Ephesians

Gary M. Burge, Galatians and Ephesians Through Old Testament Eyes

Burge, Gary M. Galatians and Ephesians through Old Testament Eyes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2025. Pb. 327 pp. $28.99.   Link to Kregel

Gary Burge, a Wheaton College emeritus professor of New Testament and well-known scholar, contributes the first volume in the Through Old Testament Eyes series on Paul’s epistles. In his short introduction to the commentary, Burge illustrates the difficulty of interpreting something from another culture. Beit Alpha has a synagogue mosaic with a series of recognizable Jewish symbols, but it also has zodiac symbols and an image of Helios, the Roman sun god, at the center. Burge suggests it takes humility to look at a Jewish mosaic with zodiac symbols and admit that we do not know what the combination means. A similar humility is required for interpreting Galatians and Ephesians (or any other biblical book). We are reading ancient letters in another language, from another culture, and we only hear Paul’s side of the argument. This TOTE commentary series attempts to bridge the gap by offering insights from the Old Testament to help a modern reader interpret Paul’s letters. By ignoring this context, Burge suggests, we risk interpreting these letters in a way that Paul would not recognize.

Galatians and Ephesians Through Old Testament Eyes

Like previous TOTE commentaries, Burge does not write a detailed intertextual study, nor is the commentary on “how the New Testament uses the Old” in Galatians and Ephesians. Burge does not discuss intertextual methodology (how to detect allusions to the Old Testament) or address hermeneutical issues of how Paul interpreted the Old Testament. Burge recognizes that Paul used the Septuagint but does not draw parallels to rabbinic exegesis (Galatians 4:21-31, for example). On one occasion, he draws attention to Second Temple literature (Jubilees in the endnote 5 on Galatians 4), but the focus of the commentary is on how the Old Testament sheds light on Galatians and Ephesians.

His twelve-page introduction to Galatians begins with a discussion of the location of Galatia and the timing of the letter with respect to the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15). Burge accepts a southern Galatia position. Although this is compatible with either a date before Acts 15 or after, Burge uses the early date in his interpretation of the letter. Galatians is therefore the earliest of Paul’s letters, written just after the conclusion of the first mission trip (Acts 13-14). The introduction briefly describes the spiritual climate of the Galatian churches in a Hellenistic culture where Roman gods mixed with local religious practice. The crisis in Galatia is that “certain men from James” came to Paul’s churches, telling the Gentiles that they must be circumcised to be fully saved. Paul hears of this, postpones his return to the churches, and returns to Jerusalem to settle the issue (Acts 15). The Letter to the Galatians confronts the Jewish teachers. Burge suggests that Paul “believes that an epic shift has occurred in history” (36), by which Gentile Christians are now part of God’s family, the children of Abraham, without keeping the Law (starting with circumcision).

In the introduction to Ephesians, Burge suggests, “Paul is a different person when he writes Ephesians.” Since commentary series rarely pair Galatians and Ephesians, the contrast between “early Paul” and “later Paul” is even more profound. Like most commentaries on Ephesians, Burge discusses the letter’s destination (to the Ephesians or not?) and authorship (written by Paul, or not?) He surveys the critical consensus is that Paul did not write the letter and suggests that an amanuensis or the circumstances later in Paul’s life may account for these objections. Paul might be the author, or the letter could be written “in Paul’s voice.” He concludes Ephesians is “curiously unlike the other Pauline letters.” After offering a brief overview of the context of western Anatolia (culture, religion, imperial cult, mystery religions), Burge says the message of Ephesians is a “grand vision for the church, its place in the world, its qualities, and its mission to create a society unlike any known in the Roman world” (164). In Ephesians, the Christian life is like a battle with dark spiritual forces (like the mystery cults).

Through Old Testament Eyes commentaries have three types of sidebars. First, “What Does the Structure Mean?” These sidebars comment on structural elements of the text, such as the rhetorical strategy of pathos in Galatians 4:11-20. Second, every chapter contains several “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebars. Burge uses these spaces to focus on how Paul uses certain Old Testament passages (Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:11-12; Isaiah 57:19 on Ephesians 2:13), but also for tracing important Old Testament themes in Paul’s thought. For example: Yeast (Gal 5:9), New Creation (Gal 6:15), The Temple (Eph 2:19-22), or Sealing (Eph 4:30). Third, each chapter contains at least one sidebar entitled “Going Deeper.” These sections draw application from the text and are pastoral. For example, while discussing Galatians 5:14, “Love your Neighbor,” Burge draws application for believers who find loving some neighbors difficult. Others interact with contemporary scholarship. Commenting on Galatians 2:19-21, Burge discusses the contribution of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift.

Compared to other volumes of the TOTE series, there are far more “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebars. There are 25 for Galatians and 31 for Ephesians (nearly five per chapter). The Matthew commentary in this series had 29 sidebars in this category, one per chapter of Matthew. In addition, there are fewer “What Does the Structure Mean?” sidebars, only seven in the entire commentary and only one for Ephesians. By comparison, there were 26 in the Matthew volume.

This is an improvement since the commentary’s theme is reading the text through Old Testament Eyes. I found Karen Jobes’ commentary on John curiously lacking in comments on how the Old Testament illuminates John’s Gospel (there were no “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebars in chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11). Burge’s commentary has far more commentary on how the Old Testament illuminates Galatians and Ephesians. I hope this is the case for future commentaries in this series.

The commentary proper is based on the English text (NIV) with occasional comparison to other modern translations. When Burge refers to a Greek word or phrase, it appears in transliteration. Readers without Greek will be able to use the commentary without difficulty. In the body of the commentary, he rarely refers to secondary sources. Endnotes refer to other commentaries. Burge also uses endnotes for Greek grammatical issues and occasional references to historic interpreters. Although I prefer footnotes, the body of the commentary is distraction-free and a pleasure to read.

Conclusion: Burge’s Galatians and Ephesians Through Old Testament Eyes is an excellent commentary on these two books and will be helpful for pastors and teachers preparing sermons or lessons. Although the TOTE commentaries do not deal with every detail of the text, the focus on how the Old Testament illuminates the text is a welcome contribution to the study of the New Testament.

 

Other volumes in the Through Old Testament Eyes series:

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC)

Campbell, Constantine R. The Letter to the Ephesians. PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023. xxvi+1140 pp. Hb; $45.00.  Link to Eerdmans

Campbell is presently Professor and Research Director at the Sydney College of Divinity. He previously served as professor of New Testament studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Campbell published an exegetical survey of the “in Christ” language in Paul (Paul and Union with Christ, Zondervan 2012), and he co-edited “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation with Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Michael J. Thate (Eerdmans 2018). He serves as an Associate Editor of the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series, and recently published Jesus v. Evangelicals (Zondervan, 2023). This new volume of the Pillar New Testament Commentary series replaces P. T. O’Brien’s 2016 commentary after the publisher concluded allegations of plagiarism were credible. Campbell dedicates this commentary to P. T. O’Brien, “Teacher, colleague, mentor.”Campbell, Ephesians

Campbell begins the thirty-four-page introduction to the commentary with a discussion of the authorship of Ephesians. He gives an overview of the discussion of this controversial topic, arguments against Pauline authorship, and some evaluation of these arguments. Notice he does not “answer the arguments.” Campbell considers these as “evaluative reflections.” He concludes, “The claim of pseudonymity depends on accepting the premise that someone else could write so convincingly as Paul that they deceived everyone in the early church (10). If true, how compelling are the differences from authentic Pauline letters?

As is well known, the destination of Ephesus is missing in some early manuscripts. An additional problem in identifying the letter’s recipients is the relationship of Ephesians to Colossians. He concludes that the letter to the Ephesians was written by Paul, inspired by his earlier letter to the Colossians. The letter was sent to churches in Asia Minor, including Ephesus. Ephesus was a regional hub and strategically important for Paul on his third missionary journey. Following Clint Arnold, he briefly surveys the importance of magic, worship, and power for understanding the letter. Concerning the setting and date of Ephesians, the traditional view is that Paul wrote from imprisonment in Rome (AD 60-62). He briefly considers the possibility of Caesarea (AD 57-59) or an otherwise unknown imprisonment in Ephesus. Campbell concludes there is no compelling reason to reject the traditional answer period. Tychicus was sent with the letters of Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon around AD 62.

What is the relationship of Ephesians and Colossians? He lists a series of similarities in themes such as the cosmic supremacy of Christ, Christ as the head of the church, and the household codes. He notices similar vocabulary not found elsewhere in Paul, and both letters use Tychicus. But, once again, following Clint Arnold, he suggests the similarities should not be overstated. Ephesians lacks a real threat from the so-called Colossian heresy.

Campbell offers a series of critical themes in the letter to the Ephesians. First, making good use of his previous work on the topic is the union with Christ, or participation in Christ. Second, Ephesians emphasizes the supremacy of Christ over every ruler (1:21, for example). Third, Ephesians famously describes salvation by God’s grace through faith (2:1-10). Fourth, Ephesians discusses Jew-Gentile relations in 2:11-22 and the unification of Jews and Gentiles into the Body of Christ (3: 1-6). Fifth, a significant theme of the book is the unity of the church and the relationships of its various members. Sixth, Ephesians 6:11-20 focuses on spiritual warfare, although the theme is present in 1:20-22. Campbell sees this as a now and not yet tension. Christ is already victorious over the spiritual forces of evil, but these stark spiritual forces continue to influence. They are not yet vanquished. Finally, following Michael Gorman, Becoming the Gospel, Campbell sees mission Dei as one of the central motifs of Paul’s letters. Citing Gorman, Campbell says, “To be in Christ is to be caught up in God’s mission and thus God’s own character- indeed, in God’s very life (29).

The commentary uses the CSB translation, with occasional modifications explained in the footnotes. Campbell’s exegesis is based on the Greek, but the commentary uses English text. This will make the commentary accessible to all readers, whether they have strong Greek skills or not. There are ample footnotes dealing with lexical and syntactical issues, although many of these notes are simply the Greek text or citations of BDAG.

In an excursus on Wives and Husbands (274-76), Campbell observes that many readers want to pigeonhole a commentary as either complementarian or egalitarian, implying that one of those views is wrong. Mea culpa: this is exactly what I did. I immediately turned his comments on Ephesians 5:20-21 to see what he does with the very difficult line “wives submit to your husbands.”

He follows recent commentaries by Arnold (ZENTC) and Cohick (NINTC) by beginning with the observation that submission in the first century was not a pejorative term. Submission needs to be understood within the context of the stratified Roman social world (242). Does submitting to one another refer to a symmetrical or asymmetrical relationship? It cannot mean “generals submit to sergeants,” for example. Many relationships are, by definition, asymmetrical (parents and children, for example). Campbell points out that relationships are always asymmetrical in the ancient world. If Ephesians has a symmetrical relationship in mind, then it is our only example.

Another controversial issue in this passage is the definition of headship in 5:22, “the husband is the head of the wife.”  Does “head” refer to authority or source? Campbell first deals with the lexical issues, including secular ancient Greek, where headship more often refers to source. Citing Moises Silva with approval, “head” does not convey authority or superior rank. “The headship of the husband is counter-culturally expressed in his self-giving love towards his wife, just as the headship of Christ is expressed through his saving the church” (251). Maybe Paul is countercultural, or perhaps he is not. Whatever the case, Ephesians 5:21-24 does not imply a return to a “1950s-style domestic bliss” (276).

I agree with Campbell’s warning that the terms complementarian and egalitarian are unfortunate and often misleading. And usually leads to some form of tribalism. It’s essential to “uphold the dignity of submission as a noble duty of all followers of Jesus” (275). And I heartily endorse his desire to respect the details of the text and “let the chips fall where they may.” This is precisely the role of sound exegesis: to shed light on the meaning of the text using the contributions of historical and social studies of the first century and all the linguistic tools available. Campbell does this, and although he is clear on his preference for these details, he allows other scholars to synthesize his exegesis into their own pigeonholes.

Conclusion. Campbell’s commentary on Ephesians is excellent and highly recommended for academics, pastors, teachers, and students. Rarely does a commentary deal with exegetical issues yet remains a pleasure to read. It is a worthy successor to O’Brien’s ill-fated Pillar commentary.

One additional note that has very little to do with the commentary. First, Campbell is an excellent jazz musician. You can stream some of his music on his website. I listened to Pirates of Piraeus while writing this review. I doubt Campbell will read this review, but Pirates of Piraeus is excellent (and I bought a copy!)

 

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke

Colin Kruse, The Letter to the Romans

Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians

Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus

Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (No longer available from the publisher)

Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (PNTC; Second Edition)

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Gregory MaGee and Jeffrey Arthurs, Ephesians (Kerux)

MaGee, Gregory S. and Jeffrey D. Arthurs. Ephesians. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2021. 281 pp. Hb. $29.99   Link to Kregel Ministry  

The Kerux commentary series pairs an exegete and a preacher. In this case, both authors have experience in both the academy and ministry. Gregory MaGee (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is associate professor of biblical studies and chair of the Biblical Studies, Christian Ministries, and Philosophy Department at Taylor University. His other publications include Studying Paul’s Letters with the Mind and Heart (Kregel, 2018) and Portrait of an Apostle: A Case for Paul’s Authorship of Colossians and Ephesians (Pickwick, 2013).  Jeffrey Arthurs (PhD, Purdue University) is Robinson Chair of Preaching and Communication and Dean at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and has published Preaching with Variety (Kregel 2007) and Devote Yourself to the Public Reading of Scripture (Kregel 2012). He contributed the preaching section to the Kerux commentary on Colossians and Philemon (Kregel 2022).

MaGee and Arthurs, Ephesians

In the introduction, “at first glance, there is not much to say about the authorship of the Ephesians: the apostle Paul wrote it!” (31). Nevertheless, the introduction addresses five common objections to traditional authorship, with responses for each. They suggest these arguments against Pauline authorship “fail to account for Paul’s ability to apply complex and insightful theological guidance to different settings according to the specific needs there” (33).

The authors suggest the most likely scenario is that Paul wrote Ephesians shortly after Colossians and sought to articulate the same ideas in both letters. Colossians was fresh in his mind when he wrote the book of Ephesians. They briefly agree with the traditional view that the book was written from Rome A.D. 60-61 as a circular letter to several churches in Asia Minor, including both Ephesus and Laodicea. MaGee deals with the textual variant in 1:1, in the body of the commentary.

The introduction also provides a brief historical background for Ephesus and Asia Minor. This section develops two major themes in the background of Ephesians, political power and magic in diaspora Jewish communities, as seen in Acts 19. MaGee is guided throughout the commentary by the work of Paul Trebilco and John Barclay. Paul is writing to house churches in Asia Minor, a wide network of gentile believers learning to be unified as a single body, as equal family members.

The introduction also highlights several theological themes in the book of Ephesians. First, Paul’s main theme throughout the book is being united in Christ. Focusing on “in Christ” language in the book, the authors suggest the believer is completely identified with Christ.  Second, walking in Christ. Paul focuses on a life marked by love (5:2) and holiness (4:15; 5:8). Third, Paul develops Christ’s authority in heaven and earth in Ephesians. Although Jesus is presently ruling, in the future he will assume his comprehensive rule and restore all things 1:9-10. Fourth, the believer’s identity in Christ can be summed up under the phrase “sit, walk, stand.” The believer’s identity in Christ should shape how they live out their life and mission.

Like other volumes in this series, the body of the commentary begins with a summary of the preaching unit. MaGee distills the unit into a brief, single-sentence exegetical idea and theological focus. Each section of the commentary begins with a few comments on the literary structure and connections to the larger themes of Ephesians. This is followed by a detailed exegesis of the section. Greek appears without transliteration, and MaGee often makes in-text citations to the standard lexical and syntactical reference works. The commentary frequently deals with syntactical issues and compares various commentaries where necessary.  He often uses sidebars labeled “translation analysis” to compare various commentaries and modern translations, or to analyze textual critical issues.

Each chapter is supplemented by sidebars offering details on cultural background. For example, a sidebar on the dividing wall of hostility connects to the Jewish temple. Here is an excellent sidebar on the shared identity of Jews in the Roman world, following John Barclay and N. T. Wright. The sidebar entitled “Magnifying Caesar Augustus and Ephesus” is particularly helpful for putting Paul’s gospel in the context of the Roman world. The use of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8 and a longer discussion of Christ’s descent are excellent. MaGee compares two positions on Christ’s descent and concludes Paul is referring to the incarnation (163). There is an excellent, lengthy sidebar on Household Codes, comparing Ephesians to similar ideas in Greco-Roman writers. In addition to the sidebars, MaGee also contributes photographs of Ephesus to illustrate aspects of the commentary. Following the exegesis is a brief theological focus that ties it back to the theological summary of Ephesians in the introduction.

For each of the thirteen chapters, Jeffery Arthurs offers a series of preaching and teaching strategies. He first summarized the exegetical and theological sections and presented a single-sentence preaching idea for the unit. One of the values of the preaching section is connections to contemporary culture. Arthurs offers illustrations drawn from a wide range of sources, including recent news stories, visual aids, stories, skit suggestions, and even a reference to Bono and Kanye West (Jesus is King). He provides URLs for many of his suggestions. For many (older?) pastors, these insights will be valuable for contextualizing Ephesians for American churches. I notice there are more sidebars and charts in the preaching and teaching sections than in other commentaries in this series.

Conclusion. MaGee and Arthurs commentary on Ephesians provides pastors and teachers tools to use when preparing lessons and sermons on this important book. MaGee grounds his exegesis in the culture of first-century Ephesus, and Arthurs brings that exegesis to life in a twenty-first-century pulpit. Like others in the Kerux series, the commentary is solidly evangelical and does not stray far from traditional views on the Pauline setting for the book.

I noticed there is a footnote missing for the sidebar on page 36. The chart on page 108 seems to be duplicated on page 132.

 

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Like a Virgin Bride – Ephesians 5:25-30

The idea that the church is the bride of Christ is common in popular thinking, especially in hymns and songs. This is based on the common metaphor drawn from the Hebrew Bible that Israel is God’s bride. Beginning in Hosea, the prophets use the metaphor of a marriage relationship frequently to describe God’s relationship to his people. This metaphor is almost entirely negative since Israel was an unfaithful bride. Jesus employs similar language as the Hebrew prophets, calling his himself a bridegroom and comparing both his current ministry and future return to a wedding banquet (Matt 22:1-12, 25:1-14).

Veiled BrideAs the idea that the Church has replaced Israel as God’s people became dominant, it was quite easy to extend the metaphor of a marriage to the church. Just as the idea was common in the Hebrew Bible, so too the image of the church as the bride of Christ became pervasive in medieval theology and art. For many, the idea of the church as the bride of Christ is the dominant metaphor in their theology. But the basis for this metaphorical transfer is a replacement theology (even if it is implicit); anyone who rejects replacement theology will also think about the usefulness of this metaphor for the church.

It remains a fact, however, that Paul describes the church as like a virgin being prepared for marriage in Ephesian 5:21-33. Christ’s love for the church is described in 5:25-26, 29. Paul cites foundational text for marriage in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 2) and draws an analogy from it. The relationship of Christ and church similar to that of the married couple – they are “one flesh” in Gen 2. Therefore there is some intimate connection between Christ and the church which can be described in similar terms.

There is something of an eschatological perspective in this bridal metaphor in Ephesian 5. Christ is the head of the church, which submits to his authority. That all things will submit to the authority of Christ is a view of the future when Christ returns (cf. Phil 2:5-11). But, on the other hand, the marriage is already in existence and there are aspects of a realized eschatology here. On the other hand, the idea of a splendid church (5:27) may imply a future eschatological element is present.

At some point in the future the church will finally be a pure and spotless bride prepared for the bridegroom at the Second Coming (the “wedding supper”). I am tempted to see this as another aspect of the already / not yet tension of Pauline eschatology, but I am not sure Paul’s topic in Ephesian 5 is eschatology at all, but rather the purity of the church in the present age.

It could therefore be argued that Paul, who took a negative approach of sexual purity (commands not do be immoral, 5:3-7), now adopts a positive argument, “reflect the love of Christ” in sexual ethics (your own partner). The “function” of the metaphor is to get the husbands to see themselves as in some ways an “ecclesial bride,” if Christ and the church are “one flesh,” and covenant loyalty is obvious and required, then the husband ought to have the same level of commitment to their wives.

So Paul does use the marriage metaphor, but he spins in the direction of a ethical teaching on the relationship of a husband and wife in their marriage relationship. How then can the church be the pure virginal bride of Christ? How does this function as a metaphor for ethical community conduct?

Not Even a Hint of Immorality – Ephesians 5:3-7

In Ephesians 5:1-2 Paul called on the one who is in Christ to “imitate God” by living out their life in the same sacrificial love with which Christ loved us when he gave up his life on the Cross as a “fragrant offering” to the Lord. Although there is no other place in the New Testament where the believer is called to imitate God, here Paul says we imitate God by living in the pattern of Christ’s self-sacrificial love.

Sexual immorality and impurity seem obvious, but Paul mentions greed in the same line. This is similar to 4:19, all three words appeared there as well.

Immorality is a generic word (πορνεία) that covers a wide range of sexual sin, often called “fornication.” As the Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart once described pornography, “I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it.”

Impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) refers to anything which is filthy or corrupting, so the word is used in ethical texts for sexual sins. In 1 Enoch 10:11, for example, the sin of the angels is impurity. Paul often links filth and corruption, see 2 Cor 12:21, for example. but he does not need to define them since the meaning would be obvious to the reader.

By translating πλεονεξία as covetousness (ESV) or greed (NIV), the reader may think only of financial greed, and then wonder why greed is connected to two words which generically describe sexual sins. In classical Greek, however, this word refers to “vice pure and simple” and is among “the three most disgraceful things” (BDAG).

These vices are not even to be mentioned (looking forward to the next line), because they are not fitting for “the saints.” The verb Paul uses (ὀνομάζω) is rare, and in the passive (as it is here) can have the sense of “be known.” In Romans 15:20, for example, Paul’s desire is to preach the Gospel where “Christ is not known.” Paul’s exhortation here is that the believer is better off ignorant of these things!

For example, I do not need to know the details or experience the details personally to know that heroin addiction is not a good lifestyle choice. In the same way, Paul is simply saying the Christian does not need to dwell on the details of immorality in order to know it is not appropriate for the Christ. This has obvious implications for pornography, but also for other entertainment choices (film, music, literature). Although I would not advocate only Christian entertainment, there are some forms of entertainment which “are not fitting.”

The reason there is no need to know these things is that they are not fitting for those who are being built into a holy Temple of God (2:20). Paul is developing a metaphor of a Temple, and individual members of the Body of Christ are part of that temple. Some behaviors simply “do not fit” into that Temple. Most Christians who have unsaved friends have experienced have experienced some sheltering, “we cannot watch that movie because Bob is a Christian.”

Standing on the Edge of an Abyss

Paul also refers to obscenity, foolish talk coarse joking are three terms found only here in the NT and are fairly self-explanatory (cf. 4:29 and Col 3:8). Filthiness (αἰσχρότης) refers to obscene talk or “obscenity,” or behavior which “behavior that flouts social and moral standards” (BDAG). Foolish talk (μωρολογία) does not refer to stupidity, but intentionally foolish speech, even “foolish gossip” (EDNT, following TDNT, 4:844; cf. 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9). The word had a positive sense in earlier Greek literature (“adroitness of speech”), but in this context the noun is obviously negative. Crude joking (εὐτραπελία) or “base jesting,” or somewhere between “the extremes of buffoonery (βωμολοχία) and boorishness (ἀγροικία)” (BDAG).

Paul is in line with Jewish wisdom literature, and there is a remarkable parallel in the Dead Sea Scrolls Community Rule (1QS 10.21-25):

1 QS 10.21-25 I shall not retain Belial within my heart. From my mouth shall not be heard 22 foolishness or wicked deceptions; sophistries or lies shall not be found on my lips. The fruit of holiness will be on my tongue, profanity 23 shall not be found on it. With hymns shall I open my mouth and my tongue will continually recount both the just acts of God and the unfaithfulness of men until their iniquity is complete. 24 I shall remove from my lips worthless words, unclean things and plotting from the knowledge of my heart. With prudent counsel {I shall hide} /I shall recount/ knowledge, 25 and with discretion of knowledge I shall enclose him with a solid fence to maintain faithfulness and staunch judgment according to the justice of God.

These kinds of people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Although Paul says a similar thing in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the immoral will not inherit the kingdom), it is surprising to find Paul using kingdom of God as more or less equivalent to salvation.

I find this all very convicting. It seems obvious the Christian ought to avoid obvious immoral things (and there are good psychological reasons for anyone to avoid the things which are corrupting). But it is quite easy for me to tell a flippant joke or engage in gossip. For Paul, the Christian needs to be wise in their speech and not “talk like the world.” This does not mean Christians have to be boring, but it is very easy to get a laugh with a crude joke.

 

 

Bibliography: René A. López, “Paul’s Vice List in Ephesians 5:3–5,” BSac 169 (2012): 203–18; Peter W. Gosnell, “Honor and Shame Rhetoric in Ephesians,” BBR 16 (2006): 105–28; esp. 123–24.