which has already been realized in
the community. In 1QS 11.5–8, for example, the community’s participation in the
angelic assembly is seen as one of God’s marvelous mysteries (cf. also R. E.
Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968] 22–29; H. W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966] 166–75; Gnilka, 78).
Paul uses musthvrion in a variety of ways. It is found in
the plural in 1 Cor 4:1; 13:2; 14:2, and in the singular, but with differing
references, in 2 Thess 2:7; 1 Cor 2:1 (where the manuscript evidence is
disputed); 2:7; 15:51; Rom 11:25; 16:25 (in all probability a later addition).
In Colossians the use of musthvrion to refer to the heart of Paul’s message, God’s activity
in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 2:7), becomes constant (cf. 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3), and it is
this reference to the eschatological fulfillment of God’s plan of salvation in
Christ that has influenced the way the writer to the Ephesians speaks of
“mystery” here and in 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32 and 6:19. 1:9, 10; 3:3–10; and 5:32 all
unfold different aspects of the one mystery of what God has done in Christ. In
the various “mystery” cults, which would have been familiar to the recipients
of this letter, the common characteristic was possession of a secret or of
secrets, which were made known only to initiates, giving them great spiritual
privileges unavailable to others without this knowledge. In the berakah of Ephesians the writer
sees the Christian community as a highly privileged group also. Believers can
bless God that he has disclosed his secret to them and that they have been
given wisdom and insight, and yet this secret is one that can be proclaimed
openly (6:19) and one that has a scope that goes far beyond the community or
any exclusive claims it might be tempted to make for itself, as 1:10b will
indicate.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 1:10
10 with a view to
an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the
summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the
earth. In Him
In the Greek world oijkonomiva was regularly used for God’s ordering
and administration of the universe. Here in 1:10 it also appears to have that
active force (cf. also 3:9), while elsewhere (cf. 3:2; 1 Cor 4:1; 9:17; Col
1:25) it refers to Paul’s apostolic role and office. In the Pauline corpus it
is frequently used in close connection with musthvrion (cf. 1 Cor 4:1; Col 1:25–27;
Eph 3:2–4, 9). Later in patristic writings oijkonomiva was used to refer to the
divine plan or economy of salvation and had close associations with covenant
terminologyLincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42:
Ephesians, 1998.
Dan 2:21 And He changes the times
and the seasons;
He removes kings and raises up kings;
He gives wisdom to the wise
And knowledge to those who have understanding.
22 He reveals deep and secret things;
He knows what is in the darkness,
And light dwells with Him.The Holy Bible, New King
James Version, 1982.
GAL 4:4But when the fullness of the time had
come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,The Holy
Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
The elaboration ta; ejpi; toi`" oujranoi`" kai; ta; ejpi;
th`" gh`" indicates that we are right to take ta; pavnta in its
widest sense of all things and all beings, that is, the cosmos as a whole and
not just humanity (pace Davies, Paul, 57; Mitton, Ephesians,
56–57). This twofold division of the universe was common in Jewish thought
where created reality was seen as having two major parts (cf. Gen 1:1) and
where heaven as the upper part of the cosmos was regarded as concealing a
presently invisible created spiritual order (e.g., 2 Kgs 6:17; Job 1:6; Zech
3:1).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.It is true that there is a tension
between “already” and “not yet” in Ephesians in regard to Christ’s rule over
the powers (cf. 1:21 with 2:2 and 6:12, and cf. Caragounis, Mysterion,
145; Lincoln, Paradise, 166–68), yet here in the eulogy, in the context
of worship, the perspective is one of realized eschatology as the total
completion of God’s purpose is anticipated.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.Any among the readers of this letter who are tempted to believe
that fullness of salvation will mean insight into mysteries are shown that the
mystery of God’s will has already been made known. It is not discovered by
special techniques but is in accordance with God’s good pleasure. Instead of
presupposing a cosmological dualism where heaven and earth are two separated
realms and where the heavenly powers dominate those in the lower evil realm of
matter, it involves the bringing together and summing up of heaven and earth in
Christ. Those who can see that there is therefore no aspect of this universe
which is outside the scope of God’s redemptive purpose, in which they too have
been included, are thereby given grounds for overcoming any sense of weakness
and insecurity in the face of hostile cosmic powers.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
NASB: Eph 1:11
11 also we have
obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who
works all things after the counsel of His will,
11, 12 ejn w|/ kai; ejklhrwvqhmen, “in whom we
were also appointed.” Believers are now explicitly related to the cosmic Christ
in whom all things are summed up. It is through being in this Christ that God’s
choice has fallen on them. klhrou`n is a hapax legomenon in the NT and
literally means “to appoint or choose by lot,” and so the passive has the force
of “to be appointed by lot.” In the papyri the passive can simply mean “to be
destined, chosen” (cf. BAG). The cognate noun klh`ro" is used in Col 1:12 where
God is said to have qualified believers for a share in the lot of the holy ones
in light. In the LXX klh`ro" was employed in the context of the division of the land
by lot for inheritance (e.g., Num 26:55, 56) and also for the individual
Israelite’s lot or portion in general (cf. Prov 1:14; Wis 2:9, 5:5). This
latter notion is a frequent one in Qumran literature (e.g., 1QS 4.26; 11.7; 1QH
3.22). Also in the LXX Israel can be referred to as God’s lot or portion (e.g.,
Deut 9:29 with klh`ro"; also Deut 32:8, 9 with meriv"). Because of such
associations of the cognate noun, it has been suggested that the verb here in
Eph 1:11 should be rendered “we have been chosen as God’s portion,” i.e.,
assigned by God himself as his own lot (cf. J. A. Robinson, 34).Lincoln, Andrew
T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The King James Version reads, “In
whom also we have obtained an inheritance,” but “in whom also we were made an
inheritance” is also a possible translation. Both are true and the one includes
the other. In Christ we have a wonderful inheritance (1 Peter 1:1-4),
and in Christ we are an inheritance. We are valuable to Him. Think of
the price God paid to purchase us and make us part of His inheritance! God the
Son is the Father’s love gift to us; and we are the Father’s love gift to His
Son. Read John 17 and note how many times Christ calls us “those whom Thou hast
given Me.” The church is Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23), building (Eph. 2:19-22),
and bride (Eph. 5:22-23); Christ’s future inheritance is wrapped up in His
church. We are “joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17), which means that He
cannot claim His inheritance apart from us!
Wiersbe.
NASB: Eph 1:12
12 to the end that
we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
Many argue that this elaboration on hJma`" introduces
a narrowing of its scope and is a reference to Jewish Christians (cf. Abbott,
21; J. A. Robinson, 34–35; Maurer, EvT 11 [1951–52] 166–67; Schlier,
66–68; Coutts, NTS 3 [1956–57] 120; Lyonnet, “La bénédiction,” 349; Barth, 92, 130–33;
Ernst, 279; Caird, 40; Mitton, 57; Mussner,49–50; Jankowski, “L’espérance,” 475–81). On this
interpretation the prefix pro- in prohlpikovta" is said to indicate either that as Jews they
hoped in the Messiah before his coming or that as Jewish Christians they hoped
in Christ before the Gentiles. But up to this point the berakah has been concerned with the
whole community; “we” and “us” refer to all believers. It is unlikely either
that at this point there is a sudden change of perspective back to a
pre-Christian period with a reference to Israel’s messianic expectations or
that there is a sudden change of reference so that the first person plural
pronoun is now restricted to only one particular group of believers, Jewish
Christians. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42:
Ephesians, 1998.These variations in
usage also make it unlikely that the distinction between “we” in v 12 and “you”
in v 13 is one between first- and second-generation believers (contra
Mitton, 57). It is far more likely that the “you” in v 13 marks the point at
which the letter’s recipients are addressed and explicitly drawn into the
blessing offered by believers in general as they are reminded of their
reception of the gospel (cf. also Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 259–60; Gnilka, 62,
84; Lindemann, Aufhebung,
101; Halter, Taufe und Ethos,
229, Jayne, ExpTim 85 [1974] 151–52). The writer makes a
distinction between believers in general and his present
audience, and yet is saying that the same blessings have come upon both groups.
This does not necessitate the hypothesis that his present readers are newly
baptized (contra Wilson, “ ‘We’ and ‘You,’ ” 676–80). What has happened
is simply that the more general liturgical style has shaded over into address
to the readers. The same phenomenon with a change in the person of the pronoun
can be found in the blessing in 1 Pet 1:3–9.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
We Jews (vv. 11–12) are contrasted with you
Gentiles (vv. 13–14). See 2:3.
An inheritance (vv. 11, 14, 18; 5:5). Moshe Ben-Maeir called attention to an uncommon Hebrew word for the important concept of inheritance, “morashah,” in the two places where it appears in the Tanakh: Deuteronomy 33:4, “Moshe commanded us a Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Israel”; and Exodus 6:8, “I will bring you into the Land, which I swore to give to Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya‘akov, and I will give it to you as an inheritance; I am Adonai.” He wrote,
“We Messianic Jews hold on to the morashah and have cast away neither the Torah nor our rights to Eretz-Israel [the Land of Israel]. We remain part and parcel of the chosen people.” (How A Jew Explains Ephesians, pp. 31–33)
Verse 11 is speaking of Jews, whose inheritance is both
spiritual (Torah) and
physical (the Land). The Torah
leads directly to Yeshua (Ro 10:4&N), through whom Gentiles share in the
spiritual inheritance (vv. 13–14). Also through Yeshua the Jewish people
receive the Land in perpetuity (2C 1:20&N). The Jewish New Testament
Commentary, 1996.
NASB: Eph 1:13
13 In Him, you
also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your
salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of
promise,
1:13-14a. And
you also refers to the Gentiles in contrast with the Jews (cf. comments on
vv. 11-12). When they heard the Word of truth (cf. Col. 1:5; 2
Tim. 2:15; James 1:18) which is further described as the gospel of your
salvation, and believed, they were sealed with the
promised Holy Spirit. The KJV says that the sealing occurs “after” the
hearing and believing, thus connoting a second work of grace. This is wrong,
for believers are sealed at the moment they hear and believe.
The last part of verse 13 is literally, “They were sealed in Him [Christ] with the Holy Spirit of promise.” The word “seal” indicates security (Matt. 27:66; Eph. 4:30), authentication and approval (John 6:27), certification of genuineness (John 3:33), and identification of ownership (2 Cor. 1:22; Rev. 7:2; 9:4). God is the One who seals, Christ is the sphere in which the seal is done, and the Holy Spirit is the instrument of the seal. “The promised Holy Spirit” refers to Christ’s promise to His disciples that He would send the Spirit (Luke 24:49; John 14:16; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 1:5).
The Holy Spirit who seals is a deposit guaranteeing our
inheritance. The “deposit” is more than a pledge which could be returned;
it is a down payment with a guarantee of more to come (cf. “the firstfruits of
the Spirit,” Rom. 8:23). “A deposit guaranteeing” translates the Greek arraboµn (used elsewhere in the NT only
in 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). It guarantees believers’ “inheritance” of salvation and
heaven (cf. 1 Peter 1:4). (See comments on “inheritance” in Eph. 1:18.) In
essence, the “deposit” of the Holy Spirit is a little bit of heaven in
believers’ lives with a guarantee of much more yet to come. Walvoord, John F.,
and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
The entire process of salvation is given in this verse, so
we had better examine it carefully. It tells how the sinner becomes a saint.
First, he hears the Gospel of salvation. This is the good news that Christ died
for our sins, was buried and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1ff). The Ephesians were
Gentiles, and the Gospel came “to the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16). But Paul, a Jew,
brought the Gospel to the Gentiles as he shared the Word of God with them.
The Ephesians “heard the Gospel” and discovered it was for them—“your salvation” (Eph. 1:13). Even though the Bible teaches election, it also announces, “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). A soul-winner does not discuss election with unsaved people, because it is a family secret that belongs to the saints. He simply announces the truth of the Gospel and invites men to trust Christ, and the Holy Spirit does the rest. D.L. Moody used to pray, “Lord, save the elect—and then elect some more!” The same God who ordains the end, the salvation of souls, also ordains the means to the end, the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit.
Having heard the Word, the Ephesians believed; and it is this faith that brought salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). This pattern follows what Paul writes in Romans 10:13-15, so read that passage carefully. It is God’s plan for evangelism. When the Ephesians believed, they were “sealed with the Spirit.” “After that ye believed” should read “when ye believed.” You receive the Spirit immediately on trusting Christ. This is not an experience subsequent to conversion. (Read Acts 10:34-48.)
What is the significance of this sealing of the Holy Spirit? For one thing, it speaks of a finished transaction. Even today, when important legal documents are processed, they are stamped with the official seal to signify the completion of the transaction. This sealing also implies ownership: God has put his seal on us because He has purchased us to be His own (1 Cor. 6:19-20). It also means security and protection. The Roman seal on the tomb of Jesus carried this meaning (Matt. 27:62-66). So, the believer belongs to God, and is safe and protected because he is a part of a finished transaction. According to John 14:16-17, the Holy Spirit abides with the believer forever. It is possible for us to grieve the Spirit and thereby lose the blessings of His ministry (Eph. 4:30). But He doesn’t leave us.
Another use for the seal is as a mark of authenticity.
Just as a signature on a letter attests to the genuineness of the document, so
the presence of the Spirit proves the believer is genuine. “If any man have not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Rom. 8:9). It is not simply our lip
profession, our religious activity, or our good works, but the witness of the
Spirit that makes our profession authentic.
W. Wiersbe Be Rich- Ephesians
The
Human Perspective
to the end that we who were first to hope in Christ …
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your
salvation—having also believed, (12a, 13a)
In the Greek text this passage is continuous, the last part of verse 12 leading directly into verse 13. Here we see the believer’s divine inheritance in Jesus Christ from our own human perspective. Throughout Scripture there is tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s will, a tension that, in his limited and imperfect knowledge, man is incapable of fully reconciling. As with all the other antinomies and paradoxes in God’s Word, our responsibility is to believe both sides of them without reservation, just as they are revealed. We know the truths are in perfect accord in God’s mind, and that knowledge should satisfy us.
Someone has pictured the divine and human sides of salvation in this way: When you look toward heaven you see a sign that reads, “Whosoever will may come,” and after you enter heaven you look back to that same sign and read on the other side, “Chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.”
Whatever God’s reasons for designing such humanly irreconcilable truths, we should thank and praise Him for them. For the very reason that they are completely true while seeming to be contradictory, we are humbled in His presence as we stand in awe of that which to us is incomprehensible. To the trusting believer such truths are but further evidence that Scripture is God’s doing, and not man’s.
To the end that we who were first to hope in Christ is the first statement given here about the human side of our divine inheritance in Christ. The Greek has a definite article before Christ, and a more literal translation is hope in the Christ. The meaning is not changed, but the definite article emphasizes the uniqueness of our hope: it is in the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. It also stresses the idea that the apostles and other first-generation Jewish believers were the first to receive the Messiah.
A rich factor in man’s believing the gospel is the hope He is given in His Savior and Lord. Though Paul mentions hope before belief in this passage, the chronological as well as theological order is faith and then hope. In this context, however, hope is used primarily as a synonym for faith. The first to hope in Christ were the first to believe in Him.
Therefore, Paul continues, In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, … As the apostle explains in his letter to the Romans, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (10:17). Faith comes from a positive response to the message of truth, the gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6-9)—the good news that God has provided a way of salvation through the atoning work of His Son, Jesus Christ. To “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12). Man-made systems of religion, which rely on ritual or works or both, not only do not lead to God but can become great barriers to finding Him. The only way to come is through His Son. “For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed’” (Rom. 10:10-11). Having also believed not only stresses the means by which salvation is appropriated but also the uniformity of such means by the use of also.
Faith is man’s response to God’s elective purpose. God’s
choice of men is election; men’s choice of God is faith. In election God gives
His promises, and by faith men receive them.
MacArthur Commentary on Ephesians
To begin with, Paul is very clear that at the root of the
miracle is the wonder of their becoming “in Christ.” As verse 13 says, “And you
also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation.” We must stop to think about this term because it is by far one of
the most important theological concepts in the New Testament. In Paul’s present
song he uses it or its equivalent nine times. Experts on Pauline theology as
diverse as Adolf Deissmann and Albert Schweitzer agree that the term “in
Christ” is the central category in Paul’s thinking. The term “in Christ” or “in
Christ Jesus” is used in Paul’s letters, according to Deissman’s calculation,
some 169 times. The terms are not found prior to Paul and are rare outside his
writings. What does the term signify?
First, it indicates radical transformation. Paul
delineates this in 2 Corinthians 5:17 — “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he
is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” This is a dynamic
assertion which is even more powerful in the Greek because there are no verbs
in the original: “If any man in Christ — new creation!” He is radically,
fundamentally new. Not only that, but “the new has come!” and, as the
Greek perfect tense stresses, will continue to remain.
Being “in Christ” is nothing less than being made alive. “… so in Christ all will be made alive,” says Paul (1 Corinthians 15:22; cf. 2:5). This is a total spiritual change. “He becomes the soil in which they grow, the atmosphere which they breathe, the source and goal of their entire existence as men.”
Being in Christ brings a radical reorientation — a movement from external righteousness to inward righteousness which radicalizes our conduct. As a result, though the world hates, those in Christ forgive; while the world lusts for more, those in Christ are content.
From my perspective, “in Christ” far outstrips the term
“Christian” in describing Christianity. Aside from the fact that “Christian” is
only used three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; and 1 Peter
4:16), that title allows for an ambiguous interpretation. It can mean one who
has a specific cultural affinity, or the “western tradition,” or one who lives
on one side of barbed wire and is killing those on the other side. But “in
Christ” invites no such abuse, because it demands reflection on a dynamic,
living relationship. No wonder Paul loved it. “For to me, to live is Christ,”
said Paul (Philippians 1:21). Christianity is Christ! Those who are not
“in Christ” are not Christians, and if and when they become real Christians
they will be in Christ — and thus radically transformed and alive! Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word:
Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
NASB: Eph 1:14
14 who is given as
a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession,
to the praise of His glory.
1:14b. The
believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit until the redemption (apolytroµsin; see the chart “New
Testament Words for Redemption” at Mark 10:45) of those who are God’s
possession. This redemption is not release from the guilt of sin; that was
spoken of in Ephesians 1:7 and the believer is already “God’s possession.”
Instead, this is the believer’s ultimate, final release from the presence of
sin (cf. Rom. 8:23b; Phil. 3:20-21). The Greek word for “possession” (peripoieµsis) is also used in 1
Thessalonians 5:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 10:39 (see comments there);
and 1 Peter 2:9. Again the doxological refrain, to the praise of His glory, is
repeated here as it was after the description of the work of the Father (Eph.
1:6) and of the Son (v. 12).Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible
Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
NASB: Eph 1:15
15 For this reason I too, having heard of the faith
in the Lord Jesus which exists among you, and your love for all the
saints,
15. For this reason refers either to the whole
preceding paragraph, or specially to verse 13: “Because you Ephesians, you
Gentile Christians, have obtained a share in this inheritance, and, after
having believed, have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise …” I—i.e.,
I as well as others, and especially yourselves. The Ephesians might well be
expected to be filled with gratitude for their conversion. The apostle assures
them he joins them in their perpetual thanksgiving over this glorious event.
Ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus.
As Paul was the founder of the church in Ephesus and had labored long in that
city, it has always caused people to wonder that he should speak of having
heard of their faith, as though he had no personal acquaintance with them. This
expression is one of the reasons why many people think, as mentioned in the
Introduction, that this letter was addressed not to the Ephesians alone or
principally, but to all the churches in the western part of Asia Minor. It is,
however, not unnatural that the apostle should speak in this way about so large
and constantly changing a congregation after being absent from them for a time.
Besides, the expression need mean nothing more than that he continued to hear
about their general welfare.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic
Commentaries, 1997.
Reasons for Thanksgiving (1:15–16) Studies of
Paul’s prayers and thanksgivings have drawn attention to certain patterns. One
of these is the combination of faith and love (sometimes
accompanied by “hope”). Paul often mentions these qualities together, both in
prayers and in other contexts (see 2 Cor 8:7; Gal 5:7; 1 Thess 3:6; 2 Thess
1:3; 1 Tim 1:5, 14; 2:15; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 1:13; 2:22; 3:10; Tit 2:2; Philem
5–7; as well as Eph 3:17; 6:23). The combination occurs also in James 2:5 and
Revelation 2:19. Faith and love are joined by hope in the familiar love
passage, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and also in Colossians 1:4 and 1 Thessalonians
1:3 and 5:8. The impact of all this is clear: the biblical writers, and
especially Paul, are concerned with these qualities in the life of Christians.
They are both enjoined and praised where they exist.Walter L. Liefeld, The
IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
In thanking God for their faith in Jesus, Paul is, of
course, praising God for their saving faith. They had been saved by
grace through faith and not by their own hand. Their boast was in Christ alone
(2:8, 9), and that was something to thank God for! But Paul was also giving
thanks for their practical faith. The Ephesian church not only rested
its salvation but also its everyday life on Christ. The Ephesians believed
Christ would take care of them through thick and thin. Their faith was not like
the man who was attempting to cross the frozen St. Lawrence River in Canada.
Unsure whether the ice would hold, the man first tested it by laying one hand
on it. Then he got down on his knees and gingerly began making his way across.
When he got to the middle of the frozen river trembling with fear, he heard a
noise behind him. Looking back, to his horror he saw a team of horses pulling a
carriage down the road toward the river. And upon reaching the river they
didn’t stop, but bolted right onto the ice and past him, while he crouched
there on all fours, turning a deep crimson. If only he had known how firm the
ice really was that day … The Ephesians knew Christ had saved them and could
hold them up, and as a result they were charging straight ahead. For this, Paul
thanked God.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of
the Body of Christ, 1997.
Wherefore I also. This thanksgiving was not simply
an expression of his ardent love to the Ephesians. He congratulated them before
God, that the opinion which he had formed respecting them was highly favorable.
Observe here, that under faith and love Paul includes generally the
whole excellence of Christian character. He uses the expression, faith in
the Lord Jesus, because Christ is
the aim and object of faith. Love ought to embrace all men, but here the
saints are particularly mentioned; because love, when properly
regulated, begins with them, and is afterwards extended to all others. If our
love must have a view to God, the nearer any man approaches to God, the stronger
unquestionably must be his claims to our love.Calvin, John, Calvin’s
Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 1:15–23 constitutes an extended thanksgiving which,
like the preceding berakah,
forms one long sentence. In terms of its overall structure this pericope can be
divided into three major elements: (1) the thanksgiving proper in vv 15, 16a,
followed by (2) an intercessory prayer-report in vv 16b–19, which shades into
(3) confessional material in praise of God’s power in Christ’s resurrection and
exaltation and the use of this material to highlight the role of the Church in
God’s purposes in vv 20–23.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary,
Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.What
functions does the thanksgiving section of 1:15–23 perform? Is it identical to
that of the berakah in
1:3–14 and therefore totally redundant? We have already pointed out that
redundancy of style is a characteristic of the first part of Ephesians, so some
redundancy in regard to its formal elements would not be surprising. It is true
that the thanksgiving does not introduce any totally new themes. However, it
does explicitly mention Christ’s resurrection and exaltation for the first time
and makes clear the relation between Christ’s universal rule and the Church,
also introduced as a specific entity for the first time. In this way the
thanksgiving has a complementary introductory role to the berakah, giving sharper focus to
themes already introduced or only implicit. In other Pauline letters the
thanksgiving period with its prayer-report not only announces the central
message but also anticipates the letter’s main paraenetic thrust. Here in Ephesians
also, the thanksgiving not only continues the announcement of the central
themes, but makes clear, in a way the berakah
does not, why these themes have been introduced. It is in order that the
readers might have a greater knowledge of the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
of the hope, the privileges, and the power that are available to them through
him.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 1:16
16 do not cease
giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers;
Making mention
of you. To thanksgiving, as his custom is, he adds prayer, in order to
excite them to additional progress. It was necessary that the Ephesians should
understand that they had entered upon the proper course. But it was equally
necessary that they should not turn aside to any new scheme of doctrine, or
become indifferent about proceeding farther; for nothing is more dangerous than
to be satisfied with that measure of spiritual benefits which has been already
obtained. Whatever, then, may be the height of our attainments, let them be
always accompanied by the desire of something higher.Calvin, John, Calvin’s
Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
16 Paul assures the Ephesians of his unremitting
remembrance of them in his prayers by way of both thankfulness and
intercession. He had already taken on similar responsibilities in relation to
other churches. "Remembering" (mneian poioumenos) is
"making mention" and implies that those for whom Paul interceded were
actually named before God.
EBCNT
NASB: Eph 1:17
17 that the God of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom
and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.
The God of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah is the
glorious Father, not Yeshua himself. Sha’ul distinguishes God from Yeshua
without contradicting his view that in Yeshua, “bodily, lives the fullness of
all that God is” (Co 2:9&N).The Jewish New Testament Commentary, 1996.
Instead,
revelation continues to be given by God through the Spirit to all believers to
enable them to understand the disclosure of God’s secret and to show them how
to live in the light of it. Certainly the experience of the Spirit’s
illumination, which was restricted to a select few in Israel and is granted
particularly to apostles and prophets in the Church, can also be seen as
belonging to the Church as a whole (cf. Col 1:26; also Barth, 164). The content
of this revelation to all believers is suggested by the petition for the
threefold enlightenment which follows in vv 18, 19.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
The content of Paul’s request is that God may give you
the Spirit of wisdom and revelation. Though the NIV translators interpret
“Spirit” (pneuma) as referring to the Holy Spirit, it is better to see
it as disposition or attitude because of the two genitives following it (“of
wisdom and [of] revelation”; cf. “a gentle spirit” in 1 Cor. 4:21). On the
other hand one cannot obtain a spirit or attitude of wisdom and revelation
apart from the Holy Spirit. As Isaiah wrote, “The Spirit of the Lord will rest
on Him [Messiah]— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord”
(Isa. 11:2). “Wisdom” (sophia; cf. Eph. 1:8; 3:10) gives insight into
the true nature of things, and “revelation” is the unveiling of the object
discussed, namely, God Himself. The purpose in having this wisdom and
revelation is that you may know Him, God, better.Walvoord, John F.,
and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
NASB: Eph 1:18
18 I pray that the
eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of
His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
Knowing Christ is one of the New Testament’s ways
of describing saving faith. Jesus himself said in his High Priestly prayer,
“Now this is eternal life: that they might know you, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3, italics added). Those who
know Christ have eternal life; those who do not know him are without it.
What does knowing Christ involve? It involves knowing more than facts about Christ. I know a lot about President Bush. I know where he went to school. I know what sports he played. I know his chronological history. I know some of his weaknesses and strengths. But I do not know George Bush. The facts are helpful, but they are not enough. Knowing Christ involves more than a passing acquaintance.
I once met a famous movie star (Dick Van Dyke) at a party. I shook hands with him, stood next to him, sized him up (he’s shorter and skinnier than I expected — the magic of the silver screen). I chatted with him. But I do not know Dick Van Dyke — and he certainly does not know me!
To truly know another, there must be mutual knowledge and a mutual exchange. And knowing Christ goes even beyond this. The word “know” here has an Old Testament heritage behind it in which the word yada often expressed sexual intimacy — “Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain” (Genesis 4:1, KJV). It is the spiritual parallel of this that Jesus has in mind in describing those who have eternal life.
Tragically, there are many religious people who believe they are Christians and yet do not know Christ. Jesus warns, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:22, 23).
So the question which must be asked is: Do we really know Christ? Are we in him? Is he in us? Does he know us? (See Galatians 4:9; 1 Corinthians 8:3.) Is there an intimate exchange between him and us?
Of course the Ephesians knew Christ, but Paul is praying
that they might “know him better.” The regular Greek word for personal knowing
is gnosis, but here the
word is intensified with the preposition epi.
Paul is asking for an epignosis
— a “real, deep, full knowledge” — a
“thorough knowledge” (cf. Romans 3:20 and 1 Corinthians 13:12). Paul wants his
beloved Ephesians, who are so full of faith and love, to go deeper and deeper
in their knowledge of Christ.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word:
Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
NASB: Eph 1:19
19 and what is the
surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in
accordance with the working of the strength of His might
Paul proceeds to
collect all the synonyms he can lay hands on as he describes how the power (dynamis)
of God functions according to the operation (energeia) of the strength (kratos)
of his might (ischys). Dynamis is capability or potential; energeia
is effective or operational power (3:7; 4:16); kratos is power exercised in resistance
and control (6:10); ischys, used of
bodily strength and muscular force, is inherent, vital power (6:10).
EBCNT
NASB: Eph 1:20
20 which He
brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at
His right hand in the heavenly places,
Christ alone, therefore, is the mirror in which we can
contemplate that which the weakness of the cross hinders from being clearly
seen in ourselves. When our minds rise to a confident anticipation of
righteousness, salvation, and glory, let us learn to turn them to Christ. We
still lie under the power of death; but he, raised from the dead by heavenly
power, has the dominion of life. We labor under the bondage of sin, and,
surrounded by endless vexations, are engaged in a hard warfare, (1 Timothy
1:18;) but he, sitting at the right hand of the Father, exercises the highest
government in heaven and earth, and triumphs gloriously over the enemies whom
he has subdued and vanquished. We lie here mean and despised; but to him has
been “given a name” (Philippians 2:9,) which angels and men regard with
reverence, and devils and wicked men with dread. We are pressed down here by
the scantiness of all our comforts: but he has been appointed by the Father to
be the sole dispenser of all blessings. For these reasons, we shall find our
advantage in directing our views to Christ, that in him, as in a mirror, we may
see the glorious treasures of Divine grace, and the unmeasurable greatness of
that power, which has not yet been manifested in ourselves.Calvin, John, Calvin’s
Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
h}n ejnhvrghken ejn tw`/ Cristw`/ ejgeivra" aujto;n ejk nekrw`n,
“which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead.” The extent
of the power available to believers has been demonstrated in what God has
already done in Christ, particularly in raising him from the dead and exalting
him. ejnhvrghken
picks up on the cognate noun ejnevrgeia at the end of v 19 and as a perfect
signifies a completed action with a continuing effect. That this act of God in
Christ does have a determinative effect on believers’ understanding of their
own existence will be made clear in 2:5, 6. In delineating what God
accomplished in Christ there is no mention of Christ’s death on the cross.
Clearly this is because the focus of the writer’s attention is on the power
displayed in God’s activity, and in Paul’s thought the cross is primarily connected
with weakness but the resurrection with power (cf. 2 Cor 13:4). Other places in
Paul’s writings which link the resurrection of Christ with the power of God are
1 Cor 6:14, Rom 1:4, and Phil 3:10. Col 2:12 is particularly significant
because it also employs the term ejnevrgeia in connection with God raising Christ
from the dead. The creedal-sounding formulation of 1:20 reflects the dominant
conviction of early Christianity that Christ was alive, and here, as nearly
everywhere else in the NT, his resurrection is seen as an act of God rather
than his own act. Yet the emphasis in the writer’s thought is not on the
resurrection itself but more on the exaltation which receives attention in the
rest of vv 20, 21 and which has such importance for the perspective of this
letter.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Rom 8:11But if the Spirit of Him who raised
Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also
give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.The
Holy Bible, New King James Version,
1982.
John 10:15“As the
Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the
sheep. 16“And other sheep I have
which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My
voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life
that I may take it again. 18“No one
takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and
I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.The
Holy Bible, New King James Version,
1982.
NASB: Eph 1:21
21 far above all
rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not
only in this age, but also in the one to come.
After Jesus’ triumphant resurrection he ministered over a
period of forty days, appearing to groups large and small, teaching them
regarding his Kingdom. But at the end of the forty days he gathered them at
Jerusalem and charged them with this task: “But you will receive power when the
Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). As the echo of his
words faded away, there appeared a luminous cloud, the Shekinah Glory, and
Jesus began to slowly be elevated before their awestruck eyes and was engulfed
in the shimmering cloud as he ascended to Heaven (Acts 1:9–11; Luke 24:50–53;
cf. Revelation 12:1–6). Theologians all agree that this was the official
Ascension of Christ. But some theologians believe there had already been a
secret ascension on Easter morning, so that Jesus’ appearances during the forty
days before his public ascension occurred as he returned intermittently from
Heaven to encourage people.
Whatever the case, all joyously concur that Christ’s exaltation at the Father’s “right hand in the heavenly realms” was unutterably glorious! The “right hand” is a metaphor for the position of highest honor and bliss and glory and authority and power. The writer of Hebrews alludes to Psalm 110:1, which is also in view here, as he sings in wonder, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?” (Hebrews 1:13). The image we have of this exaltation in Ephesians is that of a victory parade (4:7–10). Imagine the music, the perpetual starbursts of color, and the shouting of myriads and myriads of angels at Jesus’ enthronement! Paul puts it in song to Timothy as a confessional statement for the church:
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the
Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
NKJV: Eph 1:21
21far above all principality and power and
might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also
in that which is to come.
Reference to Eph 6:10 where we see the battle that we
face, but Christ is our victor.
NASB: Eph 1:22
22 And He put all
things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to
the church,
22 The apostle underlines the exaltation of Christ
in a further independent sentence that winds up the opening chapter of
Ephesians. The verb hypotasso refers not only to the supremacy of Christ
but also to the subjection of all things to him. Paul has already employed
similar terms (cf. 1Cor 15:27). Psalm 8:6 (LXX) is clearly in his mind (cf. Heb 2:8). The Psalmist affirms man’s dominion on
earth. Here Paul claims that Christ, as God’s new man, has universal dominion.
Man largely forfeited his status through sin but through Christ as the ideal
man he is restored to his proper dignity. So far from constituting a threat to
the realization of true humanity, the Christian gospel provides the only means
by which it can be attained. Only at the end of the age will the consummation
take place when death itself has been finally overcome, yet even now the
Christian becomes a new creation in Christ Jesus (2Cor
5:17).
EBCNT
NASB: Eph 1:23
23 which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.
Which is his
body. This is the radical or formative idea of the church. From this idea
will be developed its nature, its attributes, and its prerogatives. It is the
indwelling of the Spirit of Christ that constitutes the church his body.
And, therefore, only those in whom the Spirit dwells are constituent members of
the true church. But the Spirit does not dwell in church officers, nor
especially in prelates as such, nor in the baptized as such, nor in those who
merely profess true religion externally, but in true believers who, therefore,
constitute that church which is the body of Christ and to which his
attributes and prerogatives belong.
The main question which this verse presents for consideration is, In what sense is the church the fullness of Christ? There are, however, two other points which must be determined first. In the first place, it is the church, and not Christ, to whom the word fullness refers here. Some commentators adopt the following interpretation of the passage: “Christ, the supreme head to the church (which is his body)”; “the fullness—i.e., Christ is the fullness, of him that fills all in all.” But, first, this interpretation violates the grammatical construction of the passage. Second, it tears the clauses apart very unnaturally. Third, it assumes that the last clause of the verse (fills everything in every way) refers to God, whereas it refers to Christ. Fourth, the sense thus obtained is unscriptural (the fullness of the Godhead is said to be in Christ, but Christ is never said to be the fullness of God).
In the second place, the church is here declared to be the fullness of Christ, and not the fullness of God. Some commentators understand the passage thus: “The church, which is the body of Christ, is the fullness of him who fills all in all”—i.e., of God. But to this it is objected, first, that the construction of the passage requires the last clause in the verse to refer to Christ. And, second, this interpretation supposes the word fullness to mean “multitude”: “The multitude belonging to him who fills all in all.” But this is a meaning which the word never has in itself, but only in virtue of the word with which it is sometimes linked. The expression “the multitude of the city” indicates that the city is filled with a multitude, but this does not prove that the word “fullness” itself means a multitude. There is no good reason, then, for departing from the ordinary interpretation, according to which the church is declared to be the fullness of Christ.
There are two principal opinions about the meaning of this phrase, over which commentators are divided. First, the church may be called the fullness of Christ because it is filled by him. As the body is filled or pervaded by the soul, so the church is filled by the Spirit of Christ; or, as God used to dwell in the temple and filled it with his glory, so Christ now dwells in the church and fills it with his presence. The sense is then good and scriptural: “The church is filled by him who fills all in all.” Or, secondly, the church is the fullness of Christ because it fills him; i.e., it completes his mystical person. He is the head; the church is the body. It is the complement, or that which completes or renders whole.
As both these interpretations give a sense that is scriptural and is consistent with the context, the choice between them must be decided principally by the New Testament use of the word “fullness.” The former interpretation supposes that the word has a passive meaning—“that which is filled.” But in every other case in which it occurs in the New Testament, it is used actively—“that which does fill”: in Matthew 9:16, the piece put into an old garment is called its fullness—i.e., that which is put in to fill it up (see kjv); in Mark 6:43, the fragments which filled the baskets are called their “fullness” (see kjv); in John 1:16, “from the fullness” means the plenitude of grace and truth that is in him; in Galatians 4:4, “when the time had fully come” is what completes the specified time; in Colossians 2:9, “all the fullness of the Deity” is all that is in the Deity; in Ephesians 3:19, the fullness of God is that of which God is full—the plenitude of divine perfections; in 1 Corinthians 10:26, “everything in it” is what fills the earth. The normal use of the word in the New Testament is, therefore, clearly in favor of its being taken in an active sense here. The church is the fullness of Christ in that it is the complement of his mystic person. He is the head; the church is his body.
In favor of the other interpretation it may be urged that:
1. In the classics, in Philo, and in the writing of the
Gnostics, “fullness” has, at times, a passive sense.
2. The meaning thus afforded is preferable. It is a more scriptural and more intelligible statement to say that Christ fills the church as the soul pervades the body or as the glory of the Lord filled the temple than to say that the church in any sense fills Christ.
3. “Fullness” must be taken in a sense which suits the word “fills”: “The church is filled by him who fills all things.”
The second and third of these reasons are so strong that it gives this interpretation the preference in the minds of those to whom the New Testament use of the word is not an insuperable objection.
Who fills everything in every way. This clause, as already stated, refers to Christ, as the construction obviously demands. The word fills is taken by almost all commentators in the active sense. This assumption is justified by the context and by the fact that in common Greek the passive forms of this verb are at times used in an active sense. That there is no such case in the New Testament is not, therefore, a sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary interpretation.
The expression everything in every way, or, “all
with all,” does not mean all the church in all its members, or with all grace,
but the universe in all its parts. There is nothing in the context to restrict
or limit everything. The words must have the latitude here which belongs
to them in the preceding verses. The use of this word in Scripture is in favor
of this interpretation. God’s relation to the world, or the totality of things
external to himself, is elsewhere expressed in the same terms; see Jeremiah
23:24, “‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord.” Compare 1 Kings
8:27 and Psalm 139:7. In the New Testament Christ is shown as creating,
sustaining, and pervading the universe (Colossians 1:16–17; Hebrews 1:3;
Ephesians 4:10). This, therefore, determines the sense in which he is here said
to fill all things. It is not that he replenishes all his people with his
grace, but that he fills heaven and earth with his presence. There is no place
where he is not. There is no creature from which he is absent. By him all
things consist; they are upheld by his presence in them and with them. The
union, therefore, which the church sustains, and which is the source of its life
and blessedness, is not with a mere creature but with Christ, God revealed in
the flesh, who pervades and governs all things by his omnipresent power. The
source of life, therefore, for the church is inexhaustible and immorHodge,
Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
NASB: Eph 4:1
4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in
a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,
The opening of chapter 4 marks the principal transition of the entire
Epistle. As is his method in other writings, Paul turns from the doctrinal to
the practical. It must not be imagined, however, that the break is complete.
Theology is not left behind but interwoven with the moral exhortations that
make up the bulk of chapters 4-6. Nor does the
liturgical style, so apparent in chapters 1-3,
disappear altogether. The predominant hortatory element may reflect the content
and method of Paul’s sermons set here in a context of praise and worship. It is
highly significant that the first item on the agenda is the need for Christians
to live together in love and unity. James Montgomery Boice & Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
parakalw` ou\n uJma`", “I exhort you therefore.…” The verb parakalei`n has three major senses in its NT usage. It can
mean “to ask for help, beseech, entreat,” “to comfort,” or, as here, “to
exhort”....As in Rom 12:1, so here in Eph 4:1 the ou\n, “therefore,” indicates that this ethical
exhortation has its source in the earlier chapters’ depiction of what God has done
in Christ for human well-being. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
Here in Ephesians the criterion and the determining factor for believers’
living is to be the call itself. The notion of this call (cf. also 1:18) is
similar to that found in Paul, where it can be used, for example, for God’s
activity in making believers’ predestination effective (cf. Rom 8:30) and in
bringing them into the fellowship of his Son (1 Cor 1:9). Here the passive form
of the verb is a “divine passive,” underlining what is already inherent in the
idea of the call: God’s initiative in bringing humanity to the goal for which
he intended it. The past tense looks back particularly to the readers’
reception of the gospel and of the Spirit, referred to in 1:13. The use of the
language of calling in the context of his ethical appeal indicates that for
this writer God’s sovereign initiative and human responsibility for living
appropriately go hand in hand, so that he would not for one moment have
expected his earlier stress on predestination and election (1:3, 4), and even
on God’s preparation of believers’ good works ahead of time (2:10), to
undermine the seriousness with which his exhortation was to be taken. The
appeal to live worthily of God’s calling presupposes that God’s gracious
initiative requires a continuous human response and that his call bestows both
high privilege and high responsibility. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Here in Ephesians Paul has already made reference to his imprisonment at
the beginning of chapter 3, when he was about to express his prayer for them.
There it may also be a form of persuasion, perhaps covertly urging them to
listen carefully to what he, the prisoner, is going to ask God on their behalf
(so that they will be open to what he desires for them). Walter L. Liefeld, The
IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
Eph 4:2
2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing
forbearance to one another in love,
tapeinofrosuvnh, “humility,” is literally “lowliness of mind,”
and to be contrasted therefore with being high-minded or haughty (cf. uJyhla;
fronei`n in Rom 11:20; 12:16). As is
frequently observed, humility was an attitude that was regarded primarily
negatively in the Greco-Roman world and associated with contemptible servility
(e.g., Josephus, J.W. 4.9.2 § 494; Epictetus, Diss. 1.9.10;
3.24.56). It takes on positive connotations in Jewish thought, however, where
it is associated with the piety of the >aðnaµwïm, the poor, and there are numerous OT references to God’s activity in
bringing down the proud and arrogant and exalting the humble. A spirit of
humility was also valued at Qumran, e.g., 1QS 4.2 (cf. also W. Grundmann, “tapeinov",” TDNT 8 [1972] 1–26). In Phil 2:3 Paul
describes it further as the ability to count others as better than oneself and
gives it a specifically Christian coloring when he illustrates this from the
pattern of Christ’s existence (cf. Phil 2:6–11). It should be clear that this
virtue that is indispensable for Christian community (cf. also 1 Pet 5:5)
assumes a proper sense of self-worth, not weakness of character, and that a
proper evaluation of oneself is based on a realization of one’s own dependence
on the grace of God and on the worth of one’s brothers and sisters in his eyes.
Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
....humility, gentleness, patience, and forbearance. These are all
qualities necessary for good relations with others in the Christian community
and beyond. The word for humility (tapeinophrosyne) occurs five times in
Paul and only once elsewhere in the NT.... The four graces Paul recommends here
are all aspects of love and exemplified to perfection in Christ (Philippians 2:2, 5).
James Montgomery Boice & Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
Gentle is “softness,”
“mildness,” “gentleness” which, when united with strength, is one of the
loveliest attributes of our nature. The blessed Saviour says of himself, “I am
gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29); and the apostle speaks of “the …
gentleness of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:1). Meekness is that unresisting,
uncomplaining disposition of mind which enables us to bear other people’s
faults without irritation or resentment. It is the disposition of which the
lamb, dumb before the shearers, is the symbol and which was one of the most
wonderful of all the virtues of the Son of God. The most exalted of all beings
was the gentlest.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Second, a believer is to be gentle or “meek” (prauteµtos; cf. the adverb of this word in Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim.
2:25 and the noun in Gal. 5:23; Col. 3:12; 1 Peter 3:16). This is the opposite
of self-assertion, rudeness, and harshness. It suggests having one’s emotions
under control. But it does not suggest weakness. It is the mean between one who
is angry all the time and one who is never angry. One who is controlled by God
is angry at the right time but never angry at the wrong time. Moses was known
as the meekest of all men (Num. 12:3, kjv).
Yet he got angry when Israel sinned against God (Ex. 32). Christ was meek and
humble in heart (Matt. 11:29). Yet He became angry because some Jews were using
the temple as a place for thieves (Matt. 21:12-13).Walvoord, John F., and Zuck,
Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary,
1983, 1985.
Phillipians 2:1 If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ,
if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit,
if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same
mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do
nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each
of you regard one another as more important than himself; 4 do not merely
look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who,
although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a
thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and
being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a
man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death
on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the
name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are
in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.The New
American Standard Bible, 1977.
Titus 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to
be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, 2 to malign no one, to be
uncontentious, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 3 For we also
once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts
and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one
another. 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for
mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done
in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration
and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through
Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal lifeThe New American Standard Bible, 1977.
Tapeinophrosuneô (humility) is a compound word that
literally means to
think or judge with lowliness, and hence to have lowliness of mind. John Wesley
observed that “neither the Romans nor the Greeks had a word for humility.” The
very concept was so foreign and abhorrent to their way of thinking that they
had
no term to describe it. Apparently this Greek term was coined by Christians,
probably by Paul himself, to describe a quality for which no other word was
available. To the proud Greeks and Romans, their terms for ignoble, cowardly,
and other such characteristics were sufficient to describe the “unnatural”
person
who did not think of himself with pride and self-satisfaction. When, during the
first several centuries of Christianity, pagan writers borrowed the term
tapeinophrosuneô they always used it derogatorily—frequently of
Christians—because to them humility was a pitiable weakness.
But humility is the most foundational Christian virtue. We cannot
even begin
to please God without humility, just as our Lord Himself could not have pleased
His Father had He not willingly “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-
servant, and … humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:7-8).
Yet humility is terribly elusive, because if focused on too much
it will turn
into pride, its very opposite. Humility is a virtue to be highly sought but
never
claimed, because once claimed it is forfeited. Only Jesus Christ, as the
perfectly
obedient Son, could justifiably claim humility for Himself. “Take My yoke upon
you,” He said, “for I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matt. 11:29). He came to
earth as God’s Son, yet was born in a stable, raised in a peasant family, never
owned property except the garments on His back, and was buried in a borrowed
tomb. At any time He could have exercised His divine rights, prerogatives, and
glory, but in obedience and humility He refused to do so because it would have
been to go outside His Father’s will. If the Lord of glory walked in humility
while He was on earth, how much more are His imperfect followers to do so?
“The one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as
He walked” (1 John 2:6).
MacArthur, John. Ephesians, The MacArthur NT Commentary.
Humility always produces gentleness, or meekness. Meekness is one
of the
surest signs of true humility. You cannot possess meekness without humility,
and
you cannot possess meekness with pride. Because pride and humility are
mutually exclusive, so are pride and meekness, or gentleness.
Many dictionaries define meekness in terms such as “timid, or a
deficiency in
courage or spirit”; but that is far from the biblical meaning. Praoteôs (here
translated gentleness) refers to that which is mild-spirited and
self-controlled, the
opposite of vindictiveness and vengeance. Jesus used the adjective form in
giving
the third beatitude (“Blessed are the gentle,” Matt. 5:5) and to describe His
own
character (“For I am gentle,” Matt. 11:29). Gentleness is one of the
fruits of the
Spirit (Gal. 5:23) and should characterize every child of God (Col. 3:12; cf.
Phil
4:5).
The meaning of praoteôs
has nothing to do with weakness, timidity,
indifference, or cowardice. It was used of wild animals that were tamed,
especially of horses that were broken and trained. Such an animal still has his
strength and spirit, but its will is under the control of its master. The tamed
lion is
still powerful, but his power is under the control of his trainer. The horse
can run
just as fast, but he runs only when and where his master tells him to run.
A third attitude that characterizes the Christian’s worthy walk is patience,
which is an outgrowth of humility and gentleness. Makrothumia (patience)
literally means long-tempered, and is sometimes translated longsuffering. The
patient person endures negative circumstances and never gives in to them.
Abraham received the promise of God but had to wait many years to see its
fulfillment. “Thus,” the writer of Hebrews tells us, “having patiently waited,
he
obtained the promise” (Heb. 6:15). God had promised that Abraham’s
descendants would be a great nation (Gen. 12:2) and yet he was not given Isaac,
the child of promise, until after Abraham was nearly a hundred years old. “Yet,
with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew
strong
in faith, giving glory to God” (Rom. 4:20).
God told Noah to build a ship in the wilderness, far from any body of
water
and before there had ever been rain on earth. For 120 years Noah worked at that
task, while preaching to his neighbors of God’s coming judgment.
In the chronicle of faithful Old Testament saints in the book of Hebrews,
Moses’ patient endurance is mentioned twice. He chose rather “to endure ill-
treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin;
considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt;
for
he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of
the
king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen” (Heb. 11:25-27). MacArthur,
John. Ephesians, The MacArthur NT Commentary.
Eph 4:3
3 being diligent to preserve the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
This is not a call for men and women to build God’s kingdom; it is
a warning to keep, stay within (‘Maintain!’) the unity God has already
inaugurated in Christ (by the events of 2:11–22) and into which we are brought
by the Spirit who brings us Christ and his benefits. The Spirit brings us the
Messianic peace of God-given harmony as a uniting bond. It is a bond,
however, that the author is well aware may be severed by the arrogance,
falsehood, pride and selfish assertiveness he will address in 4:17–5:14.
Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, 1994.
"Peace" is the clasp
that ensures that this God-given unity will not fall apart. The
"bond" (syndesmos) strengthens rather than hampers. In Colossians 2:19 Paul uses it with reference to the
ligaments of the body and in Colossians 3:14
figuratively of the love that holds Christians together. James Montgomery Boice
& Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
spoudavzonte" threi`n
th;n eJnovthta tou` pneuvmato" ejn tw`/ sundevsmw/ th`"
eijrhvnh", “making every effort
to maintain the unity of the Spirit by the bond of peace.” This clause is
parallel to the previous one in that it too begins with a participle and ends
with a prepositional phrase with ejn. The unity of the Spirit involves not the human spirit but the Holy
Spirit, as v 4 makes clear, and is a reference not to the congeniality of some
social grouping but to the unity which God’s Spirit gives and which is the
ground of the Church’s existence. The term efforts, “unity,” occurs in the NT
only here and in v 13 but it becomes a basic Christian concept later in
Ignatius (e.g., Eph. 4.2; 5.1; 14.1; Phld. 2.2; 3.2; 5.2; 8.1;
9.1). So whereas Col 3:14, 15 refer generally to love and peace, Ephesians
distinctively and more specifically speaks of unity. Although this unity is
already given and is not therefore the readers’ own achievement, it must be
preserved and protected. In fact, the force of the participle spoudavzonte" suggests that the maintenance of the unity is to
be a matter of the utmost importance and urgency—“Spare no effort; make it a
priority for your corporate life to maintain the unity of the Spirit.” Such an
exhortation also makes plain that the unity of the Spirit is a reality that is
to be demonstrated visibly. Lincoln,
Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The Nicene Creed was originally the result of the
Council of Nicea in 325 a.d.
While there are similarities between the text of the Nicene Creed and the text
of the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, according to Schaff, is “more
definite and explicit than the Apostles’ Creed in the statement of the divinity
of Christ and the Holy Ghost.” The Nicene Creed provided the needed
clarification to combat the heresies of the Nicene age, and is useful to combat
those same heresies today which invariably reoccur in differing forms.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of
the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things
were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was
incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was
crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the
third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven,
and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory,
to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds
from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one
baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Eph 4:4
4 There is one body and
one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
One body. This is not an
exhortation but a declaration. The meaning is not, “Let us be united in one
body,” or in soul and body; but, as the context requires, it is a simple
declaration. There is one body—namely, one mystical body of
Christ. All believers are in Christ; they are all his members; they constitute
not many, much less conflicting, bodies, but one. “So in Christ we who are many
form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (see Romans 12:5; 1
Corinthians 10:17; 12:27). In Ephesians 1:23 the church is said to be his
body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. As all true
believers are members of this body, and as all are not included in any
one external organization, it is obvious that the one body which the
apostle speaks about is not one outward visible society, but a spiritual body,
of which Christ is the head and all the renewed are members. Therefore, the
relationship in which believers stand to each other is like that which exists
between the different members of the human body. A lack of sympathy is evidence
of a lack of membership.
One Spirit. Again, this
does not mean “one heart.” It is not an exhortation to unanimity of feeling,
nor a declaration that such unanimity exists. The context and analogy of
Scripture, as a comparison of parallel passages reveals, prove that “spirit”
means the Holy Spirit. As there is one body, so there is one Spirit,
who is the life of that body and dwells in all its members. “We were all
baptized by one Spirit,” says the apostle, “into one body—whether Jews or
Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1
Corinthians 12:13). Referring to all believers, he says, “God’s Spirit lives in
you” (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; Romans 8:9–11). There is no teaching in
Scripture more clearly revealed than that the Spirit of God dwells in all
believers and that his presence is the ultimate ground of their unity as
the body of Christ. As the human body is one because it is pervaded by
one soul, so the body of Christ is one because it is pervaded by
the one Spirit, who dwells in everyone and is a common principle of
life. Therefore, all sins against unity are sins against the Holy Spirit. They
pull apart what the Holy Spirit binds together. Our relationship to Christ as
members of his body and our relationship to the Holy Spirit, who is our
life, demand of us that we love our brothers and live at peace with them.Hodge,
Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
The central affirmation of the Old Testament was “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut 6:4), affirmed by
Jesus in Mark 12:29. The title Lord was spoken by devout Jews in place of the
name of God. Early in the New Testament period the same title was applied to
Jesus, not merely as a courteous appellation (like “sir”) but as a designation
of deity. Christians could therefore imply deity by calling Christ Kyrios,
Lord. The phrase “Come, O Lord!” uses the Aramaic word for Lord within the
Greek text of 1 Corinthians 16:22, showing that during Paul’s early Christian
experience, while he was still in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, he became
accustomed to addressing Jesus as Lord.
Several other New Testament texts are extremely important to our
understanding of Christ as Lord:
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, … and there is but one Lord,
Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor
8:6)
No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)
If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)
If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So,
whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ
died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the
living. (Rom 14:8–9)
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9–11)
In these verses the title Lord ascribed to Christ identifies him with the
Lord God of the Old Testament (especially 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3).
In most New Testament contexts faith means trust, but it also came
to apply to the whole body of essential doctrine, as in Jude 3: “I felt I had
to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted
to the saints.” In both senses a proper understanding of Christ is essential.
The word appears again in connection with unity in Ephesians 4:13, where it is
linked with “the knowledge of Christ” and with maturity. There is a logical
continuity from faith in Christ to faith as doctrine. Obviously, since it is a
point of unity, it excludes individualistic, eccentric beliefs.
One baptism does not refer
to the mode of baptism. If it did, the variety of practices in the church today
would seem to nullify this whole part of Ephesians. In the New Testament
period, baptism was performed out of doors and was a visible sign that the
individual being baptized was now identified as a Christian. It was the one public
act that marked all Christians. There is much discussion over the theology of
baptism, its relation to the baptism of the Spirit and so forth, but that does
not affect the significance of baptism in this context. Walter L. Liefeld, The
IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
1 Cor. 16:22 If anyone does not
love the Lord, a curse on him! Maranata! [Our Lord, come!] Jewish NT
reminds us of the centrality of the call to unity with a sevenfold
repetition of the word ‘one’. V 4 is reminiscent of Col. 3:15b, but spelled out
in terms of the major themes of Eph. 2:14–17 (one body); 2:18–22 (one Spirit)
and 1:11–14; 18–23 (one hope). This triad of unities seems to progress from the
visible ‘body’ (the one church universal reconciling Jew and Gentile) to the
invisible Spirit who gives it harmony and peace in Christ (3), and
thence to the future hope of full cosmic harmony of which the Spirit is now
received as but the first instalment (1:13–14). The second triad (5) could well
be a traditional baptismal affirmation sparked by the last thought. (Faith in
Jesus as the one Lord was regularly the focus of baptismal confession (e.g. Acts
2:34–39; 19:5), though there is no reason to assume it was confined to that
occasion. For a Jew to confess Jesus as the one Lord was tantamount to
confessing him as one with the Father, for Jews daily prayed the Shema (Dt.
6:4; cf. Rom. 10:9–12; 1 Cor. 8:4–6).Carson, D.A.; et al., The New
Bible Commentary, 1994.
Eph 4:5
5 one Lord, one faith, one
baptism,
The central affirmation of the Old Testament was “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut 6:4), affirmed by
Jesus in Mark 12:29. The title Lord was spoken by devout Jews in place of the
name of God. Early in the New Testament period the same title was applied to
Jesus, not merely as a courteous appellation (like “sir”) but as a designation
of deity. Christians could therefore imply deity by calling Christ Kyrios,
Lord. The phrase “Come, O Lord!” uses the Aramaic word for Lord within the
Greek text of 1 Corinthians 16:22, showing that during Paul’s early Christian
experience, while he was still in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, he became
accustomed to addressing Jesus as Lord.
Several other New Testament texts are extremely important to our
understanding of Christ as Lord:
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, … and there is but one Lord,
Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor
8:6)
No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)
If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)
If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So,
whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ
died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the
living. (Rom 14:8–9)
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9–11)
In these verses the title Lord ascribed to Christ identifies him with the
Lord God of the Old Testament (especially 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3).
In most New Testament contexts faith means trust, but it also came
to apply to the whole body of essential doctrine, as in Jude 3: “I felt I had
to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted
to the saints.” In both senses a proper understanding of Christ is essential.
The word appears again in connection with unity in Ephesians 4:13, where it is
linked with “the knowledge of Christ” and with maturity. There is a logical
continuity from faith in Christ to faith as doctrine. Obviously, since it is a
point of unity, it excludes individualistic, eccentric beliefs.
One baptism does not refer
to the mode of baptism. If it did, the variety of practices in the church today
would seem to nullify this whole part of Ephesians. In the New Testament
period, baptism was performed out of doors and was a visible sign that the
individual being baptized was now identified as a Christian. It was the one
public act that marked all Christians. There is much discussion over the
theology of baptism, its relation to the baptism of the Spirit and so forth,
but that does not affect the significance of baptism in this context. Walter L.
Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
1 Cor. 16:22 If anyone does not
love the Lord, a curse on him! Maranata! [Our Lord, come!] Jewish NT
The frequent repetition of the word one is emphatic. Christ
cannot be divided. Faith cannot be rent. There are not various baptisms,
but one which is common to all. God cannot cease to be one, and
unchangeable. It cannot but be our duty to cherish holy unity, which is bound
by so many ties. Faith, and baptism, and God the Father, and Christ, ought to
unite us, so as almost to become one man. All these arguments for unity deserve
to be pondered, but cannot be fully explained. I reckon it enough to take a
rapid glance at the apostle’s meaning, leaving the full illustration of it to
the preachers of the gospel. The unity of faith, which is here
mentioned, depends on the one, eternal truth of God, on which it is founded.
One baptism, This does not
mean that Christian baptism is not to be administered more than once, but that
one baptism is common to all; so that, by means of it, we begin to form one
body and one soul. But if that argument has any force, a much stronger one will
be founded on the truth, that the Father, and Son, and Spirit, are one God; for
it is one baptism, which is celebrated in the name of the Three Persons. What
reply will the Arians (Jesus created) or Sabellians ( One God in various forms
at various times: God the Father in O.T., then God the son on the cross, but no
God in heaven, and no H.S.; and now the Holy Spirit but no son or Father.) make
to this argument? Baptism possesses such force as to make us one; and in
baptism, the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit, is invoked.
Will they deny that one Godhead is the foundation of this holy and mysterious
unity? We are compelled to acknowledge, that the ordinance of baptism proves
the existence of Three Persons in one Divine essence.Calvin, John, Calvin’s
Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998. (my
comments)
The “one baptism” is water baptism, the public rite of confession of the
one faith in the one Lord. This baptism is one, not because it has a single
form or is administered on only one occasion, but because it is the initiation
into Christ, into the one body, which all have undergone and as such is a
unifying factor. The connection between baptism and unity is also to be found
in Paul (cf. Gal 3:27, 28; 1 Cor 12:13). The absence of the eucharist from this
series of seven unifying factors is often noted. It is not particularly
significant, since the writer was not attempting to be comprehensive, and
mention of the eucharist neither formed part of the traditional material he
uses nor fits the rhetorical pattern he builds up from that material.Lincoln,
Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
In the Christian church baptisms are not multiplied as with the Jews (Heb 6:2). There are not even two baptisms--one of
John and one of Jesus. There is "one baptism" symbolizing
identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, sealing with the
Spirit, and incorporation into the body of Christ, so that all Christians become
one person in Christ Jesus (Eph 1:13; 2:5, 6; 3:15.) EBCNT
ei\" kuvrio",
miva pivsti", e}n bavptisma,
“one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” In the Greek there is a striking change
from the masculine to the feminine to the neuter of the numeral one, which
gives the whole triad a ringing quality. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
Eph 4:6
4:6.
One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all refers
to God the Father and His relationship to all believers. The fourfold use of
“all” refers to “all believers,” not “all mankind.” Certainly these
characteristics are not common to all people. God is the Father “of” all who
believe; they are His children (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26). And He is “over” all
them as their Sovereign. He lives “through” them and manifests Himself “in”
them.
Two observations should be noted about this list of seven unifying
elements (Eph. 4:4-6). First, the Trinity is an integral part of the list. The
one body of believers is vitalized by one Spirit, so all believers have
one hope. That body is united to its one Lord (Christ) by each member’s
one act of faith, and its identity with Him is depicted by one baptism. One God,
the Father, is supreme over all, operative through all, and resides in all.
All seven components are united in the Trinity.
Second, the order in the listing of the three Persons of the Trinity is
interesting. Paul began with the Holy Spirit rather than with the Father. The
reason for this is that in the preceding verses he was discussing “the unity of
the Spirit” (v. 3) and in verses 7-13 he discussed the gifts of the Spirit. The
same order of Trinity Members is given in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, where Paul also
discussed the gifts of the Spirit. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The
Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983,
1985.
ei\" qeo;" kai;
path;r pavntwn, oJ ejpi; pavntwn kai; dia; pavntwn kai; ejn pa`sin, “one God and Father of all, who is above all
and through all and in all.” Behind this acclamation lies that of Paul in 1 Cor
8:6, which was in turn a Christian modification of the Shema of Deut 6:4. It
contains the characteristically Christian way of speaking of the one God as
Father (cf. also Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). Here in Ephesians it is basically an
affirmation of both God’s supreme transcendence, “above all,” and his pervasive
immanence, “through all and in all.” A number of scholars prefer to take the
“all” references as masculine rather than neuter and therefore as denoting
those in the Church, holding that the preceding context of a discussion of the
Church’s unity requires that any original cosmological meaning has now been
transferred to believers (cf. Meyer, 201; Abbott, 109; S. Hanson, Unity,
155; Masson, 187; Schlier, 189; Ernst, 349, Mitton 143; Mussner, 120;
Schnackenburg, 170). But Ephesians does not completely collapse cosmological
categories into ecclesiological ones, and it may well be better to take “all”
as neuter and as continuing its cosmic connotations from 1:10, 22, 23; 3:9,
which will also occur in 4:10 (cf. also J. A. Robinson, 93–94, 179; Houlden,
309; Gnilka, 204; Barth, 471). Formulations about God which use “all” have a
cosmic reference in Paul (cf. 1 Cor 8:6; 15:28; Rom 11:36), and the elaboration
on the universal fatherhood of God earlier in Eph 3:14, 15 surely tips the
balances against restricting the scope of that fatherhood here. Formulations
relating God to all things may well have been mediated to the Christian
community via the Hellenistic synagogue from Stoicism (cf. Marcus Aurelius
addressing Nature in Medit. 4.23, ejk sou` pavvnta, ejn soi;
pavnta, eij" se; pavnta, “All
things are from you, all things are in you, all things are to you”; and for
further discussion of the notion of God permeating all things, see Comment on 1:23). The God acclaimed by believers
is the universal Father who is at work throughout his world. This confession of
the one universal God means that, despite its distinctiveness from the world
which will be stressed later in the paraenesis, the Church continues to exist
for the world. The writer’s primary purpose must, however, not be forgotten.
The climactic acclamation of the one God in his universality is meant to
provide the most profound ground for the Church’s unity. Paul himself had
reflected on the significance of God’s oneness for the unity of Jew and Gentile
in Rom 3:29, 30. As we noted above, this is similar to Jewish thought in which
monotheism was seen as the source of Israel’s unity (cf. S. Hanson, Unity,
5–23; W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians [New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1983] 165–68). For Ephesians, it is no longer Israel, nor is it the
world with its alienations and divisions, but it is the Church that is the
expression of God’s unity. There is an obvious corollary to such a notion. When
the Church fails to maintain and express unity, it radically undermines the
credibility of its belief in the one God.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
Eph 4:7
7 But to each one of us grace
was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
But to every one. He now
describes the manner in which God establishes and preserves among us a mutual
relation. No member of the body of Christ is endowed with such perfection as to
be able, without the assistance of others, to supply his own necessities. A
certain proportion is allotted to each; and it is only by communicating with
each other, that all enjoy what is sufficient for maintaining their respective
places in the body. The diversity of gifts is discussed in another Epistle, and
very nearly with the same object.
“There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Corinthians
12:4.)
Such a diversity, we are there taught, is so far from injuring, that it
tends to promote and strengthen, the harmony of believers.Calvin, John, Calvin’s
Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
Christ is the giver; he is the source of the spiritual influence
conferring power and the official appointment conferring authority. He,
therefore, is God, because he is the source of the inner life of the church and
of its authority and that of its officers. He is sovereign in the distribution
of his gifts. They are distributed as Christ apportioned it—that is, as
he sees fit to give. This does not depend on our merit or our previous
capacity, nor on our asking, but on his own good pleasure. Paul, who had
previously been a blasphemer and persecutor, was made an apostle. The duty, as
the apostle teaches, which stems from all of this is that every one should be
content with the position given to him, not envying those above him, nor
despising those below him. To refuse to accept the position assigned to us in
the church is to refuse to belong to it at all. If the foot refuses to be the
foot, it does not become the hand but is cut off and perishes. Sympathy is the
rule for everyone who has this common life. If one member suffers, all suffer;
and if one rejoices, all rejoice. We can tell, therefore, whether we belong to
the body of Christ by ascertaining whether we are content with our position and
sympathize with our fellow members.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway
Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Eph 4:8
8 Therefore it says,
“When
He ascended on high,
He led
captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”
Ephesians 4:8 includes a quotation from the Old Testament, which confirms
God’s giving of gifts. Most think it quotes Psalm 68:18 with five minor and two
major changes. The two major variations are the change from the second to the
third person, and the change of direction from having received gifts from men
to the giving of gifts to men. However, it is better to think that Paul
was not quoting one particular verse of the psalm but rather that he was
summarizing all of Psalm 68, which has many words similar to those in Psalm
68:18. The essence of the psalm is that a military victor has the right to give
gifts to those who are identified with him. Christ, having captivated sinful
people by redeeming them, is Victor and gives them as gifts to the church.
Whereas Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 speak of gifts given to believers,
Ephesians 4:7 speaks more of gifted believers given to the church (cf. v. 11).
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
He gave gifts to mankind.
English translations of this line in Psalm 68:19(18) say that God “received
gifts from men”; the Hebrew text, “lakachta matanot ba<adam,” means, literally, “You took gifts in the man.”
Non-Messianic Jews sometimes complain that the New Testament misquotes the Tanakh, but Sha’ul is not alone in changing “took” to “gave.”
The Aramaic of the Targum on Psalms applies the “you” to Moshe and has: “You,
prophet Moshe, ascended to the firmament, you took captives captive, you taught
the words of the Law and gave them as gifts to the children of men.” Likewise,
the Peshitta (the Aramaic version of the Bible dating from the 1st–4th
centuries c.e.) has, “You
ascended on high, led captivity captive and gave gifts to the sons of men.”The
Jewish New Testament Commentary,
1996.
PS 68:18Thou hast
ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for
men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among
them. 19Blessed be
the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our
salvation. Selah. 20He that is our God is the God of
salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death. 21But
God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an
one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The King James Version, 1769.
Dr. Addison Alexander, in his comment on Psalm 68:18, remarks: “To receive
gifts on the one hand and to bestow gifts on the other are
correlative ideas and expressions, so that Paul, in applying this description
of a theocratic triumph to the conquests of the Saviour, substitutes one of
these expressions for the other.” This is perhaps the most natural solution.
The divine writers of the New Testament, filled with the same Spirit which
moved the ancient prophets, are not tied to the mere form but frequently give
the general sense of the passages which they quote. A conqueror always
distributes the spoils he takes; he receives to give. And, therefore, in
depicting the Messiah as a conqueror, it is quite immaterial whether it says,
“He received gifts” or “He gave gifts.” The sense is the same. He is a
conqueror laden with spoils and able to enrich his followers.
The second difficulty connected with this quotation is that Psalm 68 is
not messianic. It does not refer to the Messiah but to the triumphs of God over
his enemies. Yet the apostle not only applies it to Christ but argues that it
must refer to him. This difficulty is resolved in three ways which apply not
only to this but to many similar passages. The first is the typology found in
the old dispensation. It was a shadow of good things to come. There is a
striking analogy between the experience of the ancient people of God in their
journey down into Egypt, their deliverance from slavery, their journey through
the wilderness, and their arrival in Canaan and the experience of the church.
This analogy also prefigured a truth. God’s dealings as the head of the ancient
theocracy were a type which showed his dealings with the church. His delivering
his people, his conquering their enemies, and his enriching his followers with
their spoil were all examples of the more elevated work of Christ. As the Passover
was both commemorative of the deliverance out of Egypt and a type showing the
redemption effected by Christ, so many of the descriptions of the works and
triumphs of God under the old economy are both historical and prophetic. Thus
the Psalm quoted by the apostle is a history of the conquests of God over the
enemies of his ancient people and a prophecy of the conquests of the
Messiah.
The second principle applicable to this and similar cases is the identity
of the Logos
or Son, revealed in the flesh
under the new dispensation, with the revealed Jehovah of the old economy.
Hence, what is said of the one can correctly be said of the other. Therefore,
as Moses says Jehovah led his people through the wilderness, Paul says Christ
led them (1 Corinthians 10:4). As Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah in the
temple, John says he saw the glory of Christ (John 12:41). It is written in the
prophets, “By myself I have sworn … Before me every knee will bow; by me every
tongue will swear” (Isaiah 45:23), and Paul says this proves that we must all
stand before the judgment-seat of Christ (Romans 14:10–11). What in Psalm
102:25–27 is said of God as Creator, and as eternal and immutable, is in
Hebrews 1:10 applied to Christ. On the same principle, what is said in Psalm
68:18 about Jehovah ascending to heaven and leading captivity captive is said
here to refer to Christ. Hodge,
Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
But a careful examination of the Psalm will convince any reader that the
words, he ascended up on high, are applied strictly to God alone.
The whole Psalm may be regarded as an ejpivnikion, a song of triumph, which David sings to God on
account of the victories which he had obtained; but, taking occasion from the
narrative of his own exploits, he makes a passing survey of the astonishing
deliverances which the Lord had formerly wrought for his people. His object is
to shew, that we ought to contemplate in the history of the Church the glorious
power and goodness of God; and among other things he says, Thou hast
ascended on high. (Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
And gave gifts to men. There is rather more difficulty in this clause;
for the words of the Psalm are, “thou hast received gifts for men,”
while the apostle changes this expression into gave gifts, and thus
appears to exhibit an opposite meaning. Still there is no absurdity here; for
Paul does not always quote the exact words of Scripture, but, after referring
to the passage, satisfies himself with conveying the substance of it in his own
language. Now, it is clear that the gifts which David mentions were not received
by God for himself, but for his people; and accordingly we are told, in an
earlier part of the Psalm, that “the spoil” had been “divided” among the families
of Israel. (Psalm 68:12.) Since therefore the intention of receiving was
to give gifts, Paul can hardly be said to have departed from the
substance, whatever alteration there may be in the words.Calvin, John, Calvin’s
Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998. ( Calvin
did not have the targums.)
Eph 4:9
9 (Now this expression, “He
ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower
parts of the earth?
An important textual variant has prw;ton after katevbh, “he descended first,” and has been influential
in the history of interpretation of vv 9, 10. The variant is read in a
c B Cc K P Y 88 104 181 614, the majority of the Latin
manuscripts, and Ambrosiaster, and, via the Textus Receptus, is reproduced in
the kjv. It is omitted, however, in
p46 a
* A C* D G I 082 33 81 Irenaeus Clement Tertullian Origen, and thus on
the weight of the manuscript evidence it is certainly not original. Evidently
an early copyist felt it necessary to add this interpretative gloss because he
wished to make clear that the descent preceded the ascent, whereas in the
original the sequence of the ascent and descent could be taken either way. In a
similar fashion the rsv
translation of katevbh as
a pluperfect, “he had descended,” is an interpretation which obscures the
ambiguity of the original. Lincoln,
Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
John 3:13“No
one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is,
the Son of Man who is in heaven. The
Holy Bible, New King James Version,
1982.
John 6:62 “What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was
before?
F.F. Bruce takes these two verses to mean that in Ephesians Christ
descended to the Earth.
These two verses are parenthetical in thought
because the issue of the passage is the giving of gifts. Before Christ could
ascend He had to descend. What is meant by to the lower, earthly regions, literally,
“into the lower parts of earth”? The genitive “of” can be taken in three ways:
(1) “Into the lower parts, namely, the earth” (a genitive of apposition). This
would refer to Christ’s incarnation, His “descent” to the earth. (2) “Into the
parts lower than the earth” (a genitive of comparison). This would mean that
Christ descended into hades between His death and resurrection. (3) “Into the
lower parts which belong to the earth” (a genitive of possession). This would
refer to Christ’s death and His burial in the grave. The third view best fits
the context because in His death Christ had victory over sin and redeemed those
who would be given as “gifts” to the church.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy
B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary,
1983, 1985.
The depth of Christ’s descent in incarnation is said to be into the
lower parts
of the earth. This reference is presented to provide a striking contrast in
terms of
His ascent far above ail the heavens, emphasizing the extreme range of
our
Lord’s condescension and exaltation. To understand the phrase the lower
parts
of the earth we need only examine its use elsewhere in Scripture. In Psalm
63:9
it has to do with death, being related to falling by the sword (v. 10). In
Matthew
12:40 a similar phrase, “the heart of the earth,” refers to the belly of a
great fish
where the prophet Jonah was kept. In Isaiah 44:23 the phrase refers to the
created
earth containing mountains, forests, and trees. Psalm 139:15 uses it in
reference
to the womb of a woman where God is forming a child. The sum of these uses
indicates that the phrase relates to the created earth as a place of life and death.
In
the majority of the uses it appears in contrast to the highest heavens, as here
and
in Psalm 139:8, 15 and Isaiah 44:23.
The intent of the phrase in this letter is not to point to a specific
place, but to
refer to the depth of the incarnation. It is interesting that each of the uses
of the
phrase outside Ephesians can also relate to the depth of Christ’s incarnation.
He
was formed in the womb (Psa. 139:15), lived on the earth (Isa. 44:23), referred
to
His own burial as a parallel to Jonah’s being in the fish (Matt. 12:40), and
His
death is consistent with the use of the phrase in Psalm 63:9.
It should be noted further that our Lord’s descent went even beyond the
womb, the earth, the grave, and death—to a descent into the very pit of the
demons. Peter sheds light on the meaning of He also descended into the lower
parts of the earth. In his first letter he says, “For Christ also died for
sins once
for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God,
having been
put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went
and
made proclamation to the spirits now in prison” (1 Pet. 3:18-19). Between
Jesus’
death on Calvary and His resurrection in the garden tomb, He was “put to death
in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” He was physically dead but
spiritually
alive. During the three days He was in that state He also descended “and
made
proclamation (from keôrussoô)
to the spirits now in prison.” This does not refer
to preaching the gospel (from euangelizoô) but to making a triumphant
announcement—in this case Christ’s announcement of His victory over the
demons even while they tried to hold Him in death.
The Old Testament refers to the place of the departed dead as Sheol
(Deut.
32:22; Job 26:6; Ps. 16:10; etc.). Part of Sheol was a place of torment and
evil,
occupied by the unrighteous dead and by the demons who had been confined and
bound there because of their wicked cohabitation with women during the period
before the Flood (see Gen. 6:2-5; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). When Christ descended
to
Sheol, He proclaimed His victory, because “He had disarmed the rulers and
authorities [and] made a public display of them, having triumphed over them”
(Col. 2:15; cf. 1 Pet. 3:19). At that time came the announcement to the demons,
both bound and loose (the “angels and authorities and powers”), that they all
were subject to Christ (1 Pet. 3:22; Eph. 1:20-21). To ascend to heaven, He
also
passed through the territory of Satan and his demons in the air (Heb. 4:14 uses
dia, through) and no doubt celebrated His triumph
over them. Whether or not
Paul had this event in mind in his reference here is difficult to establish;
nonetheless, it does demonstrate the depth of Christ’s descent.
Another part of Sheol, though not clearly distinguished from the other by
Old
Testament writers, was believed to be a place of happiness and bliss, inhabited
by
the righteous dead who had believed in God. “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22-
23) and “Paradise” (Luke 23:43) apparently were common designations for Sheol
at the time of Christ. Early church dogma taught that the righteous dead of the
Old Testament could not be taken into the fullness of God’s presence until
Christ
had purchased their redemption on the cross, and that they had waited in this
place for His victory on that day. Figuratively speaking, the early church
Fathers
said that, after announcing His triumph over demons in one part of Sheol, He
then opened the doors of another part of Sheol to release those godly captives.
Like the victorious kings of old, He recaptured the captives and liberated
them,
and henceforth they would live in heaven as eternally free sons of God.
It must be suggested that such a view seems strained in the Ephesian
context,
because the lower parts of the earth is a general phrase and cannot be proven
to
refer to Sheol. MacArthur, John. Ephesians, The MacArthur NT Commentary.
Either that the one who ascended on high also descended into Hades; or
that the one who ascended is the one who earlier descended to incarnation and
humiliation of the cross; or that the one who ascended also then redescended
(in the Spirit) to bring his gifts to humankind. How do we decide?
The phrase ‘the lowest parts of the earth’ is probably rightly
interpreted by the niv and gnb, and especially the reb to mean ‘the lowest level (of the
universe; as seen from heaven), down to the very earth’, and so we should
exclude the first option. The third option is possible, but v 10 suggests that
Christ ascends and fills the universe from heaven (see on 1:23 for this),
rather than that he redescends from it to bring gifts. The second option is
probably to be preferred; the point being that the one who ascended and now
fills the world (and gives the different graces to us) is none other than the
one who first descended in humility to incarnation and death for us (cf. 2:14–17).
His coming (2:17) at the cross and resurrection brought us the Messianic peace,
blessings and graces we enjoy.Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, 1994.
NKJV: Eph 4:10
10He who descended is
also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all
things.)
Higher than all the heavens
clearly means the whole universe—above all that is created, visible and
invisible; above thrones, principalities, and powers. All things, all created
things, are subject to the ascended Redeemer.
He is exalted in this way in order to fill the whole universe. As
the word fill signifies “to fill,” “to fulfill,” “to render perfect,”
and “to accomplish,” these words may mean: 1. That he might fill all
things—i.e., the universe—with his presence and power. 2. That he might fulfill
all the predictions and promises of God about his kingdom. 3. That he might
make everything perfect, replete with grace and goodness. 4. That he might
accomplish all things necessary for the consummation of his work. The first
interpretation is the best one. The words translated the whole universe
correctly means the universe; and if it is made to mean anything else, it must
be because the context demands it, which is not the case here. Secondly, this
passage is evidently parallel with Ephesians 1:23, where it is said also that
Christ is exalted and “fills everything in every way.” Thirdly, the analogy of
Scripture is in favor of this interpretation.
The omnipresence and universal dominion of God are expressed elsewhere in
a similar way. “‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah
23:24). The same wonderful idea is stated in Matthew 28:18, “All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me,” and in Philippians 2:9–10 and many
other places. The apostle here is not speaking (as the Lutherans contend) about
Christ’s body being everywhere, but about the universal presence and power of
the ascended Son of God. It is God clothed in our nature who now exercises this
universal dominion; and, therefore, the apostle may well say of Christ, as the
incarnate God, that he gives gifts to men.
Hodge, Charles, Ephesians:
The Crossway Classic Commentaries,
1997.
Eph 4:11
11 And He gave some as apostles,
and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors
and teachers,
And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some
to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and
expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling
missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers. The Amplified New Testament, 1999.
Now, the one who has been given to the Church as cosmic Lord, himself
gives to the Church to equip it fully for its cosmic task. And to assert that
the ministers are gifts of the exalted Christ, rather than merely officers
created by the Church, is clearly meant to enhance their significance in the
eyes of the readers. As in 1:22, the verb didovgai retains its general sense of “to give” rather
than “to appoint” (see Comment on
1:22). Lincoln, Andrew T., Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
This selection of leaders highlights particularly those who reveal,
declare and teach the gospel. The specific mention, first, that Christ gave
apostles and prophets corresponds with the foundational revealing
function of the ‘apostles and prophets’ in 2:20 and 3:5 (and cf. 1 Cor.
12:28, also with ‘teachers’ as here). Paul wishes his readers to understand
that their revelation of the gospel of cosmic reconciliation is the one that
should continue to shape and unify the church and its teaching. But we are not
free to deduce that Ephesians teaches that apostles and prophets will always be
given to the church (as the Restorationist churches maintain), nor that the
writer regards them merely as figures of the past, with evangelists and pastors
replacing them (as many modern commentators). The latter two are mentioned
because they are the form of church workers the readers have encountered. It
was mainly Paul’s co-worker evangelists, not the apostle himself, through whom
the gospel was revealed to the readers outside Ephesus. And by the end of
Paul’s ministry the term ‘pastor’ was being used alongside ‘overseer/bishop’
and ‘elder’ as rough equivalents for ‘church leader’ (cf. Acts 20:17, 28
where ‘elders’ are called ‘overseers’ who ‘pastor’ the flock). The ‘pastors’
and ‘teachers’ here share a single definite article in the Greek, and this may
suggest they are one group (‘pastors who are also teachers’); but in this
longer listing of different ministries it is more likely that the two groups
with overlapping (i.e. teaching) functions are in view (and ‘teachers’
were a distinct group; 1 Cor. 12:28–29; Gal. 6:6). Shortly after Paul’s time
church leadership crystallized into a threefold ministry of overseer/bishop,
elders and deacons. The absence of these terms from Eph. 4:11 remains strong
evidence that the letter was written in Paul’s day, not later.Carson, D.A.; et
al., The New Bible Commentary,
1994.
Apostles were more than
what we would call “church planters” today. The first people named apostles in
the New Testament were limited in number to twelve, apparently representative
of the twelve tribes of Israel. That could be the reason that after the death
of Judas Iscariot they needed to maintain a membership of twelve (Acts
1:15–26). While it may be debated whether that number was extended to allow
others to have the title apostle in the same sense as the Twelve, at
least Barnabas and Paul were called such (“the apostles Barnabas and Paul,”
Acts 14:14). There were also “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:13; Rev 2:2). While
there are those who do pioneering evangelism and church planting today, the use
of the term apostle (beyond the Twelve) is so sparse in the New
Testament that it may better to refrain from applying it in anything but an
informal way to church or missionary leaders today. Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series:
Ephesians, 1997.
Apostle is used in the New
Testament only of the twelve,
including Matthias, who replaced Judas (Acts 1:26), and of Paul,
who was uniquely set apart as apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:15-
17; cf. 1 Cor. 15:7-9; 2 Cor. 11:5). The qualifications for that
apostleship were having been chosen directly by Christ and
having witnessed the resurrected Christ (Mark 3:13; Acts 1:22-
24). Paul was the last to meet those qualifications (Rom. 1:1; etc.).
It is not possible therefore, as some claim, for there to be apostles
in the church today. Some have observed that the apostles were
like delegates to a constitutional convention. When the convention
is over, the position ceases. When the New Testament was
completed, the office of apostle ceased.
The term apostle is used in a more general sense of other men
in the early church, such as Barnabas (Acts 14:4), Silas and
Timothy (1 Thess. 2:6), and a few other outstanding leaders (Rom.
16:7; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). The false apostles spoken of in 2
Cor. 11:13 no doubt counterfeited this class of apostleship, since
the others were limited to thirteen and were well known. The true
apostles in the second group were called “messengers
(apostoloi) of the churches” (2 Cor. 8:23), whereas the
thirteen were apostles of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; etc.). MacArthur,
John. Ephesians, The MacArthur NT Commentary.
(In reference to prophets )Like the apostles, however, their office
ceased with the completion of the New Testament, just as the Old Testament
prophets disappeared when that testament was completed, some 400 years before
Christ. The church was established “upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone (Eph. 2:20). Once the
foundation was laid, the work of the apostles and prophets was finished. (1
Corinthians, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1984],
pp. 322-24) MacArthur, John. Ephesians,
The MacArthur NT Commentary.
The apostles and the prophets were given to the Church to get her
established, but now their role is assumed by the canonical writings of the New
Testament. The apostles and prophets with their unique endowments did not
extend beyond the apostolic age.
But there is a group which God gives to every generation, and that is
evangelists and pastor/teachers. F. F. Bruce says:
The apostles as an order of the ministry of the church,
were not perpetuated beyond the apostolic age, but the various functions they
discharged did not lapse with their departure, but continued to be performed by
others — notably the evangelists and pastors and teachers.
Today “evangelists” are the obstetricians of the Church — those
gifted in bringing new births. One of the sorrows of our day is that this name
has become a term of derision because of the disgrace of self-styled and
so-called evangelists. To me it is the highest of titles. Billy Graham,
evangelist! Luis Palau, evangelist! All who are gifted in making the gospel
plain and relevant to the lost or helping fearful people share their faith,
evangelists! What marvelous gifts to the Church!Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching
the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
A Bishop, according to 1
Tim. 3:2, should be "an apt teacher." Teaching is an essential part
of the pastoral ministry; it is appropriate, therefore, that the two terms,
"pastors and teachers,"" should be joined together to denote one
order of ministry. The risen Christ is depicted in Matt. 28:19-20 as commanding
the eleven to "make disciples of all the nations" by "teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you:’ The distinction between kerygma
and didache, made familiar in the 1930s by C. H. Dodd, and other
leaders of the biblical theology movement, is not such a mutually exclusive
distinction as has sometimes been implied, but in general the kerygma was
proclaimed by the evangelist, whereas didache was imparted by the
teacher (indeed, since didache is simply "teeaching," the
latter statement would be tautologous). The content of the teaching was wide-ranging:
it included the teaching of Jesus with its implications for Christian belief
and conduct. In Acts 2:42 it is called "the apostles’ teaching," to
which the primitive church of Jerusalem is said to have devoted itself. In Acts
13: 1 five named leaders of the church in Syrian
Antioch (including Barnabas and paul) are described as "prophets and
teachers." As the number of new churches increased, there would have been
a call for more teachers to give young converts the basic instruction they
needed. Bruce, F.F. NICNT, ...Ephesians
NASB: Eph 4:12
12 for the equipping of the
saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with
your bishop—I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature—how much more
do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus
Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in
unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is
deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such
power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore,
that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and
condemned himself. For it is written, “God resisteth the proud.” Let us be
careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that
we may be subject to God. Roberts,
Alexander and Donaldson, James, "Epistle to the Ephesians" chap 5. Ante-Nicene
Fathers: Volume I, 1997.
The past decade or so has witnessed the development of what is called the
church growth movement. Seminars, conferences, books, programs, and even
special organizations are devoted exclusively to teaching and discussing
principles and methods for church growth. Many of the efforts are helpful, but
only to the extent they are consistent with the principles Paul teaches in
Ephesians 4:12-16. Here in its most succinct form is God’s plan by which Christ
produces church growth. Since the Lord said, “I will build My church”
(Matt. 16:18, emphasis added), it is obvious that the building must be
according to His plan. Attempting to build the church by human means only
competes with the work of Christ.
As discussed in the previous chapter, God’s spiritual gifts to His church
include both the individual gifting of every believer as well as the gifted men
called apostles and prophets, who were given strictly for New Testament times
and were followed by the gifted men called evangelists and pastor-teachers, who
are given for continuing ministry to the church (Eph. 4:11). It is God’s plan
for the last two groups of gifted men—the evangelists and pastor-teachers—to
equip, build up, and develop His church by the general operational procedure
set forth in verses 12-16. In this passage we are shown the progression, the
purpose, and the power of God’s divine pattern for the building and function of
His church. MacArthur, John. Ephesians, The MacArthur NT Commentary.
12 These leaders are said
to have been given for three co-ordinate purposes. Christ gave them to equip or
complete the saints; to serve the church’s needs, and to build up the body of
Christ. Traditional Protestant interpretation (now reflected in all the modern
translations including the njb)
has limited the function of the leaders to the first of these, arguing it is
the equipped saints who then minister to the church and build it up, not the
leaders. To propose that the latter are the subject of all three phrases is
taken to be ‘Catholic’ and ‘clericalist’ interpretation. But while any
‘clericalist’ interpretation is clearly excluded by vs 7 and 16 (where the
saints definitely have a part in the building up of the church), it is more
probably the leaders’ functions which are still in view throughout v 12. Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible
Commentary, 1994.
pro;" to;n
katartismo;n tw`n aJgivwn eiJ" e[rgon diakoniva" eiJ"
oijkodomh;n tou` swvmato" tou` cristou`, “for bringing the saints to completion, for the work of service, for
the building up of the body of Christ.” Why does the exalted Christ give the
apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers? Three
reasons follow, each of which has a slightly different focus. Before we pursue
the different nuances of each, we should note that this exegesis has not been
univerally accepted by scholars and that there is an issue surrounding the
intended relationship of the three prepositional phrases and, therefore, the
punctuation of any translation. The view has become popular that the second
prepositional phrase is not to be seen as distinct from the first and that the
two taken together contain one idea, namely that the ministers have been given
to equip the saints to carry out their service. In carrying out their service,
the saints play their part in building up the body—the force of the third
prepositional phrase. In support of this view, appeal is made to the change in
preposition from prov"
to eiJ"
between the first and second phrases, as a sign that the phrases are not
coordinate, to v 7 with its notion that all have received grace for service,
and to v 16 with its emphasis that building up the body is the work of all
believers (cf. Westcott, 62–63; J. A. Robinson, 98–99; Roels, God’s Mission,
192; Bruce, 86; Käsemann, “Epheser 4,
11–16,” 290; Gnilka, 213; Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1973] 100; Barth, 439, 479–81; Caird, 76;
Mitton, 151; Mussner, 127; Bratcher and Nida, Handbook, 102). However,
the change of preposition cannot bear the weight of such an argument, and there
are, in fact, no grammatical or linguistic grounds for making a specific link
between the first and second phrases. An active role for all believers is
safeguarded by vv 7, 16, but the primary context here in v 12 is the function and
role of Christ’s specific gifts, the ministers, not that of all the saints. In
line with this, as we shall see, katartismov", “completion,” has a meaning which does not
require supplementing by a further phrase, and diakoniva, “service,” is more likely to refer to the ministry
of the ministers just named. What is more, to string together a number
of prepositional phrases, all dependent on the main verb and coordinate with
each other, is a characteristic feature of this writer’s style. Three such
phrases are found in 1:3; 1:20, 21; 2:7 and, significantly, in the following
verses here, 4:13 and 4:14, as well as four in 6:12 and five in 1:5, 6. It is
certainly preferable, therefore, to see the three prepositional phrases here as
each dependent on the notion of the giving of ministers, and hard to avoid the
suspicion that opting for the other view is too often motivated by a zeal to
avoid clericalism and to support a “democratic” model of the Church (cf. also,
Abbott. 119; Dibelius, 82; S. Hanson, Unity, 157; Masson, 192–93;
Schlier, 198–99; Ernst, 356; Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 76; Schnackenburg, 186; “Christus,” 295;
Hamann, Concordia Journal 14 [1988] 42–49). There is no reason, however,
for making a distinction between the pastors and teachers and the other three
groups of ministers and deciding either that the first two prepositional
phrases relate only to the pastors and teachers, while the third applies to the
task of all five types of ministers (Dibelius, 82), or that the last two
phrases describe the role of all the ministers, while the first relates only to
the pastors and teachers (Masson, 192–93). The writer is taking a general view
of all the ministers given by Christ and describes the activity such ministers
were intended to perform in three different ways, with the change from prov" to eij" in the introductory preposition most likely
being simply a variation in style.
Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 4:13
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature
which belongs to the fulness of Christ.
Gifted people are to minister till all the church attains (reach
translates katanteµsoµmen, used in Acts
of travelers arriving at their destinations) the three goals, each introduced
by the Greek preposition (eis, “unto”): literally, (1) “unto the unity
of the faith (cf. Eph. 4:5) and full knowledge (epignoµseoµs; cf. 1:17) of the Son of God, ” (2) “unto a
mature man,” and (3) “unto the measure (metron; cf. 4:7,
16) of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” As each believer
functions in accord with the gift(s) Christ has given him (v. 7) the body as a
whole enjoys unity (cf. vv. 3-6) and becomes more spiritually mature (cf. v.
15), more like Jesus Christ in all His fullness (cf. 1:23; 3:19). Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The
Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983,
1985.
Into a perfect man. This
must be read in immediate connection with what goes before; as if he had said,
“What is the highest perfection of Christians? How is that perfection
attained?” Full manhood is found in Christ; for foolish men do not, in a proper
manner, seek their perfection in Christ. It ought to be held as a fixed
principle among us, that all that is out of Christ is hurtful and destructive.
Whoever is a man in Christ, is, in every respect, a perfect man.
The AGE of fullness means
— full or mature age. No mention is made of old age, for in the Christian
progress no place for it is found. Whatever becomes old has a tendency to
decay; but the vigor of this spiritual life is continually advancing.
Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
The idea is of the whole Church moving toward the appropriation of all
that is contained in its one faith. Similarly, attaining to the unity of the
knowledge of the Son of God is likely to mean appropriating all that is
involved in the salvation which centers in Christ (cf. Col 2:2, 3, which speaks
of the knowledge of Christ in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge), and since there is one Lord (v 5), full knowledge of what is given
in him will also have the quality of oneness. Earlier in his two intercessory
prayers, the writer has spelled out a number of aspects of this one knowledge
that he desires his readers to possess (cf. 1:17–19; 3:16–19). In the earlier
passages such knowledge was regarded primarily as a gift to be received, but
now it is also viewed as a goal to be reached. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
But these three terms, “maturity,” knowledge and unity, are
not abstract idealizations. Each has a specific referent. To take them in the
order of verse 13, unity is in the faith. The definite article
refers here to faith as a body of doctrine, not to faith as an act of trust
(compare v. 5). Christians are not called to maintain unity with those who do
not hold to the faith, which is, in all the New Testament and early
church confessions, linked with the person and work of Christ. But we are
called to transcend noncrucial differences (such as mode of baptism, kind of
ministry, style of worship) for the sake of unity.
Likewise, the knowledge has a specific object: the Son of God.
Ephesians refers to Christ in different terms, but this is the first time it
uses this one, so familiar from other parts of the New Testament. Two reasons
for its use here seem probable. One is that verse 14* will warn the readers
about false teachers, and the divine sonship of Christ is always doctrinally crucial.
Another is that this passage deals with future growth, and the full
comprehension of the exalted Son of God is a goal to which Christians will
always press. Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series:
Ephesians, 1997.
Eph 4:14
14 As a result, we are no
longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by
every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful
scheming;
By making v 14 a new paragraph, and by starting it with the word then
(replacing a Greek word which means ‘so that’), the niv again suggests a future golden era for the historical
church. But vs 14–16 are still part of the same single sentence begun in v 11,
and the line of thought is more subtle. It is that Christ gave the leaders in
the meantime to provide the direction the gospel and our hope point in. He gave
them ‘so that’ we may no longer be trapped in the immaturity of infancy (prey
to every pressure) but begin to grow up towards the anticipated maturity, that
is, into the very likeness of Christ. While the imagery so far could almost
suggest that the church grows towards an independent manhood like Christ’s,
the switch of imagery at the end of v 15 reminds the reader that Jesus is Lord
(head) of the whole process, and the church is intended to grow into
more intimate union with him. Paul closes the paragraph with a revised form of
Col. 2:19, which attempts to sum up everything said so far. Carson, D.A.; et
al., The New Bible Commentary,
1994.
That we may be no more children. Having spoken of that perfect manhood, towards which we are proceeding
throughout the whole course of our life, he reminds us that, during such a
progress, we ought not to resemble children. An intervening period is thus
pointed out between childhood and man’s estate. Those are “children” who have
not yet advanced a step in the way of the Lord, but who still hesitate, — who
have not yet determined what road they ought to choose, but move sometimes in
one direction and sometimes in another, always doubtful, always wavering.
Those, again, who are thoroughly founded in the doctrine of Christ, though not
yet perfect, have so much wisdom and vigor as to choose properly, and proceed
steadily, in the right course. Thus we find that the life of believers, marked
by a constant desire and progress towards those attainments which they shall
ultimately reach, bears a resemblance to youth. At no period of this life are
we men. But let not such a statement be carried to the other extreme, as if
there were no progress beyond childhood. After being born to Christ, we ought
to grow, so as “not to be children in understanding.” (1 Corinthians 14:20.)
Hence it appears what kind of Christianity the Popish system must be, when the
pastors labor, to the utmost of their power, to keep the people in absolute
infancy.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
The use of the imagery of wind and waves for instability was common and
is found elsewhere in the NT in Jas 1:6, where it depicts the instability of
doubt. But the sort of vocabulary contained in this passage is also employed in
warnings against false teachers in Jude 12, 13 and Heb 13:9. Here in Ephesians,
it is every wind of teaching that is pictured as gusting immature believers
about. The use of the singular of didaskaliva, “teaching,” and of the definite article with
it, has been seen as an indication that it is the Christian teaching that is in
view, though this teaching is being used for perverted ends (cf. Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 107, followed by Schnackenburg, 189). It is
true that the singular is employed when Christian teaching is under discussion
in Rom 12:7; 15:4 and becomes almost a technical term in the Pastorals, though
frequently accompanied by the adjective “sound” (cf. 1 Tim 1:10; 4:6, 13, 16;
5:17; 6:1; 2 Tim 3:16; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7), whereas the plural is used of
false teaching in Matt 15:9; Mark 7:7; Col 2:22; and 1 Tim 4:1. But this does
not sufficiently take into consideration the influence of Col 2:22 on the
wording of Eph 4:14 (see above under Form/Structure/Setting) and ignores
the force of the adjective “every” in the phrase “every wind of teaching,”
which suggests any and all kinds of teaching in contrast to the unity of faith
and knowledge of which the writer has spoken. It is better, therefore, with the
majority of commentators to take this as a reference to false teaching in the
guise of the various religious philosophies which threatened to assimilate, and
thereby dilute or undermine, the Pauline gospel. The only other clue in the
letter about the nature of this teaching, the warning of 5:6–13, suggests that
the writer was perhaps more worried about its ethical consequences than
anything else. The lack of specificity about such teaching does not mean that
it was thought of as only a remote possibility. It is more likely that the
writer deemed it a constant general threat. After all, he knew what had
happened in the case of the Colossian church. Indeed, the warnings of Acts
20:29, 30; 1 Tim 1:3, 4; 6:3–5, 20 attest to problems with false teaching in
the churches of this area in the post-apostolic period.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
In truth and love together, then, the readers are exhorted to grow up in
all parts of their being so that the body of Christ may be properly
proportioned in relation to the head. This idea of the growth of the body of
Christ until it matches the head has been compared to the normal development of
the human body: in infancy the body is small in comparison with the head, but
it grows until it attains the proportions which the body bears to the head in a
fully grown human being." This analogy may be helpful up to a point, but
the language used here about the interrelation of body and head is conditioned
by the relation existing between Christ and his people. They grow up to the
measure of his full stature, but at the same time it is from him that they draw
the resources necessary for growth. Christ is the head, but the full man
comprises both head and body, so Christ the head is also, from another point of
view, Christ corporate. Bruce, F.F. NICNT, The Epistles to ...Ephesians
Eph 4:15
15 but speaking the truth in
love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even
Christ,
A conceptual link with the notion of growth is to be found here in any
case, since the whole clause, “speaking the truth in love,” should be
understood as the means of the Church’s growth. The association of truth and
love in this clause is a significant one. Any claim to loyalty to truth which
results in lack of love to those perceived to be disloyal stands as much
condemned as any claim to all-embracing love which is indifferent to truth. But
it is not as if two competing claims or two quite different qualities have to be
held in balance. Ultimately, at the heart of the proclamation of the truth is
love, and a life of love is the embodiment of the truth. The Church reflects
this relationship when its witness to the truth has love as its style and as
its power (cf. also Schnackenburg, 191).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
NASB: Eph 4:16
16
from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every
joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes
the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
When applied to the human body they would be ‘joints,’ provided that we
use the word accurately of the relations between contiguous links, and not
loosely [as it is often used] of the parts of the limbs themselves in the
neighbourhood of the contact”). Each ligament is seen as a means of support or
supply for the other parts of the body. ejpicorhgiva occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Phil 1:19,
where it means “help,” “supply,” or “support.” But the cognate verb, in
addition to its participial form in Col 2:19, is found in Paul’s writings in
Gal 3:5 and 2 Cor 9:10, where it is best translated as “to supply.” Here the
genitive phrase th`" ejpicorhgiva", literally “of supply,” should be understood in
an active sense, referring to the ligaments giving supply rather than their
being supplied to the body (cf. also Schlier, 208; Gnilka, 219; Klauck, Wissenschaft und
Weisheit 36 [1973] 103;
Schnackenburg, 192). In this way, the writer pictures the ligaments functioning
to provide the connections between the various parts and thereby mediating life
and energizing power throughout the body. In the light of the earlier part of
the pericope, this is to be seen as an image of the ministers who have been
given to help maintain unity and enable growth to maturity (cf. also Schlier,
207–8; Masson, 199; Gnilka, 220; Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1973] 103; Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 114–15; Schnackenburg, 193; Mussner, 131). It
is true that ministers are unlikely to be the reference of the joints and
ligaments of Col 2:19 (cf. Schweizer, Colossians, 164; O’Brien, Colossians,
147). But the writer of Ephesians has placed much greater emphasis on this
aspect of the body metaphor by adding pa`", “every” or “each,” by moving this prepositional
phrase to a position after the two participles and immediately before the
verbal expression, “makes bodily growth,” by omitting the accompanying
reference to joints, and by underlining the mediating function of the ligaments
through the addition of the substantive expression “of supply” in comparison
with the cognate participial formulation of Col 2:19. These modifications and
the context in Eph 4 make it highly probable that what is being highlighted is
the role of the ministers in the whole body ruled and nourished by Christ and
that, just as in v 11 the giving of Christ was embodied in particular persons,
so here in v 16 the growth from Christ is mediated by particular
persons.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
(125) But all these statements are uttered in a metaphorical form, and
contain an allegorical meaning. For as in an animal the head is the first and
best part, and the tail the last and worst part, or rather no part at all,
inasmuch as it does not complete the number of the limbs, being only a broom to
sweep away what flies against it; so in the same manner what is said here is
that the virtuous man shall be the head of the human race whether he be a single
man or a whole people. And that all others, being as it were parts of the body,
are only vivified by the powers existing in the head and superior portions of
the body. Philo Judaeus, The Works
of Philo, 1997.
...through all its joints or ligaments the means necessary for its
development how from the head into every limb and organ. The thought is
identical with that of Col. 2: 19 (the wording of which indeed is closely
followed): from the head, Paul says there, "the whole body, supplied and
fitted together through the joints and ligaments, grows with the growth that
comes from God." It is not from the head, important as it is, that the
natural body receives all the supplies requisite for health and development;
but it is indeed from the living Christ that his people receive (through the
Spirit) all that they need to make them effectively his people.This is true of
his people as a whole, and it is true of each individual believer. The body
"grows effectively” - grows by the inner strength that he supplies--
"according to the due measure of each separate part." Each one
functions best in union with him and with the others. The bond that unites the
members one with another is the bond of love--the love of Christ constraining
them (2 Cor. 5:14), that only by love can the
body be built up to his stature. Bruce, F.F. NICNT
. That does not negate the efforts of believers, as proved by the phrases
by that which every joint supplies and according to the proper
working of each individual part. Each of these phrases is extremely
significant in conveying truth about the function of the Body. Christ holds the
Body together and makes it function by that which every joint supplies.
That is to say, the joints are points of contrast, the joining together or
union where the spiritual supply, resources, and gifts of the Holy Spirit pass
from one member to another, providing the flow of ministry that produces
growth.
The proper working of each individual part recalls the importance
of each believer’s gift (v. 7; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27). The growth of the church
is not a result of clever methods but of every member of the Body fully using
his spiritual gift in close contact with other believers. Christ is the source
of the life and power and growth of the church, which He facilitates through
each believer’s gifts and mutual ministry in joints touching other
believers. The power in the church flows from the Lord through individual
believers and relationships between believers. MacArthur, John. NT Commetary: Ephesians.
Eph 4:17
17 This I say therefore, and affirm
together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk,
in the futility of their mind,
The Ephesian believers who were Gentiles (2:1-2, 11-12) were not to walk as
the Gentiles do, or as implied, as they had once walked. Gentiles walked in
the futility of their thinking. The word for “futility” (mataioteµti; cf. Rom. 1:21) suggests being void of useful aim
or goal. (This noun is used only here and in Rom. 8:20 [of Creation] and 2
Peter 2:18 [of words]. The verb mataiooµ is
used in Rom. 1:21, “their thinking became futile.”) Unbelieving Gentiles failed
to attain the true purpose of the mind, namely, to receive God’s revelation
which would guide them in their conduct. Since their minds could not receive God’s
revelation, their understanding was darkened (Rom. 1:21; 2 Cor.
4:4), being separated (lit., “alienated”; cf. Eph. 2:12) from the
life of (that comes from) God. Their alienation is because of their
ignorance of God (cf. 1 Peter 1:14); and this is because of the
hardening of their hearts, their being insensitive to God and His
ways.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
What a withering description! That kind of life, life apart from God, is
a downward spiral which begins, as John Stott has outlined it, with 1) hardness
of heart and then moves to 2) darkness of heart, and then 3) deadness,
and finally 4) recklessness — unrestrained abandonment to sin.
Some have questioned whether this chilling description is really true of
the world apart from Christ. Others have called it an outright exaggeration. It
is true that not all those who live apart from Christ and without grace go to
the depths mentioned here. Yet, this is a valid portrait of pagan, Gentile life
in general. In fact, all lives without Christ are dominated by sin. Moreover,
the pagans of Paul’s time would not disagree with these charges, as such
documents as the letter of Aristides eloquently attest. Today’s tabloids and
newspapers confirm the same terrible truths about our world: hardness —
darkness — deadness — recklessness.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word:
Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
NASB: Eph 4:18
18 being darkened in their
understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is
in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
Rom 1:18For
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because
what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to
them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were
darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible
man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24Therefore
God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor
their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for
the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is
blessed forever. Amen.The
Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
Compare these verses with the very similar Rom. 1:18–32 (esp. 1:21, 24).
You may observe that here, as befits an appeal, there is greater stress on the
human responsibility in abandonment to sin (cf. Rom. 1:24, 26, 28, ‘God
gave them over to … ’ with v 19 they have given themselves over to … ).
As with Romans the problem is traced to idolatrous thinking (the word futility
in v 17 would immediately suggest this to a Jewish writer), culpable
ignorance of God, and ‘hardness of heart’. In Scripture this latter phrase
means sheer rebelliousness, not emotional insensitivity (cf. the promise
in Ezk. 36:26–27). This leads to further darkened understanding as God is
displaced from the central position he should occupy. This in turn leads to
failure of the human conscience and the downward spiral in sin (19). All is
summed up in one of the key words of the letter: ‘alienated’ (18). (niv separated; cf. 2:12
and Col. 1:21.)Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, 1994.
Eph 4:19
19 and they, having become
callous, have given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every
kind of impurity with greediness.
As in Rom 1:24–32, the abuse of sexuality is highlighted in illustrating
the degradation resulting from failure to acknowledge the Creator. For the use
of the term in Jewish literature, cf. Wis 14:26; 3 Macc 2:26; Lincoln, Andrew
T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Wis 14:1 Again, one
preparing himself to sail, and about to pass through the raging waves, calleth
upon a piece of wood more rotten than the vessel that carrieth him...23 For
whilst they slew their children in sacrifices, or used secret ceremonies, or
made revellings of strange rites; 24 They kept neither lives nor
marriages any longer undefiled: but either one slew another traiterously, or
grieved him by adultery. 25 So that there reigned in all men without
exception blood, manslaughter, theft, and dissimulation, corruption,
unfaithfulness, tumults, perjury, The King James Version Apocrypha, 1995.
Eph 4:20
20 But you did not learn
Christ in this way,
uJmei`" de; oujc
ou{tw" ejmavqete to;n Cristovn,
“But that is not the way you learned Christ.” The contrast to the readers’
previous Gentile lifestyle begins forcefully—uJmei\"
de; oujc…, lit. “but you not.…” Yet
the immediate contrast that follows is made not through an equivalent depiction
of Christian conduct but through a reminder of the readers’ instruction in that
conduct.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The expression is "to learn Christ" (emathete tou Christou),
which implies more than receiving catechetical instruction, though that is
included. It is to learn in such a way as to become a devotee or disciple (mathetes).
It was the Christ they thus came to know--God’s anointed Son, no longer
the prerogative of the Jews but shared by the Gentiles.
The expression is "to learn Christ" (emathete tou Christou),
which implies more than receiving catechetical instruction, though that is
included. It is to learn in such a way as to become a devotee or disciple (mathetes).
It was the Christ they thus came to know--God’s anointed Son, no longer
the prerogative of the Jews but shared by the Gentiles. James Montgomery Boice & Skevington
Wood, EBCNT.
Eph 4:21
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just
as truth is in Jesus,
Paul here is not refering to people that he knew personally, but to new
converts who were possibly at this time preparing for Baptism. F.F. Bruce makes this point and offers a
good explaination of Eph 3:2.
uJmei`"
de; oujc ou{tw" ejmavqete to;n Cristovn, “But that is not the way you learned Christ.” The contrast to the
readers’ previous Gentile lifestyle begins forcefully—uJmei\"
de; oujc…, lit. “but you not.…” Yet
the immediate contrast that follows is made not through an equivalent depiction
of Christian conduct but through a reminder of the readers’ instruction in that
conduct. kaqwv"
ejstin ajlhvqeia ejn tw`/ ÆIhsou`,
“as the truth is in Jesus.” Because of the anarthrous ajlhvqeia, the use of the name Jesus, and questions about
the relation of kaqwv"
to what precedes, scholars have made heavy weather of the syntax and
interpretation of this clause (cf., e.g., the spirited correspondence about it
between Westcott and Hort, reproduced in the former’s commentary [70–71], where
Hort felt forced to propose an emendation; the article by I. de la Potterie in
AnBib 18 [1963] 45–67, which provides discussion of some of the issues; and
Barth, 505, 533–36, who resorts to taking kaqwv" as an introductory formula for a citation which
begins, “Truth in Jesus!” and includes vv 22–24, apparently ignoring the
dependence of these verses on Colossians). The translation given above—“as the
truth is in Jesus”—appears to be the most straightforward and to make the most
sense (cf. also av, rsv). Other major translations sense
rightly that the gist of the clause is about the content of Christian truth
being summed up in Jesus. But from the translations which make the truth the
direct object of “were taught” and drop “in him” from the previous clause (cf. neb, “were … taught the truth as it is
in Jesus”; jb, “were taught what
the truth is in Jesus”; gnb,
“were taught the truth that is in Jesus”), the reader would never suppose that
the original contained the adverb kaqwv". The objection that is often raised against our
translation, however, is that since ajlhvqeia is without an article it cannot be the subject
of the clause but has to be the predicate (cf. de la Potterie, AnBib 18 [1963]
48; Gnilka, 228 n. 3; Caird, 80) Certainly, one of the major reasons for ajlhvqeia being anarthrous here could be that it forms the
predicate, but if so a subject needs to be supplied. The only real options for
this clause would be “as he is truth in Jesus,” referring back to the “him,”
i.e., Christ, of the preceding clause, or the more general “as there is truth
in Jesus.” The meaning “as Christ is truth in Jesus,” despite its support from
de la Potterie (AnBib 18 [1963] 48) and possibly Schlier (216) is barely
intelligible, even on what we shall see is their unlikely assumption that this
is a polemical statement against a Gnostic Christology. It is made more
unlikely still when de la Potterie has to introduce a comma after “truth” to
achieve his proposed meaning of “in the way that Christ is truth, namely in
Jesus.” The meaning of “as there is truth in Jesus” (cf. Westcott, 67, 70) is clear;
the problem with it is that it seems to be too indefinite an assertion to have
been intended here, “a strange understatement,” as Hort puts it (Westcott, 71).
Given the unconvincing nature of these alternatives, it becomes necessary
to look again at the issue of the anarthrous ajlhvqeia and to ask whether any explanations of it other
than as a predicate are possible. It then becomes clear that the objection to
our translation has been stated too strongly. ajlhvqeia, like other nouns, can be used anarthrously in
the Pauline corpus for a number of different reasons—as a predicate (2 Cor
7:14c), with a verb of speaking (Eph 4:25; Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 12:6; 1 Tim 2:7b),
after a preposition (Eph 5:9; 6:14; Rom 2:2; 2 Cor 7:14; Col 1:6; 1 Tim 2:7c),
in genitive constructions (Rom 15:8; 1 Cor 5:8; 2 Cor 6:7; 11:10; 2 Thess 2:13;
1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1), with adverbial force (Phil 1:18), and,
apparently, simply because it is an abstract noun (Gal 5:7). It is this last
usage which is most instructive for discussion of the syntax of Eph 4:21. Paul
frequently omits the article with abstract nouns such as “sin” or “grace” (cf.
BDF § 258), and the writer of Ephesians can, for example, alternate between the
anarthrous and the arthrous use of cavri" in 2:5, 8. There is, therefore, no decisive
grammatical reason why ajlhvqeia in Eph 4:21 should not be seen as an instance of
this sort of usage and be treated as the subject of the clause (cf. also Moule,
Idiom-Book, 111–12, who concludes that “in such instances it is hard to
avoid the impression that usage [i.e., of the article] is arbitrary” and finds
no objection to construing ajlhvqeia in Eph 4:21 as though it had been hJ
ajlhvqeia).
Similarly, too much should not be made of the use of the name Jesus. It
is likely to be a stylistic variation and should not immediately be assumed to
have major theological significance. To hold such a view is to swim against the
stream of recent scholarship. It is usually asserted that since this is the
only instance of the name Jesus by itself in Ephesians, the writer’s change to
this appellation must not only be deliberate but also theologically
significant. There are two views of what this significance is. The first has
been mentioned already. It argues that the clause is aimed at Gnostic teaching
that made a sharp divide between the heavenly Christ and the earthly Jesus (cf.
Schlier, 217; de la Potterie, AnBib 18 [1963] 53; Gnilka. 228). That some such
Christological point needed to be made in some contexts in the first century is
possible (cf. 1 John 2:22; 4:3), but whether the teaching it would be aimed at
is best described as Gnostic is another matter. It is also another matter
whether such a polemical point is likely in a letter which nowhere else appears
to combat Gnosticism, in a context where the emphasis is not Christological but
paraenetic, and where there is no indication that Gentile attraction to the
immorality described in vv 17–19 is because of some mistaken Christology. It is
also in a form so cryptic as to make one wonder whether the original readers
would have caught its force. The second view also argues that the change to the
name Jesus is to draw attention to the earthly Jesus rather than the risen
Christ, but that the point being made is that the truth of the tradition, and
particularly its ethical aspects, is not just determined by the idea of Christ
but has its roots in the life and death of the historical Jesus or contains
teaching from the historical Jesus (cf. Larsson, Christus, 226 n. 2;
Ernst, 363; Mitton, 163; Schnackenburg, 203; Mussner, 136). (Caird, 80, has his
own version of a reference to the historical Jesus, arguing that the writer’s
point is that the teaching about putting off the old person and putting on the
new first took place literally in the death and resurrection of Jesus—“just as
was literally true in the case of Jesus.” But Caird’s interpretation requires
far too much eisegesis, and the syntax will simply not support it.) If there
were to be any significance at all to the variation in name, then this latter
view would be preferable, although some versions of it are in danger of reading
back too much of the modern debate about the historical Jesus. But although
this is the only occasion on which the simple name Jesus appears by itself in
Ephesians (but cf. “Lord Jesus” in 1:15), it must be doubted whether the
variation is in fact capable of bearing this weight. In Paul the simple name
Jesus appears in 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14; Gal 6:17; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5, 10, 11,
14; 11:4; Rom 3:26, 8:11, Phil 2:10. In some of these texts it is clear that
Paul is drawing on a traditional formulation, but despite various scholarly
assertions to the contrary (e.g., Schlier, 217 n. 3; de la Potterie, AnBib 18
[1963] 53), in the others and particularly in 2 Cor 4 there is no clearcut
theological reason for the shift between Christ and Jesus. Nor for that matter
is there any special significance in the shift between either of these and
Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ. The best explanation for the variation in Paul as
well as here in Eph 4:20, 21 is stylistic (cf. also Bruce, Epistles,
357: “it is difficult to discern any distinction in emphasis between ‘in
Christ’ and ‘in Jesus’ ”). Having described the tradition in which the readers
were taught in terms of Christ (vv 20, 21a), the writer can now also talk of
that same tradition as summed up in Jesus (v 21b). In other words, to learn the
gospel tradition is to be taught in Christ or to be taught the truth in Jesus.
Probably more significant than the use of the name Jesus is the
introduction of the concept of truth in this context. As has been noted, ajlhvqeia occurred earlier in connection with ajkouvein in 1:13, “having heard the word of truth,” where
this word of truth was immediately explained as “the gospel of your salvation”
(cf. also Col 1:5, 6), and “truth” has this same force in Paul in Gal 2:5, 14;
5:7; 2 Thess 2:10, 12, 13. Truth as the content of the gospel and of the
apostolic tradition through which that gospel is transmitted becomes the main
focus of ajlhvqeia
as that term is used in the Pastorals (cf. 1 Tim 2:4, 7; 3:15; 4:3; 6:5; 2 Tim
2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8; 4:4; Titus 1:1, 14). From the surrounding context in Eph
4:17–24, it becomes clear that the truth of the gospel tradition that can be
summed up in Jesus, according to v 21, controls the whole of believers’ lives
and includes the ethical implications of the gospel as they had been developed
in the Church’s catechesis. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary,
Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 4:22
22 that, in reference to your
former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in
accordance with the lusts of deceit,
The instruction took the same catechetical form as that which is evident
in the companion letter to the Colossians: its ethical directives were
expressed in terms of "putting off" and "putting on." They
were taught to "put off" their pagan way of life--that is to say,
"the old man," the person they formerly were. The same expression
occurs in Col. 3:9, but with a difference. There the Colossian believers art
reminded that they have put him off; here the readers are taught to put him
off. This tension between the indicative and the imperative, between the
"already" and the "not yet," is common in the Pauline
letters; it is summed up in the admonition: "Be what you are!"-Be in
practice what the calling of God has made you.’" Because the people
of God are holy by calling, they are to be holy in life. But the change from
indicative to imperative as between Colossians and Ephesians may have a further
explanation. Colossians was sent to established Christians, whose baptism had
signified the putting off of their old ways; if Ephesians is addressed to new
Christians on the occasion of their baptism, the imperative "put off ...
put on" would be very much in order. The "old man" is the
sum-total of their former practices, propensities, and attitudes; he is a prey
to harmful desires which beguile people into sin and error. Corruption and
destruction are consequently working themselves out in him; they must bid him a
long and final farewell. Bruce, F.F. NICNT.
Their previous life style was to be discarded completely. They must
forsake their old behavioral haunts (anastrophen; NIV, "your former
way of life") and indeed lay aside the costume of their unregenerate
selves. The metaphor of doffing and donning garments is common in Scripture and
in Greek literature generally. There may also be an allusion here to the fact
that baptismal candidates changed into white robes. James Montgomery Boice & Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
Eph 4:23
23 and that you be renewed in
the spirit of your mind,
If the old ways are to be abandoned, renewal is called for, and this must
be an inward renewal. The new life is not to be regulated by conformity to some
external standard; its wellspring lies within, "in the spirit of your
mind." So Paul exhorts the Roman Christians: "Do not be conformed to
this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom. 12:2).
This inward renewal is the work of the Holy Spitit, progressively transforming
believers into the image of Christ, "from one degree of glory to
another" (2 Cor. 3: 18). It is by the Spirit’s power, too, that "the
inner being is being renewed every day," no matter to what attrition the
body may be exposed (2 Cor. 4:16), until what is mortal is "swallowed up
by life"—a consummation of which the Spirit is the present guarantee (2
Cor. 5:4-5). Bruce, F.F. NICNT
Eph 4:24
24 and put on the new self, which
in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of
the truth.
…. even when established Christians are being addressed: the ethical
paraenesis of Rom. 12: 1-13: 14 is summed up in the injunction: "Put on
the Lard Jesus Christ." For the "new man" is essentially the
Lord Jesus Christ--or at least the Lord Jesus Christ as his life is
lived out in his people, who by the new creation have been incorporated into
that new humanity of which he is the head. It is this new creation that is
referred to when the "new man" is said to have been "created according
to God in righteousness and true holinesst’28 The phrase "according to
God" means "in the image of God"; so, in Co1. 3: 10, the
"new man" is "renewed after his Creator’s image so as to attain
true knowledge.” Christ, the Son of
God, is the uncreated one; but the reproduction of his likeness in his people
is an act of divine creation. If, in Colossians, the goal of this divine
renewal is said to be the attainment of "true knowledge," here the
qualities manifested in the new creation are "righteousness and true
holiness" (or "true righteousness and holiness"). The knowledge
of God is never divorced from walking in his ways: to know him is to be like
him, righteous as he is righteous, holy as he is holy. Bruce, F.F. NICNT
This truth contrasts with the deceitfulness of lustful living (cf. vv.
14-15). Believers have been made new in the attitude of their minds; they
are no longer futile in their thinking, darkened in their understanding, and
ignorant (vv. 18-19). These are not commands, for the construction here (and in
the parallel passage in Col. 3:9-10) is not imperative. They are facts that
believers have learned, as is also seen in Romans 6:2-10 and 2 Corinthians
5:17. Believers are new people in Christ, and hence they can no longer live as
Gentiles live, as the next exhortations state.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy
B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary,
1983, 1985.
Eph 4:25
25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak
truth, each one of you, with
his neighbor, for we are members of one another.
Wherefore, putting away lying. From this head of doctrine, that is, from the righteousness of the new
man, all godly exhortations flow, like streams from a fountain; for if all the
precepts which relate to life were collected, yet, without this principle, they
would be of little value. Philosophers take a different method; but, in the
doctrine of godliness, there is no other way than this for regulating the life.
Now, therefore, he comes to lay down particular exhortations, drawn from the
general doctrine. Having concluded from the truth of the gospel, that
righteousness and holiness ought to be true, he now argues from the general
statement to a particular instance, that every man should speak truth with
his neigbbour. Lying is here put for every kind of deceit, hypocrisy, or
cunning; and truth for honest dealing. He demands that every kind of
communication between them shall be sincere; and enforces it by this
consideration, for we are members one of another. That members should
not agree among themselves, that they should act in a deceitful manner towards
each other, is prodigious wickedness.Calvin,
John, Calvin’s Commentaries:
Ephesians, 1998.
A neighbor, the Scripture teaches us, is anyone near to us, a
fellow-man of any creed or nation; and to all such we are bound to speak the
truth. But the context shows that Paul is here speaking to Christians, and the
motive for the duty shows that by neighbor here he means a fellow
Christian, as in Romans 15:2. The motive in question is the intimate relation
in which believers stand to each other. They are all members of the same
body and intimately united, as he taught in verse 16, with each other
and with Christ, their common head. As it would be unnatural and absurd for the
hand to deceive the foot, or the eye the ear, so there is a violation of the
very law of their union for one Christian to deceive another.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians:
The Crossway Classic Commentaries,
1997.
Eph 4:26
26 Be angry, and yet do
not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,
introduces the main topic of the passage: anger. The nrsv’s ‘Be angry, but do not sin’
entirely misses the force of the original. It is not an encouragement to
righteous anger (indeed all anger is condemned in 5:31); it is a
warning, ‘If you become angry, beware! You are at sin’s door!’Carson, D.A.; et
al., The New Bible Commentary,
1994.
Be ye angry, and sin not.
Whether or not the apostle had in his eye a part of the fourth Psalm is
uncertain. The words used by him (jOrgivzesqe kai; uh; aJmartavnete) occur in the Greek translation, though the word
ojrgivzesqe,
which is translated, be ye angry, is considered by some to mean tremble.
The Hebrew verb zgr
(ragaz) signifies either
to be agitated by anger, or, to tremble. As to the passage of the Psalm, the
idea of trembling will be quite appropriate. “Do not choose to resemble
madmen, who rush fearlessly in any direction, but let the dread of being
accounted foolhardy keep you in awe.” The word sometimes signifies to strive
or quarrel, as, in that instance, (Genesis 45:24,) “See that ye fall
not out by the way;” and accordingly, the Psalmist adds, “Commune with your
own heart, and be still,” — abstain from furious encounters.
In my opinion, Paul merely alludes to the passage with the following
view. There are three faults by which we offend God in being angry. The first
is, when our anger arises from slight causes, and often from no cause whatever,
or at least from private injuries or offenses. The second is, when we go beyond
the proper bounds, and are hurried into intemperate excesses. The third is,
when our anger, which ought to have been directed against ourselves or against
sins, is turned against our brethren. Most appropriately, therefore, did Paul,
when he wished to describe the proper limitation of anger, employ the
well-known passage, Be ye angry, and sin not. We comply with this
injunction, if the objects of our anger are sought, not in others, but in
ourselves, — if we pour out our indignation against our own faults. With
respect to others, we ought to be angry, not at their persons, but at their
faults; nor ought we to be excited to anger by private offenses, but by zeal
for the glory of the Lord. Lastly, our anger, after a reasonable time, ought to
be allowed to subside, without mixing itself with the violence of carnal
passions.
Let not the sun go down.
It is scarcely possible, however, but that we shall sometimes give way to
improper and sinful passion, so strong is the tendency of the human mind to
what is evil. Paul therefore suggests a second remedy, that we shall quickly
suppress our anger, and not suffer it to gather strength by continuance. The
first remedy was, Be ye angry, and sin not; but, as the great weakness
of human nature renders this exceedingly difficult, the next is — not to cherish
wrath too long in our minds, or allow it sufficient time to become strong. He
enjoins accordingly, let not the sun go down upon your wrath. If at any
time we happen to be angry, let us endeavor to be appeased before the sun has
set.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
But it is certain that all anger is not sinful. Christ himself, it is
said, regarded the perverse Jews “in anger” (Mark 3:5). The same generic
feeling, if mingled with holy affections or in a holy mind, is virtuous; if mingled
with malice, it is sinful. Both feelings, or both combinations of feeling, are
expressed in Scripture by the term anger. Nothing in itself sinful can
be attributed to God, but anger is attributed to him. Verses 31 is not
inconsistent with this interpretation, for there the context shows that the
apostle is speaking about malicious anger and not the hatred of evil.Hodge,
Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
NASB: Eph 4:27
27 and do not give the devil
an opportunity.
While believers may at times be legitimately angry (with righteous anger
against sin; cf. John 2:13-16), they are not to sin. The way
to prevent such sin is to “keep short accounts,” dealing with the anger before the
sun goes down. The reason is that the devil would like to
intensify a Christian’s righteous anger against sin, causing it to become sin
itself. This then gives the devil a foothold (lit., “a place”), an
opportunity for leading that Christian into further sin. Then anger begins to
control the believer rather than the believer controlling his anger.Walvoord,
John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
NASB: Eph 4:28
28 Let him who steals steal no
longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good,
in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.
Along with falsehood and anger, the next “case” of needed changes in the
life of a new Christian is to forsake stealing. Once again, it is not
merely a negative step, avoidance of a sin, but a positive one, replacing
stealing with useful work. In this case a second positive instruction follows:
to have something to share with those in need.
One could easily pass this by with a nod of agreement, but it deserves a
second look for three reasons. One is that stealing is a major problem in
contemporary society; another is that financial responsibility is of immense
importance to Paul; a third is that stealing is forbidden in the Ten
Commandments.Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series:
Ephesians, 1997.
The word stealing does not mean one who stole, but one who steals,
the thief. But how, it is asked, could the apostle assume that there were
thieves in the Ephesian church, especially as he is addressing those who had
been renewed and whom he is exhorting to live according to their new nature? To
get over this difficulty, Calvin says Paul does not refer merely to such thefts
as the civil law punishes but to all unjust acquisition. This enlargement of
the idea of theft, though it transcends the limits assigned to the offense in
human laws, does not go beyond the law of God. As the command “You shall not
murder” includes the prohibition of malice, so the command “You shall not
steal” forbids everything that does or may unjustly hinder our neighbor’s
wealth or outward state. Certainly many things tolerated by human customs, many
ways of acquiring other people’s property as our own possession, practiced even
by those professing to be Christians, are, in the light of the divine law, only
different forms of theft and will be revealed as such in the judgment on the
last day. The spirit of the apostle’s command, no doubt, includes all the forms
of dishonesty.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Eph 4:29
29 Let no unwholesome word
proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification
according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who
hear.
Believers are not to speak unwholesome (sapros, “rotten”)
words (cf. 5:4), but helpful (agathos, “good, beneficial”; cf.
4:28) words for the purpose of edification. Good words benefit (lit.,
“give grace” or enablement to) the hearers. One’s words are to be true and pure
and also are to contribute to benefiting others. Besides one’s conscience, the
Holy Spirit also helps guard a believer’s speech. The fact that the Holy
Spirit may be grieved points to His personality. His seal of a believer remains
until the day of redemption, the time that a believer receives his new
body (cf. 1:14; Phil. 3:20-21).Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The
Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983,
1985.
Eph 4:30
30 And do not grieve the Holy
Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
kai; mh; lupei`te to;
pneu`ma to; a{gion tou` qeou`, ejn w\/ ejsfragivsqhte eij" hJmevran
ajpolut rwvsew", “And do not
grieve the holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of
redemption.” The Damascus Document contains the notion of defiling one’s holy
spirit (CD 5.11; 7.2); Paul exhorts believers not to quench the Spirit (1 Thess
5:18) and not to disregard God who gives his Holy Spirit (1 Thess 4:8), while
Acts speaks of resisting the Holy Spirit (7:51). But this strikingly phrased
prohibition, unique to Ephesians in the NT, appears to take up the thought of
Isa 63:10, “But they rebelled and grieved his holy Spirit.” It is closer to the
MT, which uses the verb bx[
>aµs\ab, “to hurt, pain, grieve,” than to the LXX, which
has paroxuvnein,
“to provoke to wrath, irritate” (cf. also Sampley, ST 26 [1972] 104 n.
13). The closest LXX wording is to be found in 2 Sam [2 Kgdms] 13:21, which
says that David did not grieve the spirit (oujk
ejluvphsen to; pneu`ma) of his son
Amnon. The language of grieving the holy Spirit is found later in Herm. Man.
10.2.4; 10.3.2; T. Isaac 4.40, “But you shall take care and be alert
that you do not grieve the Spirit of the Lord”; and in an agraphon preserved in
Ps-Cyprian, De Aleat. 3, “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit who is in you,
and do not extinguish the light which has been lit in you.” Not only does the
language of saddening or disappointing the Spirit by one’s wayward actions
provide a powerful personal metaphor, but the identity of the one offended is
also underlined forcefully. The one who is grieved is the holy Spirit of
God—that Spirit who is characterized by holiness and who is God himself at work
in believers. It is not a question of some offense aimed directly at the Spirit
but rather that believers by committing the sort of sins that have been
mentioned in the earlier sentences, sins which disrupt communal life, are
thereby disrupting and opposing the work of the Spirit in building up the
Church (cf. 2:22; 4:3, 4; cf. also Halter, Taufe, 261). When believers
act in a way that harms their brothers and sisters, God is hurt. Barth (548) is
quick to point out the obvious theological implication—“the God proclaimed in
Ephesians is not an unmoved mover.”
Believers’ sinful words and deeds are all the more grievous to the Spirit
because they have been sealed in the Spirit for the day of redemption. On the
notion of sealing, see Comment on 1:13,
and on that of redemption, see Comment on
1:7 and 1:14. Through their reception of the Spirit, associated with their
baptism, believers are those who have been stamped with the holy character of
their owner. This is a guarantee of his taking final and full possession of
them (cf. 1:14). The reference to “the day of redemption” is unique to
Ephesians. In Rom 2:5 (cf. 2:16) Paul had spoken of the day of wrath and in Rom
13:11, 12 of the day, i.e. of salvation, but his more usual formulation for the
last day and its accompanying consummation of salvation and judgment was “the
day of the Lord” (cf. 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14) or
“the day of Christ” (cf. Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16). The writer to the Ephesians
avoids these phrases, but the term “day” retains its temporal force as a
reference to the goal of history (pace
Mitton, 172, who holds that since there is no expectation of an imminent
parousia in Ephesians, this is simply a reference to the fullness of life which
awaits the believer in heaven, and Lindemann, Aufhebung, 230–32, who recognizes the future reference but
attempts to play down any notion of a final redemption which involves more than
the believer already enjoys) and as such takes its place alongside other
references to the future in 1:14; 2:7; 5:5, 27; 6:8, 13. Believers’ present
experience of redemption involves the forgiveness of sins (1:7), but the future
day of redemption will presumably include, as it did for Paul in Rom 8:23, the
redemption of their bodies. Despite the future perspective which emerges in the
last part of this verse, the emphasis is, in fact, on believers’ present
relationship to the Spirit, who guarantees their future and whom they should
therefore not grieve.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume
42: Ephesians, 1998.
The relative clause provides the
ground on which the prohibition rests. It is in connection with (en ho)
the Holy Spirit that believers have been sealed (Eph
1:13, 14) for the eschatological day of
deliverance. Redemption (apolytrosis) involves the payment of a ransom
(see on 1:7): Christ’s death on the cross has
purchased not only present but final liberation. James Montgomery Boice &
Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
Eph 4:31
31 Let all bitterness and
wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all
malice.
"Get rid of" (artheto)
is "let it be removed" and therefore "have no more to do with
it." Every kind or any trace (pasa, "all") of these
blemishes is to be forsaken. "Bitterness" (pikria; cf. Col 3:19) is the opposite not only of sweetness (gleuketes)
but of kindness (chrestotes). It is the spite that harbors resentment
and keeps a score of wrongs (1Cor 13:5).
Aristotle defined those who display it as "hard to be reconciled" (Nicomachean
Ethics 4.11). "Rage" (thymos) is what flows from
bitterness in an outburst of uncontrolled passion and frustration.
"Anger" (orge) describes the wrath of God in v. 6 and of men in v. 26.
It is associated with rage in Colossians 3:8
and there as here signifies an unjustifiable human emotion that manifests
itself in noisy assertiveness (krauge; literally, "shouting";
NIV, "brawling") and abuse (blasphemia; NIV,
"slander"). The poisonous source of all these regrettable
reassertions of the "old self" (v. 22)
is named as "malice" (kakia "had feeling"). James Montgomery Boice & Skevington
Wood, EBCNT.
Eph 4:32
32 And
be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in
Christ also has forgiven you.
And be ye kind one to another. With bitterness he contrasts kindness, or gentleness of
countenance, language, and manners. And as this virtue will never reign in us,
unless attended by compassion, (oumpavqeia,) he recommends to us to be tender-hearted.
This will lead us not only to sympathize with the distresses of our brethren,
as if they were our own, but to cultivate that true humanity which is affected
by everything that happens to them, in the same manner as if we were in their situation.
The contrary of this is the cruelty of those iron-hearted, barbarous men, by
whom the sufferings of others are beheld without any concern whatever.
Forgiving one another. The
Greek word here rendered forgiving, (carizovmenoi
eJautoi`",) is supposed by to
mean beneficence. Erasmus, accordingly, renders it (largientes) bountiful.
Though the word admits of that meaning, yet the context induces me to prefer
the other view, that we should be ready to forgive. It may sometimes
happen, that men are kind and tender-hearted, and yet, when they
receive improper treatment, do not so easily forgive injuries. That those whose
kindness of heart in other respects disposes them to acts of humanity, may not
fail in their duty through the ingratitude of men, he exhorts them to discover
a readiness to lay aside resentment. To give his exhortation the greater
weight, he holds out the example of God, who has forgiven to us, through
Christ, far more than any mortal man can forgive to his brethren. Calvin, John,
Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians,
1998.
Having done with all these malicious traits, the Christian will display
kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. "Be" is really
"become" (ginesthe), for Paul realizes that his readers have
not yet attained "the full measure of perfection found in Christ" (v.
13). To be "kind" (chrestoi)
is to show a sweet and generous disposition. The adjective is used here only in
the Epistles. "Compassionate" (eusplangchnoi) is a rare word.
It was used by Hippocrates to describe the healthy function of the intestines.
The Greeks located the seat of the emotions in the splangchna or
internal organs--liver, kidneys, and larger viscera. In Euripides the noun
means stoutheartedness. Eusplangehnos is not found in LXX, although it
occurs in the Prayer of Manasses, a canticle added to the Greek Psalter. The
nuance of tenderness is not classical but Jewish, according to Lightfoot.
Mutual forgiveness is a
further mark of true Christian fellowship (Col 3:13).
There is a give and take in this matter. Paul sets forth the strongest possible
motive: Christians are to forgive one another because all of them have already
been forgiven by God in Christ, when he became "the atoning sacrifice ...
for the sins of the whole world" (1John 2:2).
"As" (kathos) further implies that our forgiveness of others
is to be like God’s forgiveness of us. It must flow from ungrudging love. The
parable of the unmerciful servant is acutely relevant (Matt
18:23-35). James Montgomery
Boice , EBCNT.
5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as
beloved children;
Each Christian should be an imitator of God because he is God’s child. As a child imitates his parents, so ought a believer to imitate God (cf. Matt. 5:48; Luke 6:36). Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
In fact, the new child-Father relationship not only requires but also enables imitation to take place, as the children live their lives out of the love they have already experienced from their Father. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 5:2
2 and walk in
love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering
and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
1 JN 3:6By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
And walk in love as Christ also hath loved us. Having called on us to imitate God, he now calls on us to imitate Christ, who is our true model. We ought to embrace each other with that love with which Christ has embraced us, for what we perceive in Christ is our true guide.
And gave himself for us. This was a remarkable
proof of the highest love. Forgetful, as it were, of himself, Christ spared not
his own life, that he might redeem us from death. If we desire to be partakers
of this benefit, we must cultivate similar affections toward our neighbors. Not
that any of us has reached such high perfection, but all must aim and strive
according to the measure of their ability.
An offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling savor. While this statement leads us to admire the grace of Christ, it bears directly on the present subject. No language, indeed, can fully represent the consequences and efficacy of Christ’s death. This is the only price by which we are reconciled to God. The doctrine of faith on this subject holds the highest rank. But the more extraordinary the discoveries which have reached us of the Redeemer’s kindness, the more strongly are we bound to his service. Besides, we may infer from Paul’s words, that, unless we love one another, none of our duties will be acceptable in the sight of God. If the reconciliation of men, effected by Christ, was a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor, we, too, shall be “unto God a sweet savor,” (2 Corinthians 2:15,) when this holy perfume is spread over us. To this applies the saying of Christ,
“Leave thy gift before the altar, and go and be reconciled to thy brother.” (Matthew 5:24.)Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, [esteeming and delighting in one another] as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a slain offering and sacrifice to God [for you, so that it became] a sweet fragrance. The Amplified New Testament, 1999.
Paul borrows two technical terms in Jewish sacrificial vocabulary without differentiation. "Offering" (prosphora) is derived from the verb "to bring" and is the Hebrew minhah, a meal or cereal offering. On the cross, Christ presented himself, and Paul adds that it was "for an odour of a sweet smell" (RV). The phrase (eis osmen euodias) occurs in a sacrificial context over forty times in the Pentateuch. Paul has it in Philippians 4:18 where it is applied to the gift sent him by means of Epaphroditus. The metaphor suggests that our Lord’s self-sacrifice was pleasing to his Father and was thus accepted as a means of reconciliation. "Sacrifice" (thysia) indicates that the victim was slain and denotes the peace-offering (zebah). Already in Ephesians Paul has spoken of Christ’s death on the cross (2:16) and the sacrificial shedding of blood (1:7; 2:13). Because it is identified with Christ in his death, the Christian’s life will likewise prove an acceptable sacrifice to God.
James Montgomery Boice & Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
NASB: Eph 5:3
3 But do not let immorality or any impurity or
greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
But fornication. This chapter, and the third of the Epistle to the Colossians, contain many parallel passages, which an intelligent reader will be at no loss to compare without my assistance. Three things are here enumerated, which the apostle desires Christians to hold in such abhorrence, that they shall not even be named, or, in other words, shall be entirely unknown among them. By uncleanness he means all base and impure lusts; so that this word differs from fornication, only as the whole class differs from a single department. The third is covetousness, which is nothing more than an immoderate desire of gain. To this precept he adds the authoritative declaration, that he demands nothing from them but that which becometh saints, — manifestly excluding from the number and fellowship of the saints all fornicators, and impure and covetous persons.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
It becomes saints to avoid not only the sins of uncleanness and covetousness, but also all impropriety of conduct and frivolity of language (verses 3–4), because uncleanness and covetousness not only exclude us from heaven but, whatever people may say, bring down the wrath of God (verses 5–6). Christians, therefore, should not participate in those sins, seeing they have been divinely enlightened and made the recipients of that light the fruits of which are goodness, righteousness, and truth. They are bound to exemplify this in their conduct, avoiding and reproving the deeds of darkness (verses 7–11). Those deeds are too shameful to be named, but they may still be corrected by the power of that light which it is the prerogative of believers to disseminate; therefore the Scriptures speak of the light which flows from Christ as reaching even the dead (verses 12–14). Christians, therefore, should be wise, making the most of every occasion for good in the midst of the evils by which they are surrounded (verses 13–16). They should seek exhilaration not from wine but from the Holy Spirit, and give expression to their gladness in psalms and hymns, praising and thanking God through Jesus Christ (verses 17–20).Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
The argument is that those who commit such sins, who are described as immoral, impure, greedy and idolaters, will be excluded from the kingdom and are destined to experience the wrath of God. The argument is strengthened by the structure:
A. Command (vv. 3–4): Do not allow any of the vices among yourselves.
B. Basis for command A (v. 5): Be sure of this:
1. Such people, the immoral and impure, are actually idolaters.
2. They are doomed to exclusion.
B´. Basis for command A´ (v. 6): Do not be deceived:
1. Such people are disobedient.
2. They will suffer God’s wrath (v. 6).
A´. Command (v. 7): Therefore do not be their partners.Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
"Sexual immorality" (porneia) was tolerated in the permissive pagan society of Paul’s day (Rom 1:24-32). "impurity" (akatharsia) has already been mentioned in Ephesians 4:19 as a characteristic of secularized existence, along with "greed," or "the lust for more" (pleonexia). In Colossians 3:5 pleonexia is conceived of as idolatry--as here in v. 5--because it makes a god of what it seeks to possess. James Montgomery Boice & Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
. Indeed, two of the triad of vices listed here—ajkaqarsiva, “impurity,” and pleonexiva, “covetousness”—are contained in the earlier triad in 4:19. (For discussion of these terms, the Comment on 4:19 should be consulted.) ajsevlgeia, “debauchery,” at the beginning of the triad has here been replaced by porneiva, “fornication,” in line with Col 3:5. porneiva is a broad term, signifying general sexual immorality but especially adultery and intercourse with prostitutes (cf. F. Hauck and S. Schulz, “pornhv,” TDNT 6 [1968] 579–95; the discussion in B. Malina, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?” NovT 14 [1972] 10–17; and J. Jensen, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina,” NovT 20 [1978] 161–84). Fornication of various sorts is condemned in the OT and in Hellenistic Judaism (cf. Sir 23:16–27; T. Reub. 1.6; 2.1; 3.3; 4.6; 5.1,3; 6.1; T. Sim. 5.3; T. Iss. 7.2; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 3.51), and Paul himself had warned believers, especially the Corinthians, about indulging in it (cf. 1 Cor 5:1; 6:12–20; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; 1 Thess 4:3; cf. also Col 3:5). The exhortation here in Ephesians has no specific situation in view but generalizes about “all impurity.” ajkaqarsiva is usually associated with sexual sin, and four of the above references have the term in combination with porneiva (cf. 1 Thess 4:3, 7; Gal 5:19; 2 Cor 12:21; Col 3:5). Because of the context, pleonexiva, “covetousness,” should also be taken as the sort of unrestrained sexual greed whereby a person assumes that others exist for his or her own gratification. The tenth commandment contains the injunction against coveting one’s neighbor’s wife; the combination of the ideas of covetousness and fornication is found in T. Levi 14.5, 6; T. Jud. 18.2; 1QS 4.9,10; CD 4.17,18; and the cognate verb pleonektei`n has sexual connotations in 1 Thess 4:6.
The writer wishes to stop such vices before they gain access to the communities to which he writes, and so he asserts that they must not even be named. It is sometimes claimed (e.g., Schlier, 233; Bratcher and Nida, Handbook, 125–26) that the prohibition is not to be taken literally and simply means that the vices are not to occur. But the use of the emphatic mhdev and, in particular, the repetition of this notion in v 12—“it is shameful even to speak of what is done by them in secret”—suggest that the writer actually meant that these sins should not even be talked about. Believers’ distancing from such vices must extend to their conversation. Presumably, the assumption behind this prohibition is that thinking and talking about sexual sins creates an atmosphere in which they are tolerated and which can indirectly even promote their practice. It would not occur to the writer, as it might to us, that strictly speaking he is breaking his own prohibition by mentioning these sins in his letter! What he is really attempting to discourage is sexual sin becoming the object of interest in conversation. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
There are many ways of abetting, or taking part in the sins of others; by commendation, counsel, consent, or concealment. And if we share with others in their sins, we must expect to share in their plagues. If we do not reprove the sins of others, we have fellowship with them. A good man will be ashamed to speak of what many wicked men are not ashamed to do. We must have not only a sight and a knowledge that sin is sin, and in some measure shameful, but see it as a breach of God’s holy law. After the example of prophets and apostles, we should call on those asleep and dead in sin, to awake and arise, that Christ may give them light. Matthew Henry
Eph 5:4
4 and there
must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not
fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
4 Let there be no filthiness (obscenity, indecency) nor foolish and sinful (silly and corrupt) talk, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting or becoming; but instead voice your thankfulness [to God]. The Amplified New Testament, 1999.
Neither filthiness. To those three — other three are now added. By filthiness I understand all that is indecent or inconsistent with the modesty of the godly. By foolish talking I understand conversations that are either unprofitably or wickedly foolish; and as it frequently happens that idle talk is concealed under the garb of jesting or wit, he expressly mentions pleasantry, — which is so agreeable as to seem worthy of commendation, — and condemns it as a part of foolish talking. The Greek word eujtrapeliva is often used by heathen writers, in a good sense, for that ready and ingenious pleasantry in which able and intelligent men may properly indulge. But as it is exceedingly difficult to be witty without becoming satirical, and as jesting itself carries in it a portion of conceit not at all in keeping with the character of a godly man, Paul very properly dissuades from this practice. Of all the three offenses now mentioned, Paul declares that they are not convenient, or, in other words, that they are inconsistent with Christian duty.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
Next comes "foolish talk" (morologia), which is stupid chatter or silly twaddle. This is combined with eutrapelia (literally, "an easy turn of speech"), which means versatility and witty repartee. The NEB has "flippant talk." Because of the determinative content of v. 3, however, it may refer to "coarse joking" (NIV) and double-entendre. These things must be repudiated, because they "do not come up to the mark" (BV). Instead, the Christian’s mouth will be continually filled with thanks to God (Eph 2:7; 5:18; Col 2:7; 3:15). James Montgomery Boice & Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
Eph 5:5
5 For this you
know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is
an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
5for this ye know, that every whoremonger, or unclean, or covetous person, who is an idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign of the Christ and God. YLT
Those who are idolaters of this sort will not inherit the kingdom of Christ and of God. Assurance about believers’ future inheritance had been given in 1:14, 18, but now exclusion from the kingdom, which is mentioned in Pauline paraenesis in 1 Cor 6:9, 10 and Gal 5:21 and in a different context in 1 Cor 15:50, is held out as a threat to this particular class of people. The fornicator, the covetous person, and the idolater are also mentioned in the lists in 1 Cor 5:9–11 and 6:9, 10. This particular double formulation about the kingdom is unique in the NT (though cf. Rev 11:15). The kingdom is linked with Christ in 2 Tim 4:1, 18 and 2 Pet 1:11 (cf. also 2 Apoc. Bar. 39:7), and in some places the kingdom of Christ represents the present aspect of God’s rule (cf. 1 Cor 15:24–28; Col 1:13; cf. also Eph 2:6). But the notion of two successive forms of God’s rule should not be read into Eph 5:5 from 1 Cor 15:24–28. Instead, there is here an identity of the two kingdoms in terms of their time and their nature (cf. also Gnilka, 249; Barth, 564; pace Caird, Paul’s Letters, 85). The kingdom of Christ is the kingdom of God and has both present and future aspects from which the fornicators and the impure and covetous persons are excluded. Those in bondage to their sexual appetites are not those over whom Christ and God rule.
The writer assumes that his readers are not among such people. To describe this verse, therefore, as a warning to believers that they can lose their salvation (cf. Ernst, 372) does not do justice to its function in the context. It provides a further motivation for the readers not even to mention these vices, namely, that those who actually perpetrate them are in a realm totally antithetical to the kingdom of Christ and God (contra Barth, 564, who takes the passage to be referring to church discipline and claims, “The immoral persons mentioned in 5:3 ff. are members of the congregation, not people outside the Church”).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The three categories of v. 3 are singled out again, with the rider that the acquisitive make an idol of their possessions. No one of this sort has any place reserved in the eschatological kingdom. The inheritance (kleronomia) is a present title to a future position (Eph 1:14, 18). This cannot be acquired by the disobedient (v. 6). In Colossians 1:13 Paul refers to "the kingdom of the Son" whom the Father loves (cf. Eph 1:6). But since it is God who "placed all things under his feet" (Eph 1:22), the kingdom is his as well as Christ’s. James Montgomery Boice & Skevington Wood, EBCNT.
God does not tolerate sin, and perverted love leads to punishment. Sin has no place in His kingdom and no place in His family Immoral, impure, and covetous are from the same basic Greek words as immorality, impurity and greed in verse 3. Covetousness is a form of idolatry. The covetous man, therefore, is more than simply selfish and immoral; he is an idolater (cf. Col. 3:5). MacArthur
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12). Every person who is saved, and is therefore a part of that glorious rule of Christ and God, is instructed by the Holy Spirit and by the inclination of his new nature to forsake sin and to seek righteousness. The person whose basic life pattern does not reflect that orientation cannot claim God as his Father or the kingdom of Christ and God as his inheritance.
It is dangerously deceptive for Christians to try to give assurance of salvation to someone who has no biblical grounds for such assurance. In his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul gives an even more detailed listing of sins whose habitual practice proves a person is not saved and has no claim on God. “Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Such things do not characterize the children of God (cf. Gal. 5:17-21 for a similar insight). The verdict of God is that, no matter what may be the claim, a life dominated by sin like this is damned to hell.
People will try to deny that, but Paul warns not to listen to them. Let no one deceive you with empty words, telling you that sin is tolerable and that God will not exclude unrepentant sinners from His kingdom. Empty words are full of error, devoid of truth, and therefore they deceive.
It is because of these things, that is, because of the sins listed here and the lies of empty words, that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Such people are called sons of disobedience (see also 2:2) because it is their nature is to disobey and they are “children of wrath” (2:3; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8-10), the targets for God’s guns of judgment. MacArthur
Eph 5:6
6 Let no one
deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God
comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Let no man deceive you. There have always been ungodly dogs, by whom the threatenings of the prophets were made the subject of merriment and ridicule. We find such characters in our own day. In all ages, indeed, Satan raises up sorcerers of this description, who endeavor by unholy scoffs to escape the Divine judgment, and who actually exercise a kind of fascination over consciences not sufficiently established in the fear of God. “This is a trivial fault. Fornication is viewed by God as a light matter. Under the law of grace God is not so cruel. He has not formed us so as to be our own executioners. The frailty of nature excuses us.” These and similar expressions are often used by the scoffers. Paul, on the contrary, exclaims that we must guard against that sophistry by which consciences are ensnared to their ruin.
For because of these things cometh the wrath of God. If we consider the present tense to be here used, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, for the future, these words are a threatening of the last judgment. But I agree with those who take the word cometh in all indefinite sense, — the word of God usually cometh, — as reminding them of the ordinary judgments of God which were executed before their own eyes. And certainly, if we were not blind and slothful, there are sufficiently numerous examples by which God testifies that he is the just avenger of such crimes, — examples of the pouring out of divine indignation, privately against individuals, and publicly against cities, and kings, and nations.
Upon the children of disobedience, — upon unbelievers or rebels. This expression must not be overlooked. Paul is now addressing believers, and his object is not so much to present alarming views of their own danger, as to rouse them to behold reflected in wicked men, as in mirrors, the dreadful judgments of God. God does not make himself an object of terror to his children, that they may avoid him, but does all that can be done in a fatherly manner, to draw them to himself. They ought to learn this lesson, not to involve themselves in a dangerous fellowship with the ungodly, whose ruin is thus foreseen.
Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
God’s wrath. This expression is a fearful one, because human wrath is the disposition to inflict evil, limited by human feebleness, whereas God’s wrath is the determination to punish by a Being whose presence and power are unlimited. This wrath, the apostle says, comes on the children of disobedience. The present tense either indicates the certain future, “will assuredly come,” or has its own meaning. God’s wrath against these sins is now revealed in his dealings with those who commit them. He withdraws his Spirit from them and finally gives them up to a reprobate mind. On the phrase children of disobedience, see Ephesians 2:2.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
The readers are not to be led astray by anyone who asserts that there will be no judgment on sin. The words of such a person are empty, devoid of truth (cf. Col 2:4, 8; cf. also LXX Exod 5:9; Deut 32:47; T. Naph. 3.1). In Colossians similar language had been used of those promulgating the false teaching, but here the reference is far more general. If any group is particularly in view, it is not so much likely to be (Christians with a libertine or gnosticizing tendency (pace Abbott, 152; Schlier, 236; Barth, 565–66; Mitton, 181; Mussner, 143) as unbelieving Gentiles who claimed they had no need to worry and attempted to justify their vices as matters of indifference (cf. Meyer, 269; Westcott, 77; Schnackenburg, 225). This interpretation also maintains the insider/outsider contrast that runs throughout the passage. God’s wrath, his holy anger against sin and the judgment that results from it, is real, and it is coming on the disobedient. The present tense of e[rcwsqai often has a future meaning, and that is most probably the case here. Most commentators allow for both present and future aspects of wrath in 5:5 (cf. Abbott, 152; Schlier, 236; Barth, 566; Ernst, 374; Schnackenburg, 226; Mussner, 144), but Meyer (270) may well be right to insist on the future aspect. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 5:7
7 Therefore do not
be partakers with them;
óõììÝôï÷ïò
summetochos
soom-met’-okh-os
From G4862 and G3353; a co-participant:—partaker.
7 So do not associate or be sharers with them. The Amplified
7 Don’t participate in the things these people do. NLT
mh; ou\n givnesqe summevtocoi aujtw`n, “therefore do not become partners with them.” The content of this fresh prohibition makes explicit the assumption behind the preceding verses, namely, that the antithesis between the believing readers and immoral persons around them is one which must remain. By means of the ou\n, “therefore,” the prohibition also builds on vv 5, 6. Since the consequences for the immoral are so severe, the readers are not to become partners with them. aujtw`n, “with them,” is to be taken as a reference to people rather than vices (cf. Meyer, 270; Abbott, 152; Schlier, 236; Schnackenburg, 226; contra Gnilka, 250; Ernst, 374, is undecided), and “the disobedient” is the most immediate antecedent (contra Bratcher and Nida, Handbook, 129, who opt for those attempting to deceive the readers, and Barth, 567, who thinks erring church members are involved). summevtoco" occurs in the NT only here and in 3:6, and in both places has the connotation of intimate involvement and participation with the other party. It is not possible for the readers to be sharers with Jewish Christians in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel (cf. 3:6) and at the same time to be sharers with immoral Gentiles (cf. also J. A. Robinson, 200; Bruce, Epistles, 373). How far is the separation urged upon the readers to be taken? Should it lead to the radical separatism on the part of the community reflected in the Qumran writings (cf. 1QS 1.4, 5; 5.10, 11; CD 6.14, 15)? The closest parallel in the Pauline corpus is 2 Cor 6:14–7:1, which has links with the Qumran material but which is suspected of being an interpolation and non-Pauline (on these issues, see most recently V. P. Furnish, 2 Corinthians [New York: Doubleday, 1984] 371–83; R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians [Waco, TX: Word, 1986] 190–95). The context here in Ephesians makes clear that what is involved is not a general distancing from all aspects of life in the Gentile world but in particular a separation from its immoral aspects. The readers are not to become partners with disobedient Gentiles in their sins and thereby also in the judgment that will come on them.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 5:8
8 for you were
formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light
The intellectual aspect of both figures pertains to what a person knows and believes, and the moral aspect pertains to way he thinks and acts. In 2 Corinthians Paul speaks about the intellectual aspect when he says, “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (4:4; cf. Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). In Isaiah 5 the prophet speaks of both the intellectual and the moral aspects when he says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness” (v. 20). Both the teaching and the practice of those people were corrupt. Paul speaks of the moral aspect when he pleads with believers to “lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light” (Rom. 13:12), and in the following verse he specifies some of the deeds of darkness: carousing, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, sensuality, strife, and jealousy.
But everyone who belongs to God walks in light, both intellectually and morally. “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you,” John said unequivocally, “that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:5-7).
MacArthur
Images of darkness and light occur frequently in connection with conversion (e.g., Joseph and Asenath 8.10; 15.13; Philo, De Virt. 179; Acts 26:18; Col 1:12, 13; 1 Pet 2:9; Odes Sol. 14.18, 19; cf. also Heb 6:4; 10:32). Already in the OT, light can stand for the life of God and the salvation that comes from God (e.g., Ps 27:1; Isa 9:2; 10:17; 42:6, 16; 49:6; 51:4; 60:1), while darkness stands for death, Sheol, and God’s judgment (e.g., Ps 49:19; Isa 5:30; 9:2; 47:5; 59:9; 60:2). In the Qumran literature, of course, this imagery is frequent and depicts two ways of life in relationship to God, not only in 1QM with its “War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness” (cf. 1.1–16; 3.6, 9; 13.16; 14.17) but also in 1QS 1.9, 10; 3.13, 19–21, 24, 25 (cf. K. G. Kuhn, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” esp. 122–24). A similar ethical dualism of light and darkness is found in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (“Choose for yourselves light or darkness, the law of the Lord or the works of Beliar,” T. Levi 19.1; cf. also 14.4; T. Benj. 5.3). In the NT, the Johannine writings make particular use of this imagery (cf. 1:4, 5, 7–9; 3:19–21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35, 36, 46; 1 John 1:5; 2:8), while in Paul it occurs in 1 Thess 5:5; 2 Cor 4:4, 6; 6:14; Rom 13:12, 13 and Col 1:12, 13. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 5:9
9 (for the fruit
of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth),
The first characteristic is all goodness (cf. “all
malice” in 4:31). A number of
Greek words are translated “good” or “goodness” in the New Testament. Kalos
denotes that which is intrinsically right, free from defects, beautiful, and
honorable. Both John the Baptist and Jesus used the term for the “good fruit”
without which a tree “is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matt. 3:10; 7:19).
Paul uses the term when he tells Timothy that “everything created by God is
good” (1 Tim. 4:4). It is also used of that which is morally good (see Gal.
4:18; 1
Tim. 5:10, 25; Titus 2:7, 14). Chreôstos,
also often translated “good,” refers to
that which is pleasant, useful, suitable, or worthy. Paul uses this word when
he
declares that “bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33).
But in the present passage Paul uses agathoôsuneô, which refers
to moral
excellence, to being good in both nature and effectiveness. Like agapeô love,
agathoôsuneô goodness
finds its fullest and highest expression in that which is
willingly and sacrificially done for others. “Always seek after that which is
good
for one another and for all men,” Paul told the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5:15).
In
his next letter to that church the apostle prays “that our God may count you
worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the
work of faith
with power” (2 Thess. 1:11, emphasis added). This goodness that is a fruit
of
light is also a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). MacArthur
The behavior of saints should correspond with their positions. Since they are children of light, that is, since their very nature is spiritual light, they are to live accordingly (Rom. 13:12). Ephesians 5:9 parenthetically explains that the fruit of the light—which is goodness, righteousness (cf. Phil. 1:11), and truth—reflects God’s character in a believer’s life. (The kjv rendering, “fruit of the Spirit,” lacks good textual support.) Sinners, those in darkness, are characterized by the opposite of this fruit: evil, wickedness, and falsehood. The thought in verse 10 expands on verse 8b in that to live as children of light one must discern what pleases the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:9; Col. 1:10). The words find out translate dokimazontes, which is literally, “putting to the test,” “approving,” or “discerning” (cf. Rom. 12:2).Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
Eph 5:10
10 trying to learn
what is pleasing to the Lord.
Verses 9 is a parenthesis, as verse 10 is grammatically connected with verse 8. Live as children of light, and find out … Here find out is to try, to put to the test, to examine, then to judge or estimate, and then to approve. Thus it is said, “The fire shall try every man’s work”; God is said “to try the heart”; we are told “to approve what God’s will is” (Romans 12:2)—that is, to examine and determine what the will of God is. And so in this passage believers are required to walk as children of light, examining and determining what is acceptable to the Lord. They are to regulate their conduct by thinking of what pleases him. That is the ultimate standard of judging whether anything is right or wrong, worthy or unworthy of those who have been enlightened from above.
The word Lord is so predominantly used in the New Testament to designate the Lord Jesus Christ that it should always be referred to him unless the context forbids it. Here the context, so far from forbidding it, requires such reference, for in the former part of the sentence Lord evidently designates Christ: “You are light in the Lord; therefore walk as children of light, proving what is acceptable to the Lord.” This, therefore, is one of the numerous passages in the New Testament in which Christ is recognized as the Lord of the conscience; his will is our ultimate standard of right and wrong, and we are responsible to him for all our inner and outward actions. It is in this way that the sacred writers show that Christ was their God, in whose presence they constantly lived, whose favor they constantly sought, and on whom all their religious affections terminated. He was not merely the God of their theology but of their religion.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Eph 5:11
11 And do not
participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;
The duty of Christians in reference to the works of darkness is twofold: first, to have no communion with them; and secondly, to reprove them. The former is expressed by the words have nothing to do with them. Those who have things in common, who are congenial, who have the same views, feelings, and interests, and who therefore delight in each other’s company, are said to be in fellowship. In this sense believers have fellowship with God and with each other. So we are said to have fellowship in anything which we delight in and partake of. Therefore, to have fellowship with the deeds of darkness is to delight in them and to participate in them. All such association is forbidden as inconsistent with the character of the children of light. Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Notice that it is the "deeds" (ergoi) that have to be shunned, not the doers. Paul is not advocating pharisaical separatism. The follower of Christ will go where his master went and meet those his master met. But though he does not withdraw from the world, he refuses to adopt its standards or fall in with its ways. He is concerned to produce "the fruit of the light" (v. 9), and darkness is sterile.
So far from participating in them, believers should expose these practices. When the object is a person, the verb (elegeho) means to convince or reprove. This is the distinctive work of the Spirit. But when the object is impersonal, elegcho may signify to bring to light or expose. This exposure is not effected by what is actually said by way of rebuke, because such repulsive deeds are not so much as to be whispered (vv. 3, 12), but simply by letting the light of Christ shine through and show them up. EBCNT
F.F. Bruce points out that in Mark 6:18 when John reproves Herod " it is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife," he is following the Essene tradition of rebuke, but also the prophetic tradition in pointing out the error of the ruler.
Eph 5:12
12 for it is
disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
If "their secret actions ,shameful even to mention," why
expose them to the light of day? Perhaps because exposure to the light is the best way to make them wither and die. Schlier suggests that Paul may allude to the libertine rites of many mystery cults:" if they were made public, they might lose their glamor (just as the spells of the Ephsian specialists in magic lost their potency when they were openly divulged, according to ActS 19:18). This could be so, but nothing in the context requires a reference to mystery cults. However, it is not by accident that the term orgia, used of mystery rites, has developed semantically into our word "orgies, which, in the sense which it bears for us, may be very much what is intended here: such things are "unspeakably shameful” Bruce, F.F. The Epistles, NICNT.
Eph 5:13
13 But all things
become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes
visible is light.
Jn 3:20“For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21“But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
The participle fanerouvmenon is taken as passive in line with the verb in the first clause, rather than as middle with active force. The force of the middle, an assertion that “whatever reveals or illumines is light” (cf. Abbott, 156), would be, as Moule (Idiom-Book, 25) says, “a not very illuminating remark!” The exposure carried out through believers’ lives enables others to see the nature of their deeds and respond to the light in such a way that they are themselves light (cf. Schlier, 239–40; pace Schnackenburg, 232, who holds that this is an overinterpretation of v 14a). This is a transformation the readers had themselves experienced. As v 8 put it, “once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.” J. B. Phillips’ version brings out this force well: “It is even possible (after all, it happened with you!) for light to turn the thing it shines upon into light also.”
Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume
42: Ephesians, 1998.
For, he adds, it is the function of light to make visible. Whatever hidden wickedness is revealed by the light of Christ can no longer be obscured by darkness but is shown up in its real nature. Others see here a reference to the transformation brought about by light. "It is even possible (after all, it happened with you!) for light to turn the thing it shines upon into light also" (PH). The following verse could support such an interpretation. The exposure and reproval of sin by the light of Christ may lead to salvation, as it did for the Ephesians themselves (v. 8).
EBCNT
The context appears to me to shew clearly that this is Paul’s meaning. He had exhorted them to reprove the evil works of unbelievers, and thus to drag them out of darkness; and he now adds, that what he enjoins upon them is the proper business of light — to make manifest. It is Light, he says, which makes all things manifest; and hence it followed that they were unworthy of the name, if they did not bring to light what was involved in darkness.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
But when anything is exposed and reproved by the light, it is made visible and clear; and where everything is visible and clear there is light.The Amplified New Testament, 1999.
When light exposes evil deeds, they become visible, manifest for what they really are. Seeing them as evil, a believer then cleanses himself of them (1 John 1:5-7), realizing they are detrimental not only to him but also to other believers.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
Eph 5:14
14 For this reason it says,
“Awake, sleeper,
And arise from the dead,
And Christ will shine on you.”
The same introductory formula as in 4:8 prefaces a poetical quotation. The lines form a metrical triplet in a rhythm that was specially associated with religious initiation chants. This may well supply a clue in tracing their origin. They are not a direct quotation of OT Scripture (though they contain echoes of Isa 60:1 and possibly Isa 9:2; 26:19; 51:17; 52:1). Most likely this section is an early baptismal hymn based on Isa 60:1. Paul is soon to mention hymns in the context of worship (v. 19), so that this may well have been a liturgical chant addressed to those about to be baptized (cf. 1Ti 3:16).
The exhortations "wake up" (GK G1586) and "rise [GK G482] from the dead" place the hymn firmly in the context of resurrection--possibly written for Easter day. The connection between resurrection and baptism is so close that there is no need to restrict the intention. Moreover, in the early church, baptism was described as an enlightenment (cf. Heb 6:4; 10:32). The verb translated "shine" (GK G2213) is applied to the rising of a heavenly body. Christ, as the morning star, has already risen and sheds his light on all who are raised to newness of life in him. NIV Bible Commentary
The quotation is not from the Tanakh. “Like the Essenes, the early Christians used to sing hymns at dawn in praise of the ‘Sun of Righteousness’ (cf. Malachi 4:2). These lines may be from one such hymn. See also Yn 1:1–17.” (Hugh Schonfield, The Original New Testament, p. 389). The Jewish New Testament Commentary, 1996.
It is early Christianity’s heritage in the OT and early Judaism that, in fact, provides the background for understanding not only this image but also the other major aspects of the citation. 1QH 3.19–21 contains imagery about being rescued from the death of sin. Sleep was of course a euphemistic image for physical death (e.g., Job 14:12), and in Pss. Sol. 16.1–4 both sleep and death stand for sin and its consequences (cf. also K. G. Kuhn, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” 126–30). This is true in Paul also, where sleep is the condition of forgetfulness and drunkenness which is part of belonging to the sinful darkness (cf. 1 Thess 5:5–8; Rom 13:11–14) and where baptism is a rising from the death of sin (Rom 6:13; cf. 6:4). Ephesians’ own perspective on the imagery of death as humanity’s situation of sin (cf. 2:1, 5; cf. also Col 2:13) should surely be decisive in favor of this sort of interpretation. The association of Christ with a shining light can be seen to have its background in the use of this image for Yahweh coming to save or help his people (cf. Deut 33:2; Ps 50:2; 80:1–3, 7, 19—the repetition of “let your face shine, that we may be saved!”; 1QH 4.5,6, 23; 9.31; CD 20.25, 26; T. Zeb 9.8) and in its application to the Messiah (cf. T. Levi 18.2–4; T. Jud. 24.1). Christ is depicted as a shining light elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Luke 2:32; John 1:4, 5, 9; 3:19–21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; Rev 1:16) and in early Christianity (cf. esp. Odes Sol. 15.2, “Because he is my sun, and his rays have restored me; and his light has dismissed all darkness from my face”; for extensive discussion of the symbol of light with reference to Christ in early Christianity, see Dölger, Sol Salutis, 342–410). Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 5:15
15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise
men, but as wise,
The NIV‘s Be very careful, then, how you live is literally, “Look therefore carefully how you walk.” Does the adverb “carefully” (akriboµs, lit. “accurately”) modify “look”? If so the first clause in verse 15 could be translated, “Therefore look carefully how you walk.” (This is behind the rendering in the asv, nasb, and niv.) Or does “careful” modify “walk”? If so, the idea is, “Therefore look that you walk carefully” (cf. kjv). This second alternative is preferred because better Greek manuscripts place akriboµs closer to the Greek word “walk” and because in the New Testament the Greek imperative “look” (blepete) is never modified by an adverb. Believers then, are to walk (live) carefully, so as to be wise or skillful and thus please the Lord. The manner for this careful, precise walk is making the right use of every opportunity (cf. Col. 4:5), and the reason for this careful walk is that the days are evil. Many are walking in sin, and since the time is short believers must make full use of their time to help turn them from darkness to light. This necessitates wise conduct.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
Eph 5:16
16 making the most
of your time, because the days are evil.
They are to make "the most of every opportunity" (exagorazomenoi ton kairon). The verb "to buy back" or "take off the market" is used in Galatians 3:13 and 4:5 in connection with redemption from the law. Here and in Colossians 4:5 it is of less certain interpretation. It has nothing to do with gaining time, as in Daniel 2:8, LXX (BAG, p. 271). It is not to be treated allegorically, as if time were being snatched from the devil or from evil men. What is meant is simply to make the best possible use of all circumstances like prudent merchants. Kairos ("opportunity," NIV) is the right moment, which Paul urges his readers to grasp lest it be wasted. The days are evil (ponerai, "wicked") in a moral sense, not necessarily by reason of hardship and distress, though this may be an accompaniment. EBCNT
Gal 4:5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
...from Col. 4:5; in both places it has special reference to Christian witness in the world. The statement that "the days are evil" may imply that, whatever difficulties lie in the way of Christian witness now, they will increase as time goes on. It must be borne in mind not only that the present time remains an "evil age" (Gal. 1:4) even if it has been invaded by the
powers of the age to come but also that, as the Corinthians were warned, ’the appointed time has grown very short" (1 Cor. 7:29), so that opportunities must be exploited while they last. The perspective on the endtime has not changed radically since Paul’s earlier letters; moreover, from Rome to Judaea there were signs that the relative freedom from molestation currently enjoyed by Christians was liable shortly to be curtailed. Bruce, F.F. NICNT
The word fool commonly refers to a person who acts
unintelligently and irresponsibly. But Scripture defines a fool as a person who
says “in his heart, ‘There is no God’” and who is morally corrupt, doing
“abominable deeds” (Ps. 14:1). The fool is the person who lives apart from
God—either as a theological or practical atheist or as both, denying God by his
actions as well as his words. The supreme fool is the person who has anti-God
thinking and living patterns.
Because men are born separated from God and with hearts that are naturally against Him (Rom. 5:8, 10; Eph. 2:3; Col. 1:21), they are born spiritually foolish. “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:21-22). “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14). The natural man has the most important things in life exactly reversed. Consequently, he thinks foolishness is wisdom and wisdom is foolishness.
No man can live without a god of some sort, and the spiritual fool inevitably substitutes a false god for the true God. He creates gods of his own making (Rom. 1:21-23) and, in effect, becomes his own god, his own authority in all things. “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes” (Prov. 12:15), and therefore he determines right and wrong and truth and falsehood entirely by his own fallen thinking and sinful inclination.
When the fool sets himself up as his own god, he will naturally “mock at sin” (Prov. 14:9). Sin is that which is against God, and since the fool does not recognize God, he does not recognize sin. The spiritually self-sufficient fool makes his own rules and justifies his own behavior, and in doing so he refuses to acknowledge sin and its consequences.
The fool cannot help spreading his foolishness. The more he is convinced of the wisdom of his folly, the more he will seek to propagate it. By what he says and by what he does he gives continual testimony to his denial of God, to his becoming his own god, and to his mocking of sin. No matter what his intellectual level, academic achievements, talents, wealth, or reputation, the mouth of the natural man can spiritually do nothing but spout folly (Prov. 15:2).
The unregenerate person is a fool because he denies God by belief and by practice. He is a fool because he becomes his own god. He is a fool because he mocks sin. And he is a fool because he contaminates the rest of society with the ungodly foolishness that damns his own soul. He bequeaths his legacy of foolishness to his children, his friends, and his society—to everyone who falls under the influence of his folly. MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
“Easy-believism” is a bane of the contemporary church
because, among other things, it purports to offer salvation in segments. First
it is claimed that men are born again by accepting Christ as Savior. Then, as
they grow in grace, they may renounce sin; start pursuing righteousness,
sanctification, and wisdom; and receive Him as Lord. But Paul said, “For the
grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to
deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and
godly in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12). The very first instruction of the
gospel to the saved person is to renounce and forsake sin and to live a godly,
righteous life. That instruction, or wisdom, is a part of the new birth, not
something subsequent to it.
As Jesus made clear in the Beatitudes, among the first and most necessary marks of salvation are mourning over sin and hungering and thirsting for righteousness (Matt. 5:4, 6). As Paul made clear in the beginning of this letter, “In all wisdom and insight [God] made known to us the mystery of His will” (Eph. 1:8-9).
It is not that we do not grow in wisdom as we mature in the Christian life. We are specifically commanded to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). As we become more and more conformed to our Lord and Savior, we will grow more and more in His love, joy, peace, and in every other fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). In another of God’s divine paradoxes, we grow in what we have already been given in fullness. We grow practically in what we already possess positionally. Even Jesus “kept increasing in wisdom” (Luke 2:52), and some believers in the Jerusalem church were “full of … wisdom” (Acts 6:3). MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
If it had not been written centuries before the time of Paul, Proverbs 2 would appear to be a commentary on Ephesians 5:15. Throughout the chapter the writer of Proverbs speaks of walking in the wise path and the wise way and of not going into the way of the wicked or straying into the company of evil people. Similarly, the first Psalm speaks of the blessed man as the one “who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers” MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
EPH 5:16
Paul did not here use chronos,
the term for clock time, the continuous time
that is measured in hours, minutes, and seconds. He rather used kairos, which
denotes a measured, allocated, fixed season or epoch. The idea of a fixed
period
is also seen in the use of the definite article in the Greek text, which refers
to the
time, a concept often found in Scripture (cf. Ex. 9:5; 1 Pet. 1:17).
God has set
boundaries to our lives, and our opportunity for service exists only within
those
boundaries. It is significant that the Bible speaks of such times being
shortened,
but never of their being lengthened. A person may die or lose an opportunity
before the end of God’s time, but he has no reason to expect his life or his
opportunity to continue after the end of his predetermined time.
Having sovereignly bounded our lives with eternity, God
knows both the
beginning and end of our time on earth. As believers we can achieve our
potential in His service only as we maximize the time He has given us.
An ancient Greek statue depicted a man with wings on his
feet, a large lock
of hair on the front of his head, and no hair at all on the back. Beneath was
the
inscription: “Who made thee? Lysippus made me. What is thy name? My name is
Opportunity. Why hast thou wings on thy feet? That I may fly away swiftly. Why
hast thou a great forelock? That men may seize me when I come. Why art thou
bald in back? That when I am gone by, none can lay hold of me.”
Exagorazoô
(making the most of) has the basic meaning of buying,
especially of buying back or buying out. It was used of buying a slave in order
to
set him free; thus the idea of redemption is implied in this verse. We are to
redeem, buy up, all the time that we have and devote it to the Lord. The Greek
is
in the middle voice, indicating that we are to buy the time up for
ourselves—for
our own use but in the Lord’s service. MacArthur, John. NT Commentary:
Ephesians.
The intensive form of the verb occurs twice more in Paul’ s epistles to express the rather different idea of redeeming the time (kairos) (Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5). In this context it probably means to buy up intensivelyö ; i.e., to snap up every opportunity that comes. D. H. Field NIDNTT
CL 1 (a) The noun kairos (first in
Hesiod, Works 694) originally denoted right measure, correct proportion,
that which is convenient, appropriate or decisive. As well as the material and
temporal, lexical content, kairos can have a locative sense, meaning the
right spot, the suitable place. Used in the material and temporal sense, kairos
characterizes a critical situation, one which demands a decision, one into
which man is perhaps led by fate. Positively, it implies opportunity (cf.
Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1, 4, p. 1096a) or advantage; negatively, danger
(Plato, Leg. 12, 945c). Among the material meanings belongs kairos
as importance, norm (e.g. Aesch., Ag. 787), wise moderation (Soph., OT
1516). In the temporal sense, kairos describes a suitable time, the
right moment (e.g. Soph., El. 1292), a favourable moment. But then kairos
can also appear synonymously with other temporal concepts and denote quite
generally time ( crovno"),
season of the year (e.g. Plato, Leg. 4, 709c), hour ( w{ra) or the present moment (like nyn,
now, and se4meron, today).
(b) The following words are derived from kairos: eukairein (e.g. Phrynichus 125), to have a good time, to have an opportunity; eukairia (e.g. Plato, Phdr. 272a), a favourable opportunity; eukairos (first in Soph., OC 32), suitable, opportune, seasonable; eukairo4s (first in Xen., Agesilaus 8, 3), when convenient; akairo4s (Aesch. onwards) inopportunely, and proskairos (e.g. Strabo 7, 3, 11), lasting only a while, passing, momentary, fickle.
…. 2 The presence of the two etymological groups, associated respectively with chronos and kairos for the concept of time, suggests that the Greeks distinguished individual periods or points of time which can be effected by human decisions (kairos) from the stream of time, whose progress is independent of any possible human influence (chronos).
The will to seize the moment, which can naturally also grasp the wrong thing (kairos-thinking), counteracts the danger of fatalism, which could grow out of chronos-thinking. ô chronos encompasses . . . all possible kairoi, and, being the larger, more exclusive term, may often be used where kairos would have been equally suitable, though not the converse. . . . Thus it is possible to speak of the kairos chronou, and Sophocles (Elect. 1292) does so . . . but not of the chronos kairouö (R. C. Trench Synonyms of the New Testament, [18809] 1953, 210; cf. Lk. 1:57 H.-C. Hahn: NIDNTT
Eph 5:17
17 So then do not
be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
Do not be foolish repeats and reinforces Paul’s previous plea for believers not to be unwise, and understand what the will of the Lord is expands and makes more explicit his plea to walk wisely (v. 15).
In light of the urgency to make the most of our time, not being foolish includes, among other things, not becoming anxious or panicked. When we look around at the pervasiveness of evil and at the unending needs for evangelism and service to others in Christ’s name, it is easy to be overwhelmed. We are tempted either to give up and withdraw or to become hyperactive, losing precision, purpose, and effectiveness in a frenzy of superficial activity.
The proper sense of urgency, however, drives the wise believer to want more than ever to understand what the will of the Lord is, because he knows that only in the Lord’s will and power can anything good and lasting be accomplished. He will not be foolish by running frenetically in every direction trying to see how many programs and projects he can become involved in. Such activity easily becomes futile and leads to burnout and discouragement, because it works in the power of the flesh even when it is well-intentioned. Trying to run ahead of God only puts us further behind in His work. MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
"Therefore" (dia touto) resumes the thought of v. 15 with its exhortation to be wise. "Foolish" (aphron) is a stronger word than asophoi in v. 15, alluding to stupid imprudence or senseless folly in action. To "understand" (syniemi) is to give the mind to something so as to get hold of it. It implies that an effort has to be made: so it has the sense of "try to grasp." The object of this determined attempt at apprehension is the Lord’s will (v. 10). Paul recognizes the divine will as the regulative principle of the Christian life (Eph 1:1, 5, 9). Here he refers to the will of the Lord (i.e., Jesus Christ) perhaps, as Lenski (pp. 616, 61:7) suggested, because Christ left us an example. EBCNT
NASB: Eph 5:18
18 And do not get
drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,
A specific instance of the foregoing generalization follows. Quoting Proverbs 23:30, Paul warns against the folly of overindulgence in strong drink. Drunkenness was all too common in the pagan world and cautions in the NT show that it presented a serious temptation to Christians. The danger of drunkenness (Gal 5:21) lies not only in itself but in what it may induce. Debauchery (asotia) in the NT means dissoluteness or dissipation. It is the "wild living" of the prodigal son (Luke 15:13, adverb). In classical Greek it signified extravagant squandering both of money and of the physical appetites. If they are wise, Christians will avoid all such excess.
Instead of continuing in drunkenness, they are to go on being
filled with the Spirit. That is a surprising alternative. We might have
expected the apostle to plead for abstinence as over against intemperance. But
he takes a more startling and positive line. He urges his readers to draw on
the reinvigorating resources of the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost the
effect of such an experience was mistaken for drunkenness. As Bruce (p. 110)
makes clear, Paul is not for a moment implying that the Spirit is a substance a
man’s personality can be filled with as his body may be filled with wine. Yet
the Spirit does produce a genuine exhilaration others vainly seek from alcohol.
"With the Spirit" is actually "in spirit" (en
pneumati). The Greek text does not indicate whether the Holy Spirit is
intended. The word pneuma can equally well mean the human spirit as
affected by the Holy Spirit (RV mg.). We have noted a similar ambiguity in
Ephesians 2:22 and 3:5 and will meet it again in 6:18. Lenski (p. 619)
contended that Paul would not have attempted the daring comparison between wine
and the Holy Spirit, and that we are not told explicitly with what the believer
is to be filled but only where he is to be filled, i.e., in spirit. However, it
seems much more probable that the Holy Spirit is intended here, in view of the
many scriptural references to being filled with the Spirit.
The theological implications of "be filled" (plerousthe)
are crucial for a biblical doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The imperative makes it
clear that this is a command for all Christians. The present tense rules out
any once-for-all reception of the Spirit but points to a continuous replenishment
(literally, "go on being filled"). Nor does it appear that Paul is
urging his readers to enter into a new experience ("up to now you have not
been filled with the Spirit, but you must start to be so"). Rather, he is
inviting them to go on as they began ("you have, of course, been filled
with the Spirit; keep on like that"). Finally, the verb is passive:
"Let yourselves be filled with the Spirit." This is not a
manufactured experience, though it can be rejected (cf. Gal 3:2, 5). There may,
therefore, be successive fillings of the Spirit; indeed, the Christian life
should be an uninterrupted filling. What this verse will not substantiate is
the claim that after becoming a Christian, a single, additional, definitive
filling is essential for completion. EBCNT
Drinking to the point of drunkenness, of course, has few
sane defenders even in the secular world. It has caused the loss of too many
battles, the downfall of too many governments, and the moral corruption of too
many lives and whole societies to be considered anything less than the total
evil that it is. The United States alone presently has over twenty million
alcoholics, almost three and a half million of which are teenagers. And alcohol
is a killer.
Drunkenness is the clouding or disruption by alcohol of any part of a person’s mind so that it affects his faculties. A person is drunk to the extent that alcohol has restricted or modified any part of his thinking or acting. Drunkenness has many degrees, but it begins when it starts to interrupt the normal functions of the body and mind.
Both the Old and New Testaments unequivocally condemn drunkenness. Every picture of drunkenness in the Bible is a picture of sin and disaster. Shortly after the Flood, Noah became drunk and acted shamelessly. Lot’s daughters caused him to become drunk and to commit incest with them, as a foolish and perverted means of having children. Ben-hadad and his allied kings became drunk and were all slaughtered except Ben-hadad, who was spared only by the disobedience of Israel’s King Ahab (1 Kings 20:16-34). Belshazzar held a drunken feast in which he and his guests praised the gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. And during the very midst of the drunken brawl the kingdom was taken from Belshazzar (Dan. 5). Some of the Corinthian Christians became drunk while at the Lord’s table, and God caused some of them to become weak and sick and others to die because of their wicked desecration (1 Cor. 11:27-30).
The book of Proverbs has many warnings about drinking. Speaking as a father, the writer said, “Listen, my son, and be wise, and direct your heart in the way. Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags” (Prov. 23:19-21). Our skid rows today are filled with more men clothed in rags because of drunkenness than the ancient writer of Proverbs could ever have imagined. A few verses later he asked, “who has woe? who has sorrow? who has contentions? who has complaining? who has wounds without cause? who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long over wine, those who go to taste mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly” (vv. 29-31). Wine is enticing to look at, with its bright color, sparkling bubbles, and smooth taste—just as modern commercials vividly portray it. What the commercials are careful not to say is that “at last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind will utter perverse things” (vv. 32-33).
We also read in Proverbs that “wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise” (20:1). Drunkenness mocks a person by making him think he is better off instead of worse off, smarter instead of more foolish, and happier instead of simply dazed. It is a favorite tool of Satan for the very reason that it deceives while it destroys. Surely it presents vulnerability to demons. The drunk does not learn his lesson and is deceived over and over again. Even when he is waylaid, beaten, and finally awakens from his drunken stupor he “will seek another drink” (23:35).
Between those two warnings about drunkenness we are told, “A harlot is a deep pit, and an adulterous woman is a narrow well. Surely she lurks as a robber, and increases the faithless among men” (vv. 27-28). The revered Old Testament scholar Franz Delitzsch commented, “The author passes from the sin of uncleanness to that of drunkenness; they are nearly related, for drunkenness excites fleshly lust; and to wallow with delight in the mire of sensuality, a man created in the image of God must first brutalize himself by intoxication.” (Johann K. E Keil and Franz Julius Delitzsch, vol. 4 of Old Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and authors, n. d.], 750.) MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
Paul advised Timothy, “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23). Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:6-10). He also spoke favorably of wine in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who poured oil and wine on the wounds of the man he found beaten by the roadside (Luke 10:34).
Like many other things, the kind of wine of which Scripture speaks (discussed below) has the potential either for evil or good. I believe there was a time when the juice of the grape, like every other thing God created, was only good and did not have even the potential for evil. Fermentation, a form of decay, likely was made possible by the corruption of nature at the Fall and actually began with the vast environmental change caused by the Flood and the accompanying removal of the vapor canopy over the earth that had protected it from direct sunlight. It is not unreasonable to believe that in the millennial kingdom the process will again be reversed, when the curse is removed and nature is restored to its original state of perfect goodness. MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
Our first task in answering this question is to determine
exactly what kind of
wine is referred to in the Bible, and the second is to determine how that wine
compares to what is produced and drunk today. Many sincere, Bible-honoring
Christians justify their drinking wine on the basis of its being an acceptable
practice both in the Old and New Testaments. But if the kind of wine used then
was different from that used today, then application of the biblical teaching
concerning wine will also be different.
One kind of wine, called sikera
in Greek (see Luke 1:15) and sheôkaôr
in
Hebrew (see Prov. 20:1; Isa. 5:1), is usually translated “strong drink” because
of
its high alcohol content and consequent rapid intoxication of those who drank
it.
A second kind of wine was called gleukos (from which we get
our English
term glucose) and referred to new wine, which was especially sweet. Some
of the
onlookers at Pentecost accused the apostles of being drunk on this kind of wine
(Acts 2:13). The corresponding Hebrew word is tŒòroòsh
(see Prov. 3:10; Hos.
9:2; Joel 1:10). Because freshly-squeezed juice would ferment rapidly and could
cause intoxication even when not fully aged, it was generally mixed with water
before drinking.
A third kind of wine, however, is the one most often
referred to in both the
Old and New Testaments. The Hebrew word for that wine is yayin, which has
the root meaning of bubbling or boiling up. The figure of bubbling did not come
from the pouring of the wine but from the boiling of the fresh grape juice to
reduce it to a heavy syrup, sometimes even a thick paste, that made it suitable
for
storage without spoiling. Because boiling removes most of the water and kills
all
the bacteria, the concentrated state of the juice does not ferment. Yayin most
often referred to the syrup or paste mixed with water and used as a drink (cf.
Ps.
75:8; Prov. 23:30). Even when the reconstituted mixture was allowed to ferment,
its alcohol content was quite low
The most common New Testament Greek word for this third
kind of wine is
oinos, and in its
most general sense simply refers to the juice of grapes. Any
accurate Jewish source will point out that yayin,
mixed wine, or oinos,
does
not refer only to intoxicating liquor made by fermentation, but more often
refers
to a thick nonintoxicating syrup or jam produced by boiling to make it
storable.
In Jesus’ illustration of putting new wine (oinos,
not gleukos) only
into new
wineskins, He was possibly saying that it was thereby “preserved” from
fermentation as well as from spillage (Matt. 9:17).
The practice of reducing fresh grape juice to a syrup by
boiling or
evaporation was widespread in the biblical Near East as well as in the Greek
and
Roman cultures of that day—and is not uncommon in Palestine, Syria, Jordan,
and Lebanon in our own day. In addition to being diluted for use as a beverage,
the heavy syrup was used as a flavoring and as a jam—like spread on bread and
pastries. Both the syrup and most of the drink made from it were completely
nonintoxicating.
The Jewish Mishnah—the ancient oral and later written
interpretations of the
Mosaic law that preceded the Talmud—states that the Jews regularly used boiled
wine, that is, grape juice reduced to a thick consistency by heating. Aristotle
described the wine of Arcadia as being so thick that it had to be scraped from
the
skin bottles in which it was stored and the scrapings diluted with water in
order
to make a drink. The Roman historian Pliny often referred to nonintoxicating
wine. The Roman poet Horace wrote in 35 B.C.,
“Here you quaff under a shade,
cups of unintoxicating wine.” In the ninth book of his Odyssey Homer
told of
Ullyses putting in his boat a goatskin of sweet black wine that was diluted
with
twenty parts of water before being drunk. In A.D.
60 the Greek biographer
Plutarch commented that “filtered wine neither inflames the brain nor infects
the
mind and the passions, and is much more pleasant to drink.”
Writing in Christianity Today magazine (June 20,
1975), Robert Stein
explains that the ancient Greeks kept their unboiled, unmixed, and therefore
highly-alcoholic wine in large jugs called amphorae. Before drinking they would
pour it into smaller vessels called kraters and dilute it with water as much as
twenty to one. Only then would the wine be poured into killits, the cups from
which it was drunk. It was this diluted form that was commonly referred to
simply as wine (oinos).
The undiluted liquid was called akratesteron,
or
“unmixed wine,” wine that had not been diluted in a krater. Even among the
civilized pagans, drinking unmixed wine was considered stupid and barbaric. Mr.
Stein quotes Mnesitheus of Athens:
The gods have revealed wine to mortals, to be the greatest
blessing for those who use it aright, but for those who use it
without measure, the reverse. For it gives food to them that take it
and strength in mind and body. In medicine it is most beneficial; it
can be mixed with liquid and drugs and it brings aid to the
wounded. In daily intercourse, to those who mix and drink it
moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it
brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get madness;
unmixed, bodily collapse.
From an early Christian volume called The Apostolic
Tradition we learn that
the early church followed the custom of using only such mixed wine, whether
made from a syrup or from the unmixed liquid.
Naturally fermented wine has an alcoholic content of from
nine to eleven
percent. For an alcoholic beverage such as brandy to have a higher content, it
must be artificially fortified by distilling already-fermented wine. The
unmixed
wine of the ancients therefore had a maximum alcohol content of eleven percent.
Even mixed half and half (a mixture which Mnesitheus said would bring
madness), the wine would have had less than five percent alcohol. Since the
strongest wine normally drunk was mixed at least with three parts water to one
of
wine, its alcohol content would have been in a range no higher than 2.25-2.75
percent—well below the 3.2 percent that today is generally considered necessary
to classify a beverage as alcoholic.
It is clear, therefore, that whether the yayin or oinos mentioned in
Scripture refers to the thick syrup itself, to a mixture of water and syrup, or
to a
mixture of water and pure wine, the wine was either nonalcoholic or only
slightly
alcoholic. To get drunk with mixed wine (oinos) would have required
consuming a large quantity—as is suggested in other New Testament passages.
‘Addicted to wine” (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7) translates one Greek word
(paroinos) and
literally means “at, or beside, wine,” and carries the idea of
sitting beside the wine cup for an extended period of time.
The answer to the first question is clearly no. The wine
of Bible times was
not the same as the unmixed wine of our own day. Even the more civilized
pagans of Bible times would have considered the drinking of modern wines to be
barbaric and irresponsible. MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
Because drinking of wine is not specifically and totally
forbidden in Scripture
and because it is not a necessity for believers in most parts of the world
today,
the drinking of it is a matter of choice. The next question is therefore, Is it
the
best choice?
Throughout the history of God’s people He has given higher
standards for
those in positions of greater responsibility. Under the sacrificial system
instituted
under Moses and described in Leviticus 4-5, the ordinary person was required to
give a female goat or a lamb as a sin offering—or two pigeons or two doves
(5:7), or even a meal (grain) offering (5:11), if he was very poor. But a ruler
had
to offer a male goat, and the congregation as a whole or the high priest had to
offer a bull.
Aaron and all succeeding high priests were also given
higher personal
standards by which to live. They were commanded, “Do not drink wine or strong
drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of
meeting, so that you may not die—it is a perpetual statute throughout your
generations” (Lev. 10:9). Because the high priest was called apart to a higher
office, he was also called to a higher commitment to God and to a higher
quality
of living. Whether their drink restriction pertained to their total living or
only to
the time while they were actually serving in the Tabernacle or Temple, their
ministry for the Lord was to be marked by total abstinence from all alcoholic
beverage. Their minds and bodies were to be clear, pure, and fully functional
when they ministered in the Lord’s name. There was to be no risk of moral or
spiritual compromise in sacred ministry.
The same high standard applied to rulers in Israel. “It is
not for kings, O
Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong
drink, lest
they drink and forget what is ordered, and pervert the rights of all the
afflicted”
(Prov. 31:4-5). Their judgment was not to be clouded even by the amount of
alcohol found in wine (yayin),
much less by the much higher amount in strong
drink (sheôkaôr).
Strong drink was to be given only “to him who is perishing,” as
a sedative to ease his pain (v. 6). Any other use of it was not condoned.
Normal
mixed wine could be given for enjoyment “to him whose life is bitter. Let him
drink and forget his poverty, and remember his trouble no more” (vv. 6-7). But
the high priests and the rulers of the people were to drink neither yayin nor
sheôkaôr.
Any person in Israel could choose to set himself apart for
God in a special
way by taking the Nazirite vow “when a man or woman makes a special vow the
vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the Lord, he shall abstain from wine
and
strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong
drink,
neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh or dried grapes. All the
days
of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine,
from the seeds even to the skin” (Num. 6:2-4). A Nazirite also vowed not to
shave his head or to ceremonially contaminate himself by touching a dead body
as long as his vow was in effect (vv. 5-7).
The name Nazirite comes from the Hebrew naôzŒòr which means
“separated,
or consecrated.” Such separation was voluntary and could last from 30 days to a
lifetime. But while the person, man or woman, was set apart in that way for
special service to the Lord, his life was to be marked by special purity,
including
abstention from anything even associated with alcoholic drink. The Nazirite
was,
in a sense, stepping up to the level of a ruler or high priest by his act of
special
consecration and separation.
Scripture names only three men who were Nazirites for
life—Samson,
Samuel, and John the Baptist. All three were set apart as Nazirites before they
were born, Samuel by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11) and Samson and John the Baptist
by the Lord Himself (Judg. 13:3-5; Luke 1:15). The mothers of both Samson and
Samuel also abstained from wine and strong drink (Judg. 13:4; 1 Sam. 1:15),
Samson’s mother by the direct command of the angel.
Though we do not know their identities, many other
Nazirites lived in Israel
and served the Lord through their specially consecrated lives (see Lam. 4:7, AV
but see also NASB; Amos 2:11).
Unfortunately, many of them were forcibly
corrupted by their fellow Israelites, who “made the Nazirites drink wine” (Amos
2:12; cf. Lam. 4:8). The world resents those whose high standards are a rebuke
to
low living. Instead of trying to attain a higher level for themselves, people
who
are worldly and fleshly—including worldly and carnal Christians—seek to bring
those who live purely down to their own corrupt level.
In Jeremiah’s day the entire clan of the Rechabites had
taken a vow not to
drink wine, and had remained faithful to that vow. Because of their
faithfulness,
the Lord had Jeremiah set them up as a standard of righteous living, in
contrast to
the corrupt unfaithfulness of Judah, on whom He was about to bring judgment
(Jer. 35:1-19).
The most outstanding Nazirite was John the Baptist, of
whom Jesus said,
“Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone
greater” (Matt. 11:11). Before John was born, the angel said of him, “He will
be
great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine (oinos) or liquor
(sikera); and he
will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s
womb” (Luke 1:15).
Yet Jesus went on to say in regard to John the Baptist
that “he who is least in
the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). In Jesus Christ, every
believer is on the spiritual level of a high priest, a ruler, and a Nazirite.
Christ
loves us and has “released us from our sins by His blood, and He has made us to
be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father” (Rev. 1:5-6). Christians are a
“chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own
possession” (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. v. 5). Every Christian is specially set apart for
God,
and every Christian is to be separated from everything that is unclean (2 Cor.
6:17). “Therefore, having these promises, beloved,” Paul continued, “let us
cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness
in
the fear of God” (7:1).
God did not lower His standards for New Testament saints,
who are greater,
Jesus said, even than John the Baptist. In both the Old and New Testaments
drinking wine or strong drink disqualified a person from the leadership of
God’s
people. Christian leaders, like those of the Old Testament, are held to specially
high standards. Overseers, or bishops, who are the same as elders and pastors,
must not be “addicted to wine,” which, as mentioned above, translates one word
(paroinos) and
literally means “at, or by, wine.” A leader in the church is not
even to be beside wine. “Must” (1 Tim. 3:2) is from the Greek particle dei, and
carries the meaning of logical necessity rather than moral ought. Paul is
therefore
saying that leaders in the church of Jesus Christ not only ought but “must be …
not addicted to wine” (vv. 2-3).
James said, “Let not many of you become teachers, my
brethren, knowing
that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1), and Jesus said,
“From everyone who has been given much shall much be required” (Luke 12:48).
If Old Testament high priests, Nazirites, kings, judges, and other rulers of
the
people were to be clear-minded at all times, the Lord surely does not have
lower
standards for leaders in the church, which is the present incarnate Body of His
own Son, Jesus Christ. For deacons, whose responsibility is to serve rather
than
to give leadership, the standard is less stringent. They are allowed to drink
wine
but are not to be “addicted,” which is from a different Greek word
(prosechontas),
meaning “to be occupied with.” Such allowance still forbids
drunkenness, and it reflects the distinct place of the elder, pastor, bishop,
who
should totally avoid any possibility of having his thinking clouded. The thrust
of
Paul’s message here seems to be that, because of the need for clear minds and
pure example, the decision-making leaders of the church, are to be held to the
highest possible standards of conduct, including abstinence from all alcoholic
beverages, and that deacons, who are not in such critical roles, are allowed to
drink wine in moderation.
That Paul advised Timothy to “no longer drink water
exclusively, but use a
little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim.
5:23) indicates that, consistent with his leadership abstinence, Timothy
previously had drunk no wine at all and that Paul’s recommendation to start
drinking “a little wine” was purely for medicinal purposes. Every believer is
to
present his body “a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1),
in
total consecration to Him. MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
A fifth concern should be for alcohol’s potential
destructiveness. The pagan
writer Mnesitheus, already quoted, spoke of wine mixed with half water as
causing madness and of unmixed wine’s bringing bodily collapse. The mental,
physical, and social destructiveness of alcohol is too evident to need much
documentation.
Over 40 percent of all violent deaths are alcohol related,
and at least 50
percent of all traffic fatalities involve drinking drivers. It is estimated
that at least
one fourth of all hospitalized psychiatric patients have a problem with
alcohol.
Heavy consumption of alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver and countless other
physical disorders. Alcohol-related problems cost billions of dollars each year
in
lost income to employers and employees, in settlements by insurance companies
and in higher premiums for their customers, and in many other less direct ways.
Dissipation, to which drunkenness inevitably leads,
is from asoôtia,
which
literally means “that which is unable to be saved.” It was used of a person who
was hopelessly and incurably sick and also was used of loose, profligate
living,
as in that of the prodigal son (Luke 15:13). Dissipation is therefore a
form of self-
destruction. MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
In speaking of food sacrificed to idols, Paul said, “We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.… However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.… For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:4, 7-9, 11).
A Christian who himself is perfectly able to drink in moderation is not able to guarantee that his example will not cause a weaker fellow Christian to try drinking and become addicted. Not only that, but just as in Paul’s day, a former drunk who becomes a Christian will often associate many immoral and corrupt activities with drinking, and to see a fellow Christian drink is likely to offend his conscience. Our freedom in Christ stops where it begins to harm others, especially fellow believers. We have no right to “destroy with [our] food [or drink] him for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15). We cannot be absolutely certain even of our own ability to always drink in moderation, and even less certain that our example will not cause others—including our children—to drink beyond moderation. “Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food,” Paul continued. “All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles” (vv. 20-21). Our own freedom in Christ should not be cherished above the welfare of even one other believer. We are to do those things “which make for peace and the building up of one another” (v. 19).
MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians.
Paul explicitly said, “He who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Even if we believe that something is not sinful in itself, if we cannot do it with a completely free conscience, we sin because we do it against our conscience. Going against our conscience will push us into self-condemnation and self-imposed guilt. Conscience is a God-given alarm to guard against sin, and whenever we go against it we weaken it and make it less sensitive and less reliable, thereby training ourselves to reject it. To continually go against conscience is to cause it to become “seared … as with a branding iron” (1 Tim. 4:2) and to become silent. When that happens, we lose a very powerful agent God has given to lead us (cf. 1 Tim. 1:5, 19).
As we ask ourselves questions about drinking, the final one is the most important: Can I do it before others and before God in total faith and confidence that it is right? MacArthur, John. NT Commentary: Ephesians
The Greek present tense is
used to indicate that the filling of the Spirit is not a once-for-all
experience. Repeatedly, as the occasion requires, the Spirit empowers for
worship, service and testimony. The contrast between being filled with wine and
filled with the Spirit is obvious. But there is something in common that
enables Paul to make the contrast, namely, that one can be under an influence
that affects him, whether of wine or of the Spirit. Since Col 3:15-4:1 is very similar to Eph 5:18-6:9, we may assume that Paul intends to
convey a basically similar thought in the introductory sentences to each
passage. When he speaks here of being filled with the Spirit and when he speaks
in Colossians of being under the rule of the peace of Christ and indwelt by the
"word" of Christ, he means to be under God’s control. The effect of
this control is essentially the same in both passages: a happy, mutual
encouragement to praise God and a healthy, mutual relationship with
people. NIV Study Bible notes
Eph 5:19
19 speaking to one
another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with
your heart to the Lord;
It is noticeable that each of these expressions of the Spirit’s fullness has to do with praise. The verb "to speak" (laleo) is not confined to normal conversation but covers utterance of any kind and so is perfectly applicable to the medium of psalms, hymns, and songs. Such communication is with one another (heautois) not "to yourselves" (KJV).
EBCNT
In addition, believers who are filled with the Spirit will give thanks. The writer still has in view primarily thanksgiving in public worship (cf. also 1 Cor 14:16, 17), which, as well as spiritual songs, could well include material like that found in his opening berakah. But the attitude of thanksgiving that is expressed in their worship will also be one that permeates believers’ whole lives. They will give thanks not just sometimes for some things but always for everything (cf. also 1 Thess 5:18). And this time their thanks is directed to the ultimate giver of all good things, to the one who is both God and Father, and offered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ—a formulaic expression with liturgical connections (cf. 1 Cor 5:4; Phil 2:10; 2 Thess 3:6) but one whose significance goes beyond such settings. So the Spirit inspires thanksgiving to God the Father, and everything for which there is cause for thanks is summed up in and mediated through Christ. For further discussion of the profound importance of thanksgiving, see Comment on 5:4 (cf. also Col 3:15–17, where the need for thankfulness is stressed three times). The use of the participle eujcaristou`nte" is in a general, not a technical, sense, such as is found in Did. 9.2, 3; 10.1–4 or Justin, Apol. 67.5, and is not a sufficient reason for holding that the specific worship setting in view in these verses is the celebration of the Eucharist. Nor, as we have seen, does connecting the prohibition against drunkenness with the misuse of the agapeµ meal add anything substantial to this supposition (pace Schlier, 248, 250; Adai, Der heilige Geist, 226–28). Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
That is, he could be thinking of them as results that ought to take place, because they characterize the corporate life of truly Spirit-filled believers. The joy expressed in music and thanksgiving and the benefits of mutual submission, then, are results of the filling of the Spirit—but also what we need to experience in our life together.
Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs may refer to different kinds of religious music. Psalms could be from what we know as the book of Psalms, hymns could denote worship directed to God, and spiritual songs could be more spontaneous, possibly for mutual encouragement. However, it is often noted that these are not necessarily distinct from each other in genre, but rather are overlapping if not synonymous terms.
More significant than any difference between these is what they accomplish. (1) The singing is a kind of conversation among believers. Verse 19 begins with the word “speaking,” which implies that the content of the songs is a communication with others. The dative form of one another (heautois) could indicate either that the communication is “to one another” (NIV) or “among yourselves” (NRSV). (2) The singing arises from the heart, implying both that it is sincere and that it is not merely superficially “joining in” a community song. (3) It is to the Lord, which fortifies the truly spiritual nature of the song—in contrast to the unholy conversation and coarse joking in the Ephesians’ former state. (4) They are no longer idolatrous but are giving thanks to God the Father. (5) The words always and for everything are comprehensive and indicate a way of life, not just the experience of a moment. This amplifies the meaning of being filled with the Spirit. (6) Their thanksgiving is in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, showing that they are now in the kingdom of Christ and of God (contrast v. 5) and that Christ has shone upon them (v. 14).Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
NASB: Eph 5:20
20 always giving
thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the
Father;
We are to give thanks always. It is not a duty to be performed once for all, nor merely when new mercies are received, but always, because we are under obligation for blessings temporal and spiritual already received, which calls for perpetual acknowledgment. We are to give thanks for everything—for afflictions as well as for our joys, say the ancient commentators. This is not in the text, though Paul, as we learn from other passages, gloried in his afflictions. Here the words are limited by the context—for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus.
The apostles preached in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; they worked miracles in his name. Believers are commanded to pray in his name, to give thanks in his name, and to do all things in his name. What we do in the name of Christ, we do by his authority and relying on him for success. Christ gives us access to the Father; we come to God through him; he gives us the right to come; and it is on him we depend for acceptance when we come. The Father—i.e, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the covenant title for God under the new dispensation, and it presents the only ground on which he can be approached as our Father. Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Eph 5:21
21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
2. The mid, means a. "to subject oneself" out of fear, Herodian. Hist., II, 2, 8, "to
be subservient," of a servile disposition, Jos. Bell., 4, 175, "to acknowledge as lord."
2, 433; b. "to submit voluntarily ,"prepon gar esti thn gunaika tw andri uJpotassesqai (, says Alexander to his mother, who In spite of a wrong done her by Philip should seek reconciliation, Ps.,Callfsth., 1, 22, 4; gen, a commendable attitude by which one gains the sympathy of others, par. tapeinoomai, Ar., 257. In the first instance, then,
uJpotassomai does not mean so much "to obey" - though this may result from selfsubordination – or to do the will of someone but rather "to lose or surrender one’s own rights or will. Theological Dictionary of the NT, G. Kittel
While the household code is introduced by a plea for mutual submissiveness, ’s the submissiveness enjoined in the code itself is not mutual. As in the parallel code in Col. 3:18-4: 1, wives are directed to be subject to their husbands, children to be obedient to their parents, and slaves to their masters, but the submissiveness is not reciprocated: husbands are told to love their wives, parents to bring up their children wisely, and masters to treat their slaves considerately. As for the section dealing with wives and husbands, its distinctive feature in Ephesians is that the relationship between husband and wife is treated as analogical to that between Christ and the church.
Many of the cusives read qeou for cristou. NICNT, Bruce, F.F.
Eph 5:22
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands,
as to the Lord.
a. Although the verb “submit” has been supplied for the sake of the English translation. it is most likely that the best Greek text has no verb and was dependent for its sense on the participle in the previous verse. This is the reading found in p46 B Clement 1/2 Greek mss. to Jerome Jerome Theodore. Other traditions actually supply some form of uJpotavssein, “to submit,” after either gunai`ke", “wives,” or ajndravsin. “husbands.” The second person plural imperative uJpotavssesqe is placed after gunai`ke" in D G 1985 lect55 ite and after ajndravsin in K 181 326 614 629 630 1984 syrp,h Chrysostom, while the third person plural form ujpotassevsqwsan is placed after gunai`ke" in Y copsa,bo and after ajndravsin in a
A I P 33 81 88 104 330 436 451 itar,c,dem,f vg syrpal goth arm eth Clement1/2 Origen. But these longer readings are all best explained as scribal additions for the sake of clarity. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The relationship between Christ and his church is typified
by three primary earthly relationships: those of husband and wife (5:22-33),
parent and child (6:1-4), and master and servant (6:4-9). Jamieson, Fausset,
and Brown
5:21–33 can be seen as a unit. Its first verse acts as a
link, completing the thought of 5:18–20 about being filled with the Spirit and
at the same time introducing a new topic, submission, which is to be developed
in the rest of the passage. Its introductory function is twofold. Not only does
the admonition of v 22 depend on the participle of v 21 for its sense, but the
notion of fear in the latter verse also provides the opening element of an inclusio
which will be completed in v 33.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical
Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians,
1998.
In Greek “wives” is in the vocative case, yet with the
definite article. Used in
a general sense, it binds all wives into one class for this assignment. Wives
are
asked to submit to husbands. Husbands are asked to love their wives (v. 25).
“Submit” translates a military term (hupotasso,
Gk.), which means “to place
under” or “to subordinate” (cf. 1 Pet 3:1, note). This is not because of
essential
feminine inferiority but because God has placed the husband first in order of
creation as head of the home, just as Christ is the Head of the church. While
submission is in one sense limitless, i.e., wives are to submit “in everything”
(v.
24), in another sense this submission is not to exceed the parameters of the
will
of God (v. 22). The directive to husbands is even more imposing. The mandate to
love employs agapete
(Gk.) and hence must be a command for the husband to
exhibit thoroughly all the qualities delineated in 1 Cor. 13 in his
relationship with
his wife. The verb indicates continuous, habitual action (v. 25). Christ loved
the
church not because it was holy, but in order to make it holy (v. 26).
The Believer’s Study Bible, Editor W.A. Criswell, Managing Editor Paige Patterson.
What kind of submission is Paul advocating in Ephesians? Some hold that Paul is speaking of mutual submission in this passage (5:21–6:4). They point to the phrase “submitting to one another in the fear of God” (5:21), as the overall theme of the verses following it (5:21–6:4). According to this view, husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves all submit to each other in different ways.
This passage certainly teaches a proper Christian response to each other at different levels, as the mutual submission view holds. It is clear that Paul develops two ideas side by side—submission and the appropriate response of the one to whom submission is given. But the mutual submission view does not adequately reflect the meaning of submission in Greek. The Greek term for submission has military origins, emphasizing being under the authority of another. The word does not connote a forced submission; instead it is a voluntary submission to a proper authority. Thus Paul seems to be saying that wives should voluntarily place themselves under the authority of their husbands. The same word is used to describe Christians voluntarily submitting to governmental authorities (1 Pet. 2:13) and younger people submitting to the wisdom of their elders (1 Pet. 5:5). In this passage, Paul gives the illustration of the church’s submission to Christ. After encouraging wives to submit to their husbands, Paul goes on to describe how children should obey their parents, and slaves their masters. Their subordination is described in terms of obedience, instead of in terms of voluntary submission.
But Paul’s major emphasis in this passage is not on the submission of wives, but on the duty of those who are in authority. Husbands should imitate the love of Christ. Parents should not provoke children. Masters are not to threaten their slaves. The apostle argues that serving is more important than being in authority over others; Christ should be our model. Although He, as God’s Son, could demand obedience from all, He did not shrink from performing duties that were customarily the task of a servant. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples (John 13:12–16). A husband is to be a godly leader, he is to be a servant-leader. His role is to lead his wife, but to do so by taking everything about her into consideration and by using his position to give her the greatest opportunity to succeed.
Nelson’s Study Bible.
›ðïôÜóóù
hupotassoô;
from G5259 and G5021; to place or rank under, to subject,
mid. to obey:—put in subjection (5), subject (16), subjected (7),
subjecting (1),
subjection (4), submissive (3), submit (2).
NASB Concordance
G5293
›ðïôÜóóù
hupotassoô
Thayer Definition:
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one’s self, obey
4) to submit to one’s control
5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
Thayer’s Greek Definitions
COL 3:18 AiJ gunai’ke", uJpotavssesqe toi’" ajndravsin, wJ" ajnh’ken ejn kurivw/. Greek NIV
22 "Submit" is assumed here from the previous verse, since no verb appears. The fact that the sentence depends on v. 21 confirms the paragraph arrangement adopted in the NIV. It is to their own (idios) husbands that wives are to be subject (Col 3:18). The legally binding exclusiveness of the marriage relationship is thus underlined. "As to the Lord" differs slightly from "as is fitting in the Lord" in Colossians 3:18. In obeying her husband, the Christian wife is obeying the Lord who has sanctioned the marriage contract. It should be noted that all Paul says is within the context of a Christian marriage. He is not implying that women are inferior to men or that all women should be subject to men. The subjection, moreover, is voluntary, not forced. The Christian wife who promises to obey does so because her vow is "as to the Lord." EBCNT
Having said all this, it may yet also be the case that the writer needed no particular occasion or difficulty about marriage to cause him to elaborate in this way. His vision of life in the world is one which is particularly concerned with unity—the ultimate unity of the cosmos in Christ and the present anticipation of that in the unity of the Church. An essential aspect of unity in the Church is harmony in the Christian household, and the pairing within the household that lends itself most to the exposition of unity is clearly that of husband and wife. There may also be an equivalent here in Ephesians to the link between household and state in traditional discussions, where the household was seen as a subunit or microcosm of the polis. Now the household is regarded as the subunit or microcosm of Christian society, the Church, which this writer has described as God’s household (2:19). In Ephesians, then, marital unity serves as an instance of Church unity, and Church unity serves as an instance of ultimate cosmic unity. As Sampley (“And the Two,” 149) puts it, “for the author of Ephesians, the marriage relationship is transparent to God’s purposes on a larger scale … no other relationship within the family so fully mirrors God’s purposes in the universe.” For this writer, not only can marriage provide a superb example of the mutual submission that is necessary for harmony in the Church, but also, through its specific roles of loving headship and voluntary submission, it can reflect the way another major unity, the fundamental unity between Christ and his Church, is expressed. As we have seen, this pattern of Christian marriage would not have been viewed as strange or upsetting within the cities of Asia Minor. Despite its distinctively Christian elements, in terms of the actual roles it enjoins it falls well within normal expectations about the patriarchal household in the Greco-Roman world. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” Within the marriage relationship, wives are addressed first. It should be noted that in this household code those who are to be subordinate, wives, children, and slaves, are addressed as moral agents. Although some elements of the Pauline gospel (cf. Gal 3:28) might have led women and slaves in the Pauline churches to different conclusions about their roles in the church and in society, this writer asks wives voluntarily to subordinate themselves to their husbands. It is of course noteworthy, as we have already seen, that this verse does not actually contain the verb uJpotavssesqai, “to be subordinate.” Nor for that matter does the syntax of v 24b apply the verb directly to the wife. But in both cases, this is so clearly to be understood from the preceding clauses that it is doubtful whether any theological significance should be read into its omission. The writer’s theological framework can be discerned from what he says explicitly and does not need to be inferred from an ellipsis (pace Miletic, “One Flesh,” 7, 17, 27–30, 99–101). uJpotavssesqai means to take a subordinate role in relation to that of another (cf. Delling, “uJpotavssw,” TDNT 8 [ 1972] 39–46; Kamlah, “uJpotavssesqai,” 239–40). What it involves more specifically will depend on the relationship to which it is applied and the social expectations attached to that relationship. In other words, in its concrete manifestation, subordination takes a particular shape in the relation of citizens to the state, another in the relation of slaves to masters, and yet another in the relationship of wives to husbands. In the NT, the term is used of this last relationship in Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1. Outside the NT, there are, however, only two examples of the use of the actual verb uJpotavssesqai for the wife’s attitude toward her husband, Plutarch, Conj. Praec. 33 (Moralia 142e), and Ps-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magni 1.22.4 (cf. Rengstorf, “Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen,” 132), though the call for wives to obey husbands was common in Hellenistic Judaism (cf., e.g., Philo, Hyp. 7.3; Josephus, c. Ap. 2.24 § 201).
But does the fact that there are varieties of subordination and that the subordination is willing mean that a distinction should be made, as is done by some (e.g., Barth, 714), between subordination and obedience? In support of such a distinction, it is pointed out that the verb used for the attitude required from wives is uJpotavssesqai, “to submit, be subordinate,” while that employed in the case of children and slaves is uJpakouvein, “to obey.” But this is to drive a wedge between terms that are frequently synonymous. To be sure, “to submit” is the broader term, but to subordinate oneself to another may well entail being willing to obey that person, and such obedience would certainly have been seen as part of a wife’s role in relation to her husband in most parts of the ancient world. Certainly also, the Church’s subordination to Christ, on which the wife’s subordination to her husband is based in v 24, would be seen as involving glad obedience (cf. also Clark, Man and Woman, 82). There is obviously a difference between willing submission and imposed obedience but hardly a major distinction between voluntary subordination and voluntary obedience. Here the obedience of children and slaves is to be seen as part of the mutual subordination enjoined in v 21. Elsewhere in the NT, in 1 Pet 3:5, 6, submission of wives to husbands and obedience of wives to husbands are explicitly paralleled.
The wife is to be subject to her husband as to the Lord. Her subordination is called for not just because it is the role society has allotted her but because this is the way she can serve her Lord (cf. also Caird, Paul’s Letters, 88). The “Lord” is not a direct reference, as some have suggested, to the husband as lord of the wife in line with 1 Pet 3:6, “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (pace Mussner, 156; idem, Christus, 148; Gaugler, 207–8; Sampley, “And the Two,” 112, 122, holds that the writer is being deliberately ambiguous in his use of kuvpio"). Greek grammar would demand the plural “as to their lords” instead of the singular wJ" tw`/ kurivw/. As the next verse will explain, what is involved here is that in voluntarily subordinating herself to her husband the wife is to see this as done in subordination to the Lord, because in the marriage relationship her husband reflects the Lord while she reflects the Church. Fear of Christ (v 21) becomes in the concrete marriage situation submission to the husband, even fear of the husband (v 33). But in this specific situation the same motivation is to be maintained as in the general admonition of v 21; that is, submission is to be practiced as if to the Lord himself. As Schüssler Fiorenza (Memory, 269) observes, “The instruction to the wives clearly reinforces the patriarchal marriage pattern and justifies it christologically”Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
He begins with wives, whom he enjoins to be subject to their husbands, in the same manner as to Christ, — as to the Lord. Not that the authority is equal, but wives cannot obey Christ without yielding obedience to their husbands. Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
That is clearly the point regarding the submission of wives in 1 Peter 3:1–7. It is also consistent with Titus 2:5, where women are to be submissive to their husbands “so that no one will malign the grace of God.” The fact that social acceptance of Christianity is the purpose in Titus 2 is clear from the other instructions, where young men are to be good examples “so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us” (2:8) and where slaves should be subject to their masters “so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (2:10).
Therefore even though Ephesians makes no such reference to the reputation of Christian families among unbelievers (and though the parallel in Col 3:18–4:1 is also without any such explanatory comments), there is biblical reason to suppose that Paul may have had this in mind along with other purposes. Some even hold that since Paul in that social context provides governing rules for slaves and masters, and since this is a relationship neither we nor he would tolerate today, it is possible that Paul would not have been as strong today on the submission of wives. These, however, are matters of supposition.
As noted above, the manuscripts that are generally considered older and more accurate omit the word submit in verse 22. That does not mean this was not in Paul’s mind, but that it was assumed from the previous verse. Therefore the instructions to wives in this context are not isolated but are linked to the call for mutual submission. This connection means that the submissive attitude described in verses 22–33 is a further expression of, and is enabled by, the filling of the Spirit in verse 18.
As to the Lord does not mean that the wife treats her husband as though he were the Lord, but rather that this submission is not an arbitrary capitulation to a husband’s will but a means of honoring the Lord.
Whatever inferences may be drawn from the teaching on mutual submission, it clearly cannot mean a complete exchange of roles. As Christ and the church cannot exchange places, the analogy used does not permit husband and wife to exchange places either. And whatever social reasons there may have been for Paul’s use of a household code, it still has a theological (specifically a christological) basis. The analogy Paul uses in verse 23 is that just as Christ is head of the church, so the husband is head of the wife.Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
Wives is not qualified, and therefore applies to
every Christian wife,
regardless of her social standing, education, intelligence, spiritual maturity
or
giftedness, age, experience, or any other consideration. Nor is it qualified by
her
husband’s intelligence, character, attitude, spiritual condition, or any other
consideration. Paul says categorically to all believing wives: be
subject to your
own husbands.
As indicated by italics in most translations, be
subject is not in the original
text, but the meaning is carried over from verse 21. The idea is: “Be subject
to
one another in the fear of Christ [and, as a first example,] wives,… to your
own
husbands.” As explained in the previous chapter, hupotassoô means to
relinquish one’s rights, and the Greek middle voice (used in v. 21 and carried
over by implication into v. 22) emphasizes the willing submitting of oneself.
God’s command is to those who are to submit. That is, the submission is to be a
voluntary response to God’s will in giving up one’s independent rights to other
believers in general and to ordained authority in particular—in this case the
wife’s own husband.
The wife is not commanded to obey (hupakouoô) her husband, as
children
are to obey their parents and slaves their masters (6:1, 5). A husband is not
to
treat his wife as a servant or as a child, but as an equal for whom God has
given
him care and responsibility for provision and protection, to be exercised in
love.
She is not his to order about, responding to his every wish and command. As
Paul
proceeds to explain in considerable detail (vv. 25-33), the husband’s primary
responsibility as head of the household is to love, provide, protect, and serve
his
wife and family—not to lord it over them according to his personal whims and
desires.
Your own husband suggests the intimacy and
mutuality of the wife’s
submission. She willingly makes herself subject to the one she possesses
as her
own husband (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3-4). Husbands and wives are to have a mutual
possessiveness as well as a mutual submissiveness. They belong to each other in
an absolute equality. The husband no more possesses his wife than she possesses
him. He has no superiority and she no inferiority, any more than one who has
the
gift of teaching is superior to one with the gift of helps. A careful reading
of 1
Corinthians 12:12-31 will show that God has designed every person for a unique
role in the Body of Christ, and the pervasive attitude governing all those
roles
and blending them together is “the more excellent way” of love (ch. 13).
As with spiritual gifts, the distinctions of headship and
submission are
entirely functional and were ordained by God. As a consequence of Eve’s
disobedience of God’s command and her failure to consult with Adam about the
serpent’s temptation, God told her, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and
he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). The desire spoken of here is not sexual or
psychological, both of which Eve had for Adam before the Fall as his specially
created helper. It is the same desire spoken of in the next chapter, where the
identical Hebrew word (teshuòqaò)
is used. The term comes from an Arabic root
that means to compel, impel, urge, or seek control over. The Lord warned Cain,
“Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you [that is, control you],
but
you must master it” (4:7, NIV;
emphasis added). Sin wanted to master Cain, but
God commanded Cain to master sin. In light of this close context meaning of
teshuòqaò,
therefore, the curse on Eve was that woman’s desire would
henceforth be to usurp the place of man’s headship and that he would resist
that
desire and would rule over her. The Hebrew word here for “rule” is not the same
as that used in 1:28. Rather it represented a new; despotic kind of
authoritarianism that was not in God’s original plan for man’s headship.
With the Fall and its curse came the distortion of woman’s
proper
submissiveness and of man’s proper authority. That is where the battle of the
sexes began, where women’s liberation and male chauvinism came into
existence. Women have a sinful inclination to usurp man’s authority and men
have a sinful inclination to put women under their feet. The divine decree that
man would rule over woman in this way was part of God’s curse on humanity,
and it takes a manifestation of grace in Christ by the filling of the Holy Spirit’
to
restore the created order and harmony of proper submission in a relationship
that
has become corrupted and disordered by sin.
Eve was created from Adam’s rib and ordained to be his
companion, to be, as
Adam himself beautifully testified, “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”
(Gen. 2:22-23). God’s curse did not change His basic plan for mutuality in the
marriage relationship or for the functional authority of the husband over the
wife.
Man was created first and was created generally to be physically,
constitutionally, and emotionally stronger than woman, who is “a weaker vessel”
(1 Pet. 3:7). Both before and after the Fall and the consequent curse, man was
called to be the provider, protector, guide, and shepherd of the family, and
woman called to be supportive and submissive.
In a parallel passage to Ephesians 5:22, Paul said,
“Wives, be subject to your
husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (Col. 3:18). Aneôkoô (to be fitting) was
sometimes used of that which was legally binding, as in Philemon 8, where Paul
uses it in reference to legal propriety. The word refers to that which is the
accepted standard of human society.
Any society that has taken either the obvious nature of
women or the Word of
God into consideration has fashioned its best laws in line with His. Laws
against
murder find their source in the Ten Commandments—just as do laws against
stealing, adultery, perjury, and so on. The wife’s submission to her husband is
a
divine principle that has been reflected to some degree in the legal codes of
most
societies.
MacArthur’s NT Commentary: Ephesians.
Peter taught exactly the same truth as Paul in regard to
the relationship of
husbands and wives. “You wives, be submissive [also from hupotassoô] to
your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1a). The idea is not that of subservience
or
servility, but of willingly functioning under the husband’s leadership. Peter
also
emphasized the mutual possessiveness of husbands and wives, using the same
words as Paul—your own husbands.” Wives are to submit even when their
husbands “are disobedient to the word, [that] they may be won without a word by
the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful
behavior”
(vv. 1b-2). Instead of nagging, criticizing, and preaching to her
husband, a wife
should simply set a godly example before him—showing him the power and
beauty of the gospel through its effect in her own life. Humility, love, moral
purity, kindness, and respect are the most powerful means a woman has for
winning her husband to the Lord.
MacArthur’s NT Commentary: Ephesians.
Eph 5:23
23 For the husband
is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being
the Savior of the body.
But Paul reinforces the convention with the claim that the husband is the woman’s head, which in 1 Cor. 11 is based in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. ‘Head’ means master (see on 1:22); contrary to widespread claims, the word never meant ‘source’ in biblical Greek. The appeal is then further supported (and transcends convention) by the analogy Paul develops between marriage and the relationship between Christ and the church, with the woman being asked to submit to the husband in the way the church submits to her head, Christ (i.e. responding to his love, joyfully, and out of heartfelt desire, not grudgingly or under compulsion). Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, 1994.
The answer to the first question regarding the reason for submission is in verse 23: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” Some have attempted to reinterpret the obvious meaning of this verse by insisting that “head” (kephale) carries the idea of “source” rather than “authority over.” But this simply is not true, especially in this context.
Dr. Wayne Grudem, in a careful study of 2,336 instances of
kephale from classical
Greek literature — all the non-classical references from Philo, Josephus, the
Apostolic Fathers, the Epistle of Aristias, the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodocian, says, “No instances were
discovered in which kephale
had the meaning ‘source, origin.’”
Moreover, during Paul’s time, Philo of Alexandria made a statement which clearly explains that head means authority:
Just as nature conferred the sovereignty of the body on the head when she granted it also possession of the citadel as the most suitable for its kingly rank, conducted it thither to take command and established it on high with the whole framework from neck to foot set below it, like the pedestal under the statue, so too she has given the lordship of the senses to the eyes.
Finally, “head” has to mean authority here in its context. F. F. Bruce says, “But in this context the word ‘head’ has the idea of authority attached to it after the analogy of Christ’s headship over the church.” Head has a clear enough connotation in English as in head of a corporation or head of a university — the authority over, the leader.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
Just as Christ is not inferior to the Father, but is the second Person in the Trinity, so wives are equal to their own husbands. Yet in a marriage relationship, a husband and wife have different roles. to the Lord: A wife’s voluntary submission arises out of her own submission to Christ.
The Nelson’s Study Bible
Eph 5:24
24 But as the
church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their
husbands in everything.
24 aJlla; wJ" hJ ejkklhsiva uJpotavssetai tw`/ Cristw`/, ou{tw" kai; aiJ gunai`ke" toi`" ajndravsin ejn pantiv, “But as the Church submits to Christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything.” As has been suggested above, ajllav, “but,” is best taken as an adversative, providing a contrast with the immediately preceding words in v 23c. In relation to their additional distinctive thought about Christ, it provides the link back to the main analogy and has the force of “notwithstanding the difference” (cf. Abbott, 166; Barth, 619; Maillet, ETR 55 [1980] 570; pace J. A. Robinson, 124, 205, who claims it simply has a resumptive force, focusing on the main aspect of the previous argument, and Miletic, “One Flesh,” 102 n. 6, who holds it has consecutive force).
So v 24 restates, and in the process reinforces, the exhortation and its warrant in the analogy of Christ and the Church that has preceded in vv 22, 23. In the new formulation, the analogy is stated first and in a way that corresponds to the role of wives, “as the Church submits to Christ, so.…” The Church’s submission to Christ is certainly willing and free rather than coerced and therefore underlines what has been said about the wife’s submission as voluntary in the comments on v 22. If one asks what the writer thinks is involved in the Church’s subordination to Christ, one can look for an answer to the way in which he depicts the Church’s relation to Christ in the rest of the letter. The Church receives God’s gift of Christ as head over all on its behalf (1:22). In the building imagery of 2:20, 21 the Church looks to Christ as the crowning stone of its structure and the one who holds it all together. It opens itself to his constant presence (3:17) and comes to know his all-encompassing love (3:19). The Church receives his gift of grace (4:7) and his gifts of ministers for its own upbuilding (4:11, 12). It grows toward its head and receives from him all that is necessary for such growth (4:15, 16), including teaching about him (4:20, 21). The Church imitates Christ’s love (5:2) and tries to learn what is pleasing to him (5:10) and to understand his will (5:17). It sings praises to him (5:19) and lives in fear of him (5:21). The Church’s subordination, then, means looking to its head for his beneficial rule, living by his norms, experiencing his presence and love, receiving from him gifts that will enable growth to maturity, and responding to him in gratitude and awe. It is such attitudes that the wife is being encouraged to develop in relation to her husband. Miletic (“One Flesh,” 43) sums up the way in which the analogy grounds the exhortation in his assertion that “the Christ/church relationship provides direction (‘to the Lord’), perception (husband as ‘head’ as Christ is ‘head’) and example (church as paradigm) for the wife’s act of subordination.” Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The Church is submisive to Christ in everthing. F.F. Bruce. NICNT
The implications of ajlla; (alla, "but"; NIV, "now") here have been the subject of considerable discussion among exegetes. Some explain it as resumptive (cf. plh;n [plen, "however"] v. 33), though the alleged digression in v. 23b does not seriously interrupt the main argument. Others find an antithetic reference following a suppressed negative, such as "do not be disobedient." It may be employed syllogistically to introduce a proof or inference drawn from the previous statement, though alla is not equivalent to ou\n (oun, "then, "now then," "therefore") or w{ste (hoste, "so that," "therefore"). Some insist that the fully adversative force of alla must be retained, so that it is tr. "nevertheless" or "notwithstanding" to stress the fact that the husband cannot be treated as the savior of his wife as Christ is the savior of his body It is perhaps better to regard ajuto;" swth;r tou’ swvmato" (autos soter tou somatos, "he [is] Savior of the body," v. 23b) as in apposition to v. 23a so that alla substantiates the analogy. As an ellipsis, it may be expanded in this way: "then just as the Church is subject to Christ, wives should also be subject to their husbands" (BAG, p. 38). EBCNT
Eph 5:25
25 Husbands, love
your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her;
Husbands, love your wives. From husbands, on the other hand, the apostle requires that they cherish toward their wives no ordinary love; for to them, also, he holds out the example of Christ, — even as Christ also loved the church. If they are honored to bear his image, and to be, in some measure, his representatives, they ought to resemble him also in the discharge of duty.
And gave himself for it. This is intended to express the strong affection which husbands ought to have for their wives, though he takes occasion, immediately afterwards, to commend the grace of Christ. Let husbands imitate Christ in this respect, that he scrupled not to die for his church. One peculiar consequence, indeed, which resulted from his death, — that by it he redeemed his church, — is altogether beyond the power of men to imitate.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
After speaking of a wife’s submission to her husband (vv. 22-24), Paul then stated the measure of the husband’s love for his wife (vv. 25-32). Husbands are commanded, Love your wives (cf. v. 33) just as Christ loved the church. The word “love” (agapaoµ) means seeking the highest good for another person (cf. 2:4). This is an unselfish love as seen in Christ’s sacrificial death in which He gave Himself up for the church (cf. 5:2; John 10:11, 15, 17-18; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:25; Heb. 9:14). A wife’s submission in no way hints that a husband may lord it over his spouse, as a despot commanding a slave. The “submit-love” relationship is a beautiful mixture of harmonious partnership in marriage.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
In verse 2 of this chapter Paul has said that " Loved us and gave Himself up for us"; now he repeats the statment except that instead of "us" the subject is "the church," referred to by the feminine form of the third person singular pronoun ("her"). Christ’s love for the church is a self-sacrificing love, and the same, it is implied, should be true of husbands’ love for their wives. The idea of self-sacrifice inheres not in the verb "love" as such, but in its context." Bruce, F.F., NICNT
Eph 5:26
26 that He might
sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
The purpose of Christ’s death was to make the church holy (hagiaseµ, “to set apart” for Himself as His own forever; cf. Heb. 2:11; 10:10, 14; 13:12) which He did by cleansing her by the washing with water through the Word. This is not baptismal regeneration for that would be contrary to Paul’s teaching in this book as well as all his other writings and the entire New Testament. Metaphorically, being regenerated is pictured as being cleansed by water (cf. “the washing of rebirth” in Titus 3:5). The “Word” (rheµmati) refers to the “preached Word” that unbelievers hear (cf. rheµma in Eph. 6:17; Rom. 10:8, 17; 1 Peter 1:25). The ultimate purpose of Christ’s death is to present . . . to Himself the church as radiant or “in splendor” (rsv). This adjective, “glorious,” in NEB, is not attributive (as in niv‘s “a radiant church”). It is in the predicate position because there is an article before church (to “present the church . . . glorious,” neb). Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
26 i{na aujyh;n avgiavsh/ kaqarivsa" tw`/ loutrw`/ tou` u{dato" ejn rJhvmati, “in order that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by washing in water through the word.” The writer now elaborates on the goal of Christ’s love for the Church in three i{na clauses. In this first one, the purpose of that love is seen as the Church’s sanctification. As Westcott (85) put it, “Christ loved the Church not because it was perfectly lovable, but in order to make it such.” Sanctification in the light of its OT cultic background involves a setting apart to effect a state and condition of moral purity. Through Christ’s death on their behalf, believers have been separated from the sinful world and transferred to the sphere of God’s holiness. The writer has repeatedly drawn attention to this aspect of the readers’ identity through his use of the term a{gio", “holy” (cf. 1:1,4, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:18; 4:12; 5:3). Sampley (“And the Two,” 42–43, 129) makes the interesting observation that in rabbinic literature the Hebrew term for “to sanctify,” vdq
, qaµdasá,
can mean “to espouse a wife,” but this specific denotation is not the force of aJgiavzein,
“to sanctify,” here, nor likely to have been in the writer’s mind as a
secondary allusion in terms of marital imagery.
Instead, sanctification is explained as a cleansing that takes place through washing with water. The action of the aorist participle, kaqarivsa", “cleansing,” is best taken as coincident with that of the main verb, aJgiavsh/, “sanctify”; hence the translation “cleansing” rather than “having cleansed.” The definite article (lit., “the washing in water”) may well indicate a specific event, and the readers are scarcely likely to have taken this as anything other than a reference to their experience of baptism. In 1 Cor 6:11 washing and sanctifying occur together as metaphors of salvation, with an allusion to baptism highly probable. But here, the explicit mention of water suggests not simply an extended metaphor for salvation (pace Barth, 691–99) but a direct reference to water baptism (cf. also Acts 22:16; Heb 10:22), not to baptism by the Spirit (pace J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit [London: SCM, 1970] 163; Barth, 698). Sanctification and cleansing had also been linked with ritual washing at Qumran (cf. 1QS 3.4, 8–10; 1QH 11.10–12). Again, in line with the writer’s perspective in this passage, the Church as a whole, and not merely individual believers, can be seen as having been sanctified through baptism as a washing. If Christ’s death is the point in history at which his love was demonstrated, baptism is the point at which the Church experiences Christ’s continuing purifying love for her as his bride. Indeed, the language of “the washing with water” is likely to have as a secondary connotation the notion of the bridal bath. This would reflect both Jewish marital customs with their prenuptial bath and the marital imagery of Ezek 16:8–14 which stands behind this passage. In Ezek 16:9 Yahweh, in entering his marriage covenant with Jerusalem, is said to have bathed her with water and washed off the blood from her. (Among those who support an allusion to the bridal bath here are Meyer, 295,298; Abbott, 168–69; O. Casel, “Die Taufe als Brautbad der Kirche,” Jahrbuch für Liturgie und Wissenschaft 5 [1925] 144–47; Dunn, Baptism, 162–63; Bruce, Epistles, 387; Halter, Taufe, 282.)
The Church’s sanctification takes place not only through a cleansing involving a washing in water but also ejn rJhvmati, “through the word.” It is difficult to decide whether this phrase is meant to be taken as linked closely to the washing of water and related specifically to baptism, or as connected with the aorist participle kaqarivsa", “cleansing” (this is more likely than a connection with aJgiavsh/, “sanctify”; pace tev; Meyer, 295; Cambier, Bib 47 [1966] 75; Schnackenburg, 255) and having instrumental force. If it is the former, as the majority of commentators hold, and is taken as signifying accompanying or attendant circumstances, then rJh`ma is best understood not as a reference to the baptismal confession of faith (pace Westcott, 84; Bruce, Ephesians, 116; idem, Epistles, 388; Kirby, Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost, 152; Mitton, 203) but as a reference to the baptismal formula pronounced over the candidate (cf. Abbott, 169; J. A. Robinson, 125, 206–7; Schlier, 257; Sampley, “And the Two,” 132; Gnilka, 282; Halter, Taufe, 284; Mussner, 158). This would have included a reference to the name of Christ (cf. Acts 2:38; Jas 2:7) and thus to what had been achieved through him on behalf of believers. If “through the word” is to be taken more closely with “cleansing,” then rJh`ma could have the more general sense of the gospel message (cf. also Meyer, 295; Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery, 28; Caird, Paul’s Letters, 89; Hendriksen, 252). This is the way the term is employed elsewhere in Ephesians in 6:17, where it is the preached word of the gospel that the Spirit uses as his sword (cf. also Rom 10:8, 17; Heb 6:5, 1 Pet 1:25). The writer would then be saying that, as well as being cleansed through baptism, the Church is cleansed through the purifying word of the gospel (cf. also John 15:3; 17:17 for notions of being cleansed and sanctified through the word). On either of these interpretations, this writer sees the Church’s cleansing from the moral pollution of sin being carried out not through baptism only but through baptism accompanied by the word which points to Christ. Sanctification takes place through both water and the word.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Before the bride was presented to the bridegroom she received a cleansing bath and was then dressed in her bridal array. This provides part of the imagery in Yahweh’s account of his treatment of the foundling in Ezek. 16:6-14, where he reminds her that, when she reached marriageable age, "I bathed you with water ... I clothed you also with embroidered cloth ... and I decked you with ornaments.’" So here, the purpose of Christ’s giving himself up for the church is said to be her sanctification and cleansing with water. It is pointed out that the Hebrew verb "to sanctify" is used, in appropriate contexts, in the sense of betrothal ("to take someone apart for oneself as a wife"), so that the present passage might mean: "he gave himself up for her in order to betroth her to himself. But it is unnecessary to see this special meaning here: the verb "sanctify" anticipates the adjective "holy" toward the end of v. 27.
The sanctification takes places by means of cleansing "by the washing of water with the word." The verb "cleanse" or "purify" occurs in 2 Cor. 7:1, in the exhortation: "let us cleanse ourselves" from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the feat of God." But here it is not the believers who cleanse themselves, but Christ who cleanses them, as also in Tit. 2: 14 (the only other instance of the verb in the Pauline corpus), where he is said to have given himself "14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
The noun translated "washing" occurs in only one other place in the NT in Tit. 3:5, where Christ is said to have saved his people "by the washing of regeneration" and renewal in the Holy Spirit:’ The reference is to Christian initiation, in which the bestowal of the Spirit and baptism in water play a central part--the baptism involving not only the external washing but the inward and spiritual grace which it signifies. When Ananias of Damascus said to Paul, "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sin, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16), he implied that the external washing symbolized the more important inward cleansing from sin. And the participial clause, "calling on his name"’" (that is, the name of Christ), throws light on the phrase "with the word" or "with a word" in our present text: the "word" or "utterance" is the convert’s confession of the name of Christ as baptism is administered.’" A similar emphasis, in slightly different language, is found in 1 Pet. 3:21."NICNT
Eph 5:27
27 that He might
present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or
any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.
This purpose is then described negatively (without stain or wrinkle—no taint of sin or spiritual decay—or any other blemish) and positively (holy and blameless). These last two adjectives (hagia, “set apart,” and amoµmos, “without blemish,” like a spotless lamb) are stated in Ephesians 1:4 as the purpose of God’s election: that Christ may present His church to Himself in all its perfection (cf. “make holy” in 5:26; also cf. hagious and amoµmous in Col. 1:22). Whereas human brides prepare themselves for their husbands, Christ prepares His own bride for Himself. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
27 In his earlier bridal analogy (2 Cor. 11:2) Paul speaks of himself as the paranymphios whose role it is to "present" the church to Christ "as a pure virgin." He may have been acquainted with the Jewish conception of Moses as fulfilling a similar role in presenting Israel as a bride to Yahweh (although this is not attested in literature until later). Without the bridal imagery he speaks in Col. 1:28 of his purpose "to present everyone perfect in Christ." There, as in 2 Cor. 11:2, the time of the presentation is probably the parousia of Christ; and here it is evidently at his parousia that Christ plans "to present the church to himself." But here Christ is his own paranymphios, just as he has already done all that is necessary to make the church fit to be presented to him as his bride -- sanctified and purified and now (at the parousia) "invested with glory." So John in the Apocalypse sees the bride, the holy Jerusalem, "having the glory of God" (Rev. 21:9-11). The royal bride in Ps. 45:13 is described as "all-glorious within, clothed in gold embroidery"; the adornment of the glorified church is the perfection of character with which her Lord has endowed her, so that she is "free from spot, wrinkle, or anything of the sort." The OT law envisaged a situation in which a husband, having married a wife, might find "something unseemly" in her ( Heb. erwat dabar Deut. 24:1); no such possibility exists for the glorified church, whom her Lord has fitted for himself and graced with all the "seemliness" that he could desire to find in her. Spots, wrinkles, and the like are physical blemishes which might make an earthly bride distasteful to her bridegroom; here they are spiritual and ethical defects, which have been removed by the Lord’s sanctifying and cleansing act.Thus the purpose of his sanctifying and cleansing act has been achieved: that the church should be "holy and blameless." In Eph. 1:4 the purpose for which God chose his people in Christ "before the world’s foundation"’ is said to be that they should be "holy and blameless before him." Similarly, in Col. 1:22, believers are told that Christ has reconciled them to God by his death "in order to present you holy, blameless, and improachable in his presence"--and there, be it noted (as in Eph. 5:27),it is Christ who presents them. The adjectives which are used in the plural in those two passages to describe individual believers are used here in the singular to describe the church." Bruce, F.F. NICNT
Eph 5:28
28 So husbands
ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own
wife loves himself;
The statement that "husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies" applies to this special relationship the more general commandment of Lev. 19: 18, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." There is a reason for the use of "their own bodies" in place of "themselves," but the echo of the second of the two great commandments is scarcely to be missed. In more than one place in the Talmud this commandment is quoted as a reason for the husband’s behaving toward his wife with propriety, "lest he find something repulsive in her." And the same word translated "neighbor," in its feminine form, is used repeatedly by the lover in the Song of Songs when addressing his beloved or speaking about her to others (Cant. 1:9, 15; 2:2, 10, 13; 4:1, 7; 5:2; 6:4).
The locution "as their own bodies" instead of "as themselves" is due to the influence of Gen. 2:24, the text Quoted in v. 31 below. Since husband and wife are "one flesh" or one body, to love one’s wife is not merely a matter of loving someone else as oneself; it is in effect loving oneself. Adam recognized Eve as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23); to love her therefore was to love part of himself. Hence "he who loves his own wife loves himself." Bruce, F.F. NICNT
Paul returns to his analogy and declares that just as Christ loves the church so husbands ought to love their wives as being one flesh with themselves. Christ loves the church, not simply as if it were his body, but because it is in fact his body. Husbands therefore are to love their wives, not simply as they love their own bodies, but as being one body with themselves, as indeed they are. Lest the staggering implication of what he has affirmed should fail to register with his readers, Paul puts it in another way to avoid ambiguity. So intimate is the relationship between man and wife that they are fused into a single entity. For a man to love his wife is to love himself. She is not to be treated as a piece of property, as was the custom in Paul’s day. She is to be regarded as an extension of a man’s own personality and so part of himself. EBCNT
He that loveth his wife. An argument is now drawn from nature itself, to prove that men ought to love their wives. Every man, by his very nature, loves himself. But no man can love himself without loving his wife. Therefore, the man who does not love his wife is a monster. The minor proposition is proved in this manner. Marriage was appointed by God on the condition that the two should be one flesh; and that this unity may be the more sacred, he again recommends it to our notice by the consideration of Christ and his church. Such is the amount of his argument, which to a certain extent applies universally to human society. To shew what man owes to man, Isaiah says, “hide not thyself from thine own flesh.” (Isaiah 58:7.) But this refers to our common nature. Between a man and his wife there is a far closer relation; for they not only are united by a resemblance of nature, but by the bond of marriage have become one man. Whoever considers seriously the design of marriage cannot but love his wife.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 5:29
29 for no one ever
hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does
the church,
Married love, therefore, is as much a dictate of nature as self-love; and it is just as unnatural for a man to hate his wife as it would be for him to hate himself or his own body. A man may have a body which does not altogether suit him. He may wish it were handsomer, healthier, stronger, or more active. Still, it is his body, it is himself, and he feeds it and cherishes it as tenderly as if it were the best and most lovely in the world. So a man may have a wife whom he could wish to be better or more beautiful or more agreeable; still she is his wife and, by the constitution of nature and the ordinance of God, a part of himself. In neglecting or abusing her, he violates the laws of nature as well as the law of God. This is how Paul presents the matter. If the husband and wife are one flesh, the husband must love his wife. After all, no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it. Here feeds really means “nourishes,” “trains by nurture,” as a parent does a child; compare Ephesians 6:4. Cares for means “warms,” cherishing as a mother does an infant at her breast. Both terms express tenderness and solicitude, and therefore both express the care with which every man provides for the needs and comfort of his own body.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Eph 5:30
30 because we are
members of His body.
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. NKJV
The best-attested text ends at this point before the quotation of Gen 2:24 in the next verse (cf. p46 a
* A B 048 33 81 1739* 1881 copsa,bo eth Origen
Methodius Euthalius Ps-Jerome), but there are variants which expand the verse
and which appear to have been formulated in the light of Gen 2:23. The most
popular of these is ejk th`" sarko;" aujtou` kai; ejk tw`n ojstevwn aujtou`,
“of his flesh and of his bones,” found in a
c D G P Y 88 104 181 326 330 436 451 614 630 it vg syrp,h arm Irenaeusgr, Ambrosiaster Victorinus-Rome Chrysostom Jerome. It is possible that the shorter reading could have come about through homoeoteleuton With a scribe moving from aujtou` to aujtou`. But this ending has stronger external support and is Favored by the internal evidence, since the longer reading raises problems for the consistency of the use of “body” imagery in the letter as well as problems of sense (what does it mean to be members of Christ’s bones?). The longer reading is most plausibly explained as a later addition under the influence of the OT citation in v 31. Irenaeus shows knowledge of it in a context in which he deals with Gnostic opponents of the real physical existence of Christ and of the bodily resurrection (Adv. Haer. 5.2.3), and it could be that anti-docetic convictions prompted the expansion in the first place (cf. also Schlier, 261 n. 1; Gnilka, 286).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
In the resumed analogy, Christ is said also to nourish and cherish the Church, and in the clause of v 30 the readers are now explicitly reminded that the Church is Christ’s body, of which they with all believers are members (cf. 1:23; 3:6; 4:16, 25; for the language of being members of the body in Paul, cf. Rom 12:4, 5; 1 Cor 12:27). At this point, two of the writer’s major images for the Church—the body and the bride—are explicitly brought together. The verb ejktpevfein, “to nourish,” occurs again within the household code in 6:4, where it is used of the bringing up of children, and the verb qavlpein, “to cherish,” was used by Paul in 1 Thess 2:7 of a nurse’s care of children. Although these verbs (ejk)trevfein and qavlpein can be closely associated with children, outside the NT they are used in a variety of contexts (cf. the combination trevfei kai; qavlpei in Vit. Aesopi 1, c. 9 [BAGD 246] ). It is a distortion of the writer’s analogy to suggest that believers are being thought of as the offspring of the marriage between Christ and the Church (pace Best, One Body, 178 n. 1, 181 n. 1). It might remain closer to the analogy to consider the Church as a child-bride who is being brought to maturity by the bridegroom’s care. Most relevant to Eph 5:29, however, is the appearance of the two verbs in reverse order to set out the husband’s duties to his wife in a marriage contract, qavlpein kai; trevfein kai; iJmativzein aujthvn, “to cherish and nourish and clothe her” Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 5:31
31 For this cause a man shall leave his father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.
Paul introduces Ge 2:24 at this point to substantiate his argument from Scripture, just as Jesus himself did (cf. Mk 10:7). "For this reason" is not a preface to the quotation but part of it. When Adam recognized that Eve was part of himself (Ge 2:23), the next verse adds: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." That is, the marriage tie takes precedence over every other human relationship and for this reason is to be regarded as inviolable. At the same time, what is basically a divine ordinance is graciously designed for mutual satisfaction and delight. "United" means closely joined and, taken in conjunction with the reference to "one flesh," can refer only to sexual intercourse, which is thus hallowed by the approval of God himself. It is because of this exalted biblical view of marital relations that the church has taken its stand on the indissolubility of the marital bond and the impermissibility of polygamy, adultery, or divorce. NIVBC
Eph 5:32
32 This mystery is
great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
We have, in fact, an example here of the principle of exegesis found regularly in the Qumran commentaries and not unknown in the NT. To the Qumran commentators a text of scripture was a mystery, a raz, as they called it in Hebrew. They treated all OT scripture as prophetic, and believed that, when God made known his purpose to the prophets, he revealed so much, but withheld part (especially the part relating to the time of its fulfilment). Thus the text of scripture, while it embodied a divine revelation, remained a mystery until God made known the interpretation to someone else. (In the belief of the Qumran community, this "someone else" was the Teacher of Righteousness, "to whom God disclosed all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets, enabling him thus "to show to the last generations what God was about to do to the last generation.") So here, Gen. 2:24, which on the surface explains why a man will leave his parents’ home and live with his wife is taken to convey a deeper, hidden meaning, a "mystery," which could not be understood until Christ, who loved his people from eternity, gave
himself up for them in the fullness of time. in the light of his saving work, the hidden meaning of Gen. 2:24 now begins to appear: his people constitute his bride, united to him in "one body." The formation of Eve to he Adam’s companion is seen to prefigure the creation of the church to he the bride of Christ. This seems to be the deep "mystery" contained in the text, which remains a mystery no longer to those who have received its interpretation. Bruce, F.F. NICNT
The emphatic ejgwv and the particle dev in v 32b make clear that the writer is stressing that this particular interpretation of Gen 2:24 as a reference to the profound mystery of the union between Christ and the Church is his own. If, in fact, it also originated with him, then presumably he reached it through a typological exegesis, resting on a correspondence between creation (Gen 2:24) and redemption (Christ and the Church). Christ has already been seen in Adamic terms in Eph 1:22 (the Church is his body), and so a text that refers to Adam’s bodily union can now be claimed for Christ’s union with the Church. ejgw; de; levgw, “but I am speaking,” occurs also in the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, where it serves to introduce an interpretation contrary to the generally accepted interpretation of the Scripture passage in view. Here also it sets the typological exegesis of Gen 2:24 which is offered over against other interpretations. But does it simply set the writer’s interpretation over against that which limits the meaning of Gen 2:24 to the physical union between a man and a woman, as in Mark 10:7; Matt 19:5; 1 Cor 6:16 (cf. R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968] 65 n. 190)? Does it show that the writer is aware of a variety of other interpretations which were current (Dibelius, 95; Gnilka, 288, 294, Barth, 735; Schnackenburg, 261)? Or does it have more polemical overtones and show that the writer was opposed to some particular interpretations of Gen 2:24 (cf. G. Bornkamm, “musthvrion,” TDNT 4 [1967] 823; Schlier, 262; Sampley, “And the Two,” 52, 87–89)? It is difficult to decide this question.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 5:33
33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.
However, let each man of you [without exception] love his wife as [being in a sense] his very own self; and let the wife see that she respects and reverences her husband [that she notices him, regards him, honors him, prefers him, venerates, and esteems him; and that she defers to him, praises him, and loves and admires him exceedingly]. [I Pet. 3:2].The Amplified New Testament, 1999.
The final word in this section is a practical one. Whether or not Paul’s readers have fully understood his allusions to the "profound mystery" (v. 32), they should at least get hold of the essential instructions he has been endeavoring to convey. Paul addresses every husband individually (literally, "you each, one by one") without naming him as such. He is to go on loving his wife as his very self (vv. 25, 28, 29).
The wife for her part is to give her husband the respect (phobetai)
that is due him in the Lord (v. 22). As v. 21 has made plain, such respect is
conditioned by and expressive of reverence (phobos) for Christ. It also
assumes that the husband will so love his wife as to be worthy of such
deference.
Those who are puzzled because Paul does not tell wives that
they are to love their husbands fail to appreciate the almost rabbinical
precision with which the analogy is handled. Christ loves the church; the
church’s love for Christ is expressed in submission and obedience. EBCNT
In the writer’s summary of the wife’s duties, the construction with i]na and the subjunctive replaces a command or imperative (pace Barth, 648, who claims it functions as a wish rather than as an imperative). Many translators and interpreters attempt to make the writer less patriarchal and more palatable to modern readers by substituting “respect” for “fear” in the command to wives (cf. Barth, 648, 662). As in the earlier instructions, the wife’s attitude to her husband is to be modeled on the Church’s attitude to Christ. Her fear of her husband reflects the fear of all believers for Christ (cf. v 21). This fear certainly includes having respect, but is stronger than this, though not the fear of a slave (cf. J. A. Robinson, 127 “the fear of the Church for Christ—which is the pattern of the fear of the wife for her husband—is no slavish fear, but a fear of reverence”). In the case of human relations, as we noted with the notion of subordination also, fear involves observance of the appropriate authority structures, whether of citizens toward the state (cf. Rom 13:3, 4, 7), children to parents (Barn. 19.5; Did. 4.9), slaves to masters (Eph 6:5; 1 Pet 2:18; Did. 4.11), or, as here, wives to husbands (cf. also 1 Pet 3:2). As Balz (“fovbo",” TDNT 9 [1974] 217–8) observes, “fear can denote the obedience demanded by the superior authority of masters or husbands as lords” and “has a settled place in household tables.” Since the fear of Christ (v 21) is believers’ appropriate response to his overwhelming love and power, the wife’s fear is her appropriate response to her husband’s headship exercised in self-sacrificial love.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
fobevw phobeoµ; from 5401; to put to flight, to terrify, frighten:— afraid(39), am afraid(2), awestruck(1), fear(27), feared(5), fearful(2), fearing(6), fears(2), frightened(7), have...fear(1), respects(1), terrified(1).Thomas, Robert L., Th.D., General Editor, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, Updated Edition, 1999, c1998.
"Fear" fobeetai (NT:5399), present middle subjunctive) here is "reverence."
(from Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft & Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright (c) 1985 by Broadman Press)
D. Verbs.
1. phobeo NT:5399, in earlier Greek, "to put to flight" (see A, No. 1), in the NT is always in the passive voice, with the meanings either (a) "to fear, be afraid," its most frequent use, e. g., Acts 23:10, according to the best mss. (see No. 2); or (b) "to show reverential fear" [see A, No. 1, (b)], (1) of men, Mark 6:20; Eph 5:33, RV, "fear," for KJV, "reverence"; (2) of God, e. g., Acts 10:2,22; 13:16,26; Col 3:22 (RV, "the Lord ");1 Peter 2:17; Rev 14:7; 15:4; 19:5; (a) and (b) are combined in Luke 12:4,5, where Christ warns His followers not to be afraid of men, but to "fear" God. See MARVEL, B, No. 1, Note.
2. eulbeomai NT:2125, "to be cautious, to beware" (see A, No. 3), signifies to act with the reverence produced by holy "fear," Heb 11:7, "moved with godly fear."
Notes: (1) In Acts 23:10 some mss. have this verb with the meaning (a) under No. 1.
(2) In Luke 3:14, diaseio, "to shake violently, to intimidate, to extort by violence, blackmail," is rendered "put no man in fear" in KJV marg. See VIOLENCE.
(from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Instead of assigning love to the husband and submission to the wife, a contemporary appropriation of Ephesians will build on this passage’s own introductory exhortation (v 21) and see a mutual loving submission as the way in which the unity of the marriage relationship is demonstrated. Indeed, Ephesians itself elsewhere asks both love (cf. 5:2) and submission (cf. 4:2) of all. Both wife and husband can look to Christ as the model for the sacrificial kind of love required (cf. 5:2). In this way, submission and love can be seen as two sides of the same coin—selfless service of one’s marriage partner. What is required of both partners is costly care and commitment, thereby challenging other assumptions about love as purely a romantic feeling or ecstatic experience. What is required of both partners is the submissive attitude that, presupposing the freedom and dignity of both, will voluntarily subordinate their own interests to those of the other, thereby challenging other assumptions that result in relationships of self-centered competition for control. A contemporary reading of Eph 5:21–33 cannot afford to ignore what this passage sees as the necessary motivation for mutual submission—“the fear of Christ”—and will want to stress that the encouragement for working toward the Christian ideal for marriage comes from looking to Christ’s overwhelming love, drawing resources from his and the Spirit’s power (cf. also 5:18), and, particularly when falling short of the ideal, relying on his cleansing and sanctifying activity.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:1
6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord,
for this is right.
Children are to obey their parents. The phrase in the Lord does not mean that children are to obey parents only if their parents are believers. As Colossians 3:20 clearly denotes, a child’s obedience to his parents is pleasing in the Lord’s sight. The reason for this is that it is right (dikaion); it is a proper course to follow in society. Paul then quoted the fifth commandment (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) to support the need for children to obey parents (Eph. 6:2a, 3). The parenthetical clause states that this is the first commandment with a promise. But this is actually the second command with a promise (cf. Ex. 20:6). Some say Paul meant that this is the first command that children need to learn. But the first, not the fifth, of the Ten Commandments should really be learned first. More likely, Paul meant that this is “first” in the sense of being “a primary commandment,” that is, of primary importance for children and it also has a promise. The promise for those who obey their parents is that they enjoy a prosperous and long life on the earth. This states a general principle that obedience fosters self-discipline, which in turn brings stability and longevity in one’s life. (Stated conversely, it is improbable that an undisciplined person will live a long life. An Israelite who persistently disobeyed his parents was not privileged to enjoy a long, stable life in the land of Israel. A clear example of this was Eli’s sons Hophni and Phinehas [1 Sam. 4:11].) Though that promise was given to Israel in the Old Testament, the principle still holds true today.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
Apart from its use of Colossians, this pericope in Ephesians employs another major piece of tradition, a commandment from the decalogue. Scholars have differed about which version of the fifth commandment the writer quotes. E. E. Ellis (Paul’s Use of the Old Testament [Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957] 152, 185) and Bruce (Epistles, 298), for example, believe Deut 5:16 to be in view, while Martin (“Ephesians,” 171) considers the citation to be a complex conflation of Exod 20:12, Deut 5:16; and Deut 22:7. It is true that the clause “that it may go well with you” is not found in the Massoretic text of Exod 20:12, whereas it is in Deut 5:16 and 22:7. However, this clause is found in LXX Exod 20:12. The citation in Eph 6:2, 3, therefore, stands very close to the LXX version of Exod 20:12. It is closer to this text than to LXX Deut 5:16. In the case of both texts, Ephesians would have replaced i{na, “that,” and gavnh/, “may be,” in the clause about living in the land with e[sh/, “may be,” and omitted the specific description of the land after th`" gh`", “the land.” But in the case of LXX Deut 5:16, it would have had to make further alterations, omitting the sou`, “your,” after mhtevra, “mother” (this is only in the B text of LXX Exod 20:12) and also dropping the clause o}n trovpon ejneteivlatov soi kuvrio" oJ qeov" sou, “as the Lord your God commanded you,” after mhtevra sou. The text in Eph 6:2, 3 is, therefore, a modified citation of LXX Exod 20:12. As has been noted, the citation omits the specific description of the land as that “which the Lord your God gives you,” which tied the original promise to the land of Canaan. This omission was common in Jewish tradition once the question of the promised land was no longer a current one (cf. Str-B 3:614), but this is not sufficient evidence for the view that Ephesians’ use of the OT at this point is not a direct one and that the writer is simply taking up general Jewish Christian tradition (pace Lindemann, Aufhebung, 87).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
By the first century c.e., Greco-Roman society had become heavily influenced by traditional Roman notions of family life and education. The almost absolute legal power of the father, the patria potestas, is a well-known feature. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Rom. Ant. 2.26.4) could write in praise of it, “The law-giver of the Romans gave virtually full power to the father over his son, whether he thought proper to imprison him, to scourge him, to put him in chains, and keep him at work in the fields, or to put him to death; and this even though the son were already engaged in public affairs, though he were numbered among the highest magistrates, and though he were celebrated for his zeal for the commonwealth.” The father functioned as a magistrate within the family, able to impose these various penalties. The paterfamilias also had the authority to decide on the life and death of his newborn children. Weak and deformed children could be killed, usually by drowning, and unwanted daughters were often exposed or sold. All his children were reckoned to be under his control, not only those living with him, and also the children of his sons. The mother, on the other hand, had no legal power. The father’s power also carried responsibility, since he was legally liable for the actions of members of his household. The jurist Gaius could write, “The power which we have over our children is peculiar to Roman citizens and is found in no other nation” (Inst. 1.55). The extent of the father’s powers was laid down clearly in the formulae of adoption which spoke of his powers of life and death over the son (cf. Cicero, De Domo 29.77). In Rome the father’s power ended with his death. In Greece, when he reached the age of about sixty, he usually handed over authority to his eldest married son.
Fathers often remarried, in which case the children of their various wives grew up in the same household, since by law, both in the case of divorce or the death of a wife, fathers retained the children. Their own children were often brought up with the slave children in the household. It is worth noting that a Roman master could only sell a slave once, but if a Roman father sold his child and the child became free at a later stage, the father could sell the child again. As Dionysius says, Roman law gave “greater power to the father over his son than to the master over his slaves” (Rom. Ant. 2.27.1).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Hellenistic Judaism also stressed the status and authority of parents. Philo talks of parents as belonging to the superior class which comprises seniors, rulers, benefactors, and masters, while children occupy the inferior position with juniors, subjects, receivers of benefits, and slaves (cf. De Decal. 165–67; De Spec. Leg. 2.227). Parents are in fact like gods to their children: “Parents, in my opinion, are to their children what God is to the world, since just as He achieved existence for the non-existent, so they in imitation of His power, as far as they are capable, immortalize the race. And a father and mother deserve honour, not only on this account, but for many other reasons” (De Spec. Leg. 2.225, 226; cf. also De Decal. 119, 120). The OT had legislated the death penalty for the dishonoring of parents (cf. Lev 20:9; Deut 21:18–21), and this was reemphasized as a punishment for children who failed to demonstrate thoroughgoing obedience to their parents: “A father is empowered to upbraid or beat his children, to impose harsh punishments on them and keep them locked up. But in case the children nevertheless remain obdurate … the Law has even authorized parents to go so far as to impose the death penalty” (Philo, De Spec. Leg. 2.232; cf. also Hyp. 7.2); “honour to parents the Law ranks second only to honour to God, and if a son does not respond to the benefits received from them—for the slightest failure in his duty towards them—it hands him over to be stoned” (Josephus, c. Ap. 2.27 § 206; cf. also Ant. 4.8.24 § 264). Again, there are questions about the relation of such statements to actual practice, and, again, voices were raised occasionally against too severe use of force by fathers (cf. Ps.-Phocylides 207–9: “Do not be harsh with your children, but be gentle. And if a child offends against you, let the mother cut her son down to size, or else the elders of the family or the chiefs of the people”). Of course, within Judaism, where children were seen as gifts from God, a father had no rights over the lives of newborn children, and the pagan practices of abortion and exposure were attacked (cf. Philo, De Spec. Leg. 3.108–19; Hyp. 7.7; Josephus, c. Ap. 2.24 § 202; Ps.-Phocylides 184–85).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Within Judaism the emphasis was heavily on the religious upbringing of children, and this was seen as ultimately the responsibility of the father. Again, children were taken to school by their fathers from the age of seven, but ideally the real center of education remained the home. At the heart of the instruction was the Torah, which itself enjoined the teaching of the commandments to children (cf. Deut 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 32:46). The duty of parents to instruct and particularly to discipline their children features prominently in the wisdom literature: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov 22:6). Severe discipline (with paideuvein used in this sense in the LXX) and beatings were seen as part of an upbringing that had the child’s ultimate moral well-being at heart: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline [paideuvei] him” (LXX Prov 13:24); “Do not withhold discipline [paideuvein] from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his life from Sheol” (LXX Prov 23:13, 14; cf. also 19:18; 29:15, 17; Sir 7:23). In an extended passage, Sir 30:1–13 contends that a loving upbringing of a son should involve severe discipline, including whipping, rather than pampering or playing and laughing with him. Later, Hellenistic Judaism continued to stress the importance of the education of children. Philo could write, “Since Jews esteem their laws as divine revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from their earliest youth, they bear the image of the Law in their souls.… They are taught, so to speak, from their swaddling-clothes by their parents, by their teachers, and by those who bring them up, even before instruction in the sacred laws and the unwritten customs, to believe in God, the One Father and Creator of the world” (Leg. ad Gaium 31; cf. also De Spec. Leg. 2.228; Hyp. 7.14). Josephus could say, “Our ground is good, and we work it to the utmost, but our chief ambition is for the education of our children.… We take most pains of all with the instruction of children, and esteem the observation of the laws, and the piety corresponding with them, the most important affair of our whole life” (c. Ap. 1.12 § 60; cf. 2.18 § 178; 2.25 § 204). As noted earlier in discussing the father’s authority, severe discipline continued to be seen as an essential part of such instruction (cf. Philo, De Spec. Leg. 2.232; Hyp. 7.2; Josephus, c. Ap. 2.27 § 206; Ant. 4.8.24 § 264).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Respect for parents is of such grave importance to God that Moses commanded, “He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death,” and “He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” (Ex. 21:15, 17; cf. Lev. 20:9). Either to physically or verbally abuse a parent was a capital offense in ancient Israel.
In the United States at least eight million serious
assaults are made each year by children on their parents. In recent years, a
number of children have been convicted of murdering or hiring the killing of
their parents—usually for no greater reason than resentment of parental control
or discipline. Children who are incessantly told they can do whatever they wish
and can have their own way are children who will soon mock their parents,
teachers, moral standards, the law, and society in general. All human
relationships obviously grow out of those of children with parents. Children
who respect and obey their parents will build a society that is ordered, harmonious,
and productive. A generation of undisciplined, disobedient children will
produce a society that is chaotic and destructive.
MacArthur’s NT Commentary: Ephesians
Disobedience to parents is a symptom of a disintegrating
social structure, and Christian families have a particular responsibility not
to contribute to the collapse of an ordered community. Both parents are
mentioned (tois goneusin, cf. v. 2),
though in v. 4 only fathers are given
instructions as to reciprocal behavior. Since he is the head of the family, the
husband acts representatively for his wife (as mother) as well as on his own
behalf.
EBCNT
Eph 6:2
2 Honor your father and mother (which is
the first commandment with a promise),
This description inserted into the citation has puzzled commentators. How can the fifth commandment be said to be the first commandment with a promise, when the second commandment in Exod 20:4–6 also appears to include a promise about God showing steadfast love to those who love him and keep his commandments? Some suggest that the writer must view the fifth commandment as the first after the four chief commandments which deal with a person’s relationship to God, pointing to a similar view in Philo (De Spec. Leg. 2.261, although De Decal. 121 treats the fifth commandment as the last of those concerned with specific duties toward God; cf., e.g., Gnilka, 297, who claims that what is meant is that the commandment stands in the first place in regard to duties toward other humans and it possesses a promise). Others (e.g., Schlier, 281 n. 3; Ernst, 393) argue that “first” should not be understood numerically but in terms of the importance or difficulty of the commandment (cf. the use in Mark 12:28, 29, though with reference to a different commandment). They also draw attention to the rabbinic tradition preserved in Deut. Rab. 6 on Deut 22:6, which holds that God has provided the most difficult and the easiest commandments with a promise. The most difficult is said to be the fifth commandment, and the easiest is said to be Deut 22:7, which states that if one comes across a bird’s nest with both mother and young in it, one is to let the mother go but may keep the young. Both commandments have the same promise attached, “that it may go well with you, and that you may live long.” Neither of these explanations is compelling, and it may be best to question the assumption that has led to their having been produced, namely, that the second commandment has a promise attached. Strictly speaking, the words “but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” in Exod 20:16 are not a promise connected with “you shall not make for yourself a graven image” in Exod 20:4, but are the positive side of the description of Yahweh as a jealous God which follows in Exod 20:5. It is not surprising, therefore, for Exod 20:12 to be thought of as the first commandment with a promise. If it is objected that this would make the fifth commandment not simply the first but the only commandment with a promise, it must be replied that the writer views the decalogue as but the beginning of the many commandments contained in the Torah (cf: also Meyer, 314; J. A. Robinson, 210; Dibelius-Greeven, 95; Caird, Paul’s Letters, 90; Mitton, 211–12).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Honor of parents encompasses providing for them when they can no longer provide for themselves. Just as parents spend twenty or so years taking care of and providing for their children, their children are to spend whatever time and money is necessary to care and provide for their parents should the parents be no longer able to do so for themselves.
When some Pharisees and scribes reprimanded Jesus for
allowing His disciples to eat without first ceremonially washing their hands,
He countered: “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for
the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and
‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say,
‘whoever shall say to his father or mother, “Anything of mine you might have
been helped by has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his
mother.’ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your
tradition” (Matt. 15:3-6). Jesus made it clear that honor of parents
includes financial support of them when needed.
An old Chinese proverb says, “One generation plants the trees and the next gets the shade.” The opportunities and freedoms we have to live and practice our faith were won by our forefathers centuries ago and passed on to us by those in between. Children raised in Christian families are blessed with the fruit from spiritual trees planted many years earlier by parents and grandparents. Conversely, it takes three or four generations to reverse the effects of one wicked group of fathers (cf. Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9). The blessings we have from the preaching, teaching, and fellowship of our local church are fruit of the dedication and sacrifice of believers who have gone before us.
MacArthur’s NT Commentary:
Ephesians
Children must obey their parents for Christ’s sake, even if their parents are not believers. This is supported by the only one of the Ten Commandments followed by a promise (see Deut. 5:16). Of course, Christian children should not do anything sinful even if their parents should command them to. In such a case, children must obey God rather than men (see Acts 5:29). Nelson’s Study Bible.
Eph 6:3
3 that it may be well with you, and that you may
live long on the earth.
This commandment is found elsewhere in the NT in Matt 15:4; 19:19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20, but only here in Eph 6:2, 3 is the attached promise also cited. The writer’s wording of the promise omits the clause “which the Lord your God gives you” from LXX Exod 20:12, which linked the original promise to the land of Canaan. This omission, of course, has the effect of making the promise more generally applicable. The promise is now of well-being and long life on the earth. But this raises further questions. Has the promise merely been included to emphasize the importance of the commandment (so Gnilka, 297; Schnackenburg, 268)? Or does the writer expect his readers to apply it to themselves? The actual citation of this part of the verse and its modification in the direction of general applicability (although as noted under Form/Structure/Setting the latter was fairly common in Judaism) certainly allow for the writer intending it still to have force for his readers. But if so, what is that force? Philo (De Spec. Leg. 2.262) had spiritualized the promise by taking “well with you” to be the virtue a person possesses through obeying the commandments and “live long” to be immortality. But there is no hint of such a meaning being intended here. In Paul’s writings, the OT promises about the seed and the land are seen as fulfilled in the salvation provided in Christ and the inheritance which that provides (cf. Gal 3 and 4; Rom 4 and 8), and earlier in Ephesians the notion of inheritance has been interpreted in a similar way (cf. 1:14; 3:6). So some commentators (e.g., Schlier, 282) have tied the promise to this soteriological interpretation of inheritance. But unlike the writer’s reinterpretation of Gen 2:24 in 5:31, 32, there is no indication from 6:3 or its immediate context that he has imposed such a Christian perspective on this text. It probably does more justice to this verse to take it at its face value as promising well-being and long life on the earth and to judge that, since it had been introduced to reinforce the commandment, the writer may not have integrated its Jewish this-worldly perspective consistently with his interpretation of inheritance in the first half of the letter. The use of the OT to support earthly rewards for Christian obedience seems foreign to Paul, who, when he does employ talk of rewards as part of his ethical motivation, has in view a future life after the judgment (cf. 1 Cor 3:12–15; 2 Cor 5:10). It is closer to the perspective of the Pastorals, where godliness can be said to be “of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come” (1 Tim 4:8). To take the promise in a communal sense to mean that a society in which the aged are respected and cared for by their children is a healthy and stable one is a modern reinterpretation (as Mitton, 213, who suggests this, acknowledges). In the passage itself, the rewards of well-being and long life are held out to individual children who honor their parents. It is also worth noting that not only the promise of earthly reward but also the specific content of that reward, long life on earth, would be alien to the Paul who expected an imminent parousia, even if this Paul had come to terms with his own death before that event. It is more likely to have been penned by a Jewish Christian follower of the apostle who has become more acclimatized to a longer period of the church’s existence on earth before the parousia.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 6:4
4 And, fathers, do
not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and
instruction of the Lord.
‘See, I am about to do something in Israel that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. At that time I will carry out against Eli everything I spoke against his family — from beginning to end. For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them.’” (Note: the Greek word for “restrain” in the Septuagint is the same root as for “instruction” here in Ephesians 6:4.) Clear, forthright instruction is necessary for a proper upbringing! This takes time and thought — two elements so often neglected in today’s busy domestic world. Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
Paul’s first command to parents is negative: fathers,
do not provoke your
children to anger. That was a totally new concept for Paul’s day,
especially in
such pagan strongholds as Ephesus. Most families were in shambles, and
mutual
love among family members was almost unheard of. A father’s love for his
children would have been hard even to imagine. By the Roman law of patria
potestas a father had virtual life and death power not only over his
slaves but
over his entire household. He could cast any of them out of the house, sell
them
as slaves, or even kill them—and be accountable to no one. A newborn child was
placed at its father’s feet to determine its fate. If the father picked it up,
the child
was allowed to stay in the home; if the father walked away, it was simply
disposed of—much as aborted babies are in our own day. Discarded infants who
were healthy and vigorous were collected and taken each night to the town
forum, where they would be picked up and raised to be slaves or prostitutes
A letter written in 1 B.C.
by a man named Hilarion to his wife, Alis, reads,
“Heartiest greetings. Note that we are still even now in Alexandria. Do not
worry
if when all others return I remain in Alexandria. I beg and beseech you to take
care of the little child, and as soon as we receive wages I will send them to
you.
If—good luck to you—you have another child, if it is a boy, let it live; if it
is a
girl, expose it” (Papyri Oxyrhynchus 4.744). Seneca, a renowned statesman in
Rome at the time Paul wrote the Ephesian letter, said, “We slaughter a fierce
ox;
we strangle a mad dog; we plunge a knife into a sick cow. Children born weak or
deformed we drown.” MacArthur’s NT Commentary:
Ephesians
ðáôÞñ
pateôr;
a prim. word; a father:—father (348), father’s (13), fathers (53),
parents (1). NASB Greek concordance
Though pateôres
(fathers) usually referred to male parents, it was
sometimes used of parents in general. Paul has been speaking about both parents
in the preceding three verses, and it seems likely that he still has both in
mind in
this term in verse 4. The same word is used in Hebrews 11:23 to refer to Moses’
parents.
Because a father was by far the dominant figure in the
households of that day,
he was the parent who would most often provoke his children to anger.
But a
mother is obviously capable of doing the same thing, and she is no more
justified
in doing it than is a father.
Harvard University sociologists Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck
developed a test
(that proved to be 90 percent accurate) to determine whether or not five- and
six-
year-olds would become delinquent. They discovered that the four primary
factors necessary to prevent delinquency are: the father’s firm, fair, and
consistent discipline; the mother’s supervision and companionship during the
day; the parent’s demonstrated affection for each other and for the children;
and
the family’s spending time together in activities where all participated
(Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,
1950], pp. 257-71).
The Christian psychiatrist Dr. Paul Meier gives a similar
list of factors that
produce right parent-child relations: genuine love of the parents for each
other
and for the children; firm, consistent discipline; consistency of standards for
parents and children; the right example by parents; and the father as true head
of
the home. He also comments that the vast majority of neurotics have grown up in
homes where there was no father or where he was dominated by the mother
(Christian Child-Rearing and Personality Development [Grand Rapids:
Baker,
1980], pp. 81-82).
The positive command to parents is for them to bring up
[their children] in
the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Paideia (discipline) comes from
the word pais
(child) and refers to the systematic training of children. It
includes the idea of correction for wrongdoing, as seen in the well-known
proverb, “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines
him diligently” (Prov. 13:24). In the several uses of the term in Hebrews
12:5-11,
the translators of the Authorized Version rendered it “chastening,” which is
clearly the emphasis of that context. Paul’s meaning here is expressed even
more
fully, however, in the proverb “Train up a child in the way he should go, even
when he is old he will not depart from it” (22:6). Discipline has to do
with the
overall training of children, including punishment.
Susannah Wesley, the mother of John and Charles Wesley,
raised seventeen
children and had these words to say about raising children: “The parent who
studies to subdue [self-will] in his child works together with God in the
renewing
and saving a soul. The parent who indulges it does the devil’s work, makes
religion impracticable, salvation unattainable, and does all that in him lies
to
damn his child, soul and body forever” (cited in The Journal of John Wesley
[Chicago: Moody, n. d.], p. 106).
MacArthur’s NT Commentary:
Ephesians
Nurture" (KJV) is too weak a word. The cognate verb signifies "to chasten" but can also be used in the wider context of "instruction." What Paul is referring to here is training in righteousness. "Instruction" (nouthesia) is correction by word of mouth. Remonstration and reproof are implied, but also advice and encouragement. Goodspeed saw here the beginnings of Christian education in the home. EBCNT
This verse is a warning to parents not to direct their
children toward the wrath
of God. Rather, the parent is commanded to rear the child in the “training”
(paideia, Gk.),
i.e., the nurture, education, and “admonition” (nouthesia,
Gk.), of the Lord. “Admonition” has the idea of “discipline” (lit., “to put in
mind”), which is to remind the child of faults and duties by teaching him self-
control.
Believer’s Study Bible
Chastening, Admonition. These are the respective translations of paideia (paideia) and nouthesia (nouqesia). Trench has the following to say about these two Greek words: “It is worth while to attempt a discrimination between these words, occurring as they do together at Eph. 6:14, and being often there either not distinguished at all, or distinguished erroneously.
“Paideia (Paideia) is one among the many words, into which revealed religion has put a deeper meaning than it knew of, till this took possession of it; the new wine by a wondrous process making new even the old vessel into which it was poured. For the Greek, paideia (paideia) was simply ‘education;’ nor, in all the definitions of it which Plato gives, is there the slightest prophetic anticipation of the new force which it one day should obtain. But the deeper apprehension of those who learned that ‘foolishness is bound in the heart’ alike ‘of a child’ and of a man, while yet ‘the rod of correction may drive it far from him’ (Prov. 22:15), led them, in assuming the word, to bring into it a further thought. They felt and understood that all effectual instruction for the sinful children of men, includes and implies chastening, or, as we are accustomed to say, out of a sense of the same truth, ‘correction.’ There must be epanorthosis (ejpanorqosi") (a setting right, a correcting, a revisal, an improvement), or ‘rectification’ in it; which last word, occurring but once in the n.t., is there found in closest connection with paideia (paideia) (II Tim. 3:16).
“Two definitions of paideia (paideia)—the one by a great heathen philosopher, the other by a great Christian theologian,—may be profitably compared. This is Plato’s: ‘Paideia (Paideia) is the drawing on and the leading towards the right word which has been spoken according to its usage’ (author’s translation). And this is that of Basil the Great: ‘The Paideia (Paideia) is a certain help given to the soul, a painstaking, laborious oft repeated clearing out of the blemishes that come from wickedness’ (author’s translation).” It will be observed that the pagan Greek usage of paideia (paideia) was limited to the education of the intellect, whereas when the word was taken over into the n.t., an additional content of meaning was poured into it, for in its Christian usage it refers to the education of the moral and spiritual part of the individual’s life, and that, principally, in the eradication of sins, faults, and weaknesses present in the life.
Taking up the other word, nouthesia (nouqesia), Trench says; “Nouthesia (Nouqesia) … is more successfully rendered, ‘admonition’; … It is the training by word—by the word of encouragement, when this is sufficient, but also by that of remonstrance, of reproof, of blame, where these may be required; as set over against the training by act and by discipline, which is paideia (paideia).… The distinctive feature of nouthesia (nouqesia) is the training by word of mouth.…
“Relatively, then, and by comparison with paideia, nouthesia (paideia, nouqesia) is the milder term; while yet its association with paideia (paideia) teaches us that this too is a most needful element of Christian education; that the paideia (paideia) without it would be very incomplete; even as, when years advance, and there is no longer a child, but a young man, to deal with, it must give place to, or rather be swallowed up in, the nouthesia (nouqesia) altogether. And yet the nouthesia (nouqesia) itself, where need is, will be earnest and severe enough; it is much more than a feeble Eli-remonstrance: ‘Nay, my sons, for it is no good report that I hear (I Sam. 2:24)’; indeed, of Eli it is expressly recorded in respect of those sons ouk enouthetei autous (oJuk ejnouqetei aujtou") (he did not admonish them) (3:13).”
From Trench’s discussion it is clear that the word paideia (paideia), translated “chastening” in the n.t., does not mean punishment. Nor does it mean merely instruction. Nor does it have for its primary purpose, growth in the Christian virtues. Its primary purpose is to rid the life of sins, faults, and weaknesses by corrective measures which God in His providence either sends or allows to come into the life.
Paideia (Paideia) is found in Eph. 6:4 in connection with nouthesia (nouqesia). Trench says that it should be rendered by the word “discipline” rather than by “nurture.” The word “nurture” implies growth whereas paideia (paideia) speaks of corrective measures designed to eliminate those things in the life that hinder growth. The same thing holds true in the case of II Tim. 3:16 where the word is rendered “instruction.” In Heb. 12:5, 7, 8, 11, paideia (paideia) is uniformly translated “chastening” and “chastisement.”
The verb paideuoµ (paideuw) which has the same root as paideia (paideia), has its classical usage of “to chastise in the sense of punish” in Lk. 23:16, 22, and “to instruct” in Acts 7:22, 22:3, but in the following scriptures it refers to the corrective discipline of God’s providential dealings with the believer, the purpose of which is to eliminate from the life those things which hinder Christian growth; I Cor. 11:32; II Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1:20 (may learn); Heb. 12:6, 7, 10; Rev. 3:19. In II Tim. 2:25 and Tit. 2:12, paideuoµ (paideuw) refers to the discipline which the Word of God itself affords.
The word nouthesia (nouqesia) is found only in I Cor. 10:11; Eph. 6:4, and Tit. 3:10, where it is rendered “admonition.”Wuest, Kenneth S., Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, 1997.
In the chastening and admonition of the Lord (ejn paideia/ kai nouqesia/ tou kuriou [en paideiaµi kai nouthesiaµi tou kuriou]). jEn [En] is the sphere in which it all takes place. There are only three examples in the N.T. of paideia [paideia], old Greek for training a pai" [pais] (boy or girl) and so for the general education and culture of the child. Both papyri and inscriptions give examples of this original and wider sense (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary). It is possible, as Thayer gives it, that this is the meaning here in Eph. 6:4. In II Tim. 3:16 adults are included also in the use. In Heb. 12:5, 7, 11 the narrower sense of “chastening” appears which some argue for here. At any rate nouqesia [nouthesia] (from nou", tiqhmi [nous, titheµmi]), common from Aristophanes on, does have the idea of correction. In N.T. only here and I Cor. 10:11; Titus 3:10.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1998, c1933.
33.424 nouqetevwc; nouqesivab, a" f: to advise someone concerning the dangerous consequences of some happening or action - ‘to warn, warning.’
nouqetevwc ò parakalou`men de; uJma`", ajdelfoiv, nouqetei`te tou;" ajtavktou" ‘we urge you, Christian brothers, to warn the idle’ 1 Th 5.14. nouqetevw in 1 Th 5.14 may also be understood in the sense of ‘to admonish’ (see 33.418).
nouqesivab ò ejgravfh de; pro;" nouqesivan hJmw`n ‘it was written down as a warning for us’ 1 Cor 10.11.Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, 1988, 1989.
Eph 6:5
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your
heart, as to Christ;
COL 3:22Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. 23And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, 24knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 25But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
In the nineteenth century Christians as well as others debated slavery. In the course of the debate, one side made strong use of the biblical passages in which slavery is assumed. Paul did not urge or personally work toward the freeing of slaves or the dissolution of the practice. This fact was wrongly (as we see it now) taken to indicate tacit approval on Paul’s part. Given the depth to which slavery was embedded in ancient society and the disastrous results that occurred when attempts were made to overthrow the system, we know that there was little Paul could have done. He made good progress toward alleviating the stresses of slavery by his teaching in this passage.
There are some similarities between the instructions to slaves and those to women. Both are told to have respect, for their master (6:5)* and husband (5:33) respectively, as Christians are to have for Christ when submitting to one another (5:21). The word for respect also can mean “fear” (see comments on 5:21, 33), but the NIV reserves that translation for the second Greek noun here in 6:5, tromos (which can include trembling, the translation it receives in the NRSV). Given the ideas of fear, respect and trembling that are contained in these two Greek words, the reader can grasp how important it was that Christian slaves were not to despise their owners as many others did.
If that was true within the environment of slavery, Christians in a free society must be careful to both have and show respect for those whose actions may not be commendable. Disrespect for parents, employers, spouses and government officials is not appropriate for a Christian. Such disrespect can be communicated not only through outright criticism (which actually can be offered directly to the person in a respectful way) but also through attitude and jokes.
The next term, sincerity of heart, leads to the following verse (v. 6), which urges a consistency of service even when the slaves are not under watch. At the end of verse 5 Paul adds to respect, fear and sincerity the words just as you would obey Christ. This picks up the previously noted out of reverence for Christ (5:21), as to the Lord (5:22) and, if the words are in the original *, in the Lord (6:1). In turn this is reflected in the phrase like slaves of Christ in verse 6. Verse 7 further emphasizes the importance of this attitude both in the word wholeheartedly, which overlaps sincerity in meaning, and in the participial phrase as if you were serving [literally, “as to”] the Lord, not men. This is a remarkable series of exhortations, clearly intended not to keep slaves “in their place” but to encourage them to have a positive Christian attitude. Support for this attitude comes from the assurance that God will reward everyone who does good, whether as a slave or as a free person.
As in the previous examples of human relationships, there should be reciprocity. Not only should Christian masters refrain from threatening, but they should recognize their equality with slaves before the One who is the Master of both. Whether or not one considers the self-restraint of husband, father and master as a form of mutual submission, the instructions in this Christian “household code” were remarkable for that age.*Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
Servants, be obedient. His exhortation to servants is so much the more earnest, on account of the hardship and bitterness of their condition, which renders it more difficult to be endured. And he does not speak merely of outward obedience, but says more about fear willingly rendered; for it is a very rare occurrence to find one who willingly yields himself to the control of another. The servants (dou`loi) whom he immediately addresses were not hired servants, like those of the present day, but slaves, such as were in ancient times, whose slavery was perpetual, unless, through the favor of their masters, they obtained freedom, — whom their masters bought with money, that they might impose upon them the most degrading employments, and might, with the full protection of the law, exercise over them the power of life and death. To such he says, obey your masters, lest they should vainly imagine that carnal freedom had been procured for them by the gospel.
But as some of the worst men were compelled by the dread
of punishment, he distinguishes between Christian and ungodly servants, by the
feelings which they cherished. With fear and trembling; that is, with
the careful respect which springs from an honest purpose. It can hardly be
expected, however, that so much deference will be paid to a mere man, unless a
higher authority shall enforce the obligation; and therefore he adds, as
doing the will of God. Hence it follows, that it is not enough if their
obedience satisfy the eyes of men; for God requires truth and sincerity of
heart. When they serve their masters faithfully, they obey God. As if he had
said, “Do not suppose that by the judgment of men you were thrown into slavery.
It is God who has laid upon you this burden, who has placed you in the power of
your masters. He who conscientiously endeavors to render what he owes to his
master, performs his duty not to man only, but to God.”
With good will doing service. (Verse 7) This is contrasted with the suppressed indignation which swells the bosom of slaves. Though they dare not openly break out or give signs of obstinacy, their dislike of the authority exercised over them is so strong, that it is with the greatest unwillingness and reluctance that they obey their masters.
Whoever reads the accounts of the dispositions and conduct of slaves, which are scattered through the writings of the ancients, will be at no loss to perceive that the number of injunctions here given does not exceed that of the diseases which prevailed among this class, and which it was of importance to cure. But the same instruction applies to male and female servants of our own times. It is God who appoints and regulates all the arrangements of society. As the condition of servants is much more agreeable than that of slaves in ancient times, they ought to consider themselves far less excusable, if they do not endeavor, in every way, to comply with Paul’s injunctions.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
The early Christians’ apparent indifference to the institution of slavery has to be seen in the light of the prevailing attitudes to slavery. Hardly anyone considered the system optional or thought of an alternative. In fact, although there were debates about how slaves should be treated (e.g., Seneca, Ep. 47), slavery as a social, legal, and economic phenomenon seldom became the object of reflection at all. No ancient government thought of abolishing the institution, and none of the slave rebellions had as its goal the abolition of slavery as such (cf. Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 63, 116–17). “The institution of slavery was a fact of Mediterranean economic life so completely accepted as a part of the labour structure of the time that one cannot correctly speak of the slave ‘problem’ in antiquity” (Westermann, Slave Systems, 215).
As we have seen, the master-slave relationship was
mentioned in the traditional discussions of household management where the
focus was on how a master should rule his slaves. Aristotle (Pol.
1.1253b–1254a) deals with this relationship at greater length than with the
other two, and Philodemus (Concerning Household Management 30.18–31.2)
is fairly typical with his advice that slaves’ work, food, and punishment
should be kept moderate. Elsewhere, Aristotle expounds his view that the
relationship between master and slave in the household is one in which it is
inappropriate to talk about justice, because there can be no injustice in
relating to things that are one’s own, and a slave is a man’s chattel (cf. Eth.
Nic. 5.1134b). He can say, “for where there is nothing common to ruler and
ruled, there is not friendship either, since there is not justice; e.g.,
between craftsman and tool, soul and body, master and slave; the latter in each
case is benefited by that which uses it, but there is no friendship nor justice
towards lifeless things.… For there is nothing common to the two parties; the
slave is a living tool and the tool a lifeless slave” (Eth. Nic.
8.1161ab). Later Stoic views were, however, much more humanitarian. Seneca (Ep.
47) provides the most well-known discourse on treating slaves as human beings:
“ ‘these people are slaves.’ No: they are human beings. ‘These people are
slaves.’ No: they are those with whom you share your roof. ‘These people are
slaves.’ No: when you consider how much power Chance can exert over you both,
they are fellow-slaves.” Seneca goes on: “I don’t want to let myself go on this
vast topic, and give you a homily on how to treat your slaves: we behave toward
them in a proud, cruel and insulting fashion. The sum of what I wish to preach
is this: treat those whose status is inferior to your own in the same manner as
you would wish your own superior to treat you.” Impressive as this rhetoric is,
Seneca did nothing to try to change the actual institution of slavery, and
Wiedemann’s comment (Greek and Roman Slavery, 233) is that in practice
“Seneca is much more interested in writing exciting Latin than in improving the
conditions of his readers’ slaves.” Palestinian Judaism accepted the
institution of slavery, with slaves being viewed as the property of their
masters. According to Philo, the Therapeutae and the Essenes rejected it (cf.
Philo, Quod Omnis 79; De Vita Cont. 70). As far as the Essenes
are concerned, this attitude to slavery probably holds only for the core
community in the desert and not for any Essenes who, like the early Christians,
continued to live in society, since the Damascus Rule contains instructions on
the treatment of slaves (cf. CD 11.12; 12.10–12; cf. also Stuhlmacher, Philemon,
47). Although Josephus (c. Ap. 2.3 § 215–17) can call for slaves to
receive severe punishments for their offenses, in general Hellenistic Jewish
writings reflect contemporary Hellenistic appeals to masters to treat their
slaves reasonably (cf. Sir 4:30; 7:20, 21; 33:31; Philo, De Spec. Leg.
2.66–68, 89–91; 3.137–43; Ps.-Phocylides 224). Philo saw slaves as
indispensable, “for the course of life contains a vast number of circumstances
which demand the ministrations of slaves” (De Spec. Leg. 2.123).
Although he does not address slaves directly, he talks of instructions given
“to servants on rendering an affectionate loyalty to their masters, to masters
on showing the gentleness and kindness by which inequality is equalized” (De
Decal. 167).
Modern readers need to free themselves from a number of assumptions about first-century slavery, including the assumptions that there was a wide separation between the status of slave and freedperson, that all slaves were badly treated, and that all who were enslaved were trying to free themselves from this bondage. It is true that Roman law distinguished sharply between the status of slave and free in terms of the legal powerlessness of the slave, but in practice there was a broad continuum of statuses between slave and free in both Roman and Greek society. For example, slaves of Greek owners could own property, including their own slaves, and could obtain permission to take other employment in addition to their duties as slaves. Greek law defined four elements of freedom—freedom to act as one’s own legal person, freedom from being seized as property, freedom to earn a living in the way one wanted, and freedom of movement, including the right to live where one wished. But to establish freedperson status only the granting of the first of these was necessary. In practice any other aspects of freedom were often greatly curtailed in favor of the former slave owner, because before slaves were manumitted they had to sign a contract which could require them to make a regular payment and provide various services to their previous owners and which would specify what would happen to them and their property if they failed to do so. Slaves of Roman masters also continued to have specific obligations to their patrons after manumission, and so the step from the status of slave to freedperson was often a very small one in practice (cf. Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 40–44, 73–74, 115). The change in legal status was, however, an important one for most people, affecting their own sense of social identity and the perception of their social status by others, and so many slaves did work hard to achieve manumission. During the first century c.e. there was an increase in the ease and frequency of manumission, and this relieved the sort of pressures that might have provoked slave revolts. Domestic and urban slaves could expect to be manumitted as a reward for hard work after serving their owners for ten to twenty years. It was also frequently in the owners’ own interests to manumit their slaves, since their labor could be obtained more cheaply if they were freedpersons. It should be noted, however, that while there were a number of ways in which slaves could encourage owners to manumit them, there were no ways in which they could refuse freedperson status if owners decided to manumit them, since they had no legal rights (cf. Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 98, 104, 118–19). Despite the general picture of increasing manumission in the first-century Greco-Roman world, it seems to have taken place less frequently in Asia Minor, in whose cities freedpersons would have been a smaller proportion of the population than, for example, in Rome (cf. Verner, Household of God, 44, 63).
Although the Roman “paterfamilias had complete control over all slaves owned in his familia, the power of punishment by whipping and by confinement in the ergastulum, and the right of execution of the death penalty” (Westermann, Slave Systems, 76), daily life was usually much better than this legal situation might suggest, especially for domestic slaves. Inevitably, a person’s experience as a slave depended primarily on the character and social status of his or her master. But in general slaves were treated reasonably well, if only because their masters recognized that this was the way to get the best out of them. An owner’s treatment of his slaves was frequently similar to his treatment of his children, and the master who was considerate toward his children would behave similarly toward his slaves. This is not, of course, to paint a picture of paradise as descriptive of the domestic slave’s situation. There were undoubtedly far too many cases of cruelty, brutality, and injustice, but there was no general climate of unrest among slaves (cf. Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 85–87, 115).
One-third of the population of Greece and Italy was enslaved. The work of these slaves covered the whole range of activities in the ancient world—from privileged positions in the household of the emperor to working in the mines. In between came such work as the civil service, medical care, teaching, accountancy, business, domestic work, and agricultural employment. By the first century c.e., the main supply of slaves was no longer through war or piracy but rather through birth in the house of a slave owner. This produced a different social climate, as Bartchy notes: “These house-born slaves were given training for a wide variety of domestic, industrial and public tasks of increasing importance and sensitivity. Roman legal practice kept pace with this development by guaranteeing to those in slavery more humane treatment” (First-Century Slavery, 117). Many slaves in the Greco-Roman world enjoyed more favorable living conditions than many free laborers. Contrary to the supposition that everyone was trying to avoid slavery at all costs, it is clear that some people actually sold themselves into slavery in order to climb socially, to obtain particular employment open only to slaves, and to enjoy a better standard of living than they had experienced as free persons. Being a slave had the benefit of providing a certain personal and social security (cf. Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 46, 116).
Some scholars (e.g., Crouch, Origins, 126–27; Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory, 214–18) have argued that Christian talk of “freedom” and the baptismal formulation represented in Gal 3:28 would have aroused expectations of manumission in the minds of slaves and that the paraenesis about the slave-master relationship in the household codes should therefore be viewed as a reaction against such unrest among Christian slaves. But as has been said, there was no general desire to obtain manumission at all costs. In a situation where the majority of slaves were born in the house of their owners, talk of freedom in the sense of an inner or spiritual freedom could receive a sympathetic hearing. Stoics had already been teaching that true freedom was dependent on one’s inner attitude rather than outward circumstances (cf., e.g., Epictetus, Diss. 4.1; cf. also Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 65–67, 117). It may well be that Gal 3:28 was understood by the Corinthian women in terms of an emancipation in their social roles. It is certainly significant that Paul does not include the male-female pairing in the variation on the traditional formula in 1 Cor 12:13. But there is no evidence that the formula was understood in a similar way by slaves. In fact, Paul was able to employ the circumcision-uncircumcision and slave-free pairings as illustrations of his main point in 1 Cor 7:17–24, precisely because these were not the source of problems in Corinth. As Balch (Wives, 107) observes, “If Gal 3:28 was not understood by the Corinthian slaves as modifying their social role, the assumption that this baptismal formula stimulated such ‘unrest’ among slaves that it formed the background against which the household code must be understood is without foundation” (cf. also MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 112).Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
oiJ dou`loi, uJpakouvete toi`" kata; savrka kurivoi" meta; fovbou kai; trovmou ejn aJplovthti th`" kardiva" uJmw`n wJ" tw`/ Cristw`/, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling in singleness of heart, as you would obey Christ.” As has been noted, advice about how slaves should conduct themselves can be found elsewhere, but what does seem to be unprecedented about the advice to slaves in the Pauline corpus is its direct address to the slaves themselves (cf. also 1 Cor 7:21; Col 3:22). In this version of the household code, the writer makes clear that he views slaves as ethically responsible agents and appeals to them to obey their earthly masters. The designation “earthly masters” points to the play on the terms kuvrio", “lord, master,” and dou`lo", “slave,” that runs through the pericope. Those addressed, who are literally slaves (v 5), are also asked to see themselves as metaphorically slaves of Christ (v 6), and their obedience to their literal masters (v 5) is to be seen as part of their obedience to the true Lord (vv 7, 8). In fact, the contrast between the fleshly or earthly masters (v 5) and the Lord or Master in heaven (v 9) ties the passage together. For Christian slaves there was ultimately only one kuvrio", and reminding them of this by calling their masters kata; savrka in distinction from the Master in heaven immediately sets the social structures of the household in a Christian perspective and limits their significance. Despite this relativizing of the relationship, slaves’ obedience to their master is to be thoroughgoing.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:6
6 not by way of
eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God
from the heart.
ajllÆ wJ" dou`loi Cristou` poiou`nte" to; qevlhma tou` qeou` ejk yuch`", “but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God wholeheartedly.” Those who are simply out to please their masters are slaves of men, but the writer wants his addressees to see themselves primarily as slaves of Christ. Their allegiance lies ultimately not to other people but to Christ, and their aim should be not to please men but “to learn what is pleasing to the Lord” (cf. 5:10). The designation “slaves of Christ” intensifies the idea of carrying out obedience to masters as part of obedience to Christ from 6:5. This way of speaking can be compared with Paul’s relativizing of the social status of slave and free in 1 Cor 7:20–22, where he calls the free man a slave of Christ. Here the writer does not explicitly call slave owners slaves of Christ, although this is implicit in the reminder that will come to them that they have a Master in heaven. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:7
7 With good will
render service, as to the Lord, and not to men,
As we come to the end of the Ephesian Haustafel, it is natural that advice regarding the conduct of masters and slaves be given, because nearly every household was affected (or even dominated) by master/slave relationships. It has been estimated that there were some 60,000,000 slaves in the Roman Empire, and that as many as one third of the populations of large cities such as Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus were slaves. Some in the Ephesian church were masters, as was Philemon in the Colossian church. Many in the church were either slaves or ex-slaves (called “freedmen”). And some were slaveless citizens who, because of their lack of servants, were often poor. So virtually everyone in the Ephesian church had an interest in the Christian Haustafel for masters and slaves.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
The key to this singleness of heart is its focus upon Christ — “just as you would obey Christ,” says Paul. In fact, it is this focus on Christ which dominates all the advice to slaves/employees. Verse 6 says we are to be “like slaves of Christ.” Verse 7 similarly says, “serving the Lord, not men.” And in verse 8 we read, “the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does.” That we are serving Christ as we serve those over us is to be the transforming realization and motivation behind our work. This is the great need of Christian workers everywhere!
It is possible for the housewife to cook a meal as if Jesus Christ were going to eat it, or to spring-clean the house as if Jesus Christ were to be the honored guest. It is possible for teachers to educate children, for doctors to treat patients and nurses to care for them, for solicitors to help clients, shop assistants to serve customers, accountants to audit books and secretaries to type letters as if in each case they were serving Jesus Christ.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
Eph 6:8
8 knowing that
whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord,
whether slave or free.
eijdovte" o{ti e{kasto", ejavn ti poihvsh/ ajgaqovn, tou`to komivsetai para; kurivou, ei[te dou`lo" ei[te ejleuvqero", “knowing that each person, if he does something good, will be recompensed for this by the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.” The preceding participles and the whole exhortation to obedience are grounded in the reminder that the Lord will reward each one for the good that he does. Some discussions of household management recommended motivating slaves by holding out various rewards, for example, more praise, more food, better clothing, and shoes (cf. Xenophon, Oec. 13.9–12). This code attempts to motivate Christian slaves by holding before them the prospect of eschatological reward: no good deed will go unrecompensed (on komivzesqai and the writer’s use of the idea of the connection between deed and reward to underline the relationship between a way of life and its ultimate outcome, see S. H. Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God [London: Marshall Pickering, 1966] 110–113). Even if work seems to go unrecognized by earthly masters, this is no reason to start trying to catch their eye, because the heavenly Master sees all that is done and will respond accordingly. This latter thought holds for both slave and free. In regard to reward from the heavenly Master, earthly social status makes no difference. The concept of reward, particularly at the final judgment, was a common one in Judaism and is taken over in the NT. In the light of the allusion in the next verse (via Col 3:25) to the impartiality of God in Rom 2:11, it may well be that the thought of Rom 2:6–10 about reward for the one who does good has also been an influence here (cf. also 2 Cor 5:10). It is surprising, however, in light of its use earlier in this letter (cf. 1:14, 18; 5:5) that the writer does not take over the notion from Col 3:24 of the reward as “the inheritance.” It is noteworthy that when the concept of reward becomes more specific in the parallel passage in Col 3:25, the focus is on the negative and it functions as a threat, “for the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done.” But here in Ephesians the positive formulation of being recompensed for doing something good acts as an encouragement.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 6:9
9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
In the parallel passage, Colossians 4:1, the expression is, “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair”; that is, act towards them on the principles of justice and equity. Justice requires that all their rights as men, as husbands, and as parents should be taken into account. And these rights are not to be determined by the civil law but by God’s law. “As the laws,” says Calvin, “gave great license to masters, many assumed that everything was lawful which the civil statute allowed, and such was their severity that the Roman emperors were obliged to restrain their tyranny. But although no edicts of princes interposed on behalf of the slave, God concedes nothing to the master beyond what the law of love allows.”
Paul requires for slaves not only what is strictly just, but what is “fair” (Colossians 4:1). What is that? Literally, it is “equality.” Slaves are to be treated by their masters on the principles of equality. Not that they are to be equal with their masters in authority or station or circumstances; but they are to be treated as having—as men, as husbands, and as parents—equal rights with their masters. It is just as great a sin to deprive a slave of the just reward for his labor or to keep him in ignorance or to take from him his wife or child as it is to act like this towards a free man. This is the equality which the law of God demands, and on this principle the final judgment is to be administered. Christ will punish the master for defrauding the slave as severely as he will punish the slave for robbing his master. The same penalty will be inflicted for the violation of the marriage rights or parental rights. For, as the apostle adds, there is no favoritism with him. At his bar the question will be, “What was done?,” not “Who did it?” Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
This book, being about work, is by its very nature, about violence — to the spirit as well as to the body. It is about ulcers as well as accidents. About shouting matches as well as fist fights. About nervous breakdowns as well as kicking the dog around. It is, above all (or beneath all), about daily humiliations.
This is, of course, the way millions in our culture feel. But it would not be so if the Ephesian Haustafel were lived out, if the Bible triumphed over culture in our lives. What we have here are truly revolutionary social ethics.
First Paul states the Managerial Golden Rule: “And
masters, treat your slaves in the same way.” Just as the mutual submission
invoked in 5:21 controls first husband-and-wife relationships, and then
parent-and-child relationships while maintaining a divine order, so does the
principle of mutual submission hold here, leaving the employer/employee
relationship in proper order.
What Paul is telling those in authority is, treat your slaves/employees the way you want to be treated. If you want respect, show respect. If you want sincerity, be sincere. If you want conscientiousness, you be the same. If you want pleasantness, model pleasantness. “Promote the welfare of your slaves as you expect them to promote yours. Show the same interest in them and in their affairs as you hope they will show in you and your affairs.” Today this is what enlightened management is doing, and where it has been in effect for some time there is harmony and productivity.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
Do the same things to them. “Perform the duty which on your part you owe to them.” What he calls in another Epistle, (to; divkaion kai;th;n ijsovthta) that which is just and equal, is precisely what, in this passage, he calls the same things, (ta; aujta;.) And what is this but the law of analogy? Masters and servants are not indeed on the same level; but there is a mutual law which binds them. By this law, servants are placed under the authority of their masters; and, by the same law, due regard being had to the difference of their station, masters lie under certain obligations to their servants. This analogy is greatly misunderstood; because men do not try it by the law of love, which is the only true standard. Such is the import of Paul’s phrase, the same things; for we are all ready enough to demand what is due to ourselves; but, when our own duty comes to be performed, every one attempts to plead exemption. It is chiefly, however, among persons of authority and rank that injustice of this sort prevails.Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
One Roman writer divided agricultural instruments into
three classes—the
articulate, who were slaves; the inarticulate, which were animals; and the
mute,
which were tools and vehicles. A slave’s only distinction above animals or
tools
was that he could speak! The Roman statesman Cato said, “Old slaves should be
thrown on a dump, and when a slave is ill do not feed him anything. It is not
worth your money. Take sick slaves and throw them away because they are
nothing but inefficient tools.” Augustus crucified a slave who accidentally
killed
his pet quail, and a man named Pollio threw a slave into a pond of deadly
lamprey eels for breaking a crystal goblet. Juvenal wrote of a slave owner
whose
greatest pleasure was “listening to the sweet song of his slaves being
flogged.”
(The previous material is cited in William Barclay, The Daily Bible Study
Series:
The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians [Philadelphia: Westminster,
1958],
pp. 212-14.)
Although Scripture does not speak against slavery as such,
it clearly speaks
against the kidnapping of anyone for the purpose of making him or her a slave
(Ex. 21:16). The European and American slave trade that lasted past the middle
of the nineteenth century was therefore in clear violation of Scripture,
despite the
rationalizations of many Christians who were involved in it.
Certain types of nonabusive and beneficial slavery were
permitted, or even
advocated, in the Old Testament. For example, a thief who could not make
restitution could be indentured until repayment was worked out—a plan far
superior to the modern prison sentence which provides for no restitution of
property or money to the victim or restoration of dignity for the thief.
Israelites
were allowed to buy slaves from the pagan nations around them (Lev. 25:44), but
fellow Israelites could not be bought or sold, although they could voluntarily
indenture themselves until the year of jubilee (vv. 39-40). During their time
of
service they were to be treated as hired workers, not as slaves (v. 40-41, 46).
Even pagan slaves were not to be abused and were given their freedom if
seriously injured by their master (Ex. 21:26-27). A slave who fled from an
oppressive master was to be given asylum and protection (Deut. 23:15-16). A
fellow Israelite could not be used as a slave for more than six years, at the
end of
which he was to be given liberal provisions as a form of severance pay (Ex.
21:2;
Deut. 15:13-14). Every fiftieth year, the year of jubilee, all slaves were to
be
freed and returned to their families (Lev. 25:10). A slave who loved his master
and preferred to remain with him could voluntarily indenture himself for life
by
having his ear pierced by his master (Ex. 21:5-6). The kind of slavery
controlled
by scriptural teaching was a blessing to both employer and employee and was a
rewarding and fulfilling relation between them.
Although slavery is not uniformly condemned in either the
Old or New
Testaments, the sincere application of New Testament truths has repeatedly led
to
the elimination of its abusive tendencies. Where Christ’s love is lived in the
power of His Spirit, unjust barriers and relationships are inevitably broken
down.
As the Roman empire disintegrated and eventually collapsed, the brutal, abused
system of slavery collapsed with it—due in great measure to the influence of
Christianity. In more recent times the back of the black slave trade was broken
in
Europe and America due largely to the powerful, Spirit-led preaching of such
men as John Wesley and George Whitefield and the godly statesmanship of such
men as William Wilberforce and William Pitt.
MacArthur, John F., Jr
Title: MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary: Ephesians
NKJV: Eph 6:10
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord
and in the power of His might.
11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
The transition to the concluding part of the paraenesis is made through tou` loipou`, “finally,” which introduces the first imperative ejndunamou`sqe, “be strong,” which is then followed by a combination of two prepositional phrases indicating the source of the strength, ejn kurivw/, “in the Lord,” and, in the by now familiar style of synonyms linked in a genitival construction, ejn tw`/ kravtei th`" ijscuvo" aujtou`, “in his mighty power.”
The passage is a rousing call to the readers to summon all their energies in firm resolve to live out the sort of Christian existence in the world to which the whole letter has pointed. ... sense of confidence and security that the readers can have in the midst of a bitter combat. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
That armor consists: 1. in the knowledge and reception of the truth; 2. in the righteousness of Christ; 3. in the alacrity which flows from the peace of the Gospel; 4. in the consciousness of salvation; 5. in faith; 6. in the Word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit.
To obtain strength to use this armor correctly, and to secure victory for ourselves and for the army of which we are a part, we should pray. These prayers should be: 1: of all kinds; 2: on every occasion; 3: importunate and persevering; 4: with the help of the Holy Spirit; 5: for all saints. Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
Salvation, however gratuitous, is not to be obtained without great effort. The Christian conflict is not only real—it is difficult and dangerous. It is one in which true believers are often grievously wounded, and multitudes of reputed believers entirely succumb. It is one also in which great mistakes are often committed and serious loss incurred out of ignorance of its nature and of the appropriate means for carrying on the conflict. People are apt to regard it as a mere moral conflict between reason and conscience on the one side and evil passions on the other. They therefore rely on their own strength and upon the resources of nature for success. Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.( an experimental predestinarian, but I think right.)
An interesting variation occurs in 1 John 2:14, “I write to you, young men, because you are strong … and you have overcome the evil one.” What Paul urges in Ephesians is expressed in 1 John as already accomplished: they are strong and have overcome the evil one. It is doubtful that one general group of Christians, and those called “young” at that, would have somehow already accomplished what the readers of Ephesians are only now being introduced to. We may therefore propose that there is a sense in which all believers are victors on the basis of the victory Christ achieved in the cross, resurrection and ascension (compare Eph 1:20–23); yet we can at any time meet the enemy, and he—not by superior status or force but by deceit (6:11)—can cause us to fall.Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
The call to “be strong” in the context of battle is reminiscent of similar calls to, for example, Joshua—“Be strong and of good courage” (Josh 1:6, 7, 9)— or the Qumran community—“Be strong and valiant; be warriors!… Do not fall back” (1QM 15.6–8). Paul also had appealed at the close of 1 Corinthians for the readers to be strong (cf. 1 Cor 16:13, krataiou`sqe). Although the imperative could be construed as a middle (cf. Bruce, Epistles, 403), it is more likely that it should be taken as a passive with the sense of “be strengthened, be empowered,” reinforcing the notion that the strength is to be drawn from an external source and corresponding to the passive in the prayer of 3:16, dunavmei krataiwqh``nai, “to be strengthened with might.” Here the external source is “the Lord,” and the wording is again reminiscent of the OT (cf. 1 Sam 30:6, “David strengthened himself in the Lord his God”; Zech 10:12, “I will make them strong in the Lord”). Now, however, the Lord is Christ. The relationship to him is described in terms of ejn kurivw/, “in the Lord” (cf. also 2:21; 4:17; 5:8, 6:1, 21), which conforms to the overall tendency in this letter for what believers are in relation to Christ to be expressed in terms of ejn Cristw`/, “in Christ,” and what they are to become or to do in relation to him to be expressed in terms of ejn kurivw/, “in the Lord” (see Comment on 2:21). Believers’ relationship to Christ gives them access to his power. The exhortation takes up the language of the intercessory prayer-report of Col 1:11, “being strengthened with all power according to the might of his glory.” But it recalls also the ideas of this letter’s earlier prayer-reports about the experience of the power of God operative in Christ’s resurrection and exaltation and in the rescue of believers from the death and bondage of the past (cf. 1:19–2:10 with its earlier combination in 1:19 of the same synonyms in a genitive construction, “the strength of his might”) and about strengthening through the Spirit (cf. 3:16). Now this final reminder is of the need to appropriate and rely on Christ’s power.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:11
11 Put on the full
armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the
devil.
The form of the Greek imperative put on indicates that believers are responsible for putting on God’s (not their) full armor (panoplian, also in v. 13; all the armor and weapons together were called the hapla; cf. 2 Cor. 6:7) with all urgency. The detailed description of the armor (given in Eph. 6:14-17) may stem from Paul’s being tied to a Roman soldier while in prison awaiting trial (cf. Acts 28:16, 20).Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
The major victory has been achieved, but the eschatological tension with its indicative and imperative characteristic of Paul’s thought remains. Believers must appropriate what has already been gained for them and do so against continuing assaults, and this is not automatic. Indeed there may be minor defeats along the way; hence the urgency of the imperatives. The writer’s focus, however, is not on the possibility of such minor defeats but on the ability of his readers to make the assured outcome of the overall battle their own by standing and maintaining the ground that has been won.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NKJV: Eph 6:12
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and
blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places.
First, the struggle is supernatural — supra flesh and blood.
Second, the struggle is personal. The word for “struggle” indicates a hand-to-hand fight (as the Spanish say, mano a mano). The root idea here is, swaying back and forth while locked in mortal battle. An exchange of arrows or artillery is not pictured here, but sweat against sweat, breath against breath.
Third, the struggle is futile if fought in and by our own flesh. As Calvin said:
He means that our difficulties are far greater than if we had to fight against men. Where we resist human strength, sword is opposed to sword, man contends with man, force is met by force, and skill by skill; but here the case is very different, for our enemies are such as no human power can withstand.Hughes, R. Kent, Preaching the Word: Ephesians—The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 1997.
12Then he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. 13“But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia. 14“Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.”The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
The last grouping in the list of opponents, ta; pneumatika; th`" ponhriva" ejn toi`" ejpouranivoi", “the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms,” serves not so much to designate a separate class of cosmic powers but as a general term for all such powers and an indication of their locality. It is equivalent to the term “evil spirits” found, for example, in Jub. 10.3, 5, 13; 11.4, 5; 12.20; 1 Enoch 15.8–12; T. Sim. 4.9; 6.6; T. Levi 18.12. The writer has listed different groups of evil forces not for the sake of some schematic classification or completeness, but in order to bring home to the consciousness of his readers the variety and comprehensiveness of the power the enemy has at his disposal. The phrase “in the heavenly realms” refers primarily to the sphere of the evil powers and not to that in which believers are fighting (cf. also Percy, Probleme, 182). However, the statement that the fighting is not against flesh and blood indicates not only the spiritual nature of the adversary but also the spiritual character of believers’ combat. On the relationship between the heavenly realms and the air (2:2) as the location of the malevolent agencies and the Jewish background for the idea of hostile angelic or spiritual powers in heaven, see Comment on 2:2 (cf. also Lincoln, NTS 19 [1973] 475–76). Although the opposing forces are formidable, the fact that they are in the heavenly realms need no longer pose a threat to believers, because they are not fighting to break through the hold of such powers and penetrate to the heavenly realm themselves, as some in Colossae attempted, but are to see themselves as fighting from a position of victory, having already been seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (cf. 2:6).
Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The purpose of putting on God’s armor is to be able to stand against the schemes or stratagems (methodeias, used in the NT only here and in 4:14) of the devil or adversary (cf. 4:27). Christians are not to attack Satan, or advance against him; they are only to “stand” or hold the territory Christ and His body, the church, have conquered. Without God’s armor believers will be defeated by the “schemes” of the devil which have been effective for thousands of years.
The struggle is not physical (against flesh and blood); it is a spiritual conflict against the spiritual “Mafia.” Though the ranks of satanic forces cannot be fully categorized, the first two (rulers and authorities) have already been mentioned in 1:21 and 3:10. Paul added the powers of this dark world (cf. 2:2; 4:18; 5:8) and the spiritual forces of evil. Their sphere of activity is in the heavenly realms, the fifth occurrence of this phrase, which is mentioned in the New Testament only in 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12. Satan, who is in the heavens (2:2) until he will be cast out in the middle of the Tribulation (Rev. 12:9-10), is trying to rob believers of the spiritual blessings God has given them (Eph. 1:3). Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
Eph 6:13
13 Therefore, take
up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and
having done everything, to stand firm.
Some (e.g., Oepke, TDNT 5 [1967] 301) claim that in his elaboration the writer is guided first and foremost by what he knows about the armor of the Roman legionary. Polybius 6.23.2 lists as belonging to this equipment the shield (qureov"), the sword (mavcaira), the helmet (perikefalaiva), two spears or javelins (uJssoi), greaves or armor for below the knees (proknhmiv"), and the breastplate (kardiofuvlax) or, for the more wealthy, the coat of mail (aJlusidwto;" qwvrax) (cf. also Diodorus Siculus 20.84.3). Ephesians in comparison opts for the term qwvrax for breastplate, omits greaves and javelins, and adds the military belt and sandals, both of which were probably part of the general clothing of the soldier and not peculiar to the heavily armed soldier, the oJplivth". Certainly the term panopliva, “full armor,” would have brought to mind for Gentile readers in western Asia Minor the suit of armor of the Roman soldier. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The term pavlh, “battle,” usually denotes a wrestling match, and some have suggested that it should retain that force here, so that the writer would be saying, “Our battle against the powers of darkness is not like the contest of the wrestler, for he can easily come to grips with his opponent” (cf. Pfitzner, Paul, 159). However, the contrast is not between a battle and a wrestling match but between human and spiritual opposition. The athletic term could in any case be transferred to military contexts and could stand for any contest or battle (cf. Euripides, Heracl. 159; Philo, De Abr. 243; 2 Macc 10:28; 14:18; 15:9), and this is most likely the force of the term here. The Christian’s battle is not ultimately “against flesh and blood.” As in Heb 2:14, the terms are in the reverse order—blood and flesh—but the meaning is the same as the more usual phrase, viz., humanity in its weakness and transitoriness (cf., e.g., Sir 14:18; 17:31; Matt 16:17; Gal 1:16; 1 Cor 15:50). The real enemy is not so easily resisted and disposed of as such human opposition. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The Armor Needed for the Spiritual Battle (6:13–17) Since it is often a long step from theory to practice, transition words between the two in Scripture are especially important. We saw that the information given in verse 12 about the unseen powers is the reason for taking God’s armor. That verse began with the word for. Now verse 13 looks back to verse 12 with the word therefore (Greek “on account of this”), and verse 14 continues the sequence with then (Greek “therefore”). This strong interconnection emphasizes the importance of taking the hostile powers seriously.
The content of verse 13 is essentially the same as that of the previous verses, with the addition of a reference to a day that is designated as evil. It sounds as though that day was not yet present, somewhat like the Old Testament phrase “the day of the Lord.” This is a day, either imminent or in the “eschaton” (that is, a significant time of God’s acts at the conclusion of history), when God acts decisively. But if the day of evil in verse 13 does not allude to a time the original readers were experiencing themselves, why would the passage give the impression that readers (then and now) should take up spiritual armor right away?
Since the writer refers to pieces of armor used by soldiers of that day, it would be natural to interpret the passage mainly on the basis of the military significance of each piece. While that would be instructive, the more important point of reference is the Old Testament book of Isaiah. There the various pieces are part of the armor of God himself, actually aspects of his own character.
But with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.
Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist. (Is 11:4–5)
He put on righteousness as his breastplate,
and the helmet of salvation on his head;
he put on the garments of vengeance
and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak. (Is 59:17)
How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
“Your God reigns!” (Is 52:7)
(The last passage here is not about warfare, but it probably lies behind verse 15 in the Ephesians passage.)
A survey of these passages, especially those in Isaiah 11 and 59, suggests that the significance of the armor is not as much in the individual pieces, important as they are, as in what they signify together as God’s armor, which is also that of his Messiah. God revealed himself in the Old Testament as a warrior: “The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name” (Ex 15:3). But the passages in Isaiah have a more specific focus. The context of Isaiah 11:4–5 is clearly messianic:
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. (v. 1)
The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them … (v. 6; see also vv. 7–9)
Verses 3–4 predict that the Messiah will be concerned for justice and righteousness, followed by verse 5, which contains the reference to the belt of righteousness and the sash of faithfulness.
In Isaiah 59 the background is a lack of justice. God is able to hear and save his people, but they have alienated themselves from him by their sins (vv. 1–3). Further, there is a lack of justice (vv. 4, 8–9, 14–15), righteousness (vv. 9, 14) and truth (vv. 14–15). Therefore God moves into the situation wearing “righteousness as his breastplate” and “salvation” as his “helmet” to deal with his enemies. The passage concludes with a messianic promise:
“The Redeemer will come to Zion,
to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,”
declares the Lord.” (v. 20)
As for the verse about the beautiful feet of “those who bring good news” (Is 52:7), this occurs in the section that immediately precedes the famous passage of Isaiah 52:13–53:12, which describes the Messiah as a suffering servant.
Therefore the armor of Ephesians is the armor of God and of his Messiah, and the basic concerns are for (1) the achievement of righteousness and justice and (2) the proclamation of God’s truth that brings peace. It would seem appropriate to conclude as well that in Ephesians the point is not merely protection of God’s people during satanic attack but the achievement of truth, righteousness and justice as well as of the peace brought by the gospel. We should not be so preoccupied with our personal spiritual struggles, obsessed with the possibility of satanic attack, that we neglect larger fields of conflict involving God’s righteousness in this world.
The specific functions of the individual pieces of armor are fairly self-evident. Ancient warriors, like other people of the time, wore loose-fitting clothing. When approaching some task, athletic event or battle, they needed to gather this clothing together to permit freer movement. It was done in different ways for different purposes. (See 2 Kings 4:29; Job 38:3; Lk 12:35; Jn 13:4; and the figurative image in 1 Pet 1:13. The translations do not always convey the image of “binding” or “girding.”) Preparation for action could entail the wearing of a foundational piece, perhaps of leather or an exterior belt or sash, or it could be just the gathering of loose folds. The Christian soldier wears the belt of truth, perhaps here as the first item put on under the others, because integrity of character is so important. That assumes that the truth specified here and in the background text of Isaiah is not so much verbal truth as truthfulness, or, as in the Old Testament, faithfulness.
The breastplate covered the major organs much as a bullet-proof vest does today. The moral quality of righteousness that characterized God in the Isaiah passages, that justice which is prized so highly in the prophets (for example, “What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God,” Micah 6:8), is essential for the one who must stand against evil.
It is interesting that although one might expect soldier’s boots to be at the end of the list of equipment, that part of the equipment comes in the middle of Paul’s list. This may be because of its importance for fulfilling the command to stand. With your feet fitted probably referred to caligae (from which the nickname of Emperor Caligula came), tough but light sandals (in the sense that the toes were open) that went partly up the leg, with soles studded with nails for a secure grip on the ground. Soldiers could wear them in hand-to-hand combat, rather than the heavy boots used in long marches. The purpose could be twofold: to maintain a solid footing, as commanded, and to be ready for action.
In Isaiah 52:7, and in Romans 10:15 where Isaiah is quoted, the emphasis is on the feet of the persons who announce peace. Lincoln (1990:448) observes that Ephesians follows Isaiah in referring to the feet being shod rather than to the actual footgear used. The emphasis is on readiness for action,* which is consistent with the warfare theme, but the key term that is common to Isaiah, Romans and Ephesians is gospel, or good news. Once again, therefore, Paul calls his hearers to an outlook that goes beyond the individual soldier’s protection to encompass his mission.
Shield of faith is a marvelous and much-quoted image. Unlike some pieces of armor, which are fastened in place to guard only certain parts of the body, a shield can be deployed and maneuvered to fend off all missiles, wherever they are coming from and toward whatever part of the body they are headed. The shield pictured here, unlike the small round shield sometimes used, was large (four feet high by two and one-half feet wide) and shaped like a door. In fact its name, thyreos, came from the word for door, thyra. Marching side by side holding up these large shields, soldiers could advance on an enemy well protected. Used that way, the shield could be an important part of an offensive thrust, even though it was a defensive piece.
The Old Testament describes God as our shield: “My shield is God Most High, who saves the upright in heart” (Ps 7:10). The faith that saves (Eph 2:8) now becomes an implement of spiritual protection. The shield was often covered with leather and could be presoaked in water to extinguish missiles dipped in tar and set on fire. Without that preparation, a shield made of wood could be set on fire and become a threat to the soldier. We need the shield of faith to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. The devil (v. 11) is now called the evil one, as he is in the Lord’s Prayer—a reminder of the sinister power against whom we need full protection.
If the faith that brings salvation protects us, so does salvation itself. Isaiah 59:17, “He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head,” and 1 Thessalonians 5:8, “But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet,” mention both the breastplate (righteousness or love) and the helmet of salvation. It is difficult to know just how these relate in the mind of the biblical writers, but one thing is completely clear: the various pieces of armor are interrelated and cannot be analyzed or deployed individually. At the same time there is a subtle shift from the qualities of inherent character implied by the preceding pieces of armor to salvation and the word of God, which are objective gifts to be received.
Salvation is a basic theme throughout Scripture. The word connotes a range of ways in which God rescues, delivers or redeems those who trust in him. The mind is essential for life and coordination; the head is vulnerable to lethal or incapacitating blows. Thus the soldier needs a helmet signifying the saving power of God.
It is often noted that the sword is the only offensive piece of equipment listed here. While that is true, its offensive characteristic is that it represents the word of God, which has already been implied in verse 15 by the gospel of peace. The fact that Paul uses the word for the short rather than the long sword suggests hand-to-hand combat.
Whether or not Paul has in mind the idea of the Messiah slaying the wicked “with the breath of his lips” in Isaiah 11:4 (which immediately precedes the words of v. 5, “Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash …”), the point in this passage is that it is the sword of the Spirit, not uniquely that of the Messiah. (Compare 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:13, 15.) The use of the sword seems to be connected with the preaching of the gospel. That connection appears in the double reference to the Spirit in verses 18–19, which introduces the ministry of prayer, which is then connected with Paul’s preaching of the gospel. The connection is further strengthened by the use of the term “ambassador” to describe Paul’s gospel ministry.Walter L. Liefeld, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Ephesians, 1997.
Eph 6:14
14 Stand firm
therefore, having girded your loins with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
The verb has the same force throughout (cf. also Gnilka, 310; pace Meyer, 333), suggesting the stance of the soldier in combat, standing firm, resisting, and prevailing against the enemy. It is clearly a vital notion for the writer, and it is worth noting that it was also important in Paul’s writings. 1 Thess 3:8 speaks of standing fast in the Lord, while 2 Thess 2:15 exhorts “stand firm” and Gal 5:1 “stand fast therefore.” In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of some who think they stand needing to take heed lest they fall (10:12) and of the gospel in which the Corinthians stand (15:1), and exhorts them to stand firm in their faith (16:13; cf. also 2 Cor 1:24). In Romans he talks of “this grace in which we stand” (5:2) and warns Gentile Christians that they “stand fast only through faith … stand in awe” (11:20). In Philippians the apostle wants to know that his readers stand firm in one spirit, not frightened by their opponents (1:27, 28), and exhorts them to stand firm in the Lord (4:1). In Col 4:12 Epaphras’ prayer for the Colossians is that they may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. Here in Ephesians, the thought also is of the readers taking up by faith and occupying steadfastly the position which is theirs through their experience of the gospel of God’s grace in Christ. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The breastplate of righteousness refers not to justification, obtained at conversion (Rom. 3:24; 4:5), but to the sanctifying righteousness of Christ (1 Cor. 1:30) practiced in a believer’s life. As a soldier’s breastplate protected his chest from an enemy’s attacks, so sanctifying, righteous living (Rom. 6:13; 14:17) guards a believer’s heart against the assaults of the devil (cf. Isa. 59:17; James 4:7). Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
See ISA 59:17
WIS 5:15 But the righteous live for evermore; their reward also is with the Lord, and the care of them is with the most High. 16 Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom, and a beautiful crown from the Lord’s hand: for with his right hand shall he cover them, and with his arm shall he protect them. 17 He shall take to him his jealousy for complete armour, and make the creature his weapon for the revenge of his enemies. 18 He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, and true judgment instead of an helmet. 19 He shall take holiness for an invincible shield. 20 His severe wrath shall he sharpen for a sword, and the world shall fight with him against the unwise. 21 Then shall the right aiming thunderbolts go abroad; and from the clouds, as from a well drawn bow, shall they fly to the mark. 22 And hailstones full of wrath shall be cast as out of a stone bow, and the water of the sea shall rage against them, and the floods shall cruelly drown them.The King James Version Apocrypha, 1995.
1 Thess 5:8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. 9For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982.
NASB: Eph 6:15
15 and having shod
your feet with the preparation of the
gospel of peace;
Having shod (uJpodhsamenoi [hupodeµsamenoi]). “Having bound under” (sandals). First aorist middle participle of uJpodew [hupodeoµ], old word, to bind under (Mark 6:9; Acts 12:8, only other N.T. example). With the preparation (ejn eJtoimasia/ [en hetoimasiaµi]). Late word from eJtoimazw [hetoimazoµ], to make ready, only here in N.T. Readiness of mind that comes from the gospel whose message is peace. Robertson, Archibald Thomas, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1998, c1933.
see 6:13
15 kai; uJpodhsavmenoi tou;" povda" ejn eJtoimasiva/ tou` eujaggelivou th`" eijrhvnh", “and having fitted your feet with the readiness of the gospel of peace.” Proper footwear is required if the soldier is to be ready for combat. uJpodhvmata, “sandals,” could be used of military sandals (cf. Xenophon, Anab. 4.5.14; Josephus, J.W. 6.1.8), and the Roman soldier frequently wore the caliga, a half-boot, which was part of the equipment for long marches and which could be studded with sharp nails to enable a firm grip. But it is significant that the writer does not refer directly to the footwear and instead talks of the feet being fitted or shod, showing again that he is primarily influenced by the language of an OT passage which mentions feet in connection with proclaiming the gospel of peace. The text in question is LXX Isa 52:7, “as the feet of one preaching glad tidings of peace” (cf. also Nah 1:15). Paul had used this verse in connection with the preacher of the gospel in Rom 10:15, but this writer links the equipping of the feet not with the proclamation of the gospel of peace but with the eJtoimasiva, “readiness,” of the gospel of peace. The force of this term is disputed. Some (e.g., A. F. Buscarlet, “The ‘Preparation’ of the Gospel of Peace,” ExpTim 9 [1897] 38–40, followed by E. H. Blakeney, ExpTim 55 [1944] 138; J. A. F. Gregg, ExpTim 56 [1944] 54; Barth, 797–99) link it with one of the connotations it has in the LXX of a prepared or solid foundation (cf. LXX Ps 88:14; Ezra 2:68) and transfer it to mean “firm footing” or “steadfastness.” In this way, a connection can be made with the overall exhortation to stand. But the term nowhere actually means “firm footing,” and its more usual sense is readiness, preparedness, or preparation (cf., e.g., LXX Ps 9:17; Wis 13:12; Ep. Arist. 182; Josephus, Ant. 10.1.2 § 9 v.l.). The reference is, therefore, not to readiness to proclaim the gospel (pace Schlier, 296; Oepke, TDNT 5 [1967] 312; Gnilka, 311–12; Ernst, 400) but to the readiness or preparedness for combat and for standing in the battle that is bestowed by the gospel of peace (cf. also Meyer, 334–35; Abbott, 185; Hendriksen, 277). The writer’s emphasis is paradoxical. It is the appropriation of the gospel of peace that makes one ready for war. As we have seen from 2:14–18, the gospel of peace is embodied in Christ who “is our peace,” and this is a peace with both vertical and horizontal axes: peace with God the Father and peace between human beings, Jews and Gentiles, who were formerly at enmity. Since such peace is the pledge of future cosmic harmony (cf.1:10; 3:10), its realization in the Church not only sounds the death knell for opposing cosmic powers but also, in the meantime, leads to the intensification of their opposition. A continuing preservation and appropriation of the gospel of peace is, therefore, necessary if the powers are to be resisted and if believers are to be ready to make their stand in the world, the stand that is in line with their calling. Believers’ preparation for standing firm and prevailing against the alienating and fragmenting powers of evil is the harmony produced by the gospel.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
NASB: Eph 6:16
16 in addition to
all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish
all the flaming missiles of the evil one.
6:16. The shield in a Roman soldier’s attire, made of wood, was about 2 1/2‘ wide and 4’ long. It was overlaid with linen and leather, to absorb fiery arrows. Thus it also protected the other pieces of the armor; hence Paul used the phrase, in addition to all this. Of faith is a genitive of content; the shield consists of faith. The idea, then, is that a Christian’s resolute faith in the Lord can stop and extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one aimed at him. (Cf. “evil one” [Satan] in John 17:15; 1 John 5:19.)Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
see 6:13
NASB: Eph 6:17
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword
of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
17 kai; th;n perikefalaivan tou` swthrivou devxasqe, kai; th;n mavcairan tou` pneuvmato", o{ ejstin rJh`ma qeou`, “And receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Believers are to “receive,” i.e., from God (v 13) who offers them, “the helmet” and “the sword.” Wild (CBQ 46 [1984] 297) is right to claim that “the shift from the string of participles in 6:14–16 to dexasthe in 6:17a is meant to signal a shift from a listing of virtues in a somewhat conventional sense as qualities which involve a certain degree of human effort to objects which are gifts in the purest sense, ‘salvation’ and ‘the word of God.’ ” The order of this verse, with the helmet being received before the sword, makes good sense, because the soldier who is being depicted already grasps the shield with his left hand. If he had taken the sword first, there would be no hand free to receive and put on the helmet (cf. also Meyer, 338). The helmet, which for the Roman soldier was made of bronze and had cheek pieces, provided protection for another vital part, the head. The language of “the helmet of salvation” alludes again to LXX Isa 59:17 (cf. “the breastplate of righteousness” in v 14). It is this allusion that explains the use of swthvrion rather than swthriva. The former term, which was employed frequently in the LXX for salvation, occurs nowhere else in the Pauline corpus (but cf. Luke 2:30; 3:6; Acts 28:28). In the OT God is himself salvation and deliverance for those oppressed (cf. also, e.g., Pss 18:2, 46–48; 35:3; 37:39, 40; 65:5; 70:4, 5; Isa 33:2, 6; 45:17; 46:13; 51:5, 6; Jer 31:33), and here in Ephesians believers are to receive the divine salvation. Paul in 1 Thess 5:8 had talked of the helmet as the hope of salvation, but in line with his more realized eschatology this writer again thinks of salvation as a present reality (cf. esp. 2:5, 8; pace Schlier, 297, who reads the idea of hope into 6:17, and Barth, 776, who claims that a decision between present and future salvation cannot be made). For him, what ultimately protects believers is that God has already rescued them from bondage to the prince of the realm of the air and seated them with Christ in the heavenly realms (cf. 2:1–10). By appropriating this salvation as their helmet, believers have every reason to be confident of the outcome of the battle.
With the final piece of equipment, the writer’s emphasis shifts from the defensive to the offensive. The sharp short sword (mavcaira as opposed to rJomfaiva, the long sword) was the crucial offensive weapon in close combat. There is a corresponding stylistic shift. Whereas with the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith, or the helmet of salvation, the former element represents the latter, this is not the case with “the sword of the Spirit.” The sword stands not for the Spirit but for “the word of God.” In fact, the relative pronoun o{ in the following clause, “which is the word of God,” refers back to the whole phrase “the sword of the Spirit.” The Spirit is not so much the one who supplies the sword (pace Meyer, 339)—both the helmet and the sword are to be received from God—but the one who gives it its effectiveness, its cutting edge (cf. also Schnackenburg, 286). Since the writer has already drawn on Isa 11:5 for v 14, he may well have been influenced in this verse by the imagery and language of LXX Isa 11:4, where the Spirit of God rests on the Messiah who “shall smite the earth with the word [lovgo"] of his mouth, and with the breath [pneu`ma] through his lips shall he destroy the ungodly.” If this is so, an assertion about the Messiah would again be transferred to the Christian. Isa 11:4 is also taken up in 2 Thess 2:8, where the Lord Jesus will slay the lawless one with the breath of his mouth. In Revelation Christ wages war with the sword of his mouth, and his word reveals people’s deeds for what they are (cf. 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:13, 15). In Ephesians, however, when the Christian solider wields the sword of the word, it is not first of all the word of judgment but the good news of salvation. rJh`ma here, not lovgo", refers to the gospel (cf. also 5:26; Rom 10:18; 1 Pet 1:25). This is “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation” (1:13), “the gospel of peace” (6:15). This form of the word of God is also a sharp sword (cf. Heb 4:12), and the Spirit gives it its power and penetration (cf. 1 Thess 1:5). As believers take hold of and proclaim the gospel, they are enabled to overcome in the battle. And as regards the powers, that gospel does sound a note of judgment, for it announces their defeat. The paradox again is that it is the gospel of peace and reconciliation that is the sword that enables the militia Christi to advance. As the Church continues to be the reconciled and reconciling community, the gospel conquers the alienating hostile powers and brings about God’s saving purposes.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:18
18 With all prayer
and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the
alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,
Technically this is not a separate sentence, but a series of clauses built around the two participles ‘praying’ and ‘keeping alert’, together with their dependent clauses. The whole construction qualifies the Stand firm, then, of v 14. It should not be taken to mean either that prayer is a seventh piece of armour, nor specifically that prayer is the means of donning the six, but that prayer will be closely associated with them. Theological grasp of the gospel (14–17) that does not result in prayer, like Paul’s for the readers in 1:15–23 and 3:14–21, is a dead carcass. Prayer warriors with no real grasp of what the gospel is all about (the gospel of peace and cosmic restoration in Christ), may be spirited, but no more useful on the field than a soldier without weapons. Spiritual understanding of the gospel combined with an alert prayerfulness is the combination Paul seeks. Such prayer will be guided by the Spirit who gives access to God (cf. v 18 recalls 2:18), and the one who prays thus will pray not merely for himself or herself, but for the saints and for the bold progress of the gospel (19)Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, 1994.
Putting on, taking up, and receiving God’s armor all require an attitude of dependence on God. Prayer for strengthening from God can be seen as a major way in which believers appropriate the divine armor and are enabled to stand. Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The more common opinion is that the distinction is twofold: first, that prayers are addressed only to God, whereas requests may be addressed to men; and, secondly, that the former includes all address to God, while the latter is limited to petition. The expression all prayer (kjv) means all kinds of prayers—oral and mental, ejaculatory and formal. The prayers which Paul wants the Christian warrior to use are not merely those of the closet and of stated seasons, but also those habitual and occasional aspirations and outgoings of the heart after God which a constant sense of his nearness and a constant sense of our necessity must produce. Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
The expression for prayer is a double one, using the two terms proseuchv and devhsi". Paul had also used this twofold expression in Phil 4:6, “in everything by prayer and petition with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (cf. also LXX 3 Kgdms 8:45; 2 Chron 6:19 [twice]; 1 Tim 2:1; 5:5; Ign. Magn. 7.1). They are employed together here primarily for the sake of intensification, but usually the former term has a more general and comprehensive reference, while the latter indicates more specifically the request or petition aspect of prayer. In this verse, the two elements are taken up separately: first, “praying at all times in the Spirit,” and then “to this end keeping alert in all perseverance and petition for all the saints.” Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:19
19 and pray
on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to
make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,
The Romans looked on the Christians as a sect of the Jews, and the Jews considered them as a heretical group. In his trial Paul needed to make clear that Christians are neither a Jewish sect nor a heretical group but a new entity, the church, the body of Christ, composed of Jewish and Gentile believers. This recalls Paul’s lengthy discussion of this “mystery of the gospel” in 2:11-3:11. For this reason Paul was an ambassador in chains (cf. Acts 28:16, 20; Eph. 3:1; 4:1; Phil. 1:7, 13-14, 16; Col. 4:3, 18; Phile. 1, 9-10, 13).Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
So he invites his readers to pray that the gift of ready speech may be bestowed on him. Lenski (pp. 678, 679) thought that the expression "that words may be given me" (hina moi dothe logos) reflects the formal language of diplomatic procedure and means that he may have permission to speak (cf. Acts 26:1). Though Paul is "an ambassador in chains" (v. 20), he seeks an opportunity to testify before the imperial court. To "open the mouth" is a common phrase for making a public address or a long defense. It suggests solemnity of utterance. The Greek is literally "in the opening of my mouth" (en anoixei tou stomatos mou) and could point to what Paul wants God to do for him. The absence of the article may favor this interpretation with its redoubled emphasis on "givenness."
"Fearlessly" (en parrhesia), repeated in a verbal form in v. 20 (parrhesiasomai), could be taken with the preceding clause ("in the opening of my mouth fearlessly"), but is more naturally attached to "make known" (gnorisai). Parrhesia is a favorite word of Paul, meaning frankness and uninhibited openness of speech (TDNT, 5:883). No doubt the apostle is thinking especially of his appearance before the imperial authorities--perhaps even the emperor himself--when he would have the opportunity to reveal the secret of the gospel. He had been chosen to carry the name of Jesus "before the Gentiles and their kings" (Acts 9:15) and this was to be the climax of his distinctive ministry. Meanwhile, as he awaited his trial, he wanted to make the most of every occasion that could be capitalized in the interests of the kingdom (cf. Acts 28:31). EBCNT
Eph 6:20
20 for which I am
an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I
ought to speak.
Fear hinders us from preaching Christ openly and fearlessly, while the absence of all restraint and disguise in confessing Christ is demanded from his ministers. Paul does not ask for himself the powers of an acute debater, or, I should rather say, of a dexterous sophist, that he might shield himself from his enemies by false pretences. It is, that I may open my mouth, to make a clear and strong confession; for when the mouth is half shut, the sounds which it utters are doubtful and confused. To open the mouth, therefore, is to speak with perfect freedom, without the smallest dread.
But does not Paul discover unbelief, when he entertains doubts as to his own stedfastness, and implores the intercession of others? No. He does not, like unbelievers, seek a remedy which is contrary to the will of God, or inconsistent with his word. The only aids on which he relies are those which he knows to be sanctioned by the Divine promise and approbation. It is the command of God, that believers shall pray for one another. How consoling then must it be to each of them to learn that the care of his salvation is enjoined on all the rest, and to be informed by God himself that the prayers of others on his behalf are not poured out in vain! Would it be lawful to refuse what the Lord himself has offered? Each believer, no doubt, ought to have been satisfied with the Divine assurance, that as often as he prayed he would be heard. But if, in addition to all the other manifestations of his kindness, God were pleased to declare that he will listen to the prayers of others in our behalf, would it be proper that this bounty should be slighted, or rather, ought we not to embrace it with open arms?Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:21
21 But that you also may know about my
circumstances, how I am doing, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful
minister in the Lord, will make everything known to you.
Apparently Tychicus was the bearer of this epistle. Paul considered him a dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord. In Colossians 4:7 Paul called him by these same titles and added that he was a “fellow servant” (syndoulos, “fellow slave”). Tychicus is also mentioned in Acts 20:4; 2 Timothy 4:12; and Titus 3:12. Tychicus was to inform the Ephesians of Paul’s welfare—how he was and what he was doing—in order to encourage them (cf. Eph. 3:13).Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, 1985.
21-22 This note about Tychicus follows Col. 4:7-8 almost word
for word. The implication is that Tychicus was entrusted
with this letter
together with that to the church of Colossae, and would
deliver it on his
journey to the Lycus valley--perhaps in the Lycus valley
itself. The words
at the beginning of v. 21--"so that you also may
know my affairs"--most
probably mean "so that you, in addition to others who
are receiving news
of me, may know my affairs." This would be natural if
Colossians and
Ephesians were written and sent at the same time.
Tychicus, who was evidently in Paul’s company at the time
of
writing, would be able to convey further information about
him by word
of mouth.
If this letter is pseudonymous, then the reference to
Tychicus is a
literary borrowing from Col. 4:7-8, and it might be asked
why a reference
toTychicus in particular was thought apposite here. An
answer to this
question must necessarily be speculative.
Eph 6:22
22 And I have sent
him to you for this very purpose, so that you may know about us, and that he
may comfort your hearts.
As is well known, Eph 6:21, 22 provides the longest example of exact repetition of the wording of Colossians to be found in the letter. The final epistolary features of 6:23, 24, however, are quite different from those in Colossians. The long personal greetings section of Col 4:10–17 is omitted, as is the note of greeting in Paul’s own hand, which also asks the readers to remember his fetters (Col 4:18ab). Schnackenburg (294 n. 750) suggests that the writer does not repeat the autograph because he may believe Colossians to be a genuine Pauline letter. Colossians has no wish of peace, but does conclude with a brief grace-benediction (4:18c), though this bears little resemblance to that of Eph 6:24.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
The designation of him as a “dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord” reinforces his intimate relationship with Paul and his proven record of reliable ministry in the cause of Christ. These are excellent qualifications for the tasks with which he is entrusted—to pass on information about Paul’s situation and to encourage the hearts of the letter’s recipients. The latter task would be accomplished not only by Tychicus conveying news about Paul but also through his own strengthening and exhorting of the readers in a ministry in line with what have been the writer’s concerns in this letter.
e[pemya, “I have sent” (v 22), is an epistolary aorist, whereby the sender of the letter adopts the point of view of the recipients. From his own standpoint at the time of writing the postscript, of course, the sending of the bearer of the letter is an event that is still about to happen.Lincoln, Andrew T., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 42: Ephesians, 1998.
Eph 6:23
23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith,
from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Peace to the brothers. This is the usual form of greeting or benediction. It is not concord but all the fruits of “grace” or God’s favor. And love with faith. This does not mean “love together with faith,” as though two distinct blessings were intended, but rather love united with faith. Clearly faith they had; Paul’s prayer was that love might be connected with it. The love intended must be brotherly love. These blessings are sought from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father and Son are united as objects of worship and the source of spiritual and saving blessing. He from whom Paul sought these blessings is he to whom those who need them must look in order to obtain them.Hodge, Charles, Ephesians: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1997.
This is more than a farewell greeting; it is a prayer for reconciliation. Paul longs to see the whole brotherhood of believers in Ephesus and its environs--Jews and Gentiles alike--at peace with each other in the one body of Christ (Eph 3:15, 19; 4:3). This will only be brought about through mutual love (1:15; 3:17, 18; 4:2, 16). Love is to be combined with faith from which it is derived (1:15; 3:17; Gal 5:6). The ultimate source of these three essential features of Christian community life is in God himself. The name of Christ the Son is associated with that of God the Father in perfect equality. EBCNT
Eph 6:24
24 Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with a love incorruptible.
"Grace" is the hallmark of all Paul’s benedictions. It is a recurring theme throughout Ephesians (1:2, 7; 2:5, 7, 8; 3:2, 8; 4:7). The use of the article (he charis) may be due to the mention of the Lord Jesus Christ both before and after, and calculated to focus attention on "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" (2Cor 13:13; Gal 6:18; Philippians 4:23). On the other hand, Paul may be referring to the grace he has already written so much about in this Epistle.
He identifies Christians as those who love Christ. "All
who love" (panton ton agaponton) is parallel to
"believers" (Acts 5:14; 1Tim 4:12), as love is a necessary corollary
of belief. Those who fail to love the Lord are anathematized in 1 Corinthians
16:22 as having no place in the church.
Paul invokes grace on all who love our Lord Jesus Christ
"with an undying love" (en aphtharsia). That is the last and
sealing word of the Epistle. It has been variously interpreted. Literally, it
means "in uncorruptness" (RV). The noun denotes a quality of the
future life. The adjective means "imperishable" or
"unfading." It may thus indicate that Christian love will never die.
"In sincerity" (KJV) is supported by PH ("sincerely") and
"in uncorruptness" is taken to mean "unfeignedly," with no
impurity of motive.
But is en aphtharsia to be construed with
"love"? Some attach it to "our Lord Jesus Christ" and
translate "in his immortality." The reference would then be to the
glorified Savior. Martin favors this view (NBC3, p. 1124; cf. BAG, p. 125).
Others again link en aphtharsia with "grace" and assume that
it is the grace that leads to or prepares for incorruption Jerome), or that
"grace and immortality" (NEB)--"grace and eternal life"
(JB)--are paired in the benediction (Beare, p. 749). The construction of the
sentence, however, seems to separate charis from aphtharsia
rather than combine the two.
If en aphtharsia is to be construed with
"love," as NIV assumes, it may not in fact describe the quality of
love as such. It could be related to the whole phrase "all who love our
Lord Jesus Christ" and signify that lovers of the Lord are even now
guaranteed and indeed enjoy eternal life--i.e., that they love our Lord Jesus
Christ as already tasting immortality (Eph 1:13; BAG, p. 125). The "old
self" is "being corrupted by its deceitful desires" (4:22), but
when the "new self" is put on (4:24), Christians are recreated and
assigned a seat in the heavenly realms (2:6).
The Epistle began with an ascription of praise "to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ" (1:3). On this interpretation, it ends with a benediction invoking God’s grace on all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption, because they are sealed with the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption (1:13, 14; 4:30). EBCNT
[1] Much debate over the relationship of Israel and the Church has led many to offer a variety of opinions about this relationship. Sigal uses the term dual covenant theology: Judaism sees its roots in the covenant of Abraham, and Christianity sees its roots in covenants renewed in the Eucharist mediated by Jesus. Other views include the replacement of Judaism and Christianity, which Sigal would say is not valid by the fact that Judaism is still prevalent (p. 1-2). He is not following the dispensational view of two separate covenants, and a believing remnant. Phillip Sigal “Aspects of Dual Covenant Theology: Salvation,” Horizons in Biblical Theology, 5, no.2 (Dec. 1983): 4-8, 23. That this view is on slippery footing is an allusion in endnote 80 about the question of the deity of Christ. Lincoln writes that exegetically Eph 4:9-10 does not lead to the conclusion of two separate salvation plans, but is willing to concede that views like Sigal’s, and specifically Markus Barth (who views Ephesians as a later work, working out the theology of Galatians and Romans) may have merit. He even goes further with other world faiths and states that there may be merit in ecumenicalism, but not from an exegetical basis. Lincoln, “The Church and Israel in Ephesians,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 49, no.4 (Oct. 87): 606, 622. David Reagan in counter to the liberal view of salvation for the Jew (and is actively involved in Jewish ministry) maintains that “Dual Covenant Theology” is “thoroughly un-Biblical.” (‘Do the Jews need Jesus?” Lamplighter, 24,no.1,(Jan. 2003):7.)
[2] “AV translates as ‘dispensation’ four times, and ‘stewardship’ three times…the management of a household or of household affairs…specifically, the management, oversight, administration.” James Strong. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, electronic ed., [CD-ROM] Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996.
[3]Günther Bornkamm , Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich., Vol. 4, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976.), p. 817. See the varied uses of the term: Matt. 13:11; Mk. 4:11; Lk. 8:10; Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Co. 2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3f, 9; 5:32; 6:19; Col. 1:26f; 2:2; 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:7; 1 Tim. 3:9, 16; Rev. 1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7. Markus Barth gives many interesting parallels to the Qumran Community ( Barth, p.19).
[4] “Before the world's foundation he chose his people in Christ and destined them in law of to be his sons and daughters; before the world's foundation, too, he cherished this plan, to go into effect at the proper time, of bringing into being a community which would bear practical witness on earth to His reconciling work” (Bruce, 320).
[5] Guthrie mentions 4:9-10 as the descent of Christ to Hades, to which I would agree, but offers this as accepted fact (Guthrie, 525), Contra W. Hall Harris, “The Ascent and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9-10,” Bibliotheca Sacra.151 (April 94): 214.
[6] John MacArthur, Ephesians, Eph 6:23 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1986.)
[7] Raymond Edward.Brown. An Introduction to the New Testament, ( New York: Doubleday, 1997), p.620.
[8] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT; (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), p.229. Gromacki p. 241 states “from the content of the book, there is no reason to question the Pauline authorship.”
[9] Some names in history we identify immediately, and
“Paul” is one of them. His name was originally “Saul” (Acts 7:58); and,
since he was from the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5), it is likely he was named
after the first king of Israel (1 Sam. 9). Unlike his namesake, however, Saul
of Tarsus was obedient, and faithfully served God. As a devoted rabbi, Saul
became the leader of the antichristian movement in Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2; Gal.
1:13-14). But in the midst of this activity, Saul was “arrested” by Jesus
Christ and was converted (Acts 9:3ff; 26).
Saul of Tarsus became
Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). While he was ministering in the
church of Antioch, he was called by the Spirit to take the Gospel to the
Gentiles, and he obeyed (Acts 13:1-3). The Book of Acts records three
missionary journeys that took Paul throughout the Roman Empire in one of the
greatest evangelistic endeavors in church history. About the year 53, Paul
first ministered in Ephesus but did not remain there (Acts 18:19-21). Two years
later, while on his third journey, Paul stayed in Ephesus for at least two
years and saw that whole vast area evangelized (Acts 19:1-20). During these
years, he founded a strong church in the city that was dedicated to the worship
of the goddess Diana. For a description of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, read
Acts 20, and for an explanation of the opposition to Paul’s ministry there,
read Acts 19:21-41.
It was nearly ten years later when Paul wrote to his beloved friends in
Ephesus. Paul was a prisoner in Rome (Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6:20), and he wanted to
share with these believers the great truths the Lord had taught him about
Christ and the church. Compare Ephesians 6:21-22 with Colossians 4:7-9 and
Philemon to get a better understanding of the historical background. Onesimus,
a slave, ran away from Philemon, his master, who lived at Colosse. While in
Rome, Onesimus met Paul and was converted. Tychicus, one of the pastors of the
church at Colossae, which may have met in Philemon’s house, was also in Rome to
discuss some problems with Paul. So Paul took advantage of the presence of
these two men to send three letters to his friends: the Epistle to the
Ephesians, the Epistle to the Colossians, and the Epistle to Philemon. At the
same time, he sent Onesimus back to his master.
So, the letter was written from Rome about the year a.d. 62. Though Paul was on trial for his life, he was concerned about the spiritual needs of the churches he had founded. As an apostle, “one sent with a commission,” he had an obligation to teach them the Word of God and to seek to build them up in the faith (Eph. 4:11-12). Wiersbe; "Be Series"
[10] Guthrie in “Epistolary Pseudepigraphy” notes that actually the examples of pseudonymous use for epistles were quite rare in Christian and Jewish circles, and only two real examples for the NT apply. The Acts of Paul (3 Corinthians), and the Letter to the Laodecians, both of which were later deemed to be false on external evidence alone. The one most similar to the copied writer was received longer, Laodecians. There remain no examples of epistolary pseudepigaphy that are accepted as valid. (Guthrie, p. 1023 pp. 1011-23, passem, cf. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament apocrypha, (Cambridge [England]: J. Clarke & Co. ; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, c1991-1992.), pp. 213-70)
[11] Andrew T. Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Vol. 42, (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998.), p.xlviii. “Of the 1,570 words in Colossians, 34 percent reappear in Ephesians, and conversely 26.5 percent of the 2,411 words in Ephesians are paralleled in Colossians (cf. Guthrie, p.501).” A chart he gives p. xlix compares the similar passage of Colossians (cf. Brown, 628), and states it is the distribution through the text, rather than the length of the passages that demonstrates a redactor of Paul. Gutherie, p. 519, in a note gives the percentage similarities in other NT epistles: 1 Tim 27.7%, 2 Tim 22.7%, Tit. 20.9%, Phil 15.2%. Abbott notes the comparison between Colossians and Ephesians, citing DeWette. Of interest are the notes on the comparison of 1 Peter to the Ephesians by Holtzmann, and the comparison by V. Soden to the book of Hebrews. Soden thinks that 1 Peter is dependent upon Hebrews and Ephesians was dependent upon 1 Peter (see Guthre, p.500, 503-4). Abbott discounts this notion. Holtzmann also feels that Ephesians was dependent upon the Apocalypse, and would opt for an earlier date to the Book of Revelation (cf. Guthrie, 501- note). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, [1964, 1897]), xxiii-xxx.
[12] F.F. Bruce in the NICNT sites Col 4:16 as the reason that Goodspeed felt that the letter may have been to the Church at Laodicea. This would be in the district where Colossians was written, which was so similar in content. Bruce defends the Pauline authorship by looking at the doctrine of "in Christ" in Romans and the view of the Church in Corinthians. Another theory from John Knox was that a collector of Paul’s writings, like Onesimus (who was identified by Ignatius as Bishop of Ephesus at the beginning of the second century. Marcion in his original cannon referred to this as the letter to Laodicea. The aged Tychicus may have proof read the material and thus his name was included. Origen did not have Ephesus in his copy. The internal evidence to me seems too strong to suggest that anyone else but Paul wrote this letter to the Church at Ephesus. It is written to the most mature body of believers in the NT.
[13]New Geneva Study Bible. c1995 by Foundation for Reformation. electronic ed., Eph 1:1. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1995. Gromacki p. 241 lists the Church Fathers who accepted Ephesians as Pauline. D. Edmond Hiebert quoting H.J.Cadbury “Which is more likely-that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing 90 or 95 percent in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten percent from his usual style?” Hiebert states that it is only recent criticism that has led to this theory; but in all fairness the recent Greek texts that omit “in Ephesus” were not available till recently. (An Introduction to the New Testament: vol. 2, The Pauline Epistles, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 257.) Calvin and Hodge don’t mention this in their commentaries as they were written before these discoveries.
[14] Goodspeed and Knox have proposed the idea that Onesimus was released by Philemon and return to work with Paul in Ephesus, remaining there as a principal Christian figure once Paul had left. He was still there more than half a century later when Ignatius of Antioch, used a more developed church-structure language, addressed the Ephesian church “in the person of Onesimus, a man of love beyond recounting and your bishop(Brown, p. 508-9).” Onesimus collected the letters of Paul and developed a summary of his ideas in the letter of Ephesians (Brown, 630). There is no real basis for this romantic story.
[15] D. N. Jackson, “What the Church Is” in Studies in Baptist Doctrines and History, (Texarkana, TX: Baptist Publishing House, 1974) I.C, see also II.A below in reference to Eph 4:15, and the “family of God” being a much broader term which would be comparable to the universal Church, or redeemed of all ages.
[16] Lincoln, p.28. See also Bruce, p.233.
[17] Five of the hapax legomena found in Ephesians, “had not yet been traced to any Greek documents of the pre Christian era , but many of them do occur in the writings of the apostolic fathers-thus creating the impression that Ephesians was written in the post apostolic age.” Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and a Commentary on chapters 1- 3, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., inc., 1974), page 4.
[18] Ibid, page 11.
[19] Brown, p.620
[20] Schneemelcher, p.45
[21] New Geneva Study Bible, Eph 1:1. Also of interest is the view that Onesimus, returning with a letter to Colossae, would have been much closer to Caesarea than to Rome, and a more likely place for the writing of the books of Colossians and Ephesians (Abbott, xxx).
[22] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition: New American standard 95 Update, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995), p. 1875.
[23] Ryrie, p. 1875.
[24] Nelson Study Bible, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997), p.1981.
[25] Gromacki p.249 mentions a,P46, B; “The earliest extant manuscript containing the words ‘at Ephesus’ is at least two centuries later than B, & a.” Ralph W. Harris executive ed., The Complete Biblical Library, (Springfield, MO: World Library Press, 2000), New Testament Study Bible: Galatians-Philemon, 97.
[26] Ryrie, p. 1875. The letter which was written to Laodicea, which we now have, is generally accepted to be a forgery by Marcion, but it is interesting that it does acknowledge the encyclical nature of Paul’s letters “see that this epistle is read to the Colossians, and that of the Colossians among you” (Schneemelcher, p.45, see II.A.3 above).
[27] New Geneva Study Bible, Eph 1:1.
[28] In regards to Tertullian “…in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, “The Prescription Against Heretics,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, [CD-ROM] ECF 1.3.1.11.0.36. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997. See also John MacPherson, Commentary on Saint Paul's epistle to the Ephesians. (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1892.), 45.
[29] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. See also Hoehner, Ephesians, 229.
[30] The perfect participle pefwtisme,nouj (pephoÒtismenous) may either be part of the prayer ("that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened") or part of the basis of the prayer ("since the eyes of your heart have been enlightened"). Although the participle follows the i[`na (hina) of v. 17, it is awkward grammatically in the clause. Further, perfect adverbial participles are usually causal in NT Greek. Finally, the context both here and throughout Ephesians seems to emphasize the motif of light as a property belonging to believers. Thus, it seems that the author is saying, "I know that you are saved, that you have had the blinders of the devil removed; because of this, I can now pray that you will fully understand and see the light of God's glorious revelation." Hence, the translation takes the participle to form a part of the basis for the prayer.