Ephesians 5:24

Eph 5:24. Ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ, but as) The antithesis is, husbands, wives.—ὑποτάσσεται, is subject) Supply here also [from the end of the verse], in every thing.—αἱ γυναῖκες, let wives) be subject [be subordinate].

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

Eph 5:24 . ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ , οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί : nevertheless as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be subject to their husbands in everything . For ἀλλʼ the best editors give ἀλλά . For the ὥσπερ of the TR, supported by [624] 3 [625] [626] and most cursives, read (with LTTrWHRV) ὡς , which is found in [627] [628] [629] * [630] [631] , 17, 67 2 , etc. But B omits it. The ἰδίοις inserted by TR (after [632] [633] 3 [634] [635] [636] and various Versions, etc.) before ἀνδράσιν is wanting in [637] [638] [639] * [640] , 17, 67 2 , etc., and should be deleted. It has crept in probably from Eph 5:22 . The question here is as to the force of the ἀλλά . Some suppose a suppressed negation before it, e.g. , “be not disobedient,” “do not disallow the marital headship, but ,” etc. (Eadie). Others give it a resumptive force (Harl., etc.). But the supposed digression, which can only be the brief clause αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος , requires no such resumption. Others give it a certain syllogistic force, understanding it to introduce a proof of the preceding statement, presenting the relation in a new light, or an inference from the statement (De Wette, Olsh.); but ἀλλά does not draw conclusions like οὖν , nor is it = ὥστε , although it may introduce a minor proposition; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 291; Hartung, Partikl. , ii., p. 384. Others make it = “ but then , which is the main thing,” etc., supposing Eph 5:24 to give a second proof of the fact that wives should be obedient to their husbands as to the Lord a proof drawn from the position held by Christ and by the husband, viz. , that of being head (Win.-Moult., p. 565). This, however, would be expressed rather by δέ than by ἀλλά , the former being the particle that in opposing also continues and connects , adding something distinct from what has preceded, while the latter has the full opposing significance, disannulling or discounting something mentioned before (Win.-Moult., p. 551). The ἀλλά , therefore, must have its full adversative force, and is best rendered “nevertheless,” “for all that”. The twenty-fourth verse thus looks to the peculiarity mentioned as belonging to Christ’s headship in distinction from the husband’s, viz. , the fact that He is not only Head, but Saviour. And the idea becomes this “Christ indeed is Saviour of the body, and that the husband is not; nevertheless the question of obedience is not affected thereby; for all that, as the Church is subject to Christ, so too are wives to be subject to their husbands” (so subst. Calv., Beng., Mey., Ell., Alf., etc.). In the οὕτως clause ὑποτασσέσθωσαν , “ let the wives be subject,” as in RV text and according to most commentators, or better, ὑποτάσσονται , “so are the wives also” (as in RV marg.), is to be supplied from the preceding ὑποτάσσεται . The ἐν παντί naturally means in everything pertaining to the marriage-relation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[630] 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[640] 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.

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

Eph_5:24

But, ἀλλά, i.e. notwithstanding there is this peculiarity in the relation of Christ to the church which has no parallel in the relation of the wife to the husband, nevertheless, as the husband is the head of the wife, let the wife be subject to her husband in everything, even as the church is subject to Christ her head. Our translators give ἀλλά here a syllogistic force and render it, therefore, as though it introduced the conclusion from the preceding argument. But this is contrary to the common use of the particle and is unnecessary, as its ordinary meaning gives a good sense.

As Eph_5:22 teaches the nature of the subjection of the wife to her husband, and Eph_5:23 its ground, this verse teaches its extent. She is to be subject ἐν παντί, in everything. That is, the subjection is not limited to any one sphere or department of the social life, but extends to all. The wife is not subject as to some things, and independent as to others, but she is subject as to all. This of course does not mean that the authority of the husband is unlimited. 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. No superior, whether master, parent, husband or magistrate, can make it obligatory on us either to do what God forbids, or not to do what God commands. So long as our allegiance to God is preserved, and obedience to man is made part of our obedience to him, we retain our liberty and our integrity.

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

The conclusion of the wives’ duty towards their husbands.

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

Therefore--Translate, as Greek, "But," or "Nevertheless," that is, though there be the difference of headships mentioned in Eph 5:23, nevertheless, thus far they are one, namely, in the subjection or submission (the same Greek stands for "is subject," as for "submit," Eph 5:21-22) of the Church to Christ, being the prototype of that of the wife to the husband.

their own--not in most of the oldest manuscripts, and not needed by the argument.

in every thing--appertaining to a husband's legitimate authority; "in the Lord" (Col 3:18); everything not contrary to God.

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

Verse 24. In every thing.] That is, every lawful thing; for it is not intimated that they should obey their husbands in any thing criminal, or in any thing detrimental to the interests of their souls. The husband may be profligate, and may wish his wife to become such also; he may be an enemy to true religion, and use his authority to prevent his wife from those means of grace which she finds salutary to her soul; in none of these things should she obey him.

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

24. But, as the church is subject to Christ. The particle but, may lead some to believe that the words, he is the savior of the body, are intended to anticipate an objection. Christ has, no doubt, this peculiar claim, that he is the Savior of the Church: nevertheless, let wives know, that their husbands, though they cannot produce equal claims, have authority over them, after the example of Christ. I prefer the former interpretation; for the argument derived from the word but, (ἀλλά,) does not appear to me to have much weight.

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.

24. Therefore] Translate, certainly, But. The Apostle has guarded the husband s headship from undue comparison with the Lord’s; but now he enforces its true likeness to it.

their own] There is an emphasis in “own”; a suggestion at once of a holy limit, as against wandering loves, and of the fact that not only does the wife belong to the husband, but the husband to the wife (Monod).

in every thing] In all relations and interests. This great rule will always, of course, be over-ruled by supreme allegiance to Christ; but its spirit will never be violated in the Christian home.

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.

Being defiled, both with original sin and actual transgressions; for God's elect, whom Christ loved and espoused from everlasting, fell in Adam with the rest of mankind; and, in their natural state, live in sin as others do; and so are under the guilt, and in the pollution of it, as others be: Christ gave himself for them, that he might deliver them out of this state; he gave himself a sacrifice for them, that he might expiate their sins and make atonement and satisfaction for them; he shed his blood that he might cleanse them from them; and he wrought out a righteousness that he might justify them from all their iniquities; and which being put upon them, makes them to appear pure and spotless in the sight of divine justice; for this sanctifying and cleansing does not so much refer to the inward work of sanctification of the Spirit, though that is a fruit and effect of the death of Christ, and is brought about by the following means, as to the justification of them by the blood and righteousness of Christ: which is said to be,

with the washing of water; not baptism, which is never expressed by washing; nor does it purify or cleanse from sin; nor is it the means of sanctification and regeneration, which ought to be before it; nor the grace of the Spirit, though that is often compared to water, and regeneration and sanctification are owing to it; yet the saints are not so cleansed from sin by it, as to be without spot or wrinkle; but the blood of Christ, which is the fountain to wash in, and which cleanses from all sin:

by the word; not the form of words in baptism; but either the Gospel, which brings the good news and glad tidings of peace, pardon, atonement, and justification by Christ; or the sentence of justification pronounced upon the conscience by him; see Joh 15:2.

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

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Ver. 24. Therefore as the Church] Denying herself to please Christ, making his will her law.

In everything] In all her husband’s lawful commands and restraints. A wife should have no will of her own, but submit to her husband’s; albeit there are those who merrily say that when man lost freewill, woman took it up.

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.

In everything - In everything which is not contrary to the will of God; see the notes on Eph 5:23.

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

As the church is subject to Christ. The Church then, according to St. Paul, is ever obedient to Christ: and can never fall from him, but remain faithful to him, unspotted and unchanged to the end of the world. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

As the church is subject to Christ, viz. with cheerfulness, chastity, humility, obedience, &c.

So let the wives be to their own husbands; in imitation of the church’s subjection to Christ, as a pattern of their subjection to their husbands.

In every thing; understand, to which the authority of the llusband extends itself.

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

24. As the Church… so… the wives—Sexual nature, on which marriage is based, man shares not only with the wide animal world, but, strange as to the unscientific it sounds, even with the vegetable world. But this animal love, which through all nature is the divinely constituted source of natural life, in man is overlaid by a sentiment of sentimental love, which blushes at and overshadows the mere animal appetite, and appropriates with a higher congeniality, celebrated in poetry and romance, person to person in a heart-union. But overlying this is a moral love, which sanctions the two lower impulses in their purity, and forms the type of Christ’s own divine and eternal love for those united to him by faith in his redeeming blood. Hence, in the Christian conception, the marital love, in its purity, is a type of the love of Christ for his Church. But as the Church rejoices, with the highest joy, over her allegiance to Christ, so a reliant allegiance to her husband, rejoicing at being weak in herself and strong in him, is a woman’s glory.

In every thing—And the more without exception, the better for both. But the apostle is picturing the model family, in which the reciprocal duties are presupposed as being duly performed. Where the reverse is the case, then sad and necessary exceptions come in. When the husband neglects his duty, it may reasonably compel the wife to overstep her normal position. Where he enjoins a violation of the law of God, the law of God is supreme. Violence may compel withdrawal, and adultery dissolves the marriage. Yet for the true relation of mutual marriage love, where the subordinate and the superior wills are united in one permanent, harmonious train of volition, the apostle can find no type so complete as the union between Christ and his Church.

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

But it exists so far as to enforce this exhortation as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything. Let there be a subjection in the one case parallel to that in the other, for such is the Divine will and purpose. Any subjection due to the husband must be modified by what is due to God, for as the husband may not require for himself, so the wife may not give to him, what is God"s: God"s will is paramount over all. Of the three wills that may be in collision, viz. God"s, the husband"s, and the wife"s the duty of the wife is to take them in this order, having regard first to God"s, next to her husband"s, and last to her own.

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

In everything - Which is not contrary to any command of God.

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

24. As the church, etc. The relation of the wife to the husband is like that of the church in Christ, a close, tender relation, in which there is no bondage, but freedom, because the service is that of the heart.

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.

24. ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ χριστῷ. On the description of the Church as the Bride of the Christ, see Hort Christian Ecclesia, pp. 150 f. It is based on the O.T. Primarily on Hosea 2 (cf. Rob. Smith, Prophets of Israel, 170 ff.). Cf. Jer 2:2; Ezekiel 16.; and Isaiah 54. The comparison is taken over, with the Christ as Bridegroom, into the Gospels. See Mat 9:15 and parallels, Joh 3:29; Mat 22:2 ff. It reappears prominently in Rev 19:7-9; Rev 21:2 f., 9 f. In St Paul the figure had been used (2Co 11:2) of a single local Ecclesia, cf. lessons from the marriage law in Rom 7:4, and Isaiah 54 had been appropriated to the Church as the New Jerusalem in Gal 4:26. But a personification so complete that the ideal relation of the spiritual Bride and her Bridegroom is taken as the model for actual husbands and wives is startling to our modern and western imaginations. As the language of O.T. shows, it would cause no difficulty to the Jew. In St Peter Sarah supplies a concrete example of the right attitude of the dutiful wife.

ἀλλὰ. See Robinson ‘How be it’ (‘to resume,’ ‘anyway’) 1Co 12:24; 2Co 3:14; 2Co 8:7; Gal 4:23; Gal 4:29.

οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. The authority of the husband is rooted in the overlordship of Christ, so any demands of a husband, inconsistent with that overlordship, do not come within the scope of this instruction.

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.

24. ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν. There is much difference of opinion as to the force to be assigned to ἀλλά. Olshausen takes it as introducing the proof drawn from what precedes; and similarly De Wette, “But (aber) if the man is your head,” a sense which ἀλλά (which is no = δέ) never has. Eadie gives the word “an antithetic reference,” such as ἀλλά sometimes has after an implied negative. He interprets: “do not disallow the marital headship, for it is a divine institution,—ἀλλά,—but,” etc. He refers for this use of ἀλλά to Luk 7:7; Joh 7:49; Rom 3:31, Rom 3:8:37; 1Co 6:8, 1Co 9:12. The fact that in most of these cases we might not incorrectly render “Nay,” or “Nay, on the contrary,” shows how unlike the present passage they are. Nor are 2Co 8:7, 2Co 8:13:4; 1Ti 1:15, 1Ti 1:16, or the other passages which he cites, at all parallel; and the negative to which he supposes ἀλλά to refer (“do not disallow,” etc.) is not even hinted at in the text. His objection to the interpretation here adopted is that it sounds like a truism. Harless and others take ἀλλά to be simply resumptive; but the main thought has not been interrupted, and there is no reason for rejecting its adversative force. Hofmann, like Eadie, reads into the text an objection which ἀλλά repels, “but even where the husband is not this (namely, a σωτὴρ τοῦ ς., making happy his wife, as Christ the Church), yet,” etc. The view here preferred is adopted by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Braune, Moule, etc.

ἐν παντί. It is presupposed that the authority of the husband is in accordance with their relation as corresponding to that of Christ to the Church. “ὡς εὐσεβεσι νομοθετῶν προστέθεικε τὸ ἐν πάντι,” Theodoret.

ὤσπερ of the Rec. is the reading of Dc K L and most MSS.; but ὡς, א A D* G P 17 672 etc. (B omits.)

ἰδίοις is prefixed to ἀνδράσιν by A Dc K L P, Vss., but om. by א B D* G 17 672. It has clearly been introduced from ver. 22.

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

Therefore [αλλα] . Rev, correctly, but. Offsetting the relation of savior. The comparison does not hold in respect of salvation, but it does hold in respect of subjection.

26 Sanctify and cleanse [αγιαση καθαρισας] . Rev., might sanctify, having cleansed. The Rev. brings out the proper succession of sanctification as a consequence of cleansing : might sanctify after having cleansed.

With the washing of water [τω λουτρω του υδατος] . Loutron washing is properly laver. Note the article, the laver, as something well known. There is no satisfactory evidence for the meaning washing. The allusion is to baptism. Some find a reference to the bride 's bath before marriage.

By the word [εν ρηματι] . Rev., correctly, with the word. To be connected with having cleansed it by the laver of water : not with might sanctify, nor with the laver of water alone, as a descriptive epithet. With the word describes that which accompanies the rite and which is the peculiar element of baptismal purification. Compare Joh 14:3. Augustine says : "Take away the word, and what is the water but water ?"

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