Chapter 5
Once again, vs 1 starts with therefore, therefore it really belonged in the last chapter. It is an important conclusion, and is the principle built on the previous examples:
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. [Eph 5:1 ESV]
In our terms, we should try to be like Him when we grow up. This should be our guide. What would Jesus do is indeed a phrase that should be constantly before us.
2022 - There is more to this "therefore":
2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Eph 5:2 ESV].
Looking back, note that 4:17 started a new thought contrasting the behavior of these saved Gentiles in the church with the still unsaved Gentiles outside the church. Paul seems to be worried that in Ephesus, in the name of "loving their neighbors", the church was continuing to associate with unsaved friends who "sinned as a matter of course and without hesitation or regret". Perhaps they were thinking they could not reach them if they did not "fit in" with them. So Paul opens Chapter 5 saying, be imitators of God, and then vs 2, love other people - Gentiles - in the way that Christ loved them. Christ didn't join them. He ate with them, but it is obvious in every account that he was different from them. If they were getting drunk at dinner, Jesus didn't get drunk. If they were flirting with the servant chicks, Jesus did not flirt. He loved them by being an example of how to live, how to behave, how to love your neighbor into the kingdom rather than loving him as your "partner in crime". This could be insidious. Imagine doing whatever you want to stay close to your friends because you are once saved always saved. Get your friends to join your church by showing them they don't really have to give up any of the things they don't want to give up, but in the church they can do it with impunity, with no consequences.
2022 - I think we see a corroboration that this is exactly what was going on beginning in vs 3:
3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. [Eph 5:3 ESV]. Don't do these things, even occasionally, as a way to maintain friends and get them to come to church. Then the next verse:
4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. [Eph 5:4 ESV]. Does this not remind you of locker room talk? Among men? It isn't just about not "doing" lewd things, we ought not join in with joking and laughing about lewd things. Our whole "behavior bar" needs to go much higher when we are saved. We have to do as Christ would do, even if we do lose friends over it. If we do not persuade them by proper behavior, then we are false advertising, and they will come into the church and dilute the church and never be saved from hell anyway, plus the church becomes indistinguishable from the Temple of Diana!
Paul now exhorts them against sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness. Must remember that Ephesus' Temple of Diana was full of prostitutes of both sexes, and both hetero- and homo-.
Paul gets very plain:
5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. [Eph 5:5 ESV]
I wonder the tense of the verb "is". I would think it is the one that shows continuous ongoing action. If immorality characterizes your life, you have no part in the kingdom. All sin, and repentance brings forgiveness. But you can't sin, anticipating that you will repent later. This would be continuous ongoing sin, and show an attitude of immorality, and not purity.
2021-2, The word in the mGNT is eimi, and in the Textus Receptus, esti. Neither is in the aorist tense. Both are present indicative, meaning the action is a fact - as in not a speculation maybe - and the action is taken by the subject. Also 3rd person singular. So there really isn't anything in the Greek that I can see saying this is about repeated action. Paul is saying don't even do this once. If you do this once you have no inheritance. Here is something interesting though. The first two definitions of the word ESV translates "immoral", have to do with male prostitutes. The word is "pornos", Strong's G4205. Only the third definition is the more general "immoral" and even that one includes the phrase "unlawful sexual intercourse". "pornos" is a masculine noun. Now that I see all this, I don't think Paul is saying "don't run around on your spouse", he is saying "Guys who are saved do not work as temple prostitutes!" That is incompatible with the renewed nature. So looking at this again, I think Paul is saying that association with male prostitutes is bad. He is saying it is bad because such people are not saved and have no part in the kingdom. Vs 7 is the one that brings this all home when it says "Therefore, do not become partners with them.". The word "partners" is "symmeticos", which has to be where the word symmetry comes from. Don't be symmetrical with the men who do these things, no matter what they say.
2021 - Vss 5 and 6 are about the unsaved friends of those in the church at Ephesus. Perhaps these friends attended the church when there wasn't an orgy going on at the Temple of Artemis, but they always went to Diana's place first. I think the behavior of these is being contrasted with right behavior for Christians as covered in vss 8 ff. Look how vs 7 starts, showing that there should be a contrast: 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; [Eph 5:7 ESV] Don't do things the way these are doing things. The conclusion about people who behave this way came earlier in vs. 5 - You can be sure these who behave this way are NOT saved people. So don't hang out with them!
2022 - Vs 5 is looking outward. Paul is still talking about the "old friends" with whom the Ephesian church previously associated. Those old friends, who are behaving that way, and even those in the church who are still behaving that way - unchanged by their supposed salvation - are in fact NOT saved people. Maybe they are telling you they are as they invite you to come with them to "orgy night" at the Temple of Diana, but they are not. IF THEY WERE, they would not be doing such things. You see and know (indicative) that they ARE doing these things, so you KNOW they are not saved. Therefore, do NOT partner up with them and tag along like you used to do!
2021-2, This verse:
[Eph 5:10 ESV] and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
Does not say go ask the priest what is pleasing, nor any man. This is between each person and the indwelling Holy Spirit. No outside help. These verses then contrast the difference between things of light and things of darkness. Things of darkness are kept secret. Not mentioned in polite company. Such things need the light shined on them.
2022 - Vs 10 I think also tells us that "choosing" what we should do is not always going to be easy. "Try to discern" indicates less than 100% success. But try. There is no Law any more, and even if there were, there would be situations it did not cover. The Law always said what NOT to do. We must practice discernment, practice "hearing" what the Spirit tells us to do. Because the Spirit is God, and there is no "twilight" with God. It is darkness or it is light.
This gives me a better grasp on some favorite verses:
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. [Eph 5:15-16 ESV]
or the way I learned it:
[Eph 5:15 KJV] See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
[Eph 5:16 KJV] Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Here is one of the interlinear definitions of "redeeming" that I really like:
"to make wise and sacred use of every opportunity for doing good, so that zeal and well doing are as it were the purchase money by which we make the time our own".
Sort of implying that only the time spent doing God's work is really "life". The rest of the time is slavery to someone else.
Then, beginning in 22, we have instructions to wives and husbands, the subject of those John MacArthur sermons I love so much...and need to listen to again.
2022 - Why in the world does this subject come up here? We have just been shown the difference between those acting in the old Gentile way and the way saved Gentiles ought to act. We've been told not to hang with those who still do visit the Temple prostitutes and sit around telling dirty jokes in the locker room, and carrying on with dissipation and drunkenness and partying all weekend. There is nothing productive, nothing redeeming in this. And then, we get instructions on being married? Because that's what we ought to do instead of partying? Stay home and work on that relationship?
2022 - Husband and wife...Christ and the church. This is the model that Paul - an unmarried man who is more than just fine remaining that way - gives us advice for our most fundamental human relationship. Christ's finished work brought the church into being. He did away with the Law and established the church. The relationship of a church with Christ is therefore spiritual, not based on physical things done with hands but on continual good will, love as a verb rather than an emotion, and communication "within" the spiritual relationship. As Christ seeks to set the church apart in the world, so the Church seeks to attain to the standard set by Christ. Christ wants to make the church honorable above all else. The church wants to honor Christ by abiding by his wishes for them. There is nothing here at all that says "Husbands, demand exemplary behavior from your wives even if you have to beat them to get it." Nor does it say "Wives, obey the wise things your husband says, but always sort the wise out from the foolish and make the final decision yourself." Doesn't say either one of those things. Husbands don't "force" things on their wives. Wives don't rebel against the leadership of their husbands.
Yeah. I think that's on the right track. I think so because those are pretty difficult things to do. BUT, doing what a good husband would do is not dependent on what the wife does, how she responds, how submissive she is. You can still be a good husband. Being a good wife is not about how qualified the husband is. It is possible to be a good wife to a very stupid man. I think the proof that this is on the right track is the final verse:
33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. [Eph 5:33 ESV].
Possible FB post if you have the guts to publish it...
2023- This verse, which shows up also pretty prominently in Grudem Chapter 45:
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [Eph 5:26 KJV]. Water's washing. Washing by the word. These are the two "connections" here that need to be unraveled. With these, sanctification and cleansing are advanced. What if we substitute baptism in for water's washing. Then we get "with baptism by the word". But that is almost certainly NOT what Paul meant. Sanctify and cleanse with baptism by the word. This is STILL a difficult verse, especially when connected with marriage instructions! It is the cleansing of the church by Christ that is in view.
Look at the same verse in ESV:
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [Eph 5:26 ESV]. This translation puts the cleansing in the past and the sanctification as ongoing. Christ is already done with cleansing the church, and he did so by water's washing with the word, and now seeks to sanctify the church. "having cleansed her" is an aorist phrase. A specific time of that happening is not in view. So we would be unwise to try and connect this with the water and blood of the crucifixion. So NOT already done. The word translated "with" is "en". It is just a preposition, with only two letters, and is most commonly translated "in". That would be water's washing in the word. I don't know. Too much time here already. By and with are the next two most common translations. KJV used by. Thing is, this word shows up 2800 times in the NT, and 1902 of those are translated "in". For comparison, it is translated "by" only 160 times, and "with" only 140 times. So why was "in" the wrong translation here??? Why not "by the washing of water IN the word". This feels like progress...Now the water is what is in the word. The word itself then could be thought of as the water that washes, cleanses, and sanctifies. Now that makes pretty good sense. And I am going to stop there before I confuse myself again. It is through the Word, through the scripture, which we think of metaphorically as the water used to wash, to sanctify, and to purify the church.
A husband's love should sanctify the wife. That is, nothing he does should incite or encourage sin in her life. Instead, a husbands actions should encourage toward purity, worship, and love.
31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. [Eph 5:31-32 ESV]