What motivates the author to move from general admonitions on moral life and corporate worship to specific instructions regarding household relationships? Beare suggests that the arrangement of material follows the conventional pattern of Hellenistic philosophical literature, which concluded its doctrinal exposition with a brief presentation of the social code (p. 716). Another author places the code, particularly this section on husbands and wives, within the context of the ethical instructions that preceded it: “What,” he asks, “was more necessary than to counter immorality with a true doctrine of man and wife?” (Houlden, p. 331).
A third suggestion comes from J. A. Robinson, who sees the code related structurally to the preceding instructions on worship (5:18–20). The church is not a fanatical and disorganized Spirit-filled community; rather, it is regulated by order and the principle of subjection of one member to another (p. 123).
A fourth theory explains the arrangement in Ephesians on the basis of Colossians, which, according to a number of commentators, the author was using as a model. Colossians, likewise, has a section on instruction and worship (3:16–17) before it moves on to discuss “Personal Relations in the New Life.” The differences between the Colossian and Ephesian codes can be accounted for by the specific purpose they have in each epistle.
Finally, there is the principle of submission in 5:21. This statement relates to mutuality within the church but also forms a transition to the section on the household code. Thus, the author states a general principle; now he provides specific examples of how it is to be applied in relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, and masters and slaves.
Beyond these observations, one must rightfully question the purpose for the lengthy exposition on the relationship between husband and wife in this epistle (Ephesians has eleven verses, whereas Colossians has two). Is it the writer’s primary intention to (a) offer domestic guidance regarding the husband-wife relationship (as is the case in 6:1–9 with child-parent and master-slave)? (b) Or is he using the example of husband and wife for an ecclesiological purpose, that is, to portray the nature of the relationship between Christ and the church? (c) Or is he using Christ’s relationship to the church as a prototype for an ideal Christian marriage?
It appears that the author’s primary intention is to emphasize the quality of relationship that should exist between husband and wife. In order to do this properly, and thus bring out the deepest implications of marriage, he resorts to the analogy of Christ and the church. And what could be a more fitting analogy! As Christ is head over the church, the husband is the head of his wife (5:23); as the church submits itself to Christ, wives submit themselves to their husbands (5:24); husbands are to love their wives with the same sacrificial love as Christ, who feeds and takes care of the church, his body (5:25, 29). The Lordship of Christ and his relation to the church epitomize the ideal union between husband and wife.
But though this appears to be the author’s main purpose, the analogy works in the opposite direction as well. Throughout the epistle he has been expounding on the nature of the church and how Christ, the Head, is related to his body, the church. Marriage gives him an illustration—albeit imperfect—of how his readers can understand his ecclesiology. Thus, the church is under Christ’s authority just as the wife is under the authority of her husband (5:23); Christ loves and cares for the church in the same way that a husband ought to love his wife (5:28). The analogy has both a domestic and an ecclesiological function.
Barth, although he agrees with these two foci of this section, does not think that either is foremost in the author’s mind. Marriage, along with the other problems raised in Ephesians (e.g., sin, death, ethnic divisions, institutions), comes under the power and riches of God’s grace. “The intention of Paul is to show that ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’ gives husband and wife the basis, the strength, and the example which they need in order to live in that ‘peace to [or by] which God has called’ them (1 Cor. 7:15). The ‘peace’ between God and man, Jews and Gentiles, of which Paul spoke in Eph. 2:14–16 shall be extended into every house and praised by the conduct of husband and wife” (Eph. 4–6, p. 655).
The subjects of husband-wife relationships, the equality of women, and the role of women in the church continue to be debated and controversial issues today. With respect to Ephesians, several things must be noted: First, the author is talking about husband-wife relationships, not male-female differences and the equality, rights, roles, and so on of women. Some of those issues are dealt with in other epistles, such as 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Second, the relationship between husband and wife is not modified or qualified by arguments used elsewhere in Scripture, such as the order and glory of creation (1 Cor. 11:3–16) or the sin of Eve (1 Tim. 2:9–15). Neither is submission demonstrated by outward things such as women covering their heads in public worship (1 Cor. 11:3–16) or remaining silent in the presence of men during worship (1 Cor. 14:33–38). The submission taught in Ephesians is a mutual subordination between husband and wife that is based on the prototype of Christ and his church; Christ is the example who determines the qualities of headship and submission. Third, the teaching with respect to husband and wife—as well as the other categories in the code—must be seen within the larger context of the position of women and marriage in the first century (cf. disc. in chap. 18 on Colossians; Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 655–62).
The need for order lies behind all the instruction that encompasses the domestic code. The authors of the NT did not want Christianity to be misunderstood by society or to have new Christians feel that their freedom in Christ meant the abolition of current standards regulating domestic life. But in Ephesians the motive goes beyond “good order.” The household rules illustrate the principle of subordination that is essential to the unity and harmony within the body of Christ. The church becomes a pattern for all social order.
5:22–24 Colossians exhorts wives to be submissive (hypotassō) to their husbands because it is the proper thing for Christians to do (3:18). Submission is required on the basis of the socially acceptable norms of the day. In Ephesians, wives are called to submission for a different reason, namely, the divine order to creation that appears to be at the heart of the entire passage. This principle of “creationism” is assumed rather than explicitly stated, as it is, for example, in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“the head [kephalē] of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”).
The husband is the head of the wife. What is significant in Ephesians is that the so-called hierarchical order of creation is qualified profoundly: First, the submission of the wife to her husband is exercised within the wider principle of mutual subordination. Members within the body of Christ are to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). This, however, does not abolish the concept of authority: “The principle of mutual subordination is not applied so as to destroy the complementary principle of authority, without which there can be no ordered social life among men” (Beare, p. 717). Second, the motive for submission is placed within the context of the wife’s relationship to the Lord—wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. Those who submit must do so as if they were submitting to Christ.
Third, submission is regulated by the divine pattern of Christ’s relationship to the church. Those to whom submission is given likewise must find the pattern of their obedience and conduct in Christ. Hence the reciprocal exhortations: wives, submit as to the Lord … “just as Christ loved the church” (5:25).
From these principles it becomes obvious that a husband’s authority is regulated by Christ’s example and the principle of love. Authoritarianism, self-assertion, and self-centeredness have no place in a marriage based on these principles. Submission is not “obedience,” for the word “obey” (hypakouō) is used only for children and slaves (6:1, 5). When a husband relates to his wife out of love (agapē), there will be no problems with respect to submission or obedience.
The author is aware of the limits of his analogy, because no human, fallible husband can even approximate the extent and quality of love that Christ has for the church. This seems to be the case when he states that Christ is head of … his body, of which he is the Savior (5:23). Only Christ can be considered the savior of the body because of his work for and relationship to it. Nevertheless, “The sacrificial concern of the Lord for the salvation of the Church should have a parallel, even if at a much lower level, in the loving and sacrificial concern of the husband for the welfare of his wife” (Foulkes, p. 156).
5:25 Lest husbands come to believe that Ephesians 5:21–33 is a document legitimizing their authority to restrict the freedom of their wives, it should be noted that the admonition for husbands to love their wives puts a greater responsibility on them. Agapē means to subordinate one’s own interests, pleasures, and personality for the benefit of someone else. In fact, Christ’s love, which the husband is to model, was completely sacrificial—Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. The church is considered as the sum total of persons for whom Christ died (Rom. 4:25; 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20). Loved (past tense) refers to some definite action in the past, such as the cross.
5:26 The sense of the corporate nature of the church is carried over into the two verses describing the washing of the church and its subsequent results. At first glance, 5:26, 27 appear as an interpolation, because the thoughts of 5:25 and 5:28 join so nicely together. Yet, there is no textual evidence that these verses are of questionable origin; nor is there any suggestion that they do not fit into the context of the writer’s discussion on Christ and the church. It appears that the mention of Christ’s death for the church (5:25) triggered thoughts the author had about baptism. Perhaps he was thinking of Jesus’ death as a baptism in which his followers are to share (Mark 10:38, 39). Christian baptism is a baptism into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11, 12, 20).
Beyond the relationship between Christ’s death and baptism, another analogy appears to be at work, namely, the nuptial or ceremonial bath that a bride took before marriage. In the cultures of that day it was customary for a bride to take this bath before the marriage day. Following the bath, the bride, clad in her lovely garments, would present herself before the bridegroom. Does the author conceive of baptism as a bridal bath that sanctifies the church? Does Paul have this imagery in mind when he writes to the Corinthians, “I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him,” (2 Cor. 11:2)? On the basis of context, it seems more probable that when the author speaks of Christ giving himself up for the church (5:25), he thinks of baptism as the rite that symbolizes this death and by which the church is made clean by the washing in water.
There are a number of reasons why the thoughts in verse 26 are associated with baptism: First, there is the imagery of washing and cleansing (cleansing her by the washing with water). The cleansing of the church, which here is viewed collectively or corporately, took place when its individual members were baptized. The readers would have been aware of the baptismal teaching in the early church that conceived of baptism as a moral washing (John 13:10; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:20, 21).
Second is the relationship between baptism and the word (lit., “the washing of water by/in the word”). Baptism, in the context of the NT, was accompanied by a spoken word. Here it could mean either (a) some kind of gospel utterance; (b) a confession from the candidate in which he or she expresses faith in the Lord; (c) some prebaptismal words of instruction; or (d) a baptismal formula, such as baptism into the name of Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11) or into the names of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19). In spite of all these possibilities, it would be safe to conclude that word refers to a confession or formula that accompanied baptism.
The new, or perhaps unusual, idea of Ephesians at this point is that the entire church receives this bath. This idea of a corporate baptism may have originated in the preceding discussion on the unifying elements of the Christian church (4:4–6) in which, among other things, the writer mentions the one body (4:4) and the one baptism (4:5). Although baptism ordinarily is received by the believer, its application to the whole church is justified on the basis of the church’s corporate and unified nature.
5:27 The reason or the ultimate purpose behind the baptism of the church is now stated: to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. This is where the analogy of the bride and the bridal bath—if it is implied—breaks down. In a marriage the bride presents herself to the bridegroom; it would be inappropriate for the bridegroom to present the bride to himself (Mitton, p. 201). Here Christ takes the initiative by cleansing the bride (church) through baptism and presenting it to himself “free from all disfigurements or deformities” (Mitton, p. 204; Mitton also draws attention to the parallel between individual and corporate holiness in 1:4 and 5:27). The husband is to love his wife “not just because of the beauty he finds in her, but to make her more beautiful. Christ sees the Church in all her weaknesses and failures, and yet loves her as His body and seeks her true sanctification” (Foulkes, p. 160).
Baptism has a three-dimensional focus: It is a past event grounded in the redemptive work of Christ (“he gave himself up for her,” i.e., the church); it continues to be a present reality by which individuals are baptized into the body of Christ and by which they are cleansed. Moreover, it has an ethical and eschatological function (in order to present). Sanctification and cleansing lead to the church’s ultimate glorification and splendor.
5:28 Even though husbands cannot love their wives in the same way that Christ demonstrated his love for the church, the divine model is still in the author’s mind: Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. It appears that the husband, based on the principle that in marriage the two will become one (5:31), should regard his wife as his own body. He will, therefore, love his wife just as he loves his own body. Union and intimacy of this kind seem to agree with the phrase, he who loves his wife loves himself. Thus it is true that husband and wife are “complementary parts of one personality” (Beare, p. 725).
This interpretation fits the drift of the author’s thought better than one that sees these statements as encountering “prudential” or “pragmatic self-interest,” as Mitton, for example, suggests: “It is easier to do what is right and good if one can see at the same time that it will produce something beneficial to ourselves” (p. 205). What we have, instead, is a fusion of the bride image into the body image (Houlden, p. 334). Thus, “As the Church is Christ’s body, so in a true sense the wife is the husband’s body. Through her he extends his life” (Westcott, p. 85).
5:29 By prefacing 5:29 and 30 with After all, the NIV understands these verses as a commentary on 5:28. The love that a husband has for his own body and, consequently, for his wife is illustrated in practical ways: First, he feeds and cares for it. Once a husband has come to think of his wife as his own flesh he will feed (lit., “nourish,” ektrephō and care for (lit., “cherish,” thalpō) her as Christ does with respect to his body, the church. On the human level this is true because no one ever hated his own body. (The Greek uses the term “flesh” rather than body, probably because it anticipates the quotation in 5:31 from Gen. 2:24, which states that the two shall become one “flesh.”)
5:30 The second illustration is through being members of his body (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15—“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?”). The meaning of this phrase must be seen in relation to the previous statement on Christ’s love and care for the church: we are members of his body; therefore, Christ “feeds” and “cares for” us. Although there does not appear to be any conscious application of this truth to the readers, it would remind them of Christ’s concern for each one of them. Foulkes finds a helpful analogy from the vine and the branches in John 15: “As in the divine purpose the wife becomes part of the very life of her husband, and he nourishes and cherishes her, even so the Lord does to us as members of Himself, part of His own life that he has joined to Himself” (Foulkes, p. 161).
5:31 The OT verse (Gen. 2:24) from which the author has been drawing his imagery is finally quoted. It confirms the thoughts that he has been expounding on the relationship between husband and wife in marriage. Prior to marriage, a man and a woman are bound in an intimate relationship with their parents; but the marriage bond transcends that former bond by uniting the two as one flesh. For the author, this verse appropriately expresses the intimacy, unity, and, according to his thoughts, the identity of the husband and wife within marriage—a condition undoubtedly created by their sexual union (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16, 17, where Gen. 2:24 is used with reference to an immoral relationship with a prostitute).
Some of the older commentaries suggest that this verse has a secondary reference to Christ and how he left his heavenly home in order to be joined with his bride, the church. Moule, for example, writes: “We may reverently infer that the Apostle was guided to see in that verse a divine parable of the Coming Forth of the Lord, the Man of Men, from the Father, and His present and eternal mystical union with the true Church, His Bride” (p. 143; cf. other examples in Abbott, pp. 173, 174). Such an interpretation, however, is highly speculative and presses the analogy beyond its intended purpose as an illustration of unity.
The significance of this quotation and the context from which it is taken cannot be overstated. In Scripture, it is used as the main argument against polygamy, sexual immorality, and divorce. No one verse speaks more strongly for the sacredness and permanency of the marriage bond and for fidelity within marriage.
5:32 As appropriate as Genesis 2:24 is in describing the essence of marriage, and as overcome as the author is by the beauty of such a relationship, he still is preoccupied with thoughts about Christ and the church. Consequently, he sees in the oneness of husband and wife a great revelation that, for him, applies to Christ and the church. “The husband’s position as head and his duty of sacrificial love and devoted care for his wife are but pictures, imperfect, but the best that this life can offer, of Christ as Head, and of His love, self-sacrifice and concern for His church. The dependence of the wife on her husband and her duty of submission are a picture of how the Church should live and act towards her divine Lord” (Foulkes, p. 162).
The phrase this is a profound mystery is a translation of the Greek to mystērion touto mega estin (“this mystery is great!”). Earlier in this epistle, mystery referred to God’s plan for humankind, which had been hidden but now has been revealed (1:9; 3:3–6, 9; cf. also 6:19). Here it refers to a deep insight or a profound truth that is revealed. A mystery, in this context, is not a secret but a revelation—the union between Christ and the church.
One cannot help but notice that the references to mystery in Ephesians have unity as a theme. The mystery revealed in 3:3–6 unites Jew and Gentile into the body of Christ; in 5:32, one application of the mystery is the union between Christ and the church. In the former case there is the creation of one new people in union with himself (Christ); in the latter, the two become one. Stott notes that in Ephesians the metaphors of the church—“the body, the building and the bride—all emphasize the reality of its unity on account of its union with Christ” (p. 231). The Latin rendering of sacramentum for mystery does not legitimize viewing marriage as a sacrament (cf. Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 744–49).
The precise meaning of the author’s thoughts is by no means easy to determine—as is obvious from the variety of translations and interpretations (for a list, see Mitton, pp. 207, 8). Some commentators, in spite of the apostle’s application of Genesis 2:24 to Christ and the church, believe that it refers primarily to human marriage as the great mystery. Others concede that though that may be true in itself, the phrase but I am talking about (egō de legō) or, “it also applies,” indicates that the marriage union illustrates something even more meaningful. Beare paraphrases such thinking in the following way: “The mystery of the union of man and wife into one flesh is of far-reaching importance and clearly points itself toward some transcendental, eternal reality. I for my part take it to be a symbol of the union of Christ and the church” (Beare, p. 727).
5:33 Lest the readers be too caught up in the mystical aspects of these thoughts, and in spite of that application to Christ and the church in 5:32, the author brings them back to reality: However, each one of you.… By doing this, he returns to the more practical and human considerations that initiated the discussion about husband and wife (5:22ff.): Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Respect is a translation of the Greek phobeō, which, as in 5:21, also has the meaning of reverence. It is best understood as “awe,” such as an individual would show before God (cf. Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 662–68 for a detailed explanation). Barth protests the equation of “fear” with awe, reverence, or respect, insisting that it be given an eschatological meaning as well, that is, “conduct that heeds the crisis of the present, the last judgment, and the ultimate triumph of Christ” (Eph. 4–6, p. 667).
This section of the household code ends in much the same way as it began—submission, reverence, and love. Throughout, the author has fluctuated between two analogies: At times the husband-wife relationship served an ecclesiological function by illustrating Christ’s relationship to the church; at other times, the Christ-church analogy illustrated a domestic ideal. The result is that one has a deeper appreciation and understanding of both relationships, even though the author’s original intention was to enrich the understanding of marriage.
Additional Notes
In addition to the disc. and bibliography on the household codes in §§ 18–21 on Colossians 3:18–4:1, see F. Stagg, “The Domestic Code and Final Appeal: Ephesians 5:21–6:24,” RevExp 75 (1979), pp. 541–52. On the use of traditional material in this section, P. Sampley, And the Two Shall Become One Flesh: A Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21–33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971); Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 652–55; Mitton, pp. 208–10.
5:23 For questions regarding the legitimacy of translating head (kephalē) as “authority,” see the article by B. and A. Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?” Christianity Today, October 5, 1979, pp. 23–29. The main point the Mickelsens make is that head “does not mean ‘boss’ or ‘final authority’ … but source or origin … or beginning.”
5:26–27 For arguments pro and con on the bridal bath, see R. Batey, “Jewish Gnosticism and the ‘Hieros Gamos’ of Eph. v.21–33,” NTS 10 (1963), pp. 121–27; C. Chavasse, The Bride of Christ (London: Faber & Faber, 1939); Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the New Testament. Barth argues against a baptismal interpretation of 5:26, 27, in his Eph. 4–6, pp. 687–700.
5:31 On the use of Gen. 2:24 in Eph. 5:31, 32, see A. T. Lincoln, “The Use of the OT in Ephesians,” JSNT 14 (1982), pp. 16–57, esp. pp. 30–36. For additional thoughts on marriage, singleness, and individuality, Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 700–738; F. Stagg, “The Domestic Code and Final Appeal: Ephesians 5:21–6:24,” RevExp 76 (4, 1979), pp. 547–48.
5:32 Discussion on the concept of “sacred marriage” (hieros gamos) in Jewish and Hellenistic thought can be found in Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 738–44; Beare, pp. 726–28; and Batey, “Jewish Gnosticism and the ‘Hieros Gamos’ of Eph. v. 21–33.”