Counterfeit Love: Impurity of Life

Eph. 5:3-7

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

In light of true love, that is, mimicking God’s love (vs. 1-2), we turn to counterfeit love, which is impurity of life..

As always, whatever God creates Satan perverts. Inversely, whatever Satan propagates is something that God originally created. Whatever is good has been created by God, and, in the final analysis, any evil is simply a perversion of something good. All that is true of love; Satan has perverted it. As a counterfeiter of money tries to make his copy look like the real thing, so Satan tries to make his version of love look real. But on close examination, one finds Satan’s version of love to be worthless, just like counterfeit money.

Instead of a love that is self-emptying and self-sacrificial, Satan has produced a counterfeit that is self-centered, and most of all, self-indulgence.

Before we begin, may we remember to whom Paul was writing. He was not writing to lost people; he was not trying to reform the world by encouraging moral ethics. Rather, he was writing to believers to encourage them not to be lured into Satan’s counterfeit love. Therefore, it is obvious that Christians need to hear such admonitions (note v. 7). It is possible for Christians to be lured into such subtleties, so Paul gives fair warning. There are several characteristics of counterfeit love, but each falls into one of two general categories: impure acts or impure speech. Paul first lists those and then closes with the consequences of such sin and some counsel to Believers.

I. Impure Acts (v. 3)

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Saints are not those who supposedly lived a pure life, died, and received “sainthood,” a concept that is actually rooted in pagan religion. Rather, as we detailed way back in 1:1, every child of God is a “saint” (hagios), which first in Classical Greek meant “to stand in awe of or be devoted to the gods,” but was lifted to a new level of meaning in the New Testament: “to set apart or be separate,” that is, “one who is set apart, one who lives holy.”

Paul, therefore, uses three terms to describe impurity of life, and challenges Believers that such things should not be present in their lives, as becometh saints. Becometh is the Greek prepō, to be fitting, suitable, proper, or appropriate. So these three things are not fitting in the Believer’s life, not appropriate for his or her living. They should not, in fact, be once named among us. The idea in the Greek (onamazō) is, as one commentator puts it, that we are so detached from these things, we have removed them so far away, “that the very suspicion of [their] existence among [us] should be banished once and for all.”[1] Even the slightest suspicion of their existence in the Believer is gone.

Fornication

The first sin that should so far removed from the Believer that even the slightest suspicion of it existence is gone is fornication. Greek here is porneia, which occurs 26 times in the New Testament. Originally this word was used to refer to prostitution. It’s derived, in fact, from the related word pornē, which means “prostitute.” It’s translated “harlot,” for example, in Matthew 21:31 and I Corinthians 6:15. It was used in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) to refer not only to common prostitution, but religious prostitution that was part of the fertility rites of Baal worship. By sexual relations with temple prostitutes, humans supposedly could share in, and even mimic, the fertilizing power of and cosmic harmony with the fertility god Baal.[2]

It’s interesting in this light to consider Gomer in Hosea 1:2, whom God commanded Hosea the prophet to marry. While some view her as a prostitute before Hosea married her, that seems unlikely. It’s more likely that she was actually lured into temple prostitution after the marriage, just as Israel had been lured into idolatry. Hosea then forgiving her would perfectly picture that God would forgive and accept back into a fellowship a repentant people.

In any case, in later Rabbinical language, which carried over into the New Testament, porneia came to be used for any sexual relations outside of marriage, including: pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, sodomy, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. While it is fornication in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, as well as in I Corinthians 5:1, the meanings are clear in the context: “adultery” in the former and “incest” in latter. As Corinth, in fact, was a pagan city known for its temple prostitution, Paul also uses porneia some 14 times! One Greek authority writes:

The moral life of the Graeco-Roman world had sunk so low that, while protests against the prevailing corruption were never entirely wanting, fornication had long come to be regarded as a matter of moral indifference, and was indulged in without shame or scruple, not only by the mass, but by philosophers and men of distinction who in other respects led exemplary lives.[3]

Does that not sound familiar? Does that not sound like our own day? While there a few weak outcries against sexual perversion, indifference is the chief attitude. “What’s the big deal?” it is argued, “After all, what’s done in private is up to each person’s decision.”

As historian Will Durant reports, for example, while trade was the chief reason for wealth in Corinth, prostitution was a major contributor. “The Temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple slaves, courtesans [i.e., prostitutes] whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess.” They brought in so much money that the people of Corinth considered them benefactors and referred to them as “hospitable ladies.” In Athens prostitution was officially recognized and was even taxed as any other business. Further, harlotry was in most cities considered just another career choice with many specialties. The lowest order were the pornoi, who plied their trade in public brothels; in our day, this would be the common “hooker.” Another were the auletrides, or “flute-players,” who “like the geisha of Japan, assist at ‘stag’ entertainments, provide music and gaiety, perform dances artistic or lascivious, and then, if properly induced, mingle with the guests and spend the night with them.” The highest class were the hetairai, literally “companions,” the “high class call girl” of our day. These were women of citizen class who had fallen from usual respectability, lived independently, and entertained in their homes the clients they lured.[4]

In defense of prostitution in the Roman Empire, just a few decades before Christ, the famous Roman orator, statesman, and philosopher Cicero said:

If there is anyone who thinks that young men should be absolutely forbidden the love of courtesans, he is indeed extremely severe . . . He is at variance not only with the license of what our own age allows but also with the customs and concessions of our ancestors. When indeed was this not done? When did anyone ever find fault with it? When was such permission denied? When was it that that which is now lawful was not lawful?[5]

So, as commentator William Barclay rightly points out, “It has been said that chastity was the one new virtue which Christianity introduced into the world.” And that is still true. The world looks upon sexual immorality as normal, accepted, and even expected. One example is the common attitude of schools, parents, and social groups who maintain, “We know young people will have sex so we should provide them with birth control and disease prevention.” Of course, just teaching abstinence for the sake of morality is simply ridiculous and “Puritanical” to that perverted mentality.

Another example is pornography. In conjunction with the word graphē, which means “writing,” it is from pornos that this term is derived, and which means a writing or picture of sexual sin and involves all the meanings we listed earlier. But while certain types of pornography are considered “bad,” other types, such as Playboy magazine, actually have a certain degree of respectability and are not really considered pornography by some people, rather “art.” In recent years indescribably disgusting paintings and sculptures have been displayed in art galleries and called “art” and are even paid for with tax money.

When you really analyze words, it becomes apparent that the word fornication is avoided even in Christianity. This is plainly evident in the consistent habit of modern Bible translations rendering the Greek porneia as “immorality” instead of what it really means, fornication. This is inarguabley a softening of the deeper meaning of the Greek word and makes it a little more palatable for our day. In contrast, the AV’s use of fornication translates the force of the Greek, where “immorality” (NASB) or “sexual immorality” (NIV) plainly do not. As textual authority Jay Green observes:

“Immorality,” according to Webster, is merely that which the morals of the region do not approve. But fornication is fornication wherever it may appear on the earth; it is known in every nation on earth where English is spoken.[6]

Just opening a dictionary proves that to be correct. Webster defines “immorality” as “an immoral act,” and then defnes “immoral” as “conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.” But that still doesn’t get us to the meaning because we’re using part of the word we’re defining as part of the defintion. We must, therefore, define “moral,” which Webster says is, “relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.” That, however, is obviously general and vague because right and wrong nowadays relative, it’s in “in the eye of the beholder.”

Fornication, however, is absolutely clear. As Webster again defines, “consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other,” and that is precisely what porneia means! After some fifteen years of studying this issue, it continues to grieve me that the majority of Christians in our day have been lead astray into using modern translations, in spite of the fact that over and over again they plainly weaken the text. Christianity continues to get weaker and more relative by the day, and a major contributor is weak Bible translation.

We see the same tendency in popular speech. Rarely will one hear the term fornication nowadays or even the term “pre-marital sex.” Rather, we often hear such terms as “discovering one’s sexuality” and “living together.” Likewise, instead of the word “adultery,” people would rather use the term “having an affair.” Neither do people want to use the word “homosexuality,” much less “sodomy,” preferring the terms “gay community” and “alternate life-style.” I’m not trying to be unkind here, but Truth is Truth. Man has changed his terminology because he does not recognize that Satan has perverted what God created! In his depraved mind, man calls “sex,” “love,” and calls “love,” “sex,” and as a result anything goes.

So, in contrast to that philosophy, both ancient and modern, any sexual relations outside of marriage are forbidden: let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints. How tragic it is that such sin has appeared in many churches, even among pastors.

One commentator suggests that we can think of sex as a magnificent sandwich, piled high with turkey, salted just so, cheese, mayo (or, if you prefer, “the tangy taste of Miracle Whip,” as the commercial goes), lettuce, tomato, and whatever else your taste demands. Set that sandwich on a nice clean plate, set the plate on a clean checkered tablecloth, and it’s a feast. But if you found that same sandwich in a dumpster, would you shoo the flies away from it, pull it out, and eat it? Of course not. It’s been defiled and will make you sick. Likewise, sexual relations is a feast for all our senses, but outside of God’s marital design, we are feeding from the dumpster.[7]

Two of the most common excuses, however, for justifying sex outside marriage is that it’s okay if love is present and/or it’s necessary to make sure the marriage will work. But, of course, those arguments are founded upon the false premises that sex is synonymous with love and sex is the foundation of marriage.

One commentator again offers a practical illustration. Using sex to “test” the possibility of marriage is the same as testing a parachute by jumping off a ladder. The ladder simply does not provide enough room for the parachute to open. [8] Likewise, the time spent in sexual relations is only a small fraction of the total time a couple is together. Making a marriage work involves far, far more. A marriage based chiefly on the physical is destined to fail.

Sexual purity is, indeed, one of the most unique characteristics of Christinaity. The Jerusalem Council commanded Gentiles to “abstain” from fornication (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). And again, Paul was horrified to hear of a particularly perverted form of fornication (incest) in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:1) and told them to “flee” from it (6:18). Additionally, adultery and fornication are at the top of the list of “the works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19), and such things are never the will of God. As I Thessalonians 4:3 declares: “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication.” Again, in typical fashion, some modern translations (e.g., NIV) weaken “abstain” to “avoid,” the latter of which is clearly weaker.

That leads to the second term.

Uncleanness

The Greek behind uncleanness (akatharsia) is a broader term than porneia. Paul used this word back in Ephesians 4:19. It is actually tied in with the Old Testament concepts of “clean” and “unclean.” One could become “unclean” in several ways—by eating unclean meat, for example—so Paul “borrows” the term, brings it into the Christian life, and shows that everything propagated by Satan’s counterfeit love is unclean, impure, and polluted. Not only are immoral acts impure, but immoral thoughts and fantasies are impure. Today there are books written about people’s sexual fantasies and the world has the audacity to call such things “love!”

Paul presents one other term.

Covetousness

Here is one more thing fallen man mistakenly calls “love.” The Greek here (pleonexia) means “greedy desire to have more,” which is a good definition of covetousness. I recently asked a godly Christian man, a dairy farmer who was visiting our church, “How’s business?” He answered, “We’re paying the bills and the family is providing for. That’s enough.” That is the Godly attitude. The world says, “I have to have more,” while God says, “I will supply your needs” (Matt. 6:33; Phil. 4:19).

Like “uncleanness,” this word was used back in Ephesians 4:19 where it is translated “greediness.” As we saw there, man’s underlying motive is greed, lust, and self-ratification. This fact is intensified all the more in sexual matters. Why? Because the human sexual drive is strong and if left to itself, it becomes perverted in unimaginable ways.

It is fascinating to notice that man mistakes all of what we have seen thus far to be “love,” when all of this is actually the exact opposite, “hate.” Why do we say that? Because love is selfless, not selfish; because love gives instead of takes; because love satisfies instead of gratifies. True love will always meets the true need, while gratification simply feeds lust.

It’s also significant that covetousness is an “ignored sin.” I read of a Catholic priest who reported that during his many years of hearing confessions, he heard of all kinds of sin, even crimes, but not once did he ever hear anyone confess covetousness.[9] Indeed, we don’t think about this being sin, but it most certainly is. Not only is it greedy desire to have more, but as we’ll see later in verse 5, it is actually “idolatry,” worshipping a false god.

There is another category of these characteristics of counterfeit love.

II. Impure Speech (v. 4)

Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

It is interesting to consider a possible reason why verse 4 was written. After reading verse 3, many Christians would be tempted to say, “Oh, I am not one of these sex-offenders; after all, I am happily married. I’m certainly not guilty of those terrible sins.” But Paul here points out that even man’s language is defiled and impure. As our Lord declared, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34), and again. “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matt. 15:19).

We again see three terms.

Filthiness

Filthiness is aischrotes, the root of which (aisch) originally referred to that which was ugly and disgraceful and came to refer to that which is just indecent. Spiros Zodhiates summarizes its significant:

Impropriety, a summarizing improper conduct whether in action or word or even thought and intent; indecorum of any kind; conduct which when expose by the light makes the person ashamed of himself; ugly, shameful conduct of any kind; conduct which is contrary to a person who follows after God (only in Eph. 5:3). Attachment and conformity to God requires a conduct of which God is not ashamed and which could not bring shame to the person when it is brought to light.[10]

How full our world is today with such filthiness! I was reminded here of Oscar Wilde’s novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray. The story describes a painted portrait of a man that ages and grows ugly to coincide with the man’s life of immorality, while the man himself remains youthful and handsome. A movie was actually made from the book in 1945, and even then the special effects were good enough to show the features of the man in the portrait change from attractiveness to revulsion. What’s interesting, however, is that while the story seems to condemn such lifestyle, Wilde was actually defending it, and, in fact, defending his own homosexuality. In Chapter 2, for example, he wrote, “The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” In defense of his writing, which critics called immoral, he wrote in the Preface of the novel, “There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” The same is true of our day, when men are amoral and everything is relative. Like the character in his novel, however, Wilde’s filthiness led to his ruin. After a two year prison term for sodomy, Wilde’s health, money, fame, and even writing talent were gone. Lying on his death bed from brain inflammation, he sought peace by converting to Roman Catholicism.

There is, therefore, no place for ugliness and indecency in the Believer’s life.

Foolish Talking

This term, and the next, are much more subtle and more prevalent than the first term. Many people would never live or speak blatant filthiness, but they would (and do) practice these two. Foolish talking, which is found only here in the New Testament, comes from the Greek morologia. The Greek moros (English “moron”) means “silly, stupid, foolish” and logia comes from log, which means “word or discourse.” The idea conveyed here, then, is the speaking of things that are foolish and pointless. Writing to a pastor, Paul uses this word again: “But avoid foolish [moros] questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain,” which is wise counsel for a pastor. Solomon adds, “The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness” (Prov. 15:2).

There is no point in conversing with the lost person who babbles on about the foolishness of man. But may we also submit, neither is there any point in conversing with a Christian who does the same thing. How much talk there is today about nothing! Today’s “talk shows” (secular and Christian) are filled with such pointless discussion. We hear many give their opinions, but no one presents or even wants the absolutes that are contained in God’s Word. Indeed, many want “a forum for opinion,” not a statement of Truth. This was exactly what Paul declared to the Corinthians. In essence he said, “I did not come to the Greek forum to debate some new philosophy, but rather to preach the Truth of the Gospel (I Cor. 2:1-5).

Tragically, may we add, there’s even a lot of “moronic speech” spewing from pulpits today. From “feel-good” sermonettes to psychological rambling, Truth is absent. Where the Word of God is not heeded, a Christian should not even waste his time. If people do want the Truth, if they do not want what God says, there is nothing left to say. May we not waste time on foolish talking.

Jesting

Here is a fascinating word, which is another found only here in the New Testament. The Greek is eutrapelia. The prefix eu means “good” or “well.” Such English words such as “eulogy” (saying good words about someone) and “eugenetics” (“good genes”) use this prefix. The root trepo means “to turn.” So, the meaning of the word before us is “that which easily turns.” Within the present context about speech this word yields the idea of turning something that is spoken into a different meaning. Not only are off-color jokes and stories included here, but it is the twisting of words that are innocent into a double-meaning.

It’s extremely significant that Paul uses this word because historically the Ephesians were masters of this and were known for producing humorous orators. An ancient expression goes, “I am a facetious cavalier because I was born in Ephesus.”[11] How prevalent that is today! Many comedians are masters of this kind of “humor.” They can take something innocent, even something pure, and turn it into something filthy.

The story is told of a Christian lady who attended an anniversary dinner in honor of a friend but was unaware that the entertainment after the meal would be a lowbrow comedian. With an act filled with coarse humor, that degraded everything the Christian guest held sacred and honorable. During his act, the comedian’s throat became dry and he called to a waiter, “Please bring me a glass of water.” At the moment the Christian woman interjected, “And bring a toothbrush and a bar of soap with it!”[12]

Indeed, as our text declares, this is not the speech that is to be typical of the Christian. But at the same time, it is absolutely disgraceful how this still has infiltrated the church in subtle form. While not vulgar or suggestive, more and more the popularity of Christian speakers is gauged according to how funny and entertaining they are. I was speaking with a couple a few years who spoke of how their pastor used a lot of humor in his preaching and then said that I could improve my preaching if I would do the same. That is, indeed, how “good preaching” is measured in much of Christianity today. While I am certainly not against all humor in preaching, I am very careful about its use, because that is not why we are there. We are not in God’s house to laugh or be entertained; we are there to worship and “grow in grace and knowledge” (II Pet. 3:18).

Isn’t it significant that while few people will come to hear the exposition of Scripture, thousands will flock to hear a “Christian comedian” or a “preacher” who tells plenty of funny stories to spice up his “sermons.” But is it not also significant that not one verse of Scripture records our Lord telling a joke? A rule among many today is “warm up your audience with a joke and even sprinkle some in throughout your sermon.” But we shouldn’t even have to point out that Scripture nowhere even implies such a worldly idea. Likewise, nowhere does Paul write in one of his letters, “You know, a funny thing happened to me when I was on the road to Damascus.” Why don’t we read such nonsense? Why don’t we ever read, “People will more easily accept Truth is we make if funny?” Because sin, salvation, and doctrine are not funny! They are life and death issues and must be presented with reverence. People who need humor do not love Truth.

Paul adds that none of these things are convenient (anekō), that is, not fitting, proper, or becoming of a Christian. Because we know true love from counterfeit love, and because we truly love the Lord and each other, our speech will lift up both. As noted back in 4:29: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (To apply it again to some “preaching” today, it doesn’t say, That which is good to the use of entertainment, that it may minister humor unto the hearers.”)

Harry Ironside recounts an evening when he and several other believers were dinner guests in the home of another Christian brother. As they all sat in a drawing room, one of the ladies said suggested that she and the others ladies present would go and help the hostess get dinner ready. With the ladies gone, one man said, “Since the ladies have gone out, there’s a story I got hold of today I would like to tell you.” A friend of Ironside responded, “Just a minute, Brother, there are no ladies here, but the Holy Spirit is here and is more sensitive than the most fastidious lady. Is your story fit for him?” Humbly rebuked, the other man said, “Thank you. I accept the reproof. I’ll never tell such a story again.”[13] That reminds us of a verse here in Ephesians we recently examined, “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (4:30).

Rather, Paul also adds, the Believer’s life is filled with the giving of thanks. In contrast to the foul types of speech listed, what better topic of conversation could there be than thanksgiving? One commentator points out a blessed contrast between the Greek words behind thanks (eucharistia) and jesting (eutrapelia):

[Here is] a happy play on sounds in Greek, “eucharistia” contrasted with “eutrapelia;” refined “jesting” and subtle humor sometimes offend the tender feelings of grace; “giving of thanks” gives that real cheerfulness of spirit to believers which the worldly try to get from “jesting.”[14]

Instead of the perverted sexual activities and course jesting about it, we are thankful for the beautiful physical relationship God created for a husband and wife. As James 1:17 declares, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,” and it is that for which we are thankful.

Likewise, what will really bless our hearts? Will it be the funny joke or entertaining story, or will it be Truth? Which will give us lasting joy and deepening growth?

III. Consequences and Commands (v. 5-7)

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

In closing this section, Paul presents two principles.

The Consequences of Man’s Immorality (v. 5, 6b)

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

While popular “preaching” today is full of humor, it avoids the subjects of this verse at all costs, namely those who will be excluded from Heaven and are under God’s wrath. To underscore the certainty of this, Paul writes, For this ye know, that is, you’ve already been told this so you know it’s true and there is no doubt. [15] It is, in fact, as Martyn Lloyd-Jones puts it, “something that is self-evident. How can you be a Christian at all and not know this?”[16]

First, Paul mentions those whose lifestyle results in their having no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Whoremonger is pornos, which originally referred to a male prostitute. As noted earlier, the word group (pornē, porneia, etc.) came to be used for any sexual relations outside of marriage. The Greek behind unclean person (akathartos) is a slightly different form of the word we noted in verse 3 for uncleaness and again speaks of that which is unclean, impure, and polluted.

Of special significance is the covetous man (pleonektēs), which is also a repeated concept from verse 3. It here speaks specifically of a person who wants what someone else has, “a defrauder for gain.”

Paul adds a deeper principle, however; such a person is actually an idolater. As we detailed in the “Introduction and Overview,” Ephesus was an important city in the ancient world, not only because of its being the capital of the Roman province of Asia Minor, as well as being and being its greatest commercial city as the “Gateway to Asia,” but also because it had become the religious center of pagan worship in all Asia. Ephesus was not only famous for the great temple of Diana (Artemis in Greek), which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, but was known as the center of occult arts and practices.

So, the Ephesian believers would have been very much aware of what Paul was saying about no idolater being in God’s kingdom. Paul did not preach the soft Gospel of our day that tolerates and condones; he did not whitewash, dilute, or rephrase it to be it more palatable to “seekers.” He preached an exclusive Gospel that declares the necessity of repentance from sin, especially idolatry. As result of the Gospel, many came to Christ in Ephesus, and there was even the danger of Diana worship being destroyed altogether. Likewise, no Christian should allow anything pagan to touch his or her life. From horoscopes, to Halloween, to holly, to Harry Potter, Christianity makes no peace with idolatry. How tragic it is that many Christians, including preachers, just don’t seem to recognize how much God hates idolatry and anything reminiscent of it!

Further, man’s chief idol is himself. He worships at the altar of self-gratification and makes sacrifices to the god of pleasure.

Still further, all of us are, in fact, idolaters by nature. While we might not have a carved god on the mantle over our fireplace, we all love symbols. Many Christians want to hold on to Old Testament symbols, celebrate feasts, hang “pictures of Jesus” on their walls, stick religious symbols on their car bumpers, and so forth. There seems to be a ribbon to wear for every cause nowadays, from AIDS (Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome) awareness to anti-abortion. We love this kind of stuff because it “represents something.” But Jesus Himself declared that we are to “worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:23-4).

This leads to a second consequence.

Second, Paul adds that because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Even more unpopular today is the preaching about God’s wrath. Instead, to get large crowds, the emphasis is upon “felt needs,” “seeker-sensitivity,” social activism, and entertainment.

Back in our study of Eph. 3:8b-12 (“The Ministry Of The Mystery”), we examined the common ministry approach of addressing “felt-needs” and being “seeker-sensitive,” in spite of the clear fact that Scripture does not support either. This was brought home to me recently while attending a conference on using computer technology in ministry. Now let me say that I love technology, computers in particular. Like any other tool, they can be used to make our work more efficient and even enable us to accomplish more. What is happening in many churches today, however, is that technology is obscuring the Truth. In order to appeal to more people, we are using more technology and less Truth. Fancy presentations and other technology greatly appeals to the senses, so the messages is “toned down” to attract as many people as possible. Jesus is often “sneaked in the back door” and even presented more as a Savior who “meets our needs” instead of forgives our sin and demands our obedience. We have lost sight of the fact that the Gospel is about God’s wrath upon the sinner and Christ’s sacrifice as salvation from that wrath.

Man does, indeed, think he can do anything and get away with it. How many people today scoff at the thought that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are the “wrath of God.” But that is exactly what it is! Yes, there are those who contract HIV from blood transfusions and the like, but those are not the rule; such diseases are spread by behavior. Let men scoff, but God never has allowed men to go unpunished and He never will!

This is proven without question by the verb tense in the clause cometh the wrath. Cometh is in the Present Tense, so the idea is not that wrath awaits sometime in the future, rather it is already here. Yes, there is more wrath coming—“the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14-15; 21:8)—but God’s wrath is present even today on the children of disobedience, that is, those who “are of [their] father the devil” (Jn. 8:44) and who “do not obey the truth” (Rom. 2:8). As commentator William Hendrickson pictures, “These sinister practices attract God’s displeasure like a fully lit up enemy target attracts bombs.”[17]

The Commands to Believers (vs. 6a, 7)

Let no man deceive you with vain words:

Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

In light of the consequences of such sin, Paul gives two commands to the Believer.

First, don’t be deceived into sin. Deceive is apataō, to seduce into error, to mislead. Vain, however, is the key here. The Greek is kenos, “empty.” Used literally, it refers to such things as an empty jug or empty hands. Used figuratively, as in our text, it pictures that which is without content or truth, hollow, or shallow. Whenever I see this word, philosophy always comes to mind, as Paul wrote the Colossians, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain [kenos] deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).

No word better describes human philosophy than kenos, empty, hollow, and void of truth. The philosopher who always comes to my mind here is 19^th Century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the first to proclaim that “God is dead.” He wrote, “What could be created if there were Gods? . . . If there were Gods, how could I bear to be no God? Consequently, there are no Gods?”[18] What empty, foolish, irrational words! And, as we noted in our study of Truth way back in 1:13, Nietzsche could not live with the implications of his philosophy and ultimately went insane. Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer well sums up Nietzsche:

I am convinced that when Nietzsche came to Switzerland and went insane, it was not because of venereal disease, though he did have that disease. Rather, it was because he understood that insanity was the only philosophic answer if the infinite-personal God does not exist.[19]

20^th Century philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre also comes to mind. As the “Dean of Existentialists,” he taught that existence is pointless and absurd, so that each person must authenticate himself by an act of the will. But he also taught that the will is separate from reason, so the will can authenticate itself in any direction it chooses. Therefore, as Francis Schaeffer again writes:

On the basis of his teaching, you could authenticate yourself either by helping a poor old lady along the road at night or by speeding up your auto and running her down. Reason is not involved, and nothing can show you the direction which your will should take.[20]

Again, kenos, empty words! Ramblings from a mind devoid of Truth and a heart derailed from God. Yet innumerable people are lured into these and countless other philosophies.

Likewise, philosophy dictates behavior. With Darwin’s theory of Evolution as the foundation, the result has been everything from the gas chambers of Nazism to genetic engineering. Heinrich Himmler believed that the law of “the survival of the fittest” should rule, and genetic engineers believe that science should be used to propagate only the fittest, leaving the weak to die.[21]

Many people are also lured into cults and religions by all kinds of empty words, such as, “belonging,” “unity,” “harmony,” “paradise,” and even “divinity.” The Muslim is promised Paradise if his good deeds outweigh the bad; the New Ager is promised an evolution to perfection leading to the eventual oneness with the Universal Self, the Cosmic Mind; the Mormon is promised one of three levels of glory, the highest of which is the Celestial Kingdom, where he will become a god; and on the promises go.

Even more tragic is how even Christianity has been reshaped to be alluring nowadays. “Easy Believeism,” “No-Lordship Salvation,” salvation without repentance, the “God is love” philosophy, and other perversions of the Gospel make Christianity into just another feel good religion that meets your social and emotional needs.

Even more basic and practical, most people are lured into sin by the promises it makes: it will make life better, it will give pleasure, it will make you popular, and so on. But it is all empty, just hollow words that can’t deliver what they promise.

Mark it down: philosophy always looks interesting, religion always looks compelling, and sin always looks pleasing. But they all are just empty words.

Second, Paul commands, don’t be a partaker of sin. Partakers is summetochos, which is the same word we studied back in 3:6: “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” The root is metochos, meaning partaking of something or participating in something. It’s also used to speak of a partner, as in Luke 5:7, where Peter and the others in his boat had so many fish in their net that “they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them.” When the prefix sun is added, which means “together, together with,” implying a close connection, the idea is intensified that we are “partners together,” reemphasizing the closeness of the relationship. So, Paul is telling us that we must never be partners together with sin or with those who are involved in sin.

Paul elaborated on this principle to the Corinthians, who were notorious for their partnership with sinful behavior:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (II Cor. 6:14-17).

The word “fellowship” is again metochos, partnership. Paul’s first metaphor, of course, is based upon Deuteronomy 22:10 (cf. Lev. 19:19), which commanded not to yoke together an ox and a donkey for plowing because of the obvious reason that their “walk” is different, that is, their step and pull is uneven. Paul’s point, then, is clear. The Believer and the unbeliever “walk” differently, that is, they are totally different in every way—actions, attitudes, philosophies, goals, and destiny. They must, therefore, never be “yoked” together in circumstances that require agreement, such as marriage, close friendship, business partnerships, lodges, or anything else. Just as light and darkness, Christ and Satan, and God’s Temple and idols, are all opposites, so is the Christian and the non-Christian. We are never to “partner” with sin.

Man’s words are empty, and Paul warns us to not be lured into believing man’s philosophies or committing man’s deeds. Oh, may we not allow ourselves to be lured into Satan’s counterfeit!

Back to Ephesians Back to Home Page