Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 5:4
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
4. filthiness ] Lit. “ ugliness, deformity ”; vice in its aspect as morally hideous. The Gr. word occurs here only in N.T. In the classics some cognate words bear a special connexion with forms of gross sensuality.
foolish talking ] Talk about sin, in the spirit of the “fool” who gloats and jests over his own or his neighbour’s undoing. The word occurs here only in N.T. It and its cognates occur in the classics, but not in grave moral connexions.
jesting ] Obviously, by context, in the sense of immoral pleasantry, such as defiles some of the most brilliant pages of pagan literature, not to speak of Christian, so called; and such as terribly impregnates common talk in many strata and circles of society now. It must have been everywhere the fashion at Ephesus. The passage does not deal with the play of humour and wit in general. This is not forbidden in Scripture, and so far as it is the outcome of vigour, gladness, or (in the case of humour) tenderness, it may be quite in harmony with the strict piety of the Gospel. But to remain so it must be watched; and see next note but one. The Gr. word denotes specially the versatility of clever repartee; but it is wider by usage.
convenient ] Better, as R.V., befitting; the French convenable. In older English “convenient” could bear this meaning; but it has lost it. Rom 1:28 and Phm 1:8 are parallel cases in the A.V.
giving of thanks ] as the far more “befitting” expression of the buoyancy of the believing spirit. See Col 3:16; Jas 5:13. Such precepts, out of Scripture, have often been stigmatized as “puritanic,” or the like; but they are nevertheless apostolic. And the nearer the conduct of inner life is brought to apostolic lines of principle the more natural will such precepts be felt to be.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Neither filthiness – That is, obscene, or indecent conversation. Literally, that which is shameful, or deformed – aischrotes. The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament.
Nor foolish talking – This word – morologia – does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. It means that kind of talk which is insipid, senseless, stupid, foolish; which is not suited to instruct, edify, profit – the idle chitchat which is so common in the world. The meaning is, that Christians should aim to have their conversation sensible, serious, sincere – remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment; Mat 12:36.
Nor jesting – eutrapelia. This word occurs also nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, that which is well-turned eu – well, and trepo – to turn); and then that which is sportive, refined, courteous; and then urbanity, humor, wit; and then jesting, levity – which is evidently the meaning here. The apostle would not forbid courteousness, or refinement of manners (compare 1Pe 3:8), and the reference, therefore, must be to that which is light and trifling in conversation; to that which is known among us as jesting. It may be observed:
(1) That courteousness is not forbidden in the Scriptures, but is positively required; 1Pe 3:8.
(2) Cheerfulness is not forbidden – for if anything can make cheerful, it is the hope of heaven.
(3) Pleasantry cannot be forbidden. I mean that quiet and gentle humor that arises from good-nature, and that makes one good-natured in spite of himself.
Such are many of the poems of Cowper, and many of the essays of Addison in the Spectator – a benevolent humor which disposes us to smile, but not to be malignant; to be good-natured, but not to inspire levity. But levity and jesting, though often manifested by ministers and other Christians, are as inconsistent with true dignity as with the gospel. Where were they seen in the conversation of the Redeemer? Where in the writings of Paul?
Which are not convenient – That is, which are not fit or proper; which do not become the character of Christians; notes, Rom 1:28. Christians should be grave and serious – though cheerful and pleasant. They should feel that they have great interests at stake, and that the world has too. They are redeemed – not to make sport; purchased with precious blood – for other purposes than to make people laugh. They are soon to be in heaven – and a man who has any impressive sense of that will habitually feel that he has much else to do than to make people laugh. The true course of life is midway between moroseness and levity; sourness and lightness; harshness and jesting. Be benevolent, kind, cheerful, bland, courteous, but serious. Be solemn, thoughtful, deeply impressed with the presence of God and with eternal things, but pleasant, affable, and benignant. Think not a smile sinful; but think not levity and jesting harmless.
But rather giving of thanks – Thanks to God, or praises are more becoming Christians than jesting. The idea here seems to be, that such employment would be far more appropriate to the character of Christians, than idle, trifling, and indelicate conversation. Instead, therefore, of meeting together for low wit and jesting; for singing songs, and for the common discourse which often attends such gatherings of friends, Paul would have them come together for the purpose of praising God, and engaging in his service. Human beings are social in their nature; and it they do not assemble for good purposes, they will for bad ones. It is much more appropriate to the character of Christians to come together to sing praises to God, than to sing songs; to pray than to jest; to converse of the things of redemption than to tell anecdotes, and to devote the time to a contemplation of the world to come, than to trifles and nonsense.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Eph 5:4
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
Unseemly conversation
Filthiness–impurity of act or speech, foolish talking, and jesting, are to disappear as completely as covetousness and the grosser vices. They are not befitting; they do not harmonize with the character, the prerogatives, and the destiny of saints. Foolish talking is the talk of a fool, of a man that is insensible to the graver aspects of human life. The great discoveries of God and of eternity, of our own present relations to God and of our future glory, which have come to us through. Christ, exert their power on the mind as well as on the heart and on outward conduct. They give a certain intellectual nobleness even to uncultivated and simple men. They inspire self-respect and dignity. As the pride of the Roman people was justly offended when they saw an emperor descend into the arena with charioteers and gladiators, so the finer feeling of the Christian Church is justly offended when Christian men indulge in buffoonery and play the fool. This is not befitting. It should have no place among Christian people, and to find pleasure in such folly is also below the dignity of those who live near to the throne of God. In condemning jesting Paul does not mean to insist that the conversation of Christian men should be always grave and serious. The mind needs rest as well as the body. There is a time to play as well as to work. Amusement has its legitimate place in the intellectual life; and if the mind is subjected to an incessant strain its strength will be broken down. The bright flashes of wit and the pleasant gleams of a kindly humour may be as beautiful and as harmless as the play of the sunlight among the trees or on the ripples of a mountain stream. The jesting which Paul describes as not befitting is the kind of conversation that reaches its perfection in a civilized, luxurious, and brilliant society which has no faith in God, no reverence for moral law, no sense of the grandeur of human life, no awe in the presence of the mystery of death. In such a society, to which the world is the scene of a pleasant comedy in which all men are actors, a polished insincerity and a versatility which is never arrested by strong and immovable convictions are the objects of universal admiration. The foulest indecencies are applauded, if they are conveyed under the thin disguise of a graceful phrase, a remote allusion, an ingenious ambiguity. There is a refinement to which, not vice itself, but the coarseness of vice, is distasteful, and which regards with equal resentment the ruggedness of virtue. This is the kind of jesting that Paul so sternly condemns. It is destructive both of faith and morality. The tongue was made for nobler uses. (R. W. Dale, LL. D.)
Against foolish talking and jesting
It may be demanded then, what the thing we speak of is, or what this facetiousness doth import? To which question I might reply as Democritus did to him that asked the definition of a man, It is that which we all see and know; anyone better apprehends what it is by acquaintance, than I can inform him by description. It is indeed a thing so versatile and multiform, appearing in so many shapes, so many postures, so many garbs, so variously apprehended by several eyes and judgments, that it seemeth no less hard to settle a clear and certain notion thereof, than to make a portrait of Proteus, or to define the figure of the fleeting air. Sometimes it lieth in pat allusion to a known story, or in seasonable application of a trivial saying, or in forging an apposite tale: sometimes it playeth in words and phrases, taking advantage from the ambiguity of their sense, or the affinity of their sound; sometimes it is wrapped in a dress of humorous expression; sometimes it lurketh under an odd similitude; sometimes it is lodged in a sly question, in a smart answer, in a quirkish reason, in a shrewd intimation, in cunningly diverting, or cleverly retorting an objection; sometimes it is couched in a bold scheme of speech, in a tart irony, in a lusty hyperbole, in a startling metaphor, in a plausible reconciling of contradictions, or in acute nonsense; sometimes a scenical representation of persons or things, a counterfeit speech, a mimical look or gesture passeth for it; sometimes an affected simplicity, sometimes a presumptuous bluntness giveth it being; sometimes it riseth from a lucky hitting on what is strange, sometimes from a crafty wresting obvious matter to the purpose; often it consisteth in one knows not what, and springeth up one can hardly tell how. Its ways are unaccountable and inexplicable, being answerable to the numberless rovings of fancy and windings of language. It is, in short, a manner of speaking out of the simple and plain way (such as reason teacheth and proveth things by), which by a pretty surprising uncouthness in conceit or expression doth affect and amuse the fancy, stirring in it some wonder, and breeding some delight thereto.
I. 1. Such facetiousness is not absolutely unreasonable or unlawful, which ministereth harmless divertisement and delight to conversation. For Christianity is not so harsh, so envious, as to bar us continually from innocent, much less from wholesome and useful pleasure, such as human life doth need or require.
2. Facetiousness is allowable when it is the most proper instrument of exposing things apparently base and vile to due contempt. When sarcastical twitches are needful to pierce the thick skins of men, to correct their lethargic stupidity, to rouse them out of their drowsy negligence; then may they well be applied.
3. Facetious discourse particularly may be commodious for reproving some vices and reclaiming some persons (as salt for cleansing and curing some sores). It commonly procureth a more easy access to the ears of men, and worketh a stronger impression on their hearts, than other discourse could do. Many whose foreheads are brazed and hearts are steeled against all blame, are yet not proof against derision.
4. Some errors likewise in this way may be most properly and most successfully confuted; such as deserve not, and hardly can bear a serious and solid confutation.
5. This way is also commonly the best way of defence against unjust reproach and obloquy. To yield to a slanderous reviler a serious reply, or to make a formal plea against his charge, doth seem to imply that we much consider or deeply resent it; whereas by pleasant reflection On it we signify the matter only deserves contempt, and that we take ourselves unconcerned therein.
6. So easily without care or trouble may the brunts of malice be declined or repelled. This way may be allowed in way of counterbalancing and in compliance to the fashion of others. It would be a disadvantage unto truth and virtue if their defenders were barred from the use of this weapon; since it is that especially whereby the patrons of error and vice do maintain and propagate them.
7. Furthermore, the warrantableness of this practice in some cases may be inferred from a parity of reason, in this manner: if it be lawful (as by the best authorities it plainly doth appear to be), in using rhetorical schemes, poetical strains, involutions of sense in allegories, fables, parables, and riddles, to discoast from the plain and simple way of speech; why may not facetiousness, issuing from the same principles, directed to the same ends, serving to like purposes, be likewise used blamelessly?
8. I shall only add, that of old even the sagest and gravest persons (persons of most rigid and severe virtue) did much affect this kind of discourse, and did apply it to noble purposes.
9. In fine, since it cannot be shown that such a sportfulness of wit and fancy doth contain an intrinsic and inseparable turpitude; since it may be so cleanly, handsomely, and innocently used, as not to defile or discompose the mind of the speaker, not to wrong or harm the hearer, not to derogate from any worthy subject of discourse, it cannot well absolutely and universally be condemned; and when not used on improper matter, in an unfit manner, with excessive measure, at undue season, to evil purpose, it may be allowed. It is bad objects, or bad adjuncts, which do spoil its indifference and innocence.
II. 1. All profane jesting, all speaking loosely and wantonly about holy things (things nearly related to God and religion), making such things the matters of sport and mockery, playing and trifling with them, is certainly prohibited, as an intolerably vain and wicked practice. All injurious, abusive, scurrilous jesting, which causelessly or needlessly tendeth to the disgrace, damage, vexation, or prejudice in any kind of our neighbour (provoking his displeasure, grating on his modesty, stirring passion in him), is also prohibited.
3. I pass by that it is very culpable to be facetious in obscene and smutty matters.
4. All unseasonable jesting is blamable.
5. To affect, admire, or highly to value this way of speaking, either absolutely in itself, or in comparison to the serious and plain way of speech, and thence to be drawn into an immoderate use thereof, is blamable.
6. Vain-glorious ostentation this way is very blamable.
7. Lastly, it is our duty never so far to engage ourselves in this way, as thereby to lose or to impair that habitual seriousness, modesty, and sobriety of mind, that steady composedness, gravity and constancy of demeanour, which become Christians. We should continually keep our minds intent on our high calling, and grand interest; ever well tuned, and ready for the performance of holy devotions. (I. Barrow, D. D.)
Impurity in speech
I. That Christians should make great conscience, not only of their actions, but their words also; for after the apostle had dissuaded them from all uncleanness and filthiness in practice, he addeth, Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient. We must make conscience of our words for these reasons.
1. We are not absolute proprietors and possessors of our own selves; our tongues are not our own to speak what we please. Exempt any one faculty or member from the jurisdiction of God, and you disown His authority and interest in you, and open a floodgate to let in sin and wickedness into the world. We are not left to run at random in our ordinary discourse, to say and utter what we think good.
2. As we had our tongues from God, so we are accountable to Him for the use of them; and therefore will our actions not only be brought into the judgment, but our words and speeches also (Mat 12:36-37).
3. Words do much discover the temper of a mans heart.
4. Because our tongue is our glory: Awake, my glory; awake, psaltery and harp (Psa 57:8), My heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth (Psa 16:9). Compare Act 2:26 : My heart is glad, and my tongue rejoiceth. So Psa 30:12 : That my glory may sing praise to Thee, and not be silent; that is, my tongue. But why is our tongue called our glory? For a double reason, both which are pertinent to the case in hand.
(1) Because thereby we can express the conceptions of our minds for the good of mankind. It was not given to us for that use for which the tongues of the brute beasts serve them, to taste meats and drinks only, or to taste our food. No; but to converse with each other. Speech is the excellency of man above the beasts.
(2) The other reason why it is called our glory is because thereby we may express the conceptions of our minds, to the glory of God as well as the good of others, Therewith we bless God, even the Father (Jam 3:9).
5. Because our speeches are regarded by God, and therefore you must consider, not only what is fit for you to utter and others to hear, but what is fit for God to hear.
6. Because the well ordering of our words is a great point of Christianity, and argueth a good degree of grace (Jam 3:2).
II. In making conscience of our words, we should specially take heed of filthiness, foolish talking, and jesting.
1. Filthiness is when we speak of obscene things in an obscene manner without any respect to modesty and Christian gravity or sobriety.
(1) It is a sin most inconsistent with any reverence and fear of God: The fear of the Lord is clean (Psa 19:9).
(2) It is a grief to the Holy Spirit, as it obstructs that purity and cleanness of heart which He would work in us (Eph 4:29-30).
(3) You infect others, and corrupt them by filthy discourse.
2. The next word is foolish speaking. This hath so many branches, that it is hard to reckon them up; as–
(1) when they speak of foolish things;
(2) when men speak of serious things in a ludicrous and vain manner, and design it for jest;
(3) lavish, superfluous speech to no end;
(4) rash speech;
(5) personal boasting. Now, I shall prove that it is a sin that should be made conscience of.
(a) Because it suiteth not with the seriousness of religion, which is the wisdom of God;
(b) it suiteth not with the mortified estate of sincere Christians;
(c) because it shutteth out better discourse, and so converse with others is rendered unprofitable. Omission of good is caused by it.
(d) Because it argueth great emptiness, that we have not a good treasure within us (Mat 12:35), or have not hid the Word in our hearts (Psa 119:11), or not taken care that it might dwell in us richly (Col 3:16).
3. We come now to the third sin enumerated, and jesting. Here we must state this matter. Is all jesting unlawful and misbecoming Christians?
In the use of it all due circumstances must be observed; as–
1. In the matter. It is a dunghill mirth that must have somewhat unclean to feed it.
2. For the manner. It must be harmless to others, not making sport with their sins or miseries (1Co 13:6).
3. For the measure. Not excessive wasting the time in vain, especially not habituating the mind to levity; that is scurrility when men accustom themselves so to vain jesting that they cannot possibly be serious; they can as well be immortal as serious.
4. For the time. Not when God calleth us to mourning or more serious employments should it be taken in hand.
5. The end and use must not be forgotten. Our great end is to serve and glorify God, and everything that we do must have respect to it, and be proportioned by it.
III. One special means of checking such sins is to consider how much they misbecome Christians; for the apostle saith no more but they are not convenient, or do not agree with that state of grace into which we profess to be called. For three reasons this will hold good.
1. Because there are four affections which serve to draw us from and guard us against sin–fear, shame, grief, and indignation. The guilt of sin causeth fear; the stain, shame; the unkindness, sorrow; unsuitableness, indignation. Awaken this, and sin cannot have long entertainment in the heart. Therefore it is enough to a serious Christian: It is not convenient.
2. The unsuitableness mindeth us of our dignity, as being admitted to communion with God. Therefore to talk of filthiness with that tongue which is to be employed in speaking of God, and to God, is a most indecorous thing.
3. This striketh at the root of the temptation. Many think filthiness, foolish speaking, and jesting to be a great grace to them, and affect the reputation of wit at such a rate that they forget honesty. No; these are not an honour and a grace, but a blemish and a blot.
IV. That a Christian cannot want mirth as long as he hath such abundant cause to give thanks. (T. Manton, D. D.)
Foolish talking and jesting
Foolish talking and jesting, than which nothing is more common in the world, are to be held in disesteem by all Christians. They should look upon themselves as a new order among men. Christ redeems us from the shallow mirth of the world, which is the mirth of folly, to the joy of wisdom, which is the joy of God, and which fills heaven, and will fill eternity, with delight and song. (J. Pulsford.)
Dangers of jesting
It is dangerous to jest with God, death, or the devil; for the first neither can nor will be mocked: the second mocks all men at one time or another; and the third puts an eternal sarcasm on those who are too familiar with him. (J. Beaumont.)
Tart jests
Jests too tart are not good; bitter potions are not for health. An offensive man is the devils bellows to blow up contention. (J. Beaumont.)
Personal jesting
Whosoever will jest will be like him that flourishes at a show–he may turn his weapon every way, but not aim more at one than another. It is very unsafe to sling about this wormwood: some noses are too delicate to bear the smell. Some are like tiled houses, that can admit a falling spark; yet others are like dry straw, that with the least touch will kindle about your ears. (J. Beaumont.)
A sting in the jest
A jest should be such that all shall be able to join in the laugh which it occasions; but if it bears hard upon one of the company, like the crack era string, it makes a stop in the music. (Owen Felltham.)
Evil of jesting
Solon, who was always willing to hear and to learn, and in his old age more inclined to anything that might divert and entertain, particularly to music and good fellowship, went to see Thespis himself exhibit, as the custom of the ancient poets was. When the play was done, he called to Thespis, and asked him if he was not ashamed to tell so many lies before so great an assembly. Thespis answered, it was no great matter if he spoke or acted so in jest. To which Solon replied, striking the ground violently with his staff, If we encourage such jesting as this, we shall quickly find it in our contracts and agreements. (Plutarch.)
Foolish talking to be accounted for
The story is well known of the person who invited a company of his friends that were accustomed to take the Lords name in vain, and contrived to have all their discourse taken down and read to them. Now, if they could not endure to hear the words repeated which they had spoken during a few hours, how shall they bear to have all that they have uttered through a long course of years brought forth as evidence against them at the tribunal of God? (Scott.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 4. Neither filthiness] . Any thing base or vile in words or acts.
Foolish talking] . Scurrility, buffoonery, ridicule, or what tends to expose another to contempt.
Nor jesting] . Artfully turned discourses or words, from , well or easily, and , I turn; words that can be easily turned to other meanings; double entendres; chaste words which, from their connection, and the manner in which they are used, convey an obscene or offensive meaning. It also means jests, puns, witty sayings, and mountebank repartees of all kinds.
Which are not convenient] . They do not come up to the proper standard; they are utterly improper in themselves, and highly unbecoming in those who profess Christianity.
But rather giving of thanks.] . Decent and edifying discourse or thanksgiving to God. Prayer or praise is the most suitable language for man; and he who is of a trifling, light disposition, is ill fitted for either. How can a man, who has been talking foolishly or jestingly in company, go in private to magnify God for the use of his tongue which he has abused, or his rational faculties which he has degraded?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Neither filthiness; obscenity in discourse, filthy communication, Col 3:8.
Nor foolish talking; affectation of foolish, vain speech, (whether jocose or serious), unprofitable, to the hearers.
Nor jesting; either the same as the former, as may seem by the disjunctive particle nor, which may be by way of explication; or (which is of kin to it) scurrility in discourse, which is many times, by them that are addicted to it, called by the name of urbanity, or jesting: for all that jesting is not here condemned appears by 1Ki 18:27; Isa 14:11.
Which are not convenient; viz. for saints.
But rather giving of thanks; i.e. to God for mercies received, which will better cheer up and recreate the mind than foolish talking and jesting can.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. filthinessobscenity in actor gesture.
foolish talkingthetalk of fools, which is folly and sin together. The Greekof it, and of “filthiness,” occurs nowhere else in the NewTestament.
norrather, “or”(compare Eph 5:3).
jestingGreek,“eutrapelia“; found nowhere else in the NewTestament: implying strictly that versatility which turnsabout and adapts itself, without regard to principle, to the shiftingcircumstances of the moment, and to the varying moods of those withwhom it may deal. Not scurrile buffoonery, but refined “persiflage”and “badinage,” for which Ephesus was famed [PLAUTUS,A Boastful Soldier, 3.1,42-52], and which, so far from beingcensured, was and is thought by the world a pleasant accomplishment.In Col 3:8, “filthycommunication” refers to the foulness; “foolishtalking,” to the folly; “jesting,” to the falserefinement (and trifling witticism [TITTMANN])Of discourse unseasoned with the salt of grace [TRENCH].
not convenient“unseemly”;not such “as become saints” (Eph5:3).
rather giving of thanksahappy 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 spiritto believers which the worldly try to get from “jesting”(Eph 5:19; Eph 5:20;Jas 5:13).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting,…. The former of these may include all filthy gestures and behaviour, every indecent habit and attire, and all actions which have a tendency to excite lust; and also all impure words, these discover an impure heart, and are the means of corrupting men’s minds and manners; filthy speaking, is a verbal commission of the things that are spoken of; and it may include all impure songs and books, and the reading or hearing of them; this is what the Jews call , “filthiness of the mouth”, obscene words; which they say they do not use on feast days, as the Gentiles do i: “foolish talking” does not so much design every imprudent thing that is said, as that which is wicked, corrupt, unsavoury, light, vain, idle, and unprofitable; and takes in all fabulous stories, and mimicking of fools in words and gestures: and “jesting”, when it is with wantonness, and excites unto it, and is inconsistent with truth, and when the Scriptures are abused by it, and not our neighbour’s edification, but hurt, is promoted by it, ought not to be used:
which are not convenient; are disagreeable to the will of God, and unsuitable to the characters of the saints, and are very unbecoming them to practise:
but rather giving of thanks; instead of these, as the Syriac version renders it; it is much more suitable and becoming to give thanks to God for temporal and spiritual mercies, and to speak those things which are grateful to good men; this is to use the tongue to much better purpose, than in an obscene, foolish, or jocose way: one of Stephens’s copies read, “but only of giving of thanks”.
i Jarchi in Psal. lxxv. 3. Vid. Vajikra Rabba, sect. 24. fol. 165. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Filthiness (). Old word from (base), here alone in N.T.
Foolish talking (). Late word from (, ), only here in N.T.
Jesting (). Old word from (, , to turn) nimbleness of wit, quickness in making repartee (so in Plato and Plutarch), but in low sense as here ribaldry, scurrility, only here in N.T. All of these disapproved vices are in the N.T.
Which are not befitting ( ). Same idiom (imperfect with word of propriety about the present) in Col 3:18. Late MSS. read like in Ro 1:28.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Filthiness [] . Obscenity.
Foolish talking [] . Only here in the New Testament. Talk which is both foolish and sinful. Compare corrupt communication, ch. 4 29. It is more than random or idle talk. “Words obtain a new earnestness when assumed into the ethical terminology of Christ ‘s school. Nor, in seeking to enter fully into the meaning of this one, ought we to leave out of sight the greater emphasis which the words fool, foolish, folly obtain in Scripture than elsewhere they have or can have” (Trench).
Jesting [] . Only here in the New Testament. From euj well or easily, prepw to turn. That which easily turns and adapts itself to the moods and conditions of those with whom it may be dealing at the moment. From this original sense of versatility it came to be applied to morals, as timeserving, and to speech with the accompanying notion of dissimulation. Aristotle calls it chastened insolence. The sense of the word here is polished and witty speech as the instrument of sin; refinement and versatility without the flavor of Christian grace. “Sometimes it is lodged in a sly question, in a smart answer, in a quirkish reason, in shrewd intimation, in cunningly diverting or cleverly retorting an objection : sometimes it is couched in a bold scheme of speech, in a tart irony, in a lusty hyperbole, in a startling metaphor, in a plausible reconciling of contradictions, or in acute nonsense…. Sometimes an affected simplicity, sometimes a presumptuous bluntness giveth it being…. Its ways are unaccountable and inexplicable, being answerable to the numberless rovings of fancy and windings of language” (Barrow, Sermon 14, “Against Foolish Talking and Jesting.” The whole passage is well worth reading).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Neither filthiness” (kai aischrotes) “Even baseness or filth talk,” (Let it not be mentioned or approved among you all). Such harms the influence of both the individual and the church of which one is a member. Filthiness, as here used, also refers to immoral conduct in general.
2) “Nor foolish talking” (kai morologia) “Nor also moronic or foolish yacking,” 2Ti 2:23; Tit 3:9; godless irreverence in speech regarding moral and ethical standards of behavior.
3) “Nor jesting” (he eutrapelia) “Or raillery,” deriding scorn or scoffing, including frivolity, facetiousness, and scurrilous behavior toward righteousness, Mat 12:36.
4) “Which are not convenient” (ha ouk anekin) “Which kind of things are not becoming, fitting, or proper,” Rom 1:28.
5) “But rather giving of thanks” (alla mallon eucharistia) But rather or instead let gratitude or giving of thanks be named or sanctioned among you all,” Eph 5:20, 1Th 5:18. A walk of love, in contrast with covetous, loose irreverence, is to be a walk of gratitude and thanksgiving for the graciousness of God, 2Co 9:15.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. Neither filthiness. To those three — other three are now added. By filthiness I understand all that is indecent or inconsistent with the modesty of the godly. By foolish talking I understand conversations that are either unprofitably or wickedly foolish; and as it frequently happens that idle talk is concealed under the garb of jesting or wit, he expressly mentions pleasantry, — which is so agreeable as to seem worthy of commendation, — and condemns it as a part of foolish talking The Greek word εὐτραπελία is often used by heathen writers, in a good sense, for that ready and ingenious pleasantry in which able and intelligent men may properly indulge. But as it is exceedingly difficult to be witty without becoming satirical, and as jesting itself carries in it a portion of conceit not at all in keeping with the character of a godly man, Paul very properly dissuades from this practice. (155) Of all the three offenses now mentioned, Paul declares that they are not convenient, or, in other words, that they are inconsistent with Christian duty.
But rather grace. Others render it giving of thanks; but I prefer Jerome’s interpretation. With the vices which had been formerly mentioned it was proper that Paul should contrast something of a general character, displaying itself in all our communications with each other. If he had said, “While they take pleasure in idle or abusive talk, do you give thanks to God,” the exhortation would have been too limited. The Greek word, εὐχαριστία, though it usually signifies Thanksgiving, admits of being translated Grace. “All our conversations ought to be, in the true sense of the words, sweet and graceful; and this end will be gained if the useful and the agreeable are properly mingled.”
(155) “He doth not condemn the innocent pleasantries and mirth of a cheerful conversation; but that kind of obscene discourse which we mean by the French expression of double entendre ; when men, for the sake of merriment and sport, convey lewd sentiments and thoughts to others, under chaste and cleanly expressions. This seems to be the proper meaning of the word εὐτραπελία, jesting, in this place. The original sense of it is, ‘an artfully turned discourse.’ And accordingly it is used either in a good sense, to denote proper wit; or in a bad sense, to signify any kind of lewd and scurrilous discourse, that artfully conveys an ill meaning. And as it is here joined with ‘filthiness and foolish talking,’ it is plain that the apostle intended by it such ambiguous forms of speech as are intended to raise mirth by dishonest and corrupt meanings.” — Chandler.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting.The word filthiness (unlike the filthy communication of the parallel passage in Col. 3:8) is in itself a general word. But the connection with the words following, and the distinction from those going before, appear to show that St. Paul here uses it for filthy talking. He is passing from impurity of the inward soul to impurity in outward expression. Of such foul speaking he appears to distinguish two forms. There is, first of all, foolish talking, or the talk of the fool, in the worst sense in which that word is used in Scripture (Mat. 5:22; Mat. 23:17), as implying something worse than mere emptiness or blindnessdescribing the condition of the soul which has lost its savour (Mat. 5:13), i.e., has ceased to distinguish what is right or wrong, wise or foolish, noble or base. There is then jesting, i.e., properly, the more polished versatility, which will find occasion for wit or levity in anything, however sacred, fearing nothing so much as to be dull, and mistaking all seriousness and reserve for dulness. It is notable that in classical Greek the word is sometimes used in a good sense, as a mean between churlishness and obsequiousness, but yet hovers on the border of that condemnation which Christian gravity here pronounces unhesitatingly. The former kind of foul talking is coarse and brutal; the latter refined and deadly. Of both kinds Greek and Roman literature furnish specimens only too many and too striking.
Which are not convenient.That is, which are out of character in a Christiana milder repetition (perhaps suggested by the ambiguous meaning of jesting noted above) of the indignant declaration in Eph. 5:3, that it becomes not saints that these foul things should be even named among them. They pollute the Christian mind and tongue even in condemning them.
But rather giving of thanks.The opposition is striking. The foolish talking and jesting aim at mirth and play of mind; St. Paul will not austerely condemn, such light-heartedness, but he finds a wholesome and spiritual vent for it in the habitual expression of thankfulness to God, which proceeds from a natural and childlike cheerfulness. Exactly in the same spirit below (Eph. 5:18-20) he contrasts the excitement of drunkenness with the being filled with the Spirit . . . giving thanks always for all things.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Filthiness Indecency of word or action.
Foolish talking In which sin and folly blend.
Not convenient Not suitable for your character or profession.
Giving of thanks A truer mode of cheerfulness, and suitable to a body who have so much reason for gratitude as Christians.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Eph 5:4. Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, &c. “Nor let there be among you anyshameful practices in secret, the very naming of which would put a modest person to the blush; nor any light, wanton, or obscene ways of talking, bantering, or joking, which are so far from innocent pleasantry, that they are not only unprofitable and vain, but very offensive to God, and insufferable to a chaste ear, and are too great an incentive to impure thoughts and actions: ye therefore ought to have nothing to do with them; but, on the contrary, should accustom yourselves to employ your tongues in speaking well of God, with grateful acknowledgments of his goodness, and in thankfulness and praise for his wondrous works of providence and grace, which would be honourable to him, and improving to your company, as well as to yourselves; and would be a happy means of guarding you against impure language, and all the forementioned abominable iniquities, which have the most pernicious consequence.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Eph 5:4 . ] abomination , disgraceful conduct, Plat. Gorg . p. 525 A. Most expositors, including Rckert, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen (not Matthies and Harless), limit it to disgraceful utterances , but without warrant of linguistic usage (this would be , see Col 3:8 ; Xen. de rep. Lac. v. 6; Aristot. de rep. vii. 17; Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3); or in the context, in which it is only the following elements that contain the unchristian speaking.
] is the carrying on of insipid, foolish talk . Antig. de Mirab. 126: , Arist. H. A . i. 11; Plut. Mor . 504 A.
] signifies properly ready versatility (from and ), urbanity ; then specially a witty, jesting manner ; and in a bad sense, as here, the witticism of frivolity, scurrilitas . See in general, Wetstein ad loc. ; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 180; Krger on Thuc . ii. 41. 1.
] as that which is unseemly . Comp. Winer, pp. 221, 338 f. [E. T. 610]. It refers only to and , since for such a characteristic description would be entirely superfluous, and points back merely to those peccata oris.
] From the preceding we have here to supply or , which is contained therein, in accordance with a well-known brachylogy, Khner, II. p. 604. is, according to standing usage (comp. also Loesner, Obss. p. 345 f.), not gracefulness of speech , as Jerome, Calvin, [255] Salmasius, Cajetanus, Hammond, Semler, Michaelis, Wahl, Meier, and others would take it, which would be , but giving of thanks , in which case there results a contrast far more in keeping with the Christian character and the profoundly vivid piety of the apostle (comp. Col 2:7 ; Col 3:15 ; Col 3:17 ; 1Th 5:18 ). Gratitude towards God (for the salvation in Christ), expressing itself in their discourse, is to supersede among Christians the two faults before mentioned, and to sanctify their oral intercourse. “Linguae abusui opponitur sanctus et tamen laetus usus,” Bengel. Morus erroneously refers it to thanksgiving towards others; “ the language of courtesy .”
[255] “Sermones nostros vera suavitate et gratia perfusos esse debere, quod fiet, si miscebimus utile dulci.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
Ver. 4. Neither filthiness ] Borborology (rumblings?), ribaldry, a the language of hell. Some men as ducks have their noses always guzzling in the gutter of obscene talk. Of Eckius’ last book concerning priests’ marriages, Melancthon saith, Non fuit Cygnea cantio, sed ultimus crepitus: Et sicut felis fugiens pedit, sic ille moriens hunc crepitum cecinit. Legi librum, subinde accipiens partem ad cloacam; alioqui non legissem. These filthy speakers make podicem ex ore, excrement from their mouth, as one phraseth it.
Nor jesting ] Salt jests, scurrility, jocularity, dicacity, to the just grief or offence of another. This consists not with piety and Christian gravity. Aristotle useth the word , here found in a good sense, for urbanity, facility, and facetiousness of speecb, in a harmless way. But Jason in Pindarus saith, that he lived twenty years with his tutor Chiron, and never in all that time heard him speaking or acting , anything scurrilous or abusive to another. On the contrary, our Sir Thomas Moore never thought anything to be well spoken, except he had ministered some mock in the communication, saith Edward Hall the chronicler, who therefore seemeth to doubt whether to call him a foolish wise man or a wise foolish man. Quid nobis cum fabulis, cum risu? non solum profulos, sed etiam omnes iocos arbitror declinandos, saith Bernard. What have we to do with tales and jests? Tertullian saith he was Nulli rei natus nisi poenitentiae, born for nothing else but for repentance. Crede mihi, res severa est gaudium verum, saith Seneca, True mirth is a severe business.
Which are not convenient ] . As not conducing to the main end of our lives.
But rather giving of thanks ] A special preservative against the former evils, the filth and power of those base vices. And the word rather imports an extraordinary earnestness to be used in giving thanks to God.
a Debauchery, lasciviousness, vice. Obs. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Eph 5:4 . : and filthiness . This is taken by many (Eth., Theophyl., Oec., Rck., Harl., etc.) to refer to indecent talk , which, however, would be expressed by (Col 3:8 ). The context shows it to refer to sins of the flesh, but there is nothing to limit it to sinful speech . It denotes shameless, immoral conduct in general. : and foolish talking or [ and ] jesting . The readings here are somewhat uncertain as regards the particles. The TR has the support of such authorities as [504] [505] [506] , Syr.-Harcl., Arm. for ; [507] [508] * [509] , Vulg., Sah., etc., give ; [510] [511] 1 [512] 3 [513] , Boh., Eth., etc., have . The first is accepted by TRV; the second by [514] ; the third by WH. The choice is between the first and third, and the balance of evidence is on the whole, although not very decidedly, on the side of . The noun is of very rare occurrence. In common Greek it is found only a very few times (Arist., Hist. An. , i., 11; Plut., Mor. , 504 A); in the NT only this once. Its sense, however, is sufficiently clear. : and jesting . This is the solitary occurrence of the noun in the NT. It is found, however, in Aristotle (who defines it as , Eth. Nic. , iv., 14), Pindar ( Pyth. , i., 178), etc. It appears to have meant originally versatility, facetiousness , and to have acquired the evil sense of frivolity or scurrility . Here it is taken by some ( e.g. , Trench, Ell.) to be distinguished from and to denote, therefore, not the sin of the tongue merely, but the “evil ‘urbanitas’ (in manners or words) of the witty, godless man of the world” (Ell.). This depends so far on the acceptance of the disjunctive as the proper reading, but may be essentially correct. AV and other old English Versions give jesting , except Wicl., who has harlotry , and the Rhem. which gives scurrility . : things which are not seemly . The article has the pred. force = “ as things which are not seemly” (Mey.; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 610). The reading, however, varies. The TR is supported by the great mass of MSS [515] [516] [517] [518] , etc.; but [519] [520] [521] [522] , etc., give , which is to be preferred. The clause is in apposition to the preceding; but probably only to the latter two nouns, and , as these form the direct contrast to the following . cf. of Rom 1:28 . : but rather giving of thanks . The brachylogy ( cf. Jelf, Greek Gram. , 705, 3) requires or rather to be supplied. The is understood by some to mean gracious speech (Clem. Al.; also Jer., with a perhaps ), or pious, edifying discourse generally (Calv., on the analogy of Col 4:6 ; Pro 11:6 ). Others give it the sense of courteous speech (Mor.). But the idea of gracious speech would be expressed rather by , and, as Meyer points out, the contrast which would thus result would be less in keeping with “the Christian character and the profoundly vivid piety of the Apostle”. On nothing does he more insist than on the grace of thankfulness, and the expression of it, to God for the gifts of His love to sinful men.
[504] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[505] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[506] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .
[507] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[508] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[509] Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
[510] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[511] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[512] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[513] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[514] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[515] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[516] Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
[517] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[518] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[519] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[520] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[521] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[522] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Neither = Nor.
filthiness. Greek. aischrotes. Only here.
foolish talking. Greek. morologia. Only here.
nor = or.
jesting = ribaldry. Occurs only here.
convenient = befitting. Greek. aneko. Only here; Col 3:18. Phm 1:8.
giving of thanks. Greek. eucharistia. The verb in Eph 5:20.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Eph 5:4. , filthiness) in word, or even in gesture, etc.-, foolish talking) wherein a mere laugh is aimed at even without wit [the salt of profitable discourse, Col 4:6].- ) or jesting.[77] This is more refined than filthiness or foolish talking; for it depends on the understanding. The Asiatics delighted much in it: and in former times jesting prevailed for some ages, even among the learned. Why so? (Because) Aristotle considered jesting to be a virtue; and they made much use of Plautus. Olympiodorus observes, that Paul rebuked , jesting, in such a way that , there is not even a place for urbane conversation (pleasantry).- , the things which are not befitting [convenient]) An epithet [not the predicate]. Supply the predicate, let them be kept out of the way.[78]-, thanksgiving) Supply , is convenient. The holy and yet joyful use of the tongue is opposed to its abuse, Eph 5:18-19. The abuse and the use are not compatible with one another.- and are an elegant Paranomasia:[79] the former disturbs (and indeed the refined jest and subtile humour sometimes offend the tender feelings of grace), the latter exhilarates the mind.
[77] Wahl translates this word, which is found here only in the New Testament, Scurrilitas. Its classic use conveys no idea of censure; Th. and , one who happily accommodates himself to his company: pleasantry, urbanity. In , the foolishness, in , the foulness, in , the false refinement of discourse, not seasoned with the salt of grace, are noted.-Trench, Syn. Gr. T.-ED.
[78] Taken by Zeugma out of , Eph 5:3.-ED.
[79] See Append. A similar sound and form in two nouns, producing a pleasant antithesis.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Eph 5:4
Eph 5:4
nor filthiness,-Obscene and degrading practices. [Not simply obscenity, but whatever is vile or disgusting in speech or conduct.]
nor foolish talking,-Such talk as is characteristic of fools. That is, frivolous and senseless.
or jesting,-Supposed to be witty repartee that ridicules modesty and throws contempt on the virtue of good men and women.
which are not befitting:-Foolish talking and jesting are not the ways in which Christian cheerfulness should express itself. [All witty speech uttered for its own sake is not fitting for a Christian whose tongue is to become consecrated to the service of Christ.]
but rather giving of thanks.-[This is the proper tone of Christian speech, and this will drive off the evil habits of which mention has just been made. The blessedness in Christ is the source of joy and gladness, but its joy is expressed in thanksgiving and praise.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
filthiness: Eph 4:29, Pro 12:23, Pro 15:2, Ecc 10:13, Mat 12:34-37, Mar 7:22, Col 3:8, Jam 3:4-8, 2Pe 2:7, 2Pe 2:18, Jud 1:10, Jud 1:13
convenient: Rom 1:28, Phm 1:8
but: Eph 5:19, Eph 5:20, Eph 1:16, Psa 33:1, Psa 92:1, Psa 107:21, Psa 107:22, Dan 6:10, Joh 6:23, 2Co 1:11, 2Co 9:15, Phi 4:6, Col 3:15-17, 1Th 3:9, 1Th 5:18, Heb 13:15
Reciprocal: 2Sa 18:22 – ready Pro 23:16 – thy Pro 26:19 – and Luk 6:25 – laugh Luk 6:45 – good man 1Co 6:9 – fornicators Col 1:12 – Giving Jam 1:21 – filthiness Jam 1:26 – bridleth Jam 3:6 – a world
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Eph 5:4.) -And filthiness-immunditia, Vulgate. Some MSS., such as A, D1, E1, F, G, read , and there are other variations which need not be noted. Tischendorf retains the Textus Receptus, on the authority of B, D3, E2, K, L, and almost all mss. Some, such as OEcumenius, imitated by Olshausen, Rckert, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius, regard, without foundation, as equivalent to . Col 3:8. -Plato, Gorg.; Op. vol. ii. p. 366, ed. Bekker. The noun denotes indecency, obscenity, or wantonness; whatever, not merely in speech but in anything, is opposed to purity.
-and foolish talking. The MSS. just quoted insert before this noun too, but is found in the majority, and in those already named. Not mere gossip or tattle, but speech wretched in itself and offensive to Christian decency and sobriety is condemned. The noun occurs only here, but we have not only the Latin compound stultiloquium in Plautus (Miles Gloriosus, 2.3, 25, the scene of which drama is laid at Ephesus), but also the Latin form morologus in the same dramatist. Persa, 1.1, 50. The Emperor Hadrian, in his well-known address to his departing spirit, ends the melancholy ode with these words-
Nec, ut soles, dabis jocos.
The term may look back to Eph 4:29, and is, as Trench says, the talk of fools, which is folly and sin together. Synon. 34.
– or jesting – the disjunctive being employed. This noun is a as well as the preceding. It denotes urbanity – urbanitas – and as its derivation implies, dexterity of turning a discourse- ; then wit or humour; and lastly deceptive speech, so formed that the speaker easily contrives to wriggle out of its meaning or engagements. Josephus, Antiq. 12.4, 3; Thucyd. 2.41; Plato, Pol. 8.563; Arist. Ethic. Nicom. 4.8; Pindar, Pythia, Carmen 1.176, 4.186; Cicero, Ep. ad Div. 7.32, Opera, p. 716, ed. Nobbe, 1850. It is defined in the Etymologicon Magnum- , , – levity, or grossness. Chrysostom’s amplified definition is- , , , , -the man called is the man who is versatile, of all complexions, the restless one, the fickle one, the man who is everything or anything. Jerome also says of it-vel urbana verba, vel rustica, vel turpia, vel faceta. It is here used evidently in a bad sense, almost equivalent to , from which Aristotle distinguishes it, and denotes that ribaldry, studied artifice, and polite equivoque, which are worse in many cases than open foulness of tongue. The distinction which Jerome makes between and is indicated by the Latin terms, stultiloquium and scurrilitas. Pleasantry of every sort is not condemned by the apostle. He seems to refer to wit in connection with lewdness-double entendre. See Trench on the history of the word. Synon. 34. The vices here mentioned are severely reprobated by Clement in the sixth chapter of the second book o f his . Allusions to such jestings are not unfrequent in the classics. Even the author of the Ars Amoris pleads with Augustus, that his writings are not so bad as others referred to-
Quid si scripsissem Mimos obscoena jocantes,
Qui vetiti semper crimen amoris habent, etc.
-which are not becoming things-in opposition to the concluding clause in the previous verse. Another reading- -is supported by A, B, and C, while Chrysostom and Theodoret, following the reading in Rom 1:28, read -but wrongly; for here the apostle refers to an objective reality. Winer, 55, 5. Buttmann, Gram. des Neutest. Sprach. 148, 7. Suidas defines by . The Vulgate confines the connection of this clause to the term immediately preceding-scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinet. All the three vices-but certainly, from the contrast in the following clause, the two previous ones – may be included. Such sins of the tongue are to be superseded by thanksgiving-
, but rather giving of thanks. There is a meaning which may attach to , which is plausible, but appears to be wholly contrary to Pauline usage. It signifies, in the opinion of some, pleasant and grateful discourse, as opposed to that foolish and indecorous levity which the apostle condemns. Jerome says-Forsitan igitur gratiarum actio in hoc loco non ista nominata juxta quam gratias agimus Deo, sed juxta quam grati, sive gratiosi et salsi apud homines appellamur. So Clement of Alexandria – . This opinion has been followed by Calvin, Cajetan, Heinsius, Salmasius, Hammond, Semler, Michaelis, Meier, and by Wahl, Wilke, and Bretschneider. However consonant to the context this interpretation may appear, it cannot be sustained by any analogies. Such examples as or belong not to New Testament usage. We therefore prefer the ordinary signification, thanksgiving, and it is contrary to sound hermeneutical discipline on the part of Bullinger, Musculus, and Zanchius, to take the term in both acceptations. The verb usually supplied is -but let there be rather thanksgiving. Examples of such brachylogy are numerous. Khner, 852, i.; Jelf, 895; Winer, 66, 1, 2. But why may not still guide the construction? Rather let thanksgiving be named-let there be vocal expression to your grateful emotions. Bengel, justified by Stier, supplies , which is not a probable supplement. For the apostolic idea of the duty of thanksgiving, the reader may compare Eph 5:20; Col 2:7; Col 4:2; 1Th 5:18. The Christian life is one of continuous reception, which should prompt to continuous praise. Were this the ruling emotion, an effectual check should be given to such si ns of the tongue as are here condemned.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Eph 5:4. The Greek word for filthiness in this passage does not appear in any other place in the New Testament. It means something that is low grade in character, either in word or deed. Foolish talking and jesting mean virtually the same thing, but the two are used for the sake of making a stronger impression. Christians are not required to be glum and unhappy, yet they should not indulge in conversations that are undignified and meaningless. Not convenient means unbecoming; anything that would be out of place in a Christian. Rather giving of thanks. The children of God have so much to be thankful for, that such a frame of mind should influence their speech.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Eph 5:4. Neither filthiness, or, obscenity; whether of thought, word, or deed; in Col 3:8 the reference is to words.
Nor foolish talking; insipid, stupid speech, perhaps including more than this: the talk of fools, which is folly and sin together (Trench).
Or jesting. Or is used as in Eph 5:3. The word rendered jesting was applied to witty, well-turned speech, the characteristic of cultivated but frivolous people. Ephesus seems to have been noted for this kind of wit (comp. Plautus, miles gloriosus). That such talk soon descends to scurrility is notorious, but the word here includes more than this, probably extending to manners also.
Which are not fitting. This defines foolish talking and jesting; it does not limit the latter. All witty speech uttered for its own sake is not fitting for a Christian whose tongue is to be consecrated to the service of Christ.
But rather giving of thanks. Either, thanksgiving rather is fitting, or, let it be among you (from Eph 5:3). The latter is preferable. Thanksgiving is not to be explained as gracious speech, or devout-ness, but means giving of thanks to God. This is the proper tone of Christian speech, and this will drive off the evil habits just spoken of: to the abuse of the tongue is opposed this holy and yet glad use; Eph 5:18-19 (Bengel).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here our apostle advises Christians to guard against the sins of the tongue, to avoid all filthy discourse, and all foolish discourse, all scurrilous and obscene jesting, all excess in drollery, which is nothing but the foam of a frothy wit. Moderate mirth, by innocent and inoffensive jesting, is not here forbidden: but when we jest by tart reflections upon the way, gesture, or natural imperfections of others, especially when we furnish out a jest in scripture attire, and in a jovular humour make light and irreverent application of scripture phrases!
Lord! what an impious liberty do some men take, to bring forth scripture, as the Philistines brought forth Samson, only to make them sport. These men ere long will find Almighty God in earnest, though they were in jest when they played the buffoon with the most serious things in the world.
Observe farther, Our apostle’s argument to dissuade from such talk is this, They are not convenient: not convenient in themselves, not convenient for the speaker, not convenient for the hearers, for they poison instead of profiting the company, and pollute both the minds and manners of the hearers.
O! what a great and common instrument of sin is the mouth or tongue of man! The tongue of a good man is his glory, the tongue of a sinner is his shame; there is no member of the body that doth so much service for the devil as the tongue, especially in common conversation; them it is that men let their tongues run riot, then they utter oaths and blasphemies against God, censorious, opprobrious, slanderous words against their neighbours; to prevent all which, the apostle exhorts, in the last words of the verse, that when we meet together, we should rather recount the favours received from God, and bless him for them: But rather giving of thanks.
As there is at all times, and in all places, cause of thanksgiving administered to us by God, so it is our duty to take all occasions and fit opportunities to excite both ourselves and others to the practice of it, who are naturally very averse and backward to it.
From the whole note, That so quick and easy is the passage from what is lawful and allowed, to what is sinful and forbidden, that it is a task of no small difficulty to keep within the bounds of lawful and allowed mirth, especially by recreating our spirits by pleasant and delightful discourse, so that we exceed not either in matter, manner, or measure.
Well might St. James say, If any man offend not in word, he is a perfect man Jam 3:2; intimating, that there are many, very many, that do thus offend; and such as do not, are Christians of no common attainment, but great proficients in grace; persons of extraordinay measures both of piety and prudence.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Verse 4
Not convenient; not proper, not consistent with your Christian profession.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
Paul isn’t done yet. He continues on with a few other items of interest. Don’t allow fornication, lust, or greed to be marked as good, but don’t let filthiness, foolish talking or jesting be garnered as good characteristics for the church.
“Filthiness” would be well described by the fornication and uncleanness, but Paul has something else in mind here or he wouldn’t have mentioned it. Just what he had in mind here is not clear, but if we can consider bestiality under fornication, this filthiness must be along the lines of an overindulgence in any of the items of fornication. I would include here pornography and all that goes with that. Adultery is more of a personal activity, while pornography is the circulation of perversion for the perverts that consume it.
Some would ask what is wrong with pornography. I would leave the full ramifications of it to the psychologists of the world, but off the top, it leads to overt acts against women, it leads to overt acts against children, and I would guess in some cases overt acts against men.
It consumes time and money that should be committed to your spouse if you are married, it saps the time from the work place – if not looking at it, certainly day dreaming about it and gaining it later in the day etc.
It pollutes your mind against normal, healthy sexual relationships with your spouse. It is in essence a form of adultery if it is coming between you and your spouse.
That is enough to warn believers from the problems, but there are tons of further detail that could add weight to what has already been mentioned.
“Foolish talking” is a term that is used only here, so we need to contextualize it a little. Just what does it mean? The idea of jesting seems to be a negative joking, and from the context a jesting about things of a sexual or greedy nature. Joking that tends to make the item more acceptable.
I have heard people talking of some of the homosexual community as being nice, as being funny, as being this or that, well they may be, but they are still homosexual and pushing their “sexual preference” upon our children. This jesting might follow along in relation to some of the television we are seeing that use humor to make homosexuality more palatable to the average person – which includes believers.
The problem at Sodom was not that all were homosexual, but all were accepting of homosexual perversion – they saw it as an alternate lifestyle if you will. There were none speaking out against it. Television is making the sin more and more acceptable, and quite often it is done through humorous sitcoms and talk shows.
Now, back to the “foolish talking” which is centered between filth and humor about filth. We should understand foolish talking as relating to this select area of discussion. Talking foolishly about filth in the context of the church.
Now, I don’t think we should be hateful and divisive in our condemnation of homosexuality, but we do need to take a stand against sin of any shade or stripe. I bring this topic up because brothers in Christ are being brought to court in other lands for speaking out about the homosexual problem.
A group of men were in court in Australia recently for charges relating to hate crimes. We have a move in our own country as well as all across the world to make taking a stand against homosexuality as a hate crime. Now that is not the way they put it but that is the result in the lawyers/judges minds.
The laws talk generally about the fact that you cannot speak out against or negatively about any group. The same laws would make it illegal to speak out against burglars if you want to apply it as they apply it to Christians and their telling people homosexuality is wrong.
So, what specifically is “foolish talking?” I would suggest any conversation that uplifts or makes more acceptable, the filth of pornography, or if you include the context, adultery, homosexuality or any other sexual perversion – remembering that greed is also in this context, thus a lot of prosperity preaching would probably be included.
Do you get a little of the feeling of how disdainful greed is to God, to put it in the middle of such perversion? Then again, is it not true that greed is spiritual adultery? We are told that we cannot serve God and mammon, so serving mammon would be turning against God our Father, Maker, and Christ our Groom. I hope that puts a different ring on your overwhelming desire for a new pair of designer jeans, or that new car, that new stereo, that new Ipod, or that new whatever you are coveting.
It is of interest that three of the words Paul uses in this verse are used only in this verse. “Filthiness, foolish talking and jesting” never appear elsewhere in the Bible. We must assume, since Paul used the terms, that he knew the Ephesian believers would know what he was talking about. I would further assume that these were some terms that described well the life they had before being saved. I see Paul as hitting them between the eyes with these terms – look you know you used to be this way in your past life but no more – that is over – these things have no place in the church.
I have to wonder if these terms and actions weren’t part of the heathen worship in the temple of Diana that some of them may have participated in, or at least knew of in their past life.
To apply that one, it isn’t wrong to confront believers in our day with the practices of the past that they might want to bring with them into the church. Our past life is past and it has no place in the presence of other believers – purity is the key to a proper church life, not the pagan practices of our lost life.
A little direct application might run along the lines of bringing slang and base phrases from the world into church services. I won’t repeat the phrases, but have more than once heard men use worldly base phrases as though they were right and proper language for the pulpit. I had opportunity to explain what one of the phrases meant and where it came from to a pastor that often used it. He looked at me, said “I have never heard that.” and proceeded through time to continue using the phrase – thus indicating he did not believe me or that he did not care that he was bringing the baseness of the world into his “ministry.”
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor {a} jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
(a) Jests which men cast at one another: that no lightness is seen, nor evil example given, nor any offence made by evil words or backbiting.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul proceeded from immorality to vulgarity. The Christian’s speech should also demonstrate love (cf. Eph 4:29). Filthiness or obscenity refers to dirty speech. Silly or foolish talk (lit. stupid words) probably describes talk that just wastes time, not necessarily "small talk." Coarse jesting does not mean joking necessarily but vulgar joking that uses clever word plays such as double entendres. This type of speech is inappropriate for saints who should be full of thanksgiving since we have received so much. Thanksgiving is also edifying.
"All God’s gifts, including sex, are subjects for thanksgiving, rather than for joking. To joke about them is bound to degrade them; to thank God for them is the way to preserve their worth as the blessings of a loving Creator." [Note: Stott, p. 193.]