(Submitting to one another in fear of Christ) Wives to one’s own husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is head of the church, himself savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, even in this way wives to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, you are to love the wives, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself on behalf of her, so that he might cleanse her with washing of the water in the word, so that he might present it to himself a glorious church, which does not have stain or wrinkle or anything of such a kind, but yet holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands owe to love their wives as themselves as his own body. The one who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh but brings it to maturity and cherishes it, even as Christ the church, for we are members of his body. Hence this, a man shall leave behind his father and mother, and he shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This is a big mystery, but I am speaking of Christ and the church. In any case each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should fear the husband.

You wives must be subject to your own husbands as you are subject also to the Lord. For the husband is the authority over the wife within the marriage relationship in the same way that Christ is the authority over the Church -- of which He is also the savior. Now as the Church is subject to Christ you wives are to be subject to your husbands in all things.

You husbands are to love your wives; you are to love them in the same way that Christ loved the Church -- He gave Himself up for the Church and died a horrific death. He did this so that He might separate her (Church), cleansing her by washing her with the water in the Spirit, so that He might present her to Himself as a bride without any stains, wrinkles, or blemishes of any kind -- all so that she would be holy and without blame to be presented to Him. The husband is to love his wife as he loves his own body. Husbands, if you love your wife then you love yourself. There is not a sane man alive who ever actually hated his own body. Instead, he takes care of it and feeds it well -- in the same way that Christ takes care of the Church -- because we are the members of His body.

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Now this is a huge mystery, but my point regards the mystery between Christ and the Church. All this being said, a husband must continually love his wife just as he loves himself, and the wife must decide to obey her husband.

Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and wives are to respect their husbands as the leaders of their family. All of this reflects Christ’s love for the church which He gave His life for.

1. Married women are admonished to be obedient to their husbands just as they are to the Lord. The husband is the leader and authority of the marriage in the same way that Christ is the leader and authority of the Church, and as this obedience to Christ is in the Church is followed so ought wives to do the same with their husbands (5:22-24).
1. The husband is to be in authority and leadership over the wife (23a)
2. Christ is the authority and leader over the Church, and He is the Savior of that body (23b).
3. The Church is subject to Christ, and in the same way wives are to be subject to their husbands in all things (24).
2. The Church is made up of individual members making up the body of Christ. He nourishes that body and loves it as His own in the same way that a husband loves his own physical body. This is the way the husband is to love his wife because she is part of that body, and he must be willing to give his life for his wife just as Christ gave His life for the Church (5:25-30).
1. The husband’s love must be demonstrated to the wife the same way Christ demonstrated His love for the church. He must be a spiritual leader, keeping her from the moral pollution of sin and through the teaching of the word -- just as Christ did (25-26).
2. Christ has been presented to the Church as groom to a bride in glorious splendor because of His act of saving grace (27).
1. The Church is devoid of any uncleanness and is suitable for her Husband (27a).
2. The Church is without sin and can be joined to her Husband without hesitation due to her blamelessness (27b).
3. The husband is to love his wife in the same way he loves his own body and is to treat her as he would his own body (28).
1. A man does not hate his own body (29).
2. Christ nourishes and cherishes the Church, and husbands are to do the same with their own bodies which now includes their wives (29b).
4. Each member of the Church of Jesus Christ is a part of His body and by loving ourselves, which includes our wives as part of ourselves, we care for Christ’s body, the Church (30).
3. When a man finds a wife he is to leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife, and in doing so become one with his wife (31-33).
1. This is a very difficult thing to understand, but the issue here is Christ and the Church (32).
2. All men who are married must love their wives just as they love themselves (33a).
3. All women who are married must respect the role of the husband (33b).

The Apostle Paul has now come to a point in his letter to the Ephesians where he gives explicit instructions for husbands and wives. At this point in his writing he has covered the basics for belief in Christ and what that means for Jews and Gentiles alike. Now he is encouraging them to live a life of submission to those who are in authority over them. For slaves, they are to submit to their masters; for children, they are to submit to their parents; for wives, they are to submit to their husbands; and for husbands, they are to submit to Christ -- just as Christ submitted Himself to the Father.

Verse 22 is the first time since 1:3 that Paul begins a paragraph without using a conjunction. It is a verbless command that borrows the participle from verse 21, and the imperative is to be understood (appendix 1a). Wives are addressed here, and the words are parallel to Colossians 3:18. In this verse, verse 21 should be seen as a hinge statement that both summarizes the evidence of Spirit-filling (participle of result) and introduces a parenthesis to the argument of the epistle in 5:22-6:9. The house tables, thus, do not advance the argument per se, but answer an implicit question growing out of 2:11-22. This question regards Jew and Gentile being on equal ground, but the passage at hand does not mean that all social hierarchies are abolished (Wallace, 659).

The wife, in a Christian marriage, is to be in submission to the husband. The word "submit" has brought this passage under much scrutiny throughout the past few decades, but the meaning Paul had in mind in his day, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the same meaning it is to have in the present day. This word is almost always used in reference to authority (appendix 3a) in the NT. Therefore, in this context, Paul is telling wives to submit, or be under the authority of their own husbands because the husband is the "head" of the wife (appendix 4a). They are not to be under authority of all men -- only to their own husbands as evidenced by the Greek word "i)dios" (one’s own). As Mitton has said, "This seems to be assigning a degree of wisdom and authority to the Christian husband beyond anything that is reasonable. But Paul seems to have believed in a kind of hierarchy of authority within the Church: God, Christ, husband, wife. The head of Christ is God, the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is her husband" (199).

In verse 23 Paul uses an explanatory conjunction (o(ti) to explain what he means by wives submitting to husbands. The comparison is made to Christ and the Church. Best (p. 534) has said in reference to who the church is, "As in earlier references to the church in Ephesians it is not individual congregations which are in mind but the whole church; if the former had been the case that might have suggested an approval of polygamy!" The point here is pivotal, and it is explained by Paul using the subordinating/comparative conjunction "w(s" which makes a comparison that cannot be missed. The comparison is to Christ, and just as Christ was under the authority of the Father, so ought wives to be under the authority of their husbands. What this comparison to Christ means is that this admonition was not cultural or temporary any more so than Christ Himself is cultural or temporary. Though both husbands and wives are equal (Galatians 3:28) with regard to salvation, there is still a hierarchy of leadership within the home, and the husband is the head just as Christ is the head of the Church.

Christ is the savior of the Church (appendix 4b). In saying this Paul appears to feel there is something missing from his analogy. The "head" commands the body, and it obeys. But Paul adds the word "sothr" (savior) to supply what is lacking. As Mitton (199-200) has said, "To speak of Christ as head of the body puts the emphasis on the duty of obedience which the body owes to the head. But the fact that Christ as the head commands the obedience of the body, his Church, is not the whole truth about their relationship. The missing truth is that the Church derives her whole life and vitality from the head."

In verse 24 Paul sums up his admonition to women. The conjunction "but" (a)lla) here is best taken as an adversative in that it provides a contrast with the immediately preceding words in verse 23. It provides a link back to the main analogy and adds the force of "notwithstanding the difference" (Lincoln, 372). Verse 24 restates what Paul has said and reinforces his teaching to wives in relation to their husbands as well as Christ and the Church. The word "head" is equivalent to Lord, and the word "savior" is added to make clear that he who commands is also the one who uphold, sustains, and empowers (Mitton, 200).

In verse 25 Paul turns to the husbands and gives them their instructions. His specificity here is unmistakable because he uses a)nhr ("man") instead of a)nqrwpos (man in a generic sense which would include women). This use of "man" is used in various senses throughout the NT, the context always being the key in translation. In this case he is addressing men who are married. Later in 6:4 he addresses "fathers" and in 6:9, "masters." The command for the husbands to love their wives here is not meant to distinguish some of the Ephesian/Asia Minor husbands as opposed to others, but to distinguish the husbands in the church as opposed to the wives or children. They are viewed collectively, as a whole (Wallace, 229). The fact that this contrastive teaching to husbands has no introductory conjunction (asyndeton) shows that the independent clause is implied from the literary context. This is a vivid stylistic feature that occurs often for emphasis, solemnity, or rhetorical value, or when there is an abrupt change of topic (Wallace, 658). Here the change of topic is Paul moving his attention from wives to husbands.

The husband’s instruction should correspond to what the wives have been taught. For the modern day reader who is reading this for the first time, they might expect to read that the husband is to rule over his wife. This is not the case. On the contrary Paul uses the imperative "love your wives..." Furthermore, he uses the word for love (a)gaph) that shows love -- not just feels love. Here love is a verb, and husbands are to love their wives in this way because this is the way in which Christ loved the Church. This is signified by the use of kaqws kai, which makes a comparison between Christ’s love for the Church and the love that husbands are to show their wives. He not only said He loved it, He also died for it. This is a)gaph love. The husband, however, is to exercise his authority with consideration, but there is no reference to the husband’s right to require obedience (Mitton, 200).

In verse 26 Paul uses a purpose clause introduced by i((na ((so that) followed by a subjunctive verb "that he might sanctify." Referring back to verse 25 concerning Christ’s giving of Himself for the church, this verse is pivotal in the sense that it spells out the real purpose of Christ’s death. The Greek phrase which is translated "with the washing of water" (tw/` loutrw/` tou` u{dato) has been generally interpreted as a reference to baptism, since the literal washing of an object by means of water would not be a means of ritual purification in the sense in which the church would be dedicated or consecrated to God. Similarly, in Titus 3:5, loutrovn has generally been regarded as referring to baptism. For Christ to "sanctify" (appendix 3b) the church meant that she was made holy and separate through His death on the cross and His shedding of blood. But Christ’s death has a double effect in that it both sanctifies and cleanses. The Greek word au)thn is emphatic by position, not as if suggesting there was some other body or object which Christ might have cleansed, but as picking up the au)ths in verse 25. An initial act is depicted here in which the church is made holy and cleansed, and the church is now thought of not as wife but as bride at the time of her wedding (Best, 542).

The phrase e)n r(hmati ("in the word") is used in addition to the application of the ceremonial water. The cleansing itself needs also the "word." A similar statement found in 1 Peter 3:21 states that baptism means not only the removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a clear conscience. When the word is used along with water there is a "cleansing," and this moral cleansing includes both forgiveness of past sins and the actual purification of life and conduct for the future (Mitton, 202). This little phrase clearly implies that the spoken word had an important place in the baptismal ceremony (Mitton, 203).

Verse 27, like 26, begins with another purpose clause introduced by i((((na. This clause acts like a consequence of verse 26. This is because it makes the presentation of the bride dependent on her "washing" (Best, 544-45). It goes a step further with the argument instead of repeating it again, but it is indirectly dependent on verse 25. Christ’s giving of Himself out of complete love for the Church has as its further goal His presentation of this Church to himself as his pure bride (Lincoln, 376).

The picture being drawn here by Paul is obviously a wedding ceremony. The groom (Christ) is perfect in every respect, and no one would expect Him to take to Himself a bride that is not one and the same. The bride, therefore, is pictured as "glorious," "without stain," "without wrinkle or any other such thing," "holy," and "blameless." In this way she is fit for her husband (Christ) because she is worthy of Him. This verse is solid in its depiction of what Christians look like to God. Christ made the perfect sacrifice for them, and only after this graceful and merciful act are they worthy to become one with Christ. God chose individual Christians that they may be blameless and holy, and these words are to be applied to the whole Church. Christians are indeed the Church, and Christ’s aim for the Church and Christians is that they shall be completely Christian in outward obedience as well as inward faith (Mitton, 201).

This presentation of Christ to the Church has already taken place and has its effects now, going all the way back to Christ’s death. There is no reason to believe this is a future occurrence (appendix 4c). Going back to verse 25 and keeping in context, this verse is to teach and convict husbands in how they are to love their wives.

In verse 28 Paul begins with an adverb "thus" (ou)tos) where the NIV translates "in the same way." The way being spoken of in which a man should love his wife, signified by (ou)tos kai), refers back to verses 25-27. There is a variant reading in this verse, and it deals with whether or not the kai should even be included in this text. If it is omitted it leaves the connection of verse 28 unresolved (Best, 547). Its inclusion is supported by the earliest of manuscripts (P46), and it parallels verse 24 where the same conclusion, or summary statement, is drawn. Ou)tos has reference to what precedes it rather than simply being taken as part of the sentence’s later comparison in a ou)tos... w(s construction, as in verse 33a where the order of the syntax is, however, different (Lincoln, 378). Christ loved the Church, and the Church is His body. Now the husbands should do the same with their wives. This does not mean that the husband is to love his wife because she is part of his body, rather, he is to love her just like he would love his own body. This bodes well with what Paul says in 25b using the kaqws kai parallel. This also parallels Jesus’ statement that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. The husband’s own love for himself is given as a motive for loving his wife (Mitton, 205).

Verse 29 has the clear implication that no sane person actually hates his own self. The use of gar here, being used as an explanatory conjunction, explains this very notion. The hypothetical situation of someone actually hating his own body is viewed as rubbish in light of the conjunction a)lla which is contrastive. On the contrary, the conjunction says, a man cherishes and nourishes his body. It is in this way that a husband ought to love his wife. The notion of husbands loving their wives as their own bodies reflects the fact that in the Christological model Christ’s love for the Church can also be seen as his love for this body (Lincoln, 378).

In verse 30 the "for" (o(ti) here is functioning epexegetically, that is, is explains in greater detail what verse 29 has set forth. Paul even uses the first person plural form of the verb e)smen ("we are") to denote that he too is part of this body. As Lincoln has said, "The introduction of the first person plural into the discussion may well be intended to underline for the letter’s recipients their own participation in the reality of Christ’s loving care for his body and to emphasize that what has been said in the preceding argument about the Church applies to them, because they are, in fact, members of this privileged community, Christ’s body" (page 380). The writer most likely has Genesis 2 in view here, but he must also be referring to his argument in Ephesians 2:11-22 where Paul gives clear teaching that due to the dividing wall coming down both Gentiles and Jews are now one in Christ Jesus.

In verse 31 Paul quotes from Genesis 2:24 regarding marriage. There is no introductory formula here, and his word usage is different from that of the LXX.. Paul uses a)nti toutou ("for this reason") as opposed to the LXX’s usage e)neken toutou ("for this reason"). This is mostly insignificant, but Paul’s use of a)nti may very well be due to the fact that this word carries with it the implication of purpose, and he quotes Genesis 2:24 in order to show the purpose of all he has said regarding two people becoming one flesh and treating each other as part of their own flesh. The lack of introduction here is most likely due to the fact that the verse itself has its own introductory link. The quotation functions here, with regard to Paul’s argument, as a form of validation. He quotes Hebrew Scripture to make his point, and this bodes well with his claim in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all Scripture is God-breathed." If it is God-breathed then it adds validity to his argument here. Best has stated that, "even though it does not relate directly to the submission of wives or the love of husbands, it would serve to strengthen the marriage bond, laying, because of its immediate context, a greater stress on the duty of the husband; the discussion had, of course, been individualized in verse 30" (page 553).

In verse 32 there a lot of discussion as to what the word "mystery" means. Touto (this) is clearly retrospective referring back to verse 31c. Jerome translated it to mean "sacrament," causing the Catholic church to view marriage as one of the sacraments. There are differing views, but the best way to understand the word here is to associate it with relationship between Christ and His Church. It may be referring to the relationship between a husband and wife, for in a marriage relationship that is truly complete there is a deep richness that transcends mere rational expectations, but Paul is speaking of Christ and the Church as is evident from the verse itself. Therefore, there can be no question of the sacramental interpretation as the original meaning of the text, and it should be discarded. The term is used five other times in Ephesians (1:9; 3:3,4,9; 6:19), and in each usage it refers to the once-hidden purpose of God which has now been revealed in Christ. Lincoln (381) believes that it is likely in 5:32 that the term has the same Christ-event in view, highlighting the aspect of it which has been central in this passage, namely, the intimate union between Christ and his Church. Both the OT passage and the marriage relationship of which it speaks are connected with the mystery, but their connection is that they point to the secret that has now been revealed, that of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The "mystery" therefore, is not any deeper meaning of an OT text but precisely this meaning of Christ and the Church posited by this writer. Similarly, the mystery is not any marriage or marriage itself, but the special marriage relationship of Christ and the Church.

The preposition ei)s, which is usually translated "to" or "toward" is here translated "about." The clear meaning of it here is "in reference to" because it has a purpose in mind, and the real purpose of Gen. 2:24 relates to the Christ-Church relationship and not the human (Best, 554).

In verse 33 Paul begins with the coordinating conjunction plhn ("now," "in any case") in order to bring his audience back to the main point of his sermon, namely, marriage. This conjunction can be used as an adversative ("but") or, as here, to be used to round off a discussion and accentuate its main point (Lincoln, 384). Paul is returning to the practical advice for husbands and wives and uses this conjunction to turn the discussion back in that direction. He is reminding the audience of the high position of marriage in light of the relationship between Christ and the Church. As Paul concludes he addresses the husbands first this time and uses the third person imperative "let each one of you so love his wife." This is an emphatic inclusion of every husband to love their wives according to the love he has spelled out over the past ten verses.

In verse 33b the Greek conjunction de is connective because it is connecting an additional thought to the summary statement given by Paul in this verse. The i((((na clause introduces a subjunctive verb, but carries the force of a command, thus, it is imperatival. Although structurally this looks to be a subordinate use of the subjunctive, it occurs in clauses where the subjunctive is the main verb. Thus, this usage could just as easily be treated under independent use of the subjunctive (Wallace, 477). There is a parallel in this passage with the imperative a)gapatw in the first half of the verse, and it shows the independent force of the i((na clause. The wife is told she must fobhtai ("fear") her husband. This word being in the imperative mood and being in the third person is normally translated, "Let him do..." This is not to be confused with the English which is more of a permissive idea. Its force is more akin to "he must," however, or periphrastically, "I command him to." According to Wallace (486) there are a number of passages that could easily be misunderstood as mere permission in English translations. The Greek is stronger than a mere option given to the person being addressed. Rather, it is more of a command which places a requirement on the individual. Therefore, in the case of 33b, the wives are commanded to "fear" their husbands. This word, as it is used throughout the NT, must be studied in light of its given context. Here the context calls for obedience and respect to the husband because the context is all about what Christ did for the Church on account of His love for her. Husbands are to model this love, and because they are to look to Christ as their head the wife must be in obedience to her husband and respect him for that. For a more adequate discussion on this word see appendix 3c.

In conclusion, Paul is speaking to both men and women about the marriage relationship. What he manages to do along the way is to show how marriage is tied into Christ’s relationship with the Church and his love for her. Paul expects no less from men and women who are married in how they conduct their lives within the marriage relationship. He devotes 8 1/2 verses to husbands and only 3 1/2 to the wives. From this and from his specific admonitions it is evident that the men have the greater responsibility within this union. Having said that, it is also evident that if one partner strays from this model then the whole thing falls apart. Women in submission to men is not only good for the woman, it is glorifying to God. Men treating their wives in such a way as to promote this submission is given clear guidelines from the text itself. Submission is a choice, and when both partners choose to submit to their head under the power of the Holy Spirit, then the relationship works, but if one opts out of Paul’s charge then there is no Christian harmony within that relationship. We are to submit one to another, and though we are equal in the sight of God, there is harmony within the Christian hierarchy of marriage.

There is a textual Problem in Ephesians 5:22. The text in the UBSGNT4 reads, "Ai( gunaike$ toi$ i)di/oi$ a)ndra/sin w($ tw=| kuri/w|," ("the wives to one’s own husband as to the Lord"). The problem here is the absence of the main verb, or in this case a participle, u(potasso/menoi (submitting) which is carried over from verse 21.

The witnesses for the shorter reading (in which the verb "submit" is only implied) are minimal (P46, B, Clement^1/2 Origen, Jerome^mss Theodore), but significant and early (2nd to 4th century). The rest of the witnesses add one of two verb forms as required by the sense of the passage (picking up the verb from v. 21). The earliest of these witnesses have uJpotassevsqwsan (Aleph, A, I, P -- 4th to 9th centuries), the third person imperative, while later witnesses read ((((((upotassesqe), the second person imperative (D, F, G). The geographical distribution is inconclusive because all three readings are restricted to their given area, and there is no widespread distribution of mss. The same holds true for genealogical solidarity, which is to say that each of the three readings stays within its own text-type with the exception of Aleph and B which disagree with each other but of the same text-type. Overall, the internal evidence is inconclusive in deciding which reading is best, but the reading that seems the safest is the early reading which omits the verb. The degree of certainty here is C.

The likelihood of an unintentional error here is unlikely. There does not seem to be any reason why a scribe would made an unintentional mistake given the circumstances surrounding a verse without a verb. On the other hand, an intentional error seems likely. If the verse was originally written without a main verb then it follows that a scribe might attempt to clarify the text by adding the implied verb from the previous verse (21). The NET Bible says, "The text virtually begs for one of these two verb forms, but Paul’s often cryptic style argues for the shorter reading. The chronology of development seems to have been: no verb—third person imperative—second person imperative. It is not insignificant that early lectionaries began a new day’s reading with v. 22; these most likely caused copyists to add the verb at this juncture." Given this, the rating for the internal evidence is a B.

In conclusion, I would choose the shorter reading found in the UBSGNT4. Based on the external evidence and its early mss without the verb and the internal evidence with the added verb needed for clarification, it seems reasonable to choose the shorter and more difficult reading. This rating receives a B based on both internal and external evidences. The significance of this choice is basically minimal due to the fact that all mss include the same verb, albeit in different tenses, but none of the choices, if taken by themselves, would seem to affect the message given by Paul.

There is a textual problem in Ephesians 5:30. The UBSGNT4 says, "o%ti me/lh e)sme\n tou= sw/mato$ au)tou= ("because we are members of his body"), but there are some mss that add a longer reading based on Genesis 2:23 which says, "ejk th'" sarkoV" aujtou' kaiV ejk tw'n ojstevwn aujtou' (ek th" sarko" autou kai ek twn ostewn autou, "of his body and of his bones").

Most Western witnesses (D, F, G -- 6th - 9th centuries), as well as the majority of Byzantine witnesses (9th - 16th centuries), include the longer version. This is a slightly modified quotation from Gen 2:23a in the LXX. The Alexandrian text, which dates back to the 2nd through to the fourteenth century, is solidly behind the shorter reading (P46, Aleph, A, B, 33, 81, 1739, 1881). As for geographical distribution both readings stay within their given text-type areas and do not help with regard to any conclusive evidence. The same holds true for the genealogical solidarity. Neither reading is found within the other’s area of influence. An overall decision based upon the internal evidence is difficult, but the shorter reading is to be preferred. This receives a C rating.

It is quite possible that an accidental omission may have occurred due to homeoteleuton (an early scribe’s eye skipped over the final aujtou). It is more probable, however, that the longer readings reflect a scribe’s decision to clarify the passage using an expanded sentence based on Genesis 2:23. This decision by a scribe might have occurred in order to fill out and make explicit Paul’s incomplete reference to Gen 2:23. And as the NET Bible says, "...on intrinsic grounds, it seems unlikely that Paul would refer to the physical nature of creation when speaking of the ‘body of Christ’ which is spiritual or mystical. Hence, as is often the case with OT quotations, the scribal clarification missed the point Paul was making." Given this, it appears as if the shorter reading is the original, and this decision receives a B rating.

In conclusion, it appears that a decision for the final text must consider the fact that the earliest and most reliable mss do not contain the longer reading. Further, the shorter and more difficult reading also reflects Paul’s point more succinctly, and the addition appears to be a scribal clarification practice. Overall, the shorter reading is preferred and receives a B rating.

In Ephesians 5:24 Paul tells wives that as the church submits to Christ so ought wives to submit to their husbands in everything. The word Paul uses for submit is u(potassetai. This verb is one of the main verbs of the entire passage (5:22-33), so understanding its meaning is pivotal to grasping what Paul is saying. English translations render the word "subject," "submit," and even "obey." The word has brought about many an argument and much confusion in today’s church.

According to BAGD, in the first century this word was used in an active sense to mean "subject" or "subordinate." Passively it means to be subject to a person or state of being. Josephus uses the word as to "subject oneself," "be subjected" or "subordinated" to, or to "obey." Josephus also uses the word of literary compositions or documents to attach or append. Philo uses the word in the future middle/passive meaning to subordinate or subject.

In the 19 times this word is used outside of Pauline authorship it always means obedience and subjection. This obedience is to government authorities, slaves to masters, wives to husbands, young men to older men, and all to God. It is also used of Christ and how creation, and all of creation is subject to him. These uses are consistent with the extrabiblical uses of the word and further validate that usage.

Paul uses the word 28 times in his writings. He uses it in a variety of ways, but in each use it has the connotation of obedience. It is used in relation to being obedient to rulers and authorities, slaves to masters, wives to husbands, everything under the sun to Christ, people subject to people, Christ as the "submitee" of all things, submitting to other Christians, Christ as subject to God, the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets, submitting to God’s righteousness, and the creation as being subject to frustration.

In Eph. 5:24 it seems clear that Paul is using the word in relation to being obedient. Here it is wives being obedient to husbands just as the Church is obedient to Christ. This is consistent with the way Paul uses the term in his other writings as well as the way other NT writers used the term. The best definition then for u(potassw is obedience. In each instance where this word is used in the NT obedience is what is at stake.

In light of the way this word is used in extrabiblical writings and throughout the NT it seems logical to conclude that this word generally means to be obedient or to be in subjection to certain people whom God has ordained to be subject to. The context of this entire passage (5:22-33) fits with this definition, and much of Scripture, I dare say, depends on this definition of obedience.

In Ephesians 5:26 Paul is telling husbands to love their wives. He tells them how Christ loved the church, and he tells how He "sanctified" the church through the washing of water by the word. The word "sanctified" is aJgiavsh/ here, and it is used as an aorist subjunctive. The root word of aJgiavsh/ is aJgiavs, which means holy. Knowing the meaning of this word is essential to understanding what Christ did for the church and what Paul is admonishing Christian husbands to do with regard to their wives. It is translated "that he might sanctify" in most translations with the exception of the NIV which says, "to make her holy."

According to BAGD the term is rare in extrabiblical usage. Philo uses it as to make holy, consecrate, sanctify (LXX; Philo, Leg. All. 1, 18, Spec. Leg. 1, 67). According to TDNT Philo adopts the cultic usage of the OT but allegorizes it. In so doing he relates holiness to alien philosophical concepts, e.g., when he calls heaven (the macrocosm), or the mind (the microcosm), or the soul "holy" (largely in the sense of "lofty"). Josephus uses the term sparingly (e.g., in describing the cultus), applying it most often to the temple (also the land). He adopts this course out of consideration for readers to whom hagios etc. must have sounded strange.

The term is used 28 times in the NT, nine times by Paul. In Matthew it is used to speak of God’s holiness (6:9) and the sacredness of gold and gifts offered to God in the temple (23:17,19). In Luke 11:2 the term is used for God, and in John it is used in reference to Christ’s sanctification as well as the sanctification of His holy apostles. In Acts the term is used as a designation for Christians who are separated from those who are not Christians. In Hebrews the term is clearly used as a term of separation from "unclean" and the "unholy." First Peter 3:15 uses the term to admonish the audience to separate Christ as Lord in their hearts. Finally, in Revelation 22:11, holiness is depicted as a godly trait in which those who practice such should continue to do so. Overall, the term is properly rendered as "sanctify" because it means to "set apart."

Paul uses the word nine times in his writings. He uses the word in a very diverse way in the sense of what sanctifies a person. In one instance it is God, another it is Christ, and in another it is the Holy Spirit. Concerning unbelieving spouses Paul uses the word to denote the unbeliever when he/she stays with the believing spouse. He even uses it to describe one who keeps himself clean and makes himself available to be used by God for noble purposes. In this instance (2 Tim. 2:21) being sanctified is done through man’s choice, though the implication is that the Holy Spirit causes him to do so. In sum, Paul uses the word to describe a "separateness" from unholiness. Whether influenced by one or more members of the Trinity he uses it to signify one who is separate.

Paul uses the word here in the same way he uses it elsewhere, but he makes the instrument by which one is made "holy" different from the other instances where he uses it. Here the church is made holy, by the washing with water through the Word. The "Word" refers to the preached word that unbelievers hear, and it is this that "santifies" the church. In the context it is the way husbands ought to love their wives -- by giving themselves up for her the same way Christ did for the church. So, here the word means the same as in all the other instances of its use, but it is the means by which one is sanctified that is different.

In conclusion, aJgiavsh means holiness and to be sanctified: the Holiness of God as His innermost nature, of Jesus Christ sanctified by God and dispensing anointing with the Spirit, of the Holy Spirit, of the church where Christian fellowship is holy as a temple of the Spirit centered on Christ as the holy servant, of the Holy Life of Christians who offer themselves as holy sacrifices (Rom. 12:1), and of the Ecclesia triumphans, which are the holy angels who belong to the church triumphant (Mk. 8:38 etc.); they will return with Christ. This term is mostly a biblical term and means "to consecrate" or "to sanctify." God is asked to sanctify his name (Mt. 6:9). Jesus sanctifies himself (Jn. 17:19) and his church (Eph. 5:26)—a divine work. The Father sanctifies Christ (Jn. 10:36; cf. 17:19) with a view to sanctifying the disciples (17:19). The latter takes place through Christ’s reconciling work (Heb. 2:11; 10:10). For Paul we are thus "the sanctified" (1 Cor. 1:2), and this is a state (1 Cor. 6:11). The sanctified have an inheritance (Acts 20:32). They are to sanctify Christ in their hearts (1 Pet. 3:15), being holy in conduct as Christ makes them holy by indwelling them (1:16).

In Ephesians 5:33 Paul tells wives that they must "respect" their husbands in his concluding statement regarding husbands and wives. Paul uses the word fobh`tai, which is in the subjunctive mood. An expression of command is implicit in this passage, and therefore one may interpret this clause with i{na as being a matter of content. Knowing exactly what Paul is saying here is pivotal to the entire meaning of the passage, and it gives greater insight into the verb in verse 21 (implied in v. 22). Wives and husbands in relation to Christ and the church is the message here, but without a proper understanding of fobh`tai the message is unclear, for this sums up what Paul has been saying all along.

In BAGD, the word means to be afraid or to become frightened in a literal sense. Many writers outside of the NT also use the word in a sense of respect or reverence. Philo and Josephus use the word in this manner according to BAGD. According to the NIDNTT this word is sometimes used to denote a fear of the gods, holy awe. In general, however, a reverence for deity is reflected in another word. In the LXX it is used with reference to someone who is to be feared.

Objects in the NT which bring fear are angels, end-time catastrophes, death, rulers, and the Jews. NIDNTT says that fear, or reverence, is to be shown to masters and those outside the church. The word may be used in a transitive sense with a person or thing as its object (the king’s edict in Hebrews 11:23). In such cases the object of fear is some power behind the immediate object. To fear God is the motive and manner of Christian conduct. There is a fear that overtakes a person when they encounter God or an angelic messenger, but there are numerous accounts in the imperative which say, "Fear not!" Overall, the NT sense of "fear" is to be taken as a literal fear and as an attitude of respect or reverence for one’s position or rank of authority.

Paul uses the word ten times in his epistles (and if Hebrews is to be attributed to him he uses it 17 times). Paul uses it in the sense of humbleness as opposite of being proud (Rom. 11:20), fear due to being guilty of disobedience (Rom. 13:3,4), concern (2 Cor. 11:3; 12:20; Gal. 4:11), fear of condemnation (Gal. 2:12), and reverence for Christ (Col. 3:22). Overall, Paul uses the word in a vast array of ways. Using it both literally and figuratively, Paul shows how diverse this word really is.

Paul appears to be using fobh`tai here as synonyous with the word for submit (upotasso/menoi). In doing so he sums up his message for husbands and wives, and given the location of this word and phrase at the end of his thought pattern, it is best taken in conjuntion with the main verb of verse 22. The woman is not to fear her husband in the sense that she is afraid of him, rather, she is to respect his authority over her just as a military enlisted man respects his superior officer. The husband does not appear to "out-rank" his wife in order of importance, but he does exercise greater authority over her, and the wife must respect this God-given responsibility.

To sum up, fobh`tai is a diverse word. Only in its given context can one decide exactly what the proper meaning is. There is no Scripture where it is used that the context is not completely clear regarding its usage. It should be translated according to the context of the passage being studied. Here, the clear implicatioin is in the context of obedience and respect.

In Ephesians 5:23 Paul tells the Ephesians that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The Greek word for "head" is kefalh. This word can mean different things, and the question surrounding this word is whether or not it should be taken literally or figuratively. In a literal sense it means "head," but in a figurative sense it can mean source/origin. The issue here is headship, and the problem is lexical. Dealing with this problem and deciding on which meaning Paul originally had in mind will be done by means of studying the word as it is used in its context and in comparing it with other uses of the word in Scripture. Once a conclusion has been drawn there is an immediate theological issue at hand that affects all Christian families.

Solutions to this age-old debate of the husband being in authority over the wife generally involve non-exegetical methods. Some, like Kroeger, have suggested that the "head" is actually the "source" or "origin" and not the authority. Using questionable writings of the Classical Greek period she believes that to use the word in the sense of having "authority over" would have been unclear to anyone living in the first century. This is supposedly the last word on the issue within the feminist movement. Grudem (425 - 68) and most other NT exegetes conclude that there are no clear examples anywhere in all of Greek literature where kefalh is used of a person and denoting them as a "source." Ephesians 1:22 and 4:15 clearly speaks of Christ being in authority over all things and in whom we must "grow up" under, and kefalh is the word used to designate this authority. Colossians 1:18 speaks of Christ as the authority over the church using "head" to designate such, but in saying He is the "beginning" or source, a different Greek word is used (a)rxh). Furthermore, Col. 2:10 speaks of Christ as the "head" of all rule and authority. The clincher for headship as "authority" is found in 1 Cor. 11:3 which gives a clear heirarchy of authority, namely, God is head of Christ, Christ head of man, and man head of the wife. Headship then is clearly, as it is found in the NT, a sign of authority/leadership and not as source/origin, especially in these biblical contexts.

The views presented are obviously at opposite ends of the spectrum. The normal science of interpretation can confidently conclude that "head" is being used in Eph. 5:23 as authority/leadership. A more modern and liberal method of interpretation, and dishonest I might add, would settle for an inferior interpretation making man the "source" or "origin" of woman. Though this is true with regard to Eve coming out of Adam in the Genesis account of creation, it is certainly not what Paul is speaking of here. Creation never enters the discussion in this context, but authority in light of submission permeates throughout the context. The source/origin interpretation is to be rejected in view of its inconsistency with the context at hand and with other Scripture.

The most compelling argument for the husband being the authority and leader of the wife is the context of the passage. Paul is clearly setting up a heirarchy as evidenced by the main verb uJpotavssw (submit). It is also clear that authority and leadership is what Paul is speaking about from the message found elsewhere in the Bible. The fact that nowhere in Greek literature can it be shown that a man is a source or origin is also a compelling argument in favor of man being in authority over his wife.

There is a difficulty with the interpretation of the second part of verse 23. The verse literally reads, "And is himself the Savior of the body." The word for himself in Greek is au)tos, and the question concerning this clause is to whom does it refer? Is it only to Christ and the church, or by analogy, to the husband and wife also? In addition to this, the word for "savior" (swthr) must also be defined in light of the context in order to fully grasp the issue Paul is making. The problem to be dealt with here is mainly syntactical and lexical, but when those two problems are solved there also becomes a theological issue as well. In light of this, our approach will be to solve the syntax and the word meanings within their given context, and then decide on the theological issue.

Robinson (124) and Foerster (TDNT 7;1016) take the latter part of verse 23 to mean, in addition to a reference to the relationship between Christ and the Church, as also part of the analogy with the husband and wife, so that the husband is even to be understood as in some sense the savior of his wife as Christ is Savior of the body. This interpretation is generally concerned with the lexical issue of "savior." The word can have a more general meaning in the sense of "protector" or "provider," and this more general sense could include connotations of rule, which would also suit the main point of this part of the analogy. Going further, the wife is in fact seen as part of the husband’s body and is explicitly paralleled to Christ’s relationship to His body, the Church in verses 28-30. Abbott (166) and Barth (614-17), on the other hand, believe that the latter part of verse 23 refers solely to the relationship between Christ and the Church. The syntax of the verse is greatly in favor of this view. As Lincoln has said, "The place and force of au)tos, ‘himself,’ in this additional statement indicate that Christ is the focus of attention and that the writer did not intend this description to serve also as a model for the husband’s role in marriage. The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the adversative a)lla ‘but,’ precedes the reintroduction of the analogy between the Church’s relationship to Christ and the wife’s relationship to her husband in the next sentence and by the specifically redemptive connotations that adhere to the notion of salvation earlier in the letter in 1:13; 2:5,8; and later in 6:17" (p. 370).

The two view presented both make a good case. The former view, though well thought out and consistent with other passages of Scripture, is to be rejected. Paul would most likely accept this view as it is not inconsistent with some of his other writings (cf. 1 Cor. 7:16), but it does not seem to be the point he is making here. The syntax of verse, by and large, explains this view away. The latter view takes into consideration the context of the passage, namely, the more specific meaning of "savior," and it bodes well with the syntax.

In my opinion 5:23a is simply saying that Christ is the Savior of the Church, which is the body of believers. This is epexegetical in relation to Christ being the head of the Church -- it simply gives greater insight into who and what Christ is. The weakness of this view is that since it is a comparison with man being the head of his wife it does not make the same conclusion that man is also the savior of his wife. But this does not take into account the fact that man did not actually "save" his wife -- Christ did. When "savior" describes Christ is means that He died for the body of believers, but "savior" to husband can only imply protection and provisions. Only Christ can "save," and the context in this passage proves that.

Ephesians 5:27 reads, "in order that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but rather that she might be holy and blameless." The question surrounding this verse is when does this presentation take place? Is it present day, future, or can it be both? The issue here appears to be theological, and the best way to deal with theological issues is to remain faithful to the given context and to compare Scripture with Scripture.

Meyer (297), Hendriksen (252-53), and Barth (628, 669, 678) believe there are grounds here, based on the wording, that Christ’s presentation of his pure bride to himself awaits his second coming (parousia). Muirhead (SJT 5 [1952] 184) claims, "It is only in the End that the Church becomes the Bride... We cannot correctly speak of the Church being now the Bride; rather is it what she shall be." The problem here is that Ephesians 1:4 tells us that we (the Church) were chosen before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless. If we are already chosen to be holy and blameless, and if we go back to verse 3 where we see we have already been blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, then waiting for the parousia would make no sense. Either we are holy and blameless now or we are not. If we’re not now then it must be by our works that we become so, and this is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. Furthermore, Colossians 1:22 states that Christ’s action of reconciling God and man has already been done, as evidenced by the aorist verb ajpokathvllaxen, and this action was done "in his body of flesh by his death." Lincoln (377) has holds that this presentation is present. He states, "Here, in line with [Paul’s] more realized eschatology, glory and holiness are seen as present attributes of the Church, and Christ’s activity of endowing the Church with these qualities is a present and continuing one." He uses Eph. 1:4 to say that holiness, blamelessness, and love are present aspects of the Christian existence.

The views presented are scholarly and well intentioned. The former view may be true is some sense, but it is weak in that it fails to take into account what the Bible says regarding the present state of the Christian. This view even fails to note what the rest of Ephesians says about the Church’s present holiness and blamelessness. It seems to have in view human works because Christ’s death has not made us clean and without blemish. The latter view is strong in that it takes the present context, namely verse 26, and says that the Church is already cleansed and presented to Christ. It also takes the rest of Scripture into consideration and interprets the passage in light of that. If there are weaknesses with this view they too are weak because this interpretation is considerably more reasonable and more consistent with the rest of Scripture.

My view is that Christ has already cleansed the Church and made her holy and blameless, and because he has already done this, as evidenced by the aorist participle in verse 26, his presentation of the Church to himself is present day. Colossians 1:22 and Ephesians 1:4 also make it quite clear that Christ’s redeeming work is finished, and there is no reason to believe that the presentation awaits the parousia. As Lincoln (377) has said, "In this way, the perspective on the Church is similar to Eph. 4:1-16, where the Church is already the fullness of Christ and already one, yet is also to grow into completeness and unity."

Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.

Best, Ernest. A Critical Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T. Clark, 1998

Lincoln, A. Ephesians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990.

Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.

Mitton, L. Ephesians. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

Wallace, D. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1996.