Ephesians 4:25-32

b. Special traits of the new walk

Ephesians 4:25-32

25Wherefore putting [having put] away lying [falsehood], speak every man truth [speak ye truth each one] with his neighbor: for we are members one of another. 26Be ye angry [Be angry],75 and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath 27[irritation]:76 Neither [Nor yet]77 give place to the devil. 28Let him that stole [who stealeth] steal no more [longer]: but rather let him labor, working with his hands78 the thing [that] which is good, that he may have to give [impart] to him that needeth [who hath need]. 29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which [whatever] is good to the use of edifying [for the building up of the need],79 that it may minister [give] grace unto the hearers [to those who hear]. 30And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby [in whom] ye are [were] sealed unto the day of redemption. 31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and 32clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be [become]80 ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another [each other], even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven [in Christ forgave]81 you.82

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The general basis: no lie but the truth (Ephesians 4:25); the special points as respects disposition (Ephesians 4:26-27), as respects work (Ephesians 4:28), word (Ephesians 4:29-30); comprehensive conclusion (Ephesians 4:31-32).

Ephesians 4:25. The general basis. Wherefore, διό, gives the connection with what precedes (“no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk”), and, as the exhortations with their positive and negative sides show, with special reference to Ephesians 4:22-24. Hence immediately: having put away falsehood, ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος.—According to Psalms 116:11 (“all men are liars”); Psalms 62:10; Romans 3:4, the first duty of every natural man is to put away the lie, especially as the connection with the kingdom of darkness is thereby indicated. For the devil is the liar from the beginning, who slew man, leading him away out of the truth of life in God (John 8:44). Hence [the abstract]83 τὸ ψεῦδος, which is not τὸ ψεύδεσθαι, nor=lies (Luther); it is the opposite of the “truth as it is in Jesus.” Comp. 1Jn 2:4; 1 John 4:20; 1 John 5:10. It does not occur then, because it is the principal spiritual sin of heathenism and has as its result a darkening of the spirit (Schenkel). This requirement is of deeper scope than to allow it to be said that even heathen ethics could designate and forbid this as sin.

Speak ye truth each one with his neighbor [λαλεῖτε ].—This exhortation is [a reminiscence] from Zechariah 8:16 (LXX.): λαλεῖτε . The article is wanting with ἀλήθειαν, in order to mark that not the complete, entire truth is to be spoken; that cannot be done at the beginning; only let what you do say be true. Paul substitutes the preposition μετά for πρός, in order to give special prominence to the intercommunion in the speaking with each other [Stier] and to bring to mind the Christian brother, as the context requires. The reference is not to “neighbor” in the wider sense, to all men. The Apostle is treating of the Church of Christ.

For we are members one of another [ὄτι ἐσμὲν ].—This is the motive: to be members one of another and to belie one another, how contradictory (Meyer)! Est enim monstrum, si membra inter se non consentiant imo si fraudenter inter se agant (Calvin). Christians are “members one of another,” not merely members of the body of Christ, but each has to do for the other, to give to him, as well as to receive from him and permit him to do in return. The reciprocal ἐπιχορηγία of speaking the truth (Stier) is marked. It is entirely similar to Romans 12:5-8; 1Co 12:15-27.84 The passage is full of significance, not inexact (Grotius, Rueckert and others), and is not to be applied to the Gentiles and the Jews, as is done even by Bengal.

The Particular Points: a.) As respects the disposition: anger without sin, since in the Church so great occasion to anger especially is given to the Christian with his natural man, and the fellowship is so easily disturbed thereby, and the Christian himself corrupted; Ephesians 4:26-27.

Ephesians 4:26. Be angry and sin not [ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε].—The first verb is to be taken as imperative, in this series of imperatives (Ephesians 4:25-32). This is further required by the circumstance, that it is a citation (Psalms 4:5 : רִגְזוּ וְאַל־תֶּחֱטָאוּ translated by the LXX. precisely as Paul here writes it): the original and the Greek version are undoubtedly imperative. The passage in the Psalms is rendered by Luther: Be angry, so that ye sin not; this passage: Be angry and sin not. The sense is evidently equivalent to ὀργιζόμενοι μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε (Winer, p. 292), which not only states the case in which they would become angry, but also expresses that the anger is allowed, aye commanded and righteous. This is only the more strongly marked by the two imperatives joined with καὶ, the second of which only is negatived (μή); accordingly Paul used this form, this citation.85 The original text in the Psalm, in which the main matter is the transformation of the angry quousque tandem to rest and gentleness, is correctly rendered by the LXX. (Hengstenberg, Hitzig, Stier, against Ewald, Harless and others). It can only be affirmed that Paul did not wish to prove anything by the citation (Harless); he wishes only to use the words of David, but does not use the words of the LXX. to strengthen those which they are acquainted with; it is incorrect to suppose that nothing depends on the sense of the original passage (Rueckert). The Sacred Scriptures, which speak of the wrath of God, showing us Christ in anger at the cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-16; Matthew 21:12-13), do not reject anger: James 1:19-20; Romans 12:19; Ecclesiastes 7:9. So here, for we do not read: Do not be angry and sin, the negative cannot be moved forward so as to qualify the first verb (Winer, p. 460). Hence we need not accept an unwilling permission of anger (De Wette, Winer); in that case ἀλλά would be found in place of καί. Nor is “be angry” in accordance with an assumed Hebraism to be taken conditionaliter on account of the connection with a following imperative (Rueckert, Zyro, Stud. u. Krit., 1841, p. 690), [Hodge apparently]; that would really mean: if ye are angry, ye will not sin. The limitation of “sin not” to reconciliation (Harless), to the exclusion of enmity against others (Zyro), is incorrect because not in accordance with the context. The acceptance of an interrogation (Grotius: are ye angry?) is inadmissible on account of the quotation.

Let not the sun go down upon your irritation [ὁ ἤλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ τῷ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν].—This thought is occasioned by the citation (Psalms 4:5) and the matter itself. There is also in the expression “let not the sun go down,” a reminiscence of Deuteronomy 25:13; Deuteronomy 25:15, according to which the poor man should receive his cloak, given in pledge, and wages should be paid before sundown. There is no reference to the Pythagorean precept to be reconciled before sunset; and quite as little to Christ, the Sun of Righteousness (Augustine), certainly none to the Reason (Lombard). The [non-classical and rare] word παροργισμός occurs only here; it is related to παροργίζεσθαι (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; Romans 10:19), meaning the anger aroused in us, the being or becoming angry, which should not continue, nor be carried about and nourished. Affectus noctu retentus alte insidet (Bengel). Anger thus becomes hate, rancor. What is right towards the occurrence, viz., being angry, should not when that is past, be retained against the person, who remains. The preposition παρά does not indicate something wrong (Zanchius), [Wordsworth], and the article, marking the momentary being angry, connected with ὀργίζεσθαι, is not incorrect (Stier). [Comp. Textual Note2. Alford brackets the article, suggesting that the omission gives the sense “upon any παροργισμός.” The word irritation preserves the reference to occasion given indicated by παρά, and at the same time distinguishes (in English) from the “wrath” which is forbidden in Ephesians 4:31.—R.]

Ephesians 4:27. Nor yet give place to the devil [μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ.]—Μηδέ is disjunctive and adds something new (Matthew 6:25); while μήτε is adjunctive, adding something which belongs to the foregoing (Matthew 5:34-36). Comp. Winer, p. 457.86 Besides not sinning by prolonging wrath, they should not sin by giving place to the devil. Δίδοτε τόπον designates, as in Romans 12:19, affording free play, wide space, of course in the heart. But to whom? to the devil, as in Ephesians 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:26, even though it does not elsewhere occur in this sense in Paul’s writings, but more frequently describes slanderers, or a slanderous manner (1 Timothy 3:6-7; 1 Timothy 3:11; Titus 2:3).87 The antithesis is found in Ephesians 4:30. Hence it does not mean: the blasphemer (Luther and others) or talebearer, as many hold. Nor is the verse to be applied to social life (Harless); the context requires a reference to individuals. Sinful anger brings even the Christian’s heart into the power of Satan, from whom he was freed, destroying the fellowship with the Redeemer and His grace.

Ephesians 4:28 b. As respects work: Honesty reaching to benevolence. Let him who stealeth steal no longer [ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω].—Ὁ κλέπτων, which is neither=ὁ κλέψας, nor=ὁ κλέπτης, marks the act or the action, not the character; hence it is stronger than “him who stole,” and weaker than “the thief.” Comp. Winer, p. 331. Luther is therefore incorrect [rendering as in E. V.]; Bengel also: qui furabatur, adding however: præsenti hic non excluso.88 The notion of stealing, however, must not be limited here by the definition of criminal law and police regulation, but be conceived of from the stand-point of Christian ethics, as in the case of the eighth commandment. That deportment of the natural man over against the possessions of his neighbor, which ought to be overcome, is here treated of. It is incorrect to suppose idle habitual thieves are meant (Schenkel).—In the Christian ethical sense there is added: μήκετι κλεπτέτω. Hence it is unnecessary to inquire why nothing is said of restitution (Michaelis), and the opinion that this exhortation is unsuitable, because it does not correspond with the Apostle’s strictness (De Wette), is not pertinent. The Apostle’s strictness and the Christian view follow immediately:

But rather let him labor, working with his hands that which is good [μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς χερσὶν τὸ . See Textual Note4.].—Μᾶλλον δέ gives prominence to the antithesis. With the emphatically placed κοπιάτω Paul includes laziness and idleness as the beginning and ground of theft (Bengel: sæpe furtum et otium sunt una), and all the more decidedly by designating as the antithesis: “working with his hands that which is good.” The participle denotes the active, assiduous performance, corresponding slightly with ἐργασία, Ephesians 4:19 (Stier); it is not earning, gaining, as the object is not external possessions, or handicraft, trade (Meyer, De Wette). Bengel is excellent: Antitheton ad furtum, prius manu piceata (i.e., hands to which whatever comes near sticks as to pitch, pix) male commissum; on “with his hands” (the hands of the thief), he adds: quibus ad furtum abusus erat.89 Romans 6:19. The hands should now do the good, that in its proper time and place must be done; then there will not be wanting something to bestow upon the needy.

That he may have to impart to him who hath need [ἴνα ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῲ χρείαν ἔχοντι].—“That he may have” sets forth the purpose, not of him who labors, as if the work should be done on this account, but of the enjoining Apostle, the ruling Lord.90 He should have something to give (μεταδιδόναι), for “we are members one of another” (Ephesians 4:25). This should take the place of stealing. “To him who hath need,” to him from whom recompense is not to be expected. Instead of stealing there is required an honesty and activity, which impels to beneficence. Whether the question about restitution is necessary and ethical earnestness and depth are missed here—is evident enough. See Doctr. Notes.

c. As respects speech: no foul word, but gracious discourse tending to edification; Ephesians 4:29-30.

Ephesians 4:29. Let no corrupt communication proceed oat of your mouth [πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μῆ ἐκ πορευέσθω].—The subject: πᾶς λόγος σαπρός is assumed as present in the mouth of the readers while the predicate forbids: let it not proceed out; not one such should be expressed, Ephesians 5:5; John 3:16; 1 John 2:21. [Literally: “let every foul saying not come forth.”—R.] See Winer p. 162 f. Bengel: si jam in lingua sit, resorbete. Σαπρός, from αήπω, σαπῆναι, spoiled by putrefaction, corrupt, used of fishes (Matthew 13:48), of fruit (Matthew 12:33; Luke 6:43), of a tree (Matthew 7:17-18; Matthew 12:33; Luke 6:43), denotes according to the antithesis (αγαθὸς πρός) uselessness, but it is certainly chosen to designate both what is decayed, wornout, ruined, and what is disgusting and stinking; Bengel: vetustatem redolens. Comp. κενὸς λογός, Ephesians 5:6; ρῆμα , Matthew 12:36. In these passages the emptiness and unprofitableness is more prominent, here however the loathsomeness. Theodoret: αἰσχρολογία, λοιδορία, συκοφαντία, βλασφημία, ψευδολογία καὶ τὰ τούτοις ποίσοιμα.

But whatever is good for the building up of the need.—Ἀλλὰ (sc. ἐκπορευέσθω), εἴ τις (sc. ἐστι) πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας. Over against the prohibition the acceptance of wholesome speech takes a very modest attitude; over against πᾶς we have here εἴ τις. Bengel: non postulatur ab omnibus par facundia. ̓Αγαθός, however, as in Romans 15:2, designates what is internally, morally good, not merely what is fitting (Harless), [Hodge, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott]; that would be too external. The genitive of reference has been aptly rendered by Luther: where it is needed. This refers to the time when, to the place where, to the person to whom, to the method how, and to the purport which, we are to speak. “According to Jerome it applies also juxta opportunitatem loci, temporis et personæ ædificare audientes” (Stier). Colossians 4:6 : “How ye ought to answer every man.” [Ellicott also takes the genitive as one of reference; “edifying as regards the need, i.e., which satisfies the need.” Alford follows Meyer in regarding it as the regular objective genitive=“the defect to be supplied by edification,” so that the sense is “the edification of the present deficiency or need calling for it.” The hypallage of the Syriac, Beza, followed in the E. V., is clearly wrong, also qua sit opus (Erasmus and others).—R.]. It is incorrect to take ἡ χρεία οἰ χρείαν ἔγοντες (Rueckert, Olshausen).

That it may give grace to those who hear [ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ].—“That” refers to the design of the enjoining Apostle, not that of the obeying member of the congregation. The subject of “give grace” is “good word;” we do not then read “that ye may give.” Luther presents very well the manner, the esthetic side: “that it may be gracious;” for χάρις means also the gracefulness, agreeableness, of the discourse; just as in Colossians 4:6 : “in grace,” Luke 4:22. But the inner side, the matter, must not be overlooked, nor put in a secondary place; it must be a kindness. Harless includes this alone, but incorrectly; a befriending, agreeable act of kindness is meant, which should make this impression on the hearers: whether it profits them, is their own affair. Stier seems to be not incorrect, in finding here (δῷ) an echo of Ephesians 4:28 (μεταδιδόναι), and a spiritual gift in the seasoned but pleasant word spoken with unction. [Alford retains the theological meaning of χάρις: “minister spiritual benefit; be a means of conveying through you the grace of God” (so E. V.). Hodge on the other hand follows Harless, holding that the phrase always means to confer a favor; “that it may benefit the hearers.” Ellicott accepts the non-theological sense of χάρις, but adds that owing to its change of meaning in the New Testament, there seems to be even in this phrase a reference to spiritual benefit. He renders: “that it may impart a blessing.”—R.]

Ephesians 4:30. And, καί, connects closely with what precedes; so much depends on proper speech.—Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, μὴ λυπεῖτε πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον τοῦ θεοῦ.—The verb forbids injuring, disturbing, rendering sorrowful, pointing thus to an intimate fellowship, in which joyous love toward and among each other should prevail, and to a tender conduct and intercourse; for it happens per sermones putres (Bengel). The object is “the Holy Spirit of God.” This full designation shows the importance of the matter and compels us to recognize the objective reality and Personality of the Holy Ghost. Shepherd of Hermas, ii. Eph 10: μὴ θλῖβε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ ἐν σοὶ κατοικοῦν, μήποτε ἐντεύξηται κατὰ σοῦ καὶ . He who speaks out the foul thing which comes from his mind to his lips, injures thus the Holy Spirit in himself, and in others also. The plural means also: Ye, each one in himself, or in others too. The Holy Ghost like God is not apathetic, but capable of being affected. Romans 8:26. He feels what occurs in us, as a loving Friend, who does not Himself change, but will help us and change us, so long as we grant that He be not rejected. This is a possible final result, in spite of the close connection in which He stands to us, and in spite of the help and blessedness, which He produces in us. Both ideas are added in the relative clause which follows:

In whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption, ἐν ᾦ ἐσφραγίσθητε εἰς ἡμέραν .—The first thought is contained in the expression: “in whom ye were sealed,” in whom91=in fellowship with whom, ye were sealed (Ephesians 1:13); the other is marked by “unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 1:14); hic dies est novissimus, cujus representatio quædam est in die mortis; præsupponit dies citeriores (Romans 2:16); in illo maxime die referet, quis inveniatur obsignatus (Bengel). Isaiah 63:10 (where the LXX. have incorrectly rendered עִצְּבוּ, παρώξυναν; the Vulgate is better: (afflixerunt) should be compared, not as though this were a citation, but on account of the similar thought.

Accordingly λυπεῖν is not to be pared down to a mere troubling (Bengel: turbare), nor is the human spirit to be regarded as the object (De Wette; Christian feeling), nor is the capability of being affected which belongs to God and the Holy Ghost to be rejected or regarded as a mere anthropomorphism; the reference to the possibility of being forsaken by the Holy Ghost should not be denied (Schenkel). There is both great kindness and earnestness in the warning thus formulated and emphasized: “in the case of the unredeemed sin it is a transgression of the law (Romans 4:15, etc.), in the case of the redeemed it is a wounding of the Holy Ghost” (Harless), whose tempter he is (Ephesians 2:22). Not by threatenings respecting the punishment of hell, but by holy dread of grieving the Holy Ghost, and wholesome fear of the day of Judgment, which with Him is only the day of Redemption, does the Apostle seek to persuade and strengthen.92

Comprehensive conclusion; Ephesians 4:31-32. a. The negative side, Ephesians 4:31; b. The positive side, Ephesians 4:32.

Ephesians 4:31. Let all bitterness.—Πικρία (Hebrews 13:15; Acts 8:23; Romans 3:14) is ill-temper, animosity, unholy indignation, as πικραιύρσθαι, Colossians 3:19. Comp. ζῆλος πικρός, James 3:14. It is entirely internal, concealed in the heart [“the prevailing temperament and frame of mind” (Ellicott).—R.].—And wrath.—θυμός is excitement, passionate movement of the temper, in selfishness, unrestrained and disorderly.—And anger.—Ὀργή is the passion concentrating itself, directed against a particular person with the purpose of hurting him. ̔Ο θυμὸς γεννητικός ἐστι τῆς ὁργῆς (Œcumenius). According to the context carnal anger is spoken of; hence there is nothing to be inferred respecting Ephesians 4:26 from this passage. Bengel is incorrect: hactenus descendit climax; but he properly compares the first with χρηστοί, the second with εὔσπλαγχνοι, the third with γαροζόμενοι (Ephesians 4:32) as their respective antitheses. Comp. Tittmann, Syn. I, p. 131 ff. [Also Trench, Syn. § 37; Donaldson, New Cratylus, §§ 476, 477; Galatians 5:20.]

We now pass to the breaking out of what was within, to its becoming perceptible in look, mien and gesture: and clamor.—Κραυγή (Acts 23:9) is wild, rough crying, refers to the voice, improperly strained and sharpened, as in scolding, upbraiding, to the casting about of words uninterruptedly. It is the steed of anger (Chrysostom).93—And evil speaking, βλασφημία, pointing to the purport of the speaking, is aspersion of one’s neighbor, λοιδορία (Col 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:4; Matthew 12:31; Matthew 15:19), yet sharper than this, not merely like “Raca “(Matthew 5:22), abusing the mental or civil capacity of a brother, but like “thou fool,” the moral capacity for God’s kingdom, and hence not without a reference to God (Stier), blaspheming possibly or probably. “All,” which belongs to all the substantives, refers to the various degrees, from the coarsest among common people to the most refined among the educated; so θυμοί, 2 Corinthians 12:20.

Be put away from you.—̓Αρθήτω ̓ ὐμῶν is a stronger conclusion of “putting away” (Ephesians 4:25); it must take place with power in the mighty help of One stronger than we, to whom all this clings.—With all malice.—Σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ, the fermentum of the bitterness (Meyer) and the rest [“the active principle to which they are all due”], refers to malice, malignitas and malitia (Romans 1:29; Colossians 3:8), both the quality and its manifestation, in order to sum up in conclusion all that cannot be enumerated.

[Eadie: “This verse contains not only a catalogue, but a melancholy genealogy of bad passions; acerbity of temper exciting passion; that passion heated into indignation; that indignation throwing itself off in indecent brawling, and that brawling darkening into libel and abuse; a malicious element lying all the while at the basis of these enormities.”—R.]

Ephesians 4:32. The positive side. And become ye, γίνεσθε δέ.—Thus the antithesis is strongly marked at the very start, as not finished at one stroke, but having a development, a history.94—Kind one to another.—Εἰς is put first, marking chiefly the fellowship. Χρηστοί (Luke 5:39; Luke 6:35; 1 Peter 2:3; Romans 2:4) helping the χρεία; ingeniosius quam verius is the reference to the name: Christians (Olshausen). Comp. Tittmann, Syn. I., 140, 195.—Tender-hearted, εὐσπλαγχςοι (like 1 Peter 3:8) refers to sympathy, fellow-feeling, hearty compassion. [Comp. Colossians, p. 69].—Forgiving each other, χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς (2Co 2:7; 2 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 12:13), marks the tender, considerate, forbearing, forgiving life among themselves; ἑαυτοῖς points more strongly than ἀλλήλοις to the existing unity, where one deals with another as himself (Colossians 3:13). [The former thought is from Stier, the latter from Origen, but they are not to be pressed too far.—R.]

Even as God in Christ forgave you [καθὼς καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν Χριστᾦ ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν],—Καθώχ95 is as in Ephesians 1:4 (Harless). Καί joins the readers to God, to the clause “God in Christ forgave you.” The notion is as in Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14. God’s mercy and grace is manifest in Christ, proved itself in Christ, in the death (2 Corinthians 5:19) of Him who accomplished the reconciliation of the world with God. “In Christ” belongs to the verb, the predicate, not to “God,” the subject. [Either connection presents a truth: God in Christ, manifested in Christ, forgave us, but God forgave in Christ, in giving Him to be a propitiation for our sins. The latter thought seems more appropriate with the aorist which refers to a definite past act; it is neither “hath forgiven” (E. V.), nor “will forgive,” a gloss our feeble faith puts on it.—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL.

1. The lie is put first by the Apostle as a fundamental vice. It is the loveless misuse of language and the means for communicating the thoughts of the heart, with the design of deceiving our neighbor. It injures love, therefore one’s own heart, and one’s neighbor, it injures fellowship and truth, and thus one’s own heart again, which needs these, and our neighbor, who needs them no less. The untruth must be intentional; otherwise it is merely not true, an error, not amounting to a lie. The deception must be intentional: Drama, irony, satire, joke, conventionalities are not lies; for in these it is presupposed that our neighbor understands this language and can translate it into his own. What is conventional is the language of humanity, which should come from the heart and become natural, as in Fenelon. A lie is an act of lovelessness against our neighbor, even when not intended to injure him, perhaps only to help or assure ourselves or others, to make preposterous stories, something out of nothing, like all frivolous lies, which, however innocent they may appear, are still the school for turning frivolity into mischief. The word itself does not necessarily make the lie; it may be consummated in silence, in countenance, in gesture or act; but at all events it is an abuse of God’s gift for the manifestation of our thoughts and perceptions. Its opposite is truthfulness, love of truth, which is at the same time love to mankind. It is indeed not possible without some circumspection and restriction, since it does not consist in having the heart on the tongue, but in having the tongue in the heart.

This vice is less strange among men than many others, so that even the better class of people, the pious world also, has an elastic conscience respecting this point. The conventional mode of life with its illusion and deception makes truthfulness utterly impossible, unless Christ becomes a living power in us. In lying as in stealing, a beginning is made in a little thing, and then come bolder advances, until an extreme is reached: one lie is told to conceal another, instead of forgiveness being sought, and then comes shameless, impudent untruth. If comes from the devil and leads to him; it is the devil’s own vice (John 8:44). The Scripture forbids it unconditionally, especially the Lord Himself (Matthew 12:36-37); it does not approve of the untruths of the Hebrew midwives, of Michal, Jonathan, etc., only narrating them as facts. Although lying mainly injures fellowship, yet it is not to be so connected therewith as to be considered allowable where no fellowship exists; nor is it to be so contra-distinguished from love, that a lie is not to be regarded as such, where the latter is active, even though the untruth is spoken with an intention of deceiving. The former principle applies to robbers, murderers and thieves; the latter to children, lunatics, drunkards and passionate people. In the first case it is not allowable like stratagem in war or in peril of life, and in the other truth should not become poison or poniard.96 Over against the sophistry: verbal truth should not stand against hearty love, the rigoristic principle, which allows no lie in an emergency, is justified. It is better inconsistently to deny in books and in the pulpit the right of untruth, and in life and in the household to practise it, than at the expense of truth to serve a false one. To speak an untruth on account of a neighbor’s necessity out of love for him is still a lie; personal need, personal interest does not first give it this character; the necessity of a neighbor gives no justification to a lie in a case of emergency.

2. Anger, which, in God, is the energy of holy love against sin and corruption disturbing and perverting moral order, is justified in the Scriptures. Affirmed of God more than three hundred times, it cannot be wrong of itself in man who is created after the image of God; it is rather a witness and basis of active love in the surroundings of an unholy world. The right to he angry is admitted and granted, but to be angry rightly however. Loveless anger is as incorrect as angerless love. Without ardent hatred towards what is wicked, there can be no lawful anger towards those who are wicked. It is difficult to separate the two; comp. Jude 1:23; Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15; Romans 12:9; Psalms 97:10; Amos 5:15. The Apostle here gives prominence to the pernicious element of that anger which becomes a lingering grudge, and to the danger of thus falling a prey to the devil; it corrupts man inwardly and makes him the slave of Satan; the “irreconcilable remains the unreconciled, incurring the wrath and judgment of God.” See Palmer, Moral, p. 373.

3. Property and Theft stand in the closest relation. The latter attaches not only to the lack of the former, but rather to its acquisition, preservation and expenditure. A Christian should have more than he requires for himself; there should be a surplus for others, even though he be a day-laborer. The opposite of thievishness is Industry, which leads to opulence; with this many continued and varied exercises of Christian virtue stand connected, and Benevolence, personal, private benevolence, both secret and open; this is required, not the public, municipal charity. The emphasis rests on personal benevolence, which succors and devotes itself to need, not on police alms. Honesty should proceed toward benevolence, and what hampers and weakens the latter, has the blot of dishonesty upon it. Avarice, dissipation, vanity, laziness, negligence, debauchery and idleness are theft. See Braune, Die heilig. 10 Gebote, pp. 178–189; Palmer, Moral, p. 375.

[The scope of the negative precept (“steal no longer”) may be inferred from the positive statement which follows: It forbids idleness in general (“labor”) and laziness (“working”), implying also that those who are neither idle nor lazy may yet “steal,” because their work is neither “with the hands” nor for “that which is good” (speculation, sinecures, sharp business habits, etc.). Further all labor, however assiduous, proper and honest, which does not aim at a surplus to give away is not distinctively Christian. Though no one has a right to demand from capital (i.e., the accumulated surplus of labor), yet here is the responsibility of the Christian capitalist. On the other hand, the positive principle of honesty here set forth bids us labor, that we may have a capital for benevolence; so that begging, combining to extort, or even legislating in favor of idleness, is not in accordance with the Apostle’s view. Paul by his example (Acts 18:3; Acts 20:34; 2 Thessalonians 3:8), as well as by the strongest precepts (Acts 20:35; 2 Thessalonians 3:10) exalts the dignity of manual labor. To despise labor is a mark of barbarism, involving as a result either the indigence of savage freedom or the injustice of not less savage slavery. Unless the curse pronounced (Genesis 3:19) upon the man be accepted and transformed by such acceptance into a blessing, it becomes a worse misfortune. As a working man then Paul appears equally removed from the capitalist hoarding only for self and from those champions of labor who talk too much to work and who ask the same wages for the ignorant and lazy as belongs of right to skill and industry. Appealing to his hands hardened by toil, he says: “So laboring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”—R.]

4. The entire scope of speech is here in question: The essential characteristic of Christian speech, well-pleasing to God, is “good for the edifying of the need,” a furthering in accordance with the necessity of the case. This applies to the preacher and pastor, to the social circle, the popular orator, be he democratic or conservative, and to the statesman as well. To have regard to place, time and auditors, and to regulate both matter and manner accordingly: this is the conscientious scrupulousness of the Christian! The minister should spare all pious phraseology which is not to edification, and not be content with sharing and proving his Confession of Faith, without any regard to the necessities of the occasion. Magna vis est in colloquiis piis (Bengel). Much therefore depends on the fitting word; comp. Braune, Die heil. Gebote, p. 205 ff.

5. General remarks: a. Sin is universal; it attaches not to the heathen only, but to the natural, unregenerate man as a ruling power; nor is it to be found especially in one class, race or period.—b. Sin as a whole is referred to: sin of thought, word and deed; here too the coarser or finer form, the secret or open manner makes no difference.—The Apostle so sketches the substance of sin, that at first glance we are shocked, and can imagine, it exists only in numerous circles, strata and periods, in the heathen or the remarkably degraded; but if we look more closely, we find it everywhere and in all ages, often indeed under the gloss of culture and elegant manners. The appearance of sin is in the extremities, but its seat is in the very noblest organs, from which it extends through the whole body of our race, without He helps who is the Head of His Church.

6. The motives presented are: God’s mercy in Christ over us, the precious gift of the Holy Ghost in us, the thought of the day of decision before us. God’s own aim is what is morally good; to injure this is to injure Him, to obstruct, disturb and destroy His working for us and in us. God’s unchangeableness is not the impossibility of being affected; that would be imperfection, indolence (James 5:16-18). Our new birth may, like the life of one born, be again taken away, the sealing of the Holy Ghost be again taken from us. He who does not look at the goal not yet attained and still held up, does not preserve what he has received in his spirit from the Spirit of God. We can lose the grace of God, can again fall into condemnation without recovery, much as it is denied.97 Hebrews 6:4-6.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL.

Comp. Doctr. Notes.—On Ephesians 4:22-28 (the Epistle for the 19th Sunday after Trinity) see the preceding section.—Virtue helps to cast off vice, and the casting off of vice introduces virtue, both thus acting reciprocally.—Two classes of men sin against the Apostle’s precept respecting sinless anger: those who rage and those who can never be angry. Sinful anger is a raging storm which lays waste a planting of God’s; righteous anger is a priest, who slays the sacrifice of righteousness and casts all care and anxiety from herself upon the Lord with a Hosanna. As in the Psalm (Ephesians 4:5) so here the allusion is to night, to intercourse with one’s self, to quiescence about and in us; the day of anger should be the day of reconciliation; in prayer before God let all animosity be still; let not radiant love of God set for us, with the sun in the heaven. With anger we give a lodgement to the murderer of souls, the devil; who does not slay anger, him anger slays. Hot temples are the easiest bridges for the devil into our hearts.—As room can be given to the devil, so is there also a withdrawal of the Holy Ghost,—For the commonest virtues we need what is highest of all: the kindness of God in Christ; without this there is a relapse into the heathen vices.

Starke:—Truth is a lovely virtue, a glorious ornament, and sparkles brighter than the most beautiful diamond. If you have the truth, speak the truth from your heart, and walk in the truth, then are you certainly a beloved child of God.—Anger must not be taken to bed and allowed to go to sleep with us, lest it become hatred. Where anger takes the upper hand, Christ goes down with His gracious light.—The slanderer and blasphemer has the devil on his tongue, and whoever purposely listens to the slander gets him in his ears, and whoever takes delight in it, has him in his heart.—There is no dignity, no office, in which peculations are not practised by many. It is only a pity that they are so bedecked and behung with the fine show and appearance and well-adorned cloak of right. Not only are the rich bound to have compassion on the needy, but those who maintain themselves by labor, should share with those who cannot work.—See how put of the glow of sin one spark after another rises up, each greater than the last, until a great fire is made out of it.

The enigmatical, mysterious, unfathomable, people, who never let their hearts be seen, do not bear this Divine stamp; it is as if they did not wish their evil tricks to be betrayed.—The Christian should never lay his head unreconciled to rest, and he has no rest, if he has injured any one, or knows himself to be at enmity with any one. Gentle rest belongs only to a heart free from passion. Examine thyself, whether any one sighs over thee. The Pythagoreans, if they had fallen out with each other in words, gave each other the hand before sundown, kissed each other, and were reconciled.—The aim of labor, of earning, should be the weal of others. The worth of labor is this, that it furnishes us the means of doing good and tasting the sweetness of doing good.

The perceptible alterations, of life which must occur in the regenerate. 1. In general, in the prevailing mind, Ephesians 4:22-24. a) An entire laying off of the old evil mind, a cessation of the old lust. b) Putting on of an entirely new holy mind, of God’s likeness, like God to think and will, and daily renewed zeal in reaching after the likeness of God. 2. Specially, Ephesians 4:25-28. Through the virtues which the renewed man exhibits: a) Purity, chastity, b) Truthfulness, c) Gentleness, d) Inoffensiveness. e) Honesty and Rectitude.

The great difference between Christian culture and that of the world. 1. In general, a) The world’s culture leaves the old humanity untouched, unimproved, only whitewashes it. b) Christian culture ennobles man from the foundation up, by substituting the Divine mind for selfishness.2. Specially. a. Culture hinders only the great outbreaks of vice, Christianity makes the heart pure. b. Culture teaches to shun great lies, Christianity makes inwardly true. c. Culture makes outwardly refined, Christianity gives true gentleness, d. Culture guards against coarse injustice, but Christianity makes truly honest, even where one is not remarked.—Real improvement must begin at the bottom of the heart.—Would not the world fare better, if all became real Christians?—Christians are new men.—The speech of a Christian should always have a moral purpose. Paul describes Christian eloquence both as to its matter: it speaks what is serviceable for improvement, awakens good impulses, leaves a sting behind it in the hearts of others; and as to its manner, which is to be kind, so that love is thereby expressed and made perceptible. The Christian is no babbler, does not allow himself to become a mountebank or court-fool!—The Holy Ghost can be grieved: 1. In Himself, one frustrates His work partly in his own heart, and partly in others, which especially happens through evil speeches. 2. In others, when one grieves the pious Christians, who are full of this Spirit. Consider, whom you should respect in such persons, the Holy Ghost dwelling in them!—The Christian should not be bitter, without on this account becoming sweet. Wrath is the full outbreak of hate against others. Clamor is a token of a hasty, vehement, uncontrolled, rough spirit.

Passavant:—All—liars, because all, sinners, for in every sin is falsehood, a denial of the truth, a deception upon and against ourselves and before God.—Better die than lie! says an old Church Father.—In the case of the unconverted every sin is a wrong against the holy law; in the case of the converted it is at the same time a wrong against the Holy Ghost.

Gerlach:—The Holy Ghost is estranged by empty, vain babbling, but grieved by foul talk.—Stier:—To drive out every sin dwelling in the old man, the practice of the opposite virtue must be employed.—Either we slay again, or it slays us. If a man goes to bed with poison, it creeps through all his members during sleep. Anger is a murderer. Who would sleep with a murderer? To be angry is human, but to cherish it long is devilish (Heinrich Mueller).

[Eadie:

Ephesians 4:26. Anger is not wholly for bidden; it is an instinctive principle—a species of thorny hedge encircling our birthright. But in the indulgence of it, men are very apt to sin.—“When the curfew bell rings, let us then also quench all sparks of anger and heat of passion” (Thos. Fuller).

Ephesians 4:27. Give the devil “place” but in a point, and he may speedily cover the whole platform of the soul.

Ephesians 4:29. Words so spoken may fall like winged seeds upon a neglected soil. Comp. Proverbs 25:11.

Ephesians 4:30. All this perverse insubordination is in utter antagonism to the essence and operations of Him who is the Spirit of truth, and inspires the love of it; who assumed, as a fitting symbol, the form of a dove, and creates meekness and forbearance; and who, as the Spirit of holiness, leads to the appreciation of all that is just in action, noble in sentiment, and healthful and edifying in speech.—It may be said to a prodigal son—grieve not your father lest he cast you off; or grieve not your mother lest you break her heart. Which of the twain is the stronger appeal?

Ephesians 4:31. “Anger sets the house on fire, and all the spirits are busy upon trouble, and intend propulsion, defence, displeasure or revenge; it is a short madness, and an eternal enemy to discourse, and sober counsels, and fair conversation; it is a fever in the heart, and a calenture in the head, and a fire in the face, and a sword in the hand, and a fury all over; and therefore can never suffer a man to be in a disposition to pray” (Jeremy Taylor).

Ephesians 4:32. In the exercise of Christian forgiveness his authority was their rule, and his example their model. They were to obey and also to imitate, nay, their obedience consisted in imitation.—R.]

[Ephesians 4:25. The ground of Christian truthfulness and its negative and positive sides.

Ephesians 4:26-27. Anger. 1) may be right; 2) is far more likely to be wrong; 3) certainly is, if it lasts long: 4) becomes worse yet by giving entrance to the devil.

Ephesians 4:28. Obedience here would stop many a business, and deplete the ranks of many a profession, by increasing the number of honest laborers; but how much it would do for the weal of mankind!—Legislative charity is not Christian charity, nor the payment of taxes for the support of the poor, an essentially Christian virtue.

Ephesians 4:29. The Apostle implies here: 1. That corrupt things rise very naturally to the lips, but should never be spoken; 2. That useful things are rarer.—Much speaking is likely to be evil-speaking.—Profitable conversation: 1. How rare; 2. Little sought for; 3. Selfishness the cause.—This verse would shut many a mouth in prayer-meeting, often enough in the pulpit too.—Would that it did, for is it not by unedifying words as well as evil ones, that the Spirit is grieved?

Ephesians 4:31. “Evil speaking,” i.e., slander, is “blasphemy” in Greek; it stands last in this catalogue. It always breaks the sixth and ninth commands, usually the seventh, and is an offence against the third also.

Ephesians 4:32. Kindness is well, compassion is better, but forgiveness is like God in Christ.—Who forgave us? God in Christ; how did He forgive us? in Christ; whom did He forgive? us in Christ.—R.]

Footnotes:

Ephesians 4:26; Ephesians 4:26.—[The article τῷ is omitted in א.1 A. B.; rejected by Lachmann, Meyer, bracketed by Alford, but on the authority of א.3 D. F. K. L., fathers, retained (as in Rec.) by most editors. The probability of its being omitted because the substantive was defined by ὑμῶν is very great.—R]

Ephesians 4:27; Ephesians 4:27.—[Instead of μήτε (Rec., a few cursives, Chrysostom) most modern editors accept μηδέ on the authority of all our MSS. (א. A. B., etc).—On the grammatical objection to the former reading, see Exeg. Notes.—Nor yet, see Ellicott’s note on the translation of 1 Thessalonians 2:3.—R.]

Ephesians 4:22; Ephesians 4:22.—[The variations are great: 1. We have the long reading ταἵς ʼιδιαις χερσὶν τὸ (א.1 A. D. E. F. G., many versions), accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf (Exodus 1:0), Wordsworth, Eadie, Ellicott and others; the same words appearing with τὸ coming first in K. and some cursives. 2. In many authorities ἰδίαις is omitted, and there is a strong suspicion of its interpolation from 1 Corinthians 4:12. Here too there is variety in the order; א.3 B. some fathers read: ταῖς χερσὶν τὸ (Meyer, Alford, 4th ed.), while the order is reversed in the Rec., L., majority of cursives, many fathers (Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, Exodus 2:7). 3. We have besides two briefer readings, almost wholly conjectural, though each claims a Father in support; the one ταῖς χερσίν alone (regarding τὸ as interpolated from Galatians 6:10), the other τὸ alone.—It will be seen then that the evidence strongly sustains the position of τὸ at the end of the clause; accepting this, the only other question deserving attention is the genuineness of ἰδἰαις. The mass of authority is in its favor, but very good authorities omit it. The internal evidence seems to be against it, for it may have been inserted from 1 Corinthians 4:12, and the special force attached to it by Ellicott (see Exeg. Notes) scarcely amounts to an argument for retaining it.—Braune’s preference is rendered uncertain by an evident typographical error, but he rejects ἰδίαις.—R.]

Ephesians 4:29; Ephesians 4:29.—[D.1 F., some fathers read πίστεως instead of χρείας; an evident correction.—Give is more literal than minister, which at the same time puts upon grace the sense of “Divine grace,” hearers too is somewhat too technical in its present use.—R.]

Ephesians 4:32; Ephesians 4:32.—[B. and some minor authorities omit δέ (Lachmann), while οὖν is found in D.1 F. G., both readings probably due to a misapprehension of the relation between Ephesians 4:31-32.—Become is more exact than be; each other (ἑαυτοῖς) than one another.—R.]

Ephesians 4:32; Ephesians 4:32.—[Never was the E. V. more unfortunate in its rendering of the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ.—The aorist requires here: forgave.—R.]

Ephesians 4:32; Ephesians 4:32—[B. (according to Alford’s personal inspection, not B.2) D. E. K. L. and a number of minor authorities read ἡμῖν; accepted by Lachmann. But א. A. F. and other authorities support ὑμῖν. The probability of an alteration from Ephesians 5:2 has decided most recent editors of the correctness of the second person.—R.]

[83][Notice the frequent use of abstract nouns, almost personifications, in this chapter. Here “the vice and habit of lying” is meant, which is a chief characteristic of the “old man,” a natural and immediate result of the essential selfishness of sin. The aorist participle is preferred here (=having put away), “because the man must have once for all put off falsehood as a characteristic before he enters the habit of speaking truth” (Alford).—R.]

[84][“The force of the exhortation does not rest on any mere ethical considerations of our obligations to society, or on any analogy that may be derived from the body (Chrysostom), but on the deeper truth that in being members of one another we are members of the body of Christ.”—Ellicott. The analogy Chrysostom draws is striking, however, and deserving of notice: “If the eye were to spy a serpent or a wild beast, will it lie to the foot?” etc.—R.]

[85][This is perhaps the view now generally received. Both imperatives are jussive; anger is not only allowable, but commanded in certain cases, yet the Apostle forbids the joining of sin with it; in so doing the emphasis resting on the second imperative obscures the jussive force of the first one, rendering it rather assumptive: Be angry (for this must be so) and do not sin. So Eadie, Alford, Meyer, Ellicott and others.—R.]

[86][In addition to the critical grounds for rejecting μήτε, the grammatical objection should be noted. Μήτε here would presuppose another μήτε, while μή precedes. The sequence is therefore abnormal. Meyer suggests that it might occur, if the second member were an after-thought, but it never does occur in Paul’s writings. This verse is therefore connected with the preceding, but as an affirmative sentence would be through δέ.—R.]

[87][In two of these instances the meaning is: the devil, in the other two, without the article, it may mean slanderous (as an adjective applied to women in both cases). Meyer is probably right in affirming that the substantive διαβολος in the New Testament always means: the devil. So Hodge, Alford and Ellicott. “A name derived from the fearful nature and, so to say, office of the Evil One.”—R.]

[88][Eadie: “Some, shocked at the idea that any connected with the Ephesian Church should be committing such a sin, have attempted to attenuate the meaning of the word.” So Jerome, Calvin, and Hodge who accepts the past sense. But such sinners may yet have been in the Church. See 1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 12:21. In the service of the Reformed Church for the ordination of Deacons, this gloss occurs: “Let him that stole (or who hath been burthensome to his neighbor),” as an admonition to those who too long depend on the charities of the Church.—R.]

[89][Ellicott retains ἰδίαις and says: “The thievish man lives by the labors and hands of others: he is now himself to labor, and with his own hands, not at τὸ κακόν, but at τὸ .” But such an antithesis seems doubtful. The verse is better explained thus: He who steals (whether a thief or a so-called “business-man”) should stop this, and go to work, to real labor. The participial clause then adds how: let him accomplish by assiduous effort with his hands something good, instead of this past evil. The purpose of the effort follows in the next clause. The sum of the whole is: Honest manual labor. 1. Labor, 2. better with the hands than with the dishonest wits; 3. above all let it be honest as to means and good as to end.—R.]

[90][This is evidently stated by the Apostle as “the true specific object of all Christian labor, and just to the extent that the work is done on this account, will it be itself Christian. The laborer may be unconscious of this end at times, but it is necessarily his end in labor as a Christian. The verse is worth a whole library of volumes on social science. Its precepts would make many a so-called merchant or professional man go to manual labor, while on the other hand this last clause would settle the “workman’s question” far more effectually than the whole array of socialistic theories, Agrarian appeals, trades unions and “strikes.” But Prud-homme is too often preferred to Paul.—R.]

[91][Not by whom (whereby, E. V.), Hodge, since God is the Sealer, the Spirit the seal; comp. Ephesians 1:13.—R.]

[92][It is precisely this thought of the Apostle, so correctly stated by Braune, which throws doubt upon the reference to the possibility of losing the seal, found here by Harless, Stier, Alford and Braune (Doctr. Note 6). But the mention of a seal is not suggestive of such a possibility, nor is “grieving the Spirit”=resisting the Spirit, the latter being predicated of unbelievers only (Acts 5:51). Besides had Paul wished to convey this idea παροξύνετε (from Isaiah 63:10, LXX.) was probably in his memory, and this would have expressed such a thought far better. Of course the caution assumes a logical possibility of falling, which is practical enough, but the appeal is to love not to fear. While the Scriptures always thus exhort men, it seems to be a species of anthropomorphism also, for the more theological and soteriological statements preclude such a possibility. Even here where the verse begins with such a caution, there is at once added a mention of the “seal” and of “the day of redemption” as the end, which suggests the doctrine of “final perseverance” rather than the opposite. Comp. Eadie and Hodge in loco.—R.]

[93][Chrysostom adds: “Let women especially attend to this, as they on every occasion cry out and brawl. There is but one thing in which it is needful to cry aloud, and that is in teaching and preaching.”—R.]

[94][Alford is scarcely justified in saying that “become” removes the precept too far from the present. Ellicott rightly takes the verb as implying evil elements among them, yet to be taken away; hence the appropriation of δέ. See Textual Note6.—R.]

[95][This particle introduces an example, having at the same time an argumentative force; not=because, as Hodge renders it here also.—R.]

[96][Lies to children are fearfully common. Surely the motive (“for we are members one of another”) in this case has unusual force. To say that such lies are necessary, is to say that it is necessary to blacken a child’s heart. In the liveliness of childish imagination they are great romancers themselves, but at the same time sensitive to an untruth told them. How can they have faith in God, when those who stand for the time being in the place of God prove unworthy of belief? What they cannot understand should be declared incomprehensible to them, not misstated. What would we think of our Heavenly Father, if He dealt otherwise with us?—R]

[97][In the original Dr. Braune adds: “by the Methodists and Baptists,” an oversight which is singular enough; it may be accounted for by remembering that these two denominations are almost the only ones which operate among German Protestants as missionaries. The representative of the State Church (Dr. Braune is General Superintendent) naturally classes them together. On the question whether the possibility of falling from grace is here taught, see Exeg. Notes. The passage in Hebrews teaches either: no fall is possible, or: the first fall is fatal, an alternative not usually accepted by the advocates of such a possibility.—R.]