Original Meaning
Avoid Shameful Sins (5:3–6)
SEXUAL SIN AND greed. The shift from Christ’s self-giving nature in 5:2 to the self-indulgence of 5:3 is striking. The three sins mentioned—“sexual immorality” (porneia), “impurity” (akatharsia), and “greed” (pleonexia)—were already mentioned at 4:19. The second and third sins are the same in both passages, but the first sin in 4:19 is “sensuality” (aselgeia). Galatians 5:19 lists porneia, akatharsia, and aselgeia as the first explanations of “works of the flesh,” all three apparently in reference to sexual sin.3 The NIV does not show it, but “sexual immorality” and “impurity” are linked in 5:3 as a tandem (see also Col. 3:5). “Impurity” refers primarily to sexual sin, even with “of any kind” being added.4 “Greed” is added as a separate sin, which can include sexual lust, but can refer to any kind of drive to “have more.”5
Porneia is a broad word covering any sexual sin.6 It can refer to incest (1 Cor. 5:1), promiscuity (1 Thess. 4:3), sexual relations with a prostitute (1 Cor. 6:13), or illicit sexual relations (John 8:41). It is also used figuratively of apostasy or idolatry because of the Old Testament image of Yahweh as the husband of his people (see Rev. 2:20–21). Pleonexia, “the desire to have more,” here and in Colossians 3:5 is further identified as “idolatry.” Behind this identification is a Jewish understanding of idolatry as the root of all sin and of greed as the sin encompassing all sins.7 Greed motivates all other sins, and as J. A. Bengel has noted, is the highest act of revolt away from God.8 Desire takes the place of God, for it, rather than he, determines life.
The words rendered “among you there must not be even a hint … because these are improper for God’s holy people” are literally “let [these sins] not be named among you, even as is fitting for holy ones.” While some suggest Paul does not want these sins even mentioned (see v. 12), the NIV is right to take the expression as a forceful way of saying these sins are totally contrary to what it means to be a Christian. Both halves of the verse are intended to show how inappropriate sexual sin and greed are among those whom God has set aside for himself.
Sins of the tongue (5:4). This verse is an expansion of 4:29. The three words for sins of speech in this verse occur nowhere else in the New Testament, although cognates appear of the word translated “obscenity” (aischrotes; see, e.g. Col. 3:8). The root expresses that which is shameful or disgraceful; while the word could have a wider reference, its being paired here with two words on speech here indicates that Paul’s concern is about shameful and indecent language. “Foolish talk” (morologia) suggests speech from a fool (one void of understanding) and brings to mind the frequent condemnation of the fool in Old Testament wisdom literature. “Coarse joking” (eutrapelia) usually has a positive meaning outside the New Testament, but clearly is negative here. It suggests something easily turned, a double entendre—speech innocuous in itself but turned to have an indecent intent. Such speech is not fitting for the believer.9
What is fitting for God’s people is “thanksgiving.”10 The word group for “giving thanks” appears elsewhere in Ephesians only at 1:16 and 5:20, the latter referring to thanksgiving as a mark of being filled with the Spirit. Thanksgiving is an important component in Paul’s thought. It is the basic attitude of the Christian, for it forces attention on God, his grace, and his desires rather than on one’s own desires.11 P. T. O’Brien suggests the term is a virtual synonym for the Christian life12 (see esp. Rom. 1:21; 14:6; 2 Cor. 4:15; Col. 3:17).
Motivation in the form of warnings (5:5–6). “For of this you can be sure” is literally, “For this you know, knowing.” Paul reminds his readers of information they already know, that sexual sin and greed are not fitting for God’s people and that those who commit such sins will not inherit the kingdom of Christ and of God.13 The language of inheriting is frequently used to express what one receives or possesses as a gift from God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:21).
The warning is strengthened in verse 6. Not only are practitioners of such sins excluded from the kingdom, but a more dire fate awaits them in the form of God’s wrath. The word “comes” can be understood either of God’s wrath exercised in the present world (as Rom. 1:18–32) or of God’s judging wrath at the end of time. Some scholars argue that both present and future are intended, but the primary reference seems to be to wrath in the final judgment.
The wording of verse 6 is reminiscent of 2:2–3 and 4:14, 22. For that reason, M. Barth is wrong to read this verse as referring to Christians and the discipline of Christians.14 Christians may be guilty of such sins, as the Corinthian letters show, but no evidence exists that Paul’s readers were doing such sins. If they were, he would have addressed the issue more directly. This passage assumes a strong contrast between believers and unbelievers.
The exact nature of the coming wrath is not made clear in Paul’s letters. He does not use words for “hell” such as hades or gehenna, and although insisting on the wrath and judgment of God, the apostle gives little explanation of what the punishment will be. The strongest expression of coming judgment is in 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 (“everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord”). Clearly the punishment is awful (Rom. 2:9), but Paul exercised considerable reserve in describing judgment, though this reserve should not be misinterpreted as doubt about its reality. Without the presupposition of judgment, one does not need to speak of salvation. At the same time, we should remember that—unlike this text—of approximately eighty references to judgment in Paul’s letters, sixty of them are addressed to Christians.15
Bridging Contexts
“HERMENEUTICS IS THE very deciphering of life in the mirror of the text.”28 We decipher life by carrying on a dialogue with the text about our world and its world. The concepts in this passage are clear; the world we see is much like our own. Bringing its message into our generation will depend largely on conviction about the correctness and relevance of the text.
Our world mirrored. Ephesians has been called “the epistle for today.”29 Like much else in the letter, 5:3–14 could have been written to any of our present churches. Obviously the list of sins here is not exhaustive. No mention is made of violence, murder, or a variety of other transgressions. Paul’s concern is not a comprehensive treatment of sin, but those sins by which his readers are most likely to be thrown off course. But why is so much focus placed on sexual sin, language, and greed? Sexual sin is the one place where pride, power, and pleasure are inordinately concentrated. If sin gains control, sexual immorality is often the result. Language and greed are so important because they are gateways by which sin finds entrance.
Modern Western society virtually idolizes sexuality, is obsessed with it, and is loathe to recognize boundaries for sexual expression. A recent news magazine lamented our loss of ethics by highlighting our society’s loss of all sense of shame. Anything goes. In a later issue, however, the same magazine seemed to contribute to that very loss by discussing the increase of bisexuality in our culture in a way that promoted it, or at least approved of it.30
Sexual attitudes in the ancient Greco-Roman world were similar to today’s, although at times more blatant. Often a double standard existed so that wives were expected to have sexual relations only with their husbands. Chastity by a woman was valued, but not necessarily practiced. Men, however, had various sexual outlets, as long as they did not commit adultery against another man’s marriage. A famous statement illustrates the laxity: “Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.”31 Cicero wrote approvingly of the legitimacy and antiquity of young men having affairs with courtesans.32 Prostitution, homosexuality, and bisexuality were common; slaves were often abused sexually.
At the same time, we should not overstate the case for the ancient world. Not everyone was promiscuous, and various inscriptions attest to the value placed on marital fidelity. In addition, the frequent assertion that the worship of Artemis in Ephesus was associated with fertility rites is without evidence.33
Lax sexual standards do not fit with Christianity, whether in the first or the twenty-first century. Christians too easily adopt the sexual attitudes of the surrounding culture, but sexual sin will not mesh with life in Christ. What we do with our bodies matters because we belong to God. The argument that sexual intercourse outside marriage is legitimate was prevalent at Corinth, to which Paul reacted with astonishment: How could one join what is part of Christ with a prostitute? Sexual sin is a sin against one’s own body (1 Cor. 6:15–19). The assumption behind such thinking is that sexual intercourse is far more than a physical act; it is a psychical act that binds two people into a unity and reflects the very image of God. Sexual intercourse answers the question, “To whom do you belong and whose image do you bear?” We cannot belong to multiple partners, particularly if we belong to God. On the other hand, sexual intercourse is not—as Christianity has often implied—dirty; it is a marvelous gift of intimacy from God to be used within the marriage covenant. To argue otherwise is to deceive with empty words (v. 6).
Greed, too, stares back at us from the mirror of the text. The desire to have more motivates both sexual sin and all other sins. In fact, sin has been described as seeking to get more out of life than God put into it. Even though God has packed life full of good things, most of us are never satisfied. When desire for more takes over—especially with sexual relations—it distorts the mind, debilitates us, disrupts life, and finally becomes our master.34 We say a person is lovesick for good reason: Greed makes us sick. Greed can also take control of our minds and distort us in the desire for possessions. It pushes us to acquire more money and resources. We never have enough. If lying is the enabler of sin, greed is its origin (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10).
We live in a society that encourages all forms of greed. The music and the entertainment media seek success by heightening sexual desire and displaying conspicuous consumption. The advertising industry uses sex to create and instruct other forms of greed. Self-centeredness is no longer merely a given; it is elevated as a desirable quest. The only goals most people know are pleasure and possessions, and for many that means life goes out of control. We have moved self-centeredness from a malady to a deadly contagious disease.
Obscenity, foolish talk, and coarse joking are ways we reinforce or court a godless lifestyle. These three categories cover everything from vulgarity to defiance of God to innuendoes. People may start using such language to prove they are tough and know the “ways of the world.” But it is evidence that sin has taken up residence in their minds and that shame is being honored and embraced. It is a way to play with sin, but as G. B. Caird notes, where vice is regarded as amusing, the practice of it comes easy.35 Or, as an ancient rabbi said, “Jesting and levity accustom a man to lewdness.”36 This passage is not, however, a rejection of humor, which can be engaging, creative, and enjoyable. Rather, it is a rejection of the talk of fools—those who are morally and spiritually perverse—and of humor as a way to play with sin.
Surprisingly, Paul offers thanksgiving as a catch-all description of the language that does fit Christ. This does not impose a narrow limitation on language; rather, it recognizes how determinative an attitude of thanksgiving is for life. When we acknowledge God and give thanks for life from him, responsibility to him is established and life is ordered away from self-centeredness and sin. Sin springs from ingratitude. Thanksgiving is an antidote for sin, for it is difficult to both give thanks and sin at the same time.
Judgment. Relatively few people in our society—Christians included—take judgment seriously. In popular eschatology expressed primarily at funerals of well-known people, everyone goes to heaven and continues doing there essentially what they did here. Judgment has no place, or at best is reserved for murderous dictators. The naiveté is amazing.
We do not need a return to “brimstone” preaching, but we very much need a return to a focus on judgment. The parameters of Paul’s comments on judgment mark the path. Judgment is taken seriously, but always in balance and without being overly descriptive. He never uses scare tactics, but the threat of judgment is explicit. Universalism is attractive, of course, but it is a lie.37 If there is no judgment, no one needs salvation, and what we do does not really matter. There is a sense in which sin is its own judgment, which is reason enough to avoid it, but the real danger is end-time judgment and exclusion from life with God. If God does not respond with wrath to this world, he is not much of a God. He who does not get angry does not care.38 God cares, and judgment is real.
Light in the Lord? Surely one of the most difficult statements to understand in this section is the assertion, “You are light in the Lord” (5:8). How can Paul make such a statement? He had written in Romans 7 that he himself did the opposite of what he wanted (to say nothing of what he knew about the Corinthians).39 We could understand Paul if he had written, “You are part light and part darkness,” or “Try to be light.” But Paul took conversion much more seriously than we do. This is a statement about what people are in Christ. It is only in the Lord that they are light. The commentary on verse 8 in verses 13–14 shows what is intended. To have the light of Christ shine on us is to be transformed into what he is; to be in him is to take on his nature. The indicative states what is true: Christians are light in the Lord. Once again, this is a question of identity and the geography that determines identity.40 Christ, in whom we live, determines our identity. From such a high understanding comes a high morality.
The imperative to live as people of light receives little explanation. Paul mentions goodness, righteousness, and truth parenthetically (v. 9), but his only directive here (v. 10) is to discern what pleases the Lord (discernment is also implied in determining what is proper in vv. 3–4). Once again we find a focus on the mind. Christians are thinkers who analyze conduct to see if it fits with their Lord.
Separation. The mark of Christian maturity is seen in the ability to explain and live what is meant by “separation.” The text asks that we neither partner with the disobedient nor participate in doing works of darkness. Clearly participation in sin is excluded, but are we to avoid all contact with sinful people? A range of options is possible in dealing with this issue. In the ancient world, for example, the Essenes went to Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea to separate from the defilement around them. Christians have sometimes chosen this path, but this is not what the text asks for. In fact, far too often when we think of separation, we think of geographical distance rather than distinction in lifestyle. “Separation” may indeed be the wrong word. It implies distance, but what the text seeks is distinction.
The problem, of course, is that when Christians try to separate from the world, they take the world with them wherever they go. The world is too much in us, and for all our separation, many Christians espouse the same values and lifestyles as non-Christians. Further, almost by necessity, we have to be involved with non-Christians in our jobs, our neighborhoods, and other parts of life. Separation has never been easy. In the ancient world Jews and Christians faced difficulty in earning a living because many jobs included belonging to a guild which paid dues to the local deities.41 We must live in society but learn not to sacrifice to its deities.
The parallel discussion in 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 provides insight. Paul had written in a “previous letter” to the church in Corinth not to associate with people guilty of sexual and other sins. The Corinthians thought he was talking about immoral non-Christians, but Paul pointed out that he meant the immoral who claim to be Christians.42
The example of Jesus is similar. His biggest conflict was with the religious leaders, but he willingly associated with those considered immoral. We often do the reverse: We tolerate inappropriate “Christian” lifestyles and separate from non-Christians. We cannot share the gospel if we separate from unbelievers. The light is to shine in the darkness. The exposing in verses 11 and 13 presupposes contact with non-Christians. We separate from sin, not from people.
The injunction to expose or reprove sin means it is not enough merely to abstain from sin.43 Christians have the responsibility to confront, though the text does not tell us how. Too often when we do confront, we do more harm than good. How we confront depends on our relation with those confronted. We do not have the right to force a Christian ethic on a non-Christian populace, especially if such ethics are theologically driven. At the same time we cannot be passive and avoid calling the darkness dark. By both lifestyle and conversation we should be instruments by which the light does its work. The presumption of the text is that light is a power that transforms. To be an agent of the light requires wisdom and discernment. If discernment is required to find what is pleasing to the Lord, surely it is also required in thinking through how we relate to and confront the non-Christian world.
Contemporary Significance
WE LIVE IN a society that is in a moral tailspin. In the 1950s our society feared communism and built massive weapons of destruction and bomb shelters to protect our way of life. No attention was paid to defending the moral fabric of society. But an “enemy” has infiltrated our institutions and our pastimes and damaged—or maybe destroyed—our moral framework. We do not need to overstate the problem, for much morality still exists, but it also is under attack. Too many people have lost all motivation for ethics.
Increasingly the problems of our society are major moral problems: sexual sins, violence, racism, and theft. Politicians use phrases such as “defining deviancy down” and “mainlining deviancy” to describe what is happening in our society. Television shows set for the family hours are now filled with adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality. Violence is presented as something fun to watch. We have made rock stars, actors, and talk show hosts our ethicists and philosophers, but few of these people merit being heard. In the ancient world acting was a disreputable profession.44 Despite the glitz, often it still is.
Christians buy right into this culture, seemingly unaware of the offense or its impact. Is it possible to pull out of this moral tailspin? Of course it is, if the light does its job. Few people are being convicted by the light because too often the light has chosen to go back to darkness. Society needs to be reformed, but first of all the church needs to be reformed.
Sexual sin. Our society has a major problem handling sexuality. The problems of adultery, promiscuity, and the like are bad enough, but the extent of the problem is revealed even more by rape, incest, and sexual abuse. Conservative estimates are that one in six women will be raped and that one in ten children is a victim of incest. Our legitimate desires for love and intimacy have gone haywire, and the pride, power, and pleasure coalesced around sexuality have destroyed all sanity and control. Modernity, as one person defined it, is rationalized sexual misbehavior, and the problem is that we do all we can to stir up the desire. Pornography and “phone sex” are both billion-dollar industries. Sexual discussions are among the most popular uses of computer on-line services. Standards of modesty and decency with regard to dress have evaporated. Language is distorted so that words like “sophisticated,” “mature,” or “gentleman” are used to describe sexual perversion, deviancy, and pornography.
But society also sends contradictory messages that reveal condemnation of such activity even while it is being embraced. We keep this material from children, but why, if it is so harmless? We fall for sexual titillation, but become indignant at any hint of sexual harassment. We accept the lack of sexual restraints, but the press crucifies politicians guilty of illicit sexual activity. The entertainment industry leads both the promotion of sexual promiscuity and—is it out of guilt?—the battle against AIDS. Once again sin is shown to be the failure to do what we know.
But what is wrong with pornography viewed in the privacy of one’s own home? Besides demeaning people by viewing them as sex objects, pornography destroys by staying in the mind; it structures the brain in an illegitimate way. This is not just appreciation of beauty, but the feeding and embracing of lust. It gears the mind in the direction of inappropriate acts. It is both the first step to sexual sin and is sin itself. As Jesus pointed out strongly, what you do with your mind matters (Matt. 5:27–30), especially with regard to sexual sin. Furthermore, pornography is a devious monster that entraps men especially and becomes an addiction.
The passage before us with its rejection of sexual sin and its call for non-participation and confrontation needs to be applied directly—not just in society at large but also in the church. Incest occurs in church families, and adultery and promiscuity are often as prevalent in churches as in the rest of society. Unfortunately, pastors too are guilty. Pornography and other “industries of sexual sin” could not survive without “Christian” support. The only solution is repentance and a Spirit-filled vow not to participate. Do not go to it, do not rent it, do not read it. Do not allow the mind to dwell where it does not belong. Do not place yourself in compromising situations, and do not commit sexual sin of any type. Such sins should not even be named among God’s people, for his judgment will be carried out on those who practice them.
In applying the text we must also probe beneath the surface of the text. What motivates so much sexual sin? Self-centered pleasure-seeking is a large factor, but disrespect for women is also a significant element. The more women are pushed down and viewed as inferior, the easier it is to use them for one’s own benefit.45 The more the opposite sex is viewed as something to conquer, the more likelihood of sexual sin. On the other hand, the more the opposite sex are valued as people created in the image of God, the less possible it is to engage in sexual sin. The surprising thing is that so many women allow themselves to be used. Their need for love must be enormous, but sexual sin is not the way to get love.
Language. The way we talk can be a way to engage in sexual sin. Language expresses being. By a “pornography of the mouth” we allow sexual sin to define life, and in the process we defile human sexuality and demean people. Obscene language is destructive. Christians have no business using such language, and most usually do not. On the other hand, some believers do adopt inappropriate language as a form of rebellion or to prove they are “with it.” Sometimes they discuss sexual topics as if to get as close as possible to sin without actually being guilty, and some pastors seem all too eager to discuss sexual issues when counseling. We must be able to have frank and decent theologically driven discussions about sexuality, but we also must avoid catering to prurient interests, our own included. How we carry on such discussions reveals who we are. We cannot be light in the Lord and have our mouths expressing darkness.
“Foolish talk” seems primarily concerned with foolish talk of a sexual nature, but application of the text requires rejecting any talk appropriate to fools (i.e., those who are morally and spiritually perverse). This is not a rejection of humor, but of misguided humor. Humor is a gift, but it can be a form of egotism, escapism, or self-defense and can be used in harmful, belittling ways. Like all other gifts, the issue is how the gift is used. Is the humor creative, enlightening, and restorative, or destructive, debasing, and inane? Any destructive and purposeless speech falls under the indictment of this text, including what is done from behind pulpits. When pastors use emotionalism, exaggeration, and bombastic verbal bullying rather than sustained argument, they are guilty. It does not fit with the Lord.
Greed. Many Christians denounce sexual sin, but are mute when it comes to greed. Our society does not consider greed a sin, which only shows how easily evil deceives. Whether lust for sex, greed for materialism, or immersion in some particular interest, all greed is sin, for it allows something other than God to order our lives. The application of this text starts with the obvious greed of sexual lust, surely the most disorienting greed on earth. Second is the greed of materialism, the idolatry of possessions, of which most of us are guilty. Third is the greed for power. Following that is a variety of other sins inspired by greed.
Greed is clearly behind the consuming passion for gambling in our society. Theft and embezzlement are usually extensions of greed. Our addictions, whether they be dependence on chemicals or fascination with sports, are a result of greed. When a football fan says after his team upset another, “This is the greatest day of my life,” that is idolatry of the stupidest sort. Any consuming passion that defines life is a form of idolatry displacing God’s rightful place. The Christian community needs to be self-reflective, name the idolatries, repent of the greed, and reorder life with all its good things under God’s control. The only solution to this problem is thankfulness that recognizes that God alone deserves allegiance and orders life.
Leave the light on. Max Lucado tells a story about some candles who refuse to be taken from a storage closet to provide light during an electrical storm. They all have excuses why they should not give off light. When the husband tells his wife that the candles won’t work, she explains, “Oh, they’re church candles.”46 Ouch! That the story even works creates pain.
The task of Christians is to leave the light on. We are light in the Lord and are to live as people of light. Too often the light shines only a few hours, and then it is life as usual. We may be light in the Lord, but we keep our reservations on the train to darkness. Evangelicals used to focus on personal sin and neglect social sins like racism or abuse of wealth. For the past decade or so, sin is viewed increasingly in social rather than personal terms. Neither extreme is acceptable. Sin is both personal and social. Part of our job is to resist sin wherever we find it. We resist it by leaving the light on.
Leaving the light on requires four acts:
(1) Live continually in the Lord, aware of him, determined by him, and discerning what is pleasing to him. Fellowship, a joint-sharing of life with Christ, enables us to be light.
(2) Refuse to partner with or participate in sexual sin, greed, inappropriate language, and forms of disobedience.
(3) Perform positive action, doing good, righteousness, and truth.
(4) Expose the darkness for what it is.
None of this happens automatically. As we have seen throughout the letter, Christians are expected to be strong and wise and to live aggressively in following Christ, rather than conform to their surroundings. Each of the four acts above requires deliberate choices and an investment of energy. As verse 15 will underscore, they also require wisdom.
But how can we show distinction without also displaying a holier-than-thou attitude? How can we avoid participation in sin without being reactionary, prudish, and judgmental? How can we avoid being destructive when we confront? As usual, the framing of the questions implies the answers. Being holier-than-thou, prudish and judgmental, or destructive are failures of which the church has been guilty, but they are neither necessary nor acceptable. The solution has already been presented in the ethic of Ephesians. Paul’s first ethical instruction is his call for humility, gentleness, patience, and tolerant love (4:2). If we exercise these qualities, negative results can be avoided. We can refuse to be involved in wrong practices and still care deeply for the people doing them. We can speak the truth in love even when confronting and rejecting disobedience to God.
In most cases people will agree that what they are doing is generally not appropriate or desirable, even if they have an excuse why it is permissible for them. The problems arise when our own egos get in the way and when people perceive that we do not really care for them. When we expose (or reprove or convince about) sins, we should be clear in our own theological understanding of the issues and of the reasons why specific acts are wrong. The darkness will not be exposed if the light does not know what it is talking about.
But what does the text really require of us? What does it mean not to partner with the disobedient? To limit the message to marriage and business partnerships with non-Christians is simplistic and legalistic. We live in a society in which the majority of people carry a Christian label; while such a label may satisfy legalism, it will not satisfy the text. Also, some non-Christians are less guilty of disobedience than some who call themselves Christian.
The text’s main concern is neither fear of defilement by contact nor avoidance of non-Christians. Rather, it is that the light will be truly light and do its job. Certain actions do not fit with the light, and people of the light should not allow the darkness to define them. The issue again, as it always is with the gospel, is definition and identity.
Dark and disobedient acts do not fit the identity, and people of the light should not allow any situation where they will be defined by darkness. On the contrary, we must be light and show up the darkness for what it is, a kind of death. By our acts and speech we must call people from darkness to the light Christ gives. People may hate the light and choose darkness, but when they do, it should be because their works are evil, not because the light is offensive (see John 3:19–21). The light cannot be offensive for it produces goodness, righteousness, and truth. The light is the place where people find the grace to face the truth and be transformed by the light.
One cannot leave the light on without a continual process of discerning. The whole of life is directed by what fits with Christ, is pleasing to him, and is proper for his people. No legalism exists here. Life and relations with both Christians and non-Christians are not determined from some chart, but from living with Christ and deciding what should be done in personal issues and relations. “Separation,” the distinction we are to embody, is something that comes from the center of our being. We live out the integrity of our own souls. We can only be light when we live the truth of our own relation with Christ. Leave the light on.
Original Meaning
The Relation of Christians and the Disobedient (5:7–14)
DO NOT PARTNER with such people (v. 7). This verse functions as a heading for verses 7–14. The word translated “partners” (symmetochoi) is actually a compound form, “partners with” or “fellow partners.”16 The simpler form was used often for business partnerships, though not always in a technical, legal sense.17 The compound form in Ephesians 5:7 occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only at 3:6: “sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” If one is joined to Christ and shares in him, one cannot share in the lives of those practicing sexual sin and greed (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14).
Live the light (vv. 8–10). As indicated above, verse 8 is a marvelous summary of much of Ephesians and of Paul’s theology generally, but at the same time its content is shocking. The use of light and darkness themes in 1:18; 3:9; and 4:18 does not prepare the reader for the radical statement here. Other passages speak of disciples being the light of the world (Matt. 5:14) or having the light and being children of light (John 12:35–36). In addition, John 8:12 says Christ is the light of the world, and 1 John 1:5 asserts that “God is light.” But we do not expect the bare statement, “You are light in the Lord.” No text is as strong in its explanation of conversion.
The underlying thought is based on Paul’s “spheres of influence” theology. People take on the character of the sphere in which they live. Once they lived in darkness and were darkness; now they live in the light and are light. They are not light in themselves, of course; they are only light “in the Lord.” When they are in him who is the light, they too are light.
This verse is another clear example of the blend of the indicative and the imperative. The indicative statement virtually always comes first as a basis for the imperative. Therefore, the imperative is not wishful thinking, but a call to live out what the gospel says is true. The Christian life is always a call to be who God says we are. A life of faith is a life that takes God at his word.
The NIV “children of light” is a Semitic expression for “those who are characterized by light” (i.e., “people of light”). The parenthetical statement in verse 9 provides a quick summary of what such a life is like—“goodness, righteousness and truth.” It reminds the reader of points already covered, especially in 4:20–5:2.18 The ethic of the new life focuses on “good works” (2:10) or on what benefits other people (4:28–29). The new being speaks the “truth in love” (4:15, 25), has found truth in Jesus (4:20), and is created in “righteousness and holiness” of truth (4:24). The trilogy in 5:9 is reminiscent of the statement in Micah 6:8, that God requires human beings to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.
The ethic is always guided by “what pleases the Lord” (5:10)—a positive way of saying, “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit” (4:30). The word translated “find out” (dokimazo) means “put to the test, examine, or discern,” in the sense “determine the validity of.” Something that has passed the test is “approved” (dokimos). This word group plays an important role in Paul’s ethical teaching. The renewal of the mind in Romans 12:2, for example, occurs so that Christians may discern what God’s will is. Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1:10 is that believers may have “smart love” to be able to discern what really counts. In 1 Thessalonians 5:21 readers are instructed to discern all things and hold to the good. The Christian ethic is largely an ethic of discernment.
Let the light do its work (5:11–14). The command in verse 7 not to partner with the disobedient is expanded in verse 11 with the command not to participate in their actions either. The NIV “have nothing to do with” instructs believers not to share in or participate with wrongdoing.19
The “deeds of darkness”20 are “fruitless,” meaning they are useless in producing what God desires. They fit the darkness; they do not fit with Christ. Such deeds produce nothing of value in God’s eyes. If Christians are light, they cannot participate in such acts.21
The separation Paul calls for, however, is not so much a withdrawal as a confrontation. “Expose” (vv. 11, 13) often carries a nuance of correcting or convincing someone.22 Whether the confrontation is only by conduct or also verbal is debated, though to suggest this passage has nothing to do with spoken confrontation is overly narrow. Although no guidelines are given for confronting, clearly Paul is not thinking of geographical separation and avoidance of contact, but of the refusal to participate in indecent actions. After all, contact with non-Christians is required if the light is to accomplish its purpose.
Apparently the shameful acts too indecent to mention refer to the sexual impurity treated in verse 3. Secret acts in connection with religious ritual could be in the background, but this does not appear to be the issue Paul addresses. He wants to convey the seriousness of these sexual sins without discussing the details of the depravity. The implication is that various possibilities exist for reproving acts without participating in their error.
Verses 13–14 are difficult because of the word phaneroo, translated “becomes visible” in verse 13 and “makes visible” in verse 14. This word usually has the meaning “to make known,” “to reveal”; it is the antithesis of something kept secret. The NIV rendering is understandable for verse 13,23 even if the statement does not contribute much to the argument, but the rendering of verse 14 is problematic. Translated literally, verse 14a reads: “For everything that is revealed is light.”24 Predicate nominatives like this one are qualitative in nature. In other words, that which encounters the light takes on the quality of light.
The question that must be resolved is whether the “revealing” is merely negative (exposing people’s sins) or whether a positive element exists as well, so that people are both exposed and transformed. The context seems to require both, and since the word translated “expose” also means “convince,” this is understandable. The person who is exposed and convinced by the light is transformed. This is confirmed both by verse 8 and the confession in verse 14. F. Foulkes rightly sees three stages of the work of grace in verses 13–14: People are exposed; they allow themselves to be revealed; and then they become light.25
The context (the primary determiner of meaning) seems to require a translation such as:
All things exposed/convinced by the light are enlightened,
For everything being enlightened takes on the quality of light.
For this reason it says,
Get up, sleeper,
and rise from the dead
and Christ will shine on you.
The problem is that phaneroo does not normally carry the meaning “to enlighten,” and interpreters should be cautious. Normally the word means “to reveal,” “to be made known.” On the other hand, to translate “Everything that is revealed is light” makes little sense. Instead of “enlighten,” some commentators suggest “to illumine,”26 but the effect is the same. The logic seems to assume that the light not only exposes, but also transforms (see 2 Cor. 4:6). In all likelihood we are dealing with proverbial statements about light, which lends to the logic being compacted (see also John 3:19–21; Rom. 13:11–14; 1 Thess. 5:4–8).
The last half of verse 14 is about Christ’s transforming light. This is clearly traditional material, as “it is said” shows. These words are a confession or hymnic statement calling for people to wake up from their darkness and experience the transformation that the risen Christ brings. The wording may be drawn from passages on resurrection and light in Isaiah 26:19 and 60:1. Paul is describing the process by which darkness is turned into light and showing why the statement of 5:8 is true: Believers experience resurrection with Christ and are transformed by his life-giving light.27
Bridging Contexts
“HERMENEUTICS IS THE very deciphering of life in the mirror of the text.”28 We decipher life by carrying on a dialogue with the text about our world and its world. The concepts in this passage are clear; the world we see is much like our own. Bringing its message into our generation will depend largely on conviction about the correctness and relevance of the text.
Our world mirrored. Ephesians has been called “the epistle for today.”29 Like much else in the letter, 5:3–14 could have been written to any of our present churches. Obviously the list of sins here is not exhaustive. No mention is made of violence, murder, or a variety of other transgressions. Paul’s concern is not a comprehensive treatment of sin, but those sins by which his readers are most likely to be thrown off course. But why is so much focus placed on sexual sin, language, and greed? Sexual sin is the one place where pride, power, and pleasure are inordinately concentrated. If sin gains control, sexual immorality is often the result. Language and greed are so important because they are gateways by which sin finds entrance.
Modern Western society virtually idolizes sexuality, is obsessed with it, and is loathe to recognize boundaries for sexual expression. A recent news magazine lamented our loss of ethics by highlighting our society’s loss of all sense of shame. Anything goes. In a later issue, however, the same magazine seemed to contribute to that very loss by discussing the increase of bisexuality in our culture in a way that promoted it, or at least approved of it.30
Sexual attitudes in the ancient Greco-Roman world were similar to today’s, although at times more blatant. Often a double standard existed so that wives were expected to have sexual relations only with their husbands. Chastity by a woman was valued, but not necessarily practiced. Men, however, had various sexual outlets, as long as they did not commit adultery against another man’s marriage. A famous statement illustrates the laxity: “Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.”31 Cicero wrote approvingly of the legitimacy and antiquity of young men having affairs with courtesans.32 Prostitution, homosexuality, and bisexuality were common; slaves were often abused sexually.
At the same time, we should not overstate the case for the ancient world. Not everyone was promiscuous, and various inscriptions attest to the value placed on marital fidelity. In addition, the frequent assertion that the worship of Artemis in Ephesus was associated with fertility rites is without evidence.33
Lax sexual standards do not fit with Christianity, whether in the first or the twenty-first century. Christians too easily adopt the sexual attitudes of the surrounding culture, but sexual sin will not mesh with life in Christ. What we do with our bodies matters because we belong to God. The argument that sexual intercourse outside marriage is legitimate was prevalent at Corinth, to which Paul reacted with astonishment: How could one join what is part of Christ with a prostitute? Sexual sin is a sin against one’s own body (1 Cor. 6:15–19). The assumption behind such thinking is that sexual intercourse is far more than a physical act; it is a psychical act that binds two people into a unity and reflects the very image of God. Sexual intercourse answers the question, “To whom do you belong and whose image do you bear?” We cannot belong to multiple partners, particularly if we belong to God. On the other hand, sexual intercourse is not—as Christianity has often implied—dirty; it is a marvelous gift of intimacy from God to be used within the marriage covenant. To argue otherwise is to deceive with empty words (v. 6).
Greed, too, stares back at us from the mirror of the text. The desire to have more motivates both sexual sin and all other sins. In fact, sin has been described as seeking to get more out of life than God put into it. Even though God has packed life full of good things, most of us are never satisfied. When desire for more takes over—especially with sexual relations—it distorts the mind, debilitates us, disrupts life, and finally becomes our master.34 We say a person is lovesick for good reason: Greed makes us sick. Greed can also take control of our minds and distort us in the desire for possessions. It pushes us to acquire more money and resources. We never have enough. If lying is the enabler of sin, greed is its origin (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10).
We live in a society that encourages all forms of greed. The music and the entertainment media seek success by heightening sexual desire and displaying conspicuous consumption. The advertising industry uses sex to create and instruct other forms of greed. Self-centeredness is no longer merely a given; it is elevated as a desirable quest. The only goals most people know are pleasure and possessions, and for many that means life goes out of control. We have moved self-centeredness from a malady to a deadly contagious disease.
Obscenity, foolish talk, and coarse joking are ways we reinforce or court a godless lifestyle. These three categories cover everything from vulgarity to defiance of God to innuendoes. People may start using such language to prove they are tough and know the “ways of the world.” But it is evidence that sin has taken up residence in their minds and that shame is being honored and embraced. It is a way to play with sin, but as G. B. Caird notes, where vice is regarded as amusing, the practice of it comes easy.35 Or, as an ancient rabbi said, “Jesting and levity accustom a man to lewdness.”36 This passage is not, however, a rejection of humor, which can be engaging, creative, and enjoyable. Rather, it is a rejection of the talk of fools—those who are morally and spiritually perverse—and of humor as a way to play with sin.
Surprisingly, Paul offers thanksgiving as a catch-all description of the language that does fit Christ. This does not impose a narrow limitation on language; rather, it recognizes how determinative an attitude of thanksgiving is for life. When we acknowledge God and give thanks for life from him, responsibility to him is established and life is ordered away from self-centeredness and sin. Sin springs from ingratitude. Thanksgiving is an antidote for sin, for it is difficult to both give thanks and sin at the same time.
Judgment. Relatively few people in our society—Christians included—take judgment seriously. In popular eschatology expressed primarily at funerals of well-known people, everyone goes to heaven and continues doing there essentially what they did here. Judgment has no place, or at best is reserved for murderous dictators. The naiveté is amazing.
We do not need a return to “brimstone” preaching, but we very much need a return to a focus on judgment. The parameters of Paul’s comments on judgment mark the path. Judgment is taken seriously, but always in balance and without being overly descriptive. He never uses scare tactics, but the threat of judgment is explicit. Universalism is attractive, of course, but it is a lie.37 If there is no judgment, no one needs salvation, and what we do does not really matter. There is a sense in which sin is its own judgment, which is reason enough to avoid it, but the real danger is end-time judgment and exclusion from life with God. If God does not respond with wrath to this world, he is not much of a God. He who does not get angry does not care.38 God cares, and judgment is real.
Light in the Lord? Surely one of the most difficult statements to understand in this section is the assertion, “You are light in the Lord” (5:8). How can Paul make such a statement? He had written in Romans 7 that he himself did the opposite of what he wanted (to say nothing of what he knew about the Corinthians).39 We could understand Paul if he had written, “You are part light and part darkness,” or “Try to be light.” But Paul took conversion much more seriously than we do. This is a statement about what people are in Christ. It is only in the Lord that they are light. The commentary on verse 8 in verses 13–14 shows what is intended. To have the light of Christ shine on us is to be transformed into what he is; to be in him is to take on his nature. The indicative states what is true: Christians are light in the Lord. Once again, this is a question of identity and the geography that determines identity.40 Christ, in whom we live, determines our identity. From such a high understanding comes a high morality.
The imperative to live as people of light receives little explanation. Paul mentions goodness, righteousness, and truth parenthetically (v. 9), but his only directive here (v. 10) is to discern what pleases the Lord (discernment is also implied in determining what is proper in vv. 3–4). Once again we find a focus on the mind. Christians are thinkers who analyze conduct to see if it fits with their Lord.
Separation. The mark of Christian maturity is seen in the ability to explain and live what is meant by “separation.” The text asks that we neither partner with the disobedient nor participate in doing works of darkness. Clearly participation in sin is excluded, but are we to avoid all contact with sinful people? A range of options is possible in dealing with this issue. In the ancient world, for example, the Essenes went to Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea to separate from the defilement around them. Christians have sometimes chosen this path, but this is not what the text asks for. In fact, far too often when we think of separation, we think of geographical distance rather than distinction in lifestyle. “Separation” may indeed be the wrong word. It implies distance, but what the text seeks is distinction.
The problem, of course, is that when Christians try to separate from the world, they take the world with them wherever they go. The world is too much in us, and for all our separation, many Christians espouse the same values and lifestyles as non-Christians. Further, almost by necessity, we have to be involved with non-Christians in our jobs, our neighborhoods, and other parts of life. Separation has never been easy. In the ancient world Jews and Christians faced difficulty in earning a living because many jobs included belonging to a guild which paid dues to the local deities.41 We must live in society but learn not to sacrifice to its deities.
The parallel discussion in 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 provides insight. Paul had written in a “previous letter” to the church in Corinth not to associate with people guilty of sexual and other sins. The Corinthians thought he was talking about immoral non-Christians, but Paul pointed out that he meant the immoral who claim to be Christians.42
The example of Jesus is similar. His biggest conflict was with the religious leaders, but he willingly associated with those considered immoral. We often do the reverse: We tolerate inappropriate “Christian” lifestyles and separate from non-Christians. We cannot share the gospel if we separate from unbelievers. The light is to shine in the darkness. The exposing in verses 11 and 13 presupposes contact with non-Christians. We separate from sin, not from people.
The injunction to expose or reprove sin means it is not enough merely to abstain from sin.43 Christians have the responsibility to confront, though the text does not tell us how. Too often when we do confront, we do more harm than good. How we confront depends on our relation with those confronted. We do not have the right to force a Christian ethic on a non-Christian populace, especially if such ethics are theologically driven. At the same time we cannot be passive and avoid calling the darkness dark. By both lifestyle and conversation we should be instruments by which the light does its work. The presumption of the text is that light is a power that transforms. To be an agent of the light requires wisdom and discernment. If discernment is required to find what is pleasing to the Lord, surely it is also required in thinking through how we relate to and confront the non-Christian world.
Contemporary Significance
WE LIVE IN a society that is in a moral tailspin. In the 1950s our society feared communism and built massive weapons of destruction and bomb shelters to protect our way of life. No attention was paid to defending the moral fabric of society. But an “enemy” has infiltrated our institutions and our pastimes and damaged—or maybe destroyed—our moral framework. We do not need to overstate the problem, for much morality still exists, but it also is under attack. Too many people have lost all motivation for ethics.
Increasingly the problems of our society are major moral problems: sexual sins, violence, racism, and theft. Politicians use phrases such as “defining deviancy down” and “mainlining deviancy” to describe what is happening in our society. Television shows set for the family hours are now filled with adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality. Violence is presented as something fun to watch. We have made rock stars, actors, and talk show hosts our ethicists and philosophers, but few of these people merit being heard. In the ancient world acting was a disreputable profession.44 Despite the glitz, often it still is.
Christians buy right into this culture, seemingly unaware of the offense or its impact. Is it possible to pull out of this moral tailspin? Of course it is, if the light does its job. Few people are being convicted by the light because too often the light has chosen to go back to darkness. Society needs to be reformed, but first of all the church needs to be reformed.
Sexual sin. Our society has a major problem handling sexuality. The problems of adultery, promiscuity, and the like are bad enough, but the extent of the problem is revealed even more by rape, incest, and sexual abuse. Conservative estimates are that one in six women will be raped and that one in ten children is a victim of incest. Our legitimate desires for love and intimacy have gone haywire, and the pride, power, and pleasure coalesced around sexuality have destroyed all sanity and control. Modernity, as one person defined it, is rationalized sexual misbehavior, and the problem is that we do all we can to stir up the desire. Pornography and “phone sex” are both billion-dollar industries. Sexual discussions are among the most popular uses of computer on-line services. Standards of modesty and decency with regard to dress have evaporated. Language is distorted so that words like “sophisticated,” “mature,” or “gentleman” are used to describe sexual perversion, deviancy, and pornography.
But society also sends contradictory messages that reveal condemnation of such activity even while it is being embraced. We keep this material from children, but why, if it is so harmless? We fall for sexual titillation, but become indignant at any hint of sexual harassment. We accept the lack of sexual restraints, but the press crucifies politicians guilty of illicit sexual activity. The entertainment industry leads both the promotion of sexual promiscuity and—is it out of guilt?—the battle against AIDS. Once again sin is shown to be the failure to do what we know.
But what is wrong with pornography viewed in the privacy of one’s own home? Besides demeaning people by viewing them as sex objects, pornography destroys by staying in the mind; it structures the brain in an illegitimate way. This is not just appreciation of beauty, but the feeding and embracing of lust. It gears the mind in the direction of inappropriate acts. It is both the first step to sexual sin and is sin itself. As Jesus pointed out strongly, what you do with your mind matters (Matt. 5:27–30), especially with regard to sexual sin. Furthermore, pornography is a devious monster that entraps men especially and becomes an addiction.
The passage before us with its rejection of sexual sin and its call for non-participation and confrontation needs to be applied directly—not just in society at large but also in the church. Incest occurs in church families, and adultery and promiscuity are often as prevalent in churches as in the rest of society. Unfortunately, pastors too are guilty. Pornography and other “industries of sexual sin” could not survive without “Christian” support. The only solution is repentance and a Spirit-filled vow not to participate. Do not go to it, do not rent it, do not read it. Do not allow the mind to dwell where it does not belong. Do not place yourself in compromising situations, and do not commit sexual sin of any type. Such sins should not even be named among God’s people, for his judgment will be carried out on those who practice them.
In applying the text we must also probe beneath the surface of the text. What motivates so much sexual sin? Self-centered pleasure-seeking is a large factor, but disrespect for women is also a significant element. The more women are pushed down and viewed as inferior, the easier it is to use them for one’s own benefit.45 The more the opposite sex is viewed as something to conquer, the more likelihood of sexual sin. On the other hand, the more the opposite sex are valued as people created in the image of God, the less possible it is to engage in sexual sin. The surprising thing is that so many women allow themselves to be used. Their need for love must be enormous, but sexual sin is not the way to get love.
Language. The way we talk can be a way to engage in sexual sin. Language expresses being. By a “pornography of the mouth” we allow sexual sin to define life, and in the process we defile human sexuality and demean people. Obscene language is destructive. Christians have no business using such language, and most usually do not. On the other hand, some believers do adopt inappropriate language as a form of rebellion or to prove they are “with it.” Sometimes they discuss sexual topics as if to get as close as possible to sin without actually being guilty, and some pastors seem all too eager to discuss sexual issues when counseling. We must be able to have frank and decent theologically driven discussions about sexuality, but we also must avoid catering to prurient interests, our own included. How we carry on such discussions reveals who we are. We cannot be light in the Lord and have our mouths expressing darkness.
“Foolish talk” seems primarily concerned with foolish talk of a sexual nature, but application of the text requires rejecting any talk appropriate to fools (i.e., those who are morally and spiritually perverse). This is not a rejection of humor, but of misguided humor. Humor is a gift, but it can be a form of egotism, escapism, or self-defense and can be used in harmful, belittling ways. Like all other gifts, the issue is how the gift is used. Is the humor creative, enlightening, and restorative, or destructive, debasing, and inane? Any destructive and purposeless speech falls under the indictment of this text, including what is done from behind pulpits. When pastors use emotionalism, exaggeration, and bombastic verbal bullying rather than sustained argument, they are guilty. It does not fit with the Lord.
Greed. Many Christians denounce sexual sin, but are mute when it comes to greed. Our society does not consider greed a sin, which only shows how easily evil deceives. Whether lust for sex, greed for materialism, or immersion in some particular interest, all greed is sin, for it allows something other than God to order our lives. The application of this text starts with the obvious greed of sexual lust, surely the most disorienting greed on earth. Second is the greed of materialism, the idolatry of possessions, of which most of us are guilty. Third is the greed for power. Following that is a variety of other sins inspired by greed.
Greed is clearly behind the consuming passion for gambling in our society. Theft and embezzlement are usually extensions of greed. Our addictions, whether they be dependence on chemicals or fascination with sports, are a result of greed. When a football fan says after his team upset another, “This is the greatest day of my life,” that is idolatry of the stupidest sort. Any consuming passion that defines life is a form of idolatry displacing God’s rightful place. The Christian community needs to be self-reflective, name the idolatries, repent of the greed, and reorder life with all its good things under God’s control. The only solution to this problem is thankfulness that recognizes that God alone deserves allegiance and orders life.
Leave the light on. Max Lucado tells a story about some candles who refuse to be taken from a storage closet to provide light during an electrical storm. They all have excuses why they should not give off light. When the husband tells his wife that the candles won’t work, she explains, “Oh, they’re church candles.”46 Ouch! That the story even works creates pain.
The task of Christians is to leave the light on. We are light in the Lord and are to live as people of light. Too often the light shines only a few hours, and then it is life as usual. We may be light in the Lord, but we keep our reservations on the train to darkness. Evangelicals used to focus on personal sin and neglect social sins like racism or abuse of wealth. For the past decade or so, sin is viewed increasingly in social rather than personal terms. Neither extreme is acceptable. Sin is both personal and social. Part of our job is to resist sin wherever we find it. We resist it by leaving the light on.
Leaving the light on requires four acts:
(1) Live continually in the Lord, aware of him, determined by him, and discerning what is pleasing to him. Fellowship, a joint-sharing of life with Christ, enables us to be light.
(2) Refuse to partner with or participate in sexual sin, greed, inappropriate language, and forms of disobedience.
(3) Perform positive action, doing good, righteousness, and truth.
(4) Expose the darkness for what it is.
None of this happens automatically. As we have seen throughout the letter, Christians are expected to be strong and wise and to live aggressively in following Christ, rather than conform to their surroundings. Each of the four acts above requires deliberate choices and an investment of energy. As verse 15 will underscore, they also require wisdom.
But how can we show distinction without also displaying a holier-than-thou attitude? How can we avoid participation in sin without being reactionary, prudish, and judgmental? How can we avoid being destructive when we confront? As usual, the framing of the questions implies the answers. Being holier-than-thou, prudish and judgmental, or destructive are failures of which the church has been guilty, but they are neither necessary nor acceptable. The solution has already been presented in the ethic of Ephesians. Paul’s first ethical instruction is his call for humility, gentleness, patience, and tolerant love (4:2). If we exercise these qualities, negative results can be avoided. We can refuse to be involved in wrong practices and still care deeply for the people doing them. We can speak the truth in love even when confronting and rejecting disobedience to God.
In most cases people will agree that what they are doing is generally not appropriate or desirable, even if they have an excuse why it is permissible for them. The problems arise when our own egos get in the way and when people perceive that we do not really care for them. When we expose (or reprove or convince about) sins, we should be clear in our own theological understanding of the issues and of the reasons why specific acts are wrong. The darkness will not be exposed if the light does not know what it is talking about.
But what does the text really require of us? What does it mean not to partner with the disobedient? To limit the message to marriage and business partnerships with non-Christians is simplistic and legalistic. We live in a society in which the majority of people carry a Christian label; while such a label may satisfy legalism, it will not satisfy the text. Also, some non-Christians are less guilty of disobedience than some who call themselves Christian.
The text’s main concern is neither fear of defilement by contact nor avoidance of non-Christians. Rather, it is that the light will be truly light and do its job. Certain actions do not fit with the light, and people of the light should not allow the darkness to define them. The issue again, as it always is with the gospel, is definition and identity.
Dark and disobedient acts do not fit the identity, and people of the light should not allow any situation where they will be defined by darkness. On the contrary, we must be light and show up the darkness for what it is, a kind of death. By our acts and speech we must call people from darkness to the light Christ gives. People may hate the light and choose darkness, but when they do, it should be because their works are evil, not because the light is offensive (see John 3:19–21). The light cannot be offensive for it produces goodness, righteousness, and truth. The light is the place where people find the grace to face the truth and be transformed by the light.
One cannot leave the light on without a continual process of discerning. The whole of life is directed by what fits with Christ, is pleasing to him, and is proper for his people. No legalism exists here. Life and relations with both Christians and non-Christians are not determined from some chart, but from living with Christ and deciding what should be done in personal issues and relations. “Separation,” the distinction we are to embody, is something that comes from the center of our being. We live out the integrity of our own souls. We can only be light when we live the truth of our own relation with Christ. Leave the light on.