What is Truth?
How do you know what you know? Are “gut feelings” reliable? Can we know anything?
When Jesus told his audience, “See that no one leads you astray” in Matthew 24:4, how is that possible? How can we know when we are hearing truth or having the wool pulled over our eyes?
In our passage, there are imperatives that Paul gives that revolve around not being deceived, not being seduced, and waking up. He commands that there be no partnerships or involvement with those not counted as saints. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. How can we know?
If I’m building something, I’ll use tools to help me along. Evidence that will convince my perceptions of what is truth. Like using a level. It might look and feel level, but until I prove it, do I really know?
As we study today, let’s have our eyes, ears, hearts aware that we are not only able to be deceived, it must be a frequent problem since biblical authors spent considerable space in their writings to warn and command the sheep to stay in the light, thereby avoiding deception.
Paul Gives Imperatives
I have a plan for my course in study. So far I’ve observed the text by creating a sentence diagram, making lists, noticing repeated words, and so forth. Since I can’t learn everything in a passage each time I study a book and I also want to keep my view of the entire book in mind, I’m limiting the scope of investigation while interpreting to two topics. Both of which I noticed while making lists in observation.
I’ve already considered the not-this-but-this that Paul lays out and now I’m ready to learn what Paul wants his audience to do about those. He gives commands and as a student of the Word, I want to know and understand what he means by them.
In the course of my investigation, I see that there are both positive (do) and negative (don’t do) charges being given to the audience. I’m looking at the “no-no’s” first.
Commands Given in the Negative
As we’ve discussed previously, if the biblical writer states it one way, the inversion of the phrase can be helpful. When Paul tells the sheep let no one deceive you, what is that framed in the positive?
For the past decade, self-defense techniques have been a steady mental diet so my brain immediately thinks “be situationally aware.” Know what is happening around me. Keep a broad view of my surroundings. Both physically in my environment and now I see a correlation for this concept spiritually with those who would speak falsehood to me.
I can see that Paul also inverts within the text a couple of times. First, he tells them not to become partners with them but walk as children of light. Then when he says take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them, he’s done the inversion for us again. We could think that the act of not taking part means simply that we don’t join them but Paul clarifies and defines for his audience: expose them.
Let No One Deceive You
This is the imperative in the negative list I spent the majority of my time researching. Probably because it seems such a strange thing to say. How can I prevent deception? If I’m being deceived, how would I know it to prevent someone from doing it? See? Weird, huh? If I knew I was being deceived, I would stop thinking that way, wouldn’t I?
What Did Jesus Say?
My first step is to look at the cross reference the ESV editors provide to me, Matthew 24:4. Paul isn’t the original author of the “watch out” or “be on guard,” as the NET translates it. Jesus, when answering end times questions, warned his disciples as they were together on the Mount of Olives, “See that no one leads you astray.” Again I ask, how do I know if I’m being led astray? There are cross references the editors provided on Jesus’ admonition as well (Jer 29:8; Eph 5:6; Col 2:8; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 John 3:7).
What Did Paul Say Elsewhere?
Remembering that Colossians is a companion letter to Ephesians, what Paul has to say about being deceived or led astray would be pertinent since his intentions are what we are trying to understand in Ephesians as he tries to explain the teachings of Jesus to those in Asia Minor. Let’s look at it more closely.
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.1
Using our spiritual imaginations, we can see how being deceived, led astray, or taken captive are companion concepts. Speaking of the mind, if any of these descriptions are accurate of my mind, I am not either in the process of being on guard nor am I any longer the master of my mind. But how would I know?
Just One Thing
You know how Peter says somewhere in one of his letters that Paul is sometimes hard to understand? This is not one of those times. There is only one thing on the side of the contrast that believers should be captivated by.
One thing to be captivated by and that is Christ. Not man’s wisdom, not man’s tradition, and certainly not by whatever ethereal floaties that like to whisper in our ears, passing themselves off as “the Holy Spirit.”
Philosophy as Paul Intended
Since I have immersed myself in what we in our day call “philosophy” and how it relates to a defense for Christianity for the last 7 months, I am curious what the Greek word behind this English word means. Have I wasted my time? How did Paul mean it?
First, I looked in the NET Bible to see if the translators have some insight for me.
Deceitful Philosophy in the NET
I’ll bring the NET verse here:
Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy18 that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.2
You can go see the translator note for yourself in the NET Bible, it’s note “18” associated with deceitful philosophy. Basically, the translators read Paul in the original language not as dismissing philosophy as a science in general, but the form of philosophy that deceives. The point being the deception while the word philosophy is the modifier of the deception.
For further clarification, I will check out a lexicon or two.
TDNTA (It’s the Abridged Theological Dictionary of the NT)
I looked at Mounce and TDNTA. Mounce didn’t have enough information to satisfy my curiosity, so I went to the next. Here is what the scholars in TDNTA had to say:
The only NT instance of philosophía is in Col. 2:8. What Paul has in view here is not philosophy in general but the teaching of a syncretistic religious group that claims special insight into God, Christ, astral powers, and creation, that imposes a set of rules on its members, and that bases the authority of its message on its age or esoteric nature. The group itself probably argues that its teaching is philosophía; hence Paul’s use of the term and his equation of it with “empty deceit.” For Paul himself the gospel is not philosophía but a distinctive form of sophía.3
Ah yes. The groups who claim “special insights” into the spiritual realm. They’ve been active for hundreds of years. There are still sects of them around today. Recycled heresies. First Jesus tells his disciples not to be led astray by such folk and then Paul reiterates, emphasizes, and admonishes not to be deceived or taken captive.
Additionally, the groups claim what they teach is philosophy. Reality? They’re teaching gibberish. Empty deceit. What Paul describes as empty deceit and philosophy in Colossians is not really what we call philosophy proper but the pontification of these “special insight” leaders. False teachers.
How Do Sheep Obey the Command?
What is the opposite of this captivity? According to Colossians 2:8, it’s Christ. The opposite is knowing Christ. In Ephesians 5:8-9, Paul presents the opposite as walking as children of light. The fruit of the light is all that is good, right, and true. How do we know what that is?
One of the cross references the ESV editors associated with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24 was in Jeremiah. As the exiles were in Babylon, Jeremiah the prophet spoke God’s words after him in Jeremiah 29:8-9. The exiles were told not to believe dreamers or diviners that God himself did not send. He warned the exiles that there would be false prophets who claim to be speaking for God.
In the OT, the prophets needed to be tested. Were they really speaking the truth of the Word or were they speaking only what the people wanted to hear? We have the same issue today. One who would claim to speak for God needs testing. How can such a proclaimer be tested?
What is the primary means by which the Holy Spirit communicates? In the OT, the Pentateuch. Jesus’ day, the OT. In the early church, the OT and the teachings of the apostles whether oral or written. Today, the canon of scripture.
If I go any further here, I will not be interpreting but applying. We’ll keep on in interpretation and save applying for later. This isn’t the only imperative to consider. Understanding what Paul meant in the flow of his passage should happen before I understand what it means in my life.
Awake and Arise in Ephesians 5:14
This is the other imperative I spent quite a bit of time on. With its offset type and cryptic verbiage, my interest was piqued. I have questions.
Composite Quote
In the process of observation, I asked the question written there, “is this OT quote or hymn?” Investigation yielded information from the NET that the translators think it’s a composite quote from Isaiah 26:19, 51:17, 52:1, 60:1. As I flipped from verse to verse in Logos, I couldn’t keep the verses straight. So I copied them conveniently using the “copy Bible” feature in the Logos software and printed it.
I double-spaced the text so I had room to color and take notes and define words as needed.
Now remember, fellow student, the English Bible translators and editors are taking their best guess as to the possible ingredients for the composite quote in Ephesians 5:14. We don’t know for sure, but these folks assembling our English texts are smarter than most of us, so we will trust and use their expertise. Still remember that the footnotes are not included in the aspect of scripture we count as “inspired.” Just because they are included in the physical pages of the published Bible (or on the internet) does not make them the Bible itself.
Composite Summary
If Paul made a composite quote, I responded to his quote with a composite understanding of it. Isaiah prophesied about the future of Israel, both an immediate fulfillment and a future fulfillment. As is common in the OT, the sooner foreshadowing the later true fulfillment. My composite summary? “What was lost/defeated/dark/dead will, in the Lord, be redeemed.”
Back to Ephesians 5:14
A question that comes to mind is whether or not Ephesians 5:14 has happened or has yet to happen. Paul writes the awake as present (corresponds to our present tense) tense, arise as aorist (considered as having no regard for time) tense, and will shine as future. I find the variety of verb tenses baffling.
Being baffled causes me to ask more questions. What do the scholars understand these words to mean? I will consult my lexicons.
Defining Words
Awake
As defined by Mounce, the word awake as used in our passage is a call “metaphorically to rouse one’s self to a better course of conduct, Rom. 13:11; Eph. 5:14”4
In BDAG, way down the list of definitions I found the reference to our verse. Awake is defined as, “⑬ a command to evoke movement from a fixed position“5 The scholars note in the definition it is the “awakening of the ‘dead’ in association in figurative use” with (a couple of other Greek words).
The lexicons’ consensus is this is figurative language, which makes sense since Paul was making a composite quote of poetry from Isaiah. Recently I heard someone say that they only read the Bible literally. That makes me giggle. As proper students of the Word, we can read this word awake as Paul literally meant it: figuratively.
Arise
As we might expect, the word arise is also used in a figurative sense. BDAG says, “⑦ to come back to life from the dead, rise up, come back from the dead….Fig., of a spiritual reawakening ἀνάστα ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν arise from the dead Eph 5:14“6
Comparing what I gathered from Isaiah and the definitions of the words Paul uses in our passage, the quote is poetic in nature. There is a spiritual sense in which the audience is being called to roust themselves to right-er living. And looking at the context of what follows in Ephesians 5:15, that fits. After the imagery and poetry of speaking to sleepers and those who are dead, he clearly explains himself, using prose, in the next verse. Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise.
Reflection
What is the Antidote for Deception?
Knowing. Tying back into Paul’s previous exhortation to be renewed in mind, we can have hedges of protection against someone twisting words up into empty deceit.
Actually, that person who was talking about how he only reads the Bible literally sounds wise and learned, doesn’t he? Sounds noble and ideological. Well, except that if we know anything about hermeneutics, we know that there are genres of literature. (…and what is his big takeaway from the Bible? The earth is flat.)
Narrative can be read for the most part as literal literature. For example, in the genre of historical narrative, Moses parted the Red Sea. There are archeological evidences even for the literality of that text. Multiple reasons for taking it literally.
Poetry, hyperbole? Please don’t take all of that literally.
If that flat-earth fellow I was talking about takes the Bible literally, how is it he still has eyes? Jesus said to pluck out eyes that cause a man to stumble (literary device of hyperbole). I’ve stumbled looking at another person’s mountain bike, let me tell you. If those words were intended to be literal, there should be an army of at least one-eyed people running around. Honestly, none of us should have eyeballs at all. If we take it literally.
Was that flat-earther able to deceive with his empty deceit and silly form of philosophy? Nope, because we know better. That is only a tiny example of how knowledge is an antidote to deception.
Awake and Arise
Speaking of not taking the scripture literally at all times, in Ephesians 5:14, Paul uses figurative, metaphorical language derived from the OT to gain the attention of the hearts of his audience. He calls them (and me, by extension) to awake! because we are often sleeping with regard to our “course of conduct” as Mounce iterated. And we are at times dead spiritually and need to arise! and reawaken as BDAG defined.
Going from the metaphor, Paul explains with the literal in his next phrase, “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise.”7
I’m considering the possibility that I can be deceived, particularly what areas am I in a “fixed position” and need to “get up!”8 As an example, personally, I think I’ve been isolated for too long from fellow believers. I’ve gone to church services when it’s been possible, but further fellowship? I’ve been inactive, in a fixed position. Deciding that I’m fine, everything’s fine, I’ve avoided small groups, situations where people could see what a cracked pot I am. I’m waking up, arising, and realizing that I was wrong.
My application in this area? My beloved and I are actively rearranging our schedule in order to have the night available in the week to join a community group. Bible doesn’t command it specifically of course, but in our culture, this is a way to attempt additional connection beyond Sunday meetings which I hear the Bible calling me to have.
Wrap Up
Our Bible Study Bite today isn’t so much a Bite of nuts-and-bolts of Bible study but defining two methods of arriving at a confession of faith. There are (at least) two schools of thought about how to understand what we personally believe. What you believe, you’ve concluded that by a method. And what I believe, I’ve concluded by perhaps the same method or perhaps a different one.
If someone thinks they’ve arrived at a confession of faith just by having faith, that is a method. No “method” is a method.
Since Paul brought up a type of philosophy that is misleading, I will speak a little on the philosophy that is a defense of the faith.
Apologetics
You’ve heard of apologetics, I know, because I’ve talked about it a little. It is the reasoned defense of what is believed. Examples of this are found in the NT.
Appealing to the call to holy living in the Mosaic Law as evidence, Paul uses scripture in 1 Corinthians 9 to defend his belief about the rights of God’s workers. Again, he appeals to the record and work (most likely oral tradition at that point in the timeline of history) of Jesus as Paul wrote Philippians when he explains why he believes what he is teaching about the humility of Christ (Phil 2).
Peter also encourages his audience to have a defense ready to explain the hope that is within rather than be afraid of haters. After his exhortation, Peter recounts the actions of Christ and then additionally appeals to scripture as well which gives reasons, defends the actions that Jesus took (1 Peter 3:15-22).
An Opposing View
There is another school of thought regarding doctrine that does not want any part of reasoning or evidence. It is commonly known as fideism which can be defined as “reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth.” While a Christian’s salvation is by faith alone, it is not alone in faith. There is evidence and reason, science of textual criticism and testimony of non-biblical authors behind faith based on the complete redemptive work of Christ. To paraphrase the late Dr. John Gerstner, you have to have a reason to have faith or you don’t really believe it.
Our Bible Study Bite for today is to know that being prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within you is a calling placed on all believers. Not just the ones on the mission field (like there is a place that isn’t really a mission field) or the one who stands in the pulpit on Sunday mornings. Us. You and me. We need to have a defense.
A Defense a Bite at a Time
I’m not saying that you need to have a complete defense all at once, but as we walk along studying, we are developing a defense. Questions I can ask myself: Do I know what I believe? What about why I believe it? Just believing it because someone else told me to believe it isn’t a reason to have faith. It’s a reason someone else has faith.
Dr. Gerstner was professor and mentor to R.C. Sproul and in one of his lectures he was explaining why some in Christianity have Reasons Against Reason. He said,
You can’t believe in something you don’t understand. You’ve got to KNOW what it is if you’re going to believe or disbelieve. To say, “I believe” and be asked “What?” and answer “I don’t know” is not an act of faith but of folly. It’s not an act of trust, it’s rampant stupidity.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/handout_apologetics/reason-against-reasons-part-1/
For our Bite today, I’d like us to be purposeful as we study. We want knowledge to enter our heads and pass through to our hearts so that we have a reason for the hope therein.
Thanks for studying with me today. If you’ve found anything useful in our time together, please like and subscribe. Sharing with other students of the Word would be helpful as well.
Share this:
- Colossians 2:8 (ESV)
- Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Col 2:8). Biblical Studies Press.
- Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 1272). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
- Mounce, W. D. (2006). Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (p. 1130). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
- Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 83). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Eph 5:15). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
- Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.