Ephesians 6
LenskiCHAPTER VI
For Children and Fathers
Ephesians 6:1
1 Paul takes it for granted that the Christian home contains children. Nowhere has he cause to treat the modern crimes of abortion and so-called birth control which defeat the divine purpose of marriage as instituted by God (Gen. 1:27, 28) and its chief blessing (Ps. 127:3–5). Children, keep obeying your parents in the Lord, for this is righteous.
Paul assumes the presence of the children in the assembly of the congregation where his letter will be read. Their unnatural absence from the service is thereby tacitly condemned. They, too, are members of the Una Sancta, baptized “with the bath of the water in connection with the spoken word” (5:26). In his great epistle on the Una Sancta he has a word for all these Christian children, which is an example for the sermons of all Christian pastors. Vocatives may have the article, but see 5:25.
It is the natural law that children obey their parents. This law the gospel sanctifies; hence Paul’s addition “in (in connection with) the Lord,” in union and communion with him. From their earliest days onward the children are to know their blessed Lord and to connect their young lives with him. This phrase means more than following the Lord’s example when he was a child; it means more than submitting to his will. Childhood obedience is to be the fruit of the child’s entire relation to the Lord. This evidently implies that those who are thus to obey “in the Lord” have been placed in communion with him as his very own; and this means baptism.
“For this is righteous” names the simple motive in a simple way so that every child may understand. In Col. 3:20 Paul says, “For this is well-pleasing to the Lord,” “righteous” in that sense. There he has also written obedience “in all things,” i. e., in no thing disobedience. Whether we translate “right” (our versions) or “righteous,” δίκαιον remains forensic and implies the Lord as the Judge who pronounced his verdict on every child’s conduct in accord with his divine norm of right (δίκη). Paul’s admonition is brief, hence he does not enter upon the pitiful cases when Christian parents demand obedience in something that is unrighteous; this he forbids the fathers in v. 4.
Ephesians 6:2
2 Without a connective and now in the singular and thus the more impressively he quotes the Fourth Commandment (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16): Honor thy father and thy mother, such is a commandment foremost in connection with promise: in order that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest be a long time on the earth.
Those who divide the First Commandment into two make the fourth the fifth. Honor is the form love assumes toward those who are placed above us by God. God rightly put the word “honor” into this commandment and not merely “love,” for it is “love” plus respect, reverence, and corresponding obedience. God places father and mother on the same plane as far as the child is concerned, and Christian ethics is right in extending this commandment so as to include all persons who rightfully assume any part of the parental relation to a child, all the different kinds of parents, teachers, and pastors, even governors and rulers (“fathers” of their people).
It is not necessary to put the expository relative clause into parentheses (R. V.). But we note ἥτις which is not the simple relative but qualitative with a causal touch: it states what kind of a commandment this is, and thus why it should be the more readily obeyed. We should also note that the adjective and the phrase go together: “prime in connection with promise.” Such is this commandment. It is usually remarked that “first” will not do as a translation for πρώτη. The First Commandment has a promise attached to it (Exod. 20:6).
The fact that this promise is general alters nothing, it is surely “promise.” More than that, this promise which is actually first, being what it is, is to be attached to every one of the Ten Commandments so that in his Catechism Luther transposed this promise which is added to the First Commandment to the end and placed it after the tenth as a conclusion to the entire Decalog, a most intelligent thing to do. Paul could thus have said regarding the fourth that it really has a double promise, the one that all the others have and one that is more specific, that none of the rest have.
Again, “first” will not do because no second commandment follows to which a specific promise is attached. Πρώτη is used as it occurs in Acts 28:17: “the first men of the Jews” (even plural), their “foremost” men, rabbis and leaders. The Fourth Commandment is indeed “foremost,” an outstanding one; for not only does the promise attached to all ten extend also to the fourth, it extends to the fourth with the definite and notable specifications: “that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest be a long time on the earth.”
This shows that God is concerned about the honor which children should show their parents. Humanly speaking, he offers them a special inducement, he makes it more easy for them to obey. The family is the basis of all society. Hence there must be the right relation between husband and wife, the founders of the home and the family (5:22–32), next the right relation between children and parents (6:1–4). If either is destroyed or even disturbed, the results are dire. The world furnishes the heart-rending commentary.
Listen to the stories related in the divorce courts and in the juvenile courts of today. The ramifications are endless; our reformatories, prisons, asylums show only the worst of the tragedies. Millions of evil cases begin by dishonoring parents. The worst evil that can strike a nation is the disintegration of its homes.
Ephesians 6:3
3 Paul adapts the Old Testament promise which was made to the Jews to children in the new covenant and omits the references to Canaan in Exod. 20:12 and Deut. 5:16. This teaches us to distinguish the substance of the moral law from its Old Testament form. Ἵνα is followed by both the subjunctive and the future indicative, this is perfectly in order in the Koine. The papyri often have the indicative so that the R. V.’s margin, which makes a new sentence: “And thou shalt,” is out of place. The aorist denotes permanent well-being in the full Christian sense, to be under God’s constant blessing. The future indicative is linear as befits the adjective that is used to indicate the long time.
Genuine well-being, and that during a long life, constitutes the promise which God’s mercy offers to thousands of generations of godly children (Deut. 5:10). The fact that this promise involves the opposite for children who do not honor their parents need scarcely be stated.
But do some of the best Christian children not die in childhood, in youth, in early maturity? Are some not in great affliction, crippled, very poor, etc.? Do not the wicked prosper (Ps. 73:3, 12)? Divine providence is full of problems for our finite minds. We can never hope to comprehend all the ways of God, especially those observed in individual cases. As to any question of guilt read Luke 13:2–5, and John 9:1–3. God’s promise stands; these problems, to which we have only such partial answers in this life, leave it unchanged. Let no one think that he may for any reason mock that promise. The sons of Eli did.
Ephesians 6:4
4 First the wives, then the husbands; first the children, then the fathers, the dependent, then those upon whom they depend. What Paul tells the fathers is told them for their own sakes and, of course, also for the sake of the children under their control. The father who mismanages his child makes it next to impossible for his child to be what it should be and thus robs his child of the blessing of the Fourth Commandment and brings God’s curse upon his child as well as upon himself.
And fathers, provoke not your children to anger but nourish them in discipline and admonition of the Lord.
“And” connects; it is absent in 5:25. The commandment itself places the mother beside the father, and Paul himself has presented the close relation existing between them. What is said to the fathers thus applies also to the mothers. The present imperative refers to iterative action: do not again and again provoke to anger. Unjust, improper parental treatment angers the child so that it cannot honor the parent. A long list of parental faults may be drawn up under Paul’s summary which would include arbitrary, inconsistent, foolish, harsh, and cruel treatment. Parental authority is easily abused. The prevailing sin is Eli’s softness, careless indifference, the children rule and dishonor the parents, the parents obey. Turn the home upside down and the results must be according.
The positive imperative is to indicate a steady course of nourishing (this verb is found also in 5:29). It is the phrase that here adds to the verb the ethical sense of nourishing whereas in 5:29 the meaning physical nourishing is sufficient. The best discussion of the synonyms “discipline and admonition” is still that of Trench, Synonyms. In the classics and in the papyri παιδεία means “education” in general, but in the New Testament it has a wider force. In Heb. 12:5 one may translate it “chastening,” for the next verses refer to painful correction. Some (Thayer) would retain the meaning “education” in our passage so that the difference between the two terms would be small.
Trench contrasts the definitions of Plato and of Basil the Great, the pagan and the Christian view. The context of our passage bears out Trench. “Discipline” = measures according to the laws and regulations of the Christian home, the transgression of which brings chastisement, yes, spankings when necessary. This is the proper opposite to provoking to anger.
Combined with “discipline,” holding children to proper conduct is νουθεσία, “admonition,” i. e., “the training by word, by the word of encouragement when no more than this is needed, but also by the word of remonstrance, of reproof, of blame where these may be required,” Trench. Thus training by measures and acts and by words is combined. As children grow more and more mature, “admonition” alone will be necessary. Note 1 Sam. 3:13: Eli οὐκἐνουθέτειαὐτούς, he did not even “admonish” them.
“Of the Lord” has been termed an objective, a subjective, a characterizing, a source, and a relation genitive, and each commentator explains accordingly. Now this cannot be so many kinds of a genitive. We note that the modified nouns are without articles and are thus made definite by the added genitive. That would be a qualifying or a possessive genitive. The comment: “Such discipline and admonition as the Lord would exercise, who does not incite to wrath” (subjective), is unsatisfactory. Zum Herrn (objective, Luther) would call for εἰς or πρός; origin would be better but only because it approaches the qualifying idea. Not mere human or humanistic or moralistic discipline, etc., will do but only that which is joined to the Lord.
For Slaves and Masters
Ephesians 6:5
5 Slaves, keep obeying your bodily masters with fear and trembling in singleness of the heart as Christ; not in the way of eyeservice as men-pleasers but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God from the soul, with ready mind slaving as for the Lord and not for men, having come to know that whatever good each shall do, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
The Roman world was full of slaves. In Rom. 16:10, 11, “those from them of Aristobulus,” and, “those from them of Narcissus,” who are named after their deceased masters, were slaves in the imperial household at the time of Paul’s writing. While some were servants of a lower type, others were educated, capable, in charge of great and responsible positions. From the way in which this group is introduced in Paul’s admonitions we see how many slaves there must have been also among the Christians, and how at that time also Christians were slave owners (v. 9). We know that Philemon was a slaveholder, one of his slaves being named Onesimus. Christ and the apostles did not denounce slavery and call for its immediate abolition. Christianity followed a deeper, more thorough method, it undermined slavery with the spirit of Christianity by destroying it from within.
When Paul calls the owners “the bodily masters,” this implies that the slaves were also only slaves κατὰσάρκα, “by way of flesh,” meaning body; since we are without a convenient corresponding phrase in English and are unable to place one attributively we use the adjective “bodily.” The relation was one of only this transient, earthly type and was not a matter of the spirit. We may regard the following as adding three modifiers: keep obeying 1) “with fear and trembling,” a negative motive, lest they be found derelict; 2) “in singleness of your heart,” a positive motive, bent on one thing alone, without duplicity or ulterior purpose; 3) “as Christ,” as though the service were rendered to Christ himself. It seems best, however, to parallel only the first two prepositional phrases and to let the dative with ὡς modify Christ, and with singleness of heart as obeying Christ; for the two object datives belong together: “obey the masters as Christ.”
Ephesians 6:6
6 “As Christ” means: “not in the way of eye-service as men-pleasers,” not as that kind of slaves who perform service only for the eye, to make a show, to catch human praise, which is one great vice of slaves and servants in general; “but as slaves doing the will of God from the soul (no article is needed in such Greek phrases), with ready mind (εὐνοία) slaving as for the Lord and not (just) for men,” as that kind of slaves, which describes the true virtue of Christian slaves and servants in general. “As Christ” (your Master) is matched by “as slaves of Christ,” the two nominative participles defining 1) what such slaves will do, 2) how they will do this. They will be busy doing no less than “the will of God from the soul,” ex animo, the only way in which it can be done.
Ephesians 6:7
7 They will keep slaving (doing their work for their masters) “with ready mind, as to the Lord and not to men,” to gain his approval before all else.
“Men heed thee, love thee, praise thee not;
The Master praises—what are men?”
The participles match: “doing”—“slaving,” the one referring to God’s will, the other to the human service. Likewise, “from the soul” is to be construed with doing God’s will, and “with ready mind” (or “good will”) with the slaving. To draw both phrases together: “from the soul with good will slaving,” does not commend itself: the soul refers to God’s will, the good mind or good will to the daily tasks. Here is the secret for all of us who work for other men. Whether we are observed, praised, rewarded by them or not, our supreme satisfaction is that all our labor is done for the Lord, our praise and our reward cannot be taken from us.
Ephesians 6:8
8 Hence the final participle, now an ingressive aorist: “having come to know (to perceive as a fact) that whatever good each shall do, this he will receive back from the Lord,” his real Master. 2 Cor. 5:10. Service rendered unto the Lord he will repay whether men do or not. “Anything good” is to be understood in the ethical sense. Whether we prefer the reading κομεῖται or κομίσεται we have the future: “will receive back.” The readings vary in several points and cause some difficulty for the text critics; fortunately, all readings leave the sense unaltered. It makes no difference, for instance, where the subject is placed: “that each, whatever good he may do” (expectancy), etc.; or: “that whatever good each may do,” etc. How and when each will get back his reward is in the Lord’s hands; it will often be in part already in this life.
Paul has no fear about fostering work-righteousness by using a frank appeal to rewards for Christian slaves and workers. We may freely follow him if we remember that the Lord’s rewards are always pure heavenly grace. “Whether slave or free,” it makes no difference. This is comfort for every poor slave in his position of inferiority among men. When the Lord dispenses his rewards, this lowly position never matters. In those days a great many slaves were set free and even formed a class that was called “freedmen.” By following a regular procedure they were often allowed to buy their freedom. Exceptional acts of service were sometimes so rewarded.
Some masters freed their slaves in their will and testament. But this is not at all the chief thing for the Christian. Slave or free, he moves on a far higher plane.
Ephesians 6:9
9 And masters, keep doing the same things to them, refraining from threat, having come to know that both of them and of you the Master is in the heaven, and that there is no respect of person with him.
“And” joins masters to slaves, it is like the “and” used in v. 4 in force. We need not seek the verbal antecedent of τὰαὐτά; the expression is used ad sensum, “the same things,” those that correspond to the difference in position. Beside this positive Paul places one subordinate negative: “refraining from this thing of threatening,” that is the force of the article. Since slaves had no recourse, their pagan or their Jewish masters were inclined to threaten them on the least provocation and, as a usual thing, that meant the execution of the threat. By forbidding the threat its execution was, of course, equally excluded.
Note the force of the durative and of the punctiliar participles: “always refraining from—having come to know the fact that,” etc.; the construction is like the three duratives plus the one punctiliar participle used regarding the slaves. Each class has come to know a mighty fact, the slaves a fact that stimulates them in heart and in work and lifts them above their physical slavery; the masters a fact that restrains them from misusing their physical superiority. The two genitives have a decided emphasis. We should use datives: “both for them and for you the Master is in heaven.” As far as this heavenly Master is concerned you are both in the same position: “respect of person does not exist for him,” the last phrase being emphatic. It may exist for men but not for him. He is not a judge who “takes the face,” sees who a man is and decides his case with partiality, in favor of the one who is a lord and master, rich and powerful, in disfavor of one who is only a poor slave and powerless.
This heavenly Master is an absolutely impartial Judge in all his judgments present and to come. Even the emperor’s purple will not shield him before this Judge. This admonition is brief but to the point and altogether sufficient because of the importance of what it conveys.
The Closing Admonition for All to Stand against the Great Enemies of the Una Sancta.
Ephesians 6:10
10 The texts and the text critics differ as to whether the reading is τοῦλοιποῦ or τὸλοιπόν. Either would be adverbial. Robertson calls the former an incipient adverb, the latter is an adverbial accusative. There is only a shade of difference between them: des weiteren—was das Uebrige betrifft. There is no need to have the genitive refer to the future: “from henceforth”; it is logical: “with respect to the rest” (R., W. P.). Beyond question Paul now offers his final admonition which is to cover all that he has yet to say.
Finally, be powerful in the Lord and in the strength of his might!
The dispute as to whether the imperative is passive or middle cannot be decided on the basis of the word itself (R. 816). There is no difference in force whether we make ourselves powerful or let God make us powerful. No agent is indicated here; therefore the phrase, “in the Lord,” is probably the middle, which phrase, as always, means, “in union with him,” and is even explained: “and in union with the strength of his might.” The durative present tense is important: we must constantly appropriate power in this our union with the Lord, since we need it all the time, lest at any time we be caught by the enemy. Note 3:16. As was the case in 1:19, ἰσχύς is the might possessed whether it is exercised or not; κράτος is the strength in its exercise.
This opening command strikes a virile, martial note: power—strength—might! Christians dare never be weaklings. They are joined to a Lord who is their inexhaustible source of power, who is himself filled with strength and might, the Stronger One who conquered the strong one (Luke 11:21, 22). By virtue of his new life the Christian has a certain amount of power, but this needs constant augmentation. We secure this increase through our union with the Lord, our union with the operative strength of his possession of might.
Ephesians 6:11
11 Like a general issuing commands and instructions to an army, Paul gives the next order and does so without using a connective. Put on the whole armor of God for you to be able to stand against the expert methods of the devil!
Now the aorist imperative rings out, for one decisive act of assuming the armor is referred to. The emphasis is on the verb: “Put it on, put it on!” Thus, equipped with this armor, the Ephesians will be powerful (v. 10). The imagery is that of a Roman hoplite, “man of arms,” the heavy-armed legionary, not the light-armed fighter of the auxiliary contingent who was armed only with the bow.
This is a picture of a soldier of the line. These were the dependence of Rome and formed her invincible legions by which she had conquered the world and held it. Isa. 59:17 blends with the picture. We, too, use the word “panoply” in the meaning “the whole armor” as Paul does. Yet we should not think of a false contrast as though a Roman hoplite might have only a part of his armor. This is not an admonition to be sure to put it all on, to forget nothing. Certainly, automatically the hoplite took his panoply. How would he dare to do less? “Of God” is the genitive auctoris, God supplies the panoply, this is his army.
Πρός with the articulated infinitive denotes subjective purpose, R. 1075. We have twelve instances of it in the New Testament; all express purpose and not result. The infinitive is present to denote constant ability and matches the imperative used in v. 10: “for you to be able, to be powerful.” But the second, complementary infinitive is an effective aorist: “to stand” successfully, invincibly. The implied opposite is not flight but rather defeat: “to stand as victor, unvanquished.” Paul does not say merely “to stand against the devil”; he says more: “against the expert methods of the devil,” the same word that was used in 4:14. The idea of expert skill should not be overlooked. “The devil” leads the opposing army, and he is no mean commander, he knows his game.
Gross’ Macht und viel’ List
Sein’ grausam’ Ruestung ist. Luther.
Ephesians 6:12
12 Because there is for us not the wrestling against blood and flesh but against the principalities, against the authorities, against the world tyrants of this darkness, against the spiritual (forces) of the wickedness in the heavenly places.
This is reason enough for putting on the panoply of God and never trusting to “our own unaided strength” or “might of ours.” Paul lets the whole army of the devil parade before our eyes. This is the tremendous power we face, against this we must stand victorious. Equipped with God’s armor, we can.
Paul is not mixing his figures and inserting the idea of the wrestler into the description of the hoplite. “The wrestling” is the proper word and is used here for that reason. When one contends with “blood and flesh” he comes to grips, he wrestles with such an antagonist. This is a human antagonist. Wrestling is also only a game, a human game. In this game the wrestler only throws his opponent, he does not kill him as he does in war. Paul says that we have (Greek: “there is not for us”) no mere wrestling match with an unarmed, human opponent, who at the worst is able only to lay our back to the floor, we face a tremendous army, all the evil forces of the supernatural world.
Some overlook the fact that Paul says “blood and flesh” (also Heb. 2:14, the correct reading) and does not follow the usual order “flesh and blood”; others regard the two expressions as being without a difference. In John 1:13 blood is named first, flesh second; in Acts 17:26 blood alone is mentioned. As C.-K. 82 indicates, “blood and flesh” seems to point only to the basis of our physical, natural existence and avoids what lies in “flesh and blood,” namely moral quality, a contrast with God. We add that here the point appears to be the avoidance of the connotation of the evil in our nature which is in alliance with the devil, which thus also requires the divine panoply in order to be defeated. Anything consisting merely of “blood and flesh,” our physical constituents, could at the world only stage a wrestling match with us. This is the best explanation we are able to offer.
After the negative we now have the positive, and πρός is repeated four times, thus intensifying the appositional designations. The supposition that after ἀλλά we must supply the predication “there is for us the wrestling” is untenable. The idea of wrestling so evidently confines itself to “blood and flesh” that no Greek would have any difficulty in understanding Paul’s thought. He sees the contrast Paul indicates, gets Paul’s meaning without the verb, and notes that this is something vastly worse than a wrestling match. The omission of a predication fixes the Greek’s mind upon the array of appositional phrases that unroll the power of the devil’s army. That, too, is why Paul sets these four πρός over against the one lone πρός.
As was the case in 1:21 and in 3:10, Paul is not enumerating different classes of demon warriors. These phrases are appositions: each one parades the entire demon army before our eyes. Paul gives us four views of it, four for the sake of completeness. We cannot use the abstract plural “rules”; as in 3:10, our best word is “principalities.” Every demon has his “rule” or domain in which he exercises his “authority.” Paul then gives them their ὄνομα (1:21), they are “the world tyrants of this darkness,” and then still more significantly he terms them “the spiritual (forces) of the wickedness in the heavenly places,” i. e., of the supermundane wickedness. The two abstract designations are thus defined by concrete personal names or titles.
“World tyrants” is better than “world rulers,” for κράτος in the compound noun contains the idea of exerting strength and utter hardness and thus acting like the worst tyrant. Not in a corner but in the whole world these have their vast domain. “Of this darkness” (not merely “of darkness”) points to the present spiritual world darkness to which these world tyrants belong. The contrast is “the outer darkness” where there is only wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 8:12) in everlasting doom. Here again “the darkness” is not the mere absence of light; it is the absolute antagonism to light and thus denotes the fearful power that is hostile to God who is “the light” and whose are “the children of light” (5:8). This designation is as horrible as the next. From “this darkness” and the dominion of these “world tyrants” Christ has delivered us; hence their war is waged in order again to subjugate us under their tyranny.
The neuter plural τὰπνευματικά does not denote “things” (R., W. P.) since this phrase, too, is appositional and the masculine plural “world tyrants” precedes. Instead of writing πνεύματα Paul substantivizes the adjective, not as denoting “the spiritual principles” of the Satanic powers (C.-K. 956), but as denoting “the spiritual beings” as such: “the spiritual hosts” (Westcott: “forces”) of the R. V. The neuter is scarcely due to the preceding “blood and flesh” which also may be regarded as a neuter expression, but is like the neuter πνεύματα, “spirits,” of which it makes one think. But this is true that, like all the other terms, “the spiritual forces,” since they are spiritual, bring into relief their difference from “blood and flesh,” which are only physical (men).
That is why here, too, the genitive must be added (as in the preceding designation): “of the wickedness in the heavenly places,” i. e., belonging not to wickedness in general but to this particular wickedness. This wickedness is a power like “this darkness.” It has produced all the wickedness on earth. We war also against the latter, but here Paul describes the worst, that which produced the latter, that which is thus more terrible than the other.
Paul uses ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις four times, each time to designate loca and not bona. In 1:3, 20; and in 3:10 we have no difficulty, heaven is referred to. But in 2:6, “the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” in which God has seated the Ephesians, cannot be heaven, for Paul is writing to them while they are here on earth. This shows that the meaning of the phrase is determined by its context, and here the context is not God and the good angels (as in 1:3, 20; 3:10), not Christians (2:6), but demons. So heaven as the abode of God and his angels is excluded and also “the heavenlies in Christ Jesus,” the kingdom of Christ here among men. The phrase must here designate “the wickedness” as being located in the supermundane world and thus being distinguished from the wickedness found in men here below on the earth.
Paul is describing the demons as they now are; hence we hesitate to accept the idea that he describes this wickedness as it first originated in heaven when Satan and his adherents fell and were cast out. Some identify the loca of this phrase with the ἀήρ of 2:2 and take this to be the physical air; but see the writer’s confession in 2:2 regarding “the air.” The A. V.’s “spiritual wickedness in high places,” margin, “wicked spirits,” are incorrect; the plural accusative which is substantivized does not modify the articulated genitive singular, nor is this genitive adjectival. The phrase modifies the genitive.
Ephesians 6:13
13 Because of this take up the whole armor of God in order that you may be able to withstand in the wicked day and, having accomplished everything, to stand!
“To stand (v. 11)—to withstand—to stand” (all aorists), so rings the refrain of these infinitives plus the imperative: “Stand then!” in v. 14. The victorious stand—that is their business.
“This” refers to the fact just stated in v. 12. The admonition given in v. 11 is repeated. It is made to ring out doubly, on both sides of the great terms of power which describe our enemy host. Such repetition lends it great emphasis. Yet Paul’s repetitions always add new points and variation. For “put on” he now writes “take up,” both are peremptory aorists.
He keeps unchanged the expressive object “the panoply of God,” all other armament is as so much straw against these foes. In the purpose clause only the significant infinitive “to stand” is the same, the rest is an advance. In v. 11 there is stated what we are to stand against, “the expert methods of the devil.” Now we are told when and how to stand victorious. “To withstand (aorist: successfully) in the day, the wicked one (the adjective after a second article which makes it emphatic, R. 776), and, having accomplished everything, to stand” (aorist: as victors when this day of battle is over).
This day is called “wicked” because the spiritual forces of the wickedness of the other world will hurl themselves against us. Recall the words of Jesus spoken to his enemies: “This is your hour and the power of the darkness,” Luke 22:53. It is not the day of the last battle at the end of the world, Rev. 20:7–9. Only the Christians who are then living will see that battle with Gog and Magog, and not the panoply of God will win the victory in that battle but “fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them,” the enemy. “The day of death” cannot be referred to, for this is a blessed and not a wicked day for the Christian, the day of the crowning (2 Tim. 4:8). This wicked day is also not the entire time of our life, for we are to arm ourselves for this day, to be ready when it breaks. Paul has in mind the critical and decisive day which comes for each one of us, sometimes but once, again repeatedly, in which Satan pounces upon us with all his forces. Then we must “be able or powerful (the same verb that was used in v. 10, 11) to withstand” without yielding to a single assault.
Thus we understand the participial clause: “and having accomplished everything” by using the panoply of God, “everything” for which it is intended. That will be the day when this whole armor will be fully tried out by our expert foe. But, using it to the full, we shall, indeed, be powerful “to stand” as victors (aorist) with effective finality. Note the five aorist forms in this verse. Robertson is right, there are sermons in tenses. Here they have the ring of victory. Be that day ever so wicked with the wickedness of hell itself,
“All watching to devour us,—
We tremble not, we fear no ill,
They cannot overpower us.” (Luther).
The preposition in the participle is perfective: “having thoroughly done everything.” In the New Testament it never means “to overthrow”; nor can the neuter ἅπαντα refer to τὰπνευματικά: “having overthrown them all.” Then Paul would have used the masculine, for then persons would be referred to. The participle also never means, “having gotten everything ready.”
Ephesians 6:14
14 Paul now expressly names all the parts of the panoply of God but so as to retain the admonition with which he began. Stand, then, having girded your loins in truth, and having put on the breastplate of the righteousness, and having shod your feet in the preparation of the gospel of the peace, in addition to everything having taken up the long-shield of the faith, in connection with which you will be able to extinguish all the arrows of the wicked one, those that have been set on fire.
The preceding aorists (v. 13) are picturesque; we see the hoplite rush to arms—then fight and withstand valiantly—then stand with the enemy defeated and the victory won. The progress lies, not in the tenses, but in the verbs themselves. When Paul now begins the description of the armor with another aorist imperative, this is not ingressive: “begin to stand, or take your stand” (R., W. P.), this is constative: “Stand once for all.” That is why the relative clause in v. 16 has the future tense: “you will be able,” etc.
Paul might have added a few other points to this description. So the mind of most men operates: they let the image and figure dominate their thought and thus would seek out literal counterparts for all that the picture of a Roman hoplite presents to their mind. Not so Paul. He makes the imagery subservient and hence uses only as much as really aids the literal facts. Now these literal items are seven (a number we expect Paul to use): truth—righteousness—gospel of peace—the faith—salvation—the Word of God—prayer. The figure of the hoplite is fitted to these.
The fact that it cannot be applied to point seven does not disturb Paul even as no one expects a figure for prayer. Paul regards prayer as a part of our equipment, for he carefully uses two nouns after διά which points to means: “by means of all prayer and petition,” etc.
The arrangement in expression is interesting. Paul does not, of course, merely enumerate seven in a loose succession but in the natural order and grouping, each item occurring only where it should be found in this list. Thus items 2 and 3 are joined with καί, but 4 with ἐπὶπᾶσιν. That makes four, but as composed of 3 + 1. This is repeated in the case of the next three (v. 17, 18) where 1 and 2 are combined by καί after the imperative, while 3 (prayer) is added by a phrase which modifies a participle. All this is rhetorical, but it uses rhetoric and flexibility of form to make the thought shine out more lucidly.
The first three participles are indirect middles: the Christian is to belt himself, clothe himself, shoe himself; all are aorists, definite acts, which are to precede the action of the aorist “stand!” The Greek uses the singular, our idiom the plural for “loins.” This belting does not refer to the Oriental long, loose outer robe of the civilian, which was belted up for rapid walking and other action. The hoplite wore a short tunic. Any mantle that was worn over his armor was put away when he stood in line and was ready to fight. To his belt the scabbard of the sword and his thorax were attached. The order is the natural one: the belt is buckled on first, then the breastplate, then the sandals. We should carry this order on through; next the helmet and the sword, then the shield. Paul does not do so but keeps to the reality and subjects the figure.
“In truth” (better than the instrumental “with”) is not subjective, sittliche Lauterkeit, the moral quality of truthfulness. We are surprised that Luther understands “righteousness” in the same way as the moral righteousness of the Christian. To be sure, both must be the Christian’s possession, but this is expressed by the participles: belt yourselves, put on yourselves. The “truth” which Paul has in mind is the divine, saving truth or reality. The absence of the article stresses the quality of the term. Therefore “truth” is placed first.
Let us note that the efforts to divide “truth”—“the gospel of the peace”—“the utterance of God” as to their substance are misdirected. They are one in substance. The differentiation lies in the use to which the three expressions are to be put. At one time “truth,” the divine, saving reality as such (no article) and all that constitutes it, firmly encircles and holds the Christian warrior in the battle. Paul sees more in this truth than we ordinarily should; hence he uses two more terms to indicate two other effects of the truth in this war.
As truth is to be the belt, so “the breastplate” or Brustpanzer is to be “the righteousness.” This is the righteousness of Christ put on by faith, the justitia imputata. No righteousness of our own, justitia acquisita, could be proof against Satan; since it is always still imperfect, it would be promptly pierced. Our righteousness of good works ever needs Christ’s merits and righteousness to cover up its imperfection. After describing the horrible power of our demon foes, as Paul does in v. 12, it would be folly to send us against them with works that our own hands have done.
Here the article is in place, and the genitive is appositional: “the breastplate” = “the righteousness.” The figure is elucidated by the reality it describes; the language is self-interpretative. This is, indeed, the breastplate that covers the vital organs, especially also the heart. A wound in the arm or the leg would not prove fatal. Only the head is comparable, and we see that the helmet covers that. “The righteousness” is forensic as it is in all other connections (verb and adjective, etc., likewise): that quality bestowed by God’s verdict which acquits us of all sin and guilt and declares us righteous for Christ’s sake. It is the central part of all saving truth. The heart of the Word makes our heart invulnerable against Satan.
Ephesians 6:15
15 The third participial clause is more complex. It means literally: “And having shod yourselves as to the feet in readiness of the gospel of the peace.” This literal translation clears up some of the misunderstanding that is due to translations which seek smoothness. The general sense is: ready, eager courage that is due to the gospel which fills us with the peace of God. The context does not support the idea of invading the territory of the enemy, taking the gospel among men in order to snatch them away from the devil. The feet are sandaled for the wicked day, for the battle with the demon host. The idea is not that of solid footing or ground, because sandals furnish no footing, they protect the feet when going over rough ground such as this spirit army might choose for the battle.
The word is “preparedness” and thus “readiness,” here the preparedness which makes us fully ready to plunge into the fight. No article is needed, for the genitive of source defines: “a readiness inspired by the gospel.” It is the gospel “of the peace,” definite, of that peace (objective) which Christ gives us (John 14:27), which then also fills us with the feeling of peace (subjective). The wrath has subsided, God is with us, we are thus ready, eager for the battle unto victory. We are above defeat. We know that if we resist the devil he will flee from us. As the swarms of the Persian armies were scattered like chaff before the onslaught of the Greek hoplite phalanxes of Cyrus as these were singing their battle paean or closing in with ominous silence, so will these countless πνευματικά flee like chaff before the charge of the ready courage instilled by the gospel of the peace.
The peace is in the heart but shows itself in the readiness of the feet. Hence, “having your feet shod.” “Of the peace” is the genitive of the substance. Euanggelion is the proper word, for to bring peace is to carry good news. To be sure, this gospel with its contents of peace is “reality” or “truth.” But see how the words fit! If some “sham” instead of “truth” bound us, we should be lost to begin with. But “truth” must be this peace, made ours by this precious gospel, so that the courage in our hearts makes our feet march with victorious steadiness and courage into the hostile hosts in order to scatter them in defeat.
The introduction of “the peace” into this picture of battle is highly paradoxical. Our peace with God makes us avid for the battle with Satan! It is true, indeed. Without this gospel and its peace our feet would not for one moment stand or go forward against Satan. Who save we men of peace dares to fight him? Occasionally, when these “world tyrants of this darkness” (v. 12) perpetrate exceptional outrages (gangster rule, crimes that cry to high heaven), a protest is voiced by worldly men; but these tyrants are not thereby scattered, the protests soon subside.
We should not overlook the fact that “the righteousness” and “the peace” are correlated as are “truth” and “the gospel.” The terms are beautifully interlocked. They also show a progression. The figure only serves; the literal actualities unfold. Rom. 5:1 thus joins our having been declared righteous with the resultant peace with God. Paul’s writing is incomparable. Sit at the feet of this spiritual master and learn.
Ephesians 6:16
16 The readings vary between ἐν and ἐπί, the former having a little better textual support. But this is reduced when we note that the old Latin versions translate the participle as though it were present and not aorist. This is the very point: “in all things taking up the shield” (present, iterative: “on all occasions”). But not: “in all things having taken up” (aorist like the preceding participle). To let “in all” mean in all the previous acts, makes belt, breastplate, sandals, and shield a confused mass. Nor can v. 16 serve as the preamble to v. 17, for the latter is marked off by καί, and “in all” then hangs in the air.
No; the four aorist participles (v. 14–16) belong together. The second and the third are added cumulatively by “and.” Instead of using another “and” (cumulative coordination) Paul now lifts the fourth member to a greater height with ἐπὶπᾶσιν: “in addition to all things” having taken up the shield of the faith.
The genitive is again appositional: “the shield” = “the faith” just as “the breastplate” = “the righteousness.” A large number of writers regard “the faith” as subjective: fides qua creditur, the faith with which we believe, especially those who regard “truth” and “the righteousness” as subjective moral qualities. Nothing is generally said about the article: “the faith.” The Greek may or may not have the article with abstract nouns; the English often omits it where the Greek needs it. The Greek use of the article does, however, make a difference. Look at “truth” and at “the righteousness.” We cannot agree with C.-K. when he states that “faith” is never used in the sense of quae creditur, that which is believed (objective). We have found “the faith” used in this sense a goodly number of times; it would be strange, indeed, if the English used the word in this objective sense and not also the Greek. Some of the interpreters note that “faith” is a correlative term: our believing always involves the object which faith embraces.
These come nearer to Paul’s meaning. And “the (objective) faith” likewise always involves subjective faith. “The faith” is something that is actually believed by believers; if it were not embraced by believers it could not be called “the faith.”
What is meant by “all the blazing missiles of the wicked one,” which we shall be able to quench with this shield, “the faith”? “Temptations,” we are told. Very well. But what are they, and why are they called “missiles,” βέλη, arrows or darts, malleoli, arrows tipped with burning cotton and pitch (not poisoned arrows, as some think), not falaricae, the great spears hurled from a catapult during the siege of a fortress.
Paul is describing an open battle. The devil tempted Eve by hurling at her the doubt regarding God’s word: “Did God really say?” How could and should she have quenched that blazing arrow? As Jesus did when Satan shot the same kind of arrows at him during the temptation in the desert. Each time the arrow was quenched in the shield, not of, “I believe,” but of, “It is written.” Eve’s answer should have been: “Most certainly God did say!”
Here is the answer as to what “the faith” means when it is used as the shield against the blazing arrows. Luther: “One little word overthrows him.” Hold up to the devil, not merely your believing or subjective faith, but the Word, the doctrine, the pertinent Scripture passage, the objective content of faith, of course, also with your whole heart believing, relying on its truth and power. You may believe with all your might, but that will not be a quenching shield; Satan will easily pierce that, and you will be set on fire. Everything depends on what you believe. Hold up “the faith” (objective); this extinguishes every tempting lie of the wicked one. The participle contains the subjective factor. You do not take up this shield unless you believe that it will do what it did for Jesus, what Paul says it will ever do.
The θυρεός is the long-shield, scutum, about four feet high, extending from the top of the greaves at the knee to the level of the eyes. Hoplites in line literally held an extended wall before their bodies. The ἀσπίς, clypeus, was round, 2½ feet in diameter, and was carried by the cavalryman. “The wicked one” = “the devil” of v. 11, but the new term recalls “the wickedness” and “the wicked day” of v. 12, 13. This word always means actively, viciously wicked in hostility to God. The singular does not restrict the arrows to Satan as though he alone shot them; they are all his no matter who shoots them. An attributive after an intervening genitive has the article.
The perfect participle “having been set on fire” has its present implication: thus blazing now. This word is significant. The mind is to be set on fire with lies. On entering, the fire sets up a conflagration which turns everything to ruin and ashes. What a graphic picture of the devil’s temptation! What a fire was started by Eve’s temptation!
It still burns on and on, a world-wide conflagration, and see the ashes it has left!
It is not necessary to make the effort to save Paul from incongruity. Since common shields do not extinguish fiery arrows, some let the infinitive mean only “to make burning ineffective.” But where does the verb have that meaning (M.-M. 570)? Then Paul strains the figure beyond the reality. It is a fact. Jesus, too, does the same thing because earthly figures are too weak always to picture the great realities in an adequate way. And these are arrows tipped with unearthly fire, and a divine shield does quench that fire most promptly. Let the reality exceed the image, both will then be better understood.
In the panoply of God note the four objective items: truth—the righteousness—the gospel of the peace—the faith. Again, the subjective, personal appropriation for the purpose of the battle, the participles: girded—put on—shod—having taken up. When “faith” is made subjective, there is an inclination to take it as corresponding to “righteousness”; but Paul has the proper order: truth—the righteousness—the gospel—and in addition to these the faith, which is as objective as the rest.
Ephesians 6:17
17 When Paul continues with the finite verb, this is scarcely due to the intervening relative clause, because he could have followed this with participles just as he uses participles after the relative clause in v. 17. The imperative marks the division; first a group of four (v. 14–16), next a group of three, “and” connects the two. And the helmet of the salvation do you take and the sword of the Spirit, which means God’s utterance; by means of all prayer and petition (ever) praying on every occasion in spirit and thereunto (ever) being vigilant in all steadfastness and petition for all the saints, etc.
The object is now placed before the verb which makes the object emphatic; then, since the verb is placed between the two objects, the second object also becomes distinct. The genitive is again appositional: “the helmet” = “the salvation.” Perhaps the neuter τὸσωτήριον instead of the commonly used abstract ἡσωτηρία is a reminiscence of Isa. 59:17 where Jehovah arms himself with the helmet of salvation. But this salvation is neither an ideal possession that is yet to be realized, which would be a poor protection for the soldier’s head, nor the hope of future salvation (Thayer and others) despite 1 Thess. 5:8: “as a helmet, hope of salvation”; for “hope” is lacking in this passage. This is our present salvation. That which saves and keeps safe (τὸσωτήριον) protects the head from a fatal or a disabling blow.
Next “the sword of the Spirit,” the one offensive weapon in this entire armament. Hear the genitive denotes a person and cannot therefore be appositional. This plainly differentiates “the helmet of salvation” from “the sword of the Spirit” even as the two are as widely separated as possible by having the verb placed between them. Yet these two have been combined by some interpreters: “make your own the Word of God as the helmet on your head, pointing to and assuring salvation, and as a sword insuring victory.” “Sword” and “helmet” are two distinct parts of the armor. The genitive is the genitive of source: the Spirit’s sword is invincible.
The relative clause defines this μάχαιρα, the short sword, the regular weapon of the Roman hoplite. “Of the Spirit” is not explicative, for it is the relative clause that is the explication of the expression “the sword of the Spirit.” Ὅἐστιν is an idiom which is used without much regard to the gender (or even number) of the antecedent or of the following predicate (R. 411): “which means,” etc. The supposition that ὅ has derived its gender from Πνεῦμα or from ῥῆμα is untenable.
“God’s utterance” (no article) is purely qualitative. Paul does not use logos, which points to substance; but, as in 5:26 and notably in the temptation account in Matt. 4:4, ῥῆμα = “utterance.” It is this because it leaves God’s mouth. So one need no think of the writing in Scripture although this records the utterance by inerrant inspiration; nor of “the preached Word”, for although it is the same utterance, when it is preached it passes through our mouth; nor of the idea of meaning (logos), for no utterance of God is devoid of meaning. “God’s utterance” as an “utterance,” as “going forth out of God’s mouth” (Matt. 4:4), makes it “the sword of the Spirit” that is so deadly in striking down the foe of God and of man. When we use it in our battle we are to use it only as “God’s utterance.” We must also use it unaltered, just as God uttered it. Any alteration takes the power and the edge off this sword.
To be sure, this is “God’s utterance” and thus “the sword of the Spirit.” In that utterance lies God’s power; Rom. 1:16 uses “God’s power” to define the gospel. That utterance, we may say, is the expression of God’s will. In Rom. 10:17 we have “Christ’s utterance” (which is the same) in its beneficent power producing faith and salvation. In Heb. 6:5, “God’s good utterance” which one tastes. That “utterance” should be the sword before which the demon host flees is one of the surprising facts of Scripture revelation. Since they are intangible because they are “spirit forces,” the opposite of “blood and flesh” (v. 12), we must have a weapon that is able to crush these hosts, and this is it.
This does not imply that the Word can be used by Paul only in one way in this picture of the panoply of God, namely as a sword. That is only its offensive power. As truth the Word belts us; as the gospel of the peace it puts the readiness of courage into our hearts; as the faith, the doctrines which we believe, teach, and confess, it shields us against any and all of the wicked one’s lies. In addition to all this (ἐπὶπᾶσιν) the Word and utterance smites and defeats our foe himself. What a true description this is of the Word of God! What a call, then, to every one of us to arm himself with it!
Ephesians 6:18
18 Now there follow two present participles. Being participles, they present the subordinate part of our equipment. Although there are two participles, we see that they are bound together and describe one thing. Being durative present tenses, they differ decidedly from the aorist participles used in v. 14–16, which denote but a single act. These participles do not modify a verb, neither στῆτε (v. 14), as some suppose, nor δέξασθε (v. 17), as others prefer; they are nominative plurals and modify the subject “you” that runs through v. 13–17 and still further describe the armament of the Christians. In one word, this is prayer, but prayer in the Biblical sense, answered prayer which brings to our aid the mighty help of God himself.
Since prayer is always an activity, the terms used are of that kind. We wield the power of prayer. This does not place prayer on a level with the Word, its righteousness and its salvation; the very wording with durative participles excludes such ideas. Prayer must be listed here because it brings our divine ally to our side in the battle on the wicked day (v. 13). Thus the figure of the panoply is no longer needed.
Διά states the means: “by means of all prayer and petition (ever) praying on every occasion in spirit,” etc. The word used for “prayer” and “praying” is the religious term that is used to designate the act of worship that is directed to God and is never used when men are addressed. The word for “petition” (our versions, “supplication”) is also employed when we ask favors of men. “Prayer” includes all forms, “petition” notes the cries for help when in need. So also Paul says: “by means of all prayer and petition,” not a single kind being neglected or omitted.
The participle is durative (iterative), yet Paul adds: “on every occasion,” ἐνπαντὶκαιρῷ. It has been denied that this refers to specific occasions, crises in the conflict, and it is claimed that Paul means “habitually,” on all kinds of occasions, “without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). But we should not forget “the wicked day” (v. 13) and the context of battle. We, indeed, pray daily, we ever keep the prayerful attitude of spirit; but every one of us has experienced those special occasions when in dire need we cry to God for help and strength with intensity.
The phrase ἐνπνεύματι is generally understood to mean: “in union with the Spirit,” especially since he is the Spirit of prayer. Then, however, we find the absence of the article strange, the more so since “the Spirit” has just been mentioned, and the article of previous reference would be in place. To be sure, as in the case of “God” and other words that denote that there is only the one of its kind in existence, the article is frequently absent when the Spirit is referred to. The matter is not so simple. The article is omitted in scores of adverbial phrases; look at ἐκψυχῆς in v. 6. What is still more decisive is the use of “spirit” (not “Spirit,” our versions) in Gal. 5:16–25 and 6:8 (see the author’s exegesis of the nine words), and also elsewhere.
We are to pray “in spirit.” To say that this would be self-evident is to overlook our experience. This is the very point to be stressed because the spirit, the new man in us (4:23, 24), is often languid even in critical days and needs stimulation. Nor does “in spirit” ignore the Holy Spirit; for none of us prays in spirit save by the Spirit’s help.
Because “in spirit” is Paul’s meaning he adds: “and thereunto (ever) being vigilant in all steadfastness,” etc. It is our spirit that must keep vigilant unto prayer, yea, vigilant “in all steadfastness.” We have already said that the two participles describe one and not two acts. Satan loves to lull the new man to sleep, at least not to be wide awake, so that he may catch us unawares. Ἀγρυπνεῖν = to remain without sleep, awake, and thus vigilant. Synonymous are γρηγορεῖν, to watch with effort, and νήφειν, to be weary. The verb Paul uses here conveys the idea of never being off guard with respect to these enemies who would like to find us heedless and secure. “In all steadfastness” (which is better than “perseverance,” our versions, compare the participle in Acts 2:42, 46) means more than constancy in prayer. It is the steadfastness of the spirit of these warriors in their entire battle, the same idea that is expressed by the command: “Stand, then!” in v. 14.
Keep the phrase where Paul has it, viz., with “being vigilant”; for he himself has tied the two participles together, once by “thereunto,” and again by repeating: in all … “petition.” The latter is especially obvious, for “thereunto” already resumes the idea of praying by means of all prayer and petition. Some find fault with Paul for having a superfluous second mention of “petition,” it is really a third mention. But Paul always knows what he is writing. And here the matter is obvious. “Steadfastness” and “petition” are diverse, the one is a virtue and quality of the “spirit,” the other a begging prayer. The latter so plainly repeats this word as to weld into one idea the two participial clauses. Prayer is the power we wield, vigilance is not a second power; it is only the alertness in using the prayer power.
Yet the repetition is not a mere reiteration. It would scarcely be that in Paul’s writings save for a plain reason. “Petition” ushers in all that follows: “petition regarding all the saints and in behalf of me, that to me,” etc. The two phrases are highly significant. The first includes the entire Una Sancta and all that Paul has written about it in his entire epistle. “All the saints” = the Una Sancta. They include all the Ephesians, and here Paul does not differentiate and say: “petition for yourselves and for all the saints.” This is one army standing against one other army. All the saints stand as a unit, none stands alone.
See the full force of that. The thought, so often met today, is far from Paul’s mind: If only I myself stand, or only my congregation, I am satisfied. The Una Sancta is one. Petition for self is to be intercession for all.
Ephesians 6:19
19 But does that not also include Paul? Most assuredly it does. That is why Paul changes the preposition (not as a mere matter of style); and that is why Paul adds what the Ephesians are to ask of God for him. Ἵνα is not final (contra R., W. P.) but non-final; it states the contents of the petition to be offered for Paul. This is something that differs from what the Ephesians are to ask for the whole Una Sancta, of which they and Paul are equally members: and in behalf of me, that to me be given the floor by opening my mouth in boldness to make known the mystery of the gospel in behalf of which I am an ambassador in a chain, that in it I speak boldly as it is necessary that I speak.
This petition is distinct and could be offered only in behalf of Paul. To make known the mystery of the gospel recalls all that Paul has said in 3:3 about having had this mystery made known to him by revelation, and in 3:9 about the administration of this mystery once hidden in God but now made known even in the angelic world. In 3:11–22 Paul unfolded the whole mystery as it pertained to the Gentile believers in Ephesus, they with the Jewish believers being one body of Christ. Thus as “all the saints” includes all that this epistle contains about the Una Sancta, “me” includes all that the epistle contains about the special office of the gospel, that the Una Sancta embraces equally Jewish and Gentile believers, all being the one body of Christ.
There is a difference of opinion in regard to the meaning of λόγος. Thayer defines it as “faculty of speech,” B.-P., Reden, C.-K. passes by our passage; our versions come close to the thought with their translation “utterance.” We submit that the expression is parliamentary, forensic, and a court term. The president, judge, or king says like Agrippa in Acts 26:1: “Thou art permitted to speak!” In an assembly one “is given the floor.” The German says: “Ich bitte ums Wort!” and receives the permission: “Sie haben das Wort!” Here the expression agrees with “I am an ambassador,” which points to a court. The emperor or the king receives the ambassador, nods, and thus permits him to deliver his message.
Paul is thinking of the day he was so anxiously awaiting when he would stand before the imperial court or before the emperor to whom he had appealed his case. But see the vividness of Paul’s mind. He sees himself in the most paradoxical light: a prisoner before a judge, and yet this role fades out into an ambassador sent by Christ, the King of kings, standing in the throne room of Nero, delivering the message of his King to the pagan imperial court. Wonderful double picture, indeed! To be given logos is to be given the floor, the right to speak. The ambassadorial figure adds the note of great dignity to that of order and also the idea of vast import to the message thus to be transmitted.
The A. V. punctuates more correctly than the R. V., for we should construe: “by opening of my mouth in boldness to make known the mystery of the gospel.” The point is this bold making known. Some combine λόγος with at least the first phrase: “utterance in opening of my mouth.” Opening the mouth is a common expression for making a public address or a long explanation. But the emphasis is on the παρρησία, which is, therefore, also repeated in the verb used in v. 20: liberty to say anything with nothing compelling restraint such as fear. The aorist infinitive is effective: actually to make known; call it an infinitive of purpose. “The mystery of the gospel” has been elucidated by Paul himself as we have shown.
The commonly held view is that Paul is thinking of his preaching in general, that the Ephesians are to pray that he may have adequate boldness for that. But Paul is thinking of far more, namely of the climax that would be reached when his case would finally come before the imperial court, where perhaps the emperor himself or at least his representative would preside. Then Paul would be told to give an account of his teaching and doctrine. Then the hour would come when he was to lay before the highest tribunal in the world the gospel of the King who had sent him to bear his name before kings (Acts 9:15). Then he must speak not as an intimidated prisoner but as a true ambassador. Paul had the promise of Christ for that high moment (Matt. 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11, 12; 21:12–15).
Paul was not worried; but he knows that the fulfillment is obtained by prayer. He is not thinking of his own safety but of rising to the great occasion, of doing full justice to the gospel as a true ambassador should. That is why he asks for the intercession of the Ephesians.
Ephesians 6:20
20 Hence the relative clause: “in behalf of which I am an ambassador in a chain,” plus the purpose clause which is parallel to the infinitive, “in order that I may speak boldly as it is necessary that I speak.” Πρεσβεύω = to be an ambassador (2 Cor. 5:20); it is derived from πρεσβύτερος, because an older person was usually sent as an ambassador. But to speak of “Paul the aged” because he uses this verb has no more warrant than to conclude that in 2 Cor. 5:20 “we are ambassadors” means that all these ministers were aged men.
Regarding the question of being chained see the author’s comments on Acts 26:29; 28:20. Since he was a Roman citizen, Paul wore no fetters; Acts 22:29 shows how frightened Lysias was on discovering that he had fettered the Roman citizen Paul. During the entire imprisonment in Caesarea Paul wore no chain or chains; neither did he do so during the time of the journey to Rome. Not until Burrhus put Paul into the lightest military custody in Rome by letting him live in his own house was one light chain employed. This was done merely in order to save placing more than one soldier over Paul as a guard. To the one soldier Paul was fastened by a chain at the wrists.
In Acts 26:29 the neuter plural = bondage and not “chains.” 2 Tim. 1:16 refers to Paul’s second imprisonment when he was closely confined and soon to be condemned and executed. Even in 2 Tim. 1:16 only one chain is mentioned.
Yet this light chain and the idea of an ambassador clash as a paradox. To put a chain upon an ambassador is to insult the government he represents. The fact that the imperial court and Burrhus, the head of the imperial guard who had the custody of Paul, acted ignorantly still leaves the strange reality: an ambassador in a chain. The Roman authority that was soon to pass on Paul’s case saw him only as a prisoner who had appealed his case to the emperor; Paul sees more. When his case is at last called, it will be his great obligation to act as Christ’s ambassador to even that supreme court, even if Nero himself presides as the judge. Men might see the half, Paul saw the whole. He puts it into only two words, but they are striking.
The freedom of speech, usually translated “boldness,” is defined by Paul himself: “as it is necessary that I utter.” It is the freedom befitting an ambassador of Christ, that he be unhampered in stating his message (gospel) which he is to deliver also to kings (Acts 9:15). No fear about his own person is to act as a restraint. Δεῖ is used to express all kinds of necessity or obligation according to the context; λαλῆσαι is the proper word in the proper tense. The substance has already been stated: “the mystery of the gospel”; this must be adequately “uttered.”
The Conclusion
Ephesians 6:21
21 Tychicus was to carry the three letters (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon) to their respective destinations. He was also to deliver the slave Onesimus to Philemon, his master, in Colosse. So Paul closes: Now in order that you, too, may know the things concerning me, how I am faring, everything Tychicus shall make known to you, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord; whom I have sent to you for this very thing in order that you may get to know the things concerning us, and he may comfort your hearts.
Colossians 4:7–9 has these same words. The Ephesians were deeply interested in Paul who had founded their congregation (read Acts 20:17–38) and had labored among them for so long a time. They would want to know everything about Paul. Tychicus is commissioned to satisfy this desire. He could tell far more than Paul could write unless Paul wanted to mar the balance he has kept in his letter.
Colossians 4:9 shows that Tychicus was not a Colossian, yet Acts 20:4 calls him an “Asian,” a native of Asia Minor. He is mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:12. We lack further details save that he was one of Paul’s assistants, a commissioner that was to help to take the great collection to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4), a man of high character, beloved by Paul personally. “A faithful minister in the Lord” (one concept) means one who rendered voluntary service as a “fellow slave” of Paul’s in the work of the church by aiding Paul in this work. “In the Lord” modifies only “minister,” the term “brother” needing no further modification. In this capacity of ministering Tychicus was now serving.
The aorist is probably ingressive: “get to know.” “Also you” means “like the Colossians.” The chief mission of Tychicus was to take Onesimus to Colosse and to carry Paul’s letter that was correcting certain errors to the Colossians. Tychicus would tell the Ephesians about his chief mission. We have discussed the untenable conclusion that is based on this “also” (καί) in our introduction, which see. “The things concerning me” is explained by “how I am faring.” The latter does not mean, “What I am doing”; it is a classic idiom. The sick Gorgas, for instance, is asked: τὶπράττοι; So Tychicus will tell the Ephesians “everything.”
Ephesians 6:22
22 In fact, Paul sent him to do this very thing, this was one of the purposes for which he is sent. The aorist is epistolary, the writer thinking of the moment when the sentence is read in Ephesus. “I sent (our idiom: have sent) to you” means that Tychicus is sent to the Ephesians and not merely to Colosse for a specific purpose.
Now Paul uses the ingressive γνῶτε and adds this to εἰδῆτε. The latter means to know the facts; it expresses the relation of the object to the subject. The other adds the relation of the subject to the object; it conveys the idea of the personal interest and concern of the Ephesians regarding the facts. But when he touches this Paul makes the object “the things concerning us.” To say that “us” = “me” is unwarranted. No writer uses “I” and the majestic or the editorial “we” in one and the same sentence. There were others with Paul (Col. 4:10–15), and he includes them.
Paul would never think only of himself. But this generous spirit extends farther. As regards himself Paul uses the verb which simply denotes knowing the facts; but when he combines those others with himself he writes the verb that indicates knowing with personal concern. That, indeed, reveals the apostle’s spirit.
Because the verb has this meaning, Paul adds the personal interest he has in mind: “and he may comfort your hearts” (the R. V.’s “ye” is correct). Because they were anxious and uncertain about Paul’s situation, the definite news brought by Tychicus in person will assure and comfort the Ephesians. They will get complete answers to all their questions. Paul does not indicate that he expects soon to be set free as he does in Philippians. All that we are able to say is that at this time Paul was faring well enough, much as he had been since coming to Rome. According to the context the verb here used may mean admonish (4:1), encourage, urge, and also comfort, which latter is its meaning here.
Tychicus sailed to the harbor of Ephesus, visited the Ephesians, and then went on to Colosse with the slave Onesimus. See our introduction on this point. The assumption that, after landing, Tychicus sent Onesimus on to Colosse is untenable: no runaway slave could safely travel alone; the nearer he approached home, the greater was the danger of being recognized and summarily arrested. The two were together in Ephesus and then went on from there. “With Onesimus” in Col. 4:9 makes this quite certain. In our introduction we have already stated why Paul could not have recommended the slave to the Ephesians as a brother and otherwise. It would have been the height of tactlessness to commend this slave to any church before his master had dealt with him, before also the Colossian church had accepted him as a brother.
Why does Paul not add greetings from those who are with him? Some assume that this omission is proof positive that Ephesians was an encyclical, was a letter that was not intended for Ephesus. We have answered this question in our introduction. No less than five of Paul’s letters to congregations lack greetings, only four have them, in Philippians there is no mention of an individual. Why this difference? This is the real question and not the one regarding Ephesians alone.
A blanket answer regarding the five cannot be given. Each letter stands by itself whether it is with or without greetings from or to individuals or from churches. That means that we can give only very tentative and partial answers to the questions as to why five letters are minus greetings, why four have greetings, and why these greetings are what they are, in one letter (Romans) a long list, in one only a summary (Philippians), both of these letters being different from the other two as far as greetings are concerned. As regards Ephesians, personal greetings are not missed by those who see the exalted subject and tone of the epistle. Colossians belongs in a different class.
Ephesians 6:23
23 Now the closing benediction. Peace to the brethren and love in company with faith from God as Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! The grace with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in connection with incorruption!
This is a double benediction, the second is wider than the first, both are the more impressive because they are phrased in the third and not in the second person. The grace and the peace of the greeting (1:2) are now reversed, the effect is placed before the source. This is proper after the full effect has been set forth. On the meaning of the two words see 1:2.
Paul does not write: “Peace and love and faith.” He inserts the dative between the first two and adds the third with a preposition. So we take “peace” to be objective like “the grace.” As peace is the fruit of grace, so love is the fruit of faith, in both instances the fruit is named first. This is our love to God and to the brethren, ἀγάπη, the love of intelligence and corresponding purpose (see 1:4). Μετά = “in company with faith” as the fruit accompanies the tree. Faith must ever bear fruit because of the peace which God sheds abroad in our hearts. Behold the great Una Sancta under the sun of God’s peace, its faith fruiting in love!
All this “from God Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” We have the unmodified nouns, and the statement is striking on this account. In v. 24 we have the usual form for the Second Person of the Godhead. Both persons are here again placed on an equality as being the source of saving gifts. That is the point to be observed. The fact that the Father is the causa principalis and fons primarius while Christ is the causa medians and fons secundarius is not expressed. In ἀπό the picture is that of blessing coming “from” God and Christ to us.
Ephesians 6:24
24 “The brethren” = the Ephesians who are Paul’s brethren as Tychicus is a beloved brother (v. 21), Paul being one of this blessed number. But this epistle has dealt with the entire Una Sancta of all places and all ages. So Paul reaches out to all of the members of the church. He fittingly goes back to “the grace,” which is articulated because no “from” follows. This source and fountain of all spiritual blessings, which is itself the supreme blessing for all sinners, Paul would have accompany (again μετά) “all those loving our Lord Jesus Christ (on this designation see 1:17). It is worth noting that when blessings are mentioned the recipients are so often named according to their love to God and to Christ, compare Rom. 9:28.
The participle characterizes: “all the lovers” of Christ. The thought of merit in their love for him is cut off by “the grace” which means unmerited favor and by their very love which only God’s grace has produced. Whereas in v. 23 “love” means especially love to the brethren, the love to Christ is now added. What “the grace” will be for all these lovers is thus apparent: daily forgiveness and all the gifts of him who first loved them.
There is some difficulty regarding the final phrase, both as to its construction and as to its meaning. Luther translates with an adverb, unverrueckt; English translators have followed him: “in pureness,” “sincerely,” “unfeignedly,” R., W. P., “never diminishing.” All of these construe the phrase with the participle. But this meaning cannot be substantiated linguistically and would be a strange way of expressing undying love. Moreover, the phrase should then be closer to the participle and thus make “Jesus Christ” the final word of the entire epistle, a matter Paul would scarcely have overlooked if he had wanted to say what these translators find. A few connect adverbially with “the grace”: “grace in eternity”; “grace that all may have eternal life.” But the distance between this modifier and “grace” is too great. “Our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption” also fails to satisfy. If the risen and glorified Lord were referred to, this phrase would not express such a thought.
It is certain that ἀφθαρσία means “incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 53, 54; 2 Tim. 1:10). It is equally certain that Paul does not close this epistle with a minor but with a major concept. Then it is plain that ἐν = “in connection with” and to “the grace” for all Christ’s lovers adds “incorruption,” a blessed condition that corruption shall never be able to destroy. Such an ἐν may stand at the end of this epistle as this ἐν does. Paul could not write καί and a nominative, for “the grace” and “incorruption” are not coordinate; Paul does not write “and” between love and faith in v. 23 but there, too, uses a preposition. He could not use μετά which he has already used with the lovers because this would make “incorruption” the major and “the grace” the minor even as “faith” is major to “love,” its fruit. “In” is the proper preposition, but not as denoting the sphere of “the grace”; “in” may express any kind of a connection or union with something else according to the nature of the concepts involved.
So here: “the (divine) grace in connection with incorruption.” Yet 4:19 is not comparable (see above). Also, ἀφθορία and ἀδιαφθορία, Unverdorbenheit, purity, are not “incorruption.”
The surprise felt by so many regarding this closing phrase turns to admiration when Paul’s meaning is understood. The Una Sancta described in this epistle was founded in the mind of God in eternity and shall endure to all eternity. Since it is composed of all the lovers of Christ, this benediction rests upon them: “the (divine) grace—in connection with incorruption.”
Soli Deo Gloria
R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
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.