Ephesians 5
LenskiCHAPTER V
The Admonition against Filthiness
Ephesians 5:1
1 We cannot combine v. 1, 2 with the previous admonition as though it rounded it out by making us who walk in love like that of Christ’s forgive as imitators of God. We have already shown that each admonition begins with οὖν (4:1, 17, 25, διό; 5:4, 15). Each rests on the preceding one and thus connects with it also in thought and even in expression. In 4:24 ἀποθέμενοι reverts to ἀποθέσθαι in 4:22, and “truth” to “truth in Jesus” in 4:21. So in 5:15 the thought contained in “light” in v. 13 is continued in “wise.” Paul’s οὖν is not merely formal; it connects the thought. So here the new admonition begins with walking in love, love like that expressed in 4:32, and has a καθώς clause like the one found in 4:32.
Yet 5:1 begins a new admonition. If 5:1, 2 form the conclusion of 4:32, the new piece would begin with δέ which would be odd and at variance with the other three admonitions. More might be said, let this suffice.
The new subject is filthiness. It is treated at length in fourteen verses; Paul does far more than to name and to forbid the sins against the Sixth Commandment. He puts them into a setting of thought that should make them impossible for the Christian. In the following admonition to husbands in 5:25–33 he likewise brings in the grand relation of Christ to his church. The sins against which he warns are seen in their true light when they are viewed as Paul here views them, against the whole background of our holy life in God and in Christ. We have already noted that in 4:19, 29 he is not trenching on the subject which is reserved for the long admonition which now begins.
Be, therefore, imitators of God as beloved children; and be walking in love even as also Christ did love you and gave himself for us as an offering and a slaughter sacrifice to God for an odor of sweet smell.
Γίνεσθε repeats this imperative from 4:32 but now broadens the admonition by means of the predicate “imitators of God,” who not only, like God, forgive (4:32) but copy God and Christ in love generally. The durative imperative = “ever be”; it is not necessary to translate it “become” because in so many instances γίνεσθαι rather than εἶναι is used. We can be only “imitators,” but we are to be that always. Μιμηταί refers to likeness and similarity and not to complete duplication. It means dependence on God in all our actions and not indepedent sameness.
The closest relation underlies our imitating, and this relation to God is both the reason for our imitating him and the motive that prompts us; be God’s imitators “as children beloved.” Τέκνα are children born of God who is their Father. The word itself conveys the idea of dearness to God. “Sons” connotes the idea of standing and rights. “Children” is exactly proper here, for in their childhood children are naturally imitators of their parents. To be sure, our Father loves us; but “beloved” makes evident our normal relation. Some ordinary children are unnatural; they act in such a manner that one would scarcely believe that they belong to their parents. Not so “children beloved.” This word “beloved” strikes the note of this paragraph: our love is to imitate God’s love.
Ephesians 5:2
2 Hence the addition: “and be walking in love even as,” etc. With love in your hearts, let your lives and all your actions show forth that love. Or walk, with every thought, word, and deed move in the circle drawn by your love and never step outside of it. “Beloved” = God’s love to us, certainly the same love as that mentioned in John 3:16 and yet with this difference that, since we no longer belong to the world but have been taken out of it by God’s love and made his “children,” his love is able to bestow upon us vastly more than it bestows upon those who are still of the world.
“Walk in love” = in love to God. Here it becomes evident that these two verses cannot be combined with the preceding admonition. “Walk in love” would then mean: in love toward our neighbor so as not to harm him. But here “in love” means that, as God loves us, his children, we in imitation as his children are to love him in turn. Not our relation to each other but our relation to God is stressed, for our relation to God is to bar us from all filthiness.
Three times we have the word for love: the verbal, the noun, the verb. It is essential to know what ἀγάπη means. See the condensed remarks on 1:4: the love of understanding and comprehension coupled with corresponding purpose, which is far higher than φιλία, the love of mere affection (see John 21:15–17). We are to know all the love of God and Christ, and our one purpose is to respond to this love. That is our agape.
Now the special model of love we are to copy: “even as also Christ loved you,” etc. The similarity, of course, is found in the love as love and not in the act by which Christ manifested his love. We cannot die in his stead as he died in ours and ransomed us. The thought is like that expressed in 1 John 4:19: “We love him because he first loved us.” The aorist: “Christ did love you,” is historical to designate the one supreme act of love on Christ’s part; it is like the next aorist: “and did give himself in your stead.” God’s love to us is identical with Christ’s love to us and with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
“And” is explicative: “he gave himself” expounds “he loved.” We should construe: “he gave himself for us as an offering and a slaughter sacrifice,” and “to God” modifies this unit and not merely the verb or the predicative accusatives. Jesus delivered himself into the hands of his enemies at the gate of Gethsemane and thereby gave himself to God as the sacrifice to be slain according to God’s determinate counsel and foreknowledge (Acts 2:23). Here there is the voluntariness of Christ’s sacrifice, and it was this that made it such a sweet odor. Here there is the supreme evidence of Christ’s love for us; greater love is impossible.
The better reading is “for us” and not “for you.” The phrase makes the whole statement more than a model for our love, it at the same time states the motive for our love and calls forth love from us as nothing else could. Do not pound Christians with the law in order to make them love; the law kindles no love. Set them afire in love by the love of Christ who died for them. Translate as you please: “for us,” “in our behalf,” “for our sake or benefit,” “in our stead,” neither here nor in other passages like Rom. 5:6, 8, 8:32, 2 Corinthians 5:14 is substitution eliminated; here expiation lies even in the context.
One should read R. 573 and 630, etc., on ἀντί and ὑπέρ, and especially Robertson, The Minister and his Greek New Testament‚ the entire chapter 35, etc., in order to see the evidence for the meaning “instead of.” The classics lend their authority, the papyri and the ostraca furnish a whole volume. Scribes write “for,” ὑπέρ, others who cannot write, i. e., “in their stead,” and constantly sign “for” whom they write In Galatians 3:13 the curse, like the sword of Damocles, hangs over our heads, Christ interposed, the sword pierced him “instead of” us John 11:50 Jesus is to die “instead of” the people Winer stated that in any number of cases one cannot act “for” another unless he acts “in his stead.” The incontestable fact is that ὑπέρ was used as the preposition to indicate substitution in preference even to ἀντί. Christ’s sacrifice was vicarious, in substitution.
Two predicative accusatives state the capacity in which Christ gave himself: “as an offering and a slaughter sacrifice.” Two words are used to re-enforce the idea. The first is derived from φέρω, “to bring,” and thus points out the truth that when Christ gave himself he brought the offering; the second is derived from θύω, “to make go up in smoke,” and indicates the fact that the offering referred to was one that involved the victim’s death. Both terms are at times used in a general way, the latter also to designate unbloody sacrifices. Here the reference is historical: Christ died on the cross (“blood,” 1:7; 2:13; “cross,” 2:16) and so gave himself as an offering and a sacrifice.
The dative does not modify the εἰς phrase, especially since it precedes the phrase. “For an odor of sweet odor” may be an instance of the adjectival genitive: “a sweet-odored odor” (“a sweet-smelling savor,” A. V.). Both words are derived from ὄζω, to emit an odor; in fact, our word “odor” is a derivative. Paul has this combination also in Phil. 4:18. The Hebrew reach nichoach = odor of soothing, the second noun being ein Ersatz von “versoehnend,” “angenehm,” (Ed. Koenig, Woerterbuch 276).
It is used thus in Gen. 8:21 and repeatedly in Leviticus. Paul means an odor that pleases to the extent of reconciling us to God. Incense was burned, so were the burnt sacrifices, both emitted an odor, the true sweetness of which consisted in the spiritual condition of the person bringing the sacrifice. Cf., Lev. 26:31; Amos 5:21, 22; Ps. 51:16, 17. In the sacrifice of Christ his supreme love, his absolutely perfect obedience, and its all-sufficiency in every respect made it in the supreme sense “an odor of sweet odor”—the odor of odors for sweetness.
The expiatory character of Christ’s sacrifice is often denied. Christ’s death is said to be nothing but a sweet odor in the sense of a noble suffering and a martyrdom and thus pleasing God and thus being our noblest example. This is Socinianism. Von Hofmann still maintains that Christ was our representative with God but finds the significance of his death only in the fact that he might appear before God as an acceptable and well-pleasing representative. Other “theories” are offered. They are excluded by ὑπὲρἡμῶν combined with “offering and slaughter sacrifice.” This was the odor of odors for sweetness, not merely for its moral quality in general, but for its expiatory sufficiency. Its sufficiency is attested by its acceptance on God’s part.
It is not accidental that Paul writes about the supreme sweetness of the odor of Christ’s sacrifice when he purposes to warn against filthiness on our part. The love of God brought forth such a pure, sweet sacrifice for us on his part. Can we, who were made God’s beloved children by this sacrifice on our part return a life that is reeking and stinking with vile odor? It is thus that the idea of agape or love is colored and individualized by the additional concepts into the midst of which it is set for the apostle’s present purpose.
Ephesians 5:3
3 It is Paul’s way (copy it!) to lay a great, deep, massive foundation on which to erect some specific appeal and admonition. Now fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you as befits saints; also indecency and silly talk or wittiness, things not proper; on the contrary, rather giving of thanks!
Δέ is not adversative but specifies the type of sins to be mentioned in this warning. First is “fornication,” prostitution in all its forms. Next we have a pair: “all uncleanness or covetousness,” both are unclean, foul, and are often joined together, “or” indicating the two as being different types of the same class. The difference in meaning from the broader “uncleanness” used in 4:19 is that here fornication precedes and thus makes us think of sexual uncleanness. Every form of lasciviousness is meant. The ancient and the modern world are disgusting in this respect, the details are unfit to be mentioned. “Covetousness” is ranked in the same class with sexual uncleanness; it is the German Geiz and is here to be taken in its specific sense; the Greek word is not to be understood so in 4:19. We, too, say “filthy lucre.”
Instead of using a simple prohibition Paul has the stronger form: “Let it not even be named among you as befits saints.” The thought is, of course, not that these vices are not even to be mentioned among Christians, for Paul himself does that right here, and we must warn against them as he does. The view that Christians are not to discuss them with pleasure and avidity in conversation does not lie in the text. Paul means that such vices are to be so far removed from us that even an intimation or a suspicion of their presence among us should not occur. “As befits saints” recalls “saints” in the address in 1:1, those separated unto God as his “children beloved” (5:1), for whom Christ’s sacrifice has been made.
Ephesians 5:4
4 In a descending scale three more vices are added, the second and the third again being joined with “or” as being two of the same type. The three terms are hapax legomena in the New Testament, rather rare words. The first is “indecency,” “nastiness,” Scheusslichkeit‚ which B.-P. 37 limits to speech: Zoten‚ filthy stories. Next, “silly or vapid talk,” combined with “wittiness,” (εὖ plus τρέπω, to turn easily), quick repartee, elegante Witzelei‚ salacious quirks. The three may refer to speech, the last two certainly do so. And because of the context these are given a sexual coloring. How worldlings so generally love nasty stories, throw out silly, vile remarks, crack supposed jokes of a spicy kind!
If we regard the next expression as the neuter plural participle, οὐ negates the participle: “things non-proper” (R. 1138), that do not come up (ἀνά plus ἥκω) to the mark set for Christians, that are far beneath us. Although the nouns that precede are feminine, this apposition is neuter. If we regard it as the imperfect, it is the Greek idiom in a statement of propriety or obligation that is not lived up to (R. 886): “which are not proper.” The Greeks and the Latins start from the past with which the present does not agree: the propriety is not met. The English and the Germans have difficulty with this imperfect which refers to a present duty that is left unfulfilled. Either reading is like a verdict pronounced on “the things” indicated. Its very mildness is damning.
“On the contrary” states the positive opposite, “rather” setting the virtue against the vices as being vastly to be preferred. The striking thing is that Paul considers one virtue enough, and that he does not name as this virtue purity of heart, word, and deed, but “thanksgiving.” This deserves more attention. We do not accept the view that εὐχαριστία = grace or graciousness of speech; even if such a meaning could be established, it would not aid us in securing a formal opposite. Nor can “thanksgiving” to men be referred to, for only a few men deserve our thanks; to thank everybody would be silly. This is thanksgiving to God, of whom and of whose love we, his children beloved (v. 1), constantly think. That lifts us above the vileness of worldlings.
Amid our Father’s blessings, with hearts and lips full of thanksgiving, these filthy vices will not even be named among us. On the great virtue of thanksgiving compare v. 19, 20.
Ephesians 5:5
5 For this you know, realizing that no fornicator, or unclean person, or coveter, which means idolater, has inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Whether we are to regard the Greek verb as an indicative or an imperative depends on the thought alone; hence opinions vary. We agree with our versions and prefer the former. The appeal to knowledge already present is more to the point than the effort to impart such knowledge by a command. Moreover, the fact that sinners such as Paul names do not belong to the kingdom belongs to the ABC of Christianity; every beginner knows that. Γάρ is argumentative and agrees with the indicative better than it would with an imperative. The plea that ἴστε would be a literary Attic indicative involves Heb. 12:17 where the word is plainly an indicative, and James 1:19, where it seems to be indicative. Even B.-D. 99, 2, who prefers the imperative, hesitates regarding Heb. 12:17.
What has caused more discussion is the combination ἴστεγινώσκοντες which is found in a LXX variant of Jer. 42:22, and in somewhat similar expressions in other LXX renderings. Is this a Hebraism, the Greek participle used for the Hebrew infinitive absolute when the verbal idea is to be intensified? But the Hebrew uses the infinitive of the same finite verb, and here the participle is that of a different verb; besides, it is a participle. The Greek would use a cognate noun in the dative. In addition to this Paul is here not translating Hebrew, is not quoting or alluding to a Hebrew passage.
The canon of Ewald should be reversed. Instead of saying that, when we can read Paul’s Greek in Hebrew fashion, we ought to do so, all the newer insight into the Koine leads us to say that, when we are able to read Paul’s Greek without a Hebraism, we ought to do so. A host of supposed Hebraisms has already been corrected. Although he prefers the imperative, even Moulton, Einleitung 119, says that it is at least probable that we must separate verb and participle: “you must be assured of this (ἴστε), as realizing for yourselves that, etc. (γινώσκοντες).” This is acceptable. We prefer the indicative: “this you know, as realizing yourselves that,” etc. We add the point that Paul wants both the force of οἶδα, simple knowing (relation of the object to the subject), and the force of γινώσκειν, personal realization (the relation of the subject to the object); see C.-K. 388 regarding these two verbs.
So we do not regard this as the periphrastic present (R. 330), which may be the idea of the A. V., but prefer the literary Attic (R. 319). We also do not accept the Hebraism offered in the R. V.: “ye know of a surety.” We likewise do not call πᾶς … οὐκἔχει translation Greek (Moulton 127), a sort of sacred way of speaking. We have nothing but a common Greek idiom which places the negative with the verb: “every fornicator does not have,” whereas we place it with the subject: “no fornicator has.”
The Ephesians know the fact intellectually, the more so because they realize it personally, “that no fornicator, etc., has inheritance in the kingdom.” “Fornicator” repeats “fornication” used in v. 3, and “coveter” repeats “covetousness.” These two suffice here, for the other vices mentioned in v. 3, 4 are ethically of the same character. Yes, it is necessary for us to be reminded of what we know and even realize about vice. There is constant temptation. Ephesus presented it on all sides. Apologists defend, excuse, even advocate these sins. This is especially true regarding sex and regarding business.
Western and Syrian texts read: ὅς: “who is an idolater”; but ὅ, the neuter, is textually correct. Yet this does not imply that “the general sense of the thing” is meant (R. 713), for then the abstract should follow: “which is idolatry.” “Which” = which word “coveter,” this word means “idolater.” Because v. 3 contains only the unmodified “covetousness,” Paul elucidates briefly what a covetous sinner is. Like a pagan idolater he worships gold instead of God. Some such an exposition of the enormity of this sin is necessary. A Catholic priest states that during his long years of service all kinds of sins and even crimes were confessed to him in the confessional, but no member of his church ever confessed himself as being covetous.
The negative is absolute: not a single one of these sinners, whether he is still regarded as outwardly belonging to the congregation or not, is in the Una Sancta. He may so hide his sin that the congregation does not expel him, he expels himself from the kingdom. Paul’s language is full of meaning.
On the great concept of the kingdom see either Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 1:33; John 3:3. It is the rule of God’s (Christ’s) grace here on earth and of glory in heaven. It extends from creation into all eternity. The kingdom does not make the King as earthly kingdoms do; the King makes the kingdom. Where he is with his grace, there is his kingdom here on earth. We are not admitted into this kingdom as subjects, it has no subjects.
We are admitted as heirs; we “have inheritance in the kingdom.” That does not mean merely a place in it, but that the kingdom itself, i. e., the King’s riches of grace, are our own as heirs. Joined to the supreme Heir, we are co-heirs with him, Rom. 8:17. As “children beloved” we have this inheritance. We “have” it now; we shall presently enter upon this inheritance, i. e., upon its full enjoyment. We are now like princes in the King’s house. We shall presently sit with the King in his throne (Rev. 3:21).
We thus see what it means “not to have inheritance in the kingdom.” “Inheritance” is the vast, eternal possession, but the covetous man, like the fornicator, grasps at the transient and the perishable. What is the wealth of all the kingdoms of this world compared with the inheritance of the kingdom? What the foul pleasures of the world to the kingdom’s unspeakable heavenly bliss?
Matthew regularly says, “the kingdom of the heavens,” and only occasionally, “the kingdom of God.” On inheriting the kingdom note Gal. 5:21; James 2:5. Jesus said “my kingdom” to Pilate; the malefactor said “thy kingdom” to Jesus. Paul says, “the kingdom of Christ and God.” The question as to whether Paul refers to one person when he writes “Christ and God” cannot be determined from the English which needs no article but only from the Greek which here uses one article with both nouns. This question is more acute in regard to Titus 2:13, regarding which read Moulton, Einleitung 134, which is quoted also by R. 786. Robertson states: “Outside of special cases like these [where a second article appears when one person is referred to] only one article is found where several epithets are applied to the same person.” Again: a second article lays greater stress on the second epithet. We thus have the fullest justification for regarding “Christ and God” as one person.
Even if two persons were referred to (Christ and the Father), they would be equal in grace and in glory, i. e., in deity, as owners of the kingdom. The kingdom is that “of the Son of his love,” Col. 1:13, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily, Col. 2:9.
The plea that “Christ,” when this term is used as an official name, may more easily have the article: des Messias, is unsubstantiated, for a mere appellative is out of place here where the King in his person is to be named. The same is true as to Θεός and the plea that it does not need the article when it is used regarding the Father. Of course it does not; but that says nothing about the present case where two nouns are preceded by one article, the regular way of designating one person by the use of two terms. The reason for doing so is also plain. For the kingdom Paul mentions the King. He calls him “Christ” because of his great work and adds “God” because of his deity. The deity and the Christhood of the King make plain to the Ephesian Christians what the rule or kingdom is from which every idolatrous sinner shuts himself out.
Christ is called God so often in Scripture, his deity is so constantly revealed that one more or one less predication to that effect is of little importance as regards the fact. The sole interest for us is to see what Paul says and means. Grammatically and in every other respect that is as plain as can be. If the deity of Christ is not a fact, those who reject it eliminate it here as they do in all the other passages of Scripture that mention it. Here this is patently impossible. That is enough.
Ephesians 5:6
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the sons of the disobedience.
These sins and vices have their apologists, “the sons of the disobedience,” as the context suggests. Even the greatest men of the Gentile world practiced sexual vices as something that was quite natural and blameless. Paul warns against their specious arguments such as that nature requires these vices, that they are innocent pleasures, at worst pardonable weaknesses, etc. “Let no one,” no matter who he may be, “deceive you” at any time (present imperative) “with empty words,” devoid of truth or reality, “empty,” because they state what is not so. On κενός compare the remarks made in connection with 4:17. To believe and to act on such words is to build on a shadow.
Paul’s word states the fact; “for” states the reason for not listening to deceivers. Just because of these things there comes the wrath of God, etc. The emphasis is on the verb which is placed before the subject. The wrath “comes” when it blazes forth in divine judgments and blasts individuals and even rotten nations. To think only of the last day does not agree with the tense (iterative present) and the sense; we observe many of these judgments. “The wrath of God” is the reaction of God’s holiness and righteousness against sin. see Rom. 1:18. Considerations of grace and mercy restrain God’s wrath from blazing forth; this is the patience and longsuffering of God. But when sinners persist, disregard patient grace, intensify their disobedience, and literally challenge God, his wrath finally strikes the sinner down.
On “the sons of the disobedience” see 2:2. This is the old, original disobedience and hence is definite. These are “the sons” of it, brought forth by it, and as “sons” make it their practice. Unbelief is also disobedience, but why make a restriction here? The Gentiles stifled even the voice of conscience, the law written in their hearts, the lex naturalis (Rom. 1:32). Read Paul’s own commentary in Rom. 1:18–32 and note how the wrath comes: “God gave them up” (v. 24‚ 26, 28). Do God’s “children beloved” (5:1) want to listen to these sons of the disobedience? R., W. P., refers to Gnostics. Gnosticism appeared later, and these vices were not peculiarly Gnostic.
Ephesians 5:7
7 Therefore be not their partners! Συμμέτοχοι = σύν, supporting and abetting them; μετά, in association with them; ἔχω, adhering to them, holding and having what is theirs in sin and in coming wrath. The present imperative, like the preceding, is iterative: at any time. The negative involves the positive, “Stay entirely aloof.” Here οὖν appears to be incidental, it does not introduce a new line of admonition; see 4:17. This appears from αὐτῶν, the antecedent of which is “the sons,” etc., in v. 6.
Ephesians 5:8
8 For you were at one time darkness, now, however, (you are) light in the Lord. As children of light (ever) walk, for the fruit of this light (is) in all goodness and righteousness and truth, testing out what is well-pleasing to the Lord.
“For” in v. 6 offers the reason lying in the vices themselves, always and everywhere they are subject to the coming of the wrath of God. “For” now offers the second reason lying in the new condition of the Ephesians, it states what they no longer are. The first word in each clause has the emphasis: “You were at one time darkness; now, however, light in the Lord.” “You were” is emphatic because of its tense; “now” is therefore the opposite, and the copula “are” is not needed. How can the Ephesians ever think of going back, of making that “were” a “now”?
The abstracts “darkness” and “light in the Lord,” used directly with reference to persons, are highly effective, compare Matt. 5:14. While both terms are predicates and may be called spiritual conditions, the following non-predicative “the light” shows that the remarks made in connection with 4:18, that “the darkness” (and “the light”) are really powers, are correct. They exist independently of us, and we are either darkness or light only as we are identified with the one or the other. “You were darkness” = “having been darkened” (4:18). “Now light” is not enough; “light in the Lord,” in union with him who is the Light of the world, by faith in him, is the proper predicate.
The negative: “Be not their partners” (v. 7), is now followed by the positive: “As children of light (ever) walk,” etc. In this sense, then, we are light: “children of light,” children born of light when the Light, our Lord, entered our souls. 2 Cor. 4:6. In 1 Thess. 5:5 Paul has the expression “sons of light.” The difference is that obtaining between “children” and “sons,” between birth and standing; but the expression “children and sons of darkness” is never used, the strongest statement in this direction being perhaps “to be of darkness, of night” (1 Thess. 5:5).
“The sons of the disobedience” refers to all of them (v. 6; 2:2); “as children of light” is predicative and needs no article, there are other such children. The genitive is commonly called adjectival (R. 651) and it does characterize, yet it is not like an adjective; it names a power, call it an ethical or a possessive genitive. The simple predicate “be walking” anticipates the following participle (v. 10): “testing out,” etc.
Ephesians 5:9
9 This leads our versions to place v. 9 in parentheses. Paul builds the admonition against vileness on the broad basis of our being “children of light.” It is his way of doing throughout: every individual virtue, every single avoidance of sin he pictures as growing out of the full tide of the new life that fills us in Christ. Not content with the general reference “children of light,” he adds what this light produces, for this is a very definite light, is most effective, produces great results, and is known by them. So γάρ explains this feature of “the light” and makes clear what walking as “children of light” means. After this is clear, Paul adds the participle that describes our walk as such children.
We see that “this light” (article of previous reference) is a power. It is productive. Paul has the same view of it that John has (1:4). Light and life go together. Being children of light and walking as such means what Jesus says in Matt. 5:14–16, letting our light shine in good works for the glory of God. We are created (spiritually) for good works (2:10). “The fruit of this light (is) in all goodness,” etc. Ἐν indicates the great sphere, and “all” the whole of this sphere. “The fruit” is a collective and summarizes all that “walking” means.
Our deeds are marked by three cardinal qualities: “all goodness and righteousness and truth.” They fill our hearts, they are the rays of the light which make us children of light, they shine forth in our walk or deeds. The three are, of course, not exclusive. Viewed from one angle, we see nothing but goodness, viewed from another, we see righteousness, from a third, truth. These three complete the view.
“Goodness” has been translated “benignity,” Guete, Luther, Guetigkeit. It means more, it is “all genuine moral excellence.” It is more than goodness, kindness, beneficence to men, for the reference to God is not omitted. That is why “righteousness” follows, agreement with the divine norm of right (δίκη) as this is applied by the heavenly Judge. The righteous walk in all righteousness. The approval of this Judge rests upon them. The morality of our modern moralists is the reverse: what is good for the herd, the herd has in its evolution come to approve as “right”; what damages the herd, the herd has come to condemn and to punish.
Paul’s circle is closed by “truth,” verity, reality, namely spiritual and moral reality as opposed to all lying perversion, sham, deception, pretense. These three are ever the same. Like the sun in the heavens, “the light” never changes. Truth, righteousness, goodness are not one thing in one age and another thing in another age. The only progress possible is to enter more deeply into these three. It is one of the lies of our time that we have progressed beyond them.
Ephesians 5:10
10 We should remember that the Greek participle has number, case, and gender and thus great precision. So here the nominative plural participle connects automatically with the subject “you” in the imperative “walk” in v. 8: “as children of light walk … testing out what is well-pleasing to the Lord,” what accords with his gracious and holy will. We are “light in the Lord” (v. 8) and hence concerned to know and to do only what pleases the Lord. We are “children of light,” our very birth and nature lead us toward the Lord. As a plant seeks and turns to the light, so do we. Paul uses the gospel appeal and not the compulsion of law. As children of light we know the qualities which the light produces, we are able to make the test in our walk and life.
“Walk … testing” means examining ourselves. Δοκιμάζω is exactly the proper word. It is used with regard to testing metals as to whether they are genuine, of coins as to whether they are the real metal and of full weight. The word matches v. 6: “Let no one deceive you.” Satan deceived Eve. Endless deception offers what is morally rotten as though it were perfectly sound. Test every thought, word, and act. That is why we are children of light and have the standard for testing (v. 9). 1 John 4:1.
Ephesians 5:11
11 This testing refers to our own walk as children of light. But how about others! On the one hand, have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of the darkness; on the other hand, rather also reprove them, for the things being done in secret by them it is shameful even to state.
As far as others are concerned, two things are mentioned: no fellowship with their evil works, reproof that exposes their shamefulness. “Have no fellowship” repeats v. 7, but the statement now refers to works, the verb is different, and the thought is amplified. Whereas in the preceding we had the idea of support and association with persons (v. 7), we now have the idea of fellowship or communion with their works. In a masterly way Paul keeps the idea of both “the light” and “the fruit.” For he calls them “the works, the unfruitful ones of the darkness,” and adds the adjective with a second article like an apposition or climax with emphasis (R. 776). “What fellowship is there for light with darkness?” 2 Cor. 6:14. “Be having no fellowship” has the dative as the object of the verb, the dative because of σύν.
“The darkness” is the direct opposite of “the light,” both are definite, both are powers. Each excludes the other, a union of the two is impossible. The one has fruit, the other is unfruitful; what it produces in the way of works is not fruit. “Unfruitful” recalls “emptywords” in v. 6. The discourse is closely woven together by the very terms used. We should note the impact of argument in “unfruitful” and “of the darkness,” it is like a volley from a masked battery. Who wants to spend his life in working a field which produces no fruit at all?
That is what “the sons of the disobedience” (v. 6) do. Do we want a part of this fruitlessness? Who wants to be in the grasp of “the darkness,” a power as black as hell? Call the genitive subjective or possessive. see John 3:19, 20: some love the darkness, hate the light.
But withdrawal is not enough. This is the ideal of monks and of nuns. The light is not to be placed under a bushel, the salt is to bite into the world’s corruption. Καί—δέ = “on the one hand—on the other”; δέ is not adversative (“but”), it adds the other thing which is different from the first. Μᾶλλονκαί = “rather also” (it is not the ascensive “even”). “Also” means that this, too, must be done; and “rather” means that the obligation of administering reproof is not to be reluctantly added to that of avoiding fellowship but to be added with zest. That is what the light is for: not just to shine for itself but “rather” also to blaze out into the darkness and to expose what that darkness covers up. We are to “reprove” these works as being “unfruitful,” as being “of the darkness.” There is no need to intensify and to translate “convict”; one reproves works, he scarcely convicts them.
Ephesians 5:12
12 “For” does not state the reason for reproving but explains how this reproof gets to be so effective. Many are puzzled about this verse and the next; but the meaning is rather obvious. Just to state the things done by them (by those who do the works of darkness, constructio ad sensum), to state them in our reproof, is shameful, not for us who make the statement, but for those who engage in these works. It is “a shameful thing” (neuter) for them. Paul exposed this shamefulness at length in Rom. 1:18–32. Was he thereby guilty of doing a shameful thing? Since when is it a shameful thing for a Christian to reprove dirty works? The idea that Paul here says that it makes us blush to mention these things, that we hate to do it, is not indicated.
The emphasis is on the adverb “secretly.” Why do men hide such things? They thereby admit that such works are a disgrace to themselves. Our reproof is like the flash of light on these hidden works of darkness which exposes all their shame. Alas, men are not ashamed before God who sees in secret (Matt. 6:4); but they are ashamed before men when their deeds are exposed to the sight of men.
“In secret” matches “the darkness,” but the two are not identical. Many a deed is done openly and is, nevertheless, a deed “of the darkness.” “In secret” limits “the things done by them” to the vile and filthy sins with which Paul here deals. Sexual vices are not practiced in public; covetousness also hides itself from the public eye. Γινόμενα = occurrences, and the Greek is able in the regular way to add the agents involved with ὑπό. This present participle denotes continuousness, things that are done again and again.
Ephesians 5:13
13 Now all the things reproved by the light are made public, for everything made public is light.
This verse has been found difficult, especially the last half of it. Δέ introduces a parenthetical remark regarding the effect of applying “the light,” the thing Paul wants the Ephesians to do. The thought is carried a step farther; it is not adversative (“but,” our versions). It is a simple fact that all the things reproved by the light are thereby made public so that men see them as they are. Thus Paul let the light shine on the heathen ungodliness and unrighteousness in Rom. 1:18–32 and by his epistle exposed them before all the world for what they really are. That public exposure still stands and is most effective.
The point to be observed is that the things must be “reproved by the light,” the sun of God’s Word. Participle and phrase belong together (contra our versions). The fact that they are made public also by this light, by it alone, is self-evident. The verb is passive and not middle. The dictionaries translate this passive (which they acknowledge as such) “become visible” (middle); it should undoubtedly be: “is made visible, plain, manifest.” Here even the light is implied as the agent. There is no need to make the participle temporal: “when reproved” (R. V.), or a statement of means: “by being reproved.” It is attributive (A. V.).
“For” explains that everything that is thus made public is light. This is not “light in the Lord” (v. 8). The subject is “everything that is made public,” and the context refers to the hidden, secret works of darkness. “The light” (the revealing agent) and this predicate “light” are not the same. “The light,” Christ, his Word and his truth shine on the secret vices of men when we reprove them, and thus every one of them is light, is seen as what it is, an unfruitful work of the darkness. It is not changed, transformed. Darkness does not become light. Paul is not speaking of the saving effect of “the light” and of our reproof of secret sins.
Up to this point he insists only on our steady reproof. What the effect will be, whether it will result in contrition and conversion or not, makes no difference; as children of light we must reprove sin and vice, our very nature requires no less. What saving effects may result from our efforts lies with God. see Ezek. 33:8, 9.
Ephesians 5:14
14 Wherefore the statement is:
Up, thou sleeper, and arise from the dead,
And there shall shine forth upon thee Christ!
“Wherefore” = because of the reproving just enjoined upon the Ephesians. Δέγει (see 4:8) indicates a quotation without naming the source. The quotation does not offer a sample of the reproof of the sins and vices as such but a reproving call to the sinner to rise up from his condition of spiritual death and a great promise. These two lines are a sample of the way in which the reproof is to be uttered, of the spirit of the reproof. The aim is always the sinner’s conversion.
Amid the discussion about the source of this quotation the quotation itself seems not to have been sufficiently noted, especially the second line about Christ. For this line, too, is part of the quotation. It is not taken from the Old Testament, from the Apocrypha, or from a pagan Iranian source (B.-P. 473). As for the Apocrypha, the New Testament never quotes them. While in 4:8 and elsewhere λέγει introduces citations from the Old Testament, that is not conclusive proof that it must do so here. For this is a Christian call, it even names Christ. This is evidently a couplet taken from a Christian hymn that was used in Ephesus in Paul’s time. The propriety of quoting such a hymn is obvious. The Ephesians are to reprove sinners; lines from one of their hymns are in place.
The first line is a reproof, this sleeper is lying dead when he ought to “up and arise.” The present imperative ἔγειρε (some texts have the middle), like ἄγε, whether it is added with καί or without, is only our exclamatory: “Up!” and intensifies the aorist imperative: “Up and arise!” Ἀνάστα is the second aorist imperative with the suffix dropped (R. 328). Arising is a momentary act. This sleeper is in the sleep of spiritual death (2:1). Telling him to arise implies no synergism in conversion; nor does it imply God’s omnipotence as when Christ raised the physically dead. This is the gospel call of grace, of the gratia sufficiens, which is ever filled with quickening power (2:5) to raise up those whom it bids to arise. The figure of sleep and of death fits the idea of “the darkness” (v. 11).
Beside the negative there appears the positive: “and there shall shine forth upon thee Christ.” The beautiful word ἐπιφαύσκω, erglaenzen, ueberstrahlen, “send effulgence upon,” matches “the light” (v. 9, 13). But the future tense is not hypotactic, and a condition is not implied as R. 948 assumes: if thou dost arise, Christ will shine forth, etc. This is a peremptory imperative that is effective because of the tremendous promise with which it is combined (καί). The command would be in vain without the life-giving promise; the promise would be in vain without the command. Here there is the same gracious and efficacious call as in Matt. 11:28–30. Subject and verb are transposed, both are thus made emphatic.
A wealth of meaning is concentrated in this brief promise. This must have been a missionary hymn, and its other lines unfolded what these two contain.
We have had “the light—the light.” Here we see that this light is Christ. As in John 1:4, life and light are combined in Christ. Because these two lines fit the previous thought and expressions so exactly Paul uses them and thus rounds out and brings to a close this great admonition. No loose thread of thought is left dangling; all is perfectly woven together and comes to rest in this gospel call to the sinner.
The Admonition to Exercise Christian Wisdom
Ephesians 5:15
15 We have noted how the preceding three admonitory sections are introduced. Each has its connective (see 4:17) which links each into the preceding and makes the whole one chain. We thus understand the force of οὖν; it adds the last of the four specific admonitions which constitute a group. The summary of this admonition is the exercise of Christian wisdom. It is a natural admonition in this place; for those who are to rebuke others must be wise and not foolish in both heart and conduct.
Therefore see how accurately you are walking, not as unwise but as wise, buying up the opportunity because the days are wicked.
The readings vary so that it is difficult to establish the proper text, whether it is: “see accurately” (“carefully,” R. V.), or: “how accurately you are walking” (“that you walk circumspectly,” A. V.). It will not do to reject the latter on the plea that “to walk accurately” is an improper combination of ideas, for the answer to that objection is the fact that some of the very best texts place the adverb so as to modify “to walk” and find this combination perfectly proper. Nothing more convincing can be said regarding the position of the adverb so that it modifies “to see.” Both constructions make equally good sense. We prefer the former only because βλέπετε usually has no adverbial modifier, it being understood that “see to it” means “see to it carefully.”
“How you are walking” might have been written; yet this would only raise the question and leave undecided whether the Ephesians are walking properly or not. Paul does not want to leave the matter open. He wants to say that the Ephesians are walking accurately and raises only the question as to “how accurately” they are walking. He wants them to examine the degree of their carefulness in life. To walk with some care is not enough in days that are so wicked; we must use the greatest care, must walk accurately indeed. In Luke 1:3 the same adverb is used.
“Not as unwise but as wise” defines the indirect question, “how accurately you are walking,” accurately as regards Christian wisdom. One might understand “accurately” as a reference to mere precision in observing the law. Paul is moving on the gospel level. The Christian must walk in the full gospel light (note “the light” in v. 9, 13), and that means the gospel wisdom. “Not as unwise” (negative) “but as wise” (positive) emphasize the point: not lack or deficiency but abundance of wisdom. To be wise is more than to know; it means to use, apply, and thus to get the most out of knowledge in our walking or in the management of our life. Μή is not a subjective negative (Winer), nor is it due to the adjective (R. 1172); it is due to the implied participle: “not as being unwise.”
Ephesians 5:16
16 Even this amplification is not enough. When are Christians really wise? When they “keep buying up the opportunity,” ἐκ in the participle intensifying; “buying it out completely.” The classics use a different verb but have the same figure. A καιρός is the special time that is adapted for a certain thing, the season for something, hence the opportunity. Christian wisdom makes the most of its opportunities. These seasons are brief, they soon slip by; one must recognize them and must buy while the buying is good.
We say “use” the opportunity; Paul says “buy it out,” purchase all that it offers. That means: pay the necessary price in effort and exertion. It is lack of wisdom to hold back and to wait for a still better opportunity, which then often fails to arrive. It is certainly still greater lack of wisdom not to see the opportunity at all and thus to let it slip by. Our lives are brief and present only so much opportunity; he is truly wise who invests 100 per cent at every opportunity and then is able to report: “Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds” (10 = maximum completeness), Luke 19:16; Ps. 126:6, “bringing their sheaves.”
Paul uses the same expression in Col. 4:5 but places it after the following injunction: “in wisdom keep walking as regards those outside.” Hence some refer also our passage to opportunity for influencing “those outside” of the church. But such a limitation is not expressed in this passage. Opportunity is not lacking for aiding also our brethren, for doing much for our families, for personally building up ourselves. Why narrow the word when Paul leaves it broad and general?
Opportunity itself is always a positive invitation and incentive. But a negative reason for the exercise of the fullest wisdom and the purchase of all that any opportunity offers is: “because the days are wicked.” The adjective means viciously, actively wicked. The days are such as to spread wickedness of all kinds among men, to draw men into damnation.
This characterization is true also regarding our days. Paul says far more than that the times are bad, full of trouble and distress. Paul’s meaning is not that the more wickedness there is, the more opportunity we have to buy up. Wickedness is not opportunity; it reduces the opportunities. This is the reason for using every one of them that is still offered, using it with all wisdom so as to buy it out completely. What a pity to lose a single one or only partly to buy it out! Luther’s schicket euch in die Zeit comes nearer to the meaning than many suppose although he makes no distinction between “the opportunity” and “the days.” We do accommodate ourselves to the times when we see and use what opportunity they offer.
Ephesians 5:17
17 For this reason, because the days are wicked, be not foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is. The verb does not necessarily mean “become” since it is regularly used in the sense of “to be” (for instance in v. 1, 7). “Unwise” (v. 15) and “foolish” are practically the same. “Foolish” means not to have good judgment or not to exercise it when the time comes. Here it is, of course, spiritual sense and judgment in things which pertain to the Christian life and secure spiritual advancement and blessing (v. 9) for ourselves and for others. Wicked days are full of temptation that would make us foolish and cause us to yield to the inclinations of our flesh or at least not to make the most of our opportunities.
Over against this negative Paul sets the positive: “but understand,” etc. Christians are foolish when they fail to understand what the will of the Lord is, i. e., what it is that he has willed us to be and to do; when they yield to their own will or to the will of men. Συνίημι = to bring the mind into conjunction with some object and thus really to grasp and understand it. In our case the one object to be understood is the answer to the question: “What is the will of the Lord?” We know where to find the answer: in the Word, in the Word alone (v. 6a). This answer is to be decisive.
Others may direct their minds to other questions such as: “What will bring me earthly gain, honor, pleasure, ease, etc.? What do others say, advise, do?” This is not only wrong, it is folly, senselessness. He is a fool who asks thus and determines his judgment and his life accordingly. Yet how few are the Christians who in the various situations of life make Paul’s question the decisive one and follow out the answer at every cost! They often even persuade themselves or let others persuade them that the Lord’s will is not what the Lord himself plainly says in his Word. Paul usually writes “the will of God”; but in Acts 21:14 we have “the will of the Lord.” The latter is perhaps used here because Christ has left us an example that we should follow his footsteps (1 Pet. 2:21).
Ephesians 5:18
18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is dissoluteness, but be filled in spirit, making utterance for yourselves by means of psalms and hymns and spiritual odes, singing and playing with your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things in our Lord Jesus Christ’s name to the God and Father, subjecting yourselves to each other in fear of Christ.
This is the way in which Paul wants us to go about doing the will of the Lord: with joyful, enthusiastic, grateful hearts. This is good sense, the right tone for wise Christians who are living in wicked days. Did not also Luther say that music drives the devil away? He was, of course, not speaking of jazz.
The perplexity of some commentators regarding the occurrence of an admonition against drunkenness in the middle of this paragraph can thus easily be cleared up. The intoxication of drink is not introduced as a mere foil to spiritual exhilaration. It is a concrete example of worldly folly in wicked days and a sample of how fools make themselves utterly incapable of wisdom, sound judgment, and real understanding. They dull and drug even their physical brain and wickedly add to the wickedness of the days in which they live. Paul writes concretely in both the negative and the positive part of this admonition so as to be the more easily understood. The word about drunkenness is not an anomaly in this connection; it fits well into its place. Καί is explicative; Paul particularizes in a concrete manner.
The verbs Paul uses are aoristic presents and simply state what to do or what to shun. “With wine” is the dative of means, and “wine” is named because it was the commonly used intoxicant in the Orient at Paul’s time; it still serves in this capacity. Since he exemplifies, the abuse of any other intoxicant is included in his admonition. The abuse, not the legitimate use, is forbidden. Those who have traveled in southern Europe and in Oriental lands will know that wine is quite necessary because so much of the water is unsafe, and the necessity of boiling it for the sake of safety is so little understood. On the face of it excess of wine is gross folly which produces a physical and a moral condition in which anything resembling wisdom is impossible.
Ἀσωτία (see its derivation) has come to mean “dissoluteness,” Liederlichkeit, an abandoned, debauched life. It describes the condition when mind and body are dragged down so as to be incapable of spiritual functions. “In which” refers to the condition of being drunk with wine or to “wine” as here used, a means for becoming drunk. Ἀλλά presents the opposite course of conduct, yet there is a certain analogy between the two; the one is physical, the other a matter of the spirit—the one is debasing, the other ennobling—the one is open folly and a mark of it, the other is wisdom and one of its signs and aids—the physical stimulus of excessive wine gives base pleasure with bitter dregs, the spirit, when stimulated, is elevated to the highest pleasure with lasting results of the richest benefit. The contrast centers on the verbs, both of which are placed forward for that reason; the modifier of each verb simply goes with it and thus shares a bit of the emphasis. That is why “wine” is a dative and “in spirit” a phrase; being diverse, they are not pitted against each other as are the verbs.
Some regard ἐν as instrumental or think that, besides being construed with the genitive, the dative, or the accusative of that with which the filling is done, this verb may also use “in” with reference to the filler, and thus our versions translate, “Be filled with the Spirit.” But St. Paul would not combine “wine” that is used for the purpose of drunkenness with the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead. In this connection review the writer’s exposition of Gal. 5:16–25 and 6:8, where Paul uses “spirit” and not Spirit nine times.
Ἐν does not state “with” what we are to be filled. Paul is not stating with what we are to be filled, he has no opposite for “wine.” He lets us gather what this filler is to be from the context: it is spiritual joy, happiness, enthusiasm, thankfulness that overflow in the utterance of psalms, hymns, and odes even as the mouth speaks from the abundance of the heart. This statement does not deal with the unio mystica but with the richness and the abundance of the spiritual life “in” our own “spirit.” Our spirit is ever to be filled so that it overflows with spiritual expressions.
The fact that these expressions are due to the Holy Spirit is self-evident, for this spirit is the new life in us, which is to be full of spiritual emotions that press for utterance. Yes, here there is a contrast between base physical stimulation and noble spiritual stimulation. The worldling descends to his body, the Christian ascends to his spirit.
Ephesians 5:19
19 The present participles partake of the imperative character of the main verb, “be filled.” But they modify the subject of the imperative and thus describe the condition of those who are filled in spirit. They are so happy that ever and again they will be “giving utterance for themselves by means of psalms,” etc. The reflexive “for yourselves” is not ἀλλήλοις (v. 21), “one to another” (R. V.), for the benefit of each other, but ἑαυτοῖς, for your own sakes. They simply cannot keep still (λαλεῖν is the opposite of to keep still), they must express themselves, their spirit is so full.
“Psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes” are datives of means and include the different forms of Christian poetic expression. Plain prose will not do, only the more exalted verse will. When we are differentiating the three forms of poetic utterance, not only the etymology but also the use of the terms must be noted. “Psalms” thus seem to refer to the Old Testament psalms, their use being carried over into the Christian Church. They have ever served to voice our feelings.
The word “hymns” originally had a strong pagan flavor, for it was used to designate the songs of praise that were addressed to heathen divinities or to deified men. Paul uses this word twice, the verb appears in Matt. 26:30 and in Acts 16:25. A hymn in the Christian sense of the term is thus an uninspired poetical composition in praise of God or Christ that is intended to be sung. Our present use extends the force of the word beyond the idea of praise.
The Greek word “ode” is wider in meaning and refers to any song or poem, religious or secular; hence it is placed last and needs the adjective, “spiritual odes or songs,” to distinguish them from secular songs.
“Giving utterance” is general; the next two participles specify: “singing and playing with your heart to the Lord.” Singing is done by means of the voice; playing by means of an instrument. Ψάλλω means to let a string twang and thus to play a lyre or a harp, and then to play any instrument as an accompaniment to the voice. Thus the two are here combined: “singing and playing.” “Making melody” (our versions) will do if it is applied to instruments. But the view of some commentators that the dative indicates place: “in your heart,” and that this is silent singing in the heart, is untenable. “Giving utterance” does not refer to audible music, over against which the non-audible “in your heart” is placed. There is no καί before the second participle. The second and the third participle define the first: all acts are audible.
“Giving utterance” means: by singing with the voice and by playing on instruments. But this is never to be only mechanical; it is to be done “with your heart to the Lord” and not merely with lips and fingers for men. The dative “for the Lord” is like the reflexive “for yourselves.” We ourselves and the Lord go together; all this music is between him and us. He wants no lip service from us. We must sing and play to him “with our heart,” and he ever looks to the heart.
Now look at Isa. 5:11, 12 and at Amos 6:5, 6 and see how Paul comes to write as he does about wine and drunkenness on the one hand and about Christian music on the other hand. Paul knows the Old Testament. And this Old Testament seems to be very modern, think of the cabarets! Drinkers yowl their songs. Now add Isa. 14:11 and Amos 5:23 and preach a bit to our church choirs, organists, and other players on instruments in our services. Unless all their music is for themselves and the Lord, sung and played “with the heart,” the Lord will have none of it.
Worldlings are rank and ribald where they carouse. God knows that they make the days wicked (v. 16). But they at least make no pretense of singing and playing “with the heart to the Lord.” They know, and all men know that they are wicked. But the worst sin is pretense and hypocrisy in religious worship; Jesus denounced no other men as he did the Pharisees and the scribes: “Hypocrites!” Matt. 23:13, etc.
Ephesians 5:20
20 Another participle, again without “and,” defines this utterance in singing and in playing in another direction: gratitude must run through it all, “giving thanks always for all things,” etc. This is the main substance that dare not be absent. “Always” might mean simply that the Christian will always find some cause for thanksgiving; the addition “for all things” shows that all of them actually furnish such a cause. Rom. 8:28 explains. Under the divine control even painful experiences, calamities, etc., must bring us spiritual benefits such as driving us closer to God to seek his protection, making us search his Word more earnestly for comfort, etc.
The addition “in our Lord Jesus Christ’s name” should not be read superficially as though we are merely to add this phrase to our thanksgiving. This phrase occurs often. The ὄνομα always signifies revelation, the Name which reveals our Lord to us, the means by which we apprehend him; and ἐν = in union or connection with (sphere). Hence we are told not merely to believe in his Name. Our trust is to be connected with his revelation. No man knows God save by means of his Name. We are baptized “in (not into) the Name of the Father,” etc. The act is connected in toto with the revelation of the Father, etc.
The same is true with regard to our thanksgiving. The Name includes the person, for it reveals him, that is its function. His Name is then the sphere that surrounds all our gratitude and its expression. Hence the full designation “our Lord Jesus Christ,” the concentrated formula that expresses all his Lordship, his Christhood, his person, Jesus (see 1:2, 17) as these are revealed in all Scripture.
Here there is another example of one article used with two terms to denote one person exactly as in v. 5. In connection with the blessed revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ we have free access to him who is our God and Father. As God Almighty and our heavenly Father with infinite love he makes all things redound to our good, and as his “children beloved” all our thanksgiving is offered to him “in the name of our Lord.” It is a fine thing that Paul thus adds the word “Father.” We fail to understand the comment that Paul does not mean “our Father.” The nouns go together. Is he not our God and Father, is he only our God and Christ’s Father? The designation of both persons is plainly soteriological.
Ephesians 5:21
21 Does the participle continue the thought and close the paragraph (R. V.), or does it begin the new paragraph? The thought does not continue our utterance in singing and playing with thanksgiving to God. Paul counts on the intelligence of his readers to see that. He writes a durative participle that is just like the three that precede so that we shall connect this last participle with the present paragraph and not with the next. If he had intended to make a break at v. 21, it would have been the simplest thing in the world to write an imperative.
Moreover, in what follows (v. 22–6:9) we, indeed, have subjection but no reciprocal, no mutual subjection. Wives are to be subject to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters, but not the reverse, and husbands and masters are not to be subject to other persons in the family. The whole of v. 22 to 6:9 deals with the family, is thus distinct, mentions the classes concerned, and thus cannot be introduced by v. 21.
Those who think that the contrary is the case labor to construe the participle. To call it a nominative absolute is to state that it cannot be construed. To let it mean: “while subjecting yourselves to each other, the wives to their own husbands,” is unwarranted because the wives are to subject themselves to their husbands and not as we are to subject ourselves to the rest of us.
It is the wisdom of this world to dominate others, to stoop below others only when one is compelled to stoop. This paragraph is written regarding wisdom, regarding understanding the Lord’s will, and thus in spirit singing our happy gratitude to God our Father. This we are to do in happy harmony. No rivalry, no self-exaltation, no devisive pride is to interfere. Rich and poor, learned and simple, high and low are to be one, and that is accomplished by “subjecting themselves to each other in Christ’s fear,” not in false humility, in sycophancy, or the like. None is to subject another, each is to subject himself, voluntarily, freely.
This is to be mutual, reciprocal all around (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3; 1 Pet. 5:5). What a wise thing, and how fine when none lords it over another, when each serves the other! Matt. 20:27, 28. The songs that arise to God from such hearts will be sweet.
The thought to be expressed is not a contrast between our attitude toward “the God and Father” and that toward “each other,” for the latter, too, is to be “in Christ’s fear” (objective genitive). This is not the dread of Christ, our Judge, but the loving and devoted reverence of Christ, our Savior, which is ever seeking to do “what is well-pleasing to the Lord” (v. 10), “what the will of the Lord is” (v. 17). R. 690 is probably mistaken when he makes the ἑαυτοῖς found in v. 19 reflexive in the reciprocal sense; here we have the reciprocal ἀλλήλοις, and the two could not be exchanged.
By thus rounding out this paragraph, the last of the general admonitions directed to all the members of the Una Sancta, Paul has prepared an easy transition to the next group of admonitions, each of which deals with only a certain class of members.
Four Admonitions, Each for a Special Class of the Members of the Una Sancta
Ephesians 5:22
22 See the analysis in 4:17: we have no connectives but only a natural progression of the classes concerned; four groups of them: wives—husbands—children and fathers—slaves and masters. Note the “and” in 6:4, 9. This has been called Paul’s Haustafel.
For Wives
The wives to their own husbands as to the Lord! Because a husband is head of his wife as also Christ Head of his church—he, indeed, as Savior of his Body. Nevertheless, as the church subjects herself to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything.
The wives are the first to be admonished, the children the next, then the slaves for whom a special type of self-subjection is made incumbent. For this reason wives are followed by husbands, children by fathers, slaves by masters. No verb is needed, an imperative, “let them subject themselves,” being automatically supplied by the reader.
Paul counts on the intelligence of his readers. The very mention of “the wives” (not vocative) and “their own husbands” shows that a special relation and a special self-subjection are now referred to, something that is entirely different from the fact mentioned in v. 21. For in v. 21 any Christian, whether this be a wife or not, is to subject himself to every other Christian, whether this be a man or not. The difference is so clear as to be self-evident. We are now in the Christian family, in the marital relation; “the wives” at once place us there. Gal. 3:28 lies on the plane of v. 21 and not on that of v. 22.
Paul is not subjecting all women to all men but all wives to their own husbands. This is not a text on the inferiority of women to men; it is a text on the Christian marriage relation. This is also voluntary self-subjection and not subjugation. Moreover, it is Christian: “as to the Lord,” i. e., as rendering this self-subjection to the Lord in obedience to his blessed will. The idea is that the will of God who arranged the marriage relation at creation is likewise the will of the Lord Christ for Christian wives. Every Christian wife will then follow “what is well-pleasing to the Lord” (v. 10), “what the will of the Lord is” (v. 17).
She subjects herself, we may say, for the Lord’s sake: his will is hers. A Christian bride will then rebel against the idea of altering the marriage ceremony so that “obey him” is left out; she will do so on account of her Lord, no matter what worldly brides may do.
Ephesians 5:23
23 Back of this reference “as to the Lord” lies a great reason for all Christian wives who own reverence to this Lord: “Because a husband (no article) is head (predicate, hence again no article) of his wife (possessive article) as also Christ is Head (predicate) of his church (possessive).” There is no need to say that this is a reference to Christian marriage as Christ intends it to be. Every Christian bride and every Christian wife will want her marriage to be like that of Christ and his church.
Already at this place Paul brings forward his great comparison which lifts Christian marriage to a plane which is so high that we are astounded. It is like the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7), his Bride, the church, the Lamb’s wife (Rev. 21:9; 22:17). Remember the bridal and the marriage imagery found in both Testaments. Paul is lifting Christian marriage into the full light of grace which is to sanctify it throughout (1 Cor. 7:14). Can any Christian wife make her marriage more blessed than that? We see how Paul comes to do this: the great theme of his epistle is the Una Sancta, her Head being Christ, the Lord. Christian marriage is a miniature of this. All its loveliness is brought to view by holding it beside the great original.
Paul has often been accused of having a low view of marriage, i. e., that non-marriage is better than marriage. But where in all the Scriptures is there a more exalted and truly spiritual conception of marriage than that presented here by this apostle?
One point is made to stand out, one that the entire epistle also presents: unity. One Body, which thus has one Head (1:22; 4:15). So the married couple is a unity. It can have but one head even as the Bride, the church, can have but the one Head, Christ. Two heads for either would not only cause a duality, it would produce a monstrosity. Many marriages have been made into something like that by the “unwise” (v. 15) who mistake their folly for wisdom (Rom. 1:22). Behold the wrecks everywhere, the freaks, too, alongside of the wrecks! Two heads, then a division. Or the wrong head, the thing turned upside down.
Paul is not devising a human allegory, is not losing himself in a figurative tangle. In one tremendous respect our divine Lord goes utterly beyond what any wife has or can have in her husband as her marital head. Of Christ alone is it true: “he, indeed (emphatic αὐτός), as Savior of his Body,” i. e., the church, repeatedly called so, viz. 4:12. No other head in the universe is like that. We have seen the same relation in v. 5, the King to his kingdom who is not made by his kingdom as are earthly kingdoms but makes his kingdom so that wherever he is he also has his kingdom.
Ephesians 5:24
24 Ἀλλά = “nevertheless,” it is adversative: in spite of this fact, which is exceptional with regard to Christ, that he and he alone is the Savior of his Body, the headship of the Christian husband is like the headship of Christ regarding the church. Paul now reverses the statement: “as the church subjects herself to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything.” This is a repetition of v. 22, but now the verb is expressed, “in everything” is added. The repetition is emphatic. This is what the husband’s headship of his wife means. It is typical of Paul to turn the thought in this way, to state the two sides of it and thus to round it out.
The verb is the middle voice: the church subjects herself voluntarily, joyfully. This is her normal and natural relation to Christ, which could not be otherwise. Just so is the relation of the wives to their husbands (a fine example of the generic article). The verb to be supplied is either an indicative or an imperative: “subject themselves,” or, “let them subject themselves.” The passive is out of place: “is subjected”—“are subjected,” for this sounds too much like compulsion. The idea is not that of a divine command which forces the church, forces the wives, but of blessedness. Christ has highly honored the marriage relation in that he has made his own relation to the church like that of a bridegroom to his bride, of a husband to his wife, as far as his headship and the church’s self-subjection are concerned.
This self-subjection is not partial but complete: “in everything.” Yet in the nature of the case, the phrase is limited to the things involved in the marriage or home relation. Luther drew the Scriptural line well when he called Christian marriage ein weltlicher Handel. He did not mean “a worldly affair” but an affair pertaining to the natural and not to the spiritual or church life. In all religious matters Gal. 3:28 applies: neither male nor female, for you are all one man in Christ Jesus. But in all earthly matters the husband functions as the head. In this connection read Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:12; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, which are to the same effect.
In the state of innocence the husband was the head, and the wife subjected herself to him as the head. God made marriage so ideal, lovely, blessed, perfect. Sin entered and disturbed this relation. Eve fell, Adam followed, God’s order was subverted. In the state of sin the divine and blessed order is disturbed in two directions: wives seek to rule their husbands and refuse loving self-subjection; husbands tyrannize their wives often to the point of enslaving them. Endless woe results.
Christianity restores the divine order with all its happiness. Yet when Christianity came and elevated woman and wifehood from their pagan degradation and made male and female one in the church of Christ Jesus, the danger of antinomistic views regarding wifehood appeared. Wives might be inclined to refuse self-subjection because of a false view of emanicipation and independence. For this reason Paul ever speaks so clearly and shows both the original divine intention of the marital relation of husbands and of wives and the sanctification of this relation and its glorious elevation because Christ made it the image of his own relation to the church even as Jehovah had done this in the case of Israel in the old covenant.
In our times not a few Christian wives and husbands also have tried to modify Paul’s words, especially concerning what they say regarding the self-subjection of Christian wives, because it is claimed that this view is no longer up-to-date and befitting our advanced age. The more need is there that we understand just what Paul and the Scriptures say on the subject, that we apprehend the inwardness of it all and the impossibility of our ever advancing beyond the true directions here laid down.
For Husbands
Ephesians 5:25
25 What Paul says regarding the wives must be read in conjunction with what he says regarding the husbands; only thus shall we catch his full meaning. Husbands, love your wives even also as Christ did love the church and gave himself for her in order that he might sanctify her by cleansing her with the the bath of the water in connection with spoken word, in order that he himself might present to himself the church as glorious, not having a stain or wrinkle or any such thing, but in order that she may be holy and blemishless.
We may regard the articulated “husbands” as a vocative; then we shall also have vocatives in 6:1, 4, 5, 9. This construction may be questioned in v. 22, where no verb is used. Perhaps Paul just announces the classes: The wives—The husbands—The children, etc. Thus here: “The husbands—do you keep loving your (possessive article) wives!” This point is merely formal. The word for love is the verb used in the New Testament to designate the higher form of love; it is not φιλεῖν which denotes mere affection, romantic attachment or passion, which is practically all that worldly people know about ideal conjugal love. See the noun in 1:4.
Paul has in mind the love which comprehends what God intends marriage to be, which is therefore filled with the desire to carry out God’s intention. Let us say that the love now described is of such a kind that makes it a delight for the wife to subject herself to such a loving husband.
Do you ask why Paul does not say also: “The wives—do you keep loving your husbands”? Is this love not to be mutual? You have answered your question. No wife can cultivate the self-subjection intended by the Lord without this intelligent and purposeful love. When Paul asks for her self-subjection he asks for it as the outstanding evidence of her love. Without the presence of this conclusive evidence no wife “loves” her husband with true Christian intelligence and purposefulness.
“Even as” denotes likeness of manner. The supreme illustration for the way in which Christian husbands should love their wives is no less than the love of Christ himself for his church. The manner of his love is described at length; we are told how he gave himself and with what high purpose he did this. The feature that no one can possibly imitate has been eliminated in v. 23: his being himself the Savior of his Body. So the parallel given the husbands in v. 28 is that they love their wives “as their own bodies,” i. e., as being no less than their own bodies. In that manner the husbands are to love their wives; in that manner Christ loved the church, his own Body (4:12).
Where this love is present in the Christian husband, the manner of it will be the constant evidence, he will treat his wife as his very own body. So the head intelligently, purposefully (agape) treats its body and shows itself to be the head indeed. Only too gladly the body submits itself to such a head in order to receive this manner of treatment. That is the body’s love for its head. Nor can the thing ever be reversed regarding the head and its body, for in any living organism the one can never be the other.
“As Christ loved the church” (aorist) is followed by explicative καί: “and gave himself for her” (aorist). Both tenses refer to the supreme act of Christ’s love, his death for us on the cross. The fact that ὑπέρ = substitution we have seen in connection with 5:2. Here this act exhibits the manner of Christ’s intelligent and purposeful love. “For her” does not imply a limited atonement, does not cancel from the Scripture all the statements regarding the universality of the atonement. He bought also those who bring swift destruction on themselves, 2 Pet. 2:1. The Scriptures often speak of the atonement for those who receive its full effects.
Ephesians 5:26
26 First the proximate and then (v. 27) the ultimate purpose which Christ had in mind with this love and vicarious self-sacrifice. “That he might sanctify (her) by cleansing her with the bath,” etc. Both the verb and the participle are aorists. When such a participle follows hard upon such a verb, the two are generally simultaneous as to time unless the nature of the second verb makes its action antecedent in point of time. In this case the act of sanctifying and the act of cleansing are synonymous, the one is positive: to separate unto God, the other is negative: to remove sin and guilt. Both take place in baptism, the only bath of which we know in which water and the spoken word are combined. Dogmatically stated, i. e., doctrinally, this is the sanctification which makes us ἅγιοι (1:1) and by means of the justitia imputata cleanses us from all sin and guilt in justification. The sanctification which presents us in the perfection of holiness, when every stain and wrinkle of the flesh are finally removed from us, follows in v. 27 as Christ’s ultimate purpose.
R. 521 regards the dative as a locative. In his W. P. he states that λουτρόν may mean “bathing place”; but why the place should be mentioned here (locative) is not clear. Is it the place (here definite because of the article) that effects the cleansing? It is surely the bath, a most definite one, baptism. This is the common dative of means.
Christ cleanses us and thereby removes our sin and guilt through his atoning death, thereby sanctifies us by means of baptism. This is the efficacy of baptism. Paul knows only a baptism that actually cleanses (aorist) and thereby actually sanctifies (aorist), which is the aim and purpose effected by Christ’s love and his giving himself in our stead (also aorists). Moreover, it should be noted that the subject is Christ. He applies this means to us, he cleanses, etc. Baptism is his act and not ours.
It is not a mere symbol, not a mere act of obedience on our part to an ordinance and a command.
We have little interest in the debate as to whether λουτρόν means “washing” or not. It seems that this point is raised in the interest of immersion. The word means “bath,” and many a bath is taken without a total immersion. Our versions translate “washing,” which is to be understood in the sense of “bath.” “Bath (washing) of water” is the genitivus materiae. Its addition excludes the figurative sense of “bath” as though this might be understood with reference to something that is only spiritual. No; this is the bath that employs actual water. “Water”—no other liquid. The sand baptisms of some dogmaticians as substitutes when water cannot be had in a desert are speculations.
“Water” is named as the earthly element of the sacrament besides the spoken word. We reject the R. V. margin to the effect that the Greek word means “laver,” the first meaning of which is a basin for washing (the laver in the Jewish Temple), the second “that which laves or bathes,” the water itself. This margin and Vincent are unclear. They apparently accept the former; if the latter is meant, “of water” would be a superfluous appositional genitive. As to loutron in the sense of place, all that Homer has is a reference to “hot baths” and also to “cold baths,” always plural; the singular is rare in other writers.
We find “baths of Hercules,” “baths of the ocean,” “water baths.” But this does not yet prove that loutron designates a place either in our passage or in Titus 3:5. Until the linguists furnish more convincing examples, the present writer will doubt that the singular λουτρόν was ever used to designate a place.
The ἐνῥήματι has no article because “the water in connection with spoken word” is one concept. That, too, is why “the water” has the article, and why Luther’s compound Wasserbad is inexact as a translation for this Greek phrase. This is a most definite water; it is made so by the phrase. The phrase belongs where Paul placed it. Ῥῆμα is also the proper term, “utterance,” because the water of baptism is always ἐν, “in connection with,” a spoken word; λόγος would refer to a statement that conveys a thought, whether it be spoken or written. What this “spoken word” (ῥῆμα) is should be beyond question, for the very institution of the sacrament orders the administrant to say: “In the Name of the Father,” etc. Unless this is uttered, we have no baptism, no matter what we utter or how much water we use.
Luther states it simply: “Without the Word of God the water is simply water and no baptism. But with the Word of God it is a baptism, that is a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit,” Tit. 3:5.
This phrase cannot be referred back across the dative and modify the participle or the subjunctive. The phrase should then adjoin the verb or the participle. Nor can it be said that if the phrase is to be joined to the genitive, τοῦ should be repeated. There is also confusion about ῥῆμα itself: whether this is the gospel in general or the preached gospel. Salmond says, “Set apart, etc., in accordance with the divine promise,” or, “on the ground of the preached word of the gospel,” that “word,” like “law,” “grace,” etc., needs no genitive such as “word of God or word of Christ.” Salmond offers this as proof that “the bath of the water” has nothing to do with the cleansing, but that the cleansing is wholly “on the ground of the preached Word.” Why did Paul then insert “the bath of the water”? And ἐν does not = “in accordance with” or “on the ground of.” This appeals to those who regard baptism as a mere symbol without cleansing power.
Such interpretations misunderstand the Greek, and R., W. P., says: “Neither there (1 Cor. 6:11) nor here does Paul mean that the cleansing or sanctification took place in the bath save in a symbolic fashion.”
Such strange ideas are advanced as that Paul here refers to the bath the bride took before her marriage. But the bridegroom does not bathe the bride. It is Christ who cleanses the church; and yet some advance the view that the bath does not cleanse, that the Word does that wholly apart from the bath. Von Hofmann philosophizes and has rhema refer to the utterance of Christ’s effective will.
We here have Paul’s definition of baptism: it is the bath of that water which is connected with an utterance, the bath which is Christ’s means for sanctifying by cleansing, “a bath of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5).
Ephesians 5:27
27 A second ἵνα states Christ’s ultimate purpose: “in order that he himself might present to himself the church as glorious, not having,” etc. Note the points of emphasis: one is on the verb which is placed forward; another on “he himself to himself”; a third uses “the church” instead of the mere pronoun “her” and thereby makes this clause stand out more independently. Paul is speaking of the church as a whole and not of it as it is now being gathered, with many now unborn yet to enter. Paul sees a grand vision: the church at the last day, Christ himself presenting her to himself, making her stand forth by his side (παρά) enfolded in glory, beautiful in sanctity, the spotless Bride of the Lamb. The aorist points to one great act of Christ. After all that Paul has said on the oneness and unity “the church” now appears as one glorious person.
Paul expounds “glorious”: “not having a stain or wrinkle or any of such things.” In her present state, as she passes through this sinful world and still battles with the flesh, the church has many “a stain” of sin splashed upon her from without, many “a wrinkle” due to faults in her own body, also other things of this kind. Some make no difference between “stain” and “wrinkle”; Paul does by adding “such things.” The world about the church causes the stains, the flesh still in her causes the wrinkles.
But note: the terms denote what is only on the surface, what may thus be removed, and not what is in the inner being. Nevertheless, these are blemishes, and they cannot remain. Paul’s picture is that of a bride, and he makes us think of one that is beautiful, indeed; but at first we see her with her bridal robe spotted here and there with ugly stains and with her lovely face marred by ugly wrinkles. What bride can appear like that on her wedding day? Why, every eye would at once fasten on such blemishes of robe and face! Feel the argumentative force in these terms so perfectly chosen. How the church must long to be all-glorious—and we are this church!
But we ourselves can never attain perfection. Christ himself must bring us this perfection even as he first set us apart for himself by cleansing us with the divine bath of baptism. Paul is thus describing our great hope in Christ. Once more recall v. 23 where it is stated that he himself is the Savior of his Body, that his love for the church and what he has done for her (v. 25) and will yet do for her exceeds all that a Christian husband can do for his wife. Christ is the example for the husband, Christian marriage is a miniature of his relation to the church, but oh, the greatness of Christ and of his love! Must a Christian husband, then, despair before this example? No; he is part of the church that is so loved by Christ, and Christ’s love is his constant inspiration and help. “As to the Lord,” written for the wives (v. 22), has its parallel for the husbands in “even also as Christ” in v. 25.
The negative terms “spot” and “wrinkle” are figurative; the corresponding positive terms are literal: “holy and blemishless.” Instead of continuing with the participial construction, Paul writes: “But in order that she may be holy and blemishless.” This is not due to the vivacity of the Greek way of thinking and speaking; it continues the idea of the two previous purpose clauses and at the same time makes the positive clause tower above the negative participle clause.
We have “holy and blemishless” in 1:4; now the words indicate the final perfection of holiness at the last day. First Peter 1:19 has, “a lamb spotless and blemishless,” which leads some to conclude that Paul has in mind the idea of a sacrifice also in our passage. But in the passage in Peter’s letter it is the word “lamb” that suggests the idea of sacrifice, nor does Peter say “a lamb holy and blemishless,” The church is never called a lamb. The thought that the church is a sacrifice that is presented by Christ to himself, is un-Biblical and untrue. It is impossible here where Christ delivers himself as a sacrifice for the church (v. 25); how can the purpose of this be to present the church as a sacrifice to himself? The imagery is that of a bride.
This Bride must be like her Bridegroom, a fit spouse for him and therefore “holy and blemishless,” dedicated and separated from all that is profane, common, and sinful, with not one sinful blemish or fault remaining. Christ himself, her Savior (v. 22), will at last so present her to himself.
Ephesians 5:28
28 Paul brings out more fully what lies in the comparison he has made. So ought also the husbands love their own wives as their own bodies. Paul’s thought is misunderstood when “so” is regarded as a correlative of “as.” The view that this is grammatically possible is untenable because here Paul has only one statement, and a correlation of “so—as” requires two: so do this as that is done. Here οὕτως is a correlative of καθώς in v. 25: as Christ—so the husbands; and ὡς explains “wives” by calling them the own bodies of their husbands. The Christian husbands who follow the example of Christ (in the relation indicated) do so only by loving their own wives as being their own bodies.
Instead of the previously used imperatives we now have “ought to love,” which signifies moral obligation. Here we again have the great word ἀγαπᾶν for “love.” Not like their own bodies but literally as their own bodies. The husband is the head, the wife is his body. The head is to love its body. So the Head, Christ, loves his Body, the church. Indeed, husband and wife are one flesh, no less. The fact that the relation of Christ to the church lies on a far higher plane alters nothing in the earthly relation of the husband to his wife; only when we compare the superior relation to the inferior, the latter is lifted and ennobled.
Paul restates his meaning in order to put it beyond doubt and to make it emphatic. The one loving his own wife loves himself. As his body she is to that extent his own self. So closely are husband and wife connected. The singular follows the plural of the previous statement. Paul knows how to use number.
This is not mere variation in expression; this singular brings the point home to every individual husband. The statement is terse, axiomatic. In order to appreciate it and all that Paul says remember how the Jews regarded marriage: any husband could dismiss his wife for the most trivial cause or for no cause at all, and she had no recourse. The pagan world was no better, it was worse. The church was composed of converts from both Judaism and the world. Paul knows what he is doing when he especially expounds the obligation of the husbands as he here does.
God knows that his exposition is still needed.
Ephesians 5:29
29 “For” shows how self-evident the statement just made is, how impossible it is rationally and and normally to entertain the opposite view. For no one ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and warms it. The fact is universal, unquestioned. We again first have the negative and then the positive, and “to hate” is the opposite of “to love.” A person may commit suicide, but living men the world over feed and warm their bodies. Now the proper word is “his own flesh,” for now the head and the body are referred to and not the body in distinction from the head. So also the preceding clause has “himself,” and v. 31 has “one flesh.” We see no reason for making θάλπει metaphorical, “cherish,” instead of literal. Our physical being needs two things that are essential for existence, food and warmth, the one to nourish, the other to make reasonably comfortable.
Paul does not again introduce the application to the wife, for “himself” and “his own flesh” have already gone beyond the wife. With even as also Christ the church because members are we of his Body, Paul reverts to the basis of his whole admonition. He rings the refrain for the husband: “as Christ the church.” There is no need of verbs; the mind gets the thought, which is enough. The fact that “Christ the church” lies on the spiritual plane while a man and his flesh are on the physical level, is not only self-evident but has already been made sufficiently plain so that the implied verb or verbs will, of course, be spiritual.
Ephesians 5:30
30 “Because members are we,” etc., is the reason for what Christ does in loving provision for the church. The form now advances to the applicatory “we” and thus to the individualizing plural “members of his Body.” Thus far we have had only “the church” and the “Body” (4:4, 12, 16; 5:23), the entire unit; now the component parts of the church at the time of Paul’s writing are indicated: “members.” Every individual Christian, Paul being one, is a member of this blessed Body, the Church of Christ, and “because” of this receives the care of the great Head.
The addition: “of his flesh and of his bones” (A. V.) lacks both textual authority and internal evidence. Genesis 2:23 reads: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” It would seem that someone amplified Paul’s text by adding Adam’s word regarding Eve and yet found it advisable to reverse bones and flesh. The trouble is that “members” precedes, that nobody is able to conceive how we as members are derived ἐκ Christ’s flesh and ἐκ Christ’s bones, whether these are understood physically with regard to Christ or spiritually.
The idea of a mystical derivation from the glorified flesh and bones of Christ is un-Biblical. Mystical union is not mystical derivation. Nor is this a reference to the Lord’s Supper as though in that sacrament we receive Christ’s flesh and bones and are thus derived from him. When one, for instance, reads Harless and others who defend the insertion, he is struck by the way in which they avoid speaking about the last phrase: “out of his bones.” They generalize so that “his bones” is not considered.
Ephesians 5:31
31 Now Paul does quote with a slight deviation from the LXX, without a formula of quotation, because all his readers are acquainted with the words of Gen. 2:24. In fact, Paul uses Adam’s words only in order to express his own thought and makes this more effective because it is taken from Holy Writ. For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall be glued to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
Paul is offering no new doctrine and no new ethics regarding marriage; here, as in all his other references, Paul does as Jesus himself did (Matt. 19:8; 22:29): he goes back to the beginning, to the Scriptures, to the institution of marriage itself. The doctrine and the ethics there established for marriage stand for all time, they were approved by Jesus and by his apostles as being valid also for the New Testament time.
Paul retains the phrase “for this cause” (the LXX has ἕνεκεν) although it connects with nothing in Paul’s preceding statements. Some seek to discover such a connection, but none is clear and actual. Those who retain the spurious words found in v. 30 refer to a connection with them, for are those words not taken from Gen. 2:23, and is v. 31 not quoted from Gen. 2:24? But this view is untenable, for “out of his (Christ’s) flesh and out of his (Christ’s) bones” must be allegorized if they are retained, must somehow refer to Christ, and this compels one also to allegorize a man’s leaving his father and his mother so that this, too, must refer to Christ. Then if God is the Father left by Christ, who is the mother? We are told “Jerusalem” or “heaven,” which makes the allegory rather farfetched.
Nor need we go into the other crass things that result when Christ and the church are made “one flesh.” Some say this came about at the time of the Incarnation when Christ’s leaving the Father took place; others say that it shall occur at the Parousia when the consummation of being one flesh is to be reached; but at that time Christ is again back with his Father (to say nothing about a mother). These interpretations are to be spiritual; but they rather exhibit morbidity.
“For this cause” means exactly what it means in Gen. 2:24, the cause mentioned in Gen. 2:23, this connection being known to Paul’s readers just as the quoted words themselves are so well known. Those early Christians could be counted on for a far more precise knowledge of their Old Testament than our Christians today have. Incidentally, this may serve to explain why the apostles quote so often and in such ways as they freely do. Paul is here speaking of the married state, how it is entered by leaving father and mother, and in what it results. Adam himself uttered this description in Eden. It was prophetic.
He had no father and no mother. The prophecy is true. A young man leaves his parents, cleaves (really “shall be glued”) to his wife, and so a new home starts. To be sure, in the patriarchal age and often in the Orient the son brought his wife to his parents’ home, but Adam was not prophesying regarding all the variations in marriage customs. Ἄνθρωπος is the proper word since ἀνήρ has been used repeatedly in the sense of “husband.”
But the main point is this being glued together with his wife, glued so closely that they, “the two, shall be one flesh” (predicative εἰς, R. 481). Here there is still more reason for using Adam’s words, they serve to express the very climax of what Paul has been building up. In v. 25 he speaks only of the husbands loving “the wives”; in v. 28 he calls them the husbands’ “own bodies,” singular the husband’s “own self”; in v. 29 “his own flesh.” Now comes the peak and this in actual words of Scripture: “the two one flesh.” That is the Scriptural conception, that is the Christian conception. This is sexual union. For this purpose God created the two sexes. It was for the sake of marriage not for harlotry and fornication (1 Cor. 6:16), the great crime against marriage. With his mind still unclouded by sin, Adam saw this and expressed it, and Paul, with his mind enlightened, found no more adequate expression.
Ephesians 5:32
32 Nevertheless, Paul has more than Adam had. The latter could not know that marriage was to be a miniature and a reflection of Christ’s relation to the church. Sin had not yet entered the world, the promise of “the Savior of his Body” (v. 23) had not yet been given. Paul has seen the fulfillment of this promise; he is thus able to add these two together, the miniature and its wonderful original. He has done so throughout with “even as” and “thus” (v. 25 and 28) and again with “even as” in v. 29. He now brings this to its final expression. This mystery is great. Now I on my part am speaking in regard to Christ and in regard to the church. “This is a great mystery” (A. V.) is an incorrect translation.
Some make a mystery of the place where “this mystery” lies hidden. Some say that it is found in the passage in Genesis and then offer what they think its mysterious, hidden meaning to be. The allegorizers think that “this mystery” is the allegorical sense of Adam’s words. “Mystery” is not something mystical (Alford), nor the “secret meaning” of what Paul is about to say (von Soden); nor “symbol”; nor “secret.” The early church understood the Vulgate’s sacramentum as a translation of μυστήριον and of misethar as any solemn religious act or custom or anything sacred: “a holy and divine matter or sign” (C. Tr. 737); its restriction to baptism and the Lord’s Supper started with Tertullian. Yet this translation, which was proper enough in its time, led Romanists to make marriage a sacrament. A “mystery” is something that is to be revealed. “Great” does not mean deep and profound, still less forever impenetrable, never to be made known to us; it is “great” because it is so wonderful.
Adam was not revealing a mystery when he said, “The two shall be one flesh.” What is so mysterious about the natural sex relation of husband and wife? But when the order of nature is compared with the order of grace as regards Christ and the Una Sancta, a mystery great and wonderful stands revealed. Except for proper enlightenment such as Paul furnishes this correspondence of the marriage relation (the husband being the head, the wife the body) with the saving relation (Christ being the Head, the church the Body) would not be noticed. Even now Christians alone see it when they are enlightened by revelation. The mystery is so wonderful in that what lies on the earthly plane of sex should correspond with what lies on the exalted plane of soteriology.
Δέ refers to the brief parenthetical pointer. The emphatic ἐγώ places Paul over against Adam whose statement Paul has just quoted, and who could say nothing “in regard to Christ and in regard to the church.” Paul can and does. No more than this pointer is needed. The preposition is repeated because the relation of the church to Christ and also his to her are referred to. The two relations existing in marriage are also mentioned in v. 33. On “mytsery” as regards the Una Sancta apart from marriage (“this mystery”) see 1:9; 3:4, 9.
Ephesians 5:33
33 Πλήν closes the discussion and emphasizes the main point (B.-D. 449). It is not resumptive after a digression, for Paul has not digressed. Well then, you, too, one by one, let each continue to love his own wife thus as himself; on the other hand, the wife, that she respect her husband!
Paul’s admonition centers on this one point. The distributive καθʼ ἕνα, “one by one,” is joined attributively to ὑμεῖς by οἱ, and “each” is added to show that no one is omitted. The plural of v. 25, “do you keep loving” is now repeated in the singular, “let each keep loving,” it is personal, individual. “As himself” is to be understood in the sense of v. 28: “as their own bodies”—“himself.” The two are one.
Yet this admonition to the husbands to love their wives thus may make the wives feel that their husbands are after all placed very much in their service, and may thus materially alter their self-subjection (v. 22 and 24). Such a deduction is excluded. “On the other hand (δέ), the wife (now also singular), that she respect her husband.” The verb is to be understood in this sense as Ewald shows from Plato: Φοβεῖσθαιτὸσῶμα, “to respect one’s own body,” i. e., by doing what is proper for it. After all the love that is urged upon the husband anything like servile fear on the part of the wife is excluded from her Christian self-subjection. The older grammars and commentators had no solution for this ἵνα which is itself a substitute construction for the imperative and matches the preceding imperative regarding each husband (B.-D. 387, 3). Robertson calls this ἵνα an expletive which merely introduces a voluntative subjunctive. The tone seems to lend it commanding force.
Thus Paul points out to husband and to wife their proper relation and their attitude and their conduct toward each other. Nothing truer and nobler has ever been written or said on this subject. To tamper with the relation here marked out is only to cause damage, often the most terrible damage. Let the world tell its sad, sad story. Here are two great texts that are not expounded to our people often enough or thoroughly enough.
R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.
B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.