Chapter 5
5:1-2- Chapter 4 ends by stating in v. 32, “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” Therefore, as we are God’s beloved children, we are to imitate our heavenly Father. We are to be like Him (Luke 6:36, 1 Peter 1:16). There is a natural tendency for children to imitate and be like their parents. As we have been graciously adopted as children of God, we ought to desire to be like our Father. Interestingly, considering the very next verse, we are given Christ Jesus as an example. Being imitators of the Son and the Father are synonymous. In 1 Thess. 1:6, Paul says, “You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit.” And in 1 Cor. 11:1, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” Charles Hodge remarks, “We should be like Christ, which is being like God, for Christ is God. The apostle makes no distinction between our being the objects of God’s love and our being the objects of the love of Christ. We are to be imitators of God in love, for Christ hath loved us.”
Paul tells us to “walk in love” just as Christ loved us by offering Himself as a sacrifice to God. This is an incredibly high standard much like in Phil. 2:5-8. As we’ve seen in 2:2, 2:10; 4:1, 4:17, the Hebrew idiom of “walking” conveys how a person lives and conducts their lives. Paul will even use this as the standard by which husbands ought to love their wives in 5:25. The specific “love” Paul has in mind here is a self-sacrificial nature just like Christ had throughout His ministry on earth that culminated in His death on the cross (Mark 10:45).
Constantine Campbell notes that the terminology used to describe Jesus’ death: offering, sacrifice to God, fragrant aroma, “point directly to the Hebrew sacrificial system in which burnt offerings were presented to to atone for sin (e.g. Exod. 12:27; Lev. 1:19, 13, 17; 2:2; 6:4; 23:18; Ps. 39:7 LXX). As such, Jesus’ self-giving is clearly presented as a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, and the New Testament always reserves such overtones for the death of Christ on the cross.”
5:3-4- We would never attribute sexual immorality, impurity, greed, etc. to God! If we are to be imitators of God, our heavenly Father, none of these should be attributed to His saints either! The word often translated as “sexual immorality" or “fornication” is the Greek word porneia. This is simply an umbrella term that refers to illicit sexual intercourse (sexual intercourse forbidden by law). Francis Foulkes notes that it “involves all that works against the life-long union of one man and one woman within the sanctity of the marriage bond.” John Stott observes that pairing both fornication and impurity together here in verse 3“cover every kind of sexual sin, in other words all sexual intercourse outside its God-ordained context of a loving marriage.” An explicit and particularly egregious example of this can be seen in 1 Cor 5:1 where a man was having sexual relations with his father’s mother (thought by many to be his step-mother). Rom. 1:26-27 refers to explicit homosexual encounters that would most definitely be under the umbrella of porneia. Given Paul’s Jewish heritage, he reflects and affirms God’s standard of morality and sexuality as laid out in the Old Testament and re-iterated by Christ (Matt. 5:19, 19:4-6). These sexual ethics would be especially important to key in on given the background of his Gentile audience who, in general, had looser sexual morals than the Jews. Both Christian and non-Christian Jews alike were well versed in the sexual moral standards of God as found in the OT.
We often see more detailed vice-lists that include things like homosexuality in letters to Gentiles likely due to this reason (Rom. 1:18-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:8-11, cf. 1 Thess. 4:3-5). As Graig Keener points out, “Premarital and other immoral sex, insolent speech and sexual humor were as common in ancient Gentile society as they are in many societies today.”
That sexual immorality and impurity are taken as the opposite of walking in love should be of particular interest in our current society, especially as saints. Sexual moral laxness is not just a problem in secular culture, but in the church at large. Whether it’s adultery, homosexuality, heterosexual sex outside the bounds of marriage, bestiality, incest, etc. we need to flee these wicked things as children of God (1 Cor. 6:18). As our Lord points out in Matt. 5:28, these things extend beyond physical actions to our very inner thoughts. After all, our very hearts are what God judges (1 Sam. 16:7, Jer. 17:10, Prov. 21:2). Greed here could refer to something similar to how Paul uses it in 4:19 (see comments there). Meaning, an insatiable appetite for more and more lust and impurity. This would also fit the immediate context. However, the word can also apply to covetousness (in this context likely an echo of the 10th commandment of coveting someone’s spouse). This deals explicitly with someone’s inner thoughts and desires; desires that inevitably extend to actions. Greed, or the act of coveting in general is directly opposed to love for neighbor. None of this should characterize the Christian community.
Verse 4 seems to be either overlooked or outright ignored in my generation. Filthy and foolish talk along with crude joking are to be far from the lips of saints. Like the rest of the vices, obscene, offensive and dirty talk have no place in the life of one who follows after Christ and is a child of God. Paul no doubt has in mind sexual innuendos and the like (considering the context of the previous verses), but also words that are obscene, offensive and foolish. We ought to have discernment as to what others will see as filthy and obscene as certain words can be inoffensive in certain cultures, but extremely obscene in others. That said, we should desire to be people that use our speech to edify and build up (4:29) and as Paul says here, to give thanks to God. William MacDonald sums it up perfectly by stating: “Instead of using his tongue for such unworthy and unbecoming talk, the Christian should deliberately cultivate the practice of expressing thanks to God for all the blessings and mercies of life. This is pleasing to the Lord, a good example to others, and beneficial to one’s own soul.” Our speech is a reflection of our hearts (Matt. 12:34b-37) so let our speech be good, pure, thankful, edifying and devoid of foolishness.
5:5-6- Paul then says something that would be considered controversial in modern times (sadly even among some who call themselves Christians). No immoral, impure, or greedy person (ultimately an idolater) will inherit the kingdom of Christ and God. Keener remarks, “Paul did not water down God’s standards to accommodate the culture; instead he warned that those who engaged in this lifestyle would not be among God’s people in the world to come.” This should not be surprising as it is not the only place where Paul makes this kind of proclamation (see Gal. 5:19-21, 1 Cor. 6:9-11; cf. Rev. 21:8, 21:27). This, of course, is speaking of those who make these things their lifestyle, those who are not walking in righteousness with the Spirit of God in them, but those who reject God and walk in wickedness. In other words, Paul is not claiming that any believer who falls into these sins mentioned (or any other) is excluded from God’s kingdom, but this refers to the person that has given themselves over to those ways of living and is unrepentant. As Stott defines it, the one who “has given himself up without shame or penitence to this way of life… such people whose lust has become an idolatrous obsession.”
Consider just two Psalms on the matter:
Psa. 145:20, “The Lord keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.”
Psa 37:27-29, “Depart from evil and do good, So you will abide forever. For the Lord loves justice And does not forsake His godly ones; They are preserved forever, But the descendants of the wicked will be cut off. The righteous will inherit the land And dwell in it forever.”
Interestingly, in verse 6, he warns against those who would try and downplay the sins listed in the previous verses. As Campbell notes, “Paul implies that some may try to convince others that such sins are not serious but, he says, they are serious enough to warrant the wrath of God.” It’s sad to see this very thing play out even within the church today. Downplaying sin, or even denying God’s righteous, holy, and just wrath on evil and wickedness is a popular thing to do in a culture that tolerates sin of every kind and views anything retributive as bad. There are those who would teach that regardless of the most wicked behavior on earth, no one is excluded from dwelling in heaven with God. To quote early church father John Chrysostom: “There are always people among us who want to diminish the force of words. When Paul clearly says that covetousness is idolatry, they immediately argue that this is an exaggerated saying and in this way compromise all the commandments. It is to these that the blessed Paul is alluding when he writes to the Ephesians.” How relevant for the time in which we live. Flee from smooth talking deceivers who try and argue against the warnings we have in Scripture!
Not only will those described in the previous verse not inherit the kingdom of God, they will experience God’s wrath instead. Campbell continues to lay it out simply enough when he states: “God’s judgment cannot be escaped, with his wrath and anger stored up for the disobedient, while glory, honor, and peace await those who do what is good (Rom. 2:1-11; Col. 3:5-7; 1 Tim. 5:24-25). Judgment is viewed as reaping what has been sown–either destruction reaped from sowing according to the flesh, or eternal life reaped from sowing according to the Spirit (Gal. 6:7-9).”
Paul does not get into detail here as to what constitutes God’s wrath, but a vignette can be seen in 2 Thess. 1:5-10 (plus Mark 9:43-48; Matt.13:40-43, 49-51; Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 21:8 among many more). Again, at this point in the letter, such a statement should not be surprising considering what Paul laid out in chapter 2. We were all at one time by nature children of wrath, but because of our faith in Christ and His atoning work, God has graciously saved us and as Paul says in 1 Thess. 5:9, “For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
5:7-8- As “sons of disobedience” who are opposed to God and therefore invite His wrath, believers should not be partakers and join them in their disobedient lifestyles. Children of God as we are, why would we want to participate in the sort of sin and lifestyle of those who are disobedient and hell-bound? In a similar sentiment, the Apostle Peter says to believers in 1 Peter 4:2-3 (NLT), “You won’t spend the rest of your lives chasing your own desires, but you will be anxious to do the will of God. You have had enough in the past of the evil things that godless people enjoy—their immorality and lust, their feasting and drunkenness and wild parties, and their terrible worship of idols.” There is always a clear distinction in Scripture between the two ways of life; serving false gods (idols) and serving the true God. The former results in sin and wickedness of all kinds and invites God’s wrath. The latter results in doing God’s will and ends not with the wrath of God, but eternal life in God (Rom. 2:5-11). I reference this next verse often because it displays in the most simplistic terms this very concept, but in 1 Thess. 1:9, Paul commends the formally pagan Thessalonians and states that they “turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God.”
In verse 8, Paul continues the distinction of what saints once were versus what they are now, reiterating 2:1-2 and 4:17-24. 1 John 1:5-7 is particularly germane as the apostle there states: “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” Therefore, since we are in Christ and Christ is Light of the world, we are also light and should walk like it, rather than living like children of darkness (cf. John 3:19-21).
5:9-10- As the Light of the world, God contains all goodness, righteousness and truth. This is opposed to the darkness of the world which contains all wickedness, evil and falsehood (the devil is the father of lies–John 8:44, whereas God is truth–John 14:6; 17:17). As children of the Light, we should necessarily produce fruit that is goodness, righteousness and truth. As Walter Liefeld points out, this “fruit” of the light consists of comprehensive virtues and they “express desirable moral qualities taught throughout Scripture.” We should desire to please our heavenly Father in every area of our lives. This means we should never stop seeking what pleases Him; genuinely enjoying the things that are pleasing and genuinely rejecting the things that displease Him. J.I. Packer writes: "Do I treat God as my Father in heaven, loving, honoring, and obeying him, seeking and welcoming his fellowship, and trying in everything to please him, as a human parent would want his child to do? Have I learned to hate the things that displease my Father? Am I sensitive to the evil things to which he is sensitive? Do I make a point of avoiding them, lest I grieve him?" As children of God, we should constantly be asking ourselves if our thoughts and actions are pleasing to our Lord. As Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:9 (NIV), “we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.”
5:11-12- Paul again hammers home the command to have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness, but goes further here with an exhortation to instead “expose them.” The same Greek word for “expose” is used in John 3:20, “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” The meaning carries the notion of shining light onto sin and exposing it for the purpose of reproof and correction. Albert Barnes says of the Christian, “Their lives should be a standing rebuke of a sinful world, and they should be ever ready to express their disapprobation of its wickedness in every form.” Campbell adds that while this exposure of the deeds of darkness may include bold and active opposition, “it may also simply arise from the inevitable contrast that comes from living according to the light with all goodness, righteousness, and truth (5:9).” In a world full of darkness (sin and wickedness of every kind), the Christian community is to be the light that shines in the darkness for the purpose of revealing and disinfecting. As Jesus says in Matt. 5:14-16, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”” It is disgraceful, Paul says, to even speak of the things done by these “sons of disobedience” in secret. This is something we ought to keep in mind in our gossip and social media driven culture that loves talking about scandalous and indecent acts committed in secret.
5:13-14- the first half of verse 13 makes perfect sense, but the latter half seems a bit odd “for everything that becomes visible is light” (NASB) or “and everything that is illuminated becomes a light” (NIV). Considering the previous and next verse, this may simply mean that becoming light is the result of conversion. If we all were darkness before Christ, the light of Christ has exposed our sin, convicted us and because we are now in Christ, we are light. Foulkes remarks that as in John 3:19-21, men who hate the light will try and avoid it. However, “if they allow their lives to be exposed for what they are, they are made manifest by the light (cf. 1 Cor. 14:24f). Their whole lives can then be brought to Christ; and when men are prepared to submit to His scrutiny and dealing, then in His mercy they become light. The darkness is swept away ‘and everything thus illuminated is all light’.”
“It says” or “It is said” in verse 14 usually indicates a quotation or reference to Scripture. There are a few possible passages in Isaiah that Paul could be alluding to here (Isa. 26:19; 51:17; 52:1; 60:1) though this is not a direct quotation of any OT text or Jewish literature. Scholars are not certain where this comes from. A number of commenters see this as possibly a very early baptismal hymn among the Christian community (Foulkes, Stott, Liefeld, Witherington) though others contend that Paul is simply combining the truths found in Isaiah into a unique, Holy Spirit inspired saying (Campbell, Hodge, Barnes). However, the origin of what Paul says does not affect the meaning and application for us. The theology he is presenting here is similar to what he has presented earlier in the letter (2:1-7; 4:17-24). That is, our previous state could be described as darkened and dead, but Christ has rescued us by shining His light on us, causing us to come alive! As Stott notes, “Conversion is nothing less than awaking out of sleep, rising from death and being brought out of darkness into the light of Christ.”
5:15-17- We should live our daily lives with wisdom and be cognizant of our thoughts and actions. Certainly, practically speaking, studying the book of Proverbs is particularly germane to wise living, but more specifically what Paul has in mind here is what follows in the next several verses. That is, making the most of our time, understanding what the will of God is and not being drunk with wine. As for verse 16, what is meant by making the most of our time “because the days are evil”? Considering the theme of shining light into the darkness and the parallel passage in Col. 4:5-6, Campbell states that this “probably refers to making the most of every opportunity to be light in a dark world (5:8).” Campbell goes on to comment that making the most of our time or “redeeming the time” as it is literally translated in the Greek, “is less about time management and more about the wise conduct of light in the dark.” We still live in a fallen world. As Paul would characterize it, the “dominion of darkness” and “evil age” (Col. 1:13, Gal. 1:4). Therefore, Hodge writes, "Because sin abounds is a good reason why Christians should seize upon every opportunity to do good; and also why they should make the most of time.”
In verse 17 we see that part of not being foolish is understanding what the will of the Lord is. Psa 143:10 says: “Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Let Your good Spirit lead me on level ground.” Desiring to do our Father’s will should be the top priority of redeemed children of the Light (cf. 5:10). In the immediate context of this verse Paul has been speaking on what this means. In 5:9 we see that we should be producing fruit that is goodness, righteousness and truth. He will go in verses 18-21 to give explicit examples. Those are, being filled with the Spirit (5:18), speaking psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (5:19), giving thanks to God (5:20) and mutual submission to each other (5:21).
Campbell correctly points out that these things “constitute the will of the Lord for believers, and can be known by all. Thus, understanding the will of the Lord does not refer to special knowledge of the specifics of God’s will, as though believers should know what decisions to make in certain circumstances. Understanding the Lord’s will is knowing in general how the Lord would have his people conduct themselves. It has to do with character, worship, and service, rather than the idiosyncrasies of decision making.” I’ll add that this is the context in which we see God’s desired will for us in Scripture. That is, our character ever transforming to the likeness of His Son (sanctification). The will of God is for us to give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess. 5:18), to abstain from sexual immorality (1 Thess. 4:3), to be holy as God Himself is holy (1 Peter 1:14-16), to submit to authority and “do right” (1 Peter 2:13-15) and to be the light of Christ in a dark world.
5:18- Anecdotally, I’ve heard this verse used as a prooftext in the charismatic movement for being “drunk in the Spirit.” That is, a loss of self-control (one of the very fruits of the Spirit) that often involves falling to the ground, uncontrollable laughter and body movements, etc. Therefore, the interpretation of the verse would be something like, “do not be drunk with wine, but be drunk in the Spirit.” This is simply a poor, if not an outright careless reading and interpretation of this verse. John Stott remarks, “It is a serious mistake to suppose that to be filled with the Spirit of Jesus Christ is a kind of spiritual inebriation in which we lose control of ourselves. On the contrary, ‘self control’ is the final quality named as ‘the fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22-23. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit we do not lose control, we gain it.” First of all, the verse says not to be drunk with wine as that will lead to “debauchery” (NIV, ESV). While Scripture does not prohibit the drinking of alcohol and in some cases mentions its usefulness (Psa. 104:15, Pro. 31:6-7, 1 Tim. 5:23) Paul, as the rest of Scripture, is consistent in the prohibition and sinfulness of drunkenness (Rom. 13:13, Gal. 5:21, Titus 2:3, cf. Isa. 5:11, Prov. 20:1, Pro. 23:20-21). Drunkenness would have especially been an issue in pagan Gentile areas like Ephesus and commonly led to sin of all kinds (as it does today).
We should instead be “filled” with/by the Spirit. What this means in the present context is clarified in the following verses (19-21). Most translations render v. 18 as “but be filled with the Spirit” (NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV) but there is a good case to be made for translating it “but be filled by the Spirit”(NET, CSB). The Greek preposition en can be translated as either “with” or “by.” For insight into either case, see Constantine Campbell on this verse or the translation note in the NET Bible. The former translation has us being filled with the Holy Spirit. The latter translation has the Holy Spirit filling us with something. In either case, the proceeding verses (19-21) describe what this looks like. That is, as Max Turner points out, being filled with/by the Spirit “comes to expression in corporate worship (19a), adoring song (19b), thanksgiving to God (20) and mutual submission (21).” Ben Witherington III also points out the same and further adds that there is no emphasis on “being high or drunk on the Spirit as opposed to being drunk from wine. Rather, the picture is of individuals and a community together totally given over to the Spirit and Spirit’s presence and leading.” Considering the broader context of chapter 5, Stott sums up the contrast Paul is showing us here: “The result of drunkenness, he writes, is debauchery. People who are drunk give way to wild, dissolute and uncontrolled actions. They behave like animals, indeed worse than animals. The results of being filled with the Spirit are totally different. If excessive alcohol dehumanizes, turning a human being into a beast, the fulness of the Spirit makes us more human, for he makes us like Christ.” The debauchery that drunkenness leads to within a community should be replaced instead by worship, making melody in our hearts to the Lord, thankfulness and being subject to each other. This distinguishes the Christian community from the pagan one (Eph. 4:17-24, cf. Rom. 13:13-14, 1 Peter 4:3).
5:19-20- These verses constitute the result of being filled with/by the Spirit and are explicit examples of the will of God for us (as mentioned above). “Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” can be taken as somewhat synonymous terms representing the truth that being God’s covenant people involves singing public songs of praise and worship. This, after all, was the primary function of the 150 Psalms for Israel. Corporate worship is certainly in view here. In A.D. 112, Pliny The Younger sent a letter to the Roman emperor, Trajan. In it, he said of the Christians, “they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god.” Unlike the drunken revelries of pagans, this type of gathering is what the early Christians were known for. Liefeld writes: “The singing arises from the heart, implying both that it is sincere and that it is not superficially ‘joining in’ a community song. It is ‘to the Lord,’ which fortifies the truly spiritual nature of the song–in contrast to the unholy conversation and coarse joking in the Ephesians’ former state.”
Being filled with the Spirit results in constant and continual thanksgiving to God for all things (verse 20). This is the hallmark of someone indwelt by God’s Spirit. Stott reminds us that “grumbling was one of the besetting sins of the people of Israel; they were always ‘murmuring’ against the Lord and Moses. But the Spirit-filled believer is full not of complaining, but of thanksgiving.” (see Num. 14:1-4, cf. Psa. 78, Psa. 106:24-25). Of course, “giving thanks for all things” shouldn’t be taken too literally, as if it is good to give God thanks for abject evil and wickedness that occurs in the world. Obviously, we are not to give thanks for that which is opposed to God and that which He detests (Prov. 6:16-19, Prov. 8:13, Psa. 97:10). That is not the point Paul is getting at here, or in places like 1 Thess. 5:18 (NIV), “give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” Rather, as children of God, we are to trust Him in all circumstances (knowing that He works all things for our good and His glory-Rom. 8:28) and be continuously grateful for His mighty works (such as His faithfulness and our salvation in Christ Jesus). This is why, even after being severely beaten, Paul and Silas were able to sing hymns to God from jail (Acts 16:25). They were making melodies with their hearts and giving thanks to God in all circumstances. Jerome notes that it is easy enough to give thanks for all the comforts and happy things of life, “but the second sense of giving thanks is seen in the special gift of Christians to give thanks to God even in seeming adversity… Those who are saintly in their own eyes are prone to give thanks to God because they have been released from dangers and afflictions. But according to the apostle the greater virtue is to give thanks to God precisely amid those very dangers and afflictions.” Similarly, as he sat in prison, Paul tells the Philippians “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!” -Phil. 4:4
5:21- Grammatically, this verse is a continuation of the list in 5:19-20. That is, being filled with the Spirit results in singing and making melody in our hearts (19), giving thanks to the Lord (20) and also proper submission (21). This verse also serves as the basis for submission in 5:22-6:9. We are to subject/submit ourselves to one another out of our reverence and honor for our Lord. Similar concepts can be seen in other places of Scripture. In 1 Peter 5:5, younger believers are to submit to elders. We are told to obey and submit to our leaders in Heb. 13:17. In Rom. 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13 we are told as believers to submit to governing authorities “for the Lord’s sake” -1 Peter 2:13. There are many more examples of believers submitting in one way or another to the established order or roles God has designed. Jesus Christ is our highest and most perfect example of this attitude of submission and obedience. Note how our Lord and Savior displayed the most extreme example of humbleness and obedience by condescending from eternal glory with the Father to take on human flesh and to be obedient to the Father to the point of a torturous death on a cross. Phil. 2:5-8, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Paul adds here in Ephesians the concept of submitting “to one another.” What exactly this means is certainly born out in 5:22-6:9 as mentioned above, and therefore is to be taken as “submitting to others according to the authority and order established by God” as the study note in the ESV Study Bible explains. Similarly, Barnes defines it as “maintaining due subordination in the various relations of life” and Stott notes that “submission is a humble recognition of the divine ordering of society.” The best example of this in the immediate context is seen in the institution of the Christian marriage and home. As the husband and church in general submits to Christ, the wife submits to the husband and the children submit to their parents. The concept of strict mutual or equal submission makes no sense here as obviously the example of the church submitting to Christ does not include Christ submitting to the church, nor does a father submit and obey his children in the way the children are told to do with their parents. This is why the aforementioned definitions of “to one another” (see above) makes the most sense. Modern society tends to hate the concept of submission to authority, obedience to leaders, or even a difference in roles. It is seen as a wound to personal autonomy and “freedom.” What this really wounds is our sinful pride. The Bible clearly sees the established order by God, a difference in roles, and submission as good and proper things and in no way violates human equality. Such is the case for children who are told to obey their parents and who are submitted under their authority (6:1-2, cf. our Lord’s own subjugation to His parents-Luke 2:51). Does this mean they are inferior or any less equal in God’s eyes? Of course not. As Stott writes, “those who hold an office–whether rulers, magistrates, husbands, parents, or employers–have a certain God-given authority which they expect others to acknowledge. Husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants have equal dignity as God-like beings, but different God-appointed roles.”
Campbell offers a helpful analogy: “In a healthy workplace environment, for example, all members of an organization ought to work toward the benefit and service of all others, but this does not mean that all members have authority over all others. That would be chaotic. Those in leadership must serve those they lead, but that does not mean they submit to them. Their leadership is to be informed by self-giving love and service, but it is still leadership.” While there are certainly exceptions in submitting to earthly authority (those in authority commanding what God forbids or forbidding what God commands-Acts 5:29) the general principle in Scripture is to humbly submit to those in authority, even when it means doing things we don’t enjoy or personally agree with (like paying taxes to the government in which we live-Matt. 22:21,Rom. 13:6-7).
5:22- Since verse 21 provides the basis for these verses and what follows until 6:9, I recommend reading the commentary there first. Paul says in the previous verse “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”(ESV) then in verse 22, he continues by saying, as the Greek is literally translated, “Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” This is Paul’s first example of what submitting to one another looks like. Most translations will supply the word “submit” or “subject” due to the context and construction of the Greek as well as further re-iteration in verse 24 (NASB, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NET, NLT, etc.-see also the parallel verse in Col. 3:18). Scholars note how Paul differs from the Greco-Roman conventions of total male dominance and inferiority of women. The value and equality that Christianity affords all humans made in the image of God is certainly contrary to the culture in Paul’s day (cf. Gal. 3:28). While roles of leadership are distinct within marriage, the expectation placed on the leader of self-sacrificial love to the point of death (5:25) is a far cry from the expectation of the male leader in Roman society which was not servant leadership, but domineering rule. Campbell, for example, observes that contrary to the culture at the time, the husband is not to subjugate his wife, but the wife’s submission to her husband is to be voluntary and self-yielding. Not only that, but this submission is to be to her own husband, not to men in general. The wife does this “as to the Lord.” This does not mean the authority the husband has is the same as the authority of the Lord over the believer, but rather this is meant to simply be a parallel example of submission. In other words, “just as it is appropriate for the church to submit to Christ, so it is appropriate for the wives to submit to their husbands (5:24). Nevertheless, submission “as to the Lord” grounds a wife’s voluntary self-yielding in her devotion to Christ” (so Campbell).
5:23- Paul uses a parallel of Christ and the church. Just as Christ is the head of the church (4:15-16), “the husband is the head of the wife.” There has been much written on this verse in scholarship, but for the purposes of this commentary, I will be stating my conclusions from having done quite a bit of study. Given the context of this chapter and the theological parallel Paul is drawing upon, this verse indicates that part of a wife submitting to her husband is due to the ordering of the husband as the “leader” and “head” of the house. It seems illogical to understand these commands as only relevant to the cultural context of Paul’s day, given that Paul goes on to use the same parallel of Christ and the church in his commands to husbands in verses 25-33. I would no more limit Paul’s instructions to wives to be in submission to their husbands as I would limit Paul’s instructions to husbands to love their wives. To do otherwise would be inconsistent interpretation. In other words, I believe wholeheartedly that Paul’s commands to wives in 22-24 are completely applicable today just as his instructions to husbands in 25-29. Paul gives us the same wife/husband command also in Col. 3:18-19 (wives, submit/husbands, love). The second part of verse 23 gives us yet another question in matters of interpretation. The apostle states: “as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” There are generally two main ways to take this. One being that as Christ is the Savior of the body (the church), so husbands are to act likewise in regard to their wives. If so, in this verse we get a preview of the husband’s responsibility to come in verse 25. Foulkes posits that “the sacrificial concern of the Lord for the salvation of the church should have a parallel, even if at a much lower level, in the loving and sacrificial concern of the husband for the welfare of his wife.”
Albert Barnes also offers a helpful explanation regarding this interpretation by writing: “The idea here seems to be, that as Christ gave himself to save his body, the church; as he practiced self-denial and made it an object of intense solicitude to preserve that church, so ought the husband to manifest a similar solicitude to make his wife happy, and to save her from want, affliction, and pain. He ought to regard himself as her natural protector; as bound to anticipate and provide for her needs; as under obligation to comfort her in trial, even as Christ does the church. What a beautiful illustration of the spirit which a husband should manifest is the care which Christ has shown for his “bride,” the church!”
And Campbell sums it up by stating: “the headship of the husband is counter-culturally expressed in his self-giving love toward his wife, just as the headship of Christ is expressed through his saving the church.” I tend to hold to this interpretation of the analogy Paul is drawing here, especially due to the apostle using this as the same reasoning for husbands loving their wives in verse 25. Meaning, while husbands are not the literal savior of their wives (the Savior, of course, is Christ), we are to act in the same self-sacrificial manner. Christ is the basis and grounding for the husband's love as well as the basis and grounding for the wife’s submission.
Still, others would see this as where the parallel stops and thus is not connected to husbands. Paul is essentially saying something like: “the reason Christ is head over the church is specifically because He alone is the Savior of the body.” In other words, this is an independent clause not to be analogous to husbands in any way, but simply a teaching on where the authority of Christ as the head of the church comes from (because He is the Savior). This finds support by the beginning of verse 24 which uses the conjunction “alla” meaning something like “nevertheless” (so Wuest, Witherington, Hodge). Paul would then be saying something to the effect of: “Nevertheless, despite the husband not being the savior of the wife in any way like Christ is for the church, wives should still see the submission of the church to Christ as the model for submission to their husbands.” Either way, husbands are clearly to look at Christ’s example and imitate that as indicated by the following verses.
5:24- In the same way the church submits to Christ, the wife ought to be submitted to her husband. This begs the question, how does the church submit to Christ? Simply put, our submission to Christ is born out of “responding to His love, joyfully, and out of heartfelt desire, not grudgingly or under compulsion” as Max Turner notes. “In everything” likely refers to practical as well as spiritual matters, for these cannot be separated for the Christian. Also, as MacDonald points out, this would mean “everything that is in accordance with the will of God.” It must be asked, considering the following verses (25-29), does the will of God include abuse, or totalitarian rule of the husband? The answer is an unequivocal and emphatic “No!” For the husband to operate out of willing selfishness, abusiveness or forceful subjugation (and to use this verse as license to do so) is to rebel against God and the very gospel itself! I would go so far to say that using this verse as a weapon for the purposes of a controlling, manipulative, demanding, abusive husband would not only be disparaging of Christ, but the very definition of taking God’s holy name in vain and also willfully neglects the very words of God that follow in the rest of the chapter. In my opinion, such an abuse of this verse would be a clear sign that the love of God is not in such a person (1 John 2:15-17).
**For further study on these verses and on this topic in general, I recommend Constantine Campbell and John Stott’s commentaries (see bibliography) and Wayne Grudem- Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, 2018, Ch. 15-Leadership in Marriage
5:25- The standard to which a husband is held can be no higher than what Paul lays out here, and in these verses we find the supreme example of what God expects of the husbands who are responsible for the precious daughters of God. It’s interesting to note first what is absent from Paul’s instruction to husbands. That is, husbands are not told to subjugate their wives (for that is not their role, but the wife’s voluntary role-5:22). Husbands are not instructed to ensure their wives properly submit to their liking as would have been the expectation in Greco-Roman convention. But rather, Paul continues the theological parallel of Christ and the church by giving husbands the highest standard imaginable. Husbands are explicitly instructed to love their wives in the same way Christ loved the church. How exactly did Christ love the church? By condescending from eternal glory with the Father, adding humanity to His nature and suffering a violent death to cleanse the sins of His bride (Phil. 2:5-8). 1 John 3:16 says this: “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 and sisters” (NIV).
This is not limited to the ultimate example of physically dying for one another, but also manifests itself in general self-sacrifice; putting the needs of others ahead of your own (dying to “self”-Luke 9:23). Husbands, that is the example and standard. The Greek word agapaō Paul uses in this verse “is a self-sacrificial love, a love that impels the one loving to give himself in self-sacrifice for the well-being of the one who is loved” says Kenneth Wuest. This is the same word we find in John 3:16 to describe the love God has for the world by sending His Son. Witherington states: “Clearly enough, by “love” here Paul is not referring primarily or solely to a feeling which cannot be commanded, but rather to decisions of the will and commitments which can be commanded and instructed.” In other words, agapaō love is not dependent upon emotions or feelings, but rather actions (actions that will manifest even despite feelings). Along this same thought, Liefeld writes, “The truth that Christ gave himself up for the church elevates the love of the husband far above mere social convention or emotional feeling.”
5:26-27- These verses are a continuation of the end of verse 25 and describe the work of Christ on behalf of His bride (the church). Christ did what He did so that He might sanctify her and make her holy (set apart for Him). I will first point out the order of things. Christ didn’t love us because we were so pure and lovable. On the contrary, we were ungodly and sinners (Rom. 5:6-10). John Chrysostom points this out by saying, “For you are already married when you act this way, whereas Christ is acting for one who has rejected and hated him.” Christ died as a perfect sacrifice so that our sins were atoned for and we could be presented to Him in perfect beauty (metaphorically without any blemish or wrinkle; perfectly beautiful). Again, Christ’s act of love was while we were filthy, ungodly and his enemy! Without this cleansing work, we would not be able to be in God’s presence in eternity. Because of this, as Jude 24 says, Christ will make us “stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy” (cf. 1:4). The language of washing “of water with the word” is a bit perplexing to scholars. Most take this as speaking of baptism and hearing the gospel message (or Scripture in general), but perhaps there is also a reference to Ezekiel 16:8-14 given the analogy of God’s cleansing covenant with His people. Either way, Paul’s point is Christ’s cleansing work of the bride He loves.
5:28-30- Max Turner writes, “but as Christ sees the church as now having become his own body, by commitment to marriage union, and does everything lovingly and for her own good, so should the husband for his wife. He should recognize that in loving her he is loving himself; for she is joined with him as one flesh.” This is a perfect summation of these three verses. While the analogy Paul uses of Christ and the church has its limits (husbands do not cleanse the sins of his wife, for only Christ takes away the sins of the world-John 1:29), the point is stressed on expressing the same love and care as Christ does to the church. While it is impossible to fully comprehend and perfectly imitate the love of Christ, Paul certainly puts it into words that we as flawed humans can understand. We seek the welfare of our own bodies. When we are hungry, we feed our bodies, when we are injured or sick in some way, we take the necessary actions to mend or help heal our bodies. We put on proper clothes to protect against the cold, etc. In general, we desire good for our bodies and especially in our culture, go to great lengths to comfort our bodies. Indeed, the concept of “self-care” is at the forefront of my own culture. Essentially, Paul is advocating for the same principle found in our Lord’s teaching “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” -Luke 6:31.
5:31-33- Paul then grounds all this in the OT by quoting Gen. 2:24, which, for his purposes, doesn’t only represent the God created order and design for human marriage (cf. Matt. 19:4-6) but also is an illustration for Christ and the church as made evident by verse 32. In its original context, this passage in Genesis “is the most profound and fundamental statement in the whole of Scripture concerning God’s plan for marriage,” says Foulkes. It promotes the idea of “one man and one woman” in marriage, is used by Paul to refute promiscuity (1 Cor. 6:16) and in this verse affirms marriage roles. This is used by Christ to promote the ideal design and intention of God when instituting marriage (Matt. 19:4-6, Mark 10:2-12). Far from meaning that the two people are literally now one person, Campbell states that the meaning is that “they enter into a deeply interconnected relationship that involves the mingling of body, mind and spirit.”
Paul also had in mind an allegorical application of this passage to Christ and the church which he admits is a “mystery.” Certainly in Paul’s day this would have been a novel interpretation, yet one that was Holy Spirit inspired much like the “mysteries” that had been given to Paul as he discussed in previous chapters (1:9, 3:3-5). This also establishes the permanent nature of marriage, thus transcending a particular time in history or culture. As Christ is united to his bride and the two become one (with their respective roles), so ought the human marriage be!
Regardless of if his readers understood the analogy of Christ and the church, he ends in verse 33 with restating and emphasizing the main point. Husbands (each individual among you) ought to love his wife as himself (the same principle found in Lev. 19:18) and the wife ought to “respect” or have reverence for her husband. The verb translated as “respect” is the Greek word phobeomai. Scholars point out that the noun form of this word, phobos, is found in verse 21 as the basis for submitting to one another. That is, “submitting to one another out of reverence (phobos)for Christ”(ESV). The same noun used in a similar context can be found in Rom. 13:7 (NIV), “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Witherington observes that the respect is presumably “given due to the role God has assigned him, not based on circumstances or performance, any more than reverence for Christ depends on circumstances or performance.”
Excursus: Further Reflection on Husbands/Wives
While I understand the results of feminism in the 20th and 21st centuries has manifested in rebellion and contempt for God’s design and created order (thus creating more of a need for clear, biblical understanding and teaching of the roles of women), it also seems to me that extensive teaching on a man or husband’s role can go overlooked. For example, I would challenge men to spend a disproportionately large amount of time studying what Scripture teaches of their role rather than worrying about charging the battlefield with swords drawn and fighting to the death over the meaning of the word “head” in the Greek. Rather, study what Christ’s servant leadership looks like in the gospels (Mark 10:45), study what it means to have the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:3-8), study 1 John 2-3 and put away boastful pride in exchange for humility. We must grasp the concept of Christ’s love for us and how it manifested in extreme humility, servant leadership, suffering and obedienceto the Father. We must understand that while we were yet still sinners in rebellion against God, He loved us and gave himself over to a humiliating and horrendous death for us (Rom. 5:8; John 10:18). If Christ displayed His love for a people in rebellion to Him, how might that influence how we act when people do not treat us with the “respect” we perceive we are owed? I submit that it is not the job of the husband to ensure that proper submission and respect is given by their wife. There is no such command in Scripture. What is commanded and expected of husbands is loving like Christ, who, despite not receiving the proper fear and respect God deserves, still laid His life down in sacrificial love. Christ, who was reviled, but did not revile in return, who suffered, but did not utter threats is the standard (see 1 Peter 2:21-23).
The same exhortation can be given to women. Culture has told you to desire the opposite of what God’s word teaches in Phil. 2:3-8 and to go after the lust of the eyes and boastful pride of life that is not from God (1 John 2:15-17). You are told to “grasp” for independence, to put your needs, wants and desires above others to be “successful” in life. You are told that equality in value has to mean equality in roles and that anything less is demeaning, unfair and an assault on your autonomy. But is this the mind of Christ? Is this how He thought? Are we grasping at elevating ourselves as high as we can? Is this not what Adam and Eve did in the garden by the alluring temptation to elevate themselves “beyond” God’s obedient creation? We ought not treat our roles within marriage with contempt. Those who wish to minimize or do away with these roles should consider that with which human marriage is compared.
Many people in our society have great contempt for how God made them. They despise being a male or female and therefore covet and desire to become something God did not make them to be. The same attitude can be said about those who despise their roles and covet roles that God did not see fit to grant or bestow. Our goal and directive is to imitate Christ. Christ was humble, He submitted to the Father’s will and He was obedient. Such should be our attitudes when we study Scripture and understand God’s design for His creation, the institution of marriage, and the institution of His Church. Being equal in status does not always mean being equal in roles. This is why Scripture declares that we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28), yet all have different roles within the body (1 Cor. 12:12-27, Rom. 12:4-8) as well as submitting and obeying when appropriate (1 Peter 5:5, Heb. 13:17, Rom. 13:1, 1 Peter 2:13). The Triune God is our ultimate example. The Son is not inferior to the Father, yet the Son humbled Himself and submitted to and obeyed the Father’s will (Luke 22:42, John 6:38, Phil. 2:5-8). In any area of our lives, pride should not be the driving factor, but rather humility and a desire to yield to God’s will. Let us not despise what Scripture teaches, but look to Christ as our example.
Bibliography (works cited):
Barnes, Albert- Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible (Ephesians)
Campbell, Constantine- The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC, 2023
Chrysostom, John- Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol. 8, Ephesians
Foulkes, Francis- The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, TNTC, 1981
Hodge, Charles- A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 1856
Jerome- Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol. 8, Ephesians
Keener, Craig- The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Ephesians)
Liefeld, Walter L.- Ephesians, IVPNTC, 1997
MacDonald, William- Believer’s Bible Commentary, 1995, Ephesians
Packer, J.I.- Knowing God, p.291
Pliny The Younger- Epistle 10.96 (A.D. 112)
Stott, John- The Message of Ephesians, BST, 1979
Study Note- ESV Study Bible, Eph. 5:21
Turner, Max- New Bible Commentary (Ephesians)
Witherington III, Ben- The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles
Wuest, Kenneth- Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1 (Ephesians)