1. Daniel Payne
NT 104B
Folder 641
Husbands Love Wives Submit
Ephesians 5:22-33
Translation
22 Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the
head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church, he himself is the savior of the body;
24 but as the church submits to Christ, wives also (submit) to husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as also Christ loved the church and gave
himself up for her, 26 in order that he might sanctify her cleansing with the washing of
water with the word, 27 in order that he might present the church to himself, as glorious,
not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and blameless.
28 Thus, husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves
his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and
cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.
31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great, but I am speaking in regard
to Christ and the church. 33 In any case you also, each one of you, should love his own
wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.
Exegetical Central Idea
As Christ loves the church and the church submits to Christ, so (in the same manner)
husbands should love their own wives and wives ought to submit to their husbands.
Exegetical Sentence Outline
1. Wives, as metaphor of the church, should submit to their husbands just as the
church submits to Christ (5:22-24).
a. Wives ought to submit to their husbands as if they were to the Lord (5:22).
b. Wives should submit because the husband is the head of the wife (5:23a).
c. Christ is the savior of the body (5:23b).
d. As the church submits to Christ, wives are to submit to their husbands
(5:24).
2. Christ loved the church and gave his life for her, in like manner husbands are to
love their wives and give themselves for her benefit (5:25-28).
a. Husbands are to love their wives, by giving their life for her; in the similar
fashion that Christ has given his life for the church (5:25).
2. 2
b. One of the goals of Christ giving himself up for the church was to make
her holy and blameless (5:26).
c. A second goal of Christ giving himself up for the church was to present
her to himself in glorious array (5:27a).
d. A result of Christ giving himself for the church was that she would no
longer have spot or wrinkle, but holy and blameless (5:27b-c).
e. The reason husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies is
because loving one’s wife is like loving oneself (5:28).
3. The main point is the union that has come about between Christ and the church,
while the secondary point (in lieu of the main) is husbands should love their wives
and wives should respect their husbands (5:29-33).
a. Such a union has been made that hating one’s wife is like hating oneself
(5:29a).
b. In the same way that Christ has loved the church, a husband is to nourish
and cherish his wife (5:29b-c).
c. Christ cares for the church, because we (the church) are members of his
body (5:30).
d. The reason a man leaves his father and mother is to be joined to his wife,
the two becoming one flesh (5:31).
e. The great mystery communicated was the union that is now between
Christ and the church (5:32).
f. In lieu of union of Christ and the church, each husband is to love his wife
and each wife is to respect her husband (5:33).
Commentary
EPHESIANS 5:22-33
In the preceding verses, Paul gives an admonition to walk wisely by means of
being filled with the Spirit. In lieu of this, he begins to show the outworking of what a
Spirit-filled life will look like. He does so by stringing together five consecutive
participles, the final one shows a mutual submission to one another (5:21; Hoehner, 729,
emphasis mine). This section begins instructions for the households of faith. These
instructions include: wives and husbands (our passage), children and parents (6:1-4), and
slaves and masters (6:5-9).
Wives Submit to Husbands as to the Lord (22-24)
5:22 The phrase αἱ γυναῖκες (Ὑποτασσόµενοι) τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν begins this
verse with an understood command imperative for wives to submit to their own
husbands. Although this author does not believe that the verb is found in the original (see
TC in appendices), he has chosen to place the participle from the preceeding verse (21) to
give the general meaning of submission. This author agrees with Hoehner (730-31) that
although the verb is not in the original, it carries the force of a second person imperative
(specifically, to the wives being addressed). This is believed because in both the
preceeding verses (18, πληροῦσθε) and following (25, ἀγαπᾶτε) second person
3. 3
imperatives are employed by Paul. Here, emphasis is made not on the second person
element of the verb, but the imperatival force. As will be discussed later, husbands are
commanded (ἀγαπᾶτε) to love their wives. Inversely, wives are to submit to their
husbands. With regards to submission, this is not to be viewed as a slavish (less than)
obedience to their husbands, but a willing response to the love of the husband as one in
authority in relation to her (not greater than in quality). Furthermore, this author agrees
with Hoehner (731) that the verb is to be taken as middle (not passive) further showing
the willing submission, rather than forceful (as would be shown a ‘dictator’). For further
study of submission in this context, see Appendix 4.
The adjective ἰδίοις is significant, but not necessary. This word clarifies the fact
that wives, in a unique way, submit to their own husbands (as opposed to men generally).
Proof for this term not being necessary is the fact that the parallel passage found in
Colossians 3:18 omits the term (Abbott, 165).
The phrase ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ, ‘as to the Lord,’ does not refer to wives submission to
husbands as ‘lords’ (as was believed by Aquinas and others). If this phrase were to carry
that meaning ‘lord’ would need to be plural as is husbands (Eadie, 408). Neither does it
mean that wives are to submit to husbands in the same manner (degree) that they submit
to the Lord (Hodge, 311). There are two other places in the NT that the phrase ὡς τῷ
κυρίῳ is used (6:7; Col 3:23). Both places the phrase refers to Christ, and serving in a
way as ‘unto the Lord’ (Hoehner, 736). The adverbial conjunction ὡς is taken to mean
that the wife submits out of (because of) her submission to the Lord (Ibid, 738). Eadie
makes a great point concerning wives and their subordination to their husbands. He
writes, ‘She may be in many things man’s superior – in sympathy, sentiment, devotion,
self-denial...still the obedience (submission) inculcated by the apostle sits gracefully upon
her, and is in harmony with all that is fair’ (409). Why should the woman submit? This,
we turn to next.
5:23 The reason for submission is ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ
Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ‘because the husband is the head of the wife as also
Christ is the head of the church. This verse begins with the causal conjunction ὅτι. Two
more conjunctions are likewise used in this clause, the comparative conjuction ὡς (as)
and the adjunctive conjunction καὶ (also). The relationship that Paul brings between
Christ as head over the church and the husband as head over the wife demands that one
understand how Christ is head over the church (Hoehner, 738). There are two other
instances in this epistle where Paul uses the term head to reference Christ’s relationship
to the church (1:22; 4:15). This term possesses two basic meanings, ‘ruler/authority’ or
‘source’ (Hoehner, 739). Hoehner makes an accurate statement when he shows that
primarily the term should mean ‘preeimence/prominence’ with the context deciding the
specific nuance (mentioned above; Ibid, 739). In (1:22) Christ is clearly over all as is
clear with ‘everything in subjection under his feet,’ while in (4:15) the term denotes
Christ as source of all growth for the body. In sum, in our particular verse the term cannot
mean source (as if the husband is the father?) and must mean authority (position). This
author believes Hoehner says it best as he writes, ‘...Headship does not connote any sense
of qualitative superiority...(it) is positional power...for the sake of harmony’ (Hoehner,
740). Furthermore, in other passages Paul explains this ‘headship’ as coming out of the
created order; Adam was created first (1 Tim 2:13). However, there is (are) a way(s) in
which Christ is totally different in his relationship to the church. To this Paul turns next.
4. 4
The phrase αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώµατος ‘he (Christ) Savior of the body’ shows the
vastness of difference between Christ as head of the church, and the husband as head of
the man. Christ is the savior (Abbott, 166). Paul is not saying that the man is the savior of
the wife, as Christ alone holds that place. The reason (other than soteriological) is
because αὐτὸς stands in appostition with that which is closest to the pronoun, namely ὁ
Χριστὸς. Furthermore, in the NT, σωτὴρ is only used to refer either to Christ or God
(Abbott, 166).
5:24 This verse closes out this paragraph and begins with the phrase ἀλλʼ ὡς ἡ
ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ ‘but as the church submits to Christ.’ At the start, the
conjunction ἀλλʼ creates an issue. Eadie takes this antithetically, carrying with it the
sense of ‘do not disallow the marital headship, for it is a Divine [sic] institution - ἀλλʼ -
but as the church is subject to Christ’ (Eadie, 413). The difficulty lies in the fact that there
is not an implied negative answer. Hoehner takes this conjunction as a ‘strong contrast’ to
the previous clause and would be understood as Christ is the savior of the body, ‘but
(notwithstanding) this difference’ (i.e. nevertheless) ... as the church submits to Christ
(Hoehner, 744). O’Brien agrees, and helps clear the confusion, ‘Paul makes the
distinction between Christ with the wife’s submission to her husband’ (O’Brien, 416).
Although Logos tags the participle ὑποτάσσεται as passive, the context suggests
that it is better understood as middle ‘where the subject acts as a free agent’ (Hoehner,
745). In other words, the church is not forced to submit (though Christ would certainly be
correct in demanding thus!), rather the church freely submits out of a love for the one
whom gave up his life. Furthermore, in 1:22-23, the church experiences the fullness of
God as a benefit of having Christ as her head. In like manner, the wife should receive
benefits from her husband’s headship (Hoehner, 745).
Paul completes his thought, connecting the submission of the church to Christ
with the submission of wives to their husbands: οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν
παντί ‘thus (so also) wives (submit) to their husbands in all things.’ This phrase begins
with the adverbial conjnction οὕτως and is understood as thus, followed by an adjunctive
conjunction καὶ (also). Here, the present middle participle found in the preceding phrase,
ὑποτάσσεται, is understood. The words in question are ἐν παντί, in all things
(everything). It must be stated (though it would appear obvious) that the wife does not
have to submit to the husband in anything contra the will and commands of God,
‘including abuse’ (Hoehner, 745). Abuse is sinful, therefore, the wife is not required (nor
even asked!) to submit to this from her husband, even if he be unbelieving (Acts 5:29).
This phrase is best understood to mean that the wife is to submit to the husband ‘in every
area of life’ (O’Brien, 417). In other words, in the same way that the church submits to
Christ in every area of life, in like manner the wife submits to the husband in every area
(or sphere). As we will see later, husbands and wives are ‘one flesh’ and as such are
meant to live as one in harmony (O’Brien, 417; See also 5:31, 33). It would do us well to
keep the greater context in view. Changing subjects, Paul employs 116 words to explain
the responsibility of husbands to their wives, contra the forty-one used for wives. To
husbands, we now turn.
Husbands are to Love Their Wives as Christ Loves the Church (25-28)
5:25 Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας ‘husbands, love your wives.’ While the
wives were instructed to submit to their husbands, husbands are commanded to love their
5. 5
wives. Signifying a new thought (or paragraph) and a new subject is the article Οἱ. While
BDAG defines ἀγαπᾶτε, ‘to have a warm regard for and interest in another, cherish, have
affection for, love (BDAG, 5), Hoehner believes that it does have (as pro popular
preaching) the notion of love ‘irrespective of merit, even to the undeserving’ (Hoehner,
747). In other words, the husband is to love his wife no matter what. Furthermore, the
present tense is taken as continous, husbands are to ‘continually love’ their wives. The
article τὰς before wives is possessive and shows that husbands are to love ‘their’ wife as
opposed to multiple women. Eadie remarks, ‘Among the Jews, the seclusion of
unmarried young women often made it possible that the brideroom was a stranger not
only to the temper and manners of his bride, but even to the features of her face’ (Eadie,
414). This being true, it is easy to conceive of quarrels and frustrations, indeed love to be
withheld, as a result. With this in mind, Christian husbands are charged to love – no
matter what.
Husbands are to love their wives καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
just as (in like manner) Christ loved the church. Again the adverbial conjunction, καθὼς,
is seen as a conjunction of manner. Noteworthy, is the fact that Paul commands husbands
to love their wives, not to rule over them. Or as O’Brien aptly put it, ‘they (husbands) are
nowhere told, exercise your headship!’ (O’Brien, 419) This love to be shown to wives is
used to also reference Christ’s love for the church. The way in which Christ demonstrated
his love is shown next.
καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, ‘and gave himself for her.’ The aorist tense of
παρέδωκεν references the once for all ‘summary action’ of the cross. Though the aorist
does not always involve time, in the indicative mood it can (does). Therefore, in this
particular verse it involves past action, and summary action. Christ died on the cross for
the church, how amazing. Παρέδωκεν, in this context, means ‘to hand over, turn over’
(BDAG, 762). This is brought together quite succinctly in the Gospel of John when Jesus
states, ‘Greater love has no one than this that a man lay down his life for his friends (Jn
15:13). Thus, love is directly related to self-sacrifice. No one offered more than Christ.
The reflexive pronoun, third person accusative, further reiterates the volitional aspect of
Christ giving ‘himself’ for the church (Hoehner, 750). Paul is not commanding the
husbands to die for their wives (though it may come to that) instead he is pointing to the
selfless love of Christ as a prod to ‘sacrifice their own interests for the welfare of their
wives’ (O’Brien, 420). The prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς often follows after
expressions of dying, devoting oneself, and therefore reiterates that Christ gave himself
for her (i.e. the church; BDAG, 1030). The femine pronoun αὐτῆς signifies for whom
Christ gave himself, namely the church. Christ died both for individual believers (5:2)
and the church, as seen in this verse (Hoehner, 750). This verse is invaluable for showing
the reasoning behind the submission that wives are called to give. Wives are to submit,
willingly, because their husband (first!) loves them even to the point of giving up his own
life.
5:26 ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας ‘in order that he might sanctify her having
cleansed her.’ This is the first of three purpose ἵνα clauses signifying the goal of Christ’s
giving of himself in love for the church. Christ gave himself that he might sanctify the
church, his bride, and make her clean. Sanctify (ἁγιάσῃ) means that a ‘person is in the
inner circle of what is holy, consecrate, sanctify (BDAG, 10). With this in mind, Christ
and the church have been made ‘one flesh’ (v. 32), and Christ has set a part the church for
6. 6
himself. This term is best understood, as it is an aorist subjunctive, to mean ‘a whole
without regard for its internal details of its occurrence’ (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 393).
Again, Christ gave himself to set a part his church.
The aorist active participle καθαρίσας is understood as contemporaneous to the
previous subjunctive, yet precedes it logically (Abbott, 168). However, it should be
understood that both the sanctifcation and the cleansing took place at the cross
(temporaly) not at different times (Hoehner, 752). This author believes the participle
describes the means by which Christ has sanctified his bride, by washing. The washing
(cleansing) dealt with the negative aspect of sin, sanctification is positive (setting aside
unto and for God; Hoehner, 752).
Continuing the sanctificaiton metaphor, Christ washed (cleansed) τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ
ὕδατος, ‘with the washing of the water.’ The noun λουτρόν ordinarily means ‘bath,
washing of baptism’ (BDAG, 603). Some view this, then, as a baptism (Eadie, 417). This
author understands this thinking. The difficulty, as Hoehner points out, is that baptism
does not cleanse from sin (Hoehner, 753). Still others believe this is a reference to the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. This author believes that it is best understood as a bridal
metaphor for the cleansing that already has taken place for the church, the bride of Christ
(cf. 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5). Water is likewise used as a metaphor to express the cleansing
efficacy of Christ’s death (Heb 10:22; Hoehner, 753; for further discussion see Validation
in appendices).
The final prepositional phrase in this verse ἐν ῥήµατι ‘(in relation) with the word.’
This phrase is best understood as signifying ‘the message or word from God in which one
places his or her trust’ i.e. the gospel (Hoehner, 755; O’Brien 423). With this
interpretation, this author believes that it is used in like manner in (6:17) as the gospel
being the ‘sword of the Spirit.’ Furthermore, ‘the word is not something additional to the
spiritual cleansing affected by the washing of water, but as the gracious word of the
gospel, it is the means by which it is accomplished’ (O’Brien, 423). In sum, the
preposition ἐν is viewed as accompanying the washing and serves as the means by which
this washing metaphor takes place, with the gospel.
5:27 ἵνα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ‘in order that he
might present the church to himself, glorious.’ First in line to discuss is to what this (now
second) ἵνα refers. This author does not believe that this ἵνα is in relation to the first
mentioned in this sequence, due to the fact that a coordinating conjunction is lacking. A
better understanding is to take this to be a further explanation of why he gave himself for
the sanctification of the church, that he might present to himself a bride, the church. The
imagery is still that of a wedding ceremony, Christ both presents the bride and receives
the bride (Eadie, 421).
The aorist active subjunctive third singular παραστήσῃ is subjunctive because the
ἵνα demands it grammatically. This should not be thought of as uncertain, however, even
though in English it is translated ‘might present.’ The verb primarily means ‘cause to be
present, place beside, etc.’ Yet, in this context, ‘present’ even takes on a further nuance of
‘make, render.’ (BDAG, 778). Understanding the verb in this way continues the emphasis
of Christ as the initiator and the church, his bride, as the recipient. The αὐτὸς
immediately following the subjunctive is here placed for emphasis, ‘he,’ that is Christ.
The reflexive ἑαυτῷ, as stated previously, shows that Christ not only presents his bride,
but presents her to himself (Hoehner, 758). Christ presents ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν to
7. 7
himself. The adjective, glorious, precedes the accusative direct object as a point of
emphasis and is taken as a tertiary predicate (Abbott, 170). Numerous commentators
make the connection of Christ prepares his bride in order that he might present her to
himself (Hoehner, 759). He does all the work, alas, his bride is not capable of such.
µὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or any
such thing.’ Paul places the particle µὴ at the beginning of this phrase to bring out
negative emphasis contra the postive relationship of the church presented glorious. Now,
negatively, neither will the church have any sort of defect. It is noteworthy, and should be
celebrated, that the death of Christ and the washing of the gospel cleanses from any spot
(or blemish). His death was sufficient to cleanse what a ceremonial bridal washing never
could. As women in particular are conscious of their appearance and desire to be
aesthetically pleasing, Paul assures his readers that Christ has made his bride free from
any wrinkle. An interesting observation is that both σπίλον and ῥυτίδα are singular,
possibly signifying ‘not even one’ mark or wrinkle will affect the bride of Christ
(Hoehner, 760). As a final catch-all confirming that Christ’s bride will not have any
imperfections, Paul writes τι τῶν τοιούτων ‘or any such thing.’ Nothing will cause ill
effect to the bride of Christ.
ἀλλʼ ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄµωµος, ‘but that she might be holy and blameless.’ Here we
have a strong contrast conjunction ἀλλ’ signifying that in contrast to the bride not having
any blemish at all, she has been made holy and blameless. Also, there is a structural
change in this last phrase of this sentence. Whereas in the previous phrase there was a
verb of being that followed the negative, here there is no such verb. This is similar to the
phrase that is found earlier in 1:4 where Paul says that individual believers were chosen
in Christ since before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless. This phrase is
not insignificant. In fact, it could (should?) be viewed as a sort of climax for the book
(Hoehner, 761). God chose individuals that they may be holy and blameless (1:4). This is
accomplished by the Father’s selections, the sealing of the Spirit, and redemption brought
about by Christ (1:4-14). This is achieved by means of the granting of new life (2:1-10)
and placing them into the church of Jews and Gentiles (2:11-3:13). Believers are meant to
live out this reality, yet the reality is there nonetheless. They live this out by walking in
unity (4:1-16), holiness (4:17-32), love (5:1-6), light (5:7-14) and wisdom (5:15-6:9;
Hoehner, 761). Hoehner and Eadie (among many others) believe that this ‘holiness and
blamelessness’ is yet future. Yet, they also believe that these attributes have a
moral/behavioral sense. If this is true, does that mean that there is a day when the church
behaves perfectly? This author believes that there is a very real sense in which the church
is now holy and blameless. Christ has sanctified (set a part) his bride by the washing of
the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 6:11). Though I am not saying that the church cannot sin, I am
saying that the church is (quite) able not to sin only because of the new life and
indwelling Spirit that has been given by grace (see also 5:8). Though I do believe there is
gloriousness yet to be revealed in the coming age, there is a now sense that this author
believes should be better articulated in evangelical circles.
5:28 οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν [καὶ] οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ
ἑαυτῶν σώµατα, ‘Thus, also husbands ought to love their own wives as their own body.’
With the previous statements referencing Christ and the church, Paul brings the analogy
to the husbands with the adverb οὕτως. In other words, in light of Christ’s extravagant
and outrageous love for the church, husbands also (likewise) ought to love their wives in
8. 8
like manner. This author takes οὕτως to refer to the previous verses and could be
translated ‘thus (also).’ In other words, as Christ has loved the church, so too husbands
should love their wives (Hoehner, 763). Furthermore, if [καὶ] is indeed original, the
adverb must refer to the previous statements concerning Christ’s love for the church.
NA28 includes this conjunction (albeit in brackets) and this author believes it should be
included demanding that the adverb refer to the love of Christ (see Hoehner, 763).
As was discussed earlier, husbands are implored to love their wives freely, as
does Christ. This love, as was submission on part of the wife, is meant to be given freely
and uninhibited from the husband. The phrase ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώµατα, ‘as his own body,’
refers to the kind (or extent) of love the husband is to demonstrate for his wife. There are
a couple different nuances to be derived from this phrase initiated by the adverbial
conjunction ὡς. Both the kind, as briefly stated above, and to the quality of the person
(thing) being loved. Along with the later revealing of ‘one flesh’ terminology referencing
both Christ to the church, and the husband to the wife. In other words, Christ indeed
loves the bride, and the husband must love his wife (as she is in some sense his own
body). Self-love is natural, the same devotion to taking care of oneself should be devoted
to his wife (and more; Hoehner, 765).
ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ, ‘He who loves his own wife loves
himself.’ Abbott is correct in asserting that this phrase does not mean refer to the love for
a wife as the same love for one’s body, but ‘Even as Christ loved the church as that
which is his body, so also husbands regard their wives as their own bodies, and love them
as (in the same manner) Christ loved the church (Abbott, 171).
Christ and the Church are One (29-33)
5:29 Οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐµίσησεν , ‘For no one ever hates his
own flesh.’ This sentence begins with a (post-positive) explanatory conjunction γάρ,
signifying further rationale for the connection between ‘loving one’s wife as loving
oneself’ (v. 28) and our text here, ‘for no one ever hated his own flesh (Hoehner, 766).
The particle ποτε usually means ‘formerly/at one time’ yet here it is reinforcing the
‘categorical denial’ (no one) and is translated ‘ever’ (Hoehner, 766).
In regards to Paul’s utilization of the term σάρκα, it should be seen in its most
natural sense and in relationship with the ‘two becoming one flesh’ in v. 31. It is like Paul
is saying, ‘It is as unnatural a thing not to love one’s wife, as it is not to love oneself’
(Eadie, 414). Paul here is creating kingdom logic. The rational person would understand
that love for self is inherent to human beings, and Paul is connecting this logic to the
Christian husband (now indwelt with the Spirit) loving his own wife. Any normal person
would do whatever it takes to survive, that is a human instinct. In like manner husbands
should have a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude to love their wife (O’Brien, 427). The verb
ἐµίσησεν is an aorist active indivative third personal singular. This aorist is taken as a
gnomic aorist, indicating a general truth (Fanning, 265). Again, reinforcing the logic of
‘no one ever hated;’ that’s illogical.
ἀλλʼ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν, ‘but (he) nourishes and cherishes it (his body).’
ἀλλʼ is the contrast conjunction showing the (logical) inverse of ‘no one ever hated his
own flesh.’ The term ἐκτρέφει is extremely tender and shows the antithesis of hating
one’s flesh. Here the term is translated ‘nourishes’ showing the all-encompassing nature
of what the rational person does. The verb θάλπει literally means ‘to make warm’ in an
9. 9
intimate sense (BDAG, 442). Here, the term refers to a tender cherishing of a husband
and his wife. Furthermore, the present tense force gives a continuous general sense and is
seen in tandem with the gnomic aorist (Hoehner, 767).
καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ‘just as also Christ does the church.’ Here,
the adverbial conjunction καθὼς connects the metaphor back to Christ. A husband should
nourish and cherish his wife, in the same that way Christ nourishes and cherishes his
bride. Hoehner adequately and succinctly writes, ‘Christ, as head of the church, is not
only a ruler or authority over the church but also the source of sustenance by which it is
nurtured’ (Hoehner, 768).
5:30 ὅτι µέλη ἐσµὲν τοῦ σώµατος αὐτοῦ, ‘because we are members of his body.’
As shown in the translation, this phrase is introduced by a causal ὅτι clause showing the
reason that Christ nourishes and cherishes the church. At this point Paul takes the
corporate (impersonal?) statements concerning the church as Christ’s body (1:22-23;
5:23) and declares we (here, Paul and his Ephesian readers) are members of Christ’s body
– thus making his argument much more intimate. Not to be confused with a modern
understanding of member (i.e. board/organization) the term µέλη refers to the ‘member of
an organism’ (Hoehner, 768). The term σώµατος, ‘body,’ as is consistent with this
passage is viewed metaphorically of the church. Although, metaphor is being employed,
it is not to be understood as ‘not real,’ but rather, ‘not physical.’ For discussion on the
text criticism issue found in the latter portion of this verse see the TC issue in Appendix
2. It will suffice here to say that this author concluded that the additional phrase was not
part of the original manuscript.
5:31 ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος [τὸν] πατέρα καὶ [τὴν] µητέρα, ‘For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother.’ This is a quotation from Genesis 2:24.
This verse is quoted in three other NT passages (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; 1 Cor 6:16).
Though there are slight variations in each of these quotations, none change the meaning
of the original Genesis quotation (Hoehner, 772). This quotation does not have an
introductory formula, but begins with the OT quotation taken from the LXX ἀντὶ τούτου,
‘For this reason.’ The verb καταλείψε is a future indicative, indicating a ‘time when’ the
man will leave his father and mother (in pursuit of his bride).
καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, ‘and cling to his wife.’ The verb
προσκολληθήσεται means ‘to adhere to, devoted to, join’ (BDAG, 881). Here the phrase is
referring to the husband and wife relationship. Though the mystery later revealed is that
of the union of Christ and the church, here the metaphor is communicating union of man
and woman. Paul is developing the flow of thought to include Christ and the church, yet
is not there just yet (Hoehner, 774). Furthermore, this phrase shows that the relationship
of husband and wife is so intimate and strong that a child would actually leave family,
indeed father and mother, to join himself to his bride. Therefore, other relationships are
seen in subordination to that between a husband and wife. In like manner, the church
should view their relationship (union) with Christ as superior to all other relationships
(Hodge, 347).
καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα µίαν, ‘and the two will become one flesh.’ The future
being verb ἔσονται would normally require a predicate nominative, yet here the formula
εἰς σάρκα µίαν is used ‘due to semitic influence of the LXX translation’ (Hoehner, 775).
It should be noted that in this union (or becoming one) the two are not subsumed in one
another, instead they are ‘stuck to one another’ or ‘joined.’ Quoting Batey, Hoehner
10. 10
writes, ‘Each personality (husband and wife) is enlarged by the inclusion of the other;
ideally effecting the perfect blending of two separate lives into one’ (Hoehner, 775).
5:32 τὸ µυστήριον τοῦτο µέγα ἐστίν, ‘this mystery is great.’ This phrase is
explanatory giving further information to the previously stated joining of man and
woman. Concerning µέγα it should be understood as a predicate adjective for a few
reasons. First, the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο actually already modifies mystery.
Second, the presence of the being verb ἐστίν is copula. The main nuance here is not the
difficulty of comprehending the mystery, but instead the importance of the (said) mystery
(Hoehner, 775). What is the content of the mystery?
Some Roman Catholics view the mystery, in line with the Vulgate, to mean the
mystery as sacrament (Hoehner, 776). It is clear that this is from whence the Catholic
church developed its view of marriage between man and woman as one of its sacraments.
Though this is true, the ‘greatest scholars’ of the Catholic church have rejected this view
(Abbott, 175).
This author believes that the mystery referred to by Paul is that of the union
between Christ and the church. This is made clear as Paul says, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν
καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ‘but I am speaking in regard to Christ and the church.’ There is an
emphatic contrast within the phrase ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω, but I am speaking. The contrast
conjunction is a post-positive coupled with the first person personal pronoun ἐγὼ. It is not
to the context of marriage that he is primarily referencing this mysterious union, but that
of Christ and his church (Abbott, 175). Yet this author agrees with Dawes, as quoted by
Hoehner, that ‘this is a double referent, that is, to the union of husband wife and to the
union of church and Christ’ (Hoehner, 780; see also Validation in Appendix 7).
Furthermore, this author notes that though there is a double referent, the primary referent
is that of Christ and the church, not husband and wife. This is made clear with the next
verse.
5:33 πλὴν καὶ ὑµεῖς οἱ καθʼ ἕνα, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς
ἑαυτόν, ‘in any case you also, each one of you, should love his own wife as himself.’
Before addressing this verse, it is noteworty that the husband (in line with the previous
verses) is first as subject (each one, obviously husband). Second, the husband and wife is
mentioned in the singular. This is most likely giving emphasis to the personal
responsibility of each individual to obey these commands (Hoehner, 781).
The conjunction πλὴν is translated as ‘in any case,’ and carries within a
summation or conclusion of Paul’s thoughts for husbands and wives. As noted in verse
32, the main point is the union of Christ and the church. With this in mind, or ‘in any
case,’ husband(s) should their wife(ves). The relationship between Christ and the church
is the theological center, the apex reason for Christian marriage to be exemplary;
husbands loving their own wives, wives submitting to their husbands (O’Brien, 435).
Hoehner believes that this introductory adverb πλὴν shows that Paul is getting back to the
‘main point’ i.e. marriage (Hoehner, 781). However, understanding that the union of
Christ and the church is the theological centerpiece for all things concerning marriage,
this author believes that the mystery is the ‘main point.’ Although, there is no doubt great
emphasis on the relationship of marriage, καὶ ὑµεῖς, an adjunctive conjunction with the
second person plural shows that marriage has returned as topic for Paul. Placing this
personal pronoun in the front of the sentence shows an emphatic and further reiterates
Paul’s return to said topic.
11. 11
The language of loving your wife as yourself ‘echoes’ the great commandment
from the OT, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Yet here, it is made specific to a
husband’s love for his wife (O’Brien, 436). The present imperative ἀγαπάτω is
understood as a command imperative relating to ‘hiw own wife.’ The present tense is
understood as continuous showing that the husband does not love his wife only once, but
continually, indeed for the entirety of his life. Keeping in step with the previous
statements concerning love for wife as love for self the adverbial conjunction ὡς is
understood to mean ‘as’ as both simple comparison and comparison of quality (Hoehner,
782).
ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα, ‘and the wife should respect her husband.’ The
conjunction δὲ is not contrastive, but explains a continuation. The ἵνα clause is not
understood as purpose or result because syntatically it would need to preceed the entire
phrase (Hoehner, 783). Furthermore, the flow of this passage is not needing the wife to
reciprocate reverence (though that will most likely be the case when true love is
demonstrated!), but loving unconditionally – as Christ did the church. Though Hoehner
believes that ‘respect’ is to mild a translation of φοβῆται, this author believes that it is
preferred over ‘fear’ (Hoehner, 783; see word study in Appendix 5).
Conclusion In conclusion, Paul writes to the Ephesians and gives them a look
into what a healthy Christian marriage looks like. This consists of husbands
unconditionally loving their wives, and wives submitting to their husbands. The majority
of text was spent on the role of husbands loving their wives, with only three verses for the
role of wives submitting to their husbands. This reason (and model) for this lifestyle is
that of Christ and the church. Christ selflessly laid down his life for his bride, the church.
Likewise, the church, in response to this great love, is called to submit to the headship of
Christ in everything.
Applications The applications are obvioius. Husbands are to love their wives
unconditionally. This was incredibly relevant and revolutionary to the Ephesian readers,
as they were in a culture where women were not shown great respect. In our context, the
admonition is the same – husbands should love their wives as Christ, our chief example,
does the church. Christ gave up his life, and husbands should likewise live selflessly even
to the point of giving up his life if it be necessary. Wives, as metaphor of the church,
should submit themselves to their own husbands; not slavishly, but from the heart.
Appendix 1, Textual Criticism for Eph 5:22
The text being addressed for this critique is Ephesians 5:22. Our issue is to discover the
original wording in this verse. Specifically, is Ὑποτασσόµενοι only implied (as in NA
28) or is it in fact found in the original text. There are two other (different) alternate
readings: ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, the third person imperative; a few other manuscripts have
the second person imperative form, ὑποτάσσεσθε.
External Evidence
Manuscripts in support of omitting the verb are: P46, B, Cl, Hiermss
Manuscripts in support of including ὑποτασσέσθωσαν are: ,א A, I, P, Ψ, 0278, 33, 81,
104, 365, 1175, 1241s
, 1505, 1739, 1881, 2464, al lat co.
12. 12
Manuscripts in support of including ὑποτάσσεσθε are: (D, F, G) K, L, 630, Byz sy.
Date and Character
Texts in favor of omitting the word (in any form) are few, but early (the earliest) and
significant. The earliest in favor of omitting the word are two manuscripts from 2nd
and
4th
centuries.
The earliest texts in favor of including the verb (in 3rd
person form) are 4th
century ()א
and 5th
century (A & I). There is a smattering of other manuscripts from the 9th
century
and later.
The earliest text in favor of including the verb (in 2nd
person form) is from the 6th
century
(D), with the next earliest being 9th
century and later.
Geographical Distribution
The earliest manuscript that affirms the omission (textual reading) of the verb is an
Alexandrian text type from the 2nd
century and its next oldest manuscript (B) is an
Alexandrian text type as well. The first variant reading is supported by an Alexandrian
text type (,)א and two secondary Alexandrian text types from the 5th
century (A & I). The
second variant reading is supported by Western text type (D, F, G) and Byzantine text
type from the 9th
century. Due, to the fact that the oldest manuscripts in favor of their
respective readings are from the same geographical region, this author believes
geographical distribution is a draw.
Genealogical Solidarity
The oldest manuscript (P46, 2nd
century) is in favor of omitting the word. The earliest
manuscript evidence in favor of including the word (and the 2nd
variant) is from the 4th
century and 6th
century respectively.
In conclusion, based on the external evidence this author believes the most likely original
reading is the one supported by the text, omitting the verb. There are no manuscripts in
favor of including the word before the 4th
century, which is fairly weak in comparison
with evidence from the 2nd
century. This author gives a grade of A- for omitting the word
Ὑποτασσόµενοι from our verse in question.
Internal Evidence
Transcriptional Probabilities
This author believes it is more likely that a scribe would have added a form of the verb to
the original text in order to lessen ambiguity. Furthermore, with the sentence beginning
with αἱ γυναῖκες it seems likely that a scribe would add a main verb since ‘wives’ would
have been at the beginning of a scripture lesson (Metzger, 541).
Intrinsic Probabilities
This author believes the omission of the word (again, in any form) is most likely the
original reading. Although ‘the text virtually begs for one of these two verb forms,’ the
often vague (criptic?) style of Paul’s writing would argue for the shorter form (See NET
tc note, 2288). Furthermore, the omission of the word is preferred because it keeps in step
13. 13
with Paul’s ‘succint style of admonitions,’ and would then explain the alternate readings
as expansions, again, ‘for the sake of clarity’ (Metzger, 541).
In final conclusion, based on the External and Internal evidence, this author assigns an
overall grade of B+ for the omission of the verb as found in NA28. The major backing
for this is found in the fact that the earliest and best manuscript was in support of this
view, while geographical distribution was even. Internal evidence leaned towards the
omission as well, as it appears to be most likely that the variants were added for the sake
of clarity – while Paul would have preferred a more vague original. Exegesis does not
seem to be under great threat here, as it is believed that the verb would be implied or
‘carried over’ (anyway) in the view of multiple scholars (NET, 2288; Metz)
Appendix 2, Textual Criticism for Eph 5:30
The text being addressed for this critique is Ephesians 5:30. Our issue is attempting to
discover the best option for the original reading of this verse. Specifically, is ἐκ τῆς
σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ a part of the original reading (as found in
variants) or is it omitted (as found in NA28)?
External Evidence
Manuscripts in favor of including the variant are: (א2
D F G K L P Ψ 0278 0285vid
104
365 630 1175 1241s
1505 1739 Byz lat sy(p)
Manuscripts in favor of omitting the phrase are: (P46
*א A B 048 6 33 81 1739txt
1881
2464 vgms
co)
Date and Character
Texts in favor of including the phrase are a part of a split (א2
), which is 4th
century. The
next earliest manuscript (D) is 6th
century followed by a number from the 9th
century and
later. There are a number of “other” and “Sec. Alexandrian miniscules in support of this
reading as well.
Texts in favor of omitting the phrase include a 2nd
century manuscript (P46
), followed by
a variation ()*א and (B) in the 4th
century, and a few from the 5th
century (A, 048). There
are a number of later Sec. Alexandrian miniscules in support of this reading as well.
Geographical Distribution
The earliest manuscript that affirms the textual reading in Alexandrian text type is from
the 2nd
century, and Sec. Alexandrian is 5th
century. The earliest manuscript evidence in
support of the variant (inclusion of the phrase) is an Alexandrian text type (א2
) from the
4th
century, the earliest Western text type (D) is from the 6th
century, the earliest
Byzantine (K) is 9th
century.
In regards to Geographical Distribution the textual reading is affirmed by one general
region, while three affirms the variant. However, the multiple text types that affirm the
variant reading are late and therefore do not carry very much weight in making a decision
based on this evidence. As this is the case the multiple text types are not valuable enough
to make a decision away from the textual reading.
14. 14
Genealogical Solidarity
The oldest (and best) manuscripts are in favor of omitting the phrase from the verse in
question. Again, these include 2nd
century and 4th
century. The earliest manuscripts
retaining the phrase are a varied form (א2
) and are from the 4th
century (?) and 6th
century
(D).
In conclusion, based on the external evidence this author believes the most likely original
reading is the one supported by the text, omitting the phrase. While most Western
witnesses, and the majority of Byzantine manuscripts include the phrase, the Alexandrian
text type is “solidly behind the shorter reading” (See NET tc note, 2289). This author
gives a grade of B+ for the reading found in the text, omitting the phrase ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ.
Internal Evidence
Transcriptional Probabilities
While Metzger leaves the possibility of an ‘accidental omission’ (supporting the text) due
to homoeoteleuton repeating (αὐτοῦ…αὐτοῦ), he believes it is much more likely that the
longer (variant) readings ‘reflect various scribal expansions derived from Gen 2:23
(where it reads bone…flesh), this due to the anticipation of the quotation of Gen 2:24 in
verse 31’ (Metzger, 541). This author adopts this view as the most logical explanation of
the known information concerning transcriptional probabilities.
Intrinsic Probabilities
This author believes the most likely reading is omitting the phrase, as adhered to by
NA28. This seems to be made most clear with the understanding that the union between
the church (body of Christ) and Christ is a ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’ union, not physical
(though this does not lessen the reality of the union). Therefore, it would not make sense
for Paul, the author of Ephesians, to refer to the ‘physical nature of creation when
speaking of the body of Christ’ (See NET tc note 2289). In sum, it is believed that the
scribes who added the OT quotation (albeit slightly varied from LXX) in an effort to
make more clear, in fact missed the point Paul was trying to make – the spiritual union of
Christ and the church. This author gives a grade of A based on Internal Evidence.
In conclusion, based on both the External and Internal evidence, this author assigns an
overall grade of A for the omission of the phrase, as agreed upon by NA28 and multiple
NT scholars. The Internal evidence is strongly in favor of the omission, while the oldest
and best manuscripts back the External evidence in favor of omission. Exegesis would in
fact be affected by this decision. If one believes that the phrase should be included there
is a high degree of likelihood that the conclusion of the union with Christ and the church
would be physical (flesh and bones). The union that is spoken of by Paul is spiritual with
reference to Christ and the church, and physical with reference to a husband and a wife.
16. 16
καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ,
καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα µίαν.
32 τὸ µυστήριον τοῦτο µέγα ἐστίν·
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.
33 πλὴν καὶ ὑµεῖς οἱ καθʼ ἕνα, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως
ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν,
ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.1
Appendix 4, Synchronic Word Study 1
ὑποτάσσω (Eph 5:22)
I. Koine (300 BC to AD 100)
1. During the Koine period, the term is used to mean a “human submission to
God (found in the NT and is comparable with various passages in the
LXX), and also in the papyri sense of to ‘append’ to a document” (MM,
660).
2. Examples for “human submission to God”
a. P Leid Wxiii. 34
(2nd
/3rd
century AD) “you submit in everything”
(MM, 660).
b. OGIS 6547
(1st
century BC) “submit to the king” (MM, 660).
3. In the sense of “appending” to a document”
a. P Oxy I. 34 (AD 127) “we wrote a program and will append to the
epistle” (MM, 660)
b. P Ryl II. 1047
(AD 167) “I append the claims of both of us” (MM,
660)
Summary of Koine Usage: While MM (660) affirms a general sense of submission
to God during the LXX period, it expands the range to include a sense of
“appending” to a document. Moulton Milligan does not give any examples of
human submission in this section.
II. New Testament
1. In the NT the word under consideration is found in four authors outside
the one under consideration, Paul. In the Synoptics (Luke 2:51; 10:17) the
1
Aland,
K.,
Aland,
B.,
Karavidopoulos,
J.,
Martini,
C.
M.,
&
Metzger,
B.
M.
(2012).
Novum
Testamentum
Graece
(28th
Edition.,
Eph
5:22–33).
Stuttgart:
Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft.
17. 17
word refers to the boy Jesus and his subjection to his parents, and the evil
spirits subjection the disciples sent out by Jesus respectively. In the
Catholic Epistles (Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 2:13, 3:1, 5:5) the word refers to
subjection to God; subjection/subordinated to a husband, church officials,
or to a person (state of being). In Hebrews (2:5, 12:9) the word refers to
putting everything into subjection to Christ and subjection to God.
2. Outside of the book under consideration (Rom 8:7, 10:3, 13:1; 1 Cor
14:32, 15:27; 16:16; Phil 3:21; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5, 3:1), Paul uses the
word to mean ranges from submitting to the law of God, to subjection to
other people/church, to God, and in like manner to the verse under
consideration wives submitting to husbands as to the Lord (Col 3:21).
3. In the same book, outside of the verse under consideration (1:22, 5:24),
Paul uses the word to mean everything being put into subjection under
Christ’s feet and the church’s submission to Christ respectively.
4. In the particular verse under consideration (5:22) Paul uses the word to
mean in a loving manner (for love’s sake) wives submit to their husbands
in the same way that church submits to Christ (not out of forced
“oughtness” but because of the great love with which he has loved her in
“laying down his life for her” (5:25).
Summary of NT Usage: The NT usage shows that ὑποτάσσω is used to show
general submission with a few different nuances: evil spirits submission to God,
believers submission to God, the Church’s submission to Christ, and wives
submission to their husbands.
Significance for Exegesis in Ephesians 2:22: In the same way that the church submits to
Christ, out of love, wives are to submit to their husbands. In this passage, Paul is
communicating a union between Christ and the church that is unfathomable (taking it as
far as to speak of loving one’s wife as loving oneself, 5:31-32). Of course, Christ is
greater than the church and submission to him is logical. Yet Paul’s argument is that
Christ’s laying down his life for his bride, the church, provokes her to submit out of a
heart of love (5:25). It is also noteworthy, that this submission to a husband is done “as to
the Lord” (5:22). In other words, this submission is not for submissions’ sake, but as
worship unto the Lord. In like manner, the husband is to love his life even unto death
(5:25).
Check Your Work:
BDAG – the definition matches “subject oneself, be subjected or subordinated, to
a husband” (1042)
TLNT – This entry agrees that there are multiple nuances within the NT writings,
yet always meaning “reverent submission, seen as a self-offering” (425). Furthermore
TLNT says that the NT sense is entirely new, without a “secular parallel” (426).
Likewise, it offers the “append” to a letter option – clearly, though, this is not the
understanding in our verse under consideration (426).
18. 18
Appendix 5, Synchronic Word Study 2
Φοβέω (Eph 5:33)
I. Koine (300 BC to AD 100)
1. During the Koine period, the term is used to mean “fear, dread, through
the fear of the danger, afraid of someone giving up (because ill), general
fear of right to procedure (trial?) going unnoticed, reverence” (MM, 673).
2. Examples for “fear, dread”
a. OGIS 66959
(1ST
century AD) “fear of what you have heard
concerning…”
b. P Oxy II. 237viii. 11
(AD 186) “through fear of the danger”
3. Examples of “reverence”
a. P Tebt I. 5910
(BC 99) “an official writes to the priests of Tebtunis
assuring them of his good will ‘because of old I revere and worship
the temple’”
Summary of Koine Usage: MM gives a great deal of evidence for the definition of
“fear, dread.” While the vast majority is in favor of this definition, they do offer
one text (given above) during the Koine period that affirms a “reverential” nuance
to the word, not fear (673).
II. New Testament
1. The word under consideration is found in multiple verses in the NT. In the
Synoptics (Mt 10:26, 28:5; Mk 11:18; Luke 12:4 and others) the word
generally carries the meaning of “fear/being afraid” of man, or God. In
Acts (10:2; 13:16, and others) the word generally means “God-fearer” as a
sect of Jews with genuine faith in YHWH. In the Catholic Epistles (1 Pet
2:17; 3:6, and others) the term generally means reverence of God and not
fearing to do right. In Hebrews (4:1, 11:23, and others) fear in the sense of
“not fearing the king’s edict” (11:23). In Revelation (1:17; 11:18, and
others) the term generally refers to “fear” (enough to the point of death,
1:17) and “reverence” in regards to the name of the Lord in special
relation to the saints.
2. Outside of the book under consideration (Gal 4:11; 2 Cor 11:3, 12:20, and
others) the term generally means “fear” in the sense that some have
diverted from the gospel, in the sense that some will be led astray as did
Eve, in the sense of some diverting from the truth and walking in factions.
3. In the same book, but outside the verse under consideration there are no
examples.
4. In the particular verse under consideration (5:33) the term carries a sense
of “reverence” or “respect” received because their position deserves it.
Summary of NT Usage: The NT usage shows that φοβέω is used to show a true
“fear/being afraid” and also means “reverence/respect.”
19. 19
Significance for Exegesis in Ephesians 5:33: Paul’s usage of this term in this particular
context is (similar to the previous word study) to show that the status of a husband in
relation to his wife deserves “respect/reverence.” Here, this term does not mean
“fear/being afraid.” In the same way that a husband is to love his wife “as himself,”
indeed there does not seem to be a greater love that can be shown (save for that same love
towards God and others), but again that is the point for the husband (position his love
towards his wife), the wife is to respect (honor/revere) her husband. One can observe that
within Paul’s reasoning the Christ-like love that the husband displays toward his wife
makes her giving respect to him almost a “gut impulse.”
Check Your Work:
BDAG – the definition matches “afraid, frightened, apprehensive” and to “have a
profound measure of respect for, reverence, respect (1060-61).
TDNT – this entry agrees that in the NT the general sense is “to fear to…be
afraid” and says that rarely does it refer to something intrinsically Christian, in relation to
“faith and fear or love” (208). Furthermore this entry states, “a distinction is made
between respect for the king and fear of God, in typical relationships of subordination
e.g. wives, fear can denote the obedience demanded by the superior authority…of
husbands as lords (217). Though this is taught in this entry, it is coupled with wives are to
“expect love from their husbands” (217).
Appendix 6, Validation
τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος
Introduction
The issue addressed is the proper understanding of the phrase τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος,
‘washing of water.’ This author seeks to briefly state the different views concerning this
phrase, and will end with the decision that he feels is most suitable to the text and
information at hand.
Differing Views
Virtually all commentators on this particular passage in question agree that there are
multiple views that could be taken. The specific issue is to determine what ‘the washing’
refers to. Before giving the different views, it should be noted that τῷ λουτρῷ appears
only twice in the NT (cf. Titus 3:5), and only three times in the LXX (Hoehner, 752). The
word has a lexical meaning of, ‘bath, washing of baptism’ (BDAG, 603).
(1) Least likely (and held) is the view that this phrase refers to the Spirit’s baptism
(Barth; Dunn, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 163-64). Evidence for this view would
be the preceding words ἐν ῥήµατι. These words would be taken in conjunction
with τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος, thereby communicating the baptism of the Spirit.
(2) The major view is that this phrase refers to the rite, or sacrament, of water
baptism. This baptism is held in connection with the term καθαρίσας (having
20. 20
cleansed) and is understood as the means by which one is cleansed from sin. This
view was held by Calvin and the majority of the Reformers (Hodge, 318).
Evidence for this view is in what is called the ‘unanimity of opinion’ and the
common sense perspective (Hodge, 319). Also, the definite article τῷ is taken as
‘the’ washing, referring to a specific event. It is believed that the Ephesians would
prbably think of their baptismal experience (O’Brien, 422). Furthermore, Acts
22:16 is cited, ‘Arise, be baptized, and wash away thy sins’ (Hodge, 319).
(3) The phrase is a ‘metaphorical expression of redemption with the imagery of the
bridal bath in the first century’ (Hoehner, 753). Evidence for this is found in 1
Corinthians 6:11 where Christ ‘washed,’ sanctified and justified believers. ‘Here,
too, the washing has reference to the cleansing accomplished by Christ and not
the ritual of baptism’ (Hoehner, 753). Further, Hebrews 10:22 states foriveness of
sins to believers where they can then have their hearts sprinkled clean from a pure
conscience (by faith in Christ; Hoehner, 754). Also, the statement (again) is seen
in conjunction with a ceremonial bridal bath seen in relation to Ezekial 16:8-14,
Israel was bathed with water (O’Brien, 422-23).
Syntax
Syntactically the phrase could be taken either way. Syntax would play a role in
determining the meaning of the phrase that follows (i.e. ἐν ῥήµατι), but does not have a
direct play as to the interpretation of our phrase. Syntax does help combat view (1) as is
seen with Abbott’s explanation of the ἐν ῥήµατι connected with τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος
not forming a single notion, it would ‘require the article to be repeated’ (Abbott, 168).
Conclusion
In sum, this author believes τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος is best understood as a metaphor, the
reality found in the working of Christ alone. Baptism cannot be the means by which one
is cleansed from sin as is seen with the ‘thief on the cross’ (Luke 23:32-43). Cleansing
from sin is accomplished by grace through faith in Christ. The phrase is viewed in
conjunction with Ezekial 16 as God cleansed Israel with washing. In the context of this
period, ‘the custom of prenuptial bathing seemed to be praced also among the Greeks’
(Hoehner, 754), yet further evidence for this conclusion.
Appendix 7, Validation 2
τὸ µυστήριον τοῦτο µέγα ἐστίν
Introduction
The issue here addressed is the phrase τὸ µυστήριον τοῦτο µέγα ἐστίν, ‘this mystery is
great.’ This author seeks to briefly state the different views concernin this phrase, and
will end with the decision he feels is most suitable to the text and information at hand.
21. 21
Differing Views
Before this author states the differing views, he seeks to get a brief background
concerning τὸ µυστήριον. The noun has a lexical meaning of, ‘secret or mystery, that is
too profound for human ingenuinty, a unique great mystery, that which transcends normal
understanding’ (BDAG, 662). The specific problem addressed is, ‘the referent (i.e.
content) of the mystery.
(1) The term refers to the ‘sacrament of marriage’ as the human marriage mentioned
in Genesis 2:24. This view is predominently held by Roman Catholics (O’Brien,
430). Evidence for this view lies in the Latin Vulgate, where Jerome translated
this term ‘sacramentum,’ ‘and Catholic dogma holds that the institution of
marriage conveys grace’ (O’Brien, 430). Though this is true, many Catholc
theologians do not interpret the word, in this context, to mean such (Eadie, 432).
Further, Catholics see marriage as a ‘reenactment of the marriage of Christ and
the church’ (Hoehner, 777). However, the Genesis account does not specify that
the marriage is particularly ‘Christian.’ Believer and non-believer both become
one with their partner in their respective marriages (Hoehner, 777).
(2) The term refers to a ‘deeper meaning’ of human marriage as depicted in Genesis
2:24, ‘namely, that it refers to the union of Christ and the church (Hoehner, 777).
However, there is no need to presume that the passage is giving a deeper (hidden)
meaning to the Genesis account, because the context is already speaking to
believers as members of Christ’s body. In other words, Genesis is a human
illustration of the reality of the union with Christ.
(3) The mystery refers to the union of Christ and the church as a type of human
marriage (O’Brien, 432). This view holds that Genesis 2:24 flows through this
entire paragraph and is applied to human marriage. Here, Paul has interpreted Gen
2:24 literally, teaching that this verse shows that husbands and wives are one
flesh. If this author understands the argument of O’Brien correctly, he is saying
that Christ and the church is the type (or metaphor) that relates to Paul’s ‘real
point’ (i.e. husbands and wives). However, this author believes that the inverse is
true as will be shown next.
(4) τὸ µυστήριον refers to the union of Christ and the church (Hoehner, 777). It is
noted that Paul quotes this Gen 2:24 passage in one other place, 1 Cor 6:16. In
this passage he is explaining the rationale for moral behavior, because the
Corinthians were ‘members of Christ’s body’ and were made ‘one spirit’ with him
(6:15, 17). In our passage Paul flows from the spiritual to the physical and returns
to the spiritual (5:30, 1, 2). Hoehner correctly concludes, ‘the mystery is not the
union of believing Jews and Gentiles nor of human marriage, but rather the union
of Christ and the church’ (Hoehner, 778). This is cleared up with the verse that
immediately follows: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ‘but I am
speaking in regard to Christ and the church.
22. 22
Syntax
Shown at the end of (4), syntax suggests that the mystery is that of Christ and the church.
The verse that immediately follows gives the content of the mystery. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω is an
incredibly strong contrast, and shows ‘(Paul) has not continued the discussion of the
physical union of husband and wife’ (Hoehner, 779).
Conclusion
In sum, this author believes τὸ µυστήριον found in Ephesians 5:32 refers to the union of
Christ and the church. The term certainly does not refer to the sacrament of marriage, nor
a ‘deeper’ meaning of Genesis 2:24. Furthermore, it does not refer to Christ and the
church as a type of human marriage. Alas, the term is defined by the author himself, ‘but
I am speaking in regard to Christ and the church’ (Eph 5:32).