Live in Love, 1-4

5:1 Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved children 5:2 and live in love, just as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God. 5:3 But among you there must not be either sexual immorality, impurity of any kind, or greed, as these are not fitting for the saints. 5:4 Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting—all of which are out of character—but rather thanksgiving. 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Like Father, Like Child, Eph 5:1-2

Therefore – These two verses are transitional. They provide a vital rationale for holy living: we are to live moral and upright lives not as some kind of ‘rule-keeping’ exercise, but so that we can become more like the God who has saved us. There must be a ‘family likeness’ between the Father and his children.

Be imitators of God – In many important respects, it is utterly impossible for us to imitate God: indeed, ‘You shall become like God’ was the great lie of the serpent and remains the essence of irreligion. We cannot copy God, for example, in either his creative or his redemptive work. Yet in the areas of attitude and relationships, we can and must follow our Maker. Especially we are to become more like our heavenly Father in this matter of forgiveness. Those who have received forgiveness from God, must show it to others. ‘Like Father, like child.’

Live a life of love – The imitation of God is widened from forgiveness, Eph 4:32, to the whole sphere of love. And this not fitfully, or occasionally, but as the habit of a lifetime.

• Eph 3:17 And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love…
• Eph 4:2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
• Eph 4:15 Speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.
• Jn 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
• 1 Co 16:14 Do everything in love.
• Col 3:14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
• 1 Pet 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
• 1 Jn 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Just as Christ loved as… – This is the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of Christian love. Our love should be modelled on that of Christ, whose love was expressed in the sacrificial giving of himself on behalf of others.

…and gave himself up for us – ‘There is not a single place in Paul’s writings, nor in the New Testament generally, where the death of Christ can be spoken of as only an example to be followed, without the further expression of its atoning significance.’ (Foulkes) The verb us here is also used of the heathen, Eph 4:19: some give themselves up to licentiousness; we are to follow Christ, who gave himself up in order that we might be saved.

• Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
• Jn 15:12-13 “my command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.  Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
• Tit 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
• 1 Pet 2:21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps…1 Pet 2:24 (NIV) he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
• 1 Jn 3:16 (NIV) This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

Our love or each other is to be modelled after Christ’s love for us.  He ‘gave himself up for us’.  Such love is a painful, sacrificial love.

‘The Chinese Christian theologian Choan-Seng Song tells us that in Chinese “one is required to say the two words ‘love’ and ‘pain’ almost in the same breath.  I am referring to the expression ‘pain-love’…A mother feels pain-love for her child.  Husband and wife feel pain-love for each other.  Inherent in such aa pain-love is self-sacrifice.  Through the intensely human experience of pain-love we can surmise what God’s love for the world may be like…The cross is God’s excruciating pain-love.  It is rooted in the love of the God who bears pain for the world.’ (Christopher Lamb, Belief in a Mixed Society.

A fragrant offering – This term describes the acceptability of Christ’s death. It was an offering which pleased God.

Gen 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.”

‘Not that God took any delight or content in the bitter sufferings of Christ, simply and in themselves considered; but with relation to the end for which he was offered, even our redemption and salvation. Hence arose the delight and pleasure God had in it; this made him take pleasure in bruising, him, Isa 53:10. God smelled a savour of rest in this sacrifice. The meaning is, that as men are offended with a stench, and their stomachs rise at it, and on the contrary delighted with sweet doors and fragrances; so the blessed God speaking after the manner of man, is offended, and filled with loathing, and abhorrence by our sins; but infinitely pleased and delighted in the offering of Christ for them, which came up as an odour of sweet smelling savour to him, Whereof the costly perfumes under the law were types and shadows.’ (Flavel)

Sacrifice to God – This term describes the essence of Christ’s death. It was the laying down of his own life as a ransom, 1 Tim 2:6, and a propitiation, Rom 3:25.

Heb 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Coarse joking – eutrapelia occurs only here in the NT, and Paul’s precise meaning is accordingly difficult to determine.  Usage elsewhere, along with the context, suggest that what we would call ‘dirty jokes’ are out of place among God’s people.

Thanksgiving – ‘Our cheerfulness should show itself as becomes Christians, in what may tend to God’s glory.’ (MHCC)

Greedy person – such a man is an idolater – ‘A covetous man makes a god of his money; places that hope, confidence, and delight, in worldly good, which should be in God only.’ (MHCC)

‘Those who allow themselves, either in the lusts of the flesh or the love of the world, belong not to the kingdom of grace, nor shall they come to the kingdom of glory.’ (MHCC)

‘Little do they think that worldliness is a most guiltful sin in respect of God, and most hurtful in respect of men. Hark what the Word of God saith of it, Eph 5:5, – it is idolatry, and idolatry is the first sin of the first table.’ (Richard Capel)

Live in the Light, 5-14

5:6 Let nobody deceive you with empty words, for because of these things God’s wrath comes on the sons of disobedience. 5:7 Therefore do not be partakers with them, 5:8 for you were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of the light—5:9 for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth—5:10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 5:11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 5:12 For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. 5:13 But all things being exposed by the light are made evident. 5:14 For everything made evident is light, and for this reason it says:
“Awake, O sleeper!
Rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you!”

God’s wrath – ‘Dare we make light of that which brings down the wrath of God?’ (MHCC)

In Jonathan Edward’s famous words:

‘The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons to a conviction of their danger. This that you have heard is the case of every one out of Christ. That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell’s wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor anything to take hold of, there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.’

You were once darkness – ‘Not merely unenlightened or ill-informed’, but:

‘wrapt in a dense fog-bank of moral hallucinations, Satanically blinded therewithal and glorying in their shame.’ (Simpson)

‘Darkness, like a minus quantity, symbolises a yawning deficiency, a destitution of the most essential element of life, the light of day. Their quondam darkness, notwithstanding all the palliatives invented to gloss over the real situation, lay under a curse and blight of sterility; but the Spirit of life by whom they have been visited vivifies all he touches and fosters in his seedlings the self-evidencing fruitage of the spiritual orchard.’ (Cf. Rom 6:21) (Simpson)

Blind to their enemy, and therefore powerless against him:

‘The Christless state is a state of ignorance, and such must needs be naked and unarmed. He that cannot see his enemy, how can he ward oft the blow he sends? One seeing prophet leads a whole army of blind men whither he pleaseth. The imperfect knowledge saints have here, is Satan’s advantage against them; he often takes them on the blind side; how easily then may he, with a parcel of good words, carry the blind soul out of his way, who knows not a step of the right!’ (Gurnall)

But now you are light in the Lord – This is the only way that spiritual blindness can be cured:

‘This darkness cannot be enlightened, but by its union with Christ, which is expressed in the following phrase, ‘But now are ye light in the Lord.’ As the eye of the body once put out, can never be restored by the creature’s art, so neither can the spiritual eye, lost by Adam’s sin, be restored by the teaching of men and angels.’ (Gurnall)

This is striking: not just formerly in the darkness, and now in the light. Paul is referring not just to their environment, but to their very lives:

‘Sinners, like men in the dark, are going they know not whither, and doing they know not what.’ (MHCC)

‘When the vilest transgressors repent and believe the gospel, they become children of obedience, from whom God’s wrath is turned away.’ (MHCC)

The fruit of the light – Paul likens goodness and truth to a harvest ripening under the light of the sun.

Foulkes says that this is closely connected with v8, given that v9 is parenthetical.  The same thought is taken up on v17.

Find out what pleases the Lord – Not what suits ourselves, but what pleases him. How do we find this out? – By consulting God’s word, Isa 8:20; by considering the example of Christ.

The word translated ‘find out’ implies ‘careful thought and discrimination. The light of God is given, but it does not free us from the responsibility of thought and choice.’ (Foulkes).  See also Rom 12:2.

‘The word dokimazō means “putting to the test,” “proving,” “examining.” The Christian life is not just a simple”] acceptance of doctrines and rules; believers exercise intelligent judgment as they relate their theology to specific moral situations.’ (Patzia)

‘The desires and choices of those who walk in the light are governed by their prior determination, to please not themselves (Gal 1:10), but their Lord (2 Cor 5:9; Phil 4:18; Col 1:10).’ (Foulkes)

Patzia observes that ‘euarestos‘ (well-pleasing) usually carries a sacrificial connotation (as in Rom 12:1; Phil 4:18).  Beare:

‘here it suggests the thought that the life of the Christian is ever laid upon the altar. All of our actions are to be an offering to God … and we must therefore take care that they are acceptable to him.’

The fruitless deeds of darkness – ‘These works of darkness are unfruitful, whatever profit they may boast; for they end in the destruction of the impenitent sinner…There are many ways of abetting, or taking part in the sins of others; by commendation, counsel, consent, or concealment. And if we share with others in their sins, we must expect to share in their plagues.’ (MHCC)

But rather expose them – ‘If we do not reprove the sins of others, we have fellowship with them.’ (MHCC)

‘A distinction seems to be drawn between two discrepant classes of transgressions. Some are too foul to be mentioned by sanctified lips. These ranker abominations, like rotting carcases, ought to be buried out of sight. But iniquities of a less heinous cast, compatible with a conscience not utterly seared, should be rebuked by shedding the light of heaven on their obliquity.’ (Simpson)

It is said – What follows seems to be an adaptation of Isa 26:19; 60:1. However, the wording of the last line suggests that a fragment of an early Christian hymn is being quoted.

‘After the example of prophets and apostles, we should call on those asleep and dead in sin, to awake and arise, that Christ may give them light.’ (MHCC)

Live Wisely, 15-20

5:15 Therefore be very careful how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 5:16 taking advantage of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 5:17 For this reason do not be foolish, but be wise by understanding what the Lord’s will is. 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit, 5:19 speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music in your hearts to the Lord, 5:20 always giving thanks to God the Father for each other in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:21 and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Those who travel over boggy or uneven ground cannot afford to ‘take it easy’ as those walking on an even surface may do. Similarly, those who live in difficult times must take special care to watch their step.

‘They are to “market” the time allotted to them, to turn it to good account like the faithful servants in the parable of the Talents. Opportunities are ever on the wing: they must be seized and husbanded or else spurned and missed, for as a rule they do not recur.Paul counsels them to buy them up with sanctified ingenuity, even as shrewd hands purchase properties at a favourable juncture, or as the intelligent husbandman improves the fleeting hour. Time may be gained as well as lost. Too many dawdlers “let the years slip through their fingers like water” to no worthy purpose…”A man’s situation,” says Burke, “is the preceptor of his duty;” and in a higher sphere the signals of providence are to be read with enlightened judgement. But duty itself is not optional, nor has the imperative mood properly any future tense.’ (Simpson)

Therefore – ‘Because the danger is so great, the wickedness to appalling, the opportunity to precious, and because constant watchfulness, earnest effort, and unwavering zeal are so necessary, do not be absurd.’ (Hendriksen)

Do not be foolish – Do not be without reflection or understanding.

Understand what the Lord’s will is – Do not depend on you own understanding; do not regard the advice of others as the ultimate touchstone of what is true and right. Let the will of the Lord be your guide.

Prov 3:5, ‘Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.’

We need to discern both God’s general will and his particular will:

‘Jesus himself prayed, “Not my will but yours be done,” and taught us to pray, “May your will be done on earth as in heaven.” Nothing is more important in life than to discover and do the will of God. Moreover, in seeking to discover it, it is essential to distinguish between his “general” and his “particular” will. The former is so called because it relates to the generality of his people and is the same for all of us, e.g. to make us like Christ. His particular will, however, extending to the particularities of our life, is different for each of us, e.g. what career we should follow, whether we should marry, and if so whom. Only after this distinction has been made can we consider how we may find out “what the will of the Lord is.” His “general” will is found in Scripture; the will of God for the people of God has been reveals in the Word of God. But we shall not find his “particular” will in Scripture. To be sure we shall find general principles in Scripture to guide us, but detailed decisions have to be made after careful thought and prayer and the seeking of advice from mature and experienced believers.’

(John Stott, Authentic Christianity, 248)

Fee points out that the background to this lies, not in Acts 2:13, but in the preceding verses of the current passage, which began at Eph 4:17. In an initial set of ‘before’ and ‘after’ contrasts, Eph 4:17-24, Paul has mentioned in Eph 4:18 that those outside Christ have their understanding ‘darkened’. This is picked up again in Eph 5:8, where Paul uses the motif in a variety of ways. In the present verse, drunkenness is mentioned as one of the ‘deeds of darkness’. The sense is, ‘Never get drunk…always be filled by the Spirit.’

Paul does not here emphasis any ecstatic aspects of the Spirit’s presence, as though there is a direct spiritual counterpart to being drunk with wine. Rather, it is the Spirit’s sanctifying influence which is in view, as in Gal 5:16.

Paul does not say, ‘Be full of the Spirit’, but, ‘Be filled by the Spirit’. Filled, then, with what? Paul’s prayer in Eph 3:17-19 was that ‘Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith,’ and that ‘you may be filled to the measure of all the fulness of God.’:

‘Here, then, is the ultimate imperative in the Pauline corpus: God’s people so filled by/with the Spirit’s own presence that they come to know God in all his fullness and reflect such in the way they live in relationship to one another and to God himself.’ (Fee, 722)

It is, no doubt, an individual responsibility to be filled with the Spirit. But the immediate context here draws attention to its corporate aspect. There is a need for God’s people collectively to be so ‘full of God’ by his Spirit that their worship and mutually submissive relationships witness to the Spirit’s presence.

Examples of being ‘filled’ with the Holy Spirit: John the Baptist, Lk 1:15; his parents, Lk 1:41,67; our Lord, Lk 4:1; Peter, Acts 4:8; Stephen, Acts 6:5; 7:55; Saul, Acts 9:17; 13:9; Barnabas, Acts 11:24. See also Acts 2:4; 4:31; 6:3; 13:52. It sometimes appears to be a permanent endowment, Acts 6:5; 9:17; 11:24; at others a particular empowering for a special occasion, Acts 4:8; 13:9.

There are no references to anyone actually being filled with the Spirit outside Luke’s writings. The injunction in Eph 5:18 could mean,

1. ‘be filled with the Spirit’;
2. ‘be filled in (the sphere of) the Spirit’;
3. ‘be filled in (your) spirit’ (ie in your higher faculties rather than your lower).

Whatever the correct rendering of this verse, it is clear that the NT as a whole encourages us all to experience in fullest measure the indwelling, enriching, and empowering of the Holy Spirit.

This is one of a series of basic principles of conduct (cf. Eph 4:1,17 5:1) laid down as a sequel to the great doctrinal statements of chapters 1-3. Being filled with the Spirit is not so much a euphoric experience as an ethical imperative.

Paul is not teaching a new experience here, one which his readers had not encountered before. Cf. Acts 19:1-7; Eph 1:13-14. The NT knows nothing of believers who have not received and been sealed or baptised with the Holy Spirit. Nor is Paul teaching a single, definitive experience. The tense is in the present continuous: ‘Go on being filled’. Furthermore, Paul is not teaching an experience to receive so much as a duty to carry out. Cf. Gal 5:16ff. We are not passively inert in our relationship with the Holy Spirit. If we lack spirituality, it is not because God has withheld something but because of personal failure.

‘To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be filled with the immediate presence of God himself, and it therefore will result in feeling what God feels, desiring what God desires, doing what God wants, speaking by God’s power, praying and ministering in God’s strength, and knowing with the knowledge which God himself gives.’ (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 649)

How can someone already filled keep on being filled? Note what happened to Peter: he had been filled on the Day of Pentecost; yet was filled again a few days later in order to meet a new challenge, Acts 4:8. Similarly with Paul in Paphos, Acts 13:9. Our spiritual life can only be maintained by a continual replenishment, Jn 1:16. Thus Jesus taught his followers to seek the Holy Spirit, Mt 7:7ff. We are not only to come to Christ, but to ‘abide’ in him, Jn 15:4.

A helpful analogy:

‘Someone might object that a person who is already “full” of the Holy Spirit cannot become more full – if a glass is full of water no more water can be put into it. But a water glass is a poor analogy for us as real people, for God is able to cause us to grow and to be able to contain much more of the Holy Spirit’s fullness and power. A better analogy might be a balloon, which can be “full” of air even though it has very little air in it. When more air is blown in, the balloon expands and in a sense it is “more full.” So it is with us: we can be filled with the Holy Spirit and at the same time be able to receive much more of the Holy Spirit as well. It was only Jesus himself to whom the Father gave the Spirit without measure, Jn 3:34.’

(Grudem, Systematic Theology, 782)

What are the signs of being Spirit-filled? First, it will be in sharp contrast to the extravagance, the hedonism, the self-confidence of drunkenness. Being filled with the Spirit is not another kind of intoxication, 1 Cor 14:32. The apostles on the Day of Pentecost were completely self-controlled and lucid. There is no necessary connection between the filling of the Holy Spirit and swooning, chanting, and other physical or emotional effects. On the other hand, the contrast with being drunk reminds of the allegation on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:13, and that the fullness of the Spirit is accompanied by a holy exhilaration: the Spirit-filled Christian is on fire for God. The fullness of the Spirit brings both order and ardour. Second, it will lead to such spiritual and moral features as Paul describes in Eph 5:18-6:9. There will be spiritual edifying and God-glorifying praise; (cf Col 3:16; Ps 40:3) gratitude in all things; (cf. Job 1:21; Ps 145:2; Php 4:11) transformed relationships, defined in the form or duties, rather than rights, Php 2:5; Eph 5:22ff;

On the results of spiritual fullness:

‘Such fullness of the Holy Spirit will result in renewed worship and thanksgiving, Eph 5:19f, and in renewed relationships to others, especially those in authority over us or those under our authority, Eph 5:21-6-9. In addition, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit who sanctifies us, such a filling will often result in increased sanctification. Furthermore, since the Holy Spirit is the one who empowers us for Christian service and gives us spiritual gifts, such filling will often result in increased power for ministry and increased effectiveness and perhaps diversity in the use of spiritual gifts.’

(Grudem, Systematic Theology, 781f)

To be filled with the Spirit means to be comprehensively guided and empowered by him:

‘Men are said to be filled with wine when completely under its influence. In the same way, they are said to be filled with the Spirit when he controls all their thoughts, feelings, words, and actions. (see Lk 4:1; Acts 6:5; 11:24) To the Christian, therefore, the source of strength and joy is not wine, but the blessed Spirit of God. Just as drunkenness produces rioting and debauchery, so the Holy Spirit produces a joy which expresses itself in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs.’ (Hodge)

On the juxtaposition of ‘not drunk with with’ but ‘filled with the Spirit’:

‘At first sight this juxtaposition seems a trifle incongruous; but on maturer reflection we remember how the disciples on the day of Pentecost were charged with drunkenness, albeit groundlessly. Signal manifestations of the Spirit in seasons of revival have not seldom been accompanied by phenomena easily confounded with physical intoxication; and scenes of this description Paul had doubtlessly witnessed. The “gift of tongues” itself had features that might be stigmatised as delirium.’ (1 Cor 14:23) (Simpson)

What is the evidence of being filled with the Spirit? –

‘It is not excessive emotionalism or spectacular phenomena (note that nothing is said here about either speaking with tongues or gifts of healing), but rather the following types of behaviour:-

• worshiping God together and thus edifying one another;
• making music in our hearts to the Lord – a joyful inner disposition;
• always giving thanks to God for everything;
• submitting ourselves to fellow Christians out of reverence for Christ.’

1. It is in the imperative mood. It is not optional, but obligatory. We have no more liberty to avoid this responsibility than the many others which accompany it in Eph.
2. It is in the plural form. It is addressed to the whole Christian community. None of us is to get drunk; all of us are to be Spirit-filled. It is not a privilege for the elite, an optional extra for honours students or outstanding saints, but the duty of the rank and file.
3. It is in the passive voice. ‘Let the Holy Spirit fill you’ (NEB). There is no technique to follow or formula to recite. What is essential is repentance of all that grieves the Holy Spirit and a believing openness so that nothing hinders us from being filled. Note that the parallel passage in Col reads, ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly’, 3:16. The Word and the Spirit are never to be separated: to obey the Word and to surrender to the Spirit are virtually the same thing.
4. It is in the present continuous tense. This implies that we are to go on being filled. The fullness of the Spirit is not a once-for-all experience which can never be lost, but a privilege to be renewed continuously by faith and obedience. We have been ‘sealed’ with the Spirit once and for all; we need to be filled with the Spirit and go on being filled every moment and every day.

‘The two chief spheres in which this fulness is manifest are worship and fellowship. If we are filled with the Spirit, we shall be praising Christ and thanking our Father, and we shall be speaking and submitting to one another. The Holy Spirit puts us in a right relationship with both God and man. It is in these spiritual qualities and activities, not in supernatural phenomena, that we should look for primary evidence of the Holy Spirit’s fullness.’ (Stott, Baptism and Fullness, 59f)

This verse does not support the claim that after becoming a Christian a single, definitive filling is essential for completion.

‘Being filled with the Spirit is not a once-for-all experience. When Paul commands: “Be filled with the Spirit” he is speaking in the present continuous tense which gives the meaning “Go on being filled with the Spirit.” D.L. Moody once said, “I am filled with the Holy Spirit, but I leak.”‘ (Charles Sibthorpe, A Man Under Authority)

Speak to one another – indicating the horizontal aspect of worship, whereby we encourage and instruct each other. Examples: ‘Stand up and bless the Lord’; ‘O worship the King’. It is interesting to think of examples of hymns and songs in which thoughts are addressed:-

1. To oneself: ‘Be still, my soul’
2. To one another: ‘Stand up and bless the Lord’; ‘Come, let us join our cheerful songs’
3. From oneself to God: ‘O love that will not let me go’
4. From ourselves to God: ‘We love the place, O God’
5. To God in the third person

Making music – Lincoln says, with regard to this expression, that

‘although its original meaning involved plucking a stringed instrument, ψάλλω here means to make music by singing (cf. also 1 Cor 14:15; Jas 5:13), so that there is no reference in this verse to instrumental accompaniment.’

Bill Mounce agrees, saying that the word was used in classical Greek to describe playing a stringed instrument, then singing to a the accompaniment of a harp, and then simply singing.  None of the mentions in the NT (Rom 15:9; 1 Cor 14:15 (2x); Eph 5:1; James 5:13) imply anything more than singing.

Cpnsider the argument of Gotquestions.org regarding the use of musical instruments in Christian worship.  First, a stream of OT references is presented to support the (obvious) point that musical instruments were employed in worship in OT times.  Then, it is noted that, despite the absence of any reference in the NT to musical instruments being used in Christian worship, the fact that the NT nowhere condemns their use is taken to indicate that OT usage was continued in the NT church.  Because the early church consisted ‘almost entirely of Jews’ (really??), ‘it is highly likely that they continued using musical instruments in the church, just as they did in Old Testament worship.’  Finally, the expression used in this verse is based on a Greek word (‘psallontes‘) which was ‘commonly used’ to refer to strumming or plucking a stringed instrument.  This argumention is weak.  On the meaning of the Greek word, see the note above.

In your heart – rather ‘with your heart’, ‘because the exhortation is not to silent, but to heartfelt worship. In congregational singing the outward expression of praise must not outrun the spirit of inward devotion. As the mouth sings the words, so the heart is lifted up to the Lord.’ (Wilson) Cf. Jn 4:24.

On the characteristics of Christian worship:

‘God does not prescribe for Christian worship in the detailed fashion of Old Testament times, but the New Testament shows clearly what the staple ingredients of corporate Christian worship are, namely, praise (“psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,” Eph 5:19), prayer, and preaching, with regular administration of the Lord’s Supper (Ac 20:7-11). Singing to God’s praise was evidently a big thing in the apostolic church, as it has been in all movements of spiritual power ever since: Paul and Barnabas, along with their praying (aloud), sang hymns in the prison in Philippi, (Ac 16:25) and the New Testament contains a number of what appear to be hymn fragments (Eph 5:14; Php 2:6-11; 1 Tim 3:16; and others) while the “new songs” of Revelation are both numerous and exuberant, indeed ecstatic (Rev 4:8,11; 5:9-10,12-13; 7:10,12; 11:15,17-18; 12:10-12; 15:3-4; 19:1-8; 21:3-4). Any local church anywhere that is spiritually alive will undoubtedly take its singing, praying, and preaching very seriously indeed, and be jealous for all three.’

(Packer, Concise Theology)

As is evident in the Old Testament, the Hebrew faith emphasized the joy of singing to the Lord, but Christianity is even more profoundly a singing faith. Singing can help to make teaching and preaching even more useful. The Colossians were to emphasize the ministry of teaching and admonition by the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

To the Lord – indicating the vertical aspect of worship, whereby we address the Lord directly when we sing. Examples: ‘King of glory, King of peace’; ‘All things praise thee, Lord most high’

As the form of the verb (submitting…’ indicates, ‘this passage [Eph 5:21-33] is directly dependent on the exhortation of Eph 5:18, “be filled with the Spirit.” One of the means of being filled with the Spirit is “submitting to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph 5:21). This indicates that an attitude of self-denial and a concern for the needs of others is an essential part of what it means to live as a Christian within the community of believers. At the same time, Paul affirms that the filling of the Spirit is also predicated upon fulfilling a set of distinctive role obligations for each social grouping within the Christian household. In other words, the work of the Spirit can be hindered by individual self-centeredness that is displayed by rejecting a proper Christian role in relationships and an attitude of giving of oneself to others.’ (Arnold)

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ – The word translated ‘submit’ is hypotassō.  It means ‘to take a subordinate role in relation to that of another’ (Lincoln).  The middle voice indicates that Paul is envisioning a voluntary, rather than an imposed or servile, submission.

‘The verb ὑποτάσσω refers to the ordering of something underneath something else, and when the passive voice of the verb is used of people (as it is here), it often refers to the voluntary “submission” of one person to another (BDAG 1042). People should place their minds underneath God’s authority (but often do not do this; Rom. 8:7; cf. 10:3); people should place themselves under the divinely ordained governmental authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1); the Corinthian church should submit to the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:16); wives should, similarly, submit themselves to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5), and slaves should do the same with respect to their masters (Titus 2:9).’ (Thielman)

‘Maintaining due subordination in the various relations of life. This general principle of religion the apostle proceeds now to illustrate in reference to wives, Eph 5:22-24; to children, Eph 6:1-3; and to servants, Eph 6:5-8. At the same time that he enforces this duty of submission, however, he enjoins on others to use their authority in a proper manner, and gives solemn injunctions that there should be no abuse of power. Particularly he enjoins on husbands the duty of loving their wives with all tenderness, Eph 5:25-33; on fathers, the duty of treating their children so that they might easily obey them, Eph 6:4; and on masters, the duty of treating their servants with kindness, remembering that they have a Master also in heaven, Eph 6:9. The general meaning here is, that Christianity does not break up the relations of life, and produce disorder, lawlessness, and insubordination; but that it will confirm every proper authority, and make every just yoke lighter. Infidelity is always disorganizing; Christianity never.’ (Barnes)

Exhortations to Households, 22-33

5:22  Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 5:23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church—he himself being the savior of the body. 5:24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord – Verses 18-24 constitute a single sentence, beginning with the command to ‘be filled with the Spirit’.  Everything else in this section flows from that.  Moreover, there is no verb in v22.  The flow of thought is from the general to the particular: ‘…submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ: wives to your own husbands as to the Lord…’

An (untranslated) idioi (‘their own’) indicates that Paul is referring to the submission of wives to their own husbands (not, for example, to the submission of all women to all men).

This passage (Eph 5:22-6:9) takes the form of a set of household rules.  These were common amongst the Greeks and the Jews, although it was only the latter that included provisions for the protection of women and children.  Similar guidelines are found in Col 3:18-4:1 and 1 Pet 2:18-3:7.  Some see in the command for reciprocal submission (v21) as revolutionary, and implying that husbands should submit to wives, and parents to children.  But, in fact, the rules are quite conservative, and indicate that Christians were not to subvert the more general social order.  But Paul’s teaching differs from households rules that are found outside the NT by appealing, not to political structures such as the state or the city, but to Christ himself as the source and motivation.  Paul’s teaching is also radical in the dignity which he ascribes to wives, children and slaves, and in the way in which he denies absolute authority to the husband, stressing that all domestic relationships are to be subsumed within our relationship to the Lord.

1. 1. The argument from creation: the man was made first, then the woman, and the woman was made to benefit the man as a suitable helper for him.
   2. The argument from the story of the Fall: the woman was first in the transgression, and God decreed in judgement that henceforth her husband should rule over her.
   3. The argument from Paul’s statement that the man is the head whom the wife is to obey, as Christ is the Head whom the church is to obey, 1 Cor 11:3 Eph 5:23.
   4. The argument based on Paul’s words ‘does not nature itself teach you?’, 1 Cor 11:14. This was really an appeal to the hierarchical principle embedded in the then current cultural consensus, rather than to the Bible itself.

Writing the the Women’s Bible Commentary, E. Elizabeth Johnson, writes of this letter’s ‘rather unfortunate view of marriage.’

Here is one sphere of our spiritual warfare:

‘The juxtaposition of the household code to the passage on spiritual warfare (Eph 6:10–20) likely suggests that this is one of the spheres of Satan’s attack. It is crucial for the various members of the Christian household to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and to appropriate the enabling power of God (Eph 6:10–18) to resist the attacks of the evil one directed at these important and foundational relationships.’ (Arnold)

Lincoln notes that he verb used here is ὑποτάσσεσθαι, “to submit, be subordinate,” while that employed in the case of children and slaves is ὑπακούειν, “to obey”.  However, this difference should not be pressed too far:

‘There is obviously a difference between willing submission and imposed obedience but hardly a major distinction between voluntary subordination and voluntary obedience. Here the obedience of children and slaves is to be seen as part of the mutual subordination enjoined in v 21. Elsewhere in the NT, in 1 Pet 3:5, 6, submission of wives to husbands and obedience of wives to husbands are explicitly paralleled.’

Lincoln continues:

‘As the next verse will explain, what is involved here is that in voluntarily subordinating herself to her husband the wife is to see this as done in subordination to the Lord, because in the marriage relationship her husband reflects the Lord while she reflects the Church.’

As to the Lord – as part of their commitment to the Lord.

This removes the injunction far from any thought of forcible subjugation:

‘A Christian husband no more subjugates his wife to his will through intimidation or force than Christ forcibly subjugates the church to his will. Christ subjugates his enemies, but not his disciples. By placing wifely submission in the context of Jesus and his church, Paul clearly teaches that the husband-wife relationship should not be one of animosity, antagonism, servitude, or oppression, but one of love and respect.’

(Kenneth V. Neller, in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol 1)

Arnold emphasises that the apostle is writing of relationships within the home:

‘The basic idea presented here and repeated in Eph 5:24b is that women should not seek to assert themselves in the home in a way that could be viewed as ruling, controlling, or dominating. Rather, they must acknowledge the God-given role assigned to the husband and respect the leadership he endeavors to provide for the family.’

Thielman: There is no assumption of natural inferiority here (contra Aristotle and his followers).  Nor is there any hint that all women you submit to all men.

For Calvin, submission is a ‘universal requirements’ within which ‘there are some types of relationship in which it is more particularly enjoined’:

‘The first of these is marriage, the second is parenthood, the third is employment. There are six different social classes, and Paul lays down the duties of each. He begins with wives, who are to submit to their husbands as they would submit to Christ. It is not that husbands possess Christ’s authority, but wives cannot obey him unless they submit to their husbands.’

According to Chesna Hinkley,

‘The oppressed woman is encouraged to subvert the authority of her husband by giving her deference and service to Christ. As the household code in Colossians puts it: “whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, and not for human masters…it is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Col 3:23-24).’

This appears to be the opposite of what the apostle is actually saying.

The husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – But is this headship in the sense of Eph 1 (authorithy, leadership), or chapter 4 (source, nourishment)?  Bartlett gives four contextual reasons for favouring the ‘chapter 4’ interpretation:

(1) Paul’s use of apposition in verse 23;

(2) the theme of saviourhood in verses 25–33;

(3) Paul’s use of Genesis; and

(4) the first word of verse 24.

According to Ian Paul, the idea of ‘headship’ suggests servant leadership:

‘The submission of wives in v 21 is closely linked to the idea of the husband as ‘head’ in v 23, and there is no discussion of ‘origins’ here. However, it has been suggested that this is a a midrash (Jewish-style commentary) on Gen 2, and from v 25 the focus is on the husband ‘going ahead’ and taking the initiative. ‘”Head” then means head servant, and refers to a sort of servant leadership (cf Luke 22.25ff)’. (Quoting Witherington)

The biblical quotation in full:

Lk 22:25-27 – So Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves.For who is greater, the one who is seated at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is seated at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.”

‘There is, of course, an Old Testament background to this in the way that the prophets regarded the Lord as husband of his people, entering into a marriage covenant with them, and loving them with steadfast love, even when, because of their idolatry, they were like an unfaithful wife who had committed adultery (e.g. Isa. 54:1–8; 62:4–5; Jer. 3:6–14; 31:32; Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3).’ (Foulkes, TNTC)

Body – In his book, Rise and be healed, Benny Hinn writes that ‘the Bible says in Eph 5:23 that Jesus Christ is the savior of the body…If Jesus Christ is the savior of the body, then your body ought to be made whole.’ This is, of course, an absurd interpretation: ‘the body’ in this verse is ‘his body’ – the church.

Of which he is Saviour – ‘Paul pictures the wife’s submission as the recognition of the authority of a husband who imitates the self-sacrificial, nurturing, and supporting roles that Christ fills with respect to the church.’ (Thielman)

As the Tidballs remark, Paul grounds his teaching on male headship within the family on the new creation (salvation in Christ) rather than on the old creation:

‘Christ became the Saviour of his church by himself voluntarily submitting his body to torture and death…not by being self-assertive, or self-protective, nor by standing on his status and demanding obedience, but by sacrificial self-giving love.’

(The Message of Women, p242)

Wives should submit to their husbands – Some expositors (e.g. Foulkes) stress that Paul is talking only of marital and family relations here.  The implication drawn is that

‘she may fulfil any function and any responsibility in society, but if she has accepted before God the responsibility of marriage and of a family, these must be her first concern.’

But we must ask, in response, what the rationale would be for the differences between men and women to apply only to marriage and family life, and not at all to any other area of life?  Is this not to (literally!) domesticate the word of God?

In everything – I.H. Marshall claims that

‘this would suggest that no area of a wife’s life is outside the jurisdiction of her husband. It is hard to believe that any modern Christian husband would take this in such a comprehensive manner so that he could (at least in theory) interfere in any aspect of her life.’ (Discovering Biblical Equality).

But, surely, Paul expects this to be qualified by common sense.  He does not mean ‘in everything, no matter how silly or sinful’, any more than in 2 Cor 4:8; 7:5, when he says that he was ‘oppressed in every way’ (same expression) he means that he experienced every known affliction. (Thielman)

5:25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 5:27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious—not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.

Husbands, love your wives – Ancient household codes never commanded husbands to love their wives, only wives to obey their husbands.

Equally sweeping demands:

‘The sweeping nature of the demand placed on the wife (ἐν παντί, en panti, in everything; v. 23) is therefore matched by an equally sweeping demand on the husband. Like Christ, the husband is to love (ἀγαπάω, agapaō) his wife by the sacrifice of his own life on his wife’s behalf (cf. Eph 1:7; 2:13–16; 5:2).’ (Thielman)

Thielman points out that contemporary Greco-Roman advice was not devoid of encouragements to mutual love and tenderness.  But:

‘the idea that the husband should expend his life in the care of his wife, however, is unusual. The far more typical approach to marriage was that the wife should manage the household well in order to free the husband from domestic concerns and enhance his social prestige. In contrast, Paul’s comparison between the husband’s love for his wife and Christ’s love for the church implies that the husband’s love for his wife should be so broad and long and high and deep (Eph 3:18–19) that it includes the sacrifice of his own social prestige and well-being, indeed his life, for the sake of his wife (cf. Phil. 2:5–8).’

What this implies:

‘It means not only a practical concern for the welfare of the other, but a continual readiness to subordinate one’s own pleasure and advantage for the benefit of the other. It implies patience and kindliness, humility and courtesy, trust and support (1 Cor 13:4–7). This love means that one is eager to understand what the needs and interests of the other are, and will do everything in his power to supply those needs and further those interests.’ (Mitton)

Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her – Paul’s appeal to the example of Christ is not found in the parallel passage in Col 3:18, nor in 1 Pet 3.  Ian Paul thinks:

‘He seems to make use of it as a contrast to surrounding expectations; whilst he writes only 41 words to the wife, he uses 116 words to encourage the husband, and all in the direction of living out the self-giving love of Christ. This emphasis “has the rhetorical effect of setting up a trajectory or momentum in the direction of a more egalitarian approach to the marital situation.”‘ (Quoting Witherington)

Rebecca McLoughlin argues that whatever else Paul’s teaching might mean, it cannot be used as an excuse for abuse treatment of wives by husbands:

‘How did Christ love the church? By dying on the cross; by giving himself, naked and bleeding, to suffer for her; by putting her needs above his own; by sacrificing everything for her. I asked myself how I would feel if this were the command to wives: Wives, love your husbands to the point of death, putting his needs above yours, and sacrificing yourself for him? Ephesians 5:22 is sometimes critiqued as a mandate for spousal abuse. Tragically, it has been misused that way. But the command to husbands makes that reading impossible. How much more easily could an abuser twist a verse calling his wife to suffer for him, to give herself up for him, to die for him?’ (Confronting Christianity)

‘Hast thou seen the measure of obedience? hear also the measure of love. Wouldst thou that thy wife should obey thee as the Church doth Christ? have care thyself for her, as Christ for the Church.’ (Chrysostom)

Marshall (Discovering Biblical Equality):

‘The command to husbands to love their wives and the fact that a wife is not a slave or a child indicate that something is silently happening to the nature of the relationship. From patriarchalism we have moved to love-patriarchalism, and the road is open to mutual love between brothers and sisters in Christ. This final step was not taken by Paul, any more than he took the step from accepting slavery to recognizing that his own teaching contained the seeds of its inevitable abolition, but this is the direction in which the evidence clearly points. Mutual love transcends submission.’

But this is to confuse two things – slavery and marriage – that have profound differences as well as some similarities.

Cleansing her by the washing with water – Lit. ‘having cleansed her’.  This probably refers to the pre-nuptial washing of the bride, after which she would be perfumed and dressed in her wedding clothes.  She was thereby ‘set apart’ for her husband, just as the church is to be ‘set apart’, or ‘made holy’, for her husband.

Most interpreters think that the reference is to baptism.  Some, however (including O’Brien, Hoehner and Thielman) regard it as a metaphorical reference to the saving power of the gospel.

The word – What word? –

‘It is probably the word of the gospel (cf. Rom. 10:8; 1 Pet. 1:25) rather than the human ‘pledge’ (Bruce) or ‘confession’ of faith (Moffatt) or the ‘baptismal formula’ (Schlier) that is meant.’ (Foulkes)

To present her to himself – One step in the Jewish marriage ceremony was the removal of the bride from her father’s home, and her introduction to the home of the groom.

Radiant – Just as the bride is radiant in her wedding attire:

‘The church is pictured as a young bride of dazzling beauty. Her youth is evident from her unwrinkled skin, and her skin is unblemished as a result both of her youth and of the bridal bath she has just taken. Since the term ἔνδοξος can describe resplendent clothing (Luke 7:25), Paul was probably thinking of the especially beautiful garments that a bride might wear on the day of her wedding.’ (Thielman)

Holy and blameless – ‘Implicit in this claim that the church is the resplendent bride of Christ, then, is a call to live in a way that is consistent with this status.’ (Thielman)

5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 5:29 For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, 5:30 for we are members of his body. 5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 5:32 This mystery is great—but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 5:33 Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

This ‘descent to the more mundane level of self-love’ is probably due to Paul’s realism:

‘We cannot fully grasp the greatness of Christ’s love; it ‘surpasses knowledge’, as he wrote earlier. Nor do husbands find it easy to apply this standard to the realities of family life. But we all know from everyday experience how we love ourselves. Hence the practical usefulness of the ‘golden rule’ Jesus enunciated that we should treat others as we would ourselves like to be treated. For we all know this instinctively. It is after all the way we treat ourselves.’ (Stott)

The same writer adds:

‘This exhortation to a husband to “nourish and cherish” his wife as he does his own body is more than a useful guide to daily behaviour, however. It also contains an inner appropriateness, since he and his wife have in fact become “one flesh”.’

Arnold:

‘Paul’s thought here is that husbands should carefully consider all of the ways that they care for themselves and make sure that they provide the same level of care for their wives.’

O’Brien:

‘The statement applies the second great commandment, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18), in a direct way to the love which the husband should have for his nearest and dearest neighbour, namely, his wife.’

As their own bodies is perhaps an allusion to Gen 2:24 (‘they will become one flesh’), quoted in v31.

‘The idea of husbands loving their wives as their own bodies reflects the model of Christ, whose love for the church can be seen as love for his own body (cf. vv. 23, 30).’ (O’Brien)

He feeds and cares for it – ‘Such self-love is not wrong. It is the law of life, and the extension of it to similar care for one’s life-partner is the law of marriage.’ (Foulkes)

Paul has had this quotation from Gen 2:24 in his mind throughout this discussion about marriage.

‘This statement from the creation story is the most profound and fundamental statement in the whole of Scripture concerning God’s plan for marriage. It has been the ultimate bulwark of the church against the arguments for allowing polygamy to remain in the societies where she has met it; it is the ultimate argument against promiscuity; it is the ultimate reason why the church can have no pleasure in the dissolution of marriage by divorce.’ (Foulkes)

A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife – ‘Prior to marriage a man or a woman has his or her closest bond with parents, and to them has the greatest obligation. The new bond and obligation that marriage involves transcends the old. Filial duty does not cease, but the most intimate relationship now, and the highest loyalty, is that between husband and wife, and parents only imperil that relationship by trying in any way to come between. There must be a leaving of parents on the part of husband and wife, and a corresponding renouncing of rights on the part of parents. Then there is a cleaving of the two together in the ‘one flesh’ (av) relationship, blessed by God and a comfort and blessing to both.’ (Foulkes)

This is a profound mystery – The Western Catholic tradition understood the reference to marriage in Eph 5 as a ‘great mystery’ to mean that it was a sacrament, therefore having a permanent quality like baptism.  This came about in part due to the translation in the latin Vulgate of Gk musterion as sacramentum.  But, apart from the translational problems associated with such a view, it is more likely that the ‘great mystery’ refers not to marriage itself, but to what marriage points to – the union of Christ and the church.

I am talking about Christ and the church – ‘This probably means that the union of husband and wife in “one flesh” was originally intended to prefigure and to illustrate the union that Christ now has with the church.’ (Thielman)

O’Brien thinks that the ‘great mystery’ is not the union between Christ and his church, but rather this union as a paradigm for the union between the believing husband and wife.

Love his wife as he loves himself –

The wife must respect her husband – The verb is lit. ‘fear’.  But this does not mean that the wife is to be ‘afraid’ of her husband, any more than the person who ‘fears’ God is afraid of him.  Such fearfulness cannot co-exist with love (cf. 1 Jn 4:18).