Chapter 6
6:1-3- The first 9 verses of this chapter continue the household code theme from chapter 5. After speaking on the husband/wife relationship, Paul now turns to children within the family. Interestingly, Paul addresses the children directly as if expecting them to have their own agency (which was uncommon in Greco-Roman society). Walter Liefeld points out that “the implication is that children should learn to obey rather than their fathers forcing obedience” Constantine Campbell adds: “They are to hear and accept instruction directly from the apostle rather than have their conduct determined entirely by their parents.” That children are to obey their parents is an established order by God throughout Scripture, and similar to submitting to governing authorities, it is a foundational framework for an ordered and proper society (Christian or otherwise). However, for the Christian, whether it be a child submitting to parents, or a man submitting to the government, it is to be done “in the Lord” or “For the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13). In Col. 3:20, Paul similarly tells children that obedience to parents is “pleasing to the Lord.” As is always our example, Christ modeled this as He fulfilled the Law perfectly. Scripture tells us of His submission to His earthly parents: “and He continued in subjection to them” -Luke 2:51. I might add, Christ Jesus did not submit to his earthly parents because they were perfectly deserving of His submission. After all, He came to save them from their sins. Obedience and submission is not contingent upon the person in authority being perfectly worthy. This leads Charles Hodge to state: “It is not because of the personal character of the parent, nor because of his kindness, nor on the ground of expediency, but because it is right; an obligation arising out of the nature of the relation between parents and children, and which must exist wherever the relation itself exists.”
Verse 2 has Paul referring to Exod. 20:12 as his theological grounding for such a command to children. Paul notes that this is the first of the Ten Commandments with a promise attached. While some might disagree with Paul and point to Exod. 20:6 as the “first” promise, the pronouncement that God shows “lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments” is more a proclamation of God’s own character than a direct promise and could be viewed as a general truth for the outcome of keeping all the commandments. However, the fifth commandment is the only one with a specific promise tied to a single commandment. The original context and meaning of this promise was that Israel as a collective society would dwell long in the land (the Promised Land). “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.” -Exod. 20:12. It is generally thought that Paul is quoting from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) which varies slightly in the phrasing.
He also modifies it in verse 3 to say “And that you may live long on the earth.” What was meant as a general promise to the entire collective of Israel (a corporate promise) thus applies corporately to the “new society” of the church that God has established. This leads John Stott to conclude that “what is promised is not so much long life to each child who obeys his parents, as social stability to any community in which children honour their parents. Certainly, a healthy society is inconceivable without a strong family life.” Francis Foulkes also comes to a similar conclusion stating that rather than it being a promise in an individualistic sense, it is a societal/corporate truth. “Then, as in any generation, it could be seen that the strength of family life, and the training of children to habits of order and obedience, were the means and the marks of the stability of a community or nation.”
6:4- The duty of parents to their children (in this verse represented by the father) comes with a negative action (do not) and a positive action (do). While these instructions surely extend to both parents, Paul likely keys in on “fathers” specifically due to the norm of Greco-Roman society in which fathers had sovereign rule and authority over the family, often inflicted harsh discipline, and even had the right to kill their offspring (so Stott). Indeed, Craig Keener points out that even personhood of one’s infant was only accepted “when the father officially recognized it” adding that “babies could be abandoned or, if deformed, killed.” It is in this social framework that Paul is addressing fathers. Similar to his command to the Colossians in Col. 3:21, they are not to unnecessarily provoke their children to anger. Meaning, there is a clear standard of discipline and standard of how a father treats his children. “They are not to excite the bad passions of their children by severity, injustice, partiality, or unreasonable exercise of authority” says Charles Hodge.
Albert Barnes touches on an important point when he states: “There is no principle of parental government more important than that a father should command his own temper when he inflicts punishment. He should punish a child not because he is “angry,” but because it is “right;” not because it has become a matter of “personal contest,” but because God requires that he should do it, and the welfare of the child demands it.” The positive action for parents is to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” As should be evident from the text, “bringing them up” involves more than simply clothing, feeding and keeping them safe as they grow.
It involves the instruction, education and discipline “of the Lord.” Certainly, this involves nothing less than what we find in Eph. 4-5 (particularly 4:14-5:33). Instructing our children in the knowledge of the Lord and training them in righteousness is the most important responsibility we have as parents. God has entrusted us with direct care over those He has made in His image. Our duty, therefore, is to train them up in truth, not leave them to the devices of a world opposed to God and His truth, or to encourage them to “find their own truth.” To take such a philosophy is certainly not in line with Scripture and would be a dereliction of duty as followers of Christ. As those in covenant with God ought to do (see Deut. 6:1-9), proper teaching of children is central and crucial. “They are to be instructed, disciplined, and admonished, so that they be brought to knowledge, self-control, and obedience. This whole process of education is to be religious, and not only religious, but Christian” says Hodge. Barnes has much to say in his commentary on this verse (nearly 1,500 words, all worth reading, I might add). To briefly quote him: “No one can doubt that the Bible enjoins on parents the duty of endeavoring to train up their children in the ways of religion, and of making it the grand purpose of this life to prepare them for heaven… religion is the most important of all subjects, and “therefore” it is of most importance that children on that subject should be taught truth. Of whom can God so properly require this as of a parent?”
Discipline (punishment and correction) when necessary is absolutely part and parcel to this duty. The same word is used multiple times in Heb. 12:5-11 to describe the discipline and chastisement of the Lord for the good of His children (which Heb. 12:11 says even seems unpleasant in the moment, but ultimately yields righteousness). Many passages in Proverbs speak of the good that proper discipline and chastisement does to a child and even proclaims that to withhold such discipline from their child is akin to hating them (see Prov. 13:24, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15). At the most basic level, to neglect training, instruction and discipline of a child is to set them up for not only failure in life, but potential ruin. Barnes likens the absence of teaching the truth of God to a completely neglected garden. Such a garden, he says, “would soon be overrun with weeds, and briars, and thorns - but not sooner, or more certainly, than the mind of a child would.”
6:5-8- How many fellow brothers and sisters in Christ throughout history have found themselves in some form of indentured servitude or slavery? I can imagine a slave who has come to Christ at any point in the last 2,000 years in any given society asking something like, “How am I to glorify Christ in my life seeing that I am a slave?” The wisdom of God has included those of low rank in a broken society with helpful instruction for how to live in the situation they find themselves in. God’s word offers wisdom and encouragement for those who are sick, poor, tempted with sin, depressed, oppressed and in a variety of situations in life. This does not exclude those who find themselves in some form of slavery, as has been the condition for millions upon millions of people throughout history in virtually every society (especially in Roman society). As Keener points out, “Paul confronts the practical issue of how slaves can deal with their situation, not whether slavery should be abolished (an issue not relevant to his point in the context of household codes).” In other words, Paul is essentially saying, “If you happen to find yourself in this situation in life, this is how you ought to behave and how you can serve Christ in your unique context.”
Indeed, Campbell shares this insight by saying that “Paul’s purpose in the household code is more immediate and of practical benefit for those who are living in the household. The abolition of slavery–inspired in part by Paul’s undermining of it–would take centuries to achieve.” Just how does Paul subtly undermine the context of slavery? The answer is found in verse 9; a radical concept for the time that puts slaves on equal value with their masters (and thus treated accordingly). Campbell notes that “the way Paul addresses slaves and slave owners here in Ephesians relativizes, and therefore subtly undermines the power dynamic between them.” Or, as Ben Witherington III puts it, far from Paul endorsing or undergirding slavery, “he is trying to reform an existing institution with the context of the Christian household.” As noted with children, Paul is addressing slaves directly as having their own agency (uncommon in antiquity).
In verse 5, they are told to be obedient to their masters “according to the flesh,” or as the ESV, NIV and NLT translate, “earthly masters.” The meaning of the idiomatic phrase “with fear and trembling” is to show reverence or respect to one in authority. A good example of this is in 2 Cor. 7:15 where Paul speaks of the reception the Corinthians gave Titus: “His affection abounds all the more toward you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how you received him with fear and trembling.” As Campbell remarks, Titus wasn’t their slave master, “but it is clear that the Corinthians treated him as an authority figure worthy of their respect.” Likewise, slaves are to give their human masters the appropriate obedience, reverence and respect. They are to do this with a sincere heart the same way they submit to their ultimate Lord, Christ Jesus. Their relationship with Christ ought to dictate how they act towards their earthly masters.
Verse 6 is rendered in the NLT as: “Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. As slaves of Christ, do the will of God with all your heart.” Paul wants them to do the right thing even when no one is watching because what they do is ultimately as a slave of Christ, not of man. This goes back to the previous verse that speaks of having a sincere heart just like they have towards Christ. John Stott perhaps says it best when he writes that “the slave’s perspective has changed. His horizons have broadened. He has been liberated from the slavery of ‘men-pleasing’ into the freedom of serving Christ. His mundane tasks have been absorbed into a higher preoccupation, namely the will of God and the good pleasure of Christ.”
Verse 7 continues the theme by encouraging the slave to “Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people” (NIV). This means to serve with a good attitude and to keep in mind that everything done is for God’s glory. As many commentators will point out, this has a direct parallel and application to us today in regards to our employment. If a slave is being given this sort of instruction on how to relate to his master, how much more ought we to have the same mindset in regard to those we work for? This should not only characterize how we respect, obey and revere our employer, but how we work at whatever job we find ourselves in. An “unfulfilling” job or occupation should be done as if we were working directly for the Lord. I think about my own life at times where this has been the case. What would my attitude be if Christ asked me to mop floors and clean toilets as a job (as I’ve had in the past)? Would I do it begrudgingly and with a bad attitude (as I’ve done in the past), or would I understand that everything I do in life is ultimately in service to God and for His glory? As Stott points out, our situation today isn’t nearly as bad as slavery in the Roman Empire, “so that if the work of Christian slaves could be transformed by doing it as to the Lord, the same must be true of Christian miners, factory workers, dustmen, road sweepers and public lavatory attendants.” Kyle Snodgrass remarks that “no job is merely work; it is a context for serving Christ.”
Verse 8 offers eschatological hope in that all men, whether slave or master, stand on equal ground before God. The slave may not be fairly compensated for his service, but if he serves diligently, his reward will be realized in the eternal life to come. God does not let anything go unnoticed.
6:9- Paul now addresses the masters, and in this one verse completely undermines the pagan idea of the slave/master relationship (cf. Col. 4:1). Murray J. Harris describes the context of Roman slavery in the first century A.D. as involving “absolute ownership and control on the part of the master and the total subjection of the slave.” Implicit in this dynamic (and explicit in Roman law) is that the slave is less a human with equal rights and more so “property” to be owned and used. By Paul saying “do the same things to them,” he is essentially telling masters to abide by the “Golden Rule.” “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” -Matt. 7:12. Stott notes that “Paul admits no privileged superiority in the masters, as if they could themselves dispense with the very courtesies they expect to be shown.” There should be no threatening (as would have been common in a slave/master relationship). Such behavior is completely contrary to the call of a Christian. In a fairly overt way, Paul reminds the masters that they themselves are ‘slaves’ of the true Master in heaven and with Him, there is no hierarchy. Whether Jew, Gentile, male, female, slave, or free, we all stand before and answer to God on equal ground. Not only should the masters treat their slaves as they would want their slaves to treat them, but they should act toward their slaves in the manner they would want God in heaven to act towards them! As Campbell remarks, “slaves and masters share the same master and in that way they are put on equal footing. This incredibly powerful fact undermines the institution of slavery by erasing the class distinction between slaves and masters (cf. Gal. 3:28) and by abolishing the notion that slaves are the property of their masters.” The implications of this verse should not be lost on us. What we see Paul doing here is far from an endorsement of slavery as we think of it throughout history. It is a leveling of the playing field that when put into practice gives value, dignity, and equality to those who, under Roman law, had almost none of those things.
Excursus- Paul and Slavery
What is obvious in the text of Ephesians is that Paul is addressing a household of Christians, to include those who apparently owned slaves (slaves who had become fellow brothers and sisters in Christ). We’ve established how slaves ought to act towards their masters as well as the standard Paul sets before the masters in regard to their slaves. Naturally, the question arises, “Why didn’t Paul command Christian slave owners to emancipate their slaves?”
It may help to first have a better understanding of the nuances of slavery in first century Rome. Being an American, my culture tends to think of one type of slavery that was prevalent in American history; race based antebellum slavery (the slavery that existed in the southern states up to the Civil War). Slavery in first century Rome very much existed on a broad spectrum and was even more integral to the fabric of society than pre-Civil War America, with a fifth of the entire Roman population serving as a slave in some capacity (and closer to a third in major cities like Rome or Corinth). On one end of the spectrum you had rural slavery that very much looked like what we think of in the antebellum south. It included very hard labor (in fields or mines) with cruel task masters and a miserable life. Oftentimes, this would be the lot of criminals. On the opposite end of the spectrum you had urban slaves, who, for many, had a much better quality of life and even prestigious positions within the government. The list of occupations and duties for slaves went far beyond menial physical labor.
As Murray J. Harris points out, “some served as employees of the city or of the state, being salaried executives with heavy responsibilities. Others were employed in business as managers of shops or of ships. Others worked the land as farm laborers, often in chain gangs in the case of condemned criminals, and sometimes in appalling conditions. Or, again, many worked in city households, as cooks or cleaners, as tutors or doctors, or as sexual partners.” Harris states that while rural slavery was often unpleasant, urban slavery could be “quite tolerable, especially if the master and slave worked side by side.” The slave/master relationship in this context would be closer to an employer/employee dynamic. In fact, there was even some level of distinction for a slave whose master had a high social status and wealth. The most extreme example of this would be in Ceasar’s household. “To be an imperial slave was to be in the employ of the most powerful figure of the time and so carried with it a sense of prestige, if not privilege” says Harris. There’s also nuance in that many urban slaves generally gained their freedom sometime in their 30’s, but even that was not always advantageous for them. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Ben Witherington III points out that “though many slaves were able to save enough money to buy themselves out of slavery, many chose not to do so because of the security they had in a home, especially if they had a good master. In some cases it was worse, at least economically, to be free and poor, than to have security–food, clothing, shelter, and good employment.”
The point in understanding this is to realize that slaves did not simply form one group of people consigned to the same fate as we often think of with chattel slavery, nor was it purely race based as it was in antebellum America, but mostly political and economic. Paul was not trying to upend the culture in a politically totalitarian empire, but rather teach how to live within it as a follower of Christ. In other words, he was less concerned with the cultural institution, and more concerned with a Christian’s behavior within the institution. Albert Barnes writes that if these biblical principles were to take full effect “they will lighten the yoke of slavery while it continues, and while it may be difficult to remove it at once, if the master and the slave were both Christians, even if the relation continued, it would be rather a relation of mutual confidence. The master would become the protector, the teacher, the guide, the friend; the servant would become the faithful helper - rendering service to one whom he loved, and to whom he felt himself bound by the obligations of gratitude and affection.” This progression would lead to emancipation if truly played out in the lives of those God has redeemed. Barnes continues, “so long as the slave is regarded as a “chattel” or a mere piece of “property,” like a horse, so long people endeavor to content themselves with the feeling that he may be held in bondage. But the moment it is felt that he is a “Christian brother” - a redeemed fellow-traveler to eternity, a joint heir of life - that moment a Christian should feel that there is something that violates all the principles of his religion in holding him as a slave; in making a “chattel” of that for which Christ died, and in buying and selling like a horse, an ox, or an ass, a child of God, and an heir of life. Accordingly, the prevalence of Christianity soon did away the evil of slavery in the Roman empire; and if it prevailed in its purity, it would soon banish it from the face of the earth.”
We can look at the letter to Philemon for an example of the effect the gospel should have in the life of a slave owner. Instead of Paul using his authority as an apostle of Christ to command Philemon “to do what is proper” or, as the NIV translates it, “to do what you ought to do,” he makes an appeal for “love’s sake” so that Philemon accepting Onesimus back would not be “by compulsion but of your own free will.” The climax of what Paul was asking of Philemon is found in verse 16. That is, that Philemon would receive him “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” Paul is asking Philemon to forego what he had a legal right to do (punish a runaway slave accordingly). Rather, the appeal to Philemon is to live out the gospel. “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” -Eph. 4:32. We might also think of Matt. 18:21-35 in realizing a debt was owed to Philemon due to Onesimus stealing from him (v.18), yet Paul even reminds Philemon that a much larger debt has been forgiven him (v.19)! Still, we return to the overall question at hand. Aside from multiple problems with advocating for complete abolition at the time, to include, as Harris puts it, “unmitigated social chaos, with a vast mass of persons, suddenly unemployed, and without the means of self support;” the most simple answer comes again from Harris. The primary focus of The New Testament (thus Christianity), “is on individual ethics within the Christian community rather than on corporate ethics within society at large, on interpersonal relationships rather than on social reformation through institutional change. The principle change sought is the individual, and the secondary in society, through transformed individuals.”
There is a principle we find in Scripture that speaks to God allowing (yet regulating) sin in a fallen human society. In Matthew 19:8, Jesus says that it was “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” Meaning, God’s design for a male and female marriage was to be permanent. Divorce was not part of His plan or design. However, because of sinful humanity, God permitted, but regulated divorce. Does this mean God approves of and considers divorce righteous? Absolutely not. However, it's also biblical principles like all humans being “made in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27, cf Acts 17:26) that lay down the fact that all humans are of inherently equal value, thus should not be made property of another. We also have the principle that “man-stealing” (slave trading) is wicked and even punishable by death (which is would condemn something like the transatlantic slave trade- Exod. 21:16, Deut. 24:7, 1 Tim 1:10). More startling is realizing that In Rev. 18, “Babylon” (the archetype for all of earth’s wicked cities and more specifically, Rome) had a robust slave trade included in its “luxuries” (Rev. 18:13). The call to the church from God? “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;” -Rev. 18:4. These and many more (not least the command to love neighbor and enemy) should constitute the abolition of slavery in a society where either Christians are living out biblical truth and/or get a vote in how civil government ought to be run.
6:10-12- There has been much practical exhortation and teaching on how we ought to live in the last couple chapters of this letter. Paul is giving the conclusion to all of that here. As children of God and servants of our Lord, we are therefore called to be strong in the Lord and “put on” God’s armor for a particular purpose. The purpose is so that we can “stand firm against the schemes of the devil.” As indicated in 2:2, the devil and those who do his bidding are still very active in the world and in the sons of disobedience. 1 John 5:19 states: “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (see also 1 Peter 5:8-9). To be clear, as Stott notes, “These texts do not deny our Lord’s decisive conquest of the principalities and powers, but indicate that as usurpers they have not conceded defeat or been destroyed. So they continue to exercise considerable power.”
As verse 12 indicates, our battle is not against “flesh and blood” but against spiritual powers. It’s important to highlight that the armor we are to “put on” is spiritual in nature and is needed to protect us. We have an ongoing battle, a “pilgrim’s progress” if you will. The life of a disciple of Christ necessarily entails a life of action, resistance and advancement up the mountain of righteousness and holiness. There is no resting on laurels for the servant of Christ and a child of the Father. We are at war with forces of evil who will continue to attack until the return of Christ and final judgment. These verses speak to the reality of the spiritual realm that is very active. As mankind gains more and more knowledge of the physical world and the laws that govern it, we tend to become more puffed up in that knowledge. However, as Foulkes eloquently puts it, “our vastly increased knowledge of the physical universe has not necessarily increased, and may in fact have dulled, our sense of the spiritual. We should be hesitant to regard ourselves as wiser than the apostles and our incarnate Lord concerning the unseen world.”
Finally, our knowledge of these spiritual forces of evil are that they exist and are active. We are not given details on how exactly they work, who they are or what precisely they do. “It is therefore pointless to speculate in any detail about how these malevolent forces interact with us. There is no point trying to find ‘a demon under every rock’ ” says Campbell. Witherington echoes this sentiment and adds, “There is nothing here that warrants or encourages either deliverance ministries or the demonizing of all human dilemmas” (Ephesians-p.364).
What exactly we are fighting and defending against as bearers of God’s armor is not limited to one thing, but Albert Barnes gives a good representative list for our consideration:
(1) To our own sinful propensities - which are a part of the kingdom of darkness;
(2) With the evil passions of others - their pride, ambition, and spirit of revenge - which are also a part of that kingdom;
(3) With the evil customs, laws, opinions, employments, pleasures of the world - which are also a part of that dark kingdom;
(4) With error, superstition, false doctrine - which are also a part of that kingdom; and,
(5) With the wickedness of the pagan world - the sins of benighted nations - also a part of that kingdom. Wherever we come in contact with evil - whether in our own hearts or elsewhere - there we are to make war.
6:13-17- Paul goes on to say in the following verses that because of all this, we ought to put on the armor of God so that we can resist in the evil day. This can either mean “when the evil day comes,” “in the age of evil (which is now)” or perhaps a combination of both. Considering Paul has been discussing the everyday lives of believers in this message (and how we ought to act), the context seems to warrant the understanding that Paul is instructing the Christian to resist the current evil day (as the list from Barnes in the previous verse would suggest). The full armor of God is something we’ve all learned if we’ve been in church any amount of time, but it is crucial we understand what all these pieces of armor mean, especially in light of the world we live in and how we are to combat the evil in the world. As Paul mentions these, he’s pulling from the OT (primarily from Isaiah) where the prophet attributes these as the armor God Himself wears when fighting His enemies. Thus, as we are united with Christ, we are to share in this armor. Paul is also drawing upon common Roman soldier attire as a metaphor his readers would be familiar with.
1- Belt of truth. We are to stand firm in the objective truth of God and the gospel. The context of existence itself presupposes truth. Without truth, we are vulnerable to the Father of Lies, just as in the Garden when the serpent lobbed lies that if believed, led to death! The subjective aspect to this truth is that we must possess it and “wear it” to enable us to stand in battle. As Hodge remarks, “Let not any one imagine that he is prepared to withstand the assaults of the powers of darkness, if his mind is stored with his own theories or with the speculations of other men. Nothing but the truth of God clearly understood and cordially embraced will enable him to keep his feet for a moment, before these celestial potentates.”
2- Breastplate of righteousness. God wears this in Isa. 59:17. Godly character, our morality in terms of our conduct, speech, thought and our ethical outlook are all vital in protecting our heart, which is what the breastplate protects (cf. 4:24, 5:9). Campbell states, “The enemy must not be allowed to corrupt the believers' sense of right and wrong, or to mislead them into unrighteous conduct. That is a certain path to ultimate spiritual destruction, so the believer must protect their heart at all costs.” I also find Jerome’s comments here particularly insightful as the breastplate protects those vital organs on which our life depends. “One protected by such a breastplate of righteousness will not be like a vulnerable stag that receives the arrow in his liver. He will not lapse into rage or lust. Rather, he will be protected, having a clean heart…”
3- Shoes as the gospel of peace. Paul is likely pulling from Isa. 52:7, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation,” (cf. Rom. 10:15).Wherever we go, we ought to be bringing with us not an attitude or message of violence, but the gospel of peace. This is how we undermine the spiritual enemies, through the gospel message that doesn’t destroy lives, but transforms and changes them. The mention of “readiness” probably parallels with Col. 4:5-6 with regard to being “ready” to proclaim the gospel of peace: “Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.”
4- Take up the shield of faith. Faith is really the prerequisite for all of this. Without faith, fidelity and allegiance to Christ and the promises of God, we won’t put on the breastplate of righteousness, we won’t bring a gospel of peace. We will immediately be struck with the fiery arrows of the devil and be subject to wickedness and death. As Stott says, “faith lays hold of the promises of God in times of doubt and depression, and faith lays hold of the power of God in times of temptation.”
5- Helmet of salvation. Again, Isa. 59:15-18 depicts God as wearing this armor in battling His enemies for the sake of justice and salvation. For us, this helmet protects our mind from attack. When we know we have salvation in Christ, regardless of the evils of the world around us, we can rest assured and have confidence that ultimate salvation is certain for us.
6- Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The prophet says in Isa. 11:4, “He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.” Or as the NET translation renders the last part, “and order the wicked to be executed” (cf. Hosea 6:5, Rev. 1:16; 2:12; 19:15). The “breath of his lips” refers to his speech, specifically in that context to God’s official decrees that the wicked oppressors be eliminated from the earth. This, as many people point out, is the believers only offensive weapon. So what is the sword of the Spirit? It’s the word of God. We know that Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it's the Holy Spirit’s speech. That is, the Bible you have is God's word, His revelation. Stott shows the broad nature of the phrase “the word of God.” The broader reference, he says, is Scripture, “God's written word, whose origin is repeatedly attributed to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Still today it is his sword, for he still uses it to cut through people's defenses, to prick their consciences, and to stab them spiritually awake. Yet he also puts his sword into our hands, so that we may use it both in resisting temptation (as Jesus did, quoting scripture to counter the devil in the Judean wilderness) and in evangelism.” As Stott and others point out, the most sufficient illustration of this is in Matt. 4:1-10 where Jesus fights the attacks of the devil with one weapon, the sword of the Spirit, the word of God. Multiple times He proclaims, “it is written” then quotes Scripture as his weapon. He even quotes Deut. 8:3 in Matt. 4:4:“But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
As Jesus is praying to the Father in John 17, He states that the “words” the Father gave Him are being given to His disciples (17:8). In 17:20, Jesus prays not just for His disciples (the Twelve) “but for those also who believe in Me through their word.” What we have recorded in the New Testament are the very words of God. “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” -1 Thess. 2:13. As Stott sums up, “We must never therefore be ashamed to use it, or to acknowledge our confidence that the Bible is the sword of the Spirit.”
6:18- Prayer ought to be a daily devotion for the Christian. “Pray at all times” could be hyperbolic much like “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:18). The idea is that we should devote ourselves to prayer much like Christ did (not that we ought to literally pray 24/7, even in our sleep). We see Jesus devote time early in the morning to prayer (Mark 1:35), in the evening (Matt. 14:23) and in times of distress (Luke 22:44). The apostles certainly echo what Christ taught them: “Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart,”-Luke 18:1. This praying at all times should be done “in the Spirit.” That is, all prayer should be Spirit-led. As Ambrosiaster states, praying in the Spirit means “we are directing our prayer to God with a clean conscience and sincere faith. One who prays with a polluted mind prays only in the flesh, not in the spirit.” Again, we turn to Christ as the supreme example of Spirit-led prayer. In Matt. 26, we see our Savior bring his petition (request) before the Father, but at the same time, yielding to the Father’s will. “And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” -Matt. 26:39.
This is what it looks like to pray in the Spirit. Gerald L. Borchert writes that “when we pray the way Jesus would pray, our prayers are no longer formulated as selfish statements of our desires enhanced by a magical mantra of reciting a mysterious name that assures us of results. Rather, prayers become, like those of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, great experiences of agonizing wrestling with God’s will.”
In our verse here in Ephesians Paul also exhorts his readers to “always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people” (NIV).This is another example of what praying in the Spirit looks like and can also be seen as modeled by our Lord in John 17 where He prays earnestly for His disciples and of all those that would believe their message. Foulkes states that “the individual Christian is not to think only of his own spiritual conflict, but to be concerned for the whole Church of Christ, and for the victory of all his fellows in the fight.” As Christians, we are “united as one army, and therefore have a common cause; and each must pray for all” says Hodge. So the question ought to be for us, are we praying like this? Are we bringing our requests to God with Spirit-led initiatives, or are our prayers selfish?
6:19-20- Here are a couple of amazing verses. We now see Paul ask for help from the very people he has been instructing. It’s almost as if he finished the previous verse by exhorting the church to pray and petition God for all the saints and goes on to say, “and on that note, I could really use the prayers in my own ministry.” Paul was no fool and understood that he needed the church to be praying for him as much as he prayed over the church. Note what it is that Paul is asking prayer for. It’s not prayer for personal gain, prosperity, a life free of suffering, or even that he would be set free from prison (a seemingly expected request). Rather, he asks that he would be empowered with wisdom and the ability (or freedom) to continue to boldly proclaim the gospel and teach the mysteries of God. Campbell submits that in this way, “the request may echo Paul’s hope for the Colossians, that they would know how to answer each person (Col. 4:6).” Liefeld also points out that “when the apostles prayed, they did not ask for protection, but for boldness, which God gave them through the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:29-31).” I can’t help but take stock of my own prayer life in order to weigh it against what I see in Scripture. Do my prayers reflect selfish desires and wrong motives (James 4:3)?
6:21-22- Tychicus also carried the letter to the Colossians and had a similar task of bringing them information, details on how Paul is doing, and to “encourage your hearts” (Col. 4:7-8, see also: 2 Tim. 4:12, Titus 3:12). We learn in Acts 20:4, that Tychicus is included among Paul’s traveling companions and is from Asia Minor (where Colossae and Ephesians are located). He is not simply a “delivery boy,” but as Paul describes him, a “beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord.” His role to deliver Paul’s correspondence and to encourage churches would have been a highly important one.
6:23-24- Paul then ends the letter with a benediction and ends similarly to how he begins the letter (1:2). Paul’s use of “peace” here is no mere platitude, but as Campbell notes, “peace is at the heart of what Christ has achieved for his people, and it must reign through their relationship with one another.” Here, Paul ties love with faith as he does in 1:15 and 3:17. Faith is what connects believers to Jesus and as Campbell states: “love describes the posture of believers toward one another.” That is, as we’ve seen throughout this letter, a sacrificial love and an attitude of humility, patience and gentleness (4:2, 5:2). Last of all, Paul prays that God’s grace would be upon those who love the Lord “with incorruptible love” or “with love incorruptible” (ESV), “with an undying love.” (NIV). The Greek word aphtharsia qualifies the “love” that believers have for the Lord. The same Greek word is used 4 times by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 to describe the inheritance of a future, undying/imperishable body after the resurrection. The meaning there is that in the age to come, we will have bodies that do not decay and break down (become corrupted), but rather bodies and an existence that lasts forever in a perfected state.
The use of this word to describe the believer’s love here in Ephesians is somewhat odd, but ultimately conveys love for Christ “with a pure heart; without dissembling; without hypocrisy” (Barnes) or as A.R. Fausset puts it, “Not fleeting as earthly love, but spiritual and enduring.” This is why the KJV translates it as “all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.” However, some see this as a limiting factor on God’s grace, as if to say “God will only give grace contingent on the quality of a believer's love.” This would seem out of place theologically. Rather, as Stott explains it, “They therefore suggest attaching the phrase rather to God’s grace than to Christian’s’ love. In this case, the prayer is that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ may experience God’s grace ‘in immortality” or ‘for ever’.” In any case, only those who love the Lord will be the recipients of God’s grace whether in this age or the age to come. As Hodge sums up, “The divine favour rests on those to whom the Lord Jesus is the supreme object of love.”
May we seek to be a community that understands what God has done for us and a community united by our devotion to Christ as Lord and our love for and another. May the reader know the peace the Lord Jesus brought when He came to establish His kingdom. That is, the peace that now exists between mankind and God; the reconciliation of the world that He created. May the reader experience the grace of God in their lives as they seek to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and love their neighbor as themselves. Amen.
Bibliography (works cited):
Ambrosiaster- Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol. 8, Ephesians
Barnes, Albert- Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible (Ephesians)
Borchert, Gerald L.- John 12-21 (Vol. 25b), NAC, 2002, p.357-358
Campbell, Constantine- The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC, 2023
Fausset, A. R.- Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Bible Commentary (Ephesians)
Foulkes, Francis- The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, TNTC, 1981
Harris, Murray J.- Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ, 2001, (various quotes from Ch. 2 & 3)
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
Snodgrass, Kyle- NIV Application Commentary, One-Vol. Edition (Ephesians)
Stott, John- The Message of Ephesians, BST, 1979
Witherington III, Ben- The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles
Witherington III, Ben- Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (p. 182)