St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians: A Practical Exposition

Lastly, we notice that the spiritual union of Christ and His church, though it is perfect in the divine intention from the first, is in fact only consummated at the point where the church is freed from the imperfection of sin and has become the stainless counterpart of Christ Himself. The love of Christ – the removal of obstacles to His love by atoning sacrifice – the act of spiritual purification – the gradual sanctification – the consummated union in glory: these are the moments of the divine process of redemption, viewed from the side of Christ, which St. Paul specifies.

2. We come back to St. Paul's conception of marriage to dissipate misconceptions. It is indeed absurd to speak as if St. Paul were, in this passage, mainly emphasizing the subjection of the woman, whether this be done from the conservative side 'to keep women in their place': or from the point of view of those who desire her emancipation, in order to represent St. Paul, and so Christianity as a whole, as giving to women a servile position. Over against the subjection of women, he sets, and indeed gives more space to emphasize, the self-sacrifice and service which is due to her from the man. You cannot tear the one from the other. Like St. Peter so St. Paul would have the husband 'give honour to the wife – as to the weaker vessel' indeed, but also as 'joint heir of the grace of life[188].' In essential spiritual value men and women are equal. 'In Christ is neither male nor female.' St. Chrysostom rightly bases on this passage a powerful appeal to husbands to overcome their selfishness in their relation to their wives. There is nothing servile in the subordination required of the woman[189]. If 'the husband is the head of the wife, the head of the husband is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.' Christ even is subordinate. And the character of the headship of the husband altogether excludes the idea that women are to be married in order to serve men's selfish interests or gratify their passions.

Then we must notice that St. Paul is impressing upon us a moral ideal of which the two parts are inseparable. St. Paul says nothing to indicate that where the relations are not ideal – where the husband is selfish or brutal – law should not step in to protect the interests of the wife and secure her against the insults or cruelties or frauds of the husband. He is expressing a moral ideal[190]; while law must be largely content with preventing outrage and securing a background on which ideals can become possible. And just as St. Paul tells Christians that they are to obey magistrates as God's ministers – leaving it to be understood that when they command what is contrary to God's will, 'we ought to obey God rather than men'; so in the same way he speaks of the wife's (or child's or slave's) duty of subjection, leaving a similar reservation likewise to be tacitly understood. Obedience is to be 'in the Lord.'

3. But no doubt St. Paul does emphasize the subordination of women to men. He will not ordinarily[191] permit the woman 'to teach (in the public assembly) nor to have dominion over a man[192].' He clearly does not think the difference of male and female is merely physical, but perceives that the characteristic moral perils of the sexes[193] are different: he assigns to man the governing and authoritative position, and to woman the more retired and 'quieter[194]' functions. It may indeed be argued that in certain details St. Paul's injunctions are for his time only, and no more of perpetual obligation than his prohibition of second marriages to the clergy is assumed to be, or his quasi-recognition of slavery. But this argument carries us but a little way. The most of what St. Paul says of men and women is based on a principle which he conceives to be divine, and which all history and experience confirms. The position of women in Christendom has often fallen far short of what is truly Christian: but no attempted rectification will be found otherwise than disastrous which ignores the fundamental principle. All through the animal kingdom mental differences accompany the physiological difference between the sexes. Experience teaches that women, as a whole, are superior to men in certain moral qualities – in self-sacrifice, sympathy, purity, and compassion, and in religious feeling, reverence and devotion: but inferior to them in the moral qualities which are concerned with government – in justice, love of truth and judgement, in stability and reasonableness. Intellectually women have very often greater quickness of apprehension and memory, greater power in learning languages, greater artistic sensibility. But they are conspicuously inferior in the constructive imagination, in creative genius, in philosophy and science. It is sometimes said that if women had been as well educated as men – and assuredly on Christian principles they ought to be, if differently, yet equally well educated – they would have created as much. Why, then, have almost no women been poets of the first order, or musical composers, or painters? For in these artistic walks of life their education has been in many countries better and more continuous. To maintain that men and women are only physiologically different is to run one's head against the brick wall of fact and science, no less than against St. Paul's and St. Peter's principles[195].

It remains true that

'women is not undevelopt manBut diverse … seeing either sex aloneIs half itself, and in true marriage liesNor equal, nor unequal[196].'

4. It is necessary to add something about the position assigned by St. Paul, in other epistles, to unmarried women; and to notice the relation of his 'theory of women' to earlier Jewish ideas and those current in general society.

Nothing could well exceed the influence or nobility of the position of the Jewish wife and mistress of the household, as it is given, for example, in the Book of Proverbs[197]. That position St. Paul can perpetuate and deepen, but hardly augment. And the Old Testament recognized an altogether exceptional position in certain women endowed with the gift of prophecy, like Miriam and Deborah and Huldah, who in virtue of their gift exercised a public and quasi-political ministry. Thus in the Christian community also there were prophetesses, and St. Paul, in the same epistle in which he forbids women in general to teach in public, seems to leave room for such exceptional women to 'pray or prophecy' in the Christian congregation with their heads covered[198]. Thus in fact all down Christian history there have been at intervals exceptional women with unmistakable gifts for guiding souls in private and directing public policy, like St. Catherine of Siena, or with gifts of government like St. Hilda, whom the Church has rightly accepted as divinely endowed. Where Christianity appears to have made a fresh departure in regard to women was in the organized consecration of the gift of female ministry. The deaconesses like Phoebe, and women like Lydia and Priscilla, are most characteristic Christian figures; and they have a long line of successors in later deaconesses and 'widows,' and sisters of mercy, and nurses and teachers. It was the ignominy of the Church of England that for so long she narrowed down the functions of women to those which belong to wives and daughters at home. Multitudes of women need other than domestic spheres and are happier away from home; and we may thank God that – apart from the specially political and judicial functions which are proper to men – the widest sphere of influence and service is now again being thrown open to women.

How pitiable it was that, in face of all Christian experience and of the authoritative language of the New Testament, unmarried women should have no prospect opened to them but such as was drearily summed up in the phrase 'old maids.' St. Paul, if in this epistle he is glorifying the married state, certainly also glorifies both for men and women the freedom of the celibate life consecrated to the service of God – the consecration of those who in a special sense are the virgin-brides of Christ. We may be thankful indeed that now, if somewhat tardily, it has received from the largest assembly of Anglican bishops ever gathered together an altogether ungrudging recognition[199].

It has been very frequently observed that, especially in Asia Minor, women in St. Paul's day were attaining in non-Christian society positions of great influence and dignity. We find them very commonly holding priesthoods and public offices and magistracies. It would appear, however, that too much may be made of this. The populations of the Asiatic towns loved to be entertained with expensive games and largesses of money and grain, and to have temples built and endowed for them. Wealthy women of noble families were elected to priesthoods and offices where they could exercise their acceptable liberality in these ways. But the offices were rather of dignity than of practical government, and were closely associated with priesthoods. There is no evidence that women in Asiatic cities could assist at assemblies, or give votes, or speak in public, or serve on legations, or enter into political relations with the Roman authorities. There were women among the Asiarchs, but probably only when they were associated in an honorary manner with their husbands. In the early Christian church the influence of women was put to far nobler uses than in Asiatic cities; but their position relatively to men was not far different from what would have been recognized in the general society of that region[200]. In other parts of the empire the women of the Christian church were conspicuously in advance of those outside.

In somewhat later days of the Church there was some resentment at the high and free position assigned to women in the New Testament documents. Thus one celebrated MS. of the New Testament[201] – the Codex Bezae – changes 'not a few of the honourable Greek women and of men' (Acts xvii. 12) into 'of the Greeks and the honourable, many men and women.' In xvii. 34 it cuts out Damaris. And in xvii. 4 it changes the 'leading women' into 'wives of the leading men.' The spirit which prompted these changes in an early Christian scribe and reviser, has not been wanting in much later ages, though it had not a chance of tampering with our sacred texts.

B. PARENTS AND CHILDREN. VI. 1-4

Parents and children

After laying down the principles which determined the relation of wives to their husbands, St. Paul turns to the relation of children to their parents. The wives are to be subordinate to their husbands. Children are to be obedient to their parents as part of their duty 'in the Lord,' as members of His body. They are to show honour to their parents as directed by the commandment which we call the fifth, but which St. Paul here probably calls 'a commandment standing first accompanied with promise.' It stands first among those which refer to our neighbour grouped apart – as our Lord also says 'Thou knowest the commandments,' and then specifies those six alone[202]. And it is accompanied with a promise implied in the words 'that it may be well with thee and that thou mayest live long in the land[203]' – a promise that the prosperity and permanence of the nation shall be bound up with the observance of the natural law of obedience to those from whom we derive our life. I say the prosperity of the nation, and so no doubt secondly of the individual; but all through the Ten Commandments the individual is regarded only as part of the nation.

The other translation of these words – 'which is the first commandment with promise' – is one to which the original Greek does not seem to give any preference, and which does not give a good sense, for the fifth commandment has neither more nor less of promise than the second, and in what we now call 'the second table' it stands alone as having a promise implied.

Here again in dealing with children St. Paul passes from the duty of the subject to that of the authority. Fathers are exhorted not to irritate their children, as in the Epistle to the Colossians they are not to provoke them, or, as the word may perhaps mean, overstimulate them so as to lead to their losing heart[204]. A broken spirit and a sullen spirit are alike bad signs in youth. But this does not mean that they are not to be disciplined; discipline is God's purpose for us all through life, and in childhood and youth parents are the ministers of God to discipline their children and put them in mind to obey God.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord.

We may notice in this passage the implication of infant baptism. The children are addressed 'in the Lord,' that is as already members of the body of Christ. The children of any one Christian parent are, in 1 Cor. vii. 14, described as 'holy' – that is consecrated or dedicated by the circumstances of their birth and the opportunity which it supplies for Christian education – and thus fit subjects for baptism. In fact it is probable that Christianity took from the Jews the practice of infant baptism. Within their own race indeed there was no need of a ceremony of incorporation. For the son of Jewish parents was born a member of the chosen people. But a proselyte was – certainly before our Lord's time – made a Jew with a baptism[205] which was regarded as his new birth, his naturalization into a new and higher race. And if the proselyte had children they were baptized with him as 'little proselytes[206].' With a new depth of meaning this practice of infant baptism was taken over by the Christian church in the case of those already dedicated to God by the spiritual opportunities of their birth and education, so that the beginnings of growth might be sanctified, like our Lord's childhood, in the Spirit.

We must also take to heart in our day the lesson of the fifth commandment, as re-enforced by St. Paul, with its converse in the duty of parents. Domestic obedience is somewhat at a discount, it is to be feared, in this generation in most classes of society; and this is a very grave peril. Parents, wealthy as well as poor, are very commonly disposed to make schoolmasters and schoolmistresses do the work of discipline for them, while they retain for themselves the privilege of spoiling their children. There are, however, of course, very many exceptions. There are multitudes of homes where discipline is exercised wisely and lovingly, and children find obedience always a duty and mostly a joy. This is certainly the only divinely appointed method by which we are to be prepared for the obedience and self-discipline required of us when we grow to be what is falsely described as 'our own masters.' And St. Paul's twofold admonition to parents is full of wisdom: they are not to provoke their children so that they become bad-tempered, and they are not to over-stimulate them, by competition or otherwise, so that they become disheartened. But to nourish them by appropriate food, mental and spiritual as well as physical, so that they may grow to the full stature and strength which God intends for them.

C. MASTERS AND SLAVES. VI. 5-9

Masters and slaves

St. Paul's method in dealing with slavery is well known. The slave is in a position really, at bottom, inconsistent with human individuality and liberty, as Christianity insists upon it. Thus, to go no further, the male slave and his wife are liable (in all systems of slavery) to be sold apart from one another. This puts in its plainest form the inconsistency of slavery with Christianity. The slave is a living rational tool of another man, and not his brother with fundamentally the same spiritual right to 'save his life' or make the best of his faculties. Thus where a slave can obtain liberty St. Paul exhorts him to prefer it[207]. And when he is dealing with the Christian master Philemon, whose runaway slave, Onesimus, has become Christian under St. Paul's influence, he exhorts him to receive him back, no longer as a slave, but as a brother beloved[208]. But Christianity enlisted in no premature crusade against slavery as an institution – premature, because Christianity was not yet in the position to fashion a civilization of her own. It left it to be undermined by the Christian spirit.

Thus St. Paul exhorts slaves to obey, and that in more forcible language than he has applied even to children, 'with fear and trembling'; that is with an intense anxiety to do their duty. They are to perform their work as in God's sight, thoroughly – He being the inspector of it who can infallibly tell good work from bad – and 'from the heart,' that is, putting their will and mind into it. They are to do it as to the Lord, knowing that no good work, however menial or uninteresting, is wasted, but shall be received back, in its product or legitimate fruit, as 'its own reward' from Christ's hand. In the Epistle to Timothy, this additional reason for diligent service is given, that if Christian slaves get a reputation for slackness they will bring discredit upon the Christian name[209]. And in the same passage a touch is added which shows what, even in its possible perversions, the spirit of brotherhood really meant, 'They that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren; but let them serve them the rather, because they that partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.'

And the masters are exhorted to remember that true principle of human equality – that 'with God is no respect of persons,' that in God's sight each man counts for one, and no one counts for more than one; each having an equal claim and duty in the sight of the one Master under whom all are servants. Thus they are to deal with their slaves in the same spirit of duty as their slaves should have toward them, and they are to treat them with the respect due to brother men 'forbearing threatenings.'

Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as unto the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that whatsoever good thing each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, and forbear threatening: knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him.

Christianity has long abolished slavery so far as the legal status of the slave is concerned. But the principles of mastership and service are still to be learned in this brief section of St Paul's writing; and if we really believed that 'with God is no respect of persons' there would be neither scamping of work and defrauding of employers, nor on the other hand the 'sweating' of the employed and treating of men and women as if they were tools for the profit of others, instead of spiritual beings, with each his own divine end to realize.

DIVISION II. § 6. CHAPTER VI. 10-20

The personal spiritual struggle

The spiritual struggle

The ethics of Christianity are, as has appeared, social ethics, the ethics of a society organized in mutual relationships: and Christianity is concerned with the whole life of man, body as well as soul, his commerce and his politics as well as his religion. But because this requires to be made emphatic, does it follow that we are to neglect or depreciate the inward, personal, spiritual struggle? Are we to give a reduced, because we give a better balanced, importance to 'saving one's own soul,' that is preserving or recovering into its full power and supremacy one's own spiritual personality? Of course not: because social health depends on personal character. The more a good man throws himself into social, including ecclesiastical, duties the more he feels the need of character in himself and others. And the more serious a man is about his character, the more deeply he feels the attention and self-discipline that character needs. Certainly the most ascetic words of our Lord – those in which He speaks of the necessity for cutting off or plucking out hand or eye if hand or eye cause us to stumble, and warns us that we must be strong at the spiritual centre of our being, before we can be free in exterior action – are likely to come home to no one with more force than to one who would do his duty in Church or state. Christ cannot redeem the world without Himself passing through the temptation and the agony in the garden. And thus St. Paul, after he has been dwelling on the fraternal and corporate character of the Christian life, comes back at the last to emphasize the personal spiritual struggle. To be a good member of the body, he says in effect, you must be in personal character a strong man, strong enough in Christ's might to win the victory in a fearful struggle.

Against what is our spiritual struggle? It is against the weakness and lawlessness of our own flesh. 'The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.' 'Our eye and hand and foot cause us to stumble.' Or again it is the world which is too much for us. 'We seek honour one of another and not the glory that cometh from the only God.' Quite true. But behind the manifest disorder of our nature and the insistence of worldly motives there are other less apparent forces; and these, in St. Paul's mind, so overshadow the more visible and tangible ones that, in the Biblical manner of speech, he denies for the moment the reality of the latter. 'We wrestle not against flesh and blood,' not against our own flesh or a visibly corrupt public, but against an unseen spiritual host organized for evil.

It was noticed above that St. Paul has no doubt at all that moral evil has its origin and spring in the dark background behind human nature – in the rebel wills of devils. It has become customary to regard belief in devils or angels as fanciful and perhaps superstitious. Now no doubt theological and popular fancy has intruded itself into the things it has not seen, and, instead of the studiously vague[210] language of St. Paul, has developed a sort of geography and ethnology for spirits good and bad which is mythological and allied to superstition. But it has acted in the same way, and shown the same resentment of the discipline of ignorance, in the case of even more central spiritual realities. No doubt again the belief in the devil has sometimes become, in practical force, belief in a rival God. But this sort of Manichaeism or dualism represents a very permanent tendency in the untrained religious instincts of men, which the Bible is occupied in restraining. In the Bible certainly Satan and his hosts are rebel angels and not rival Gods. Once more undoubtedly demonology has been a source of much misery and many degrading practices. But demonology represents a natural religious instinct. It is older than the Bible. And what our religion has done, where it has been true to itself, is to purge away the noxious and non-moral superstitions. St. Paul is representative of true Christianity in his stern refusal to use the services of contemporary soothsaying and magic and sorcery[211]. One has only to compare the exorcisms of our Lord with contemporary Jewish exorcism to note the moral difference. And every truth has its exaggeration and its abuse. The question still remains; are there no spiritual beings but men? Is there no moral evil, but in the human heart? Our Lord gives the most emphatic negative answer. His teaching about evil (and good) spirits is unmistakable and constant. If He is an absolutely trustworthy teacher in the spiritual concerns of life, then temptation from evil spirits is a reality, and a reality to be held constantly in view. And our Lord's authority is confirmed by our own experiences. Sometimes experience irresistibly suggests to us the presence of unseen bad companions who can make vivid suggestions to our minds. Or we are impressed like St. Paul with the delusive, lying character of evil, which makes the belief in a malevolent will almost inevitable. Or the continuity in evil influences, social or personal, seems to disclose to us an organized plan or 'method[212]' a kingdom of evil.

It is then in view of unseen but personal spiritual adversaries organized against us as armies, under leaders who have at their control wide-reaching social forces of evil, and who intrude themselves into the highest spiritual regions 'the heavenly places' to which in their own nature they belong, that St. Paul would have us equip ourselves for fighting in 'the armour of light[213].'