Ephesians 5:22

(Eph 6:9.) The Church's relation to Christ in His everlasting purpose, is the foundation and archetype of the three greatest of earthly relations, that of husband and wife (Eph 5:22-33), parent and child (Eph 6:1-4), master and servant (Eph 6:4-9). The oldest manuscripts omit "submit yourselves"; supplying it from Eph 5:21, "Ye wives (submitting yourselves) unto your own husbands." "Your own" is an argument for submissiveness on the part of the wives; it is not a stranger, but your own husbands whom you are called on to submit unto (compare Gen 3:16; Co1 7:2; Co1 14:34; Col 3:18; Tit 2:5; Pe1 3:1-7). Those subject ought to submit themselves, of whatever kind their superiors are. "Submit" is the term used of wives: "obey," of children (Eph 6:1), as there is a greater equality between wives and husbands, than between children and parents.

as unto the Lord--Submissiveness is rendered by the wife to the husband under the eye of Christ, and so is rendered to Christ Himself. The husband stands to the wife in the relation that the Lord does to the Church, and this is to be the ground of her submission: though that submission is inferior in kind and degree to that which she owes Christ (Eph 5:24).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(4 a.) In Eph_5:22-33. St. Paul passes from warning against special sins to consider the three great relations of life, first considered as “subjections,” and so illustrating the general precept of submission in Eph_5:21, but ultimately viewed in their reciprocity of mutual obligations and rights. First, accordingly, he dwells on the relation of marriage, declaring it to be hallowed as a type of the unity of Christ with His Church, and hence drawing the inference of the duty of free obedience in the wife, and of self-sacrificing love in the husband. This passage may be held to contain the complete and normal doctrine of the New Testament on this great question, written at a time when Christianity had already begun to exalt and purify the nuptial tie; and it is instructive to compare it with 1 Corinthians 7, written for “the present distress,” glancing not obscurely at marriage with unbelievers, and adapted to the condition of a proverbially profligate society, as yet scarcely raised above the low heathen ideas of marriage.

(22) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.—The same exhortation is found in Col_3:18; Tit_2:5; 1Pe_3:1-6; and besides these formal exhortations there is distinct and emphatic declaration of the “subjection of women” in 1Co_11:3; 1Co_11:7-9; 1Co_14:34-35; 1Ti_2:11-12. Probably the sense of that fundamental equality in Christ, in which (see Gal_3:28) “there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female,” while it was rightly accepted as showing that there is no spiritual inferiority in woman—such as Oriental theory asserted, and even Greek and corrupt Roman practice implied—was perverted to the denial of the greater natural weakness of woman, from which subordination comes, and to the foolish and reckless disregard of all social conventions. St. Paul, as usual, brings out the simple truth of principle, sanctioning whatever is fundamental and natural in woman’s subordination, and leaving the artificial enactments of law or custom to grow by degrees into accordance with it. The principle of subordination is permanent; the special regulations of it in the world or in the Church must vary as circumstances change.

As unto the Lord.—These words are explained by the next verse. In Col_3:18 we have the less emphatic phrase, “as it is fitting in the Lord.”

[5. Practical Exhortation continued (Eph_5:22 to Eph_6:9).

(4) THE BEARING OF THE TRUTH OF UNITY ON THE THREE GREAT RELATIONS OF LIFE.

(a) Between husbands and wives—a relation which is a type of the unity between Christ and His Church (Eph_5:22-33).

(b) Between parents and children—a relation hallowed as existing “in the Lord” (Eph_6:1-4).

(c) Between masters and servants—a relation softened and deepened by common service to the one Master (Eph_6:5-9).]

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_5:22-24

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord.

Relation of husband and wife

1.For the duly--Submit yourselves. Subjection in the general on Gods part noteth the subordination of one creature to another according to His wise disposal, as the imperfect to the more perfect, and this for the good of both; for it is so ordered, that in all relations comfort and duty shall go together. On our part it is a ready inclination to obey this order set by God; for every creature must know his place, and be content with the order wherein God hath set him. According to this order, submission is required of the wife towards her husband; though she is not to be subject as children to their parents, much less as servants to their masters.

2. The persons--To your own husbands.

3. The manner how it is to be done--As unto the Lord, i.e., Christ.

(1) The regulation of the duty; it must be clone willingly and sincerely, resembling that submission which is performed to Christ, whose image, in His government over the Church, the husband beareth in his superiority over the wife.

(2) It may import the enforcement, the reason and motive of this duty, because Christ hath commanded it; and by virtue of the law of Christ all wives must be subject to their husbands; which doth not disannul, but confirm Gods institution, for His precepts are not privative, but accumulative.

(3) As unto the Lord implieth a limitation; this subjection must be in all things which belong to the lawful authority and superiority of the husband; or so it seemeth to be expressed: Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord (Col_3:18).

(4) It importeth Christs acceptance of this duty. He interpreteth this subjection and obedience as given to Himself, and the contrary as rebellion against Himself; for it is service done to Christ: which may give the woman comfort against all unkindnesses, and unthankful returns from her husband. That wives must reckon it their unquestionable duty to be subject to their husbands.

Let me show you--

(1) Wherein this subjection consisteth.

(2) The reasons and grounds of it.

I. Wherein it consisteth. To speak briefly of it, this subjection lieth in two things--in reverence and obedience.

1. In reverence, which is both inward and outward.

(1) The inward, in a due esteem of the husband, which is the ground of all love and submission. So it is said, Let the woman reverence her husband (Eph_5:33). If for nothing else, yet in a humble acknowledgment of his right by Gods ordinance; for esteem is not only due to personal qualifications, but to the eminent dignity wherein God hath placed any creature with whom we have commerce; and if we cannot acknowledge them for any worth in them, yet we must acknowledge God in them, who hath put His image of superiority upon them, that we may the better discharge our duties to them.

(2) Outward reverence is both in word and deed.

2. Obedience: that is showed in many things.

(1) in studying to please rather than to be pleased; for the apostle telleth us that she that is married eateth for the things of this world, that she may please her husband (1Co_7:34).

(2) By fulfilling his commands in all things lawful, and not contrary to her duty to God (Tit_2:5).

(3) By submitting her will to her husbands content, and her desires to his approbation and allowance (Gen_3:16).

(4) In patience under his rebukes. So the apostle (1Ti_2:12). Meekness and quietness is chiefly exercised in bridling our passions, when anything falleth out cross and contrary to our desires and expectations, and we eschew all needless contradiction and expressions of malcontentedness. Now this is not only gaining upon the husband, but is very acceptable to God, who delighteth in the graces He hath wrought in His own people. But now, on the contrary, a humorous moroseness and impatiency is very displeasing unto God and man, and destructive of family society (Pro_13:19).

(5) By being a comfort and a help to him (Gen_2:18). The woman is to be a help, not a hindrance; not the governor, for the right is originally in the man, but a help in government, to ease him in part of his burden and cares; a help every way, for the comfort of society, for assistance in governing the family.

II. The grounds and reasons.

1. The law of nature written by Gods own finger in the hearts of men. We read of those who were heathens, that they enacted a law and decree: That every man should bear rule in his own house; and that all the women should give honour to the husband, both great and small (Est_1:20; Est_1:22). Indeed, both anciently and to this very day, great is the power of the husbands over their wives in Persia. Now, shall heathens see that which Christians do not?

2. Gods ordination, which a holy heart dareth not disobey. Now, God hath expressly commanded it in His word in the text (so Col_3:18).

3. The natural imperfection of the woman. The apostle calleth her the weaker vessel (1Pe_3:7). Abilities of mind are not ordinarily so strong in her as in the man; and they have fewer opportunities than man hath for perfecting their natural parts; and they are not so able to provide for themselves, modesty not permitting them to go up and down in the world.

4. The manner and order of the creation. The woman was made after man, out of man, and for man. God formed man first, and then the woman out of him, and for mans good (see 1Ti_2:13; 1Co_11:8-9).

5. From the womans being first in the transgression; for this is a part of the sentence: He shall bear rule over thee (Gen_3:16).

6. The inconveniences that would ensue if this subjection were taken away. There must be order in every society, without which there followeth division, and thereupon confusion; and a house divided cannot stand.

Use 1. Is reproof to several sorts.

1. Of all those frothy and profane wits who scoff at womens subjection, and make it a matter of unsavoury mirth. See how misbecoming Christians this is, partly as it is a duty required by God.

2. It reproveth those that dispute against it by manifold cavils; but no reasoning must be allowed against a plain and known duty. Therefore, to prevent these disputes, let me lay down two conclusions--

(1) On the wifes part; no privilege of birth, parts, breeding, can exempt her from it.

(2) On the husbands part; no personal infirmity, no froward nature, no error in religion (1Co_7:13), deprives him of it.

3. It reproveth them that have no reason to allege but their own imperious and peevish humour causeth them to live discontentedly and disobediently in this relation.

4. It reproveth those husbands that by their own default lose their authority and dignity, and are themselves causes that their own power is lessened and diminished, either by their intemperance, behaving themselves as beasts rather than men, that they are altogether unfit to judge what is meet and good for the family. It is true the husband is to govern, not by fear, but by love. He is the image of Christ in governing His Church, and the wife is not a slave, but a meet help; but this love should not be a snare to him. And it is true the wife should not be despised, for God saith to Abraham, Hearken to the voice of Sarah. But there is a difference between hearkening to good counsel, and swallowing a temptation, and being driven to evil by the womans imperiousness.

Use 2. Is to exhort wives to submit to their own husbands.

1. The impediments.

(1) Pride.

(2) A defect of true love.

(3) Affectation of vanity.

(4) Want of self-denial.

2. Motives.

(1) It is easier and safer to obey than to prescribe and direct, and more felicity is found in obedience than in commands; and in the event it is found more safe; as Zipporah, by obeying her husband in circumcising the child, saved his life (Exo_4:26).

(2) It is better to give the husband occasion of thanksgiving than of complaining (Jam_5:9).

(3) Your own peace, that your prayers may not be interrupted (1Pe_3:7).

(4) Honour to God.

(a) It takes away the reproach of the gospel: Obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed (Tit_2:5). That Christian religion may not be thought to impose anything contrary to moral virtues.

(b) That gainsayers may be won to God: Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives (1Pe_3:1). (T. Manton, D. D.)

A wifes obedience

Mary, wife of Prince William of Orange, and the heir-apparent to the English throne, was asked what her husband the Prince should be if she became Queen. She called in her husband, and she promised him he should always bear rule; and she asked only that he would obey the command of, Husbands, love your wives, as she should do that, Wives, be obedient to your husbands in all things. (Littles Historical Lights.)

The terms husband and wife defined

Did you ever hear the word husband explained? It means literally the band of the house, the support of it, the person who keeps it together, as a band keeps together a sheaf of corn. There are many married men who are not husbands, because they are not the band of the house. Truly, in many cases, the wife is the husband; far oftentimes it is she who, by her prudence, and thrift, and economy, keeps the house together. The married man who, by his dissolute habits, strips his house of all comfort, is not a husband; in a legal sense he is, but in no other; for he is not a house-band; instead of keeping things together, he scatters them among the pawnbrokers. And now let us see whether the word wife has not a lesson too. It literally means a weaver. The wife is the person who weaves. Before our great cotton and cloth factories arose, one of the principal employments in every house was the fabrication of clothing: every family made its own. The wool was spun into thread by the girls, who were therefore called spinsters; the thread was woven into cloth by their mother, who accordingly was called the weaver, or the wife: and another remnant of this old truth we discover in the word heirloom, applied to any old piece of furniture which has come down to us from our ancestors, and which, though it may be a chair or bed, shows that a loom was once a most important article in every house. Thus the word wife means weaver; and, as Trench well remarks, in the word itself is wrapped up a hint of earnest, indoor, stay-at-home occupations, as being fitted for her who bears this name. (Anon.)

The submission of the Christian wife

I. Jesus is the head of His Church.

1. But observe, He is also her governing Head. He has the sole guidance, and direction, and control of her.

2. But He is also her protecting Head.

II. The submission which the Church is enjoined to give to her Head, is the pattern of the subjection which Christian wives are commanded to give their husbands. But what is the nature of the subjection? I know it has its basis in affection; but yet it goes beyond that; it has its basis in the principle of allegiance. The Church owes Christ its allegiance. He is her rightful Lord.

2. But observe, it is the submission of dependency. The Church is essentially dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ. Here, then, is the true principle of that subjection, that submission which the Lord enjoins on every Christian wife: to rely upon, and to confide in, the power, wisdom, and love of her husband. To receive from him that which supplies her family with all things needful; and to receive it meekly from him too. To seek her happiness in his smile and in his presence; and to mourn for his absence, and to long for his appearing. To go to him for counsel in difficulties; to give up her own pleasures, and yield up her own will.

III. The extent and limit of this subjection--In everything. Not in some things, but in all things; in everything. Some of you may say, beloved sisters in Jesus--In things pleasant I find it not difficult. Yes, but in things painful. Some of you may say, In great things I would yield. Yes, but subjection in little things; in little things; in everything. You may say, When we are alone together, I dare not refuse; but suppose it is in public, then my will goes another way. In public you are commanded to submit. Yes, but you may say, in things that relate to himself of course I submit; but in things that relate to myself, of course I may act for myself. For yourself? In everything, even as regards yourselves. Yet there is a limit. Is there not a limit? Yes, blessed be God, there is a limit in the very text before us. Observe the twenty-second verse: as unto the Lord; no further. Act up to it, but go not beyond it. (J. H. Evans, M. A.)

Duties enjoined upon the wife

I. Subjection. Look at--

1. The creation--woman was made after, out of, and for, man.

2. The Fall--the woman occasioned it.

3. The history of woman. Does not everything point to her subordination?

II. Reverence.

1. In words--speaking of, to, or before her husband.

2. In actions.

III. Meekness.

IV. Modesty--not adorning herself with dress.

V. Economy and order in household management--freedom from extravagance.

VI. Attention to all that concerns the welfare and comfort of the children, if there be any. For this purpose she must be a keeper at home. (J. A. James.)

Reason for the wifes subjection to the husband

The words contain a reason of the foregoing precept, both of the matter and manner of the duty. Why subject to their own husbands? Why as unto the Lord? The reason is taken from the resemblance which the husband carrieth in family government to Christ. In them observe three things--

(1) What the husband is to the wife.

(2) What Christ is to the Church.

(3) The resemblance between the one and the other--Even as Christ.

There is a similitude, though not an exact equality in the case. In handling of this Scripture we must first speak of Christs relation to His Church, and then of the husbands relation to the wife; for first we must consider the pattern before we can state the resemblance. That Jesus Christ is the Churchs Head.

1. Oneness of nature between Him and the Church; for head and members suit. The Church hath such a Head as carrieth conformity with the rest of the members. He and we have one flesh; and so the Godhead, that was at such a distance from us, is brought down in our nature that it might be nearer at hand, and within the reach of our commerce.

2. It implieth an eminency; for the head is the most eminent part of the body. As it is the noblest, so nature hath placed it nearest heaven. The very situation doth in a manner oblige the other parts to show their reverence. So Christ is the Head of She Church, infinitely of much more worth than the Church, as being the only-begotten Son of God.

3. The head is the most illustrious throne of the soul; not only the seat of nerves and senses, but of the memory and understanding: so there is in Christ a fulness of perfection, enabling Him to do all the duties of a Head to such a great and necessitous body as the Church is (Col_2:3).

4. It implies authority and power to govern. His excellency giveth Him fitness, but authority, right to rule and govern the Church; to appoint officers, and to make laws that shall universally bind all His people (Mat_28:18-19).

5. It implies strict union between Him and the Church, such as is between the head and members in the natural body; which union is brought about externally by confederation, or visible owning the covenant, and professing faith in Christ Jesus our Lord.

6. Thence there resulteth a communication of influences.

7. It implies sympathy with His members; there is none of them hurt but it redoundeth to Him (Act_9:6).

Use 1. If Christ be Head of the Church--

(1) Then there is no other that can usurp and take this honour upon him.

(2) None can be a political governing head to the Church universal but He who is a Mediatorial Head, of vital influence to them.

(3) A ministerial, universal head, that shall give law to all other churches and Christian societies; and if they depend not on Him, shall be excluded from the privileges of a Christian Church.

Use 2. Let us make conscience of those duties which this relation bindeth us unto; for if Christ be our Head, we must subject ourselves to Him, and live by His laws.

Use 3. Is comfort to those that are in so near a relation to Christ. He is not only a governing Head, but a quickening Head; giveth life, and strength, and growth (Eph_1:22).

II. I come now to handle the second title, He is the saviour of the body. He must do the part of a Saviour as well as a Head; and His dominion over the Church is exercised in procuring her good and salvation. Here I shall show you--

(1) The nature of this salvation;

(2) The manner, or the several ways by which Christ doth accomplish it.

First: The nature of it will be known by several distinctions.

1. The notion of a saviour is doubly applied--First, to him that preserveth that which is already made, that it may not perish and return into nothing, or to him that recovereth a thing that is lost out of a state of perdition.

2. That salvation is positive and privative.

3. Salvation is either temporal or eternal.

(1) Temporal salvation, when we are saved from the dangers incident to the present life. In this notion it is taken, 1Pe_3:20.

(2) However we have a better salvation to wait for besides the mercies of daily providence, even the enjoyment of God and Christ to all eternity; this is salvation, and this is blessedness. This is the end of our faith (1Pe_1:5). Better we had never been born if we have not an interest in this salvation.

4. Eternal salvation is either begun or consummate. Salvation begun is attributed to the grace vouchsafed to us in this life; as the grace of justification or sanctification.

5. There is a typical saviour and a real Saviour. The people of God of old were mostly acquainted with the typical salvation.

6. There are some inferior helps or subordinate instruments which are called saviours; but the Saviour, or the original author of all salvation, is Christ.

Secondly: The manner, or the ways and means by which Christ doth accomplish it.

1. By way of satisfaction, because He sayeth us from the guilt of sin, the curse of the law, and the eternal wrath of God, which are the lets and hindrances of our salvation, and could not otherwise be removed by us. So we are said to be saved by His blood (Rom_5:9).

2. By His merit, because He procureth to us the favour of God, and a right to all those blessings which are bestowed on the children of God.

3. By way of efficacy and power, because by His Spirit He doth effect and work in us all those things which belong to salvation.

Use 1. Let us come to Christ for salvation if He be a Saviour; for this is His office. All men would be saved, why then is there no more resort and recourse to Christ?

2. Let us believe the truth of this salvation, and how worthy it is of our deepest thoughts (1Ti_1:15).

3. Embrace this salvation in Christs own way, and upon His own terms.

4. Leave not this way till you have the evidence in yourselves (1Jn_5:8; 1Jn_5:10). (T. Manton, D. D.)

The supreme authority of Christ

I. As the Head, Christ is the life of the Church. Head and heart are essential to life of body--latter, blood centre; former, nerve centre. The mere animal life is connected with the heart; but all belonging to higher life depends on head. Paralyze the brain, and all the characteristic features of the life of man fail. Illustrate by the old manner of execution, severing head from body. To keep the head is to keep life; to lose the head is to lose life.

1. This is true of each individual member of the Church. No life as a mere member; no life save as he comes into relation to the head.

2. It is true of the united life of the Church. The harmony that is in the body is only secured through the common share in the life of the Head.

II. As the Head, Christ is the guide of the Church.

III. As the Head, Christ bears the rule in His Church. He alone has the right to make laws for us; and He alone has the right, the power, to preside over their execution. (The Weekly Pulpit.)

The greatness of Christ

The greatness which the apostle commends to Christian wives, is expressly the greatness of Christ. It is His glory and joy to be subject to the Father. I came down from heaven not to do My own will but the will of Him that sent Me. I do always those things which please Him. There is nothing servile in the meek subjection of a wife to her own husband. The very contrary: it is her crown of beauty. She is counselled to clothe herself with the dignity of Jesus. Moreover, the woman who has married wisely, and who respects her own marriage, puts on authority and walks in freedom, just in proportion as she is subject to her husband. The body can in no other way walk in power and freedom, than by being subject to its own head. The earth is beautiful so long as she is directly subject to her own sun. She no sooner enters upon the path of independence than she becomes cold and gloomy. The more complete her subjection, the greater is her freedom, and the more she sings and rejoices. In like manner, wives will find that subjection to their own husbands is the very law of their freedom and joy. Not only the wifes reverence, but her love, for her husband, inclines her in this direction. Wherein a wife hesitates to be subject to her husband, she must lose the sense that she is his wife. By an independent course of action, she virtually separates herself, asserts her self-sufficiency, and ceases to respect her wifehood. If she only knew it, the path of subjection, appointed of God for the Christian wife, is an inestimable opportunity and privilege. Therein she will find the most favorable condition possible, for the growth and development of her eternal beauty. On no account let her look upon subjection to her husband as having its end in time. It is a sacred thing. The root of it is in Christ, the flower thereof is in eternity. The hidden wisdom, and the love and beauty of God are being embodied in her daily meekness. The Lord lifteth up the meek. He will beautify the meek with salvation. Home is the wifes empire, and she is exhorted to reign there, not after a vulgar or worldly manner, but after a heavenly manner. Her free and loving subjection is a perennial means of grace. She renders it indeed to her husband, but as unto the Lord. Many fair appearances are deceitful; but the beautiful deportment of a Christian wife is even more beautiful within than without. Jesus hides Himself under the veil of her quiet habit. By her own obedience she rules her household. There is an air of majesty about her. Steadfast in piety, and self-possessed, an atmosphere of unknown power encircles her. Her husband may, or may not, appreciate her sovereign humility. The Lord notes it. In His sight it is an ornament of great price. It is fragrant to the angels. Her thousand private acts, lost to common observation, are written in heaven. Many an excellent wife, buried in deepest obscurity, and withal, sorely tried, is yet sweetly fulfilling her course. Her fair monument, all unknown to herself, is being built in the presence of the Lord. Pure-hearted woman! she will do her husband nothing but good all the days of her life. He may safely trust in her, as in the quicker soul of his soul, the secret heart of his heart. (J. Pulsford.)

The manner of wifely subjection

Here the apostle inferreth the conclusion from the foregoing argument. In the proposal of this conclusion two things are considerable--

1. The manner how this subjection is to be performed--As the Church is subject to Christ.

2. The extent; unlimited, In everything: that is, in everything that is lawful and belonging to her duty.

1. Let us state the nature of the subjection of the Church of Christ.

2. Give the reasons of it. In stating the subjection to Christ we must consider--

(1) The foundation;

(2) The nature;

(3) The properties of it.

First: The foundation is Christs authority. The primitive sovereign is God; the sovereign by derivation is Christ the Mediator, in His manhood united to the second person in the Godhead. He is Lord, not as Creator but Redeemer, which kind of authority accrueth to Him by His own merit and purchase (Rom_14:9). Concerning it observe two things--

1. It is superadded to the former sovereignty and dominion, which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost had as Creator. This new dominion and sovereignty is not destructive Of the former, but accumulative.

2. This authority and dominion which the Redeemer is possessed of is comfortable and beneficial to us; and the end and effect of it was our cure and recovery. Secondly:--The nature of this subjection. It consisteth of two things--

(1) Our willing and hearty consent to become subjects to Christ;

(2) Our actual obedience to His commands.

Thirdly: The properties of this subjection and obedience.

1. It is a willing subjection and obedience: Thy people shall be a willing people in the day of Thy power (Psa_110:3). They voluntarily submit themselves to the Son of God as their Prophet, Lord, and Sovereign.

2. It is a thankful subjection and obedience. The design of God in the work of redemption was to lay a foundation of the highest thankfulness; therefore the obedience to our Redeemer must be a thankful obedience. A mere law, as a law, requireth obedience; but a benefit, as a benefit, requireth thankfulness. Join both notions together, and then you will see it is a thankful obedience we are called unto.

3. This subjection must be constant unto the death (Rev_2:10).

4. Our subjection must be dutiful, and with great reverence.

5. Our subjection must be universal and unlimited, having respect to all His commandments (Psa_119:6 and Col_4:12). It is not enough to do some things required by Christ, but the Church must be regulated by Him in all things. If we would be contented with a little of Christ, we should soon despatch our business. The world will yield to a little of Christ; they will prize His name when they neglect His office; they will embrace the outward form of His religion when they hate the power: they will value and esteem and desire His benefits, but they despise His laws; they will attend upon external duties, but neglect private or inward acts of grace; they will seem to acknowledge the general duties, but as to particulars questioned or assaulted in the age they live in, they desire to be excused; but a gracious heart reverenceth everything that carrieth the stamp of Christ upon it, and in everything desires to submit to Him.

II. I shall give the reasons of it; though they be evident already in stating the nature of this subjection, yet I shall add more.

1. Because obedience is the best impression or stamp of our religion upon us.

2. This obedience is the qualification of those that, shall have benefit by Christ. That is evident in the same chapter: He is the Author of eternal salvation to those that obey Him (verse 9).

On the contrary, vengeance is threatened on those that obey not the gospel (2Th_1:8).

1. Consider whom it is we call you to obey: Jesus Christ, who--

(1) Hath sovereign authority to command, as He gave good evidence in the days of His flesh: for the whole course of nature obeyed Him (Mat_8:27).

(2) This Jesus is your Saviour, and shall He not be your Lord?

(3) It is Christ who hath set us so perfect a copy, and first obeyed Himself, and put His own neck under the yoke, that we might obey Him the more patiently.

2. Consider wherein we are to obey Him; in things just and equal. He only lays necessary laws upon us.

3. Consider why this obedience is required. Christ doth not rule us for our hurt and ruin, but for our conduct. His conduct and government is to lead us to eternal life, and when you disobey Him, you forsake your own happiness.

Use 1. To persuade the people of God to live in a more perfect and exact obedience to His will.

1. It is more perfidious for you to disobey Him, that have given up yourselves by a serious covenant made with God, renouncing sin, and devoting yourselves to the will of God (1Pe_1:14).

2. You have received the sanctifying Spirit, and begun this work (1Pe_1:22). Others offer violence to their duty, but you to your nature.

3. You make a profession of being in relation to Christ as your Lord, and therefore you should live in a strict obedience to His holy will (Luk_6:46).

4. You know what the will of God is more than others, and therefore, if you disobey it, you will be beaten with many stripes (Luk_12:47).

5. You have found Him a Saviour; and therefore you should not stick to obey Him as a Lord. We have seen the pattern; Christ the pattern of the husbands preeminence, the Church the pattern of the wifes subjection. Now it is easy to accommodate these things.

First: The husband is the head of the wife.

1. As the head is more eminent than the rest of the members Of the body, so there is an eminency and superiority in the husband because of his sex! The head of the woman is the man, and the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God (1Co_11:3). Man is superior in dignity and authority, as the head is above the body.

2. As the head hath power over the body to rule it and direct it, so it noteth his authority and power of government.

3. As the head is the seat of the senses and understanding, so the husband should be furnished with some complete measure of knowledge and prudence (1Pe_3:7).

Use 2. Direction to husbands.

1. They ought to resemble Christ, whose image they bear--

(1) In other things as well as in point of superiority; holiness, self-denial, love, and all sorts of duty.

(2) In using and employing their dignity and power suitable to the ends of their relation. Christ, that is the Head of the Church, is also the Saviour of the body.

2. If the husband, by being the head of the wife, bear Christs image, then this image must not be defaced nor despised.

(1) Not be defaced by the husband by impertinent commands. If they would have that submission and respect from inferiors, they must carry their government prudently and lovingly. Then it is most a similitude of Christs authority over the Church; Christ doth not burden His Church with needless laws.

(2) Not despised by the woman. All superiors have a piece of the image of Christ put upon them, therefore they must not be contemned by their inferiors, lest thereby they despise and contemn the image of God. If Jacob could say, I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me (Gen_33:10); he saw God in His kindness and reconciliation; so here.

Secondly: The wifes subjection--As the Church is subject to Christ. Where observe the manner--

(1) Negatively, not merely for their own ease, peace, and credit, but in conscience of and respect to that dignity God hath put on her husband. He bath placed him above her.

(2) Positively.

1. A righteous subjection, not a slavish.

2. A willing subjection, not grudging.

3. A dutiful subjection. (T. Manton, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 5:22-24. In the following directions concerning relative duties, the inferiors are all along placed before the superiors, because the general proposition is concerning submission: and inferiors ought to do their duty, whatever their superiors do. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands — Unless where God forbids. Otherwise, in all indifferent things, the will of the husband is a law to the wife: as unto the Lord — As owning Christ’s authority in your husbands, whose image they bear, 1Co 11:7. The obedience a wife pays to her husband, is at the same time paid to Christ himself. For the husband is the head of the wife — Under Christ; is her governor, guide, and guardian; as Christ is the head of the church — As if he had said, God will have some resemblance of Christ’s authority over the church exhibited in the husband’s authority over his wife. See on Eph 1:22. And he is the Saviour of the body — Of the church, his mystical body, from all sin and misery. As if he had said, As Christ’s authority is exercised over his church to defend it from evil, and supply it with all good, so should the husband’s power over his wife be employed to protect her from injuries, and provide comfortably for her according to his ability. Therefore as the church — That is, that part of the church which is truly regenerate; is subject unto Christ — And with cheerful willingness submits to his authority; so let the wives be to their own husbands — To whom they have promised obedience; in every thing — Which is lawful, which is not contrary to any command of God.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

II. IN THE FAMILY AND DOMESTIC CONSTITUTIONS, Eph_5:22 to Eph_6:9.

a. Wives and husbands, Eph_5:22-33.

St. Paul here makes transition, clear, indeed, yet so slight as scarce to be marked, from his model Church to his model family. Indeed, the two are one. The family is not only a part of the Church, but also in itself a Church, modelled ideally after the ideal Church, impregnated with Christian principle through its whole structure. Scientists may show how marriage is based in our physiological nature; jurists may show how it forms a part of the civil constitution; but it is the apostle’s part to show how it is enshrined in Christian law, and how the family is indeed both part of the holy Church and itself a holy Church. Hence, let no wives imagine that they are to be absolved by the new Christianity from their dutiful position as prescribed, not only by nature, but by God and Christ; nor let any husband imagine that he is discharged from his sacred responsibilities and ties. On the contrary, the looseness of Judaism and the profligacy of paganism are both abolished, and a new perfect sacredness is infused into the marriage constitution.

22. Submit yourselves—So slight is the break from the previous to the present topic, that we are obliged to go back to Eph_5:21 to obtain this submit, the leading verb. For it is not found in the best copies of the text, and has undoubtedly been supplied by copyists, who perceived the blank without realizing the reason. Going back to Eph_5:21, we find that the mutual submission of Church members and the submission of wives, are expressed by the same word. It is the submission of joyous love under fear of Christ. Bengel truly notes, therefore, that this submit is altogether different from the obey, Eph_6:1, and be obedient, Eph_6:5, prescribed to children and servants. And that would suggest that the “obey” prescribed to the bride in the marriage service is unbiblical.

Your own husbands—Your own is emphatic, as not only yours as distinguished from other husbands, but as deeply and intensely your own.

As unto the Lord—Said in anticipation of what he is about to state, that the husband represents Christ in the family Church.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Eph_5:22. Submit yourselves.—Same word as in previous verse; neither here nor there does it involve any loss of self-respect. The wife’s tribute to her husband’s worth is submission—the grace of childhood to both parents equally is obedience.

Eph_5:23. Christ is the head of the Church.—Defending her at His own peril (“If ye seek Me, let these go their way”); serving her in utmost forgetfulness of self (“I am amongst you as he that serveth”); “Giving Himself up for her.”

Eph_5:25. Husbands, love your wives.—This will prevent the submission of the wife from ever becoming degrading—as submission to a tyrant must be.

Eph_5:26. That He might sanctify and cleanse.—There is no “and” between “sanctify” and “cleanse” in what St. Paul wrote. “Sanctify it, having cleansed it” (R.V.). “I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified” (Joh_17:19).

Eph_5:27. Spot or wrinkle.—“Spot,” a visible blemish, used in the plural, figuratively, in 2Pe_2:13, of men who disfigure Christian assemblies. “Wrinkle”—“a wrinkled bride” is an incongruity, just as the mourning which produces wrinkles is out of place in the bride-chamber (Mat_9:15).

Eph_5:28. As their own bodies.—Not “as they love their own bodies” merely, but “as being their own.” See Eph_5:31, “one flesh.”

Eph_5:31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife.—We must regard these words, not as a continuation of Adam’s in Gen_2:23, but as the words of the narrator, who regards what our first father said as a mystical hint of the origin of marriage.

Eph_5:32. This is a great mystery.—The meaning of which is known only to the initiated. Something having a significance beyond what appears on the surface. But I speak.—The “I” is emphatic: “I give my interpretation.” My chief interest in this mystery is as it relates to Christ and to the Church.

Eph_5:33. Nevertheless.—“I pursue the matter no further”; and though this mystical turn is given to the words, still in actual life let the husband love (Eph_5:25) and the wife show reverence (Eph_5:22). Let all the married among you apply the mystery to their own case, so that the husband may love the wife and the wife fear the husband.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Eph_5:22-33

Duties of Wives and Husbands.

I. The duty of the wife is submission to her husband.—“Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands.”

1. A submission defined by religious obligation.—“As unto the Lord” (Eph_5:22). This submission implies no inferiority. Husband and wife are equal before God, and each is separately responsible to Him. The husband cannot love and serve God for the wife, nor the wife for the husband; each stands related to Him as a distinct personality, with distinct duties and responsibilities for each. God has the first claim upon them both, and their relation and duties to each other must be in harmony with that supreme claim. The submission demanded is not the subjection of an inferior to a superior, but the voluntary, sympathetic obedience that can be gracefully and appropriately rendered only by an equal to an equal. “It is here that Christianity, in contrast with paganism and notably with Mahometanism, raises the weaker sex to honour. In soul and destiny it declares the woman to be man, endowed with all rights and powers inherent in humanity. It is one of the glories of our faith that it has enfranchised our sisters, and raises them in spiritual calling to the full level of their brothers and husbands.”

2. A submission recognising the headship of the husband.—

(1) Analogous to the headship of Christ to His Church. “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church” (Eph_5:23).

(2) Unlike that headship inasmuch as Christ is not only the head but also the Saviour of the Church. “And He is the Saviour of the body” (Eph_5:23). As the Saviour His headship is unrivalled and must be acknowledged by every member alike. The wife must not think too much of her husband: there is One who is superior to him, and who must be all in all to them both.

3. A submission after the pattern of that of the Church to Christ.—“As the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Eph_5:24; cf. Eph_5:33). Religion sanctifies all relationships and makes duty a joy. As the wife obeys Christ in spiritual things, so she will obey her husband in all things righteous. Mary, wife of Prince William of Orange and the heir-apparent to the English throne, was asked what her husband the prince should be if she became queen. She called in her husband and promised him he should always bear rule; and asked only that he would obey the command, “Husbands, love your wives,” as she should do that, “Wives, be obedient to your husbands in all things.”

II. The duty of the husband is to love his wife.—

1. A love that seeks to promote the highest spiritual interests of the wife (Eph_5:25-29). It must be a Christ-like, self-sacrificing, all-devoted love. It is greatly within the power of the husband to help or hinder the spiritual life of the wife. The man is apt to become so self-absorbed and forgetful that he needs reminding of his duty to love and cherish the one who should be dearer to him than any other. Assured of the reality and unselfishness of her husband’s love, there is no sacrifice she will hesitate to make, nor will she spare any effort to attain the Christ-likeness of character to which he may wish to lead her. “One with Christ. This is the ideal Christian state. We have a faint reflection of this in that which should be the ideal condition of husband and wife. They are no longer twain but one flesh. They are to be as nearly as possible one person. Their thoughts, their interests, their hopes, their aims are one. Marriage was given that it might be a representation of the spiritual union between Christ and His Church. The union of each separate soul with Christ is a fragment of His union with the whole Church, and must partake of the same character. He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.”

2. A love arising from the intimacy and sacredness of the marriage bond (Eph_5:30-32).—Marriage is a union for life between one man and one woman; consequently bigamy, polygamy, and voluntary divorce are all inconsistent with its nature. It must be entered into freely and cordially by the parties, with the conviction that one is suited to the other, and to take the positions involved in the natural and scriptural view of the relation. “Marriage,” said Jeremy Taylor, “is a school and exercise of virtue. Here is the proper sense of piety and patience, of the duty of parents, and the charity of relatives; here kindness is spread abroad and love is united and made firm as a centre. Marriage is the nursery of heaven, hath in it the labours of love and the delicacies of friendship, the blessing of society and the union of hands and hearts. Like the useful bee, marriage builds a house, unites into societies and republics, exercises many virtues, promotes the interest of mankind, and is that state of good things to which God has designed the present constitution of the world.”

3. A love strengthened by the observance of mutual duties (Eph_5:33).—Love manifested begets love, and strengthens with exercise. The loving reverence of the wife follows on the frank and genuine love of the husband. This was an epitaph in a churchyard inscribed by a husband after sixty years of married life “She always made home happy.” The Christian conception of love and marriage began a new era in the world, and has exalted woman to her true place.

Lessons.—

1. Marriage is not to be lightly entered into.

2. Is dignified as a symbol of the union between Christ and His Church. 3. Binds the contracting parties to fidelity in observing the most sacred vows.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Eph_5:22-33. Wives and Husbands.

I. There are duties which are common to both the correlates.—The husband and wife are in some respects equals. As they are one and have one common interest they ought to act with an undivided concern for the happiness of the family. They are alike bound to mutual fidelity and a chaste conversation. They are under equal obligations to study each other’s peace and comfort.

II. There are some duties particularly incumbent on the wife.—These the apostle expresses by the terms submission, reverence, obedience, and subjection. Since the Church is subject to Christ, the woman ought to be subject to her husband, who, by Christ’s authority, is constituted her head. A family should resemble a Church in union, peace, and subordination. The honour and interest of religion require that wives, by a cheerful subordination, co-operate with their husbands in all the important concerns of the household, and in the nurture, education, and government of the dependent members.

III. There are duties particularly incumbent on the husband towards his wife.—These the apostle expresses by the word “love,” which here stands opposed to sharpness and severity. One argument for this love is the example of Christ in His love and devotion to the Church. Another reason is, the intimacy of the relationship—“Whoso loveth his wife loveth himself.” Where the spirit of religion reigns in both, the union will be easy and their joint government in the family have efficacy. The maintenance of family religion depends on nothing more than the union of the heads. For how can they unite in prayers and praises who unite in nothing else.—Lathrop.

Eph_5:23-32. Christ and His Bride.

I. Christ’s love to the Church (Eph_5:25-27). We must value and joyfully assert our individual part in the redeeming love of the Son of God; but we must equally admit the sovereign rights of the Church in the Redeemer’s passion. There is in some an absorption in the work of grace within their own hearts, an individualistic salvation-seeking that like all selfishness defeats its end, for it narrows and impoverishes the inner life thus sedulously cherished. The Church does not exist simply for the benefit of individual souls; it is an eternal institution, with an affiance to Christ, a calling and destiny of its own; within that universal sphere our personal destiny holds its particular place. The Christ is worthy and she must be made worthy. From eternity He set His love upon her; on the cross He won her back from her infidelity at the price of His blood. Through the ages He has been wooing her to Himself, and schooling her in wise and manifold ways that she may be fit for her heavenly calling. Through what cleansing fires, through what baptisms, even of blood, she has still to pass ere the consummation is reached, He only knows who loved her and gave Himself for her. He will spare to His Church nothing, either of bounty or of trial, that her perfection needs.

II. Christ’s authority over the Church (Eph_5:23-24).—The Church is no democracy, any more than she is an aristocracy or a sacerdotal absolutism: she is a Christocracy. The people are not rulers in the house of God; they are the ruled, laity and ministers alike. We acknowledge this in theory; but our language and spirit would oftentimes be other than they are, if we were penetrated with the sense of the continual presence and majesty of the Lord Jesus in our assemblies. The Church’s protection from human tyranny, from schemes of ambition, from the intrusion of political methods and designs, lies in her sense of the splendour and reality of Christ’s dominion and of her own eternal life in Him.

III. The mystery of the Church’s origin in Christ (Eph_5:30-32).—God chose us in Christ before the world’s foundation. We were created in the Son of God’s love antecedently to our redemption by Him. Christ recovers through the cross that which pertains inherently to Him, which belonged to Him by nature, and is as a part of Himself. The derivation of Eve from the body of Adam, as that is affirmed in the mysterious words of Genesis, is analogous to the derivation of the Church from Christ. The latter relationship existed in its ideal, and as conceived in the purpose of God, prior to the appearance of the human race. In St. Paul’s theory, the origin of the woman in man, which forms the basis of marriage in Scripture, looked farther back to the origin of humanity in Christ Himself. In some mystical but real sense marriage is a reunion, the reincorporation of what had been sundered. Seeking his other self, the complement of his nature, the man breaks the ties of birth and founds a new home. So the inspired author of the passage in Genesis (Eph_2:21-22) explains the origin of marriage, and the instinct which draws the bridegroom to his bride. But our apostle sees within this declaration a deeper truth, kept secret from the foundation of the world. When he speaks of this great mystery, he means thereby not marriage itself, but the saying of Adam about it. This text was a standing problem to the Jewish interpreters. “But for my part,” says the apostle, “I refer it to Christ and to the Church.” St. Paul, who has so often before drawn the parallel between Adam and Christ, by the light of this analogy perceives a new and rich meaning in the old dark sentence. It helps him to see how believers in Christ, forming collectively His body, are not only grafted into Him, but were derived from Him and formed in the very mould of His nature. In our union through grace and faith with Christ crucified we realise again the original design of our being. Christ has purchased by His blood no new or foreign bride, but her who was His from eternity—the child who had wandered from the Father’s house, the betrothed who had left her Lord and spouse.—Findlay.

Eph_5:25-33. The Christian Law of Marriage—

I. Demands self-sacrificing love.

II. Recognises the sacredness of the union between the contracting parties.

III. Is ennobled in being a type of the union between Christ and the Church.

IV. Involves mutual fidelity on the part of both husband and wife.

Eph_5:25-27. Christ’s Love for the Church.

I. Christ’s love of His Church.—It was—

1. Ancient.

2. Self-moved.

3. Active.

4. Effective.

II. Christ’s sacrifice of Himself as an exhibition of His love.—

1. Himself. His life. What a life!

2. As a sacrifice. The essence of it is vicarious suffering.

3. To all the suffering which justice demanded.

III. Christ’s more immediate object in what He has done.—

1. Sanctification. As essential as pardon.

2. By the agency of the Holy Spirit. Signified by the washing of water.

3. Through the instrumentality of the word.

IV. Christ’s ultimate aim.—

1. To present His Church to Himself. A nuptial figure.

2. Free from all imperfections.

3. Adorned with all excellencies.

(1) Our obligations to Christ.

(2) The real value of holiness.

(3) The high destiny of believers.—G. Brooks.

The Future Glory of the Church.

I. The future state of the Church.—In describing the future condition of the Church, the apostle has evidently in his mind two previous states: her original state when lying dead in trespasses and sins, and her subsequent earthly state when separated from the mass of the ungodly and partially redeemed. We have the people of Christ before us in three distinct points of view:—

1. As wholly defiled.—Speaking of “sanctifying and cleansing” the Church intimates her complete defilement.

2. As in some measure cleansed.—Though sanctified and cleansed, we read of spots still left on the Church.

3. As altogether pure.—Faultless in God’s presence and estimation.

II. The causes to which this state is to be ascribed.—

1. The love of Christ.

2. Love revealed in sacrifice as another step towards final purity.

3. The work of the Holy Spirit (Eph_5:26).

4. The word of God (Eph_5:26). A right understanding of its testimony and a heartfelt belief in its truth.

III. The great end for which all these means of holiness are brought into operation.—“That He might present it to Himself a glorious Church” (Eph_5:27). The likeness of God will be put on her, the image of God shine in her; that attribute of divinity—holiness—which is the perfection of divinity will be her crown.—C. Bradley.

The Divine Ideal of the Church.

I. We have an array of stupendous facts concerning the Church.—

1. The divine prevision. Before the eternal Son of God could give Himself for the Church, He must have had it in His mind.

2. The Redeemer’s actual love for the Church. 3. The Redeemer’s amazing self-sacrifice on behalf of the Church. 4. That the Redeemer has a very definite purpose concerning His Church.

II. The distinguishing marks or signs of the members of the Church.—They are personal and experimental.

1. The casting out of natural impurities. Improvement is not enough. Nothing but a thorough re-creation can effect what is required.

2. The instrument of this change is the truth.

3. This change, this introduction into the Church, is a thing complete in itself, becomes historical, and ought never to need repeating.

4. The way is open for the appearance of the other personal and experimental sign—sanctification (Eph_5:26).

5. Christ’s idea of the Church given in these verses is not abstract, impracticable, and untrue to the possibilities of ordinary human nature.

III. Here we catch a glimpse of the future and eternal glory of the Church.—How stupendous an event it will be when, at the consummation of all things, the whole Church will be presented to the Lord Jesus! What can secure Church membership? Neither early training, nor baptism, nor the holding of, an orthodox creed, nor association with a religious and devout assembly, nor the filling of ecclesiastical office, nor even intelligent approach to the table of the Lord. Such things are means to an end. That end is true membership in the Church of Christ. And that membership is attained and secured by divine renewal of the heart, and by that conformity to the mind of Christ which is expressive of the new life. The true unity of the Church of Christ is that spiritual oneness which has its expression in identity of Christian life.—W. Hudson.

Eph_5:25. A Noble Self-sacrifice.—Caius Gracchus, who was the idol of the Roman people, having carried his regard for the lower orders so far as to draw upon himself the resentment of the nobility, an open rupture ensued; and the two extremities of Rome resembled two camps—Opimius the consul on one side, and Gracchus and his friend Fulvius on the other. A battle ensued in which the consul, meeting with more vigorous resistance than he expected, proclaimed an amnesty for all those who should lay down their arms, and at the same time promised to pay for the heads of Gracchus and Fulvius their weight in gold. This proclamation had the desired effect. The populace deserted their leaders, Fulvius was taken and beheaded, and Gracchus, at the advice of his two friends, Licinius Crassus and Pomponius, determined to flee the city, and reached the bridge Sublicius, where his enemies, who pursued him close, would have overtaken and seized him if his two friends had not opposed their fury; but they saw the danger he was in and determined to save his life at the expense of their own. They defended the bridge against all the consular troops till Gracchus was out of their reach; but at length, being overpowered by numbers, and covered with wounds, they both expired on the bridge they had so valiantly defended.—Biblical Treasury.

Eph_5:30. Members of the Body of Christ.

I. The doctrine.—The apostle is speaking of believers only; of believers as believing; of all believers. His language implies:—

1. Union.—Real, intimate, indissoluble.

2. Dependence.—Of the members on the heart. Of the members on the head.

3. Sympathy.—Sincere, entire, uninterrupted. Value of human sympathy. Its rarity. Its necessary imperfection. The superiority of Christ’s.

II. The duty.—

1. Love. A special affection arising out of a special relation.

2. Reverence.—There should be no unholy familiarity.

3. Obedience.—Responsive to His will as a part of Himself.—G. Brooks.

Eph_5:33. The Sanctity of Home Life.—The Christian home is the corner-stone of modern civilisation—the best fruit Christianity has yielded the earth. The Anglo-Saxon home is the crowning glory of the race. Contrast it with French home life, or the miserable home life in Utah! National self-preservation demands a vigorous uprooting of Mormon polygamy and Western divorce lawlessness. That which is punished as a crime in the best and purest Christian lands must be punished as a crime wherever it is found. Garfield kissing his mother and his wife at his Inauguration was a sweet revelation of holy family life.—Homiletic Monthly.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Special Christian duties in domestic relations.

Eph_5:22 to Eph_6:9.

Wives and husbands

(Eph_5:22-33.)

22Wives, submit yourselves42 unto [to] your own husbands, as unto [to] the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the [Because a43 husband is head of his] wife, even as Christ is the head [as Christ also is head] of the church: [,] and he is [himself 24omitting and he is]44 the Saviour of the body. Therefore, [Nevertheless]45 as the church is subject unto [to] Christ, so let the wives [also] be to their own [omit own]46 husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your47 wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself [up] for it: 26That he might sanctify [it,] and cleanse [cleansing] it with the washing [laver] of [the] water by [in] the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church [That he might himself48 present to himself the church glorious], not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; 28but that it should [might] be holy and without blemish. So [Thus] ought men [husbands also]49 to love their [own] wives as their own bodies. He that [who] loveth his [own] wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated [no one ever hated] his own flesh; but nourisheth it, even as the Lord [Christ50 also doth] the 30church: For [Because] we are members of his body, [being]51 of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his [omit his]52 father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife,53 and they [the] two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery [This mystery is a great one]: but I speak concerning [I say it in33regard to]54 Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular [Ye also severally, let each one] so love his [own] wife even [omit even] as himself; and [let] the wife see that she reverence her husband.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

To Wives; Eph_5:22-24. a. The exhortation, Eph_5:22; b. The basis of it, Eph_5:23-24.

Eph_5:22. The exhortation. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, αἰ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν.—This section with its particular duties is so closely connected to the last sentence: “submitting yourselves one to another,” with its general duties, that the form is thus abbreviated. Accordingly the verb to be supplied should be imperative, as in some of the various readings, as is required also by the arrangement of the section itself (Eph_5:25; Eph_5:28; Eph_5:33). Bengel Inferiores priore loco ponuntur, deinde superiores 25, Eph_6:1; Eph_6:4-5; Eph_6:9; 1Pe_3:1, quia propositio est de subjectione: et inferiores debent officium facere, qualescunque sunt superiores. Multi etiam ex inferioribus fiunt superiores: et qui bene subest, bene præest. The term ἴδιος is almost invariably joined with “husbands” in the New Testament (Tit. 2:5, 17; 1Pe_3:1; 1Pe_3:5; 1Co_7:2 : τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα—τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα: 1Co_14:35). We even find ἴδιος αὐτων προφήτης (Tit_1:12) marking in addition to the “their,” that no strange (antithesis: ἴδιος) one is to be thought of. From this it follows that ὁ ἴδιος ἀνήρ is not simply=husband (Harless), nor ἴδιος=ἑαυτοῦ, αὐτου (Winer, p. 145). It has elsewhere its definite meaning=proprius, as Winer admits in regard to many passages, and the Apostle had in this one precept of obedience for the wife a good and sufficient reason for defining the husband with ἴδιος; this justifies the sharpening by which the command appears a natural one.55 At the same time it points to the fact, that the wife is found to the husband in another way than he to her. She has here her calling, the avocation of the husband extends further. It is also to be noticed with Bengel: Mulieres obsequi debent suis maritis, etiamsi alibi meliora viderentur consilia. See Doctr. Notes.

As to the Lord, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ.—The singular requires according to the context a reference to Christ (Eph_6:1; Eph_6:5-7), and “as” marks a reality; behind the husband stands the Lord Himself. Thus the obedience is characterized. The obedience is to be rendered not to the husband as man, but as “own husband” in and by whose person the Lord is honored who has established the relation, whom the husband himself must obey.56 Hence it is not the husband as lord (Thom. Aquinas, Semler and others).

The basis of the exhortation; Eph_5:23-24.

Eph_5:23. Because a husband is head of his wife [ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστι κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικός].—The foundation of the exhortation is introduced by ὅτι, “because.” Ἀνήρ, “husband,” without the article, designates generally every husband,57 who as such is “head” of the definite wife, chosen and won by him (τῆς γυναικός). The position of the husband is thus marked as of an organizing, managing, controlling and deciding character, which is further set forth by the comparison immediately following:

As Christ also is head of the Church.—Ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστός places Him as parallel with the husband (Eph_2:3; Eph_4:17). On “head of the Church,” see Eph_1:22; Eph_4:15. The wife and the Church are thus placed as parallels.

Himself the Saviour of the body.—This distinguishes Christ from the husband. Αὐτος emphasizes Christ: He and none other. Σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος, Saviour of the body, the Church, is He and He alone. It is thus explanatory of “Christ,” marking His peculiar dignity, and not in apposition to “head.” This is not applicable to the husband as respects the wife; for him also Christ is the Redeemer. [Alford thus expands the Apostle’s thought: “In Christ’s case the Headship is united with, nay gained by, His having saved the body in the process of Redemption: so that I am not alleging Christ’s Headship as one entirely identical with that other, for He has a claim to it and office in it peculiar to Himself.” So most.—R.] It is incorrect to take this as referring to the man also, in order thereby to remind husbands that they should make their wives happy (Erasmus, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ΙΙ. 2, p. 133, and others); that thought belongs to the other part of the exhortation (Eph_5:25 ff.) and would weaken the notion of σωτήρ very much. Stier is over-refined in discovering in σωτήρ—σῶμα an etymological allusion, as Php_3:20-21.

Eph_5:24. Nevertheless as the Church is subject to Christ, ἀλλά ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τᾦ Χριστῷ—Ἀλλα, “nevertheless,” in spite of the difference between Christ and the husband, the resemblance between the Church and the wife remains. Hence the particle is adversative: habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est, est servator ecclesiæ, nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos præesse, Christi exemplo, utcunque pari gratia non polleant (Calvin, Bengel and others).58 It is accordingly neither syllogistic=ὥστε, οὖν (Beza [E. V.] and others), nor continuative=δέ (Winer, p. 420), nor resumptive=inquam (Harless).

So let the wives also be to their husbands [οὕτως καὶ αἰ γοναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσις].—The οὕτως καὶ strongly marks the analogy. The verb is to be supplied as in Eph_5:22. The emphasis rests on the final words: in everything, ἐν πάντι (1Co_1:5)=κατὰ πάντα (Col_3:20; Col_3:22). From such a command we are not to infer that the reference is to Christian wedlock (Harless); this must indeed also be thoroughly correct. Neither the one (1Co_7:12-17) nor the other is to be accepted. “In everything” is limited by the context to that which the husband as such commands and which the wife as such has to do, but in neither contrary to the Lord. [Hodge: “It teaches its extent, not its degree. It extends over all departments, but is limited in all,—first, by the nature of the relation; and secondly, by the higher authority of God.”—R.]

To Husbands; Eph_5:25-31. a. The exhortation, Eph_5:25-28; b. The basis of it, Eph_5:29-31.

Eph_5:25. Husbands, love your wives, οἱ ἄνδρες, ἁγαπᾶτε τὰς γοναῖκας ἑαυτῶν. [See Textual Note6].—Thus the husbands are exhorted, but a closer definition follows: Even as Christ also loved the Church.—Καθες καὶ ὁ Χριστός places the husbands in emphatic parallelism with Him, and the wives with the Church (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν). Si omnia rhetorum argumenta in unum conjicias, non tam persuaseris conjugibus dilectionem mutuam quam hic Paulus (Bugenhagen). [Comp. the apt quotation from Theophylact in Ellicott, and the beautiful remarks of Chrysostom, cited at length by Alford in loco.—R.] Ἠγάπησεν, “loved” (Joh_13:34; Joh_15:12; 1Jn_2:8; 1Jn_3:14) is more closely defined by proof of fact.

And gave himself up for it,59 καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς (Eph_5:2).—Here also we should not supply in thought: unto death (Meyer), if by that is meant only the death on the cross; the reference is to the entire suffering including the last act as the extreme point. Thus the love required of the husband, a love self-devoting even unto death, gains a significant depth, while there still remains something important which is incomparable: Christ first created the Church through love, as His love made a reconciliation of the world with God, redemption from sin, and death, eternal life and salvation.

Eph_5:26-27. The end of the self-sacrificing love of Christ.

Eph_5:26. That he might sanctify it.—Ἵνα defines the end: αὐτὴν ἆγιάσῃ. There is here indicated a continued action and dealing towards and upon the Church, the result of which is expressed in Eph_5:27 (“that it should be holy and without blemish”); it is the positive activity, effecting the ethical form and demeanor which is well-pleasing to God. It is not merely segregare et sibi consecrare (Calvin [Eadie, but not to the exclusion of the idea of sanctification as a result.—R.] and others). The modality is set forth in the participial clause: Cleansing it.—Καθαρίσας as in Eph_1:9; Eph_1:13. This indicates the negative activity directed against the evil which is to be removed; both, the positive and the negative, advance together and undivided. Hence it is not: after he cleansed it (Olshausen, Meyer and others),60 nor, as though it were complete in a moment: and has cleansed it (Luther). It continues: it is not a single member of the Church that is spoken of, but the totality of Christians. By what means then is the Church cleansed from sin?

With the laver of the water, τῷ λούτρῳ61 τοῦ ὕδατος.—Unquestionably this means baptism; the readers must have thus understood it (Harless); insigne testimonium de baptismo (Bengel). The article (τῷ) denotes something well known; besides ὕδατος and the connection with καθαρίσας. Comp. Tit_3:5; 1Co_6:11; Heb_10:23; Act_10:47; Act_22:16. But the water does not give the cleansing which is spoken of, nor the bathing or washing. It is the baptism, not the bath in the water. Hence there is further added: in the word, ἐν ῥήματι, in order to designate Christian baptism as to its essence. The notion of baptism, as a means of cleansing beside the sanctifying (see Doctr. Notes 5, 6), as well as the position of this phrase require us to take both together, and the usage respecting the word ρ̀ὴμα) and the connection by means of ἐν (like Eph_6:2 : ἐντολὴ ἐν ἐπαγγελία) admit of this. Paul uses ῥὴμα (Eph_5:17; Rom_10:8; Rom_10:17; 2Co_12:4; comp. Heb_1:3; Heb_11:3; 1Pe_1:25) in a similar manner. [In all cases it refers directly or indirectly towards proceeding ultimately or immediately from God (Ellicott).—R.] The conjunction of καθαρος, ὕδωρ, λόγος, Joh_13:10; Joh_15:3, is well known. “The washing of water” takes place “in word,” consists essentially therein, hence the reference to God’s Word in general, and in particular to the name of the triune God and His promise. [Alford is quite correct in referring it to “the preached word of faith (Rom_10:8), of which confession is made in baptism, and which carries the real cleansing (Joh_15:3; Joh_17:17) and regenerating power (1Pe_1:23; 1Pe_3:21)—so Augustine Tract. 80 in Joan. 3, vol. 3. p. 1840, Migne; where these memorable words occur, ‘Detrahe verbum, et quid est aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum.’ ” So substantially Eadie, Ellicott, Hodge and others. Comp. Doctr. Notes.—R.]

Hence it is incorrect to take ἐν ῥήματι, ἵνα as a Hebraism=to the end thereby (Koppe and others), or as formula baptizandi (Greek. Fathers, Scholastics and others). Nor is it to be joined with καθαρίσας (Bengel, Harless, Hofmann Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 135, who takes it as the word Mat_8:3; καθαρίσθητι), which would then have two means by the side of each other, or with ἁγιάσῃ (Jerome, Winer, p. 130, Meyer and others), for in that case it would of necessity have been immediately subjoined. [The connection with the participle is defended by Eadie, Alford and Ellicott (who more exactly suggests: “rather with the whole expression”). The absence of the article is strongly opposed to Braune’s view, while the participle might well have two added qualifications, one an instrumental dative and the other specifying with ἐν “the necessary accompaniment” (Ellicott). “Thus the word, preached and received, is the conditional element of purification,—the real water of spiritual baptism;—that wherein and whereby alone the efficiency of baptism is conveyed” (Alford).—R.]

Eph_5:27. That he might himself present to himself the Church glorious, ἵνα παραστήσῃ αὕτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν—This second ἵνα depends on ἁγισ́σῃ, the end and aim of which it introduces: “He might himself present,” etc. He and none other (αὐτός), without the co-operation of others for Himself (ἑαυτῷ)62 and not for others, the world or anything else, to His own good-pleasure presents the Church gloriously. The figure (παραστὴσαι) is taken, as in 2Co_11:2, from the adorning of a bride; hence the emphatically placed ἔνδοξον, which in 1Co_4:10 is the antithesis of ἄτιμος, is like Luk_7:25 (ἐν ιματισμᾧ) to be applied to the glorious appearance, so that the Church thus appears “worthy of the calling” (Eph_4:1), or “of the Lord” (Col_1:10), “of God” (1Th_2:12; 3Jn_1:6), respondeat ideæ suæ æternæ (Bengel). The result of the ἁγιάζειν is the οξάζειν both belong together: sanctitas est gloria interior, gloria est sanctitas emicans (Bengel)63.

The second clause beginning with ἵνα is not to be placed as parallel to the first, nor is the figure of an offering to be substituted for that of adorning (Harless). But it is to be maintained, that this state of things for the Church is not attained in this life (Rudelbach), while at the same time we may say with Bengel: (id valet suo modo jam de hac vita). The vital process in the individual and in the whole is indeed that of a development from seed to harvest, is not complete atone stroke, has its stadia and phases. The consummation is really only at the conclusion (Second Advent). [So Alford, Eadie and most. Hodge has a full note on the question.—R.]

Not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἤ ῥυτὶδα ἢ τι τοιούτων.—Thus the Apostle describes more clearly ἔνδοξον.—Σπίλος64 (2Pe_2:13; comp. Judges 12), parallel to μῶμος, designates what clings to her from without, spot and stain, what is loathsome, the remains of the previous walk and conversation; ῥυτίς, wrinkle, refers to internal emotions, which fix themselves in the countenance, and disfigure the face as it grows old. Other antitheses, as those of Grotius (the former applying to carere vitiis, the latter to vegetos semper esse, to what is good) are not justified by the language. The final phrase negatives the least spot or wrinkle or even what is similar, hence in general what can disfigure. [“The terms are taken from physical beauty, health, and symmetry, to denote spiritual perfection” (Eadie).—R.]

But that it might be, ἀλλ̓ ἵνα ῇ instead of ἀλλ̓ οὖσαν, in accordance with the liveliness of the Greek, who liked the transition from the participle into the finite verb. Winer, p. 537. This ἴνα is parallel to the second one at the beginning of this verse. [Hence “might” must be substituted for “should” (E. V.), to indicate the parallelism.—R.] The final end of the sanctifying is the being holy and without blemish.65—To the “wrinkle” proceeding from within the “holy” corresponds, to the external “spot” ἄμωμος “without blemish” (Eph_1:4).

Eph_5:28. Thus, οὕτως points emphatically to what precedes, on which account Harless (with Estius: digressus nonnihil ad mysterium, nunc ad institutum redit) incorrectly excludes the definite comparison for wedded life, as though it were inappropriate, when only prudence, moderation are commanded. It is not to be referred to the following ὡς (B-Crusius). [So Alford. But Ellicott, Eadie and Hodge agree with Braune, in referring οὕτως to what precedes, i.e., “thus, in like manner as Christ,” while ὡς indicates not the measure, but a fact, “as they are,” etc.—R.]

Ought husbands to love their own wives [καί ὁι ἄνδρες ὀφέιλουσιν ἁγαπὰν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας.]—The comparison with Christ is now especially denoted by καί before οἱ ἄνδρες. Ὀφείλουσιν presupposes a command for this, the “new commandment” (see Eph_5:25), which corresponds with nature, as God has ordained it,66 and, applying to fraternal fellowship, is then certainly valid for marital fellowship, as is indicated by the next phrase which introduces a motive: as their own bodies, ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα.—Here ὡς is evidently a designation of a reality, corresponding to the figure, that the man is the head of the wife (Eph_5:23; 1Co_11:3). [See Eadie for a lucid statement of the correct view respecting this particle.—R.] It is not comparative (Grotius), hence not=as themselves.

The result of the view that the husband is the head of the wife, while the wife is the body of the husband, as the Church is Christ’s body is this thought: He who loveth his own wife loveth himself, ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα, ἑαυτον ἀγαπᾷ.—Comp. Eph_5:33. On this general proposition what follows rests.

The basis of the exhortation; Eph_5:29-31.

Eph_5:29. For no one ever hated his own flesh, ούδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἑμίσησεν.—The ground which follows is introduced by γάρ.67 In the first place a general fact is negatively expressed. “No man ever” is not limited; not even nisi scilicet a natura et a se ipso desciscat (Bengel). For all “unsparingness of the body” (Col_2:22) rests on self-deception. If he actually injures himself, it cannot even then be said that he “hateth his own flesh.” Paul did not choose σῶμα here, because he already had in mind the quotation (Eph_5:31), which refers to the institution of marriage in Paradise before the fall; there as here all that is sinful is excluded from the σάρξ, which is not of itself subject to sin. Μισεῖν is chosen, because the disposition is spoken of; it is to be understood like 1Jn_3:15. Grotius aptly recalls Curtius, Eph 7: corporibus nostris, quæ utique non odimus; Seneca, ep. 14: fateor insitam esse corporis nostri caritatem; De Clem. 1, Ephesians 5 : Si quod adhuc collegitur, animus reipublicæ tu es, illa corpum tuum, vides, ut puto, quam necessaria clementia sit. Tibi enim parcis, quum videris alteri parcere. Comp. Pro_11:15; Pro_11:17.

But nourisheth and cherisheth it [ἀλλʼ ἐκτρέφει καί θάλπει αὐτήν]—Ἀλλά naturally takes out of οὐδείς the subject ἕκαστος, each one. The first verb, the strengthened τρέφειν, refers to the growing development brought about through nourishment (Meyer); it occurs only here and in Eph_6:4. The second verb (only here and 1Th_2:7) is stronger than θερμαίνειν (Jam_2:16) which is also more general, and denotes the warming upon and with one’s self; hence it is used of brooding, Deu_22:6 (LXX.); it is more than fovet (Vulgate), pflegt (Luther). The two expressions are distinguished by Bengel so far correctly that he remarks on the former intus, on the latter ad extra, but he is faulty in thinking of victus in connection with the former, amictus with the latter. The one refers to the strengthening food, renewing the life, the other to the protection and preservation of the life. Harless incorrectly denies any distinction, taking both as descriptive of maternal love.

Even as Christ also doth the Church [καθὼς καὶ ὁ

Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν].—What is of universal validity within the sphere of creation, is found also in the Redeemer as respects His Church (He nourishes and cherishes it). Stier applies it to the Lord’s Supper, which is indeed not to be excluded, thinking that after the nasci in the baptism (Eph_5:26) the pasci is here spoken of. It is more natural to remember how Christ calls Himself the bread of life (Joh_6:48; Joh_6:51), which “nourishes,” not in the Lord’s Supper alone, even though it takes place there in its most full and intense form, and also that He compares Himself to a hen (Mat_23:37) that covereth with her wings, thus protecting and cherishing (θάλπει) at the same time. Grotius (nutrit eam verbo et spiritu, vestit virtutibus) is correct only in the first part of his comment. Evidently the spheres of Creation and Redemption do not fall outside each other; the former finds in the latter its restoration and consummation, the latter in the former its basis and point of connection. What is unnatural is unchristian.

Eph_5:30 proves the action of Christ to His Church through her intimate union with Him:

Because we are members of his body [ὅτι μὲλη ἑσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ].—“Because” connects with the foregoing thought: He nourisheth and cherisheth the Church. The Church is now the subject, which inheres in ἐσμέν. Every individual is so, as the plural indicates. The Church as a whole as also individually, the members of the Church are then “members of His body.” Here τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ is evidently=ὁ Χριστός (1Co_6:15; 1Co_12:27), on which account Bengel is correct in saying: corpus hic dicitur non ecclesia, quæ continentur in subjecto “sumus,” sed corpus ipsius Christi; hence this is entirely like 1Co_10:16 (Stier). The membership, which is designated by the emphatically placed μέλη, and which is conceived of as existing in the word ἕσμέν, is designed to mark Christendom and Christians as “integral parts of His body” (Meyer). A closer definition follows.

Being of his flesh and of his bones, ἐκτῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τὼν ὀστέων αῡ̔τοῦ.—First of all the repeated preposition must be noticed, marking as it does the origin and the appertaining to. The phrase denotes the personality and corporeality of Christ, in which the Church with her members originates. The connection with and origin from Christ, from the historical, incarnate Christ, from His personal body, is designated in such a way, that we as well as the whole Church are to be regarded as His production and possession; and this is expressed with the Scripture passage, or at least with a reminiscence of the passage, which refers to the creation of the woman out of the first Adam in Paradise (Gen_2:23 : LXX.: τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου, καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σηρκός μου), because Christ is the second Adam (1Co_15:45; 1Co_15:47; comp. 1Ti_2:13), and the Church, as well as each of its members, is a creation (1 Cor. 5:19). Comp. the parable of the Vine and the branches (Joh_15:1 ff). Our life in Christ proceeds in its inmost nature from holiness, is really strengthened from Him, and affects the resurrection body.

Accordingly it is inappropriate to think only of the close union of Christ with us (Koppe), or the identity of our nature with His (Latin Fathers), or only of spiritual origin (Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Calovius, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II., 2, p. 137, Meyer and others), or only of the death of the cross (Grotius: ex carne ejus et ossibus cruci adfixis, i.e., ex passione ejus prædicata et credita ortum habuit ecclesia; Schenkel, who refers to Eph_5:24), or the Lord’s Supper (Kahnis, Harless, Olshausen, Stier and others), or the glorified body (Gess: Christi Person, p. 274 ff.). Bengel, who is followed, up to a certain point, by Stier, since he also finds in the creation of the woman out of Adam a type of the creation of the Church out of Christ, must be regarded as fanciful despite the several apt remarks he makes: Moses ossa prius, Paulus carnem prius nominat; naturalem quippe structuram, de qua ille, ossa potissimum sustinent; ut in nova creatione caro Christi magis consideratur. Porro Moses plenius loquitur; Paulus omittit quæ ad propositum non æque pertinent. Non ossa et caro nostra, sed nos spiritualiter (Stier: via spiritualiter in corporationem vergente) propagamur ex humanitate Christi, carnem et ossa habente. Rueckert is altogether perverted in his notion that the Apostle himself had no definite idea in his mind; if he waives an explanation of the passage, so he must waive first of all his own explanation.

[In agreement with the view of Braune, in the main, the following statement is appended. The Apostle here asserts a state (ἐσμεν) of Christians, originating from Christ (ἐκ), analogous to the physical derivation of Eve from Adam and the consequent union subsequently between them. The direct reference to every nuptial union (Eadie) does not accord with the preposition or the immediate allusion. This is the mystical relation, implying as Hodge well contends, something more than that we derive our spiritual life from Christ, as Eve her spiritual life from Adam (Ellicott, Alford, following Meyer), since the peculiar language seems to involve more; and something else than that we are partakers of the substance of Christ’s body, as Eve was formed out of the substance of Adam’s body (Calvin, and with various modifications most strong sacramentalists), a view which tends to materialistic conceptions of the union, and, in attempting to explain one acknowledged mystery, creates confusion instead of clearness. This middle position accepts a connection with Him, “not simply and generally by a spiritual union, but in some close and derivative way, which the Apostle calls a mystery” (Eadie), leaving the matter there. As regards the secondary application to the Sacraments, which Ellicott and Wordsworth (with many German commentators) accept, it may be remarked, that these undoubtedly constitute signs and seals, and in a certain sense means of maintaining this union, but this passage, which speaks not of “body and blood,” but of “flesh and bones,” does not distinctly refer to these, so that nothing can be deduced from it in regard to the communication with Christ’s glorified, or transmuted, body in the Lord’s Supper. Comp. the full, clear and excellent discussion of Hodge, who opposes Calvin’s views most strenuously—R.]

Eph_5:31. Paul in this verse proceeds with the passage which follows the saying of Adam respecting the woman brought to him (Gen_2:24, LXX.: ἔνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καἰ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοὐ καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναικα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν):

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.—The changes are inconsiderable: ἀντί instead of ἔνεκεν, πατέρα and μητέρα, according to the best authorities, without the articles and pronouns, τῃ γυναικί at least a various reading as Mat_19:5. Notwithstanding this, it is not a quotation, since there is nothing to indicate this. He merely continues in the words of Moses, which he uses with slight variations, while the Lord introduces them (Mat_19:5) with εἶπεν and Paul himself in 1Co_6:16, the last clause with φησίν. Further, this passage is not a part of Adam’s speech, since he could say nothing of forsaking father and mother, unless it be taken as a prediction (Stier) [Jerome: primus vates Adam]; in which case, however, he would still in the last clause have prophesied respecting himself. [Comp. Genesis, p. 209.—R.] Hence it is not strange that the Apostle passes over the intervening clause, in which Harless unnecessarily finds a difficulty.

Ἀντὶ τούτου is then, if we compare ἀνθʼ ὦν (2 Thess. 2:19; Luk_1:2; Luk_12:3; Luk_19:44), for this, that the woman is taken from the man, he will cling to her; εἰς ἀμοιβήν (Winer, p. 342). Paul unmistakably thus returns to the conjugal state, after he has finished the proof (Eph_5:30) for “as Christ also” (Eph_5:29). Hence it is not necessary with Bleek to supply after Eph_5:30 : we are of His flesh and bones, the following middle term: as the woman is not of the flesh and bones of the man, to which Eph_5:31 refers. Τούτου is not to be referred to our origin from Christ, to whom the forsaking of father and mother does not apply, the forsaking of father not in the future at least (καταλείψει), and such a reference is foreign to the purpose, the clinging to the wife, the Church, since either this did not at all exist when He was born a man, or he already clung to it in love, without the necessity of first forsaking the Father. Indeed, the future (καταλείψει) may be regarded here in this saying of Moses, analogously to the future [the ethical future] of the commandments (Rom_13:9 : οὐ μοιχεύσεις, κ. τ. λ.), as the precept corresponding to the relations as established in God’s word.

Καὶ ἓσονται οἰ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν refers to a gradual coining to pass of unity (hence εἰς with the accusative), and that, too, in the case of two different persons (οἱ δύο, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ, Gen_1:27), who from within becomes one in all external circumstances, non solum uti antea, respectu ortus, sed respectu novæ conjunctionis (Bengel). Hence it is not necessary to find here only a prophecy of the Second Advent of Christ, who now as Betrothed and afterwards as husband, clings to the Church (Meyer), nor in the Mosaic passage a prophetic type of Christ and His Church (Stier), nor to refer the last clause to the Lord’s Supper (Calvin, Beza, Harless, Olshausen, Kahnis).

[The main difficulty is in regard to the connection. Meyer (and many others from Chrysostom to Alford) refers “for this cause” to Eph_5:30, thus applying our verse to the relation of Christ and the Church. But the Apostle is recalling a passage at the basis of which lies the fact of Eve’s being taken out of Adam, and the slight alteration he makes does not show an intent to apply it differently here. Besides the whole section treats of the relation of husband and wife, and this is, therefore, to be regarded as the leading reference unless the other is distinctly marked. This principle the Apostle himself assumes in Eph_5:32 : “But I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” At the same time we must accept a secondary application (Ellicott) to Christ and the Church, not simply because most commentators have done so, but because the whole tenor of the passage and the interpretation of Eph_5:32 seem to demand it. The view of Harless, Olshausen and Hodge, that the last clause alone refers to Christ and the Church, the early part being introduced merely for the sake of that clause, seems to be an exegetical make-shift. As the Apostle had left out a part of the original passage in Genesis, he might just as readily have omitted all that was irrelevant. Still less tenable is the special application, which Olshausen makes, comparing the Lord’s Supper and conjugal cohabitation, showing that allegory may serve to foster the coarsest materialistic conceptions. Meyer’s paraphrase is as follows: “Wherefore, because we are members of Christ, of his flesh and bones, shall a man leave (i.e., Christ at the Second Advent) his father and his mother (i.e., according to the mystical sense of Paul: He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and shall be joined to his wife (to the Church), and (and then the two) (the husband and the wife, i.e., the descended Christ and the Church) shall be one flesh.” Such a view is to be expected from this commentator, whose grammatical exactness is exceeded only by his fondness for bringing in a reference to the Second Advent, but it fails to meet with general acceptance. JeremyTaylor: “Christ descended from His Father’s bosom and contracted His divinity with flesh and blood, and married our nature, and we became a Church;” but this confuses our nature with the Church, as well as, impliedly, the Bride and the offspring. Alford is safer in regarding “the saying as applied to that, past, present, and future, which constitutes Christ’s union to His Bride the Church: His leaving the Father’s bosom, which is past—His gradual preparation of the union, which is present, His full consummation of it, which is future.” All these views may be held as partial elucidations of the matter in hand on the side of the application to Christ and the Church, which was doubtless in the Apostle’s mind, but we still insist that so detailed a passage has a primary reference to a union, where a mere man leaves his earthly father and mother, and is joined to his wife.—With all these allegorical interpretations, one thought, which inheres in the passage, as referring to the human relation, has been too much overlooked, viz., that it is the man who forsakes father and mother. It is remarkable how true this is, and how it comes out in works of fiction, in homely sayings like this: “My son is my son till he gets him a wife, but my daughter’s my daughter all her life,” in the feelings, since mothers and sisters are rarely jealous of the man, but so often of the woman, who marries into the family. Nor does social custom fail to recognize this. The basis of all is the principle set forth in Eph_5:28-29.—R.]

Comprehensive double conclusion; Eph_5:32-33.

Eph_5:32. This mystery is a great one, τὸμυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν.—The position of the words must be noticed. Winer (p. 163) remarks that οὐτος usually comes before the noun, and ἐκεὶνος after, and that accords with the nature of the case. Deviations have their ground in the context. Paul lays the stress here on “mystery,” the position after the noun weakens the demonstrative; it is not δεικτικῶς, does not refer to the last point alone. There is here a retrospect over the whole paragraph. Bengel is correct: mysterium appellatur non matrimonium humanum (Eph_5:33), sed ipsa conjunctio Christi et ecclesiæ. “Mystery” (Eph_1:9; Eph_3:3-4; Eph_3:9; Eph_6:19) is a fact, which either entirely or partially transcends the understanding, as the Divine will, a decree of God, the truth in its depth, etc. Here it is the union of the man and woman in wedlock, and of Christ and His congregation in the church, which the Apostle so presents that the latter is the pattern, and the former the copy. It is irrelevant to suppose a reference to a concealed sense in the words of Moses, so that εἰρημένον, γεγραμμενον, is to be supplied (Grotius, Stier, Rueckert, Meyer and others). It is termed “great,” because Paul himself plus sensit, quam ii, ad quos scribebat, caperent; comp. Rom_11:33.

[Hodge seems inclined to refer “this mystery” to the union of Christ and the Church, in accordance with his view of Eph_5:31. Eadie agrees exactly with Braune, while Alford refers it to “the mystery of the spiritual union of Christ with our humanity, typified by the close conjunction of the marriage state,” alluded to in Eph_5:31. Ellicott applies it to the close conjunction of the married state: He adds: “Eph_5:29 states the exact similarity of the relationship; Eph_5:30 the ground of the relation in regard of Christ and the Church; Eph_5:31 the nature of the conjugal relation with a probable application also to Christ; Eph_5:32 the mystery of that conjugal relation in itself, and still more so in its typical application to Christ and His Church.” Eadie: “Eph_5:25-28 introduce the spiritual nuptial relation, Eph_5:29 affirms its reality, Eph_5:30 gives the deep spiritual ground or origin of it, while the quotation in Eph_5:31 shows the authorized source of the image, and Eph_5:32 its ultimate application guarding against mistake.” On “mystery,” see Eph_3:3—R.]

But I.—Ἐγώ is used only with emphasis (Winer, p. 144), and must have an antithesis, which the context gives; here it is (Eph_5:33); “you.” Δέ, but, is merely metabatic (Meyer); therefore: I, the Apostle, the unmarried one.68—Say it in regard to Christ and the Church λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν].—Αέγειν εἰς marks the aim of the discourse, as Act_2:25; Heb_7:14; Joh_8:26 (Winer, p. 370). Here λέγειν is the expression of the opinion and view of Paul, who refers the mystery to “Christ and the Church” as the archetype and prototype for Christians in the marital fellowship. The repetition of the article is emphatic, containing a caution to consider this on account of the consequence for the copy, marriage. It is incorrect to take λέγω=I apply it (Stier), or, I cite it (Meyer; Luther, too, is wrong: of Christ and the Church, and the Vulgate: in Christo et in ecclesia. On the Romanist error, which regards marriage as a Sacrament, to which the Vulgate gives occasion, see Doctr. Note 7.69

Eph_5:33. Nevertheless ye also.—Πλήν (from πλέον) precisely: further, beyond this, that is beyond the saying on my part, καὶ ὑμεῖς. There is, therefore, no digression to be accepted, from which he now returns to the subject, Eph_5:28 (Bengel: quasi oblitus propositæ rei nunc ad rem revertitur; Harless, Bleek), nor is it: in order to enter no further upon this mystery (Meyer).70

Severally, let each one, οἱ καθʼ ἔνα ἕκαστος, vos singuli, each one without exception; the masculine and the context point to husbands.—So love his own wife as himself, τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν.—Loving as one’s self is a conception, which is compared (οὕτως) with the love of Christ to the Church. [Not so love his wife as he loves himself, but: in this manner (like Christ) love his own wife as being himself; comp. Eph_5:28—R.]

And let the wife see that she reverence her husband.—The construction: ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα, presupposes something to be supplied: volo aut simile quid piam (Gal_2:10; Gal_5:13; 1Co_4:2; 1Co_7:29; 2Co_8:7). Bengel, and answers to an imperative, as indeed one precedes (Winer, pp. 295, 537). It is stronger, however, than an imperative; ἠ δὲ γυνή stands first emphatically. [See Ellicott, who accepts a nominative absolute, reaching the same conclusion as Braune. “Let the wife see,” brings out the emphasis quite well.—R.] Particula vim habet, vim temperat ellipsis morata (Bengel). Thus a special weight for house and husband is laid upon this, that she does her duty, which is summed up in φοβῆται and traced to its inmost ground in Eph_5:22-24. Œcumenius: ὡς τρέπει γυναῖκα φοβεῖσθαι μὴ. δουλοτρεπὼς. See Doctr. Note 1, 3, 4. Optime cohærebit concordia, si utrimque constabunt officia (Erasmus). [Eadie well remarks: “What is instinctive on either side is not enforced, but what is necessary to direct and hallow such an instinct is inculcated.”—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The fundamental features of the moral conduct of man and wife towards each other are the principal points in this section. The Apostle refers the subject, with wholesome words and grand freedom from all casuistry, back to the main point, to its briefest expression: As regards the wife, to be subordinate to the husband (Eph_5:22; Eph_5:24), to reverence him (Eph_5:33); as regards the wife, to love the husband (Eph_5:25; Eph_5:28; Eph_5:33). The former is in force since Gen_3:15 : “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee;” it is not, however, merely a consequence of the fall and a punishment, but inheres in the position of the woman and her corresponding endowment and nature, since she was to be a help-meet for the man, that he should not be alone (Gen_2:18). In this is at once implied that there is here meant no servile subjection, no forced, legal obedience, no loveless, joyless fear, by indicating that the man as the head of the wife, in his mind, character and activity is placed as the representative and provider for his own in circles outside that of the house, the context defines the subordination and fear to this extent, that, as soul, heart, disposition and honor of the household, she submits herself to the regulations established by the husband in virtue of his office, and in tender thought avoids disturbing, injuring or destroying his work. Above the house stands the man’s avocation, which is from God, for which God has appointed him; hence it stands higher than the house, the character and life of which should subserve his avocation in the house alone. It is therefore in substance commanded that the wife should be subject, and in tender solicitude should fear to oppose the husband, to undervalue his arrangements, to make him discontented or angry while tarrying in the house to strengthen himself for his avocation.71

The wife who refuses this subordination and considerate respect, who does not see and seek her mission in the house, in the service of her husband, becomes an offensive caricature: from discontent there is bad progress to growling, managing, seeking the mastery, scolding, and finally to “emancipation.” Thus is stripped off and destroyed, not only what is Christian, but what is germanic, even what is womanly, especially what is peculiar and individual, the special gift of the Creator. Jezebel and Herodias are examples of this kind. The true character shines in Sarah (1Pe_3:1-6).—To the husband one command is given, and in this one three requirements: Love even unto self-sacrifice, with the consequence and purpose of sanctification (Eph_5:25-27), and this with such energy, purity and constancy, that more is required of the husband than of the wife. The wife should love the husband, as the Church loves Christ, in entire, exclusive, indissoluble and ministering love, and the husband should love the wife, as Christ the Church, in entire, exclusive, indissoluble and protecting love. It is more difficult to love the wife, without egotism, without tyranny and despotism, without any severity to be the master in the house in true affection, than to be subject to the man in tender respect for his dignity as husband, and his avocation as man.

2. The combination of marriage and Church (Kirche), which appears as the main thought in this section, has a twofold reference.

a. The two are to be compared with each other: As the wife should conduct herself to her husband, so should the Church to Christ; as the husband should conduct himself to the wife, so does Christ to the Church. Marriage, like the Church (Kirche), is a life-fellowship between a head and its body; the former Christ is for the Church (Gemeinde) and the man for the wife; the latter, the Church, is for Christ, and the wife for the husband. From the relation and the demeanor between Christ and the Church light falls upon the relation and demeanor of married people to each other, just as from the latter upon the former. Thus marriage and Church serve each other for the rendering clear of that which is normal in the two. But we must guard against descending in this parallelism to small and belittling particulars: such as conjoining winning the bride, baptism, and time of betrothal and the temporal period of the Church, leading home the bride and the Second Advent of the Lord as Bridegroom, sexual fellowship and unio mystica. But we may with right speak of the religion of marriage and of the marriage of religion; on this is based, too, the position in the canon of the Song of Solomon, which is a hymn of holy love. The Church should not keep at a distance what appertains to the creature, what is natural, or even turn a disapproving countenance upon it; that would be a wrinkle in the face of the Church, thus despising her Lord’s work and so growing old on one side, instead of being glorified. From the wife, who in her husband’s house is never to be regarded lightly, but must manage and mould, the Church may and ought to learn how to become at once deiformis and mundeformis.

b. The two, however, stand in such close relation to each other, that from the Church proceeds the power for the proper direction of marriage, the proper conduct of married people. The wife should belong to the Church in order to receive from Christ His gifts, that thus she may be to her husband what the Church is to Christ, and quite as much must the husband be sanctified in the Church, taken hold of by Christ and permeated by His love, in order to treat his wife, as Christ does His Church. Thus the Christian Church is the foundation for a normal marriage, as the natural life becomes in the life of regeneration that which is according to God’s will.

3. Marriage and Nature. Our section points into the sphere of creation. The man is from the beginning made for marriage (Gen_1:26-28 : “male and female”), and in Paradise the first human pair was brought together for wedlock, were wedded pair by the grace of God, before father and mother, and children existed. Marriage is the first union in point of time. And in point of dignity as well: from it proceeds the dignity of father and mother, through it alone comes family life, the basis of all blessing in human life. As to its nature it is the fellowship of one man and one woman, in which both more and more live together (εἰς σάρκα μίαν), chiefly moral, then however sensuous vital fellowship even to sexual fellowship; it is the fellowship of the body and of the worship of God, of all worldly goods, of all intellectual gifts, and, as far as it is possible with personal reason and conscience, of spiritual gifts also; the religious side of the fellowship should predominate, the moral side operate, the sensuous side may never override and repel the others, would enter only but not be repressed.72

4. Marriage and Bible are joined together also by our section, since it refers back to the oldest Scripture, deriving thence these thoughts: God has created mankind for marriage; the desire, the initiative, is on the side of man, the being desired is the part of the woman; marriage unites only one man and one woman (Monogamy); is first of all and as to its deepest ground directed to moral fellowship of life, includes in itself sexual fellowship, is directed thus towards the establishment of the family and family life, toward the bringing up and education of children; has such an inwardness and fervor, that devoted conjugal surpasses filial love, even father’s and mother’s love, that the marriage tie is indissoluble, unless sin should rend it asunder.73 Monogamy is established from the beginning as self-evident. A Cainite, the bold and sensual Lamech, who first took two wives, Ada (=ornament) and Zillah (=shadow of the head of hair), from whom the master of fiddlers and fifers, and the master of workers in brass and iron, made the transition from monogamy to polygamy, and in the progress of civilization forsook the Divine institution (Gen_4:19-24). The impatience of Sarah for an heir caused her to forsake her position and conduct so far as to lead Hagar to Abraham, and the selfishness of Laban made use of the love of Jacob for Rachel, so that he took Leah first, but the promised blessing came only on the child of the legitimate wife (Isaac, not Ishmael) or of the first one (Judah, not Joseph). See Harless, Ethik., § 52, p. 5, 7 ff. Hence it should not be said, that in the Old Testament marriage only gradually lifted itself to monogamy (Schenkel); on the contrary the latter was recognized as the original institution appointed by God, and the defections from it are referred to sinful tendencies, to the dominion of sin, are not approved. Christianity however has glorified marriage, establishing it firmly and securely in its nature, dignity and blessing. Redemption goes back to the natural institutions established in creation, removing the perversions and degradations introduced by sin into the heathen world and the people of Israel; what is new in Christianity is what is primeval restored. This appears especially prominent in the matter of marriage and family life, so strongly that all which is anti-christian and anti-scriptural is at the same time unnatural and inhuman, just as the impulse of anti-christian Atheism, Materialism, Satanism has led thither. Interest attaches to the view of Melancthon, who, much as he has prized his excellent betrothed, was afraid of married life, lest he might thereby be drawn too much away from his studies, and yet afterwards despite a wife suffering from hypochondria and a numerous family called the marriage state “a kind of philosophy, which required duties the most honorable and most worthy of a noble man.” [So Jeremy Taylor: “Single life makes men in one instance to be like angels, but marriage in very many things makes the chaste pair to be like Christ” (Sermon on the Marriage Ring).—R.]

5. Beside the conduct of married people to each other and the relation between Christ and His church and the husband with his wife, there is also marked, through the purpose of Christ or the aims of the church, the end of marriage, viz., the sanctification of the personality (Eph_5:26-27). This is a process of development, ever deepening and extending through the whole life, with two sides: internal, moral perfection, through growth and unfolding of talent and strength granted (ἁγία) and ever wider and clearer emancipation from all evil imposed and entering or clinging from without (ἄμωμος). The former is based upon the internally and correctly established relation of the person to God and His kingdom, the latter upon the conduct of the same, externally corresponding to the given noun, in all the relations of life from work to word and its source in thought and temper. Hence the sanctification of the sexual appetite can be regarded as only a single purpose, for which there is not even a point of resemblance in the parallel with the church and her Head, not as the principal task of Christian family morals (Schenkel), as if marriage were ordained as a safeguard against whoremongery or carnal excess, when this is but a single object, or rather a coincident result, even though the main matter in this work of sanctification. From the very seeking and consummating of the marriage, the morality of the fellowship not its sensuousness, the religiousness of the married pair not the sexual fellowship, should show itself to be the decisive and impelling feature. The proper sexual pleasure to be allowed by man and wife must like every other pleasure within a social relation find its norm in accordance with the moral end of marriage.

6. On the phrase respecting baptism (Eph_5:26) rests with full right the explanation of Luther in the smaller catechism, 4 main part, Ephesians 1 : Baptism is not mere water, but it is water taken in God’s command and united with God’s word. For it is a pledge of the power of the atonement efficient through awakening and growing faith, an assurance of the forgiveness of sins, a guarantee of the new relation to God, of sonship with Him (Mat_28:19 : εἰς τὸ ὄνομα; Act_2:38; Act_22:16; Heb_10:22) and an assurance of the power, to be received in faith, of the new life in the gift of the Holy Ghost (Joh_3:5; Tit_3:5); both together, Rom_6:3-11; Col_2:12. Chemnitz: Pater salvat, filius emundat, spiritus regenerat (Harless). Mundatio præcedit donationem gloriæ et nuptias (Bengel).—Thus both the mechanical view of baptism as a mere initiatory rite among the nationalists, and the Baptist sundering of sanctification and cleansing, which makes of baptism merely a seal of entire conversion, are here opposed; it stands at the commencement of sanctification, which begins with it. [The reference to baptism is undeniable, and such a reference seems to contradict at once the very low view of the ordinance which is quite prevalent among many Pedo-baptists, just as the obvious reference to the mystical union of Christ, and His Church in this section implies that the Lord’s supper is more than a mere memorial service. As a specimen of the Reformed or Calvinistic views on this subject (though Calvin himself was more of a Sacramentalist than those who moulded the Reformed confessions), the remarks of Dr. Hodge are presented: When the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin, they do not teach (1) That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects; nor (2) That these effects always attend its right administration; nor, (3) That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which He communicates the benefits of redemption. Positively he remarks: (1) Baptism is a Divine institution. (2) One of the conditions of salvation, not sine qua non, but having the necessity of precept. (3) A means of grace, that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, nor upon all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor designed as the ordinary means of regeneration. (4) Infants are baptized on the faith of their parents; and their baptism secures to them all the benefits of the covenant of grace, provided they ratify that covenant by faith.—R.]

7. Here, as also in Eph_1:8; Eph_3:3; Eph_3:9; 1Ti_3:16; Rev_1:20, the Vulgate has rendered μυστήριον sacramentum. This translation has been used to support the view of the high dignify of marriage recognized in this section, which exaggerates it to such an extent that the Roman Church, in opposition to her own doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy and the virginity of the saints, proclaims it a sacrament. Comp. Conc, Triden., Less. 24, cap. 1; Si quis dixerit, matrimonium non esse vere et proprie unum ex septem legis evangelicæ sacramentis a Christo domino institutum, sed ab hominibus in ecclesia inventum, neque gratiam conferre: anathema sit.

This church (Catech. Rom. ii., 8, 23 sqq.) accepts three gracious gifts [in this so-called sacrament]: proles, fides, fidelitas quædam und vinculum, quod nunquam dissolvi potest. As respects the matter and form the schoolmen vacillate in consequence of the novelty of the subject. Bonaventura finds the material of the sacrament in the sexual acts, others in the partners themselves, others in their consensus. To regard and treat matrimony as a Sacrament, but only for the laity, who do attain to the perfection of the saints, while celibacy is demanded of the monk and priest, that they may be able to boast of sanctity, of actual renunciation of sexual desire, was only possible, because the antithesis between heaven and the world, from which Paul proceeds in speaking of celibacy as respects his own office, age, and individuality (1Co_7:25-40), was changed into an antithesis of spirit and flesh in such a way that a false dualism was established between Divine and human, spiritual and carnal, moral and natural. This dualism the church has overcome. Very apt are the remarks of Harless (Ethik, p. 512): “Marriage is the divinely appointed ordinance and form, within which the spirit of Divine love can find on earth according to the nature of the case its most unhampered rule, and in such efficiency can best give a measure of the fulness of the Divine love; but the marriage itself does not bring or become the medium of this Spirit of pure Divine love. It is only the vessel which is prepared for this Spirit; the spirit and the power do not come from the earthly copy of the Divine fellowship of love. The Christian perceives rather, that the institution in itself does not at all protect against violation and desecration through selfishness of every kind—but that [the Spirit and the power] come from the graces of the New Testament, that these graces do not come to him by means of marriage, but through the word, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, repentance and faith, on which account it is impossible for him, under a misunderstanding of Eph_5:32 to call the Divine institution of matrimony a sacrament in the sense, in which Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are thus termed.—Still the evangelical church down to the latest times has not been free from Romish distortions, of a mystical, theosophic tendency; Gottfried Arnold held the marriage state to be incompatible with true wisdom, though he himself afterwards married; with him agreed Michael Hahn, who with his followers remained unmarried, and Pastor Culmann (Ethik, i. p. 42). Luther himself did not regard the sexual propensity and its gratification as in itself God-willed (Koestlin: Luther’s Theologie, III., p. 483). On the other hand Zinzendorf attempted to place the marital obligation under ideal points of view.—If from the Roman I Catholic side attacks are still made upon the convenience of Luther and Melancthon for their approval of the bigamy of Landgrave Philip after the example of Abraham, who had however to suffer severely on this account, it may be replied that the Catholic Church not only permitted Abbe Sieyes and Bishop Talleyrand to marry, and dissolved Napoleon’s first marriage with Josephine, but even helped him to the second marriage with the Austrian Archduchess.

8. In the 13th century the Old Testament age, and the Old Testament Scriptures were often termed the “die alte Ehe” (the old marriage). This points to a mystery of marriage, like that of the communion of Christ and His Church. The former is a mystery on its natural side from the very creation; in it creative powers for soul and body are active; a mystery on the side of redemption: in it wonderful confiding love and consecrated fidelity are manifested; on the side of sanctification: in it operate sanctifying powers for eternity.—Comp. Paul Gerhart: Voller Wunder, voller Kunst, voller Weisheit, voller Kraft, voller Hulde, Gnad’, und Gunst, etc.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Comp. the foregoing Doctr. Notes and Braune, Die heiligen 10 Gebote, pp. 147, 177.—The husband has a great advantage over his wife: he is the older, more mature part, has the choice of the wife, possesses greater power and culture for civil life, must represent his wife and household in these matters (1Co_11:7-9). So at least it should be. But he has no advantage as regards the Divine image and moral worth over her, the fellow-heir (1Pe_3:7). Both must have patience with each other, but no wife should be ever for having the last word without yielding! She who patiently bears puts to shame the despotism of a husband. Nor should they spoil each other by a weak and false silence respecting unpleasantness; they should inure themselves in the draught of truth, should be confiding without inconsiderateness; neither dare cease to be a lover of the other. Even if the husband should be lacking in what is necessary to fill personally his position, the wife should not in boast-fulness despise the social dignity of the husband, but above and beyond him seethe Lord. Have you given your “yes,” then it must be held good to the end; even if it is hard, the difficulty does not dissolve it; life must fulfil it, death alone dissolve it.—You may be married and yet not truly wedded, may have one household and yet no matrimonial fellowship; may be with him or her one flesh, but not one heart and one soul; you live together under one roof, but may have no common foundation, may walk united on earth, but heaven is wanting to your union.—No one ought to rejoice so much in Christ and His church as the wife: she and her children have gained most by Christianity; this is a reason why women and children have and ought to have so strong an attraction to Him in the church; there is gratitude involved. Submission, ministering subordination is no misfortune, but a joy, exercising a triumphing, pacifying power.—In one sense every man must die for his wife: he must die to himself, to his sinful Ego, mortify his selfishness and egotism, not his peculiarity, which he should still exercise without self-will. The man is most apt to do this as betrothed and in the honeymoon, as if once Were enough. But this should occur throughout life: before death no one is entirely done with it.—Wo to him who chooses before he has to choose, when he knows neither why nor wherefore, or before he knows how to choose, when he does not know what it means, or who chooses arbitrarily, before he has bethought himself what his position requires or proved her whom he chooses! Wo to such, especially if they are or become ministers of the church. Sin separates from God, disturbs the union with Him, grieves the Holy Spirit. Sin does this also to the Divine institution of marriage. All separation of dispositions, all disturbances and discord of soul come from sin, and never merely from that of the other, but from your own sin also. The guilt in unhappy marriages, or even in the disturbance of otherwise happy ones, is on both sides, demands at least an examination of one’s own sins. When there is discord and even when the other is wrong, do you listen attentively to what is said against you, and then try it as a judge upon yourself.—Never forget this: what is yours does not merely belong to you, you belong to it also.

Starke:—How then can a godless man with alacrity be the head of his wife and require obedience of her, when he neither clings nor listens to Christ, his head?—Pious widows, you have lost one head, but the other Head (Jesus) death cannot take from you; He watches and. cares for you.—Is Christ the Head of the church, then the Pope cannot be it, else the church would have two heads and so be a monstrosity.—In Christ there is at once a Head and a Saviour; the two characters must unite also in a husband who should use his dominion for the blessing, never for the oppression and damage of those whom he rules.—The fellowship of believers with Jesus gives them that great dignity, noble advantage and blessed consolation.—Without love marriage is a bitter state, with love it is sweet.—The love of Christ to His church is both cause and standard of the love of husbands towards their wives.—Love and fear stand beside each other in a well-ordered marriage: the former must sweeten the latter, the latter must ever more incite the former.

Rieger:—The Apostle begins with married people, because, if things go wrong between them in the household, the trouble soon extends itself from them to the children and dependents. In each relation the Apostle begins with the weaker side.—Proper distrust of one’s self and what is doubtful in one’s natural gifts, willingness to be told what to do rather than to lead the other into temptation, is the root of this subjection.—The rule of the household is not to be put on a magisterial footing, but to be conducted by a mild and yet efficient influence, like that of the head upon the members.—What is set before the husbands: love your wives, is not easier than the being submissive. Whoever knows human nature, how loveless, changeful, easily wearied by faults, quickly angered it is, will notice how deep the foundation must be laid for a love which is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, etc.

Heubner:—Even with love and similarity of hearts there must be subordination. The household needs guidance and government. The wife should submit. The wife’s government reverses the proper order.—Nothing can frighten a Christian heart from divorce more than this thought: It is as if you separated from Jesus, Unbelief, coldness toward Jesus has terribly wasted our married life.

Passavant:—The Greeks acted more humanly, the Romans and Germans more magnanimously; elsewhere we see everywhere in the history of humanity the mothers and daughters of the nations, the weaker part, despised and oppressed by the stronger, often most cruelly degraded; and we should have, in such traits of ancient and modern heathen, and of all infidel nations and races, enough to perceive how deeply the whole human race has fallen from its original nature and destiny and what rudeness and wickedness of sin has permeated all nations and men, seeing they all have sinned.—With the appearance of the Redeemer, however, a new hour of Redemption struck also for this so misunderstood and oppressed half of the human race.—The more true, wise and manly the husband is in his cherishing of his wife, as his own body, the sooner, and if the wife is not altogether unholy in heart—the more faithfully, tenderly and sacredly will all be returned to him by the wife’s sacredly affectionate care and solicitude, and he be richly recompensed.

Stier:—The church should never demean itself as merely parallel to other circles of fellowship, for she is called to become the inmost of all.—From out of the family, the concentrated life of the household, where a filial spirit is born of wedded love and household dependents regulate themselves accordingly, the moral life of a nation also grows.—The emancipation of the strong-minded woman, that most repulsive miscreation of natural corporealness, destroys not only what is Christian but what is germanic.—Love is the only right dominion; there is then in every house a church in parvo.—The Word is the proper, continuing baptism.—The mystery of marriage is a portico to the mystery of the sanctuary; from the latter too a light streams into the former.

Schleiermacher: On the Christian conduct of marriage: 1. In marriage there is something earthly and something heavenly, which are one. There is marriage in an anxious form, when only one is satisfied, the other constrained; merely a carefully kept contract. There is marriage in a repulsive form, when the parties are accustomed to each other making as few claims as possible on each other, seeking their pleasure outside. There is a marriage in a loathsome form, when there is mutual anger and bitterness.—Ever more aroused in spirit, mollifying each other, and that in household, social life with its possessions, joys and sorrows.—2. In it there is an inequality, which loses itself in perfect equality—in perfect oneness of life.

Becher:—Look at your households, fathers and mothers, for you are priests; your congregations impose a hundredfold greater responsibility than mine. Your priesthood is from God’s own hand.—Hofmann (Eph_5:22-24): The marriage state the school of Christian obedience; its ground, character, measure and aim.—(Eph_5:25-29): The marriage state the home of love on earth—of born, free, heavenly love.

[Hodge:

Eph_5:22. The obedience of the wife terminates on the Lord, and therefore is religious, because determined by religious motives and directed towards the object of religious affections. This makes the burden light and the yoke easy; for every service which the believer renders to Christ is rendered with joy and alacrity.

Eph_5:26-27. The church the bride of Christ. 1. The object of a peculiar and exclusive love. 2. She belongs exclusively to Christ. 3. The relation more intimate than between Him and any other order of creatures. 4. The church the special object of delight to Christ.

Eph_5:29. A man may have a body which does not altogether suit him. He may wish it were handsomer, healthier, stronger, or more active. Still it is his body, and he treats it as tenderly as though it were the best and loveliest man ever had. So a man may have a wife whom he could wish to be better, or more beautiful, or more agreeable; still she is his wife, and, by the constitution of nature and ordinance of God, a part of himself.

Eph_5:33. The sentiments which lie at the foundation of the marriage relation, which arise out of the constitution of nature, which are required by the command of God, and are essential to the happiness and well-being of the parties, are, on the part of the husband, that form of love which leads him to cherish and protect his wife as being himself, and on the part of the woman, that sense of his superiority out of which trust and obedience involuntarily flow.—R.]

[Eadie:

Eph_5:22. In those days wives when converted and elevated from comparative servitude, might be tempted, in the novel consciousness of freedom, to encroach a little, as if to put to the test the extent of their recent liberty and enlargement.—The insubordination of wives has always been a fertile source of sorrow; and yet Christian ladies in early times drew forth this compliment from Libanius, the “last glory of expiring paganism”: proh, quales feminas habent Christiani!

Eph_5:23. There is only one head; dualism would be perpetual antagonism. Each sex is indeed imperfect by itself, and the truest unity is conjugal duality.

Eph_5:24. In the domestic economy, though government and obedience certainly exist, they are not felt in painful or even formal contrast; and, in fact, they are so blended in affectionate adjustment, that the line which severs them cannot be distinguished. The law of marital government is an “unwritten law.”

Eph_5:25. Husbands are not to be domestic tyrants; but their dominion is to be a reign of love.—The church did not crave Christ’s love: He bestowed it. It was not excited by any loveliness of aspect on the part of the church, for she was guilty and impure, unworthy of His affection. Who can doubt a love which has proved its strength and glory in such suffering and death?

Eph_5:27. As He originally loved her in her impurity, how deep and ardent must be His attachment now to her when He sees in her the realization of His own gracious and eternal purpose!

Eph_5:31-32. So close and tender is the union between Christ and His church that the language of Adam concerning Eve may be applied to it. These primitive espousals afforded imagery and language which might aptly and truly be applied to Christ and the church, which is “of His flesh and of His bones;” and the application of such language is indeed a mystery—a truth, the secret glory and facility of which are known but to those who are wedded to the Lord in a “perpetual covenant.”

Eph_5:33. “He rules her by authority, and she rules him by lore: she ought by all means to please him, and he must by no means displease her” (Jeremy Taylor). When this balance of power is unsettled, happiness is lost, and mutual recrimination ensues. “A masterly wife,” as Gataker says, “is as much despised and derided for taking rule over her husband as he, or yielding to it.”—R.]

[In view of the well-known fact that an immense proportion of the conversation of many women is about their husbands, their children and their servants, showing how their lives are bound up in these relations, it would be welt for them to study (and for pastors occasionally to teach in a prudent way) what the Apostle says in this part of the Epistle (Eph_5:22–Eph_6:9) about their duties as wives, mothers and mistresses.—R.]

Footnotes:

[42]Eph_5:22.—[The Rec, with K. L., many versions (Chrysostom, Scholz) inserts ὑποτάσσεσθε after ἀνδράσιν, while in D. E. F. G., Syriac it is placed after γυναῖκες. Lachmann accepts ὑποτασσέσθωσαν after ἀνδράσιν on the authority of N. A., 10 cursives, Vulgate, other versions, some fathers. B. omits the verb altogether, and this reading is accepted by Tischendorf. Harless, Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Ellicott and recent editors. While one uncial manuscript would not be decisive for the omission, the variations in form and position suggest an interpolation, (comp. Col_3:18) and when to this is added the testimony of Jerome, who asserts that there was nothing in the Greek MSS. to correspond with his subditæ sint remarking that it was less necessary in Greek than in Latin, the evidence is conclusive. Still we must supply the verb n English.—R.]

[43]Eph_5:23.—[The article is wanting in all uncial MSS., the Rec. inserts it on altogether insufficient authority. The meaning is not altered by the correct reading, yet the literal form adopted in the above emendation is on the whole preferable.—His wife is to be insisted upon, since the article is very definite here. We might render His Church, were there any other than the one Church.—R]

[44]Eph_5:23.—[The briefer reading αὐτός is accepted by nearly all recent editors on the authority of א.1 A. B. D.1 F. Καὶ αὐτός ἐστι (Rec.) is found in א.3 D. 2 3 K. L., most cursives, good versions and many fathers; but seems to be an explanatory gloss. As regards punctuation the colon of the E. V. might be retained to indicate the independence of the clause. We can render: He is Saviour of the body, or He Himself is the Saviour of the body, or Himself the Saviour of the body, but the latter which is most literal requires a substitution of a comma for the colon of the E. V.—R.]

[45]Eph_5:24.—[A̓λλά must be thus rendered to give clearness to the sense. The Rec. reads ὥσπερ, but on insufficient authority; ὡς is well attested (א. A. D.1 F.) and generally received.—R.]

[46]Ver.24.—[The Rec. inserts ἰδίοις on the authority of A. D.3 K. L., many cursives, versions and fathers, but it is omitted in א. B. D.1 F., etc., so that the weight of external authority and the suspicion of an interpolation from Eph_5:22 are decisive against it. Rejected by recent editors.—R.]

[47]Eph_5:25.—[The Rec. inserts ἑαυτῶν, with D. K. L., most cursives; F. G. read ὑμῶν; while N.A. B., cursives and fathers have simply τὰς γυναῖκας. The briefer reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott. Braune, however, follows Meyer in defending ἑαυτῶν, on the ground that ἰδίας would have been a more natural interpolation, if an explanatory gloss were added. This is plausible, but scarcely decisive.—R.]

[48]Eph_5:27.—[Instead of αὐτήν (Rec. D.3 K.) recent editors accept the better supported and emphatic αὐτός(א. A. B. D.1 etc.).—The emphasis resting one ἔνδοξον is best presented by the order given above, though Ellicott gives: in glorious beauty.—R.]

[49]Eph_5:28.—[There is a doubt as to the correct order as well in regard to the reading. Καί is omitted in the Rec., א. K. L., nearly all cursives, fathers and versions (Ellicott), but found in A. B. D. F., very good versions, and generally accepted since Lachmann.—The verb ὀφείλουσιν comes first in א. B. K. L. and other authorities (Alford, Ellicott), but Lachmann Meyer, Eadie, Braune and most put it after ἄνδρες, with A. D. F., good versions, fathers. The longer, noninverted reading: καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ὀφείλουσιν is perhaps preferable.—The inversion of the E. V. need not be altered however. Husbands is more correct here, though in the older English man meant husband also, as in Greek and German, a philological fact not without interest in the exegesis of this paragraph.—א.1 has τέκνα instead of σωματα, but it is correct.—The E. V. omits own twice, apparently for the sake of elegance, but improperly since the emphasis is thus lost.—R.]

[50]Eph_5:29.—[The Rec. (with D.3 K. L., majority of cursives) reads: κύριος, but the authority for Χριστός is so decisive, that it is accepted by nearly all modern editors.—R.]

[51]Eph_5:30.—[Lachmann, on the authority of א.1 A. B., good cursives, a few versions and fathers, omit ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς—ὀστέων αὐτοῦ. Alford brackets them. They are found in א.3 D. E. F. G. K. L., nearly all cursives, versions and fathers; accepted by Tischendorf (ed. 7), Harless, Meyer, Eadie, Ellicott. Wordsworth. The recurrence of αὐτοῦ would readily occasion the omission, while the citation is not exact enough to suggest an interpolation from the LXX.—We must insert being, to avoid the connection: members of his flesh, which the E. V. suggests.—R.]

[52]Eph_5:32.—[The articles, τόν, τήν (so LXX Gen_2:24), found in the Rec. א. A. D.3 K. L., most cursives, good versions, are rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford and most, on the authority of B. D.1 F., good cursives, and distinct statements of Origen and Jerome.—So αὐτοῦ after πατέρα on the same authority (א.1 in addition) and for the same reason.—R.]

[53]Eph_5:32.—[Here instead of τῆ γυναικί (LXX, א.1 A. D.1 F) the best editors accept πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ on the authority of א.3 B. D.3 K. L., nearly all cursives, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret.—R.]

[54]Eph_5:33.—[Lachmann and Alford bracket εἰς, but the external authority (B. K., a few cursives) against it is slight, and it might have been omitted because not understood.—R.]

[55][“The duty of submission is plainly based on that tenderness specialty, or exclusiveness of relationship which ἴδίοις implies” (Eadie). So Alford, Ellicott, following Bengel and Meyer, against De Wette, Harless, Olshausen.—R.]

[56][Ellicott: “Viewed in its simplest grammatical sense as the pronoun of the relative, the meaning would seem to be, ‘yield that obedience to your husbands which you yield to Christ.’ As, however, the immediate context and still more the general current of the passage (comp. Eph_5:32) represent marriage in its typical aspect, ὡς will seem far more naturally to refer to the aspect under which the obedience is to be regarded (‘quasi Christo ipsimet, cujus locum et personam viri representant,’ Corn. a Lap.), than to describe the nature of it (Eadie), or the manner (De Wette) in which it is to be tendered. Still less probable is a reference merely to the similarity between the duties of the wife to the husband and the Church to Christ, as this interpretation would clearly require ὡς ἡ έκκλ. τῷ Κυρ.: See Meyer.”—R]

[57][Or better “a husband,” as an example of the class, ὁ ἀνήρ would be “every husband” in each case, every one of the class (see Winer, p. 113): but the article with γυναικος means “his” in this case.—R.]

[58]This view is simple, grammatical and introduces neither a truism (Eadie), nor an unnecessary limitation (Winer). It is accepted by Alford, Ellicott, Hodge and others. Eadie supposes an ellipsis, which is very objectionable. Alford: “But what I do say is, that thus far the two Headships are to be regarded as identical, in the subjection of the body to the Head.” Nevertheless is on the whole the best rendering of ἀλλα—R.]

[59][It would be more literal and perhaps better accordant with the comparison to substitute the feminine pronoun (her, she) for “it” in Eph_5:26-27, but our language is very stiff in its rules for gender.—R.]

[60][Grammatically the participle may indicate either an act antecedent to or synchronous with that of the leading verb, either having cleansed or cleansing. The former is the view accepted by Ellicott, Alford, Eadie and Hodge, mainly on doctrinal or logical grounds derived from the reference to baptism which immediately follows.—R.]

[61][This word occurs only here and in Tit_3:5. It means not “washing,” but “laver,” (lavacrum, Vulgate); comp. Ellicott in loco. Dr. Hodge is scarcely justified therefore in finding an argument in favor of a particular mode of baptism in our phrase, which does not mean: a washing with water, as he implies. The allusion to the bride’s bath before marriage is accepted by Eadie, and most.—R.]

[62][More literally and correctly “to Himself,” He alone presents, He receives (Ellicott).—R.]

[63][Ellicott: “The Church glorious; the tertiary predicate ἔνδοξον (Donaldson, Gr. § 489) being placed emphatically forward and receiving its further explanation from the participial clause which follows.” The reading of the Rec., giving αὐτήν as the direct object of the verb, necessarily led to the obscuration of the force of the word, disturbing the grammatical structure by making τὴν ἐκκληαίαν the tertiary predicate.—R.]

[64][The German editors and commentators (Tischendorf and Meyer, Braune also) accent this word: σπῖλος, but Eadie, Alford and Ellicott adopt: σπίλος. The iota is short apparently, hence the latter is correct. The word belongs to later Greek.—R.]

[65][“Blameless” (Ellicott, Alford); but “without blemish” retains the etymological reference, thus according better with the figurative current of the verse.—R.]

[66][From this passage Dr. Hodge correctly infers the falsity of the Hopkinsian view that all love and all holiness is disinterested benevolence, proportioned to the capacity of its object. We do love ourselves, and our bodies, and it is not only natural, but according to Scripture so to do.—R.]

[67][The whole tenor of the argument is thus stated by Ellicott: “Men ought to love their wives as Christ loves His Church, as being in fact (I might add) their own (ἑαυτῶν) bodies; yes, I say the man who loves his wife loves himself (ἑαυτόν); for if he hated her he would hate (according to the axiom in Eph_5:28) his own flesh, whereas on the contrary, unless he acts against nature, he nourishes it, even as (to urge the comparison again) Christ nourishes His Church.”—R.]

[68][The reference is apparently not so much to his celibacy, as to the subjective character of the application and comparison, while the slightly adversative δέ contrasts it with any other interpretation that might have been adduced: “the mystery of this closeness of the conjugal relation is great, but I am myself speaking of it in its still deeper application, in reference to Christ and the Church” (Ellicott).—R.]

[69][Our English and American commentators do not fail to notice this blunder of the Council of Trent, but some people who speak English treat the Authorized Version with the same reverence; ministers preach from the sound of the E. V., not the sense of the Word of God. The Romanist can cover his blunder by the sanction given to the Vulgate by his church, but Protestants have no such excuse.—R.]

[70][The view of Meyer is accepted by Eadie, Hodge, Ellicott, Alford, and seems perfectly tenable. Braune’s view results from the effort to maintain a decided antithesis to “I” in “ye,” when most commentators find the antithesis to “ye also” in ‘ ‘Christ.”—R.]

[71][Hodge: “The ground of toe obligation as it exists in nature is the eminency of the husband; his superiority in those attributes which enable and entitle him to command. He is larger, stronger, bolder,—has more of those mental and moral qualities which are required in a leader. This is just as plain from his history as that iron is heavier than water. The superiority of man, in the respects mentioned, thus taught in Scripture, bounded in nature, and proved by all experience, cannot be denied or disregarded without destroying society and degrading both men and women. The superiority of the man, however, is not only consistent with the mutual dependence of the sexes, and their essential quality of nature and, in the kingdom of God, but also with the inferiority of men to women in other qualities than those which entitle to authority. The Scriptural doctrine, while it lays the foundation for order in requiring wives to obey their husbands, at the same time exalts the wife to be the companion and ministering angel to the husband.” As a proof that this is the position assigned to woman by her own mind and heart, we may cite the works of imagination written by the most brilliant of the sex. Their ideal of man, even when they write, personating the other sex, is one who demands from his nature their loving obedience. If it be said that many a woman is joined to a man, whose character does not thus demand the obedience of the superior mind, we must consider how often women accept the relation of wife, with a full knowledge of the right position, as taught by God in nature and in His word, and yet conscious that they neither can nor will occupy that position to the man who becomes their legal husband. Such are punished in this life, and the cry about “the subjection of woman” is often the wail of distress resulting from such punishment.—As regards the relation of the sexes in general, though nothing is expressly said in this section, much may be interred. No doubt great mistakes have been made in drawing such inferences, but it is perfectly obvious that a distinction between the sexes is here assumed, which distinguishes, if it does not sharply divide, the sphere of duty belonging to each respectively. “Woman’s work” is different from man’s work, though care should be taken neither arbitrarily to exclude her from certain kinds of labor, nor to deprive her of her just recompense for her work. The Church, too, should find work of a certain kind for many who are not “wives,” by constituting them “Bible-readers,” “deaconesses;” the mere office of Sunday-school teacher will not satisfy many such, since for that many are not adapted.—In regard to the question of “suffrage,” it is a fair inference from our passage, that for a wife to vote independently would be a disturbance of the relation as ordained by God; the question assumes a slightly different phase in regard to unmarried women of full age. Still even in the case of such, the passage at least lays the onus probandi on those who advocate the right. One popular argument urged in favor of “women suffrage” is that thus drunkenness could be stopped by force of law. But not only is that method of doubtful justice, legality and expediency, but the question fairly arises how many men are driven to drunkenness by the failure of their wives to heed the spirit of the Apostle’s words.—R.]

[72][Dr. Hodge remarks on the true expression of the Apostle “as their own bodies,” (Eph_5:28): (1) It does not refer to any material identification. (2) It implies nothing inconsistent with the separate subsistence of husband and wife as distinct persons. (3) The marriage relation is not essential to the completeness or perfection of our nature in all states of its existence. It is to cease at the resurrection. (4) It is not however merely a union of interests and feelings. In a certain sense husband and wife complement each other. (5) There is doubtless involved a oneness of life which no one can understand.—R.]

[73][Here Dr. Hodge is excellent: (1) Marriage is a union for life between one man and one woman; consequently bigamy, polygamy, and voluntary divorce are all inconsistent with its nature. (2) It must be entered into freely and cordially by the parties, i.e., with the conviction that one is suited to the other (and it may be added, to take the positions involved in the natural and scriptural view of the relation). All coercion on the part of parents is contrary to the nature of the relation; and all marriages of mere convenience are opposed to the design of the institution. (3) The State can neither make nor dissolve the marriage tie. It may enact laws regulating the mode in which it shall be solemnized and authenticated, and determine its civil effects. It may shield a wife from ill-usage from her husband, as it may remove a child from the custody of an incompetent or cruel parent. When the union is, in fact, dissolved by the operation of the Divine law, the State may ascertain and declare the fact, and free the parties from the civil obligations of the contract. It is impossible that the State should have authority to dissolve a union constituted by God, the duties and ordinances of ¦which are determined by His law. (4) According to the Scriptures, as interpreted by Protestant churches, nothing but the death of one of the parties, or adultery, or wilful desertion can dissolve the marriage contract. When either of the last-mentioned causes of dissolution is judicially ascertained, the injured party is free to contract a new marriage. The greatest social crime, next to murder, which any one can commit, is to seduce the affections of a wife from her husband, or of a husband from his wife: and one of the greatest, evils which civil authorities can inflict on society is the dissolution of the marriage contract so far as it is a civil contract (for further the civil authority cannot go), on other than Scriptural grounds.—R.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Manifestation in the Family-relationship

CHAPTERS 5:22-6:4

1. Wives representative of the Church (Eph 5:22-24)

2. Husbands representative of Christ (Eph 5:25-29)

3. The mystery: concerning Christ and the Church (Eph 5:30-33)

4. Exhortations to children and parents (Eph 6:1-4)

The exhortations which follow concern the Christian family. The mystery concerning Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32) is to be manifested in the family relationship. While before we have seen the Church as the body of Christ, here in these verses we see the Church in her love-relation to Christ. He loved the Church and gave Himself for it. The union of husband and wife is used as a type of the union of Christ and the Church. Wives are mentioned first: “Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” And why? For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the Church; and “He is savior of the body.” The wife is therefore to be in submission to her own husband in everything, as the Church is subject unto Christ. Thus the wife in her submission is to bear witness to the blessed relationship of Christ and the Church. She has the blessed portion of being in subjection. The question arises, What, if the husband is not a believer? Is she to submit in such a case? The Word of God gives definite instructions covering such a case, and adds a promise (See 1Pe 3:1-2).

The husband is not to demand of the wife this submission, which is her place. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. He stands in the Christian family as the representative of Christ and is called to love his wife. And how did Christ love the Church? He came from heaven’s glory to be a servant. He served and is serving the Church. The husband’s love towards the wife is to be expressed in loving service in her behalf and giving unto her, as unto the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7). Not the wife is to serve the husband, but the husband is to serve her in love, thus manifesting in a little measure the love of Christ for the Church. Beautiful is the description of the love of Christ for the Church. It is a love in the past: “He loved the Church and gave Himself for it.” Thus there is a present love: “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word.” Then there is His future love: “That He might present it to Himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” it is the love which passeth knowledge, the love which never changeth; the love which is eternal. Equally blessed is the truth contained in Eph 5:30-33. We are members of His body, and of His flesh and His bones.

That we have here a reference to Adam and Eve as the types of Christ and the Church is obvious. While Adam slept God built the woman out of his side and then presented her to him. “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” were Adam’s words. She was taken out of his body, shared the same life and was also Adam’s wife. Adam is the figure of Him that was to come (Rom 5:14). Eve is the type of the Church. We possess His life and are of Himself, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. And the Church’s destiny is to have dominion with Him over the new creation.

Children are to obey their parents in the Lord. And the fathers are not to provoke the children to wrath, “but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” And how much wisdom this takes! Parents must show constantly to the children the love and patience of Christ and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Then the promise will be made good. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Act 16:31).

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Duties of Husbands and Wives as Shown by the Relation of Christ to the Church. Eph 5:22-33

The exhortation with its basis:

v. 22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord;

v. 23. for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body.

v. 24. Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

v. 25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it,

v. 26. that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

v. 27. that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Of this entire section it has been stated that "it gives the Christian ideal of the marriage-relation, It is the loftiest conception of that relation that has ever come from human pen, and one than which no higher can be imagined. " Expanding the thought of the last admonition, the apostle writes: Wives, to your own husbands be subject as to the Lord. To their own husbands, to the men with whom they have entered into the relationship of holy wedlock, Christian wives give subjection. This they do, not unwillingly, as in the obedience of a forced submission, but by virtue of their willing consent at the time of the betrothal; for they are not subject to the husband as their lord and master, but "as to the Lord," that is, as to Christ. Just as Christian women are, by virtue of faith, in a state of submission to Christ. so the obedience which they render to their husbands is one rendered to Christ, the Christian husband being the head of the wife and typifying to her Christ, the Head of the entire Christian Church: For the husband is the head of the wife, just as also Christ is the Head of the Church, Himself being the Savior of the body. In the case of Christ it is a matter both of superiority and of headship, for He is both God and the Savior of the body; His Church, the Christians, having accepted Him by faith, they have individually and collectively become the members of His body, the communion of saints, united in one great organism. In the case of the husband not all points of comparison can be stressed. It may not be a question of superiority, but it is always very distinctly a question of headship. It is God’s will that the husband be the head of the wife; the provision made at the time of creation is thus confirmed for the time of the Few Testament.

Just how far this relation will extend in the sense as here given, is stated by the apostle: Nevertheless, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to the husbands in everything. The apostle makes no concessions to modern over-emancipation, neither does he give to the husband unlimited latitude. The meaning of the apostle is this: The fact that Christ is the Savior of the Church in no way affects the fact that He is also the Head of the Church; now, though the husband is not the savior of the body, the question of obedience for all that is not affected thereby; as the Church is subject to Christ, so, too, are wives subject to their husbands. It is expressly stated that this is to be in all things, the wife thus not being given permission to make arbitrary exceptions. But it is self-evident that the headship of man is confined to the matters of this life only. So far as the sphere of Christianity is concerned, there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus, Gal 3:28.

On the part of the women it is a matter of voluntary submission in a relation to their husbands which is compared to that of the Church to Christ. Being coheirs with the men of the hope of salvation, they might be inclined to demand equality in the marital relation and life: in answer to such thoughts the headship of the husbands was emphasized. On the part of the men the danger consisted in assuming an overbearing lordship, in deeming themselves authorized to make use of severity. To them St. Paul saps: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and offered Himself up for it. The apostle wants the husbands to show their love for their wives in their actions at all times; it should be an active, willing love. The apostle does not introduce a reason for this love, since its presence is assumed on the basis of the order of creation, but he offers the highest example and comparison that could be conceived of. The chief proof of the love of Christ for the congregation consisted in this, that He offered up Himself, that He sacrificed His own life for the Church, in the interest of the Church, for the expiation of sins. The redemption was merited for the whole world, but only in the case of the believers is it actually realized; and so the vicarious work of Christ, the supreme proof of His love, is here represented as having taken place in the interest of the Church. And the result of this work, as it actually appears in the life of the believers, is: That He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of the water in the word. It is not only justification that the apostle speaks of here, he is referring not merely to the righteousness and perfection which was imputed to every believer at the time of His conversion, but he is speaking of the sanctification which is going on in the Church, having been begun in the believers in their baptism to be perfected on the last day. Christ consecrated His Church, set it apart for Himself. And this He did by cleansing each member of the Church by the miraculous washing of water, by the sacrament of Holy Baptism. For this water is not simple water only, as Luther very correctly writes, but the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s word. The water of Baptism cleanses from the corruption of inherited sin, it has the power to regenerate, to renew heart and mind, the nature of man. See Rom 6:3; Col 2:12; Tit 3:5.

The final object of the sanctifying done by Christ is given in the second dependent clause: That He Himself might present to Himself the Church, glorious, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things, but that it should be holy and unblamable. Christ, as the Bridegroom, having purchased the Bride with His blood and having cleansed all believers, the members of the Church, by the water of Baptism, now presents or sets forth His Bride. The sanctification of this present time will reach its climax in the final glorification, when the Kingdom of Grace will become the Kingdom of Glory, when the Church Militant will become the Church Triumphant. "Christ presents the Church to Himself, He and no other, to Himself. He does it. He gave Himself for it. He sanctifies it. He, before the assembled universe, places by His side the Bride purchased with His blood. He presents it to Himself a glorious Church. That is glorious which excites admiration. The Church is to be an object of admiration to all intelligent beings, because of its freedom from all defects and because of its absolute perfection. It is to be conformed to the glorified humanity of the Son of God, in the presence of which the disciples on the mount became as dead men, and from the clear manifestation of which, when Christ comes the second time, the heavens and the earth are to flee away. God has predestined His people to be conformed to the image of His Son. And when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is, 1Jn 3:2. The figure is preserved in the description here given of the glory of the consummated Church. It is to be as a faultless bride; perfect in beauty and splendidly adorned. She is to be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, i. e. , without anything to mar her beauty, free from every indication of age, faultless and immortal. What is thus expressed figuratively is expressed literally in the last clause of the verse, that it should be holy and without blame. " (Hodge.)

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Division 5. (Eph 5:22-33; Eph 6:1-9.)

Natural responsibilities.

We have now the earthly relationships of the heavenly people. It is striking that such responsibilities as these should come in just in this place. We find them also in Colossians, where the body of Christ is before us in some sense as we have it here, but it is suited, surely, that in the place which God has given us in Christ before Him, a place in which there is neither male nor female, in which, therefore, all these relationships might seem not to be found, that we should, nevertheless, have them pressed upon us. We belong to the new creation. We could not say that the relationships of which he is speaking here belong to this, and yet what is taught us clearly is that, while we are here, we are to own all that is of God, as we have seen with regard to other things. Creation was of Him. The world is fallen, but that which He meant for man in these relationships is none the less good in itself, and in this way to be respected. Christianity, as we know, in no wise sets aside whatever is of Him in any sphere, and it is suited that just here, therefore, where at least we might imagine such things could never come in, we have explicitly the responsibilities attaching to earthly relationships. In these, moreover, there is shining through, the light of those higher ones in which God Himself has taken up the ties of nature to make them the patterns of things which His own love has brought in for us. Thus it is here that we have the Church’s relationship to Christ as the Eve of the "Last Adam," and it is striking that here we go to the very beginning of the world, before, in an evil sense, there was any world at all, before sin had spoiled things, to find at the very outset imaged for us that special relationship which Christ has made His own. How near it must be to His heart when it is the first thing that we find typically presented to us in the history of man! Thus, the Lord means to have us for Himself, and the tie of nature, we may be well assured, is, after all, only a feeble figure of the reality of which it is the figure.

1. The apostle begins with this here, with wives and husbands. The wives are to submit themselves to their own husbands as to the Lord. The authority of the Lord is concerned in it, and the way in which He has taken these things up is to be reverently observed also. The husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the Head of the assembly. The very shadows of such things must be dear to us. If it were but a picture only, how could we abuse such a picture of His love to us? We are reminded here at once, "He is the Saviour of the body," His is not a place of authority merely. The authority itself is that which we yield to with delight, as realizing the title that He has to it. So, says the apostle, follow the pattern, "Even as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." That, of course, could not possibly be meant to limit the higher authority of Christ Himself or of the Father. If there comes to be a question there, if these two are in manifest contradiction to one another, we must obey God and not man. Upon wives, submission to their husbands is enjoined. The husbands are never pressed to keep their wives in subjection. The duty pressed upon them is to love their wives, but here, again, the same measure is put before us; it is to be "as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it and cleanse it with washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing." That, it is plain, carries us back to the beginning, only it was God that presented Eve to Adam and not Adam that presented her to himself. Christ transcends all types, and therefore it is fit and right that this should be manifest to us here. He is going to present the Church to Himself. He is diligently perfecting it according to His own mind, that He may be able to do

The water washing has nothing ritualistic in it. The apostle explains it here as "by the Word." The power of the Word it is by which the Spirit works. Water could only act as water. God never uses a thing out of its place. He, the Creator, honors His own institution. He does not accomplish spiritual results by material means, nor can He possibly slight that Word, which is the work of the Spirit and by which the Spirit works. It is striking that in the Lord’s words to Nicodemus, the living water gives us the Word and the Spirit in relation to one another. The life in the water is the Spirit in the Word. Without the Spirit, the Word itself could accomplish nothing; but, on the other hand, the Spirit of God acts by the Word. If the angel comes to Cornelius, it is only to send him to one who already has in his possession the revelation of God for his soul. How blessed. to know that this work, which seems, as we think of it often, to be so little according to the full result which God is bringing us to, that it is, nevertheless, in bands that cannot leave unfinished that which He has begun. It would be as impossible for the Spirit to fail in the accomplishment of that which He has undertaken as it would have been for Christ to fail in that which He came to do. Thus Christ will present the Church to Himself "glorious," not merely having "no spot," but no "wrinkle" also; no sign of old age about it, no defect; nothing will suit Him then but the bloom and eternity of an eternal youth, the freshness of affections which will never tire, which can know no decay. The Church will be holy and blameless then. After all that we have known of her history, it would be strange to read that, if we did not know how gloriously God maintains His triumph over sin and evil.

Here, then, the Antitype shines fully through the type, but men ought also to "love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife, loveth himself," and here, again, Christ is before us, for no one ever "hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it as the Lord the Church." Think of the apostle being able to put it in such a way. "We are members of His body;" we are "of His flesh and of His bones." These are different things which we must not confound. Eve was out of Adam. God formed the woman out of the man. She was thus akin to him in the closest way, but it is not this kinship in the spiritual sense that ever makes us members of His body. That is, as we know, by the Spirit. Both things are accomplished as to us. We have the nature which makes us to be of His kindred, nay, to be of Himself; but then we are brought into relationship, also, in which we are to be surely for all eternity; those who are the instruments of His purposes, the expression of His mind. The two things necessarily go together. The Lord must make us, first of all, such as He can work by before He can work by us.

The wife here is but another aspect of the Body. The apostle, in fact, seems to identify them. The man who loves his wife loves himself, his own flesh, his body, and so the apostle quotes from Genesis here, that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." This he expressly states to refer to Christ and the Church, but the apostle applies it to the natural relationship: "But let every one of you so love his wife even as himself, and let the wife also reverence her husband."

2. The admonition to children and parents follows. Children are to obey their parents "in the Lord." This preserves, of necessity, His rights. "In the Lord" means in subjection to the authority of Christ, and therefore, of necessity, preserves that authority in everything. The apostle quotes the commandment with the sanction given to it in the Old Testament, -not at all as what is absolutely true for the present time, but to show the importance attached to it by God, -the first commandment having a promise connected with it: "That it may be well with thee and that thou mayest live long on the earth" or "in the land," as the connection would rather make it. No doubt there is a government of God that goes on through all the present time, in which these things have a measure of fulfilment. The law was, or is still, the rule of God’s government, which, however, the peculiar position of Christians upon the earth necessarily modifies as to them. As Christians, they may be cut off from the earth, when, as obedient children simply, they would be preserved upon it; but the Christian loss is gain, as we know, so that the apostle Peter elsewhere refuses, as we may say, to consider it as loss. "Who is he that shall harm you if ye be followers of that which is good?" But, he immediately adds: "But if ye should suffer for righteousness, sake, happy are ye." The suffering for righteousness, sake might seem to be a setting aside of what he had just urged, the question being the most positive form of statement, in fact. No one could harm them in following that which was good, but then, "suffering for righteousness’ sake" is not finding harm. A Christian cut off from the earth simply goes to heaven and to Christ. The Jew cut off from his land was, at least as to Jewish blessing which was in the land, in a different case.

Now comes the address to fathers: in the first place not to use authority so as to make it a burden to those under it, not to provoke the children to anger, but to bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. They are to be subject to the authority to which the parents also themselves are subject. This common subjection makes everything right. Divine authority is that which establishes every other authority and in which parents and children become alike brethren and servants.

3. We have lastly the address to servants and masters. To servants, who, in fact, were bondmen, slaves, the word is to obey their "masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling," not on account of anything in their relationship to these, but as serving Christ in it, in singleness of heart as to Christ. How everything is raised in character here! The hardship of bond-service is relieved at once by the ability to make it service to Him, where all service is perfect freedom; yet this, of necessity, makes it pains-taking service too. It will be of the best kind, "not with eye service as men-pleasers." If the desire were only to please these, it might be effected by what, after all, is superficial enough; but if we are, as all are, the bond-servants of Christ in spirit, "doing the will of God from the heart," we shall serve with good will "as to the Lord and not to men," and the compensation in due time may be looked for also. "Whatever good shall be done, ye shall receive of the Lord, whether a man be bond or free." Masters, on the other hand, have to remember that they have a Master in heaven. Scripture lowers the hills and raises the valleys. These also serve in their very position as masters of others. They must not, therefore, use their authority with harshness, remembering that their Master is in heaven, and that with Him there is "no acceptance of persons."

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 25

ON FAMILY LIFE

Eph_5:22-33; Eph_6:1-9.

CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

Eph_5:22-33

In mutual subjection the Christian spirit has its sharpest trials and attains its finest temper. "Be subject one to another," was the last word of the apostles instructions respecting the "walk" of the Asian Churches. By its order and subjection the gifts of all the members of Christs body are made available for the up-building of Gods temple. The inward fellowship of the Spirit becomes a constructive and organising force, reconstituting human life and framing the world into the kingdom of Christ and God. "In fear of Christ" the loyal Christian man submits himself to the community; not from the dread of human displeasure, but knowing that he must give account to the Head of the Church and the Judge of the last day, if his self-will should weaken the Churchs strength and interrupt her holy work. "For the Lords sake" His freemen submit to every ordinance of men. This is such a fear as the servant has of a good master, {Eph_6:5} or the true wife for a loving husband (Eph_5:33), -not that which "perfect love casts out," but which it deepens and sanctifies.

Of this subjection to Christ the relationship of marriage furnishes an example and a mirror. St. Paul passes on to the new topic without any grammatical pause, Eph_5:22 being simply an extension of the participial clause that forms Eph_5:21 : "Being in subjection to one another in fear of Christ-ye wives to your own husbands, as to the Lord." The relation of the two verses is not that of the particular to the general, so much as that of image and object, of type and antitype. Submission to Christ in the Church suggests by analogy that of the wife to her husband in the house. Both have their origin in Christ, in whom all things were created, the Lord of life in its natural as well as in its spiritual and regenerate sphere. {Col_1:15-17} The bond that links husband and wife, lying at the basis of collective human existence, has in turn its ground in the relation of Christ to humanity.

The race springs not from a unit, but from a united pair. The history of mankind began in wedlock. The family is the first institution of society, and the mother of all the rest. It is the life basis, the primitive cell of the aggregate of cities and bodies politic. In the health and purity of household life lies the moral wealth, the vigour and durability of all civil institutions. The mighty upgrowth of nations and the great achievements of history germinated in the nursery of home and at the mothers breast. Christian marriage is not an expedient-the last of many that have been tried-for the satisfaction of desire and the continuance of the human species. The Institutor of human life laid down its principle in the first frame of things. Its establishment was a great prophetic mystery (Eph_5:32). Its law stands registered in the eternal statutes. And the Almighty Father watches over its observance with an awful jealousy. Is it not written: "Fornicators and adulterers God will judge"; and again, "The Lord is an avenger concerning all these things"? St. Paul rightly gives to this subject a conspicuous place in this epistle of Christ and the Church. The corner-stone of the new social order which the gospel was to establish in the world lies here. The entire influence of the Church upon society depends upon right views on the relationship of man and woman and on the ethics of marriage.

In wedlock there are blended most completely the two principles of association amongst moral beings, -viz., authority and love, submission and self-surrender.

I On the one side, submission to authority.

"Wives, be in subjection, as to the Lord,"-as is fitting in the Lord. {Col_3:18} Again, in 1Ti_2:11-12, the apostle writes: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion," or (as the word may rather signify) "to act independently of the man." Were these directions temporary and occasional? Were they due, as one hears it suggested, to the uneducated and undeveloped condition of women in the apostles time? Or do they not affirm a law that is deeply seated in nature and in the feminine constitution? The words of 1Co_11:2-15 show that, in the apostles view of life, this subordination is fundamental. "The head of woman is the man," as "the head of every man is the Christ" and "the head of Christ is God." "The woman," he says, "is of the man," and "was created because of the man." Whether these sentences square with our modern conceptions or not, there they stand, and their import is unmistakable. They teach that in the Divine order of things it is the mans part to lead and rule, and the womans part to be ruled. But the Christian woman will not feel that there is any loss or hardship in this. For in the Christian order, ambition is sin. To obey is better than to rule. She remembers who has said: "I am amongst you as he that serveth." The children of the world strive for place and power; but "it shall not be so amongst you."

Such subordination implies no inferiority, rather the opposite. A free and sympathetic obedience -which is the true submission-can only subsist between equals. The apostle writes: "Children, obey; Servants, obey"; {Eph_6:1, Eph_6:5} but "Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord." The same word denotes submission within the Church, and within the house. It is here that Christianity, in contrast with Paganism, and notably with Mohammedanism, raises the weaker sex to honour. In soul and destiny it declares the woman to be man, endowed with all rights and powers inherent in humanity. "In Christ Jesus there is no male and female," any more than there is "Jew and Greek" or "bond and free." The same sentence which broke down the barriers of Jewish caste, and in course of time abolished slavery, condemned the odious assumptions of masculine pride. It is one of the glories of our faith that it has enfranchised our sisters, and raises them in spiritual calling to the full level of their brothers and husbands. Both sexes are children of God by the same birthright; both receive the same Holy Spirit, according to the prediction quoted by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost: "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy Yea, on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days will I pour out my Spirit, saith the Lord". {Act_2:17-18} This one point of headship, of public authority and guidance, is reserved. It is the point on which Christ forbids emulation amongst His people.

Christian courtesy treats the woman as "the glory of the man"; it surrounds her from girlhood to old age with protection and deference. This homage, duly rendered, is a full equivalent for the honour of visible command. When, as it happens not seldom in the partnership of life, the superior wisdom dwells with the weaker vessel, the golden gift of persuasion is not wanting, by which the official ruler is guided, to his own advantage, and his adviser accomplishes more than she could do by any overt leadership. The chivalry of the Middle Ages, from which the refinement of European society takes its rise, was a product of Christianity grafted on the Teutonic nature. Notwithstanding the folly and excess that were mixed with it, there was a beautiful reverence in the old knightly service and championship of women. It humanised the ferocity of barbarous times. It tamed the brute strength of warlike races and taught them honour and gentleness. Its prevalence marked a permanent advance in civilisation.

Shall we say that this law of St. Paul is that laid down specifically for Christian women? is it not rather a law of nature-the intrinsic propriety of sex, whose dictates are reinforced by the Christian revelation? The apostle takes us back to the creation of mankind for the basis of his principles in dealing with this subject (Eph_5:31). The new commandments are the old which were in the world from the beginning, though concealed and overgrown with corruption. Notwithstanding the debasement of marriage under the non-Christian systems, the instincts of natural religion taught the wife her place in the house and gave rise to many a graceful and appropriate custom expressive of the honour due from one sex to the other. So the apostle regarded the mans bared and cropped head and the womans flowing tresses as symbols of their relative place in the Divine. {1Co_11:13-15} These and such distinctions-between the dignities of strength and of beauty-no artificial sentiment and no capricious revolt can set aside. while the world stands. St. Paul appeals to the common sense of mankind, to that which "nature itself teaches," in censuring the forwardness of some Corinthian women who appeared to think that the liberty of the gospel released them from the limitations of their nature.

Some earnest promoters of womens rights, have fallen into the error that Christianity, to which they owe all that is best in their present status, is the obstacle in the way of their further progress. It is an obstacle to claims that are against nature and against the law of God, -claims only tolerable so long as they are exceptional. But the barriers imposed by Christianity, against which these people fret, are their main protection. "The moment Christianity disappears, the law of strength revives; and under that law women can have no hope except that their slavery may be mild and pleasant." To escape from the "bondage of Christian law" means to go back to the bondage of paganism. "As unto the Lord" gives the pattern and the principle of the Christian wifes submission. Not that, as Meyer seems to put it, the husband in virtue of marriage "represents Christ to the wife." Her relation to the Lord is as full, direct, and personal as his. Indeed, the clause inserted at the end of Eph_5:23 seems expressly designed to guard against this exaggeration. The qualification that Christ is "Himself Saviour of the body," thrown in between the two sentences comparing the marital headship to that which Christ holds towards the Church, has the effect of limiting the former. The subjection of the Christian wife to her husband reserves for Christ the first place in the heart and the undiminished rights of Saviourship. St. Paul indicates a real, and not unfrequent danger. The husband may eclipse Christ in the wifes soul, and be counted as her all in all. Her absorption in him may be too complete. Hence the brief guarding clause: "He Himself [and no other] Saviour of the body [to which all believers alike belong]." As the Saviour of the Church, Christ holds an unrivalled and unqualified lordship over every member of the same. Nevertheless, as the Church is subject to the Christ, so also wives [should be] to their husbands in everything" (Eph_5:24). Again in Eph_5:33 : "Let the wife see that she fear her husband-with the reverent and confiding fear which love makes sweet. As the Christian wife obeys the Lord Christ in the spiritual sphere, in the sphere of marriage she is subject to her husband. The ties that bind her to Christ, bind her more closely to the duties of home. These duties illustrate for her the submissive love that Christs people, and herself as one of them, owe to their Divine Head. Her service in the Church, in turn, will send her home with a quickened sense of the sacredness of her domestic calling. It will lighten the yoke of obedience; it will check the discontent that masculine exactions provoke; and will teach her to win by patience and gentleness the power within the house that is her queenly crown.

II. The apostle alludes to submission as the wifes duty; for she might, possibly, be tempted to think this superseded by the liberty, of the children of God. Love he need not enjoin upon her, but he writes: "Husbands, love your wives, even as the Christ also loved the Church and gave up Himself for her". {comp. Col_3:18-19} The danger of selfishness lies on the masculine side. The mans nature is more exacting; and the self-forgetfulness and solicitous affection of the woman may blind him to his own want of the truest love. Full of business and with a hundred cares and attractions lying outside the domestic circle, he too readily forms habits of self-absorption and learns to make his wife and home a convenience, from which he takes as his right the comfort they have to give, imparting little of devotion and confidence in return. This lack of love denies the higher rights of marriage; it makes the wifes submission a joyless constraint. Along with this selfishness and the uneasy conscience attending it, there supervenes sometimes an irritability of temper that chafes over domestic troubles and makes a grievance of the most trifling mishap or inadvertence, ignoring the wifes patient affection and anxiety to please Too often in this way husbands grow insensibly into family tyrants, forgetting the days of youth and the kindness of their espousals. "There are many," says Bengel (on this point unusually caustic), "who out of doors are civil and kind to all; when at home, toward their wives and children, whom they have no need to fear, they freely practise secret bitterness."

"Love your wives, even as the Christ loved the Church." What a glory this confers upon the husbands part in marriage! His devotion pictures as no other love can, the devotion of Christ to His Redeemed people. His love must therefore be a spiritual passion, the love of soul to soul, that partakes of God and of eternity. Of the three Greek words for love, eros, familiar in Greek poetry and mythology, denoting the flame of sexual passion, is not named in the New Testament; philia, the love of friendship, is tolerably frequent, in its verb at least; but agape absorbs the former and transcends both. This exquisite word denotes love in its spiritual purity and depth, the love of God and of Christ, and of souls to each other in God. This is the specific Christian affection. It is the attribute of God who "loved the world and gave His Son the Only-begotten" of "the Christ" who "loved the Church and gave up Himself for her." Self-devotion, not self-satisfaction, is its note. Its strength and authority it uses as material for sacrifice and instruments of service, not as prerogatives of pride or titles to enjoyment. Let this mind be in you, O husband, toward your wife, which was also in Christ Jesus, who was meek and lowly in heart, counting it His honour to serve and His reward to save and bless.

From Eph_5:26 we gather that Christ is the husbands model, not only in the rule of self-devotion, but in the end toward which that devotion is directed: "that He might sanctify the Church, -that He might present her to Himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle, -that she might be holy and without blemish." The perfection of the wifes character will be to the religious husband one of the dearest objects in life. He will desire for her that which is highest and best, as for himself. He is put in charge of a soul more precious to him than any other, over which he has an influence incomparably, great. This care he cannot delegate to any priest or father-confessor. The peril of such delegation and the grievous mischiefs that arise when there is no spiritual confidence between husband and wife, when through unbelief or superstition the head of the house hands over his priesthood to another man, are painfully shown by the experience of Roman Catholic countries. The irreligion of laymen, the carelessness and unworthiness of fathers and husbands, are responsible for the baneful influences of the confessional. The apostle bade the Corinthian wives, who were eager for religious knowledge, to "ask their husbands at home". {1Co_14:35} Christian husbands should take more account of their office than they do; they should not be strangers to the spiritual trials and experiences of the heart so near to them. It might lead them to walk more worthily and to seek higher religious attainments, if they considered that the shepherding of at least one soul devolves upon themselves, that they are unworthy of the name of husband without such care for the welfare of the soul linked to their own as Christ bears toward "His bride the Church." Those who have no father or husband to look to, or who look in vain to this quarter for spiritual help, St. Paul refers, beside the light and comfort of Scripture and the public ministry and fellowship of the Church, to the "aged women" who are the natural guides and exemplars of the younger in their own sex. {Tit_2:3-5}

The selfishness of the stronger sex, supported by the force of habit and social usage, was hard to subdue in the Greek Christian Churches. Through some eight verses St. Paul labours this one point. In verse 28 he adduces another reason, added to the example of Christ, for the love enjoined. "So ought men indeed to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." The "So" gathers its force from the previous example. In loving us Christ does not love something foreign and, as it were, outside of Himself. "We are members of His body" (Eph_5:30). It is the love of the Head to the members, of the Son of man to the sons of men, whose race-life is founded in Him. Jesus Christ laid it down as the highest law, under that of love to God: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." His love to us followed this rule. His life was wrapped up in ours. By such community of life self-love is transfigured, and exalted into the purest self-forgetting.

Thus it is with true marriage. The wedding of a human pair makes each the others property. They are "one flesh" (Eph_5:31); and, so long as the flesh endures there remains this consciousness of union, whose violation is deadly sin. As the Church is not her own, nor Christ His own since He became man with men, so the husband and wife are no longer independent and self-complete personalities, but incorporated into a new existence common to both. Their love must correspond to this fact. "If the man loves himself, if he values his own limbs and tends and guards from injury his bodily frame" (Eph_5:29), he must do the same equally by his wife; for her life and limbs are as a part of his own. This the apostle lays down as an obvious duty. Nature teaches the obligation, by every manly instinct.

The saying the apostle quotes in Eph_5:31 dates from the origin of the human family; it is taken from the lips of the first husband and father of the race, while as yet unstained by sin. {Gen_2:23-24} Christ infers from it the singleness and indelibility of the marriage covenant. But this doctrine, natural as it is, was not inferred by natural religion. The cultivated Greek took a wife for the production of children. Her rights put no restriction upon his appetite. Love was not in the marriage contract. If she received the maintenance due to her rank and the mistress-ship of the house, and was the mother of his lawful children, she had all that a freeborn woman could demand. The slave-woman had no rights. Her body was at her owners disposal. Nothing in Christianity appeared more novel and more severe, in comparison with the dissolute morals of the time, than the Christian view of marriage. Even Christs Jewish disciples seemed to think the state of wedlock intolerable under the condition He imposed. This want of reverence and constancy between the sexes was the main cause of the degeneracy of the age. All virtues disappear with this one. Roman manliness and uprightness, Greek courtesy and courage, filial piety, civic worth, loyalty in friendship-the qualities that once in a high degree adorned the classic nations, were now rare amongst men. In the most exalted ranks infamous vices flourished; and purity of life was a cause for odium and suspicion.

Amidst this seething mass of corruption the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus created new hearts and new homes. It kindled a pure fire on the desecrated hearth. It taught man and woman a chaste love; and their alliances were formed "in sanctification and honour, not in the passion of lust as it is with the Gentiles who know not God". {1Th_4:3-6} Every Christian house, thus based on an honourable and religious union, became the centre of a leaven that wrought upon the corrupt society around. It held forth an example of wedded loyalty and domestic joy beautiful and strange in that loveless Pagan world. Children grew up trained in pure and gentle manners. From that hour the hope of a better day began. The influence of the new ideal, filtrating everywhere into the surrounding heathenism and assimilating even before it converted the hostile world, raised society, though gradually and with many relapses, from the extreme debasement of the age of the Caesars. Never subsequently have the morals of civilised mankind sunk to a level quite so low. The Christian conception of love and marriage opened a new era for mankind.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

5:22-33 Christian wives are to submit to their husbands, showing them respect. Equally important, Christian husbands are to love their wives (see Col 3:18-19). Christian marriages become a reflection of the union and relationship between the Lord and the church.

5:22 Submission is part of the life to which the wives’ Christian commitment calls them (see 1 Cor 11:3-10; 14:34-35; Col 3:18; 1 Tim 2:11-12; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1-6).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Eph 5:22. Αἱ γυναῖκες, wives) Inferiors are put in the first place, then superiors, Eph 5:25; ch. Eph 6:1; Eph 6:4-5; Eph 6:9; 1Pe 3:1; 1Pe 3:7, because the proposition regards subjection; and inferiors ought to do their duty, of whatsoever kind their superiors are. Many of those that are inferior become superiors; and he who acts well as an inferior, acts well as a superior.[88] Moreover, all these are addressed in the second person; therefore it is the duty of all to hear and read the Scripture; comp. 1Jn 2:13.—ἸΔΊΟΙς, to your own) Wives should obey their own husbands, even although elsewhere they should seem to have superior prudence: ὑποτασσόμενοι is to be supplied from Eph 5:21.[89] It is said of children and servants, obey [ὑπακούετε], ch. Eph 6:1; Eph 6:5. There is a greater equality in the case of husbands and wives;[90] comp., however, Rom 13:1.—Ὡς, as) The subjection which is rendered by the wife to the husband, is at the same time rendered to the Lord Christ Himself. It is not compared with the obedience which the Church renders to Christ, but with that which the wife herself ought to render to Christ. Obedience is rendered to the husband, under the eye of Christ; therefore also to Christ Himself.

[88] “Qui bene subest, bene præest.”

[89] Wherefore in the Germ. Vers., Eph 5:22 is only put in a parenthesis.—E. B.

[90] Therefore ὑποτασσομενοι, subordinate, not ὑπακούετε, is said in their case.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 5:22-33 . A paragraph which, in dealing with the duties of wives and husbands as seen in the new light of Christian truth, gives the Christian ideal of the marriage-relation. It is the loftiest conception of that relation that has ever come from human pen, and one than which no higher can be imagined.

Eph 5:22 . Αἱ γυναῖκες , τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν [ ὑποτάσσεσθε ]: Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands . The great Christian law of mutual subjection or submissive consideration is now to be unfolded in its bearing on three particular relations which lie at the foundation of man’s social life those of husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. The relation of husbands and wives, as the most fundamental, is taken up before the others, and the Christian duty of the wives is set forth first. The reading is somewhat uncertain. The TR inserts ὑποτάσσεσθε , with [597] [598] , most cursives, Syr., Chrys., etc. A few manuscripts ( [599] [600] ) place the ὑποτάσσεσθε after the γυναῖκες . In some important authorities ( [601] [602] [603] 17, Boh., Goth., Vulg., Arm., etc.) we find ὑποτασσέσθωσαν ; which is accepted by LTr and given a place in the margin by WH. The clause is given without any verb by [604] , Clem., and Jer., which last states that the verb was not found in his Greek codices. This shortest form is adopted by WH in their text . The verb is easily supplied from the preceding ὑποτασσόμενοι , and such constructions are quite in Paul’s style. The ἰδίοις (which is omitted in the parallel passage in Col 3:18 ) is here, as often if not always in the NT, something more than a simple possessive. It conveys the idea of what is special , and gives a certain note of emphasis or intensity, = husbands who as such are peculiarly and exclusively theirs ; see 1Pe 3:1 , and cf. Ell. in loc. ; Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek , p. 169. ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ : as to the Lord . That is, to Christ ; not to the husband as lord and master. If the husband’s supremacy had been in view, it would have been expressed by τοῖς κυρίοις . The ὡς denotes more than similarly , and more than “just as they are submissive to Christ so should they be to their husbands”. The next sentence, and the whole statement of the relation between husband and wife in the following verse in terms of the relation between Christ and the Church, suggest that the point of the ὡς is that the wife is to regard the obedience she has to render to her husband as an obedience rendered to Christ, the Christian husband being head of the wife and representing to her Christ the Head of the whole Christian body.

[597] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.

[598] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

[599] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[600] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( δ ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.

[601] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[602] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[603] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .

[604] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 5:22 to Eph 6:9. HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS IN CHRISTIAN LIGHT

Cf. Col 3:18 to Col 4:1; 1Pe 2:18 to 1Pe 3:7

22. Αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ. Cf. 1Co 11:3. Wifely subjection is commended in Col 3:18 as ‘seemly.’ In. 1Pe 3:1 it is part of the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, commended for its winning power as a revelation (ἐποπτεύσαντες) of the Divine, and by the example of the holy women of old. Here the attitude follows naturally on the recognition of the Divine antitype of the marital relation. It is the acknowledgement of the Lord as the real source of the husband’s authority.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_5:22

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord. The general duty of mutual submission includes the specific duty of wives to be subject to their husbands, and this leads the apostle to speak of the relative duties of husbands and wives. And as the marriage relation is analogous to the relation between Christ and his church, he is thus led to illustrate the one by the other. As the relation is the same, the duties flowing from it are the same; obedience on the part of the wife, and love on the part of the husband. The apostle teaches the nature, the ground, and the extent of the obedience due from the wife to the husband.

As to the nature of it, it is religious. It is ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, as to the Lord. The ὡς, as, does not express similarity, as though the obedience of the wife to her husband was to be as devout and as unconditional as that which she is bound to render to the Lord. But her obedience to her husband is to be regarded as part of her obedience to the Lord. See Eph_6:5, Eph_6:6. It terminates on him, and therefore is religious, because determined by religious motives and directed towards the object of the religious affections. This makes the burden light and the yoke easy. For every service which the believer renders to Christ, is rendered with alacrity and joy.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The first argument, for they cannot be disobedient to their husbands, but they must resist God also, who is the author of this subjection.

Now he descendeth to a family, dividing orderly all the parts of a family. And he saith that the duty of wives consisteth herein, to be obedient to their husbands.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands] As the Lord, viz. Christ, is the head or governor of the Church, and the head of the man, so is the man the head or governor of the woman. This is God's ordinance, and should not be transgressed. The husband should not be a tyrant, and the wife should not be the governor. Old Francis Quarles, in his homely rhymes, alluding to the superstitious notion, that the crowing of a hen bodes ill luck to the family, has said:-

"Ill thrives the hapless family that shows

A cock that's silent, and a hen that crows:

I know not which live most unnatural lives,

Obeying husbands or commanding wives."

As unto the Lord.] The word Church seems to be necessarily understood here; that is: Act under the authority of your husbands, as the Church acts under the authority of Christ. As the Church submits to the Lord, so let wives submit to their husbands.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. Wives, submit yourselves. He comes now to the various conditions of life; for, besides the universal bond of subjection, some are more closely bound to each other, according to their respective callings. The community at large is divided, as it were, into so many yokes, out of which arises mutual obligation. There is, first, the yoke of marriage between husband and wife; — secondly, the yoke which binds parents and children; — and, thirdly, the yoke which connects masters and servants. By this arrangement there are six different classes, for each of whom Paul lays down peculiar duties. He begins with wives, whom he enjoins to be subject to their husbands, in the same manner as to Christ, — as to the Lord. Not that the authority is equal, but wives cannot obey Christ without yielding obedience to their husbands.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

22–32. Special Exhortations: the Christian Home: Wife and Husband

22. Wives] Cp. Col_3:18; 1Pe_3:1-6. In Col. the corresponding instructions about domestic duty are drawn expressly from the truth (Col_3:1) that the believer lives, in the risen Christ, a resurrection-life.

submit yourselves] It is probable that the Gr. original has no verb here. R.V. accordingly reads in italics be in subjection to. But it is obvious that the thought if not the word is present, carried on from the last verse.

The Gospel on the one hand recognizes and secures woman’s perfect spiritual equality with man, an equality which modifies and ennobles every aspect of possible “subjection”; on the other hand recognizes and secures man’s responsible leadership.

your own] Words of special emphasis, suggesting the holy speciality of the marriage relation.

as unto the Lord] Who is, in a peculiar sense, represented to the wife by the husband. In wifely submission to him she not only acts on the general principle of the acceptance of the Will of God expressed in circumstances: she sees in that attitude a special reflection, as it were, of her relations to the Lord Himself. Her attitude has a special sanction thus from Him.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ,.... Her head, being wholly dependent upon him, and entirely resigned to him, and receiving all from him; from whom alone is all her expectation of provision, protection, comfort, and happiness; wherefore she has respect to all his commands, and esteems all his precepts concerning all things to be right; and yields a cheerful, voluntary, sincere, and hearty obedience to them; arising from a principle of love to him, and joined with honour, fear, and reverence of him:

so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything: political, domestic, and ecclesiastic; that is consistent with the laws of God, and the Gospel of Christ.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Ver. 22. Wives, submit, &c.] This includes reverence, obedience, &c. God hath scattered the duties of husbands and wives up and down the Scriptures, that they may search, and by learning to be good husbands and wives, they may learn also to be good men and women.

As unto the Lord] Who taketh himself dishonoured by wives’ disobedience. And though husbands may remit the offence done to them, yet they cannot remit God’s offence, but there must be special repentance.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands - On this passage, compare notes on 1Co 11:3-9. The duty of the submission of the wife to her husband is everywhere enjoined in the Scriptures; see 1Pe 3:1; Col 3:18; Tit 2:5. While Christianity designed to elevate the character of the wife, and to make her a fit companion of an intelligent and pious husband, it did not intend to destroy all subordination and authority. Man, by the fact that he was first created; that the woman was taken from him; that he is better qualified for ruling than she is, is evidently designed to be at the head of the little community that constitutes a family. In many other things, woman may be his equal; in loveliness, and grace, and beauty, and tenderness, and gentleness, she is far his superior; but these are not the qualities adapted for government. Their place is in another sphere; and “there,” man should be as cautious about invading her prerogative, or abridging her liberty, as “she” should be about invading the prerogative that belongs to him. In every family there should be a head - someone who is to be looked up to as the counselor and the ruler; someone to whom all should be subordinate. God has given that prerogative to man; and no family prospers where that arrangement is violated. Within proper metes and limits, therefore, it is the duty of the wife to obey, or to submit herself to her husband. Those limits are such as the following:

1. In domestic arrangements, the husband is to be regarded as the head of the family; and he has a right to direct as to the style of living, the expenses of the family, the clothing, etc.

2. In regard to the laws which are to regulate the family, he is the head. It is his to say what is to be done; in what way the children are to employ themselves, and to give directions in regard to their education, etc.

3. In business matters, the wife is to submit to the husband. She may counsel with him, if he chooses; but the affairs of business and property are under his control, and must be left at his disposal.

4. In everything, except that which relates to “conscience and religion,” he has authority. But there his authority ceases. He has no right to require her to commit an act of dishonesty, to connive at wrong-doing, to visit a place of amusement which her conscience tells her is wrong, nor has he a right to interfere with the proper discharge of her religious duties. He has no right to forbid her to go to church at the proper and usual time, or to make a profession of religion when she pleases. He has no right to forbid her endeavoring to exercise a religious influence over her children, or to endeavor to lead them to God. She is bound to obey God, rather than any man (see the notes on Act 4:19); and when even a husband interferes in such cases, and attempts to control her, he steps beyond his proper bounds, and invades the prerogative of God, and his authority ceases to be binding. It ought to be said, however, that in order to justify her acting independently in such a case, the following things are proper:

(1) It should be really a case of conscience - a case where the Lord has plainly required her to do what she proposes to do - and not a mere matter of whim, fancy, or caprice.

(2) When a husband makes opposition to the course which a wife wishes to pursue in religious duties, it should lead her to re-examine the matter, to pray much over it, and to see whether she cannot, with a good conscience, comply with his wishes.

(3) If she is convinced that she is right, she should still endeavor to see whether it is not “possible” to win him to her views, and to persuade him to accord with her; see 1Pe 3:1. It is “possible” that, if she does right, he may be “persuaded” to do right also.

(4) If she is constrained, however, to differ from him, it should be with mildness and gentleness. There should be no reproach, and no contention. She should simply state her reasons, and leave the event to God.

(5) She should, “after” this, be a better wife, and put forth more and more effort to make her husband and family happy. She should show that the effect of her religion has been to make her love her husband and children more; to make her more and more attentive to her domestic duties, and more and more kind in affliction. By a “life” of pure religion, she should aim to secure what she could not by her entreaties - his consent that she should live as she thinks she ought to, and and walk to heaven in the path in which she believes that her Lord calls her. While, however, it is to be conceded that the husband has “authority” over the wife, and a “right” to command in all cases that do not pertain to the conscience, it should be remarked:

(1) That his command should be reasonable and proper.

(2) He has no right to require anything wrong, or contrary to the will of God.

(3) Where commands begin “in this relation,” happiness usually ends; and the moment a husband “requires” a wife to do anything, it is usually a signal of departing or departed affection and peace. When there are proper feelings in both parties in this relation there will be no occasion either to command or to obey. There should be such mutual love and confidence, that the known “wish” of the husband should be a law to the wife: and that the known desires of the wife should be the rule which he would approve. A perfect government is that where the known wish of the lawgiver is a sufficient rule to the subject. Such is the government of heaven; and a family on earth should approximate as nearly as possible to that.

As unto the Lord - As you would to the Lord, because the Lord requires it, and has given to the husband this authority.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands; yielding honour and obedience to them.

As unto the Lord; for the Lord’s sake who hath commanded it, so that ye cannot be subject to him without being subject to them: see 1Ti 2:12.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Eph_6:9. EXHORTATION TO RELATIVE DUTIES.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Though Christianity emancipates and elevates woman, it does not release her from the duty of subjection. (comp. 1Pe_3:1-6) The relation to the husband is intensified in order to enforce the duty: "your own husbands," toiv ijdioiv ajndrasi: as we say, "she deserted her own child." The "as to" denotes a parallel duty: as it is your duty to be subject to Christ, so also to your husbands (see next verse).

Vers. 22-33.

Duties of wives and husbands.

The Apostle Peter, in his First Epistle, after dwelling on the privileges of believers, strongly urges them to have their conversation honest or fair among the Gentiles, exemplifying, by the purity and beauty of their life, the excellence of the principles and privileges of the gospel; and then he branches out into three cases or relations that afford scope for this mode of life that of subjects to their rulers, that of servants to their masters, and that of wives to their husbands and husbands to their wives. Though Peter and Paul moved in different orbits, yet, from the strength of the convictions held by them in common, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in them both, they were led to enforce wonderfully similar applications of the great principles of the gospel. Paul, like Peter, brings forward three relations, the only difference being that, in place of the relation of subjects to their rulers, he has that of children to their parents, and the corresponding duty of parents to their children. We have the clearest proof of its being the purpose of Christianity to purify and elevate the common relations of life. Much of the visible fruit of true religion lies in its making better subjects, better spouses, better children, better servants. Pagans were struck with the excellence of Christian women. The mother of Chrysostom won golden opinions by remaining a widow from her twenty-first year. "What women these Christians have!" was the exclamation of some. Christian women were wonderful missionaries in the early centuries by their devout, pure, and earnest lives; many was the pagan who, "without the Word, was won by the conversation of the wife." Such lives are doubly blessed blessed in themselves, and blessed in their influence on the world.

I THE WIFE"S DUTY. Submission to the husband as to the Lord (ver. 22). Reasons for this.

1. The husband is the head of the wife (ver. 23).

2. There is a parallel between the husband and Christ (ver. 23).

3. Even in respect of Christ"s saving power, the parallel holds to a limited, though very limited, extent (ver. 23).

4. The parallel is close enough to require the subjection of the wife (ver. 24).

II THE HUSBAND"S DUTY. To love his wife. This is enforced:

1. By the consideration of what Christ felt and did for his Church.

(1) He loved the Church (ver. 25).

(2) He gave himself for her (ver. 25). And the object for which he did so.

(a) His immediate object (ver. 26).

(b) His ultimate object (ver. 27).

2. By the consideration of the closeness of the relation of the wife to the husband as his own flesh. This relation is considered

(1) naturally (vers. 28, 29);

(2) symbolically (ver. 30).

The Church taken from Christ; given to Christ. The relation of the husband to his wife supersedes (in a manner) the relations of nature. The relation of the Church to Christ does so too (ver. 31). But the subject is mysterious (ver. 32). Yet one practical obligation is very clear (ver. 33).

The constitution of the Church, like that of natural society, involves mutual duties. Nothing can be complete unless each party performs his share. While it is the woman"s part to be in subjection, it is the husband"s part to love. The one balances the other. It is the duty of the wife to be subject even though the husband does not love, and the duty of the husband to love even though the wife is not subject; but how hard, difficult, almost impossible, such duties thus become! If the husband withhold love, he is wronging his wife, and altogether subverting the relation between them. Let" it ever be observed that, while God has joined husband and wife together, he has joined the husband"s love to the wife"s subjection; what, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Vers. 22-24.

The duties of wives.

In enforcing relative duties the apostle reminds us that religion takes hold of all possible conditions and callings of men. Religion is the great formative grace for men. We are set in a curiously various scheme of relations, in which the two principles of union and subjection are beautifully blended. The three relations in which these principles are seen in operation are peculiar to family life. The wife is first mentioned, then the children, then the servants. Religion rounds out the life of the family in a lovely completeness. Consider

I THE DUTIES OF WIVES. They are all summed up in the one word subjection. It is singular that the apostle does not command the wife to love her husband as the husband is commanded to love his wife. Her love is commanded elsewhere, (Tit_2:4) but not here. It has been observed that what is instinctive is not enforced, but only what is necessary to hallow and direct our instincts. The husband is to be the head; yet he is not commanded to govern; but he is commanded to love, as the means of securing subjection or submission on the part of the wife. She, again, loves more naturally and more passionately than man; her love is no subject of command, it is taken for granted; and the apostle commands her to obey and honor her husband as the best expression of this love. Jeremy Taylor says, "He rules her by authority, she rules him by love; she ought by all means to please him, and he must by no means displease her." Her great duty, then, is subjection. Let us see what it involves.

1. It is not servitude. It is not like the obedience of servants to masters, nor even like that of children to parents. It is a submission that recognizes the husband"s rule as just, tender, and wise.

1. It is a wise and loving obedience. Wives are "to be obedient to their own husbands". (Tit_2:5) Sarah is quoted by another apostle as an example of this obedience. (1Pe_3:1-6) It was necessary to emphasize this duty at a time when Christianity gave woman a new position of dignity and privilege, and when there might have been a temptation on the part of Christian wives who had unbelieving husbands to assert an authority over them inconsistent with the original institution of marriage. There is to be no dual authority in the family. The gospel made them both "heirs together of the grace of life," as it made "both male and female one in Christ," yet, even in religious or ecclesiastical matters, she

2. was not to usurp authority over the man, but "to be in silence". (1Ti_2:12)

3. It is an obedience within limits, though the wives are enjoined to be subject to their husbands "in everything," that is, in everything within the due sphere of a husband"s authority, for they are not to obey him in anything contrary to God and his Law. They are to obey God rather than man.

4. It is an obedience fashioned in its conditions and spirit upon the subjection of the Church to Christ. "As the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." This implies that the wife"s obedience is not to be forced or feigned, but springing naturally out of her affection to her husband, her dependence upon him, and her recognition of the just grounds of his superiority.

5. It implies fear, or reverence. "Let the wife see that she reverence her husband" (ver. 33), not despising him in her heart, as Michal despised, (2Sa_6:16) but, like Sarah, calling her husband "lord". (1Pe_3:6) The chaste conversation of the wife is to be "coupled with fear" to assert its own power.

II THE REASONS FOR THIS SUBMISSION.

1. The husbands recognized headship in the original institution of marriage. "The head of the woman is the man". (1Co_11:3) Her obedience, therefore, while a religious duty, has its foundation in nature.

(1) The man was first formed. "Adam was first formed, then Eve". (1Ti_2:13)

(2) The man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. (1Co_11:9)

(3) The woman was first in transgression. "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression". (1Ti_2:14)

(4) The woman is the "glory of the man," but the man is the image and glory of God". (1Co_11:7)

1. Her dependent position. As the weaker vessel," she needs protection, while he far excels her in those qualities which entitle to command. Yet his superiority in these respects is consistent with his inferiority to the woman in gentleness, patience, sympathy, love, delicacy of sentiment.

2. The fitness of things. She is "to be subject to her own husband." This expressive phrase points to the closeness, exclusiveness, and specialty of the relationship. It is thus a great mischief to unsex woman by denying or disregarding the superiority of man.

3. The similarity of the relation to that between the Church and Christ. "As the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." As Christ is the Source of authority and direction to the Church, as he exercises both with meekness and gentleness, so is the husband to the wife. She is bound, therefore, to give him the obedience the Church gives to Christ, limited, of course, by the nature of the relation and the authority of God. She is not to identify her husband"s claims with Christ, as if her Savior could supersede or weaken the just authority of her husband over her. A religious wife loves and honors her husband all the more from the very intenseness of her love to Christ. Her very obedience, too, fashioned upon the obedience of the Church to Christ, becomes tributary to her influence over her husband. Christianity has lifted woman to a high place, but without unsexing her. The old pagan writer, Libanius, might well exclaim, "Oh what women these Christians have! T.C.

Vers. 22-33.

What husbands and wives owe to Christ.

In exhorting the Ephesians to purity and enthusiasm of life, Paul is naturally led to the family institution and the relations to be found there. In the heathen world the relations between men and women were degrading. As Pressense says, in his most suggestive book, "La Famille Chretienne," "One found in the pagan family neither purity nor love. At the moment when Jesus Christ came, it had reached the last degree of degradation, and one can apply to the family itself those words of the Gospel, "He has come to seek and to save that which was lost. In this passage of Ephesians we have an insight into what Christ has done for the family. He has made of marriage the choice symbol of his own relation to the Church, and so family life is lifted into a Divine and spiritual light. The consideration of Christ for his people regulates the consideration husband should show to wife; and the loyalty of Christ"s people to their Master indicates the loyalty the wife should show the husband. Husbands and wives thus owe to Christ the purification of their relations and the sanctification of the home!

I JESUS LEFT HIS HEAVENLY HOME TO BE UNITED TO HIS BRIDE, THE CHURCH.

(Ver. 31.) It is evident that the parallel between the son leaving father and mother that he may cleave unto his wife, and Jesus leaving the bosom of the Father to be united to the bride, the Church, is what is in the apostle"s mind. He says that he speaks of Christ and the Church (ver. 32). And in no more beautiful way can the self-denial of Jesus in leaving heaven be presented. Heaven had been from all eternity the happy home of the only begotten Son. He had lain in the Father"s bosom and enjoyed ineffable bliss. But thoughts of marriage came, and the Father favored the Son"s idea. The morning dawned when Jesus must leave the homestead, and go forth to win his bride. Angels may well have wondered at the step and doubted its wisdom. But the step is taken. The home is left, and never again can it be what it once was. It is to be tenanted in due time with a bride, the Lamb"s wife, composed of a multitude that no man can number, happy souls, each and all in deepest unity with the Son. We do not sufficiently appreciate the magnificent design of God in the marriage of his only Son, or the condescension of the Son in forming such an alliance as he has done. For no condescension in earthly marriages can more than feebly illustrate the condescension of the Divine Son in taking a human bride. Princes may marry paupers, but the difference between poverty and princely wealth is as nothing compared with the difference between human nature and what is Divine. But besides, the human nature was not pure upon which he set his love; it was sinful, lost, ruined. Imagine a prince, out of pure as distinguished from passionate love, singling out some poor, abandoned woman, and arranging for her education and health and elevation in thought and feeling, until at last he can fairly marry her and give her share of his glories and his home; this is but a faint image of what Jesus the Son of God has done in selecting as a bride the ruined human race. He determined to win his bride, and so he took sinless human nature on him, and arranged for the union of once sinful, but through grace sanctified, human nature with himself.

II THE CARE OF JESUS FOR THE CHURCH IS THE IDEAL AT WHICH HUSBANDS SHOULD AIM IN CARING FOR THEIR WIVES. (Vers. 25-33.) This is Paul"s idea in this whole passage. Let us notice the order of the thought.

1. Christ loved the Church. This sovereign and yet most unselfish love led to the whole history of Christ"s devotion. His great heart recognized the possibilities of love when manifested to lost souls, and determined to realize them.

2. He gave himself for it. Here was heroic love. In the nature of things husbands cannot give themselves to death for their wives and afterwards enjoy their confidence. But Christ was able to give himself for the Church and then to enter into union with it. But it surely shows that a husband who truly loves his wife should be ready to die for her.

3. His self-sacrifice was to secure the Churchs sanctification. The Church was naturally polluted, sinful, degraded; but the whole history of Christ"s devotion goes to show that he had our sanctification in view. While setting his love on sinful souls, he hated our sin, and provided blood to cleanse our sin away. And the sanctification Christ secures for his bride is to be perfect. She is to be without "spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing;" she is to be "holy and without blemish." In other words, the sanctification is to be thorough. And is this not to show that husbands who are true to their wives should keep their sanctification steady as a star before them? If a husband does all in his power to promote his wife"s holiness, she can never be the victim of any unholy lust, but sanctification will characterize every relation.

4. The love thus lavished on the wife is the love of a mans "better self." To encourage this gallant and holy devotion to women, Paul further shows the compensation. The husband and wife are one, just as Christ and the Church are one. In loving his wife a man is really loving himself. It is self-love as distinguished from selfishness. It is the love of a man"s "better self." A man is not expected to hate his own flesh, but to nourish and cherish it; self-preservation dictates such a course; in the same way husbands should love their wives, cherishing them as really their better halves," or rather, "better selves," and feeling assured that a man"s real interests all lie in the direction of tender consideration towards his wife. It thus appears that Jesus has furnished the true ideal of devotion. We go not to belted knights or tales of chivalry for our ideas about devotion to our wives, but to the foot of the cross, that we may see in Jesus our perfect Example!

III THE CHURCH"S REVERENTIAL LOVE TO CHRIST IS THE IDEAL OF WIFELY DEVOTING.

(Vers. 22-25.) If Paul would summon husbands up to the heights of consecration by the example of Christ, he would also summon wives up to a corresponding return of reverential devotion. The Church, in her love and obedience to Christ, is the pattern of wifely devotion. Now, this leads us to consider how Christ rules in his Church. It is not an inconsiderate despotism, but an intelligent, considerate rule of love. His wishes are expressed with infinite tenderness. There is no fury in his commandments. The Church feels and finds that they are not grievous. And so believers are loyal to the Lord from the heart. Nothing is so delightful as to obey him. Suppose, then, that such a spirit characterized the wife"s relations to her husband; that she saw in his every expressed wish the outcome of love, and obeyed him in the belief that obedience was her privilege as well as duty, what Edenic homes men and women would possess on earth! And here it may be well to notice a fact brought out in Pressense"s volume already referred to, and it is this, that the New Testament has evidently entered into many more details about the family than about the constitution of the Church. The reason is obvious. The battle of the faith is to be won through the family. The family is God"s unit. The Church is but a family enlarged; heaven, again, is only a family still more enlarged. God as a Father overshadows all! If Christianity ensures a holy family; if she wins families from worldiness to holiness of life; then she may indeed lift up her head assured that redemption is drawing nigh. Christian homes on earth, paradise restored, these are really the creations which we look for; and beyond the shadows a still statelier home arises in "the Father"s house with its many mansions" prepared for the reception of the bride. The family on earth is sanctified that the family in heaven may be prepared for; the heavenly home is but the perfection of the earthly, if this is Christian to its core. R.M.E.

Vers. 22-23.

Relative duties.

I DUTY OF WIVES. Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands.

1. Ground of subjection.

(1) The husband represents Christ to the wife. "As unto the Lord." The original of the position of husband is to be found in Christ. It is in this character that he appears in the forty-fifth psalm, in the Song of Songs, and in other parts of Scripture. He is the absolute impersonation of the idea (the Husband by pre-eminence); and what we find in the human family on earth is only a faint copy of the original. It is true, too, that the husband is not in the family in his own name. He derives his authority from Christ. He is there as representing Christ. He is there as though Christ were there. What, then, the wife is in duty bound to render to her husband, she is not to render to him simply, but to him as representing Christ.

(2) It has its foundation in nature. The natural relationship. "For the husband is the head of the wife." It is not implied in this that the husband is superior to the wife in all qualities, but only that he is her superior in those qualities which fit him for being head. Especially his superior strength and self-reliance mark him out for taking the leading part. He is husband, or band of the house what keeps it undivided and keeps it up. He has to come between his wife and the world, to shield her from its glare and its harm. While she is a keeper at home, he has to go out and work for her, that he may provide for her maintenance and comfort. It is therefore fitting that she should lean upon him and be guided by him. The Christian analogy. "As Christ also is the Head of the Church." The headship is a great doctrine for the Church, already taught in this Epistle. As the wife in her weakness and distrustfulness of self leans upon her husband, so the Church in her weakness and felt insufficiency is to lean upon Christ. Worldly powers may be hostile, but she can never be deprived of the protection of her Head. Protected by him, she must be dictated to by none, but must take the law, pure and simple, from his lips. In the analogy there is an important difference. Being himself the Savior of the body." It must very seldom have happened that one has made a wife of her whom he has rescued from a watery grave or other form of death. But it is true of Christ that he has made a spouse of her whom he has delivered from everlasting destruction. He is Savior of the body, i.e. the Church. That makes his headship peculiar (without analogy in the earthly type), and gives him a peculiar hold on the obedience of the Church.

2. Manner and extent of subjection.

(1) Manner. "But" (that is, though Christ is more than Protector, is also Savior of the Church) "as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands." The ideal set before her is that, as the Church deports herself toward Christ, so she is to deport herself toward her husband. It has this advantage (high as it is) that, by entering into the spirit of her relationship to her husband, she should be greatly assisted in subjecting herself (as her husband under some disadvantage must also subject himself) to Christ.

(2) Extent. "In everything." The necessary limitation here is in everything that he, acting in the Name of Christ, has a right to expect of her. If he were laying anything sinful or purely arbitrary and tyrannical upon her, she would be justified in resisting him (appealing from him to Christ). But if it is within his right, and what he judges important, then (even when she cannot give her approval) she should be willing to fall in with his arrangement.

II DUTY OF HUSBANDS. Husbands, love your wives. As the husband excels in the governing qualities, so she excels in the lovable qualities.

For softness she, and sweet attractive grace.

If it can be said that he has more power, it can be said that (by her pure and modest feeling, her deep tenderness and devotion) she has more influence.

1. Manner. Christian analogy. "Even as Christ also loved the Church." We are to think of the love of Christ here only under the special aspect in which the apostle presents it, viz. his conjugal love , or love of espousals.

(1) His devotion to his spouse. And gave himself up for it" (or "her," as in the original). "Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep." Years of servitude he had to give for Rachel; yet they seemed to him but a few days, for the love he bore to her. It was a hard price he had to pay for her; but we read here of what was infinitely harder, of One who had to give himself for his spouse. He had to forget himself in humiliation and sorrow and death for her, and yet, hard as that was beyond all conception, it appeared as though it was nothing, for the love he bore to her.

(2) Purpose of his devotion.

(a) Immediate purpose (process of sanctification). "That he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of baptism. The water with the Word. The language is taken from the ordinance of fact is pointed to that the Church needs cleansing. Baptism goes upon the supposition that we are all by nature defiled with sin. It says this, "We are all as an unclean thing." The Church was in this state of impurity when the Son chose her for his bride. To this the words apply He loved her foul that he might make her fair. Washed certainly she must be (as the bride used to be before marriage), to be fit for associating with the highest purity. The blessed fact is also pointed to that there is what has cleansing power. "By the washing of water," it is said here. It is the water used in baptism that we are to think of, and that water in what it signifies, viz. the purifying influences of the Spirit. As water washes defilement from vessels, from the person, so the Spirit washes moral defilement from our hearts. This washing of water must be accompanied with the Word. For the Spirit cannot purify alone, but only through what the Word reveals, especially that blood of Christ which is said to cleanse from all sin.

(b) Remote purpose (result of sanctification). "That he might present the Church to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." By this we are to understand that Christ is to have in the Church a bride of incomparable beauty. When the cleansing process has been completed, the Church will be glorious ("all-glorious" is the language of the forty-fifth psalm, and the effect of the description here), more glorious than any material substance can be, more glorious than the sun in the heavens. There will not be spot or trace left of her former defilement. There will not be wrinkle or sign appearing of coming age (such as come. s to an ordinary bride). To make it more emphatic, it is added that there will not be any such thing, nothing whatever to mar her beauty. But still the description proceeds; she will be holy. Her beauty (as it will not be imperfect or fading) will not be outward, but will be the beauty of holiness. And she will be without blemish, so transcendently beautified that to add to her beauty would be (in things that are less)

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, To throw a perfume on the violet.

At present the Son"s bride has many a spot, many a wrinkle (her cleansing must still go on, her beauty needs bringing out), but the time is coming (in the Divine purpose which cannot fail, in the conception of Christ which must be realized) when she will be a fit bride for him. And then it is that, as is said here, he is to present her to himself. tie is to leave it to no other (say, angelic attendants) to present her, but he is to take it into his own hand (notwithstanding the double character in which it requires him to act). And this done (the marriage an accomplished fact), then, as is said in the Prophet Zephaniah, he will rejoice over her with joy, He will rest in his love; he will joy over her with singing. This, then, is the ideal which is put before husbands. It is what we could not have dared to have put before us of ourselves. It would have seemed profanity to have conjoined things so far apart. But thus it has been dictated for us by the Spirit of inspiration: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church." The husband is to possess, to cherish, and to manifest devoted love toward his wife. And if his is the position of authority, yet is he (an all-requiring love being also his) to forget himself in services rendered to her. And specially is he taught from the high model that he is not to pamper his wife (or to be careful how to please his wife, as Paul puts the case of the married), but he is to regard her as given him for a higher end, and to seek that she may possess all spiritual beauty.

2. Ground. "Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies." The ground of the duty is that the wife is one flesh with the husband. There are two points (not immediately connected, but brought up afterward) which go to prove this. The first is that woman derived her being from man. Eve was taken out of Adam, and the language was used regarding her by Adam: This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." The second point is that, in the marriage union, man and woman are said to become one flesh. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh." The wife, then, being one flesh with the husband, there comes into operation (in support of the duty of the husband) the principle of self-preservation. "He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it." The Christian analogy. "Even as Christ also the Church." Christ bestows a fostering care on the Church; and this is not only lovely, but it is thoroughly natural. For:

(1) The Church is one flesh with Christ by derivation. Because we are members of his body." Her spiritual being is from Christ as much as Eve"s physical being was from Adam.

(2) The Church becomes one flesh with Christ in the marriage union. Here the words of the marriage ceremony ere quoted with the added comment, This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church." The language, "one flesh," has a strangeness in its application to an ordinary marriage union, but the apostle is careful to let us know that he uses it in reference to the mystical union of Christ and the Church (by no distortion, for that is the archetype, or original pattern of all marriage, and, we must believe, was in the Divine mind when the words were uttered in Paradise). Shall we think of the Son leaving his Father"s house and cleaving to his bride in human flesh? But we must not (as some have done) pry too curiously into it; for it is a mystery, and we must simply lay hold upon the great fact that it points to the union between Christ and the Church being so intimate that he loves her as he loves himself.

III RECAPITULATION (order of duties inverted). Duty of husband. "Nevertheless i.e. not to press the mystical bearings of the subject do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself." It is again an ideal of very difficult attainment. What a fostering care is conjoined with his authority! And this to be Christ-like (in that fostering care which he is now bestowing upon his Church, and which he will one day bring to a mature result)? Duty of wife. "And let the wife see that she fear her husband." He may personally be deficient (in comparison with her) in those qualities which fit him for being head, but nevertheless she is to show deference to him in respect of the position which he holds. In the precept here it is supposed that he has Christian worth (which is what the representative of Christ should have, what is the adornment of his position). And even when a Christian wife cannot look to Christian worth in her husband, yet must she preserve reverence toward him, while at the same time seeking to win him over to Christ. Two lessons may be learned here.

1. Marriage is a Christian ordinance. It is not, indeed, to be raised (as it is by the Roman Catholics) to the rank of a Christian sacrament; but neither is it to be reduced to a mere civil arrangement. It is here associated with the sublimest Christian thought. This, and the presence of Christ at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, give it a thoroughly Christian character and throw a Christian halo around it of the brightest nature.

2. It is not to be lightly entered into, but in a Christian manner. Man and woman must belong to the Lord before they belong to each other, and are to enter into the married state that they may help each other to be more entirely the Lord"s. A Christian is not at liberty to marry one who is not a Christian (even in the hope of making him or her a Christian). A Christian even among Christians is to seek from the Lord.

And now, before the word we speak That knits the bond man must not break, We fain would know thy mind. Lord, be the sweet conviction given To both that thou thyself in heaven The hallowed bond hast twined.

It is in that spirit that it ought to be contemplated. Without this there can be no security for happiness or for Christ being honored in connection with the union formed, R.F.

Vers. 22-33.

Ideal marriage.

submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church: and he is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." The subject of this passage is Ideal matrimony; or, Gods idea of the marriage state. As we look into it, our convictions will deepen that the Divine idea is but very partially, if at all, developed in the matrimonial alliances of modern society. What is marriage? It comes not within the limits of our purpose or space to enter into a full discussion of the grand subject of human marriage. Our readers will find a very learned and exhaustive treatment of this question in Dr. William Smith"s "Dictionary of the Bible." Our remarks must be confined entirely to those phases of the subject which the passage under review suggests. On all hands it is admitted that marriage that is, the union of one man to one woman is a Divine ordination. Some philosophers see the principle of matrimony running through all nature, not only in the sexual distinction of all animals, but in the sexual form of all kinds of vegetable life. But the Bible is our authority. The Divine institution of marriage is clearly taught, both in the Old and the New Testaments. In the opening pages of the Divine volume we read these words, "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him." And in the New Testament we have these words from the lips of the Son of God himself, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder". (Mat_19:4-6) What does the text teach concerning marriage? It teaches

I That marriage implies MORAL ROYALTY ON THE PART OF THE HUSBAND. Wives are here commanded to submit themselves unto their husbands "as unto the Lord." The husband is here called the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church," and the apostle concludes the paragraph by saying, "Let the wife see that she reverence her husband." The idea of supremacy, therefore, on the part of the husband is manifest throughout the passage. But what is the rule to be? Not the rule of superior muscular force or intellectual power. Such a rule would be despotism and nothing less. The apostle teaches here that the husband"s rulership should be similar to that rulership that Christ holds over the Church.

1. The husband is to rule by moral influence. How does Christ rule the Church? Not by force, but by love; by the royalty of his character, the sublimity of his thoughts, the Divine grandeur of his aims. The Church bows lovingly to his authority, because of the supremacy of his excellence. Thus the husband is to rule the wife, for "the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church." It is only as the wife sees in her husband true moral grandeur that she can bow loyally to his scepter and feel a loving reverence in her heart.

2. The husband is to rule for beneficent ends.

(1) The rule is to be restorative. "He is the Savior of the body." This refers to Christ. The Church is his body; he is to it what the soul is to the body the ever-present, animating, controlling spirit. So the grand object of the husband should be to save his wife save her from all that is mean and coarse, from all that decades the character or pains the soul. Her true elevation, and not the gratification of her vanity, or pride, or lower appetites, should be his master aim.

(2) This rule is to be universal. "In everything." It is to extend through the whole of domestic life. Indeed, a true moral rule over the heart will extend to everything" in the woman"s life.

(3) The rule is to be self-sacrificing in spirit. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it." The husband"s love should be that of the highest chivalry a love that shrinks at no sacrifice in order to bless and ennoble the partner of his choice. It must be of the same kind as that which prompted Christ to give himself for the salvation of the world. Ay, and he must have the same grand object, too viz, the perfect cleansing of his bride from all that is morally corrupt. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it; what for? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." It is said that the glowworm never shines after it has become a parent. Some women lose the luster of all delicacy and refinement under the influence of men whom they call their husbands. The aim of the true husband should be to make the character of his wife a "glorious" character, "without spot or blemish." Behold and admire this Divine picture of a true husband! The marriage in which there is not such a husband is no true marriage. It is an impious mockery. When a woman in the marriage ceremony of Churches is called upon to obey a man smaller in intellect, narrower in sympathies, and inferior in moral character to herself, she is called upon to do violence to her nature to do that, in fact, which the eternal laws of mind forbid her in sincerity and truth ever to perform. Who can admire the contemptible? who can reverence the mean? The man should appear as a morally royal man in her eyes, or he is no true husband at all.

II That marriage implies MORAL LOVABLENESS ON THE PART OF THE WIFE. "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies." If the wife is to be loved, she must be lovable, for it is as impossible for the human mind to love the morally unbeautiful as it is to believe a mathematical contradiction. There are women who are morally hideous, and from whom all manly natures must revolt with disgust. What is the truly lovable in a wife? Personal beauty? This may fascinate the eye for a short time, but it has no power to generate moral esteem. Brilliant genius or sparkling accomplishments? No; these may charm the fancy, but never evoke the true germ of manly love. What is the lovable? The text suggests two of its elements.

1. A vital sympathy with the spirit of a true husband. "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church." The true husband we have described: he is a royal man, who rules by moral influence for beneficent ends in the spirit of self-sacrificing love; and the true wife must have such a vital sympathy with that high moral spirit of his as to make the "twain one flesh." His aims are elevated, his spirit is Christ-like, and her whole heart being in vital accord with his, they are "no more twain, but one flesh." God, not priests nor hireling registrars, has joined them together.

2. A love-centralizing power of character. There must be that fascination and bewitchment of moral spirit about her that will draw the affections of her husband from all the dearest of other objects, and center them on herself. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." He should discover in her virtues so numerous and strong as to draw his sympathies even from the nearest of his other relations and center them on her, feeling that he can repose in her his utmost confidence and bestow on her his choicest love.

CONCLUSION. It is obvious that the world abounds with spurious marriages. The popular idea of marriage is a legalized union of one man to one woman. Though the union may be formed by mere sensual impulses and selfish considerations, it is still called a marriage. Though it be formed, not only without any relative fitness between the parties conjoined, but with a painful discrepancy in temper, age, health, education, it is still called a marriage. Though it be formed without any element of moral excellence as a foundation, and without mutual love for virtue simply because no mutual virtue exists still it is called a marriage. The woman may be destitute of every high quality, immersed in sensuality and pride, still at the altar the man pledges to her his love; and the man may be a little soul, in every respect inferior to the woman, yet at the altar she pledges him reverence and obedience. Nothing is more baneful to a country than the corruption of the marriage institution. The law of England, alas l unites brutes and fiends together as well as saints.

For marriage is a matter of more worth Than to be dealt in by attorneyship: For what is wedlock forced, but a hell, An age of discord and continual strife? Whereas the contrary bringeth forth happiness, And is a pattern of celestial bliss. (Shakespeare.)

D.T.

Vers. 22-33.

Husbands and wives.

I CHRISTIANITY CONSECRATES AND ELEVATES THE UNION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.

1. Christianity sanctions marriage. St. Paul, though an unmarried man, casts no slight on marriage. It is true that he discourages it under temporary trying circumstances, (1Co_7:1) but it is also true that he plainly teaches, not only the lawfulness, but especially the dignity of Christian marriage in itself. The ascetic view of celibacy as a more holy state than marriage is not found in the New Testament. "Let marriage be had in honor among all". (Heb_13:4)

1. Christianity elevates marriage. St. Paul compares it with the union of Christ with his Church. He does not take the marriage relation to illustrate that union an illustration that was familiar with the prophets in explaining the relation of God to Israel. He makes the comparison in the opposite way, taking the union of Christ and the Church as the true and perfect union, and therefore as the type of what marriage should be, viz.

1. close union and

2. spiritual union.

Further, it is to be observed that Christianity elevates marriage

(1) by giving women a religious equality with men men and women have equal privileges in the gospel; and

(2) by inculcating purity, justice, gentleness, and unselfishness.

II THE HIGH CHRISTIAN IDEA OF MARRIAGE LAYS GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES ON HUSBANDS AND WIVES. Care and effort are necessary to realize so magnificent an ideal as a human copy of the mystical union of Christ and the Church. Care should be given in particular to the following requisites:

1. Mutual sympathy. It is not right that husbands and wives, in dividing the home life into separate departments, should fail to take interest in one another"s cares and works. The husband should show sympathy for the wife"s domestic hopes, and fears, and joys, and troubles, and the wife for the husband"s schemes and achievements and disappointments.

2. Mutual confidence. This is essential to mutual sympathy. There should be no secret between husband and wife. Surely it is a mistake for a husband to hide his trouble from his wife out of a desire to spare her pain, and equally so for the wife to do the same in regard to her husband. The separation thus caused is a more serious evil than the pain that is prevented.

3. Mutual forbearance. Each must be prepared to meet with faults in the other. But each would be less provoked by those faults if the husband would think rather of what his wife has to endure in him than of what he may be annoyed at in her, and if the wife would reflect in the same way on her own failings.

4. The consecration of marriage through union with Christ. Such a truly Christian marriage is safe from shipwreck. It is sad to see how rarely the Christian idea of marriage is realized; but little better can be expected till men and women are aiming throughout at a higher life than what is now prevalent in society a life of spiritual union with Christ. W.F.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In the following directions concerning relative duties, the inferiors are all along placed before the superiors, because the general proposition is concerning submission; and inferiors ought to do their duty, whatever their superiors do. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands - Unless where God forbids. Otherwise, in all indifferent things, the will of the husband is a law to the wife. As unto the Lord - The obedience a wife pays to her husband is at the same time paid to Christ himself; he being head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

22–24. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands. Mutual duties are named. The husband should “love his wife as Christ loved the church,” and the wife should submit to this loving husband “as unto the Lord.” The husband is the “head” of the family, but must be willing to give himself for it.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul begins to explain how Christians are to submit themselves to one another (Ephesians 5:21). He starts with instructions to wives and husbands on how they should act toward each other.

the head of the wife ... the head of the church

The word "head" represents the leader. (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

lord

Christ

church

Savior

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

22-6:9.] The Church, in her relation to Christ, comprehending and hallowing those earthly relations on which all social unity (and hers also) is founded, the Apostle proceeds to treat of the three greatest of those: that of husband and wife (vv. 22-33), that of parent and child (ch. 6:1-4), that of master and servant (6:5-9). See this expanded by Stier, in his very long note, ii. 316-329.

22-33.] Mutual duties of wives and husbands arising from the relation between Christ and the Church.

22.] Wives (supply, as rec. has inserted, ὑποτάσσεσθε, seeing that the subsequent address to husbands is in the 2nd person), to your own husbands (ἰδίοις, as we often use the word (e.g. ‘He murdered his own father’), to intensify the recognition of the relationship and suggest its duties: see 1Co 7:2: also Joh 5:18), as to the Lord (‘quasi Christo ipsimet, cujus locum et personam viri repræsentant.’ Corn.-a-lap. in Ellic.: i.e. ‘in obeying your husbands, obey the Lord:’ not merely as in all things we are to have regard to Him, but because, as below expanded, the husband stands peculiarly in Christ’s place. But he is not thus identified in power with Christ, nor the obedience, in its nature, with that which is owed to Him): for a husband (any husband, taken as an example: the same in sense would be expressed by ὁ ἀνήρ, the husband in each case, generic: sing. of οἱ ἄνδρες) is head of his wife, as also (καί, introducing identity of category) Christ is Head of the church (see for the sentiment, 1Co 11:3 note), (being, in His case—see below) Himself Saviour of the Body (i.e. ‘in Christ’s case the Headship is united with, nay gained by, His having saved the body in the process of Redemption: so that I am not alleging Christ’s Headship as one entirely identical with that other, for He has a claim to it and office in it peculiar to Himself.’ ‘Vir autem non est servator uxoris, in eo Christus excellit: hinc sed sequitur.’ Bengel. Stier remarks the apparent play on σωτήρ—σώματος, in reference to the supposed derivation of σῶμα from σώω (σώζω); and has noticed that in the only other place (except the pastoral Epistles) where St. Paul uses σωτήρ, Php 3:20, Php 3:21, it is also in connexion with σῶμα): but (what I do say is, that thus far the two Headships are to be regarded as identical, in the subjection of the body to the Head) as the church is subjected to Christ, so also (again, identity of category in the ὑποτάσσ.) let the wives be to their husbands (not ἰδίοις now, as it would disturb the perspicuity of the comparison) in every thing (thus only, with Calv., Beng., Mey., Ellic., can I find any legitimate meaning or connexion in the words. All attempts 1) to explain σωτὴρ τυῦ σώμ. also of the marriage state (Bulling., Beza, ‘viri est quærere quod mulier conservet’), or 2) to deprive ἀλλά of its adversative force (Rück., Harl., al.), or 3) refer it to something other than the preceding clause (De W., Eadie), seem to me unsatisfactory).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22-33. Special injunctions to husbands and wives. Wives to be subject to their husbands, husbands to love their wives. This relationship is illustrated by that of Christ and the Church. As Christ is the Head of the Church, which is subject to Christ, so the husband is the head of the wife, who is to be subject to the husband; and Christ’s love for the Church is to be the pattern of the man’s love for his wife. The analogy, indeed, is not Perfect, for Christ is not only the Head of the Church which is His body, but is also the Saviour of it; but this does not affect the purpose of the comparison here.

22. αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ. So without a verb B, Clement (when citing vv. 21-25), Jerome’s Greek MSS. His note is, “Hoc quod in Latinis exemplaribus additum est: subditae sint, in Graecis Codd. non habetur.” ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is added after ἀνδράσιν in א A P 17 al. Vulg., Goth. Arm., Boh., etc., and Clement (when citing ver. 22 only). ὑποτάσσεσθε in K L most MSS., Syr. (both), Chrys., D G also have ὑποτάσσεσθε, but after γυναῖκες. Lachmann adopted ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, but later critical editors read without the verb. The testimony of Jerome, who knew of no Greek MSS. with the verb, is very important. No reason can be imagined for its omission if it had been in the text originally, whereas the reason for its insertion is obvious, and was stated even by Erasmus: “adjectum, ut apparet, quo et sensus sit lucidior, et capitulum hoc separatim legi queat, si res ita postulet.” The latter reason is particularly to be noted. The diversity in the MSS. which have the verb is also of weight. The shorter reading agrees well with the succinct style of St. Paul in his practical admonitions.

ἰδίοις is more than a mere possessive, yet does not imply an antithesis to “other men”; it seems rather to emphasise the relationship, as in the passage quoted from Stobaeus by Harless (Floril. p. 22): Θεανῶ ἡ πυθαγορικὴ φιλόσοφος ἐρωτηθεῖσα τί πρῶτον εἴη γυναικι τὸ τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἔφη, ἀρέσκειν ἀνδρί. Compare also Acta Thomae, p. 24 (ed. Thilo): οὕτως εἶ ὡς πολὺν ξρόνον συμβιώσασα τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀνδρί. That the word was not required to prevent misconception of ἀνδράσι is shown by its absence in the parallel, Col 3:18.

ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, not “as to their lord,” which would have been expressed in the plural, but “as to the Lord Christ,” “as” not meaning in the same manner as, but expressing the view they are to take of their submission; compare 6, 7. “subjectio quae abuxore praestatur viro simul praestatur ipsi Domino, Christo,” Bengel. So Chrysostom: ὅταν ὑπείκῃς τῷ ἀνδρί, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύουσα ἡγοῦ πείθεσθαι.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Your own [ιδιοις] . The peculiar personal relationship is emphasized as the ground of the duty.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.