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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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: (2א 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 (2א), 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 (2א) 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  

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 (2א) 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.

  15  

The husband and the wife is the physical metaphor that shows the greater reality of Christ and the church.

Appendix 3, Structural Layout 22 αἱ γυναῖκες (Ὑποτασσόµενοι) τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν

ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ,

23 ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς

ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας,

αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώµατος·

24 ἀλλʼ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ,

οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες (ὑποτάσσεται) τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί.

25 Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας,

καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, 26 ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήµατι, 27 ἵνα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,

µὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων,

ἀλλʼ ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄµωµος.

28 οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν [καὶ] οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώµατα. ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ. 29 Οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐµίσησεν

ἀλλʼ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν,

καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, 30 ὅτι µέλη ἐσµὲν τοῦ σώµατος αὐτοῦ.

31 ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος [τὸν] πατέρα καὶ [τὴν] µητέρα

  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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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).