What does Paul mean by “be angry and do not sin”?

Explanation:

Paul writes, Be angry and do not sin. What is interesting to note is that the verb to be angry is in an imperative. It seems as though Paul commands the Ephesians to be angry, but the context suggests this cannot be the case. Rather, Paul must want us to take the imperative form as concessive.⁶ Thus, he is not commanding the Ephesians to be angry, but he commands them not to sin when they are angry. In other words, anger is sure to grip the Ephesians on occasion, but they should recognize this and resolve whatever dispute they have before that anger leads to sin.

We can deduce that Paul has concession in mind because in Ephesians 4:31 Paul says to put aside all bitterness, wrath, and anger. ⁷ It’s hard to see why Paul would command anger in Ephesians 4:26 and then exhort the Ephesians to put it all aside only a few sentences later. Rather, he seems to suggest that while anger may come upon the Ephesians, this should not lead to sin, and in fact, the Ephesians should put aside all anger.⁸

Counterargument:

While it might be that Paul intends for us to take the imperative form of the verb to be angry as a concessive, this does not mean that Paul thinks all anger is unjustified. Rather, we know from Scripture that anger is sometimes ascribed to God. For example, in 1 Kings 11:9–10 we read that the Lord is angry with Solomon because he warned Solomon not to go after other gods, but Solomon does not obey. Also, in Mark 3:5 we read that Jesus was angry with the Pharisees for their hardness of heart. So we know that God is sometimes angry. Added to this, God is angry with sin, and we would all do well to be angry with our sin.⁹ Thus, even though Paul uses the concessive in Ephesians 4:26 and tells the Ephesians to put away all anger in Ephesians 4:31, anger is justified on occasion.

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that anger is strictly forbidden as sinful. Rather, the argument is that based on Paul’s call to put away all anger in Ephesians 4:31, we should take Ephesians 4:26 as concessive. Thus, while Paul might acknowledge that anger is sometimes justified, whether or not anger is justified is simply not on his mind in this section.¹⁰ Rather, what is on his mind is that the Ephesians put off their old selves and be created after the true likeness of God. This means that even if they do get angry, they should not let that anger fester into sin.

Explanation:

Paul exhorts the Ephesians to put off their old sinful nature. Of course, he knows that they might be angry on occasion, and anger can easily lead to sin, so he explains how to keep anger from turning to sin. Specifically, he explains that they should not let the sun go down on their anger. ¹¹ In other words, he is not commenting on the extent to which anger is justified. Rather, he gives the Ephesians the wisdom to avoid letting anger turn into sin, which is accomplished by giving up anger before the day is over.

Counterargument:

While it may be that Paul gives advice on how to avoid letting anger turn to sin, in that one should resolve his dispute before the end of the day, this does not mean that Paul makes no comment on whether anger is justified. Rather, given that the verb to be angry is imperative, we ought to take it that Paul allows for anger.¹² Still, he knows that human anger can quickly result in sin, so he sets a time limit.

Response to counterargument:

This argument wants us to take it that because Paul uses the verb in the imperative, he does not have the concessive in mind. Instead, he allows for anger. Of course, if we agree that Paul has the imperative and not the concessive in mind, then we ought to conclude, not only that Paul allows for anger, but that he commands it. In other words, if we press the imperative for its literal meaning, Paul commands the Ephesians to be angry. Of course, given that anger can easily lead to sin, and that there is nothing in the context to motivate Paul to command anger, it is hard to see why we should take the verb as an imperative and therefore a command.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it goes against the grammar. Paul could have slightly altered Psalm 4:4 so that the verb to be angry was a concessive participle, or he could have added a conditional. Instead, he maintains Psalm 4:4, including the imperative form of to be angry, implying that anger is a command. Further, we know that anger is not intrinsically wrong, so there is no theological issue with the notion that Paul commands anger. Still, it is hard to see why, given the context, Paul would command anger.

Explanation:

As Paul instructs the Ephesians on putting off their old nature and being renewed in the likeness of God, he writes Be angry, and do not sin. The phrase is comprised of two verbs, to be angry and to sin, and both are in the imperative. The imperative is used to issue commands, so we ought to take it that Paul is issuing a positive and negative command.¹⁵ On the one hand, Paul commands the Ephesians to be angry, maybe in the sense of despising sin, or injustices. On the other hand, he commands them not to sin.

Counterargument:

While it might seem as though the grammar favours the notion that Paul issues two commands, this is not the case. Rather, he lays emphasis on the second command not to sin, which implies that not sinning is his real concern. We can detect that Paul lays emphasis on the second command by noticing that after he says be angry but do not sin, he follows this up with two statements related to not sinning. First, he says, Do not let the sun go down on your anger, and then he says, And give no opportunity to the devil. Most likely, the positive command to be angry is simply used by Paul to set up his real concern, which is that the Ephesians are not to sin because of anger.¹⁶

Response to counterargument:

It is possible that Paul’s emphasis is on not allowing anger to lead to sin. Still, he could have used the participle form of the verb to be angry or included a conditional to indicate that he does not command the Ephesians to be angry. While it is likely that he emphasizes the negative command not to sin, this is only because it is easy to become angry but difficult not to sin.¹⁷

Response to response to counterargument:

There is a better explanation for why Paul uses the imperative in Ephesians 4:26. That is, Paul quotes from Psalm 4:4, and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) has the same construction that Paul uses here. Thus, he could not have used a participle or conditional because he is quoting from Scripture and wants to retain the original form. Still, given that he follows up the phrase with two commands regarding sin, we can detect that not sinning is Paul’s point in Ephesians 4:26.

Explanation:

In order to understand what Paul means when he says, Be angry and do not sin, it is important to notice that he quotes this phrase from Psalm 4:4. In fact, he renders the Septuagint exactly. That he quotes from Psalm 4:4 helps us see that he has justified anger in mind, although one should not allow that justified anger to lead to sin.¹⁸ That is because in the context of Psalm 4:4, David chastises the ones who love vain words and seek after lies (Psalm 4:2). He explains that the Lord has set apart the godly for himself (Ephesians 4:3) and then explains, Be angry but do not sin. In other words, David says that his adversaries should keep their rage to themselves, and control their evil actions.¹⁹ Thus, anger is acceptable, but it should not lead to sin.

Counterargument:

It is not clear that David approves of anger in Psalm 4:4. Rather, David seems to be making the same point as Paul, which is that anger can lead to sin, so one does well to avoid both.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that, based on the flow of Paul’s train of thought, it is hard to see why he would command the Ephesians to be angry. Paul’s concern in this section is to exhort the Ephesians to put off their old self and be renewed after the image of God. While he may allow for anger, it is hard to see why, given the context, he would command it.