Bible Commentaries
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
Ephesians 5
EPH. 5
"Walk" as a metaphor of general behavior is used in this chapter to admonish Christians to: (1) walk in love (Ephesians 5:1-2); (2) walk in the light (Ephesians 5:3-14); and (3) walk in wisdom (Ephesians 5:15-21). In Ephesians 5:22, Paul began instructions relative to three classes of reciprocal obligations: (1) those between husbands and wives (Ephesians 5:22-33); (2) those between children and parents (Ephesians 5:6:1-4); and (3) those between servants and masters (Ephesians 5:5-9). Only the first of these is in this chapter.
Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell. (Ephesians 5:1-2)
Imitators of God ... The New Testament teaches that the only practical revelation of God is that of Christ himself; and, in view of this, "imitating God" is a commandment to be fulfilled by "walking in love," just as Christ loved us and gave himself for us. Certainly, the teaching here is not to the effect that weak and fallible mortals should in any sense "play God" by usurping to themselves judgments that pertain to God alone.
As Mackay said, "To copy God is to be like a Person, to reflect his image."1 Christians should strive to be like God in forbearance, goodness and love.
The reference to Jewish sacrifices in Ephesians 5:2 has puzzled commentators who have variously understood the nature of Christ's sacrifice (as mentioned here) to be "a sacrifice of consecration (Exodus 29), a peace-offering (Leviticus 3) or a sin-offering (Leviticus 4)."2 Alfred Barry has presented a very interesting and convincing argument based on a similar expression in Hebrews 10:5, and the Old Testament reference there, and upon the peculiar Hebrew usage of these terms, concluding that, "Therefore, we have here a complete summary - all the more striking and characteristic because incidental - of the doctrine of the Atonement."3 Christ was not merely one kind of sacrifice, or offering, but every kind.
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints; nor filthiness, nor foolish talking or jesting, which are not befitting; but rather giving of thanks.
This is another of Paul's catalogues of vice, none of them, not even all of them together being any complete list of sins, but merely typical. Other lists are in Romans 1:29ff, 1 Corinthians 5:11ff, 6:9ff, Galatians 5:19ff and Colossians 3:5ff. Fornication is prominently mentioned in practically all of these, due to its prominence in the pagan culture from which Gentile converts to Christianity had been recruited. As Bruce said:
We may think it strange to see covetousness so closely associated with these vices, but Paul is simply moving from outward manifestations of sin to their inner springs in the cravings of the heart.4
It will be recalled that Christ also did this, tracing murder to the angry thought behind it, and adultery to the lustful heart (Matthew 5:21-27ff).
Not even named among you ... This indicates that such vices as are enumerated here are forbidden to Christians and that it is not fitting that their minds should dwell upon such things or that their tongues should talk about them.
Filthiness ... foolish talking ... jesting ... Filthiness of moral character leads inevitably to filthiness of conversation; and Paul also condemned that. The smutty story, the foolish jesting, the empty nonsense that passes in some quarters for conversation - all of these are proscribed and forbidden. Dummelow interpreted the reference to jesting, etc., as jesting about such sins as were just mentioned. "Do not get near these topics for the sake of being amusing."5 MacKnight rendered jesting as "double meanings," citing that as the meaning of "artfully turned discourse" (Greek), specifically identifying these as "chaste expressions which convey lewd meanings."6
Whereas the Puritans went too far in their over-strict interpretation of Paul's words here, it may not be denied that our own generation has erred in the other direction. This passage condemns much of the conversation of many Christians, which at best, in many cases, is "borderline." Bruce believed that, "Above all, all light and irreverent talk about sacred things is to be utterly reprobated."7
For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
"The phrase kingdom of Christ and God occurs only here in the New Testament."8 It does not indicate two kingdoms, but rather that the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God are one and the same. The deity of Christ is implied in such a construction. Beare claimed that this verse is opposed to Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:23,24 that Christ would "finally deliver the kingdom to God," affirming that such a view is here "abandoned."9 Such a notion is unscientific, illogical and contrary to Scripture. The kingdom of Christ and God, from its inception, was never understood any other way except as the kingdom of both Christ and God.
Let no man deceive you with empty words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience.
Empty words ... refers to the arguments of those opposing the truth by defending the immorality of the pagan culture surrounding the church of those days.
Because of these things ... means because of the gross sins just enumerated by the apostles.
The wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience ... implies more than the ultimate overthrow of evil at the final judgment. Repeatedly, throughout history, when the measure of a people's wickedness had overflowed, God wiped them out in some grand historical upheaval. Paul would mention this a few moments later.
Be not ye therefore partakers with them, for ye were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord: walk as children of the light (for the fruit of the light is all goodness and righteous and truth).
These verses prove the coherence of the whole paragraph beginning with Ephesians 5:3. Up to this point, Paul was describing the "unfruitful works of darkness" (Ephesians 5:11); and the argument of this passage is, "Do not take up the old ways again; you once practiced all that; you know how useless and unfruitful such works are; and you now belong to a new order of things; "Ye are the light in the Lord." The glorious results (fruit) of the new way of living in Christ are all "goodness, righteousness and truth"!
Proving what is well-pleasing unto the Lord.
As "children of light," by continuing to walk in the Christian way, the very achievements of such living would "prove" what was pleasing to God, first to themselves, and secondarily, to all who became aware of what they were doing.
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them.
Reprove ... This word means "expose," and probably should be so translated. There can be no neutrality between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. As Hendriksen said:
Sin must be exposed. One is not being nice to a wicked man by endeavoring to make him feel what a fine fellow he is. The cancerous tumor of sin must be removed. It is not really an act of love to smooth things over, as if the terrible evil of the sons of disobedience is really not so bad.10
For the things which are done by them in secret it is a shame even to speak of.
Although this verse is surely true of all wicked men, MacKnight, and others, have detected a close connection here with the various mystery cults of paganism. His paraphrase of Ephesians 5:11-12 brings this out thus:
And have no fellowship with those who celebrate the heathen mysteries, which being transacted in the darkness of night are really the unfruitful works of darkness, as they bring no fruit to the initiated, except eternal death: But rather reprove them. For the impure and wicked actions which are secretly done in the mysteries by the initiated, are so abominable, that it is base even to mention them.11
But all things when they are reproved are made manifest by the light: for everything that is made manifest is light.
Everything that is made manifest (by the light) is light ... This means "Everything that the light reveals becomes itself light!" Of course, this is literally true. Nothing can be seen, except through its reflection of light; and that which reflects light (as the moon) is in itself light. As Dummelow noted, this very thing had happened to the Christians who received this letter. "Light turns darkness into light; this is what had happened to Paul's readers.12
Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.
Wherefore he saith ... Here again, we have the phenomenon of Paul an apostle of Christ producing Scripture, in exactly the same way as the prophets of the Old Testament, and introducing his words with exactly the same formula, "Thus saith the Lord," "God saith," etc. As Hendriksen said, "There is no sound reason here to interpret this in any other way than in Ephesians 4:8."13 See under Ephesians 4:8 for another example of the same phenomenon.
Despite the obvious, however, the translators and commentators have done a number of strange things with this verse: (1) They have accused Paul of misquoting Scripture; (2) they have suggested that the words here are an early Christian song; and to accommodate that view, they have translated the words of the above clause as "Wherefore it saith!"; (3) they have said, "Through error or forgetfulness, the writer has mistaken this fragment of a Christian hymn to be a quotation from the Old Testament!"14 We categorically reject such interpretations, there being utterly no reason whatever why such views should be trusted.
Look therefore carefully how ye walk, not as unwise, but as wise; redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Christ himself divided the whole human family along this fundamental line of cleavage, "the wise and the foolish," the wise being those who "hear the sayings of Jesus and do them," the foolish being those who hear and do not (Matthew 7:24ff). Paul here referred to that same basic division of mankind, showing that Christians themselves are in no manner exempt from doing God's will.
Redeeming the time ... "This does not carry the idea of paying a particular price, but of `making the most of' the time.15 How true this was of the time when Paul penned these words. Within a very few years, Rome would be burned, and Nero would drown the Christians in blood to divert suspicion from himself that he personally had set it on fire. Jerusalem would fall to the armies of Vespasian and Titus; and the accumulated wrath of God for centuries of rebellion would finally overflow against Israel. Many who read these words for the first time would soon suffer persecution and death. The days were indeed evil; and only a little while remained before the storm would overwhelm the world, only a little while to walk in the light and joy of the loving service of Christ the Lord.
Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is, And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit.
Be not foolish ... Cited here as persons falling into the classification of "foolish" are the drunken. Who are they? Our current society recognizes no drunkards, only "alcoholics"; but persistent indulgers in alcohol receive no comfort from what Paul declared here. It is not even "the drunkard" who is condemned in this place, but the person who "gets drunk," or becomes intoxicated. While true enough that the New Testament does not forbid the use of wine (see below), the person who becomes intoxicated (even once) has violated the admonition here.
The overseer (elder) therefore must be above reproach ... not one (who lingers) beside (his) wine (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7). Deacons similarly (must be) dignified, not ... addicted to much wine (1 Timothy 3:8); and urge aged women similarly (to be) reverent in demeanor ... not enslaved to much wine (Titus 2:3).
Wherein is riot ... Alcohol is the greatest single killer in the United States today. It produces more sorrow than may be attributed to any other single source on earth. It corrupts government, aggravates poverty, destroys spirituality and eventually destroys any society stupid enough to indulge the unrestrained use of it.
But be filled with the Spirit ... Not spirits, but the Holy Spirit is the true watchword. "Satan is ever substituting the bad for the Good. Getting drunk is associated with unrestrained living ... it marks the person who, if he so continues, cannot be saved."16
It has been asked, "If the Holy Spirit indwells us, why does Paul command us to be filled with the Spirit?" Bruce answers this question thus:
Being filled with the Spirit implies more than being indwelt by him. In some believers' lives he has little more than a foothold, being almost crowded out by a number of concerns. Paul is eager that his converts should be under the undisputed control of the Spirit.17
Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.
Speaking one to another ... This reference is probably to the custom of Christians "singing by turns a hymn to Christ, as to a god.18 "By turns" is also rendered "antiphonally"; but from 1 Corinthians 14:26, the custom was actually that of singing by turns.
Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs ... Although these can be differentiated, there is no need to do so. The teaching declares that not all songs are acceptable in the worship of God, but only those with spiritual value.
Regarding the question whether or not the public assemblies or worship services of the Christians are referred to here, it seems best to construe the passage as having exactly that application. To make it applicable to all types of gatherings would be to prohibit a Christian from singing any kind of music except sacred music, a prohibition that does not appear in the passage at all. With Lipscomb and many others it is viewed here as instruction regarding the public worship of the Christians.19
Singing ... The meaning of this term is to produce music vocally; and regardless of ancient meanings attributed to the word [psallo], rendered "making melody" used here in conjunction with it, no translator has ever rendered this verb any other way. God's command for Christians is that they should sing, and if playing instruments of music is an acceptable part of divine worship, it is difficult to understand why it would not have been so stated in this place. Arguments from the ancient meaning of [psallo] are, as F. F. Bruce declared, "irrelevant to the question of instrumental music, one way or the other."20
WHY INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD IS REJECTED
1. There is nothing strange or unusual about some Christians rejecting mechanical music as in any manner appropriate or permissible in Christian worship. The entire Protestant world maintains exactly the same religious position with reference to use of the Rosary of the Virgin Mary, the sign of the cross, the burning of sacred incense, the sprinkling of holy water, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers for souls in purgatory, the lighting of holy candles ... and a hundred other innovative additions to Christianity, as being not taught in the New Testament. The identically same arguments which support the non-use of such devices as those here cited are valid when applied to the use of mechanical instruments of music in God's worship. The burden of proof therefore rests upon those who reject some of the historical church's innovations, but do not reject them all. To many devout souls, it appears mandatory to reject all innovations (Matthew 15:9). No one has ever denied that the use of mechanical instruments in worship was unknown to the New Testament age and that the first historical appearance of them in Christian worship came during the eighth century.
2. It is accepted by many that the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament was an innovative change from David and that the change was not approved by the Lord. This, of course, is vigorously denied by some; but their denials are refuted by the truth that the Orthodox Hebrew Communion through the centuries has clung to the non-use of mechanical instruments, maintaining that God did not approve of them; and they know the teaching of the Old Testament on that point better than any modern scholars.
3. Mechanical music as worship of God is antithetical, by nature, to spiritual religion. From times immemorial, many centuries before Christ came, instruments of music were conspicuously associated with pagan worship (Daniel 3:7); and for the first six and one-half centuries of the Christian faith on earth, they were just as conspicuously omitted from Christian worship. Although Paul did not have such things in mind when he declared that "God is not worshipped with men's hands," the text truly applies to this question (Acts 17:25, KJV). The introduction of mechanical instruments into the worship of Christ involves the service and skills of technical and profession craftsmen who tend to emphasize "art" more and more, and "worship" less and less, resulting usually in the professionalizing of the "singers" as well as the players; and anyone who has ever known the internal workings of a big city church choir can testify to the blight that inevitably follows. There was never anything on earth more "unspiritual."
There are many other persuasive and convincing things to be said on this question, but the above are cited here because they were determinative in the thinking of this writer, at a time when he was a member of a "choir" and struggling with this question himself.
Giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and to God, even the Father; subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.
Giving thanks always for all things ... This cannot mean that a Christian should give thanks because illness, suffering, loss and adversity of many kinds may have fallen upon him, but that he should give thanks for "all things" in every situation that may afford a proper ground of gratitude to God. Thus: When one is young, let him thank God for youth; when he is old, let him thank God that he has been permitted so long to live; in health, for strength and joy; in sickness, for the ministry of physician, nurse, loved ones and friends; in poverty, for the privilege of living "like Jesus"; in wealth, for God's endowments; in death itself, for the hope of eternal life, etc., etc.
Such an admonition as this might seem impossible of obeying, "did we not know full well that Paul had learned to do this, even in the most unpropitious circumstances."21
Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ ... "Paul ceaselessly preached `submission,' or `subjection,' to Roman authority (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Corinthians 14:32-34; 16:16; Titus 3:1).22 This clause is the topical heading for the next three paragraphs of the epistle, as pointed out in the chapter introduction. The first of the three reciprocal relationships discussed is that of husbands and wives, beginning in the next verse.
Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body.
Wives be in subjection ... This is to be understood in the light of the obligation, given a moment later, for the husband to love his wife even as Christ loved the church. There never was any kind of effective organization that functioned without a head. From ants and bees in the insect world to central governments, an effective social unit of any kind requires a head; and it could not have been otherwise with regard to the human family, the oldest of God's organizations among men, being prior to that of any state, or of the church. By the appointment of God himself, the husband was named head of the family. Societies which have reversed this are known as matriarchal; but by definition they are inferior.
As unto the Lord ... "This does not mean that they should yield to their husbands the same deference as they would yield to Christ himself, but that deference is a duty which they owe to the Lord.23
As Christ is the head of the church ... Marriage from the very beginning was prophetic of the spiritual relationship between Christ and his church (the great "mystery" of Ephesians 5:32). Paul begins here to build that analogy.
The saviour of the body ... Here, "The implication seems to be that the husband is the protector and defender of his wife."24
But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.
In the continuing analogy, the true life of the church is her head, who is Christ; and the true achievement and fulfillment of the wife is in her husband. This is the Christian view of the family. The current social unrest could indicate that this ancient concept will be overturned; but if it is ever supplanted by another, women will not, in any sense, gain by the change. Apart from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles, the status of woman in society has tended to be lower and lower; and there can be no doubt whatever that if woman should reject her place in the Christian home, as taught in the New Testament, the same forces which in the past destroyed and degraded her in practically every society on earth would again overwhelm and crush her. Like the poor prodigal who resented the restrictions of his incumbency in the father's house, but found those of the "far country" to be far more cruel and oppressive, woman may choose to forsake the gains of the centuries in the Father's house for the fancied delights of "the far country"; but, if so, she will find, as did the prodigal, that Satan is still in the swine business!
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of the water with the word.
The measure of love that husbands are commanded to give their wives is that of Christ's love of the church. A love that would die for the beloved! Any submission or subjection that a devoted wife might give to her husband would be more than rewarded and justified by such a love as that. Hendriksen was right when he declared, "More excellent love than this is inconceivable."25
That he might sanctify it ... The sanctification in view here is the original consecration of the alien sinner to God's service at the time of his conversion. Any notion of the sanctification here meaning any special state of holiness beyond that first and decisive setting apart unto God is incorrect.
Having cleansed it by the washing of the water with the word ... This is a reference to Christian baptism. "This can scarcely be anything other than baptism; that is what the language would most naturally have conveyed to the original readers."26
With the word ... is understood in two different ways, some holding that it means baptism in response to "the preaching of the gospel,"27 and others supposing that it refers to the confession "with the mouth" by converts prior to and at the time of their being baptized. This prompted Goodspeed's translation thus:
Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her, to consecrate her, after cleansing her with the bath in water through her confession of him.28
It is hard to say which meaning Paul might have intended here for both are true, in the sense of being appropriate.
It is difficult to understand why commentators became exercised about this verse, pausing after allowing that the meaning cannot possibly be anything other than Christian baptism, to include a paragraph or so affirming their repudiation of "baptismal regeneration." "Baptismal regeneration" is not a relevant Scriptural question today. As far as this writer knows, nobody in this century has believed anything even remotely resembling the theory of "baptismal regeneration." The teaching of true believers to the effect that a person must believe and be baptized in order to be saved has no connection with baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration theorists believed that "the external application of water, accompanied by the appropriate words, is sufficient to bring about regeneration.29 Since the Dark Ages, whoever believed a thing like that? On the other hand, regeneration, a work of God, takes place in the sinner at the time of, and when he is baptized. Water baptism is most certainly a precondition of receiving regeneration and forgiveness from God; and ten thousand angels swearing it is not true could not change that; but it is not water which regenerates, it is God who does so when the sinner is baptized. It is very encouraging to see a great Baptist scholar, such as Beasley-Murray, who is willing to admit that such a distinction is valid. He said:
Baptism is the occasion when the Spirit brings to new life him that believes in the Son of man30
If through man's failure to obey the Lord by being baptized that occasion never comes, then neither will newness of life arrive!
Hendriksen also, after the usual disclaimers regarding "baptismal regeneration," rendered the meaning of this verse thus:
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her in order that he might by means of the rite of baptism with water sanctify and cleanse her31
Amen! There cannot be any doubt that such is the true meaning here. But the giving of its proper New Testament place to Christian baptism requires no disclaimers. As Lipscomb said, nothing more is attributed to baptism in this passage32 than in many other New Testament passages, such as:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:15,16).
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. (Acts 2:38).
Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Etc.
In connection with this verse see Titus 3:5, and discussion there.
That he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
The absolute perfection of the church is prophesied here; but the manner of achieving this is left out of sight. It is revealed by Paul in Colossians 1:28. See comment under that verse. Also see article on "Perfection of Christians," under Ephesians 1:4.
Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loves his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church.
The analogy which had been in Paul's mind as far back as Ephesians 5:23, above, is about to be stated emphatically here and in the following four verses. First, there is the practical consideration that: just as Christ provides for every need of the church, nourishing and blessing her in all times and places by all means, so also the husband is obligated to make the care of his wife the principal concern and most urgent business of his whole life. In loving her, he is, after all, only loving himself.
Because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh.
Here (Ephesians 5:31) Paul quoted verbatim the passage from Genesis 2:24, making it the Scriptural basis of the grand analogy between Adam I and Adam II, between Eve and the bride of Christ.
Because we are members of his body ... Paul here says of the bride of Christ, what Adam said of his bride, "bone of my bones ... flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23). Without the inspiration of one like Paul, people would probably never have known the magnificent analogy concealed in the creation story itself as a prophecy and prefiguration of the church. Paul had long understood the "mystery" mentioned here, having brought it to light by various earlier references to it. In 2Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:3), he pointed out that Satan's seduction of the bride of the first Adam suggested the seduction by Satan of the bride of the second Adam (the church).
ADAM AND EVE ... CHRIST AND THE BRIDE
Adam naturally provides the great type of Christ. Just as Adam was progenitor of all living, so Christ is the author of life in himself. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. When Eve was formed, a deep sleep fell upon Adam, and Eve was taken from his side. In the redemptive act on the cross, the deep sleep of death came upon Christ; his side was pierced; blood and water came forth, these emblems of the two great Christian ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, making it possible to see (in a figurative sense) that the church came forth from the side of Christ. Satan beguiled Eve, and likewise the church, luring her into the great apostasy. There are extensive analogies in this, one of them appearing particularly in these verses, that being the oneness of Adam with his bride forming a prophecy of the oneness of Christ and the church.
This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband.
Hendriksen pointed out that the Vulgate mistranslation of the passage, "This mystery is Great" reads thus "sacramentum hoc magnum".33 "It is upon this sole basis that the Roman church set up the claim that marriage is a sacrament.34 As Hendriksen said, "If the simple fact had been observed that Mystery is the word Paul used here, (such) a mistake would never have occurred."35
The RSV rendition of "This mystery is great" reads, "I take it to mean"! However, as Foy E. Wallace said, "Paul did not take it to mean anything; he said exactly what the great mystery is;36 The exalted view, both of marriage and of the church of Jesus Christ, shines forth in this text. The sacredness of marriage is seen in God's design of it, from the very beginning, to be a figure of the union of Christ and his church; and the glorious importance of the church appears in the fact of its having been in the design of God from the very beginning. Despite all of these wonderful thoughts, however, Paul, will still conclude with a practical thought:
Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife ... Let the husband think of himself as the protection, defender and provider for his wife, even as Christ is of the church.
And let each wife see that she fears her husband ... This has none of the connotations usually associated with "fear" in common speech today. "It means reverence and respect. It is the kind of fear that the Bible so frequently calls on individuals to show before God.37
Add Comment
Comments