Let's begin by acknowledging that conversion involves our emotions. Most of us would quickly agree with that statement. Our problem is that our behavior at times does not acknowledge that statement.
Perhaps illustrations more easily would allow us to understand the problem of allowing our negative emotions "to be a conscious part" of our conversion. If we speak in generalities and theory, we quickly say, "Yes, our emotions need to be part of our conversion." So, if we talk about internally belonging to God, or discuss the importance of the heart following Christ, or discuss how essential it is to set our minds on things above, we agree on the importance of converting our emotions. We rather easily discuss the consequences if the conversion of negative emotions does not occur when the discussion is on this plain. It is rare to find a Christian who would disagree that, generally, and in theory, emotions should participate in our conversions.
If we speak on the ideal plain, we again find wide-ranging agreement. If we discuss some noble or notable godly emotion, or if we discuss some horribly ungodly expression, most of us will quickly agree. We all are for more love among Christians and less hate in the world.
However, when we descend to the practical plain of everyday life, agreement is not as easily reached. If the discussion involves one of our high anxiety concerns, it is rather simple to convince ourselves that "the end result justifies the means we need to use to achieve that result." Thus we declare, because the objective of our pursuit is noble, the means used to achieve our objective are justified. So, we can spread incorrect information, partially correct information, or an unsubstantiated rumor with impunity because the objective is good. Christians often can do such acts in the personal conviction, "I am behaving in the best interest of the congregation." This is the conviction that ungodly emotions will produce godly results. Or, anxious Christians can engage in character assassination. It becomes a noble expression of godly concern to destroy a brother or sister's credibility. As long as the goal is considered a noble expression of godliness, ungodly emotions become at best a secondary consideration.
The intended point is this: the conversion of emotions is desirable by Christians in theory, but is often objectionable in the daily anxieties of the real world.
Again, please note this verse (Ephesians 4:31) occurs in a paragraph devoted to the behavior of "the new self" who has been created to be in God's likeness, formed in righteousness and holiness of the truth. It occurs in a paragraph that contrasts behavior that is not "new self" behavior with behavior that is "new self" behavior. The negative emotions that must be "put away" are emotions that (1) likely existed in the Christian community at Ephesus; (2) were commonplace in their world and their past; and (3) did not characterize what they learned about Jesus Christ (4:20, 21).
Consider these emotions for a moment. Commentators commonly relate all of them to the "unwholesome" (rotten, diseased) speech in verse 29. Bitterness [internal ill will] verbally vents itself through statements of hatred, or resentment, or confusion, or destruction of another's credibility. No expression of contempt should be voiced by the Christian. Giving contemptuous expression to ill will must not characterize the speech of Christians.
While all ungodly behaviors [stealing, for example] are not matters of speech in this paragraph, speech is prevalent. Lying (verse 25), destructive language (verse 29), confusion [quarrelsome shouting or verbal brawls] (verse 31), and slander [a verbal destruction of another's credibility] (verse 31) are specifically mentioned. Some also suggest there were verbal elements in the anger of verse 26 and the grief of the Holy Spirit in verse 30.
In a world that honored destructive verbal skills to gain power and leadership prestige, a mastery of ungodly speech could be a useful tool. It certainly could prove useful in the patronage system of the Roman Empire! Typically what wins society's approval finds useful and effective ways to enter the Christian community (consider Hymenacus and Alexander in 1 Timothy 1:20 and Diotrephes in 3 John 9, 10). For example, society often defines leadership concepts in the church rather than God's values defining His concept of leadership in the Christian community. For the person converted from Roman influences and its patronage system seeking power and position in the Christian community, foul and destructive language could prove useful. Vilify a brother as an enemy, then destroy him with your words. If other Christians lost confidence in that brother, then the attacker was the victor. The attacker achieved his objective just as he did in a godless society!
Consider the context of the passage. Christians were not to follow the godless behavior and values of those outside of Christ (verses 17-19). This was not the message communicated to them about being a part of Christ (20, 21). There was "old self" and "new self" behavior (verses 22-24). Those who committed to "new self" behavior were created anew in God's likeness (verse 24). Therefore, there were behaviors and speech in the Christian community at Ephesus that must cease. In the matter of speech, deceit, internal ill will, verbal expressions of hate, confusion, and destructive verbal attacks had to come to an end (verses 25-31). Such words and statements had no place "among you" [if those words and statement had to be "put away from you" (verse 31), those words and statements had to be among them].
Christians exercise great caution in what they do and do not say.
For Thought and Discussion
Link to Teacher's Guide
Lesson 11