18–24 These verses are grammatically a single sentence (obscured by all translations). This means that the injunction to wives and husbands in vs 22–33 (along with the similar material which follows in 6:1–9) is presented as a typical example of the respectful, submissive wisdom that should characterize believers. Indeed, the verb ‘submit’ supplied in most translations at v 22 has no equivalent in Paul’s Greek, but is understood from its appearance in the dependent participle clause ‘submitting to one another’ in v 21.

Although 5:22–6:9 is forged into a tight unity with 5:15–21, it has an independence of form and origin. Luther referred to the material as ‘Household Rules’, and they clearly had wider circulation in the church (see Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7). Similar tables are to be found in Judaism and in the ethical discussions of the Greek philosophers. The wording and content of the simpler form (preserved in Colossians) suggests an origin in Greek-speaking Jewish Christianity. While Greek tables addressed only the free male in how he should rule the wife, child, and slave; these, in Jewish fashion, address and protect the weaker parties too. The specifically Christian content of the Colossian table emerges mainly in the repeated ‘in the Lord’ (Col. 3:18), ‘pleasing in the Lord’ (Col. 3:20), ‘of reverence for the Lord’ (Col 3:22) (see also Col. 3:23–24). It is more fully elaborated in the Ephesians section which is a recasting and amplification of the teaching of Col. 3:15–4:1. The most dramatic elaboration is of the advice to husbands and wives which Paul uses to exemplify the unity of Christ and the church. Here the 19 words of Col. 3:18–19 have been expanded to 200!

A number of commentators have argued that the ethics of the tables were socially revolutionary, and find evidence for this in the request for reciprocal mutual submission (21), which is taken by them to mean husbands are to submit to wives, parents to children, and masters to slaves, as well as the reverse. If anything, however, the tables were socially conservative, patriarchal, and, given to confirm that Christians were not to undermine the more wide-spread understanding of social order (see Lincoln). The Colossians table (written perhaps only days before Ephesians) demands exactly the same types of outward submission and obedience that could be found almost anywhere in the ancient world. V 21 should not be taken to override this, but as a call to mutual submission within each hierarchical level, and of children to parents and slaves; slaves to masters (and their wives?), and wives to husbands. Had Paul really meant a totally reciprocal submission (which would be entirely unexpected in the ancient world) he would have needed to clarify that by saying at least once, and explicitly, that e.g. parents should submit to children.

To affirm that these tables were more socially conformist than revolutionary would be misleading, however; within the hierarchical social order they uphold they were radical and profoundly liberating. The slave, the child and the wife are specifically addressed (unusual in the ancient world): they are given their own calling to live before the Lord which is as responsible, honourable and important as the calling to live as master, parent and husband. The latter may be different roles, carrying greater social authority and responsibilities, but they are not better roles. This is assured by the coming of the Son in full submission to the Father, and to serve the church in giving himself for it. Indeed, the very social hierarchies the tables support are also recognized as ephemeral, and of secondary significance before the God who is impartial (9), and under the Lord to whom everything is to be done, and to whom both master and slave are equally responsible. The tables thus also confirm Gal. 3:28 and Col. 3:11—and Ephesians brings a particularly radical new Christian understanding to marriage (see on 5:22–23).

15–21 The appeal to a life reflecting wisdom, not folly, is specified in three related ways. The first is well expressed in the njb translation, ‘Make the best [use] of the present time, for it is a wicked age’ (16); and this is probably to be interpreted to mean that the powers of evil have a firm grip on humankind in this age, leading it into self-indulgent disobedience (so 2:1–3), but Christians are to order their lives and priorities to God’s glory. 17 then provides a second related specification: a life of folly is to be abandoned for one which seeks to discover and live by God’s will.

18 provides the third specification, contrasting a life of drunkenness, with one filled with the Spirit. The contrast here is not between two sorts of inebriation: drunkenness was simply a regular, indeed proverbial expression of folly in Jewish Wisdom Literature, and contrasted with the Spirit who (equally proverbially) was seen as the source of wisdom and understanding (as at 1:17; 3:16–18). Being filled with the Spirit is not to be understood here in a distinctively charismatic sense (though it may include that), but in the light of the ‘fill’, ‘fulness’ language elsewhere in the letter (1:23; 3:19b; 4:10) as an ongoing active presence of the Spirit mediating Christ and new-creation life. V 19 onwards is part of the same sentence as v 18 and spells out what being filled with the Spirit entails: it comes to expression in corporate worship (19a), adoring song (19b), thanksgiving to God (20; cf. 1:3–14; 15–16; 3:20–21) and mutual submission (21). Ecclesiasticus (an example of Wisdom Literature from the second century bc) offers a good parallel to Paul’s thought here, ‘If the … Lord is willing he [the man who studies the law] will be filled with the Spirit of understanding; he will bring forth words of wisdom and give thanks to the Lord in prayer’ (Ecclus. 39:6).

Max Turner, “Ephesians,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1241–1242.