Ephesians 5-6: Husbands,
Wives, and submission 3
Eph 5:21
Eph 5:22
Eph 5:23
Eph 5:24
Eph 5:25
Eph 5:27
Eph 5:28
Eph 5:29
Eph 5:31
Eph 5:33
Eph 6:1
Eph 6:4
Eph 6:5
Eph 6:6
Eph 6:7
Eph 6:9
Part Three: Definitions
This page
contains definitions of the key words of the passage in Eph 5:21-6:9. It
provides important support to the exegesis of that passage.
The Context
contains a contextual look at the background to the passage.
The Content
examines the structure and content of the passage.
Eph 5:21
Eph 5:21 and be
subject to one another in the fear of Christ. NASU
Submit, be
subject (NT:5293).
This word occurs
three times in the passage, firstly as describing the relationship
between all believers, secondly, of wives to husbands, and thirdly of
the church to Christ. Clearly a definition is in order which encompasses
all three uses of the word. In other words, before one insist that wives
should absolutely and instantly obey their husbands, one must be
prepared to apply a similar attitude within the general congregation.
While degrees of subjection may be allowed, the general principle should
remain. If, as is sometimes postulated, verse 21 is the introductory
verse for the entire passage, then the meaning of ‘submit’ must then
define the thesis not only for the instructions to wives, but also for
the instructions to husbands, children, fathers, slaves and masters.
Meaning: “To
submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice:
absolutely” (Thayer). “To lose or surrender one’s own rights or will. In
the New Testament the verb does not immediately carry with it the
thought of obedience” (Delling). Although this is an unpopular and
perhaps discomforting subject, it is clear that some degree or aspect of
control is inescapably inherent in the meaning of this word. However,
this is a voluntary submission; it is important to point out that there
is no causative aspect. In other words, the implication is not that
husbands should make their wives submit, just as Christ does not enforce
obedience from the church.
To one another
(NT:240).
Clearly, if
Christians are to submit to each other in the general congregation, then
it must be clarified that Eph 5:21 does not only refer to the submission
of the congregation to the pastor, the newcomer to the elder, women to
men, or the wife to the husband, but also to the submission of the
pastor to the congregation, the elder to the newcomer, men to women, and
husbands to wives.
Meaning:
“Reciprocally, mutually” (Thayer). The implication for the word ‘submit’
is that a blind obedience is not suggested, for how can two parties
mutually obey each other? Therefore, submission probably involves a
humble, receptive, self-effacing attitude, where there can be mutual
sharing of ideas, rather than total servility.
Fear
(NT:5401).
How does our
‘fear’ of Christ affect our mutual submission? Does God use some kind of
emotional blackmail to motivate us to be in subjection to each other, or
should we be afraid of punishment if we are less than utterly
submissive? These questions have more relevance in small conservative
congregations than in large, ‘easy-going’ churches.
Meaning:
“Reverence, respect” (Thayer). “Reverential fear of God, as a
controlling motive of the life in matters spiritual and moral, not a
mere ‘fear’ of His power and righteous retribution, but a wholesome
dread of displeasing Him, a ‘fear’ which banishes the terror that
shrinks from His presence” (Vine).
top
Eph 5:22
Eph 5:22 Wives, be
subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. NASU
[Your] own
[husbands] (NT:2398).
Defining this
word clarifies the fact that this passage does not refer to the general
submission of all women to all men. The directive here is confined
solely to the particular marital relationship that each wife is in. This
emphasis is repeated in verse 24.
Meaning:
“Pertaining to oneself, of what is one’s own as opposed to belonging to
another” (Thayer).
top
Eph 5:23
Eph 5:23 For the
husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the
church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. NASU
For
[the husband is…] (NT:3754).
This word opens
verse 23 and directs us to look to the reasons contained therein for a
wife’s submission to her husband. In interpreting this passage we are
not to look to culture (modern or ancient) or personal opinions (no
matter how strong they may be in an issue with such potential for
emotional conflict as this).
Meaning: “The
reason why anything is said to be or to be done, because, since, for
that, for. It is added to a speaker’s words to show what ground he gives
for his opinion” (Thayer).
Head
(NT:2776).
In what way is
the husband the head of the wife, and Christ the head of the church? The
two statements are set as analogous, and therefore an aspect of headship
must be determined that applies to both relationships. For example, the
relationship between Christ and His disciples is elsewhere likened to
that of master-servant. However, marriage is described in verse 31 as an
intimate union of ‘one flesh’, and therefore the ‘master-servant’ aspect
of headship seems inapplicable here. More appropriate seems the
directive aspect of leadership whereby the husband has the God-given
responsibility to ‘use his head’ for family guidance.
Meaning:
“Metaphorical, of authority or direction” (Vine).
top
Eph 5:24
Eph 5:24 But as the
church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their
husbands in everything. NASU
But
[as the church…] (NT: 235).
This word
indicates that the argument contained in verse 24 contrasts in some
detail to the preceding verse. This is of help in organising the
arguments, as it implies that the analogy of Christ’s relationship with
the church to the marital relationship is limited. In other words,
although Christ is the Saviour of the church (verse 23), the husband is
not the saviour of the wife. The NASB uses ‘but’, and the NIV uses
‘now’.
Meaning:
“Nevertheless, in spite of the difference just noted” (Robertson). “The
comparison does not hold in respect of salvation, but it does hold in
respect of subjection” (Vincent). “An opposition to concessions;
nevertheless” (Thayer).
top
Eph 5:25
Eph 5:25 Husbands,
love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself
up for her NASU
Love
(NT:25).
Husbands are to
love their wives just as Christ loved the church. So, what kind of love
is that? Obviously, it entails far more than emotion, or even physical
provision. Christ’s love for the church was such that He lived for her
benefit, not for His own. His love meant that He, who had more right
than any to be the head, came as a servant. He who was Lord of Lords and
King of Kings allowed Himself to be brutally killed solely so that the
church may gain eternal life. His love entailed total self-sacrifice,
yet without ever compromising His headship.
Meaning: “With
the accusative of the person, to have a preference for, wish well to,
regard the welfare of” (Thayer). “Social or moral sense” (Strong).
Gave
[Himself] up
(NT:3860).
Here the ultimate
example of self-sacrificing love is presented as the model for husbands,
not that the husband in any way becomes the wife’s saviour or replaces
Christ in her life, but that he is to refrain from seeking his own
advancement at the cost of his wife’s welfare.
Meaning: “To give
oneself up for, give oneself to death for, to undergo death for (the
salvation of) one” (Thayer). It should be noted that Christ’s sacrifice
was the culmination of His life, and so the husband’s self-sacrifice
should likewise be a daily occurrence, rather than occasional acts of
courage in the face of danger.
top
Eph 5:27
Eph 5:27 that He
might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or
wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
NASU
That
[He might present…] (NT:2443).
Christ’s
self-sacrifice had a purpose, it was neither meaningless labour nor
self-serving works. Likewise, the husband’s continual love is to be with
a purpose centred around his wife.
Meaning: “Strong
purpose, which is that it may be holy and blameless” (NET Bible,
footnote).
top
Eph 5:28
Eph 5:28 So husbands
ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his
own wife loves himself; NASU
As
[their own bodies…].
This could be
read ‘husbands ought to love their wives to the same degree
that they love their own bodies’, or ‘… while they love
their own bodies’ or ‘…for as long as they love their own bodies’
or even ‘…if they love their own bodies’. The implications of the
first are that the wife is compared to the husband’s physical body
rather than to the church, and that the husband should ensure his
physical needs are met in order that he may discern how much he should
love his wife. The second implies that wife-loving is an occasional
obligation, limited to certain occasions. The third places a ‘use-by
date’ on marital love, and when the husband is no longer comfortable
with his appearance, he is therefrom relieved from his duties. The
fourth combines all the above implications in one!
Meaning: “As
being, since they are” (Vincent). ‘Husbands ought to love their wives
since they are their own bodies’. A husband and wife are ‘one
flesh’, according to the Scripture and a husband cannot neglect his wife
without causing hardship to himself. Paradoxically, he cannot live a
self-serving life without depriving himself of the pleasures he strives
for. Stated positively, his marital life is to be a reflection of Jesus’
instructions to His disciples, “whoever wants to save his life will lose
it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Matt 16:25 NIV).
top
Eph 5:29
Eph 5:29 for no one
ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ
also does the church NASU
Nourishes and
cherishes (NT:1625 &
2282).
How are husbands
supposed to care for their wives? Are their responsibilities completed
once they have provided financially?
Meaning: “To
nourish up to maturity and on, foster with tender care” (Robertson).
Here is the implication that the husband’s love and care involves
tenderly watching over his wife’s soul, patiently providing for her
spiritual or emotional growth or for her general development.
top
Eph 5:31
Eph 5:31 For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to
his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. NASU
Joined
[to his wife…] (NT:4347).
Here we find an
important clue to understanding the nature of the marital relationship.
How is the husband supposed to be the ‘head of the wife’ yet also love
her as Christ gave Himself up for the church? How is the wife supposed
to be in subjection to her husband in everything while the husband is
supposed to live a continually self-sacrificing life? Is the
all-encompassing theme of this passage that the marital relationship is
like that of the master-servant, the leader-follower, the
director-worker, or the overlord-minion?
Meaning: “A
figurative use of ‘to glue to’; to join oneself to closely, cleave to,
stick to” (Thayer). “This describes a most intimate union” (Vincent).
The husband and wife are ‘one flesh’ in the sight of God and their
relationship is to akin to that which exists between the different parts
of a human body, inseparable, yet with differing functions and
abilities.
top
Eph 5:33
Eph 5:33
Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife
even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her
husband. NASU
Nevertheless
(NT:4133).
Here, verse 33 is
introduced with an expression indicating that the apostle is now
returning to the main argument of this section. He does not want
husbands to be so engrossed in unravelling the mysteries of the
analogies between marriage and Christ’s relationship to the church that
they miss the point of what he wants to say to them.
Meaning: “Not to
dwell any more on the subject” (Vincent).
Respect
(NT:5399).
This word has
several meanings in the New Testament, including to terrify, to
frighten, to put to flight (in an accusative form), or more passively to
be afraid. However in this verse, it is unlikely that the husband is
directed to terrify his wife! The word is also used frequently of the
fear with which believers are to regard God.
Meaning:
“Reverence” (Robertson). “Reverential fear” (Vine). “Venerate, to treat
with deference” (Thayer). Hence, the respect with which a wife should
hold her husband is born not from his character, accomplishments or
personality, but from his God-given mandate to love, nourish, cherish
and give up his life for her.
top
Eph 6:1
Eph 6:1 Children,
obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. NASU
Children
(NT:5043).
Who is here
instructed to obey their parents? Could the term ‘child’ include adult
offspring, thereby extending the admonition considerably?
Meaning: “The
Greek word … refers to young children living at home” (Wall).
Obey
(NT:5219).
It is worth
defining ‘obey’ used in the instructions for children, particularly as a
contrast to the instructions to the wife to ‘submit’. ‘Obey’ and
‘submit’ share some aspects of meaning and at times coincide, but the
two words are not synonymous. In other words, wives are not specifically
commanded to obey their husbands; that instruction is reserved for
children and their parents.
Meaning: “To
hearken to a command, to obey, be obedient unto, submit to” (Thayer).
Right
(NT:1342).
Why should
children obey? Because it is the ‘good’ thing to do? Because then they
will be seen as Christian children?
Meaning:
“Belonging essentially to the very nature of the relation” (Vincent).
So, obedience is an intrinsic part of the parent-child relationship. It
is the child’s submission, not primarily to the parent, but to the
natural inbuilt law of God.
top
Eph 6:4
Eph 6:4 Fathers, do
not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline
and instruction of the Lord. NASU
Provoke to
anger (NT:3949).
The implication
in this verse is that provoking one’s child to anger is in some aspect
contrary to the godly process of discipline and instruction.
Meaning: “To
rouse to wrath, to provoke, exasperate, anger” (Thayer). This word is
used elsewhere in the New Testament only in Romans 10:19, in a quotation
from Deuteronomy, where God promises to provoke Israel to jealousy and
anger by blessing the Gentiles. “I will make you angry by blessing the
foolish Gentiles.” (Rom 10:19 NLT). Fathers are urged to refrain from
such tactics with their children, focussing instead on their positive
training.
Bring
[them] up (NT:1625).
This is the same
word used in Eph 5:29, referring to how a man treats his own body: he
‘nourishes’ it, he brings it to maturity. The indication then is that
fathers are to care for their children’s long-term growth and their
ongoing maturation.
Discipline
(NT:3809).
Children are to
be brought up with ‘discipline and instruction’ (NASB). Is this a
license for corporal punishment? Or perhaps a mandate for a strictly
scheduled regime? Yet how could corporal punishment or a strict schedule
be ‘of the Lord’?
Meaning: “General
education, wider than ‘chastening’ alone” (Robertson). “Instruction:
training by word of mouth, including, though not necessarily, rebukes”
(Vincent). “The whole training and education of children, which relates
to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose, now
commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment “(Thayer).
Instruction
(NT: 3559).
Meaning:
“Admonition, exhortation, such as belongs to the Lord (Christ) or
proceeds from him” (Thayer). The implication is that children should
partake of the instruction, warning, teaching, education and correction
which originates with the Lord, not solely that which is devised by
their earthly parents.
top
Eph 6:5
Eph 6:5 Slaves, be
obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear
and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ NASU
Masters
(NT:2962).
The instructions
addressed to masters and slaves need to be carefully examined in the
light of the fact that this relationship is generally non-existent in
modern western society. Therefore, before the principles of the verse
can be appropriately applied, the particular roles of each must be
examined.
Meaning: “In Eph
6:5, it is used in the genitive, to indicate one who has the control of
a person” (Thayer). “Supreme in authority” (Strong).
According to
the flesh (NT:2596 &
4561).
Meaning: “The
author is referring to human masters” (NET Bible, footnote to
Eph. 6:5, emphasis in original).
Fear and
trembling (NT:5401 &
5156).
Does this verse
imply that employees should be afraid of employers? Why should servants
be exhorted to obey in fear? Of what should they be afraid? First
century slaves had much to fear without Paul’s exhortations, so it seems
that an instruction to obey out of fear of punishment would be
unnecessary and perhaps condescending.
Meaning: “Not
slavish terror, but wholesome, serious caution. This fear is
self-distrust; it is tenderness of conscience; it is vigilance against
temptation” (Vincent, Phil 2:12).
Sincerity
(NT:572).
Slaves are
exhorted to obey in heartfelt sincerity or ‘singleness’ (RSV). This word
is elsewhere translated in the NASB as ‘liberality’, ‘simplicity and
purity’. The verse also compares the slaves’ obedience to their masters
with their obedience to Christ, which means that the sincere obedience
spoken of here must be applicable both to human masters and to Christ.
Meaning:
“Singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty” (Thayer).
top
Eph 6:6
Eph 6:6 not by way of
eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of
God from the heart. NASU
Eyeservice
(NT:3787).
This unusual word
occurs only here and in Col 3:22. It stands here as the only prohibition
in Paul’s instructions to slaves.
Meaning: It is a
combination of two other words, ‘eye’ and ‘slave’. “Service performed
only under the master’s eye, diligently performed when he is looking,
but neglected in his absence” (Vine). “The word seems to have been
coined by Paul” (Vincent, Col 3:22).
top
Eph 6:7
Eph 6:7 With good
will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men NASU
Good will
(NT:2133).
This is the only
occurrence of this word in the New Testament, although it is related to
‘make friends’ in Matt 5:25. If this verse is to have a modern
application, the slaves’ manner of service should be understood.
Meaning:
“Good-will, kindness” (Thayer). The NIV translates it
‘wholeheartedly’, and the NLT ‘with enthusiasm’.
top
Eph 6:9
Eph 6:9 And masters,
do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both
their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with
Him. NASU
Give up
(NT:447).
The term ‘give
up’ implies a habitual action that should be stopped. In other words,
the masters were guilty of misuse of power and were instructed to cease.
Meaning: “Loosen
up, relax, omit” (Thayer). There seems the possibility that Paul did not
forbid all threats, but rather advised the masters to tone down their
approach.
Threatening
(NT:547).
Threats seem to
carry quite some substance, as the same word is used in Acts 9:1 where
Paul was breathing ‘threats and murder’. Perhaps the implication is not
confined to the verbal warning, as the physical punishment which
followed may have been more or less automatic.
Heaven
(NT:3772).
Why should God’s
location motivate a master to give up threatening his slave?
Meaning: “The
seat of an order of things eternal and consummately perfect” (Thayer).
This then agrees with the motivation given to children in verse one. We
are ruled by God through His divinely ordained plan to which we should
submit.
Partiality
(NT:4382).
Here are all men
truly equal regardless of their caste or wealth. This equality is
present even while the master and the slave continue in their respective
roles.
Meaning: “Respect
to the outward circumstances of men and not to their intrinsic merits,
and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is rich, high-born, or
powerful, to another who is destitute of such gifts” (Thayer).
top
Next…
Please read
Part Four: Principles and Application.
References:
Delling:
‘Hupotasso’, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol
VIII, G Delling, 1972, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Robertson:
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, AT Robertson, 2003,
Biblesoft, Seattle, WA.
Strong:
Biblesoft’s New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary, J Strong, 2003, Biblesoft and
International Bible Translators, Seattle, WA.
Thayer:
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, JH Thayer, 2003, Biblesoft, Seattle, WA.
The Holy
Bible:
The NET Bible
(NET) 2005, Biblical Studies Press, Dallas, TX.
Vincent: Word
Studies in the New Testament, MR, 2003, Biblesoft, Seattle, WA.
Vine: Vine’s
Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, WE Vine, 1985, Thomas
Nelson, Nashville, TN.
Wall: ‘Colossians
and Philemon’, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, volume
12, RW Wall, 1993, InterVarsity, Westmont, IL.
© 2006 Make Straight Paths Home |
