Original Meaning

Christians Living on Target (5:15–21)

CAREFUL LIVING (5:15–17). The main statement in this section is verse 15a: “Be very careful, then, how you live”; the rest of verses 15–21 provides description of what that entails. Literally, the text says, “Watch carefully [or closely] how you walk.” The word translated “carefully” carries the connotation of something done accurately, precisely, or given close attention.4 The theme of verse 15b is virtually repeated in verse 17. To be wise is to understand the Lord’s will, which restates verse 10 and corresponds with the Old Testament wisdom tradition that stands behind these verses. The call to live wisely is not a call for theoretical knowledge. It is a call for moral discernment and a practical skill in making decisions. The emphasis once again is on the mind and on careful attention to keep life on target, the target being that which pleases Christ and fits his purposes.

In verse 16 the NIV’s “Making the most of every opportunity” is an interpretation of the phrase “redeeming the time.” The Greek word translated as “redeem” is a compound form, an intensification, of the word that means “buy” or “purchase.” It is used with reference to buying back a slave, but in the New Testament, except for this text and Colossians 4:5, refers only to Christ’s purchasing salvation (Gal. 3:13; 4:5). Discussions about whether the meaning is an attempt to gain time or to ransom time from the bondage of evil are probably too literalistic.5 The expression is a metaphorical way to speak of using time well. A good translation would be, “Buy up every opportunity.” Time is going by, and evil will use it if Christians do not.6 That the days are evil is a general description of the presence of evil in the world. “The Lord” in verses 17 and 19 refers to Christ (cf. vv. 8, 10, 20, all of which are Christologically significant).

Life in the Spirit (5:18–21). Why Paul wrote “Do not get drunk on wine” is not immediately clear. The following alternatives merit consideration. He may have:

(1) been aware of a specific problem among Christians in Asia Minor, as appears to have been the case in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:21);

(2) felt a need to warn against the practice of some pagan cults that viewed drunkenness as a means of unity with the spiritual world;

(3) wanted merely to give a general warning against a dangerous and unacceptable lifestyle;

(4) wanted to provide a contrast with the control of the Spirit, which is his real interest.

No evidence exists to justify either of the first two options. The last two options seem to have motivated the command. From 4:17 on Paul has been contrasting the unacceptable behavior of the unbelieving world with that of God’s people. To write against drunkenness was a convenient way for him to call to mind the destructive and unacceptable lifestyle of so many in the culture around them (cf. similarly, Rom. 13:12–13; 1 Thess. 5:7).7 The contrast of drunkenness and worship or godly living has a long tradition.8

Drunkenness is further described as wasteful living (asotia; NIV, “debauchery”).9 Drunkenness is symbolic of the height of folly, the loss of direction, and the waste of a life without God.

The command to “be filled with the Spirit” is unexpected and unparalleled in the Bible. Gordon Fee rightly calls this imperative the key to all others and is the ultimate imperative in the Pauline corpus.10 Possession of the Spirit is the mark of being a Christian (see 1:13–14). But if the Spirit is given to a believer at conversion and, indeed, is the agent of conversion, what does this command involve? Human beings do not control the movement of the Spirit, do they?

We can understand this command by examining other texts with this or similar ideas. If a text says people are filled with grief (John 16:6), joy (Acts 13:52), or knowledge (Rom. 15:14), we have no difficulty understanding that the emotion or knowledge dominates their being and describes what they are really like. If Acts 5:3 describes Ananias by saying Satan filled his heart, clearly Satan has dominated his impulses; any countervailing tendencies have been rooted out. The Scriptures also speak specifically of people being full of the Spirit: Jesus after his baptism (Luke 4:1), Stephen (Acts 6:5; 7:55), Barnabas (11:24). The seven chosen to serve Hellenistic widows were to be full of the Spirit and wisdom (6:3). Surely the intent is that the persons chosen should be characterized by wisdom and live in tune with God’s Spirit. Paul’s point, then, is that the Holy Spirit is the controlling influence motivating and directing the lives of believers.

“Fullness,” as we have seen, is an important theme in Ephesians. Note the following:

1:23: Christ is the fullness of God who fills all things.

3:19: Christians are to know the love of Christ in order to be filled into all the fullness of God.

4:10: Christ ascended in order to fill all things.

4:13: Christians are to attain to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

“Fullness” expresses unity with the triune God and the completion that God’s salvation brings. The call to be filled with the Spirit is a call to live in that unity and to enjoy the wholeness of life with God. Christians must allow themselves to be the place where the presence and the power of God are evident.11 We are filled both by and with the Spirit.

The message of 5:18 is close to the goal of Paul’s prayers in 1:17 and 3:16, that the Spirit will inform and empower his readers. Attention is here placed on the believers’ responsibility to be receptive to the Spirit. While human beings do not manipulate the movement of God’s Spirit, human responsibility is involved. Furthermore, Fee is correct to emphasize the communal focus of this text: The whole church is instructed to be filled with the Spirit.12

And Paul emphasizes that Christians are to be continually filled with God’s Spirit (this is the force of the Greek verb). They are to be controlled not by wine or by anything else, but by the Spirit. We have choice in the matter, for the Spirit’s transforming work in us is not done apart from human involvement.

Of the five participles describing life in the Spirit, three have to do with singing (5:19). This whole section is reminiscent of the initial doxology in 1:3–14. Singing is the natural expression of joy that God brings into a person’s life. The presence of early Christian hymns (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:16; possibly Phil. 2:6–11) gives some indication of the importance of songs in the early church. The purpose of singing is both praise to God and instruction of believers.13

Singing, then, has two audiences. Christians sing to each other, reminding each other about God’s character and work in Christ, but they also sing to the Lord as a way of offering praise to him. In the parallel in Colossians 3:16 singing is addressed to God, but “Lord” here in Ephesians 5:19 clearly refers to Christ.14 Hymns in Revelation are addressed both to God and to the Christ/the Lamb (5:9, 13; 7:10; 12:10), and the typical feature of hymns identified in the New Testament is their focus on Jesus as Lord. Later, in a famous letter written about A.D. 111, Pliny the Younger described Christians meeting early to sing antiphonally a hymn to Christ as to God.15

Whether any difference is intended between psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is difficult to say.16 In all probability no clear demarcation is intended. That people are to sing in their heart is not a request that people sing with feeling or emotion. Rather, “heart” refers to the controlling center of one’s being: “Sing with your whole being” (which certainly includes the emotions). The issue is the integrity with which one sings, not the feeling. Words are not merely sung, they express the reality of the life in the Spirit.

In addition to singing, life in the Spirit is characterized by giving thanks (5:20). Many Christians lack appreciation of the importance of thanksgiving in the New Testament. Even more than Ephesians the sister letter to the Colossians stresses thanksgiving repeatedly (Col. 3:15–17; 4:2). As we have seen, Romans 1:21 views the failure to give thanks as the root cause of sin.17 With such a theology, it is not surprising that thanksgiving is associated with life in the Spirit. Thanksgiving is the believing acknowledgment of God and his purposes for good in Christ. Obviously such giving of thanks points to a lifestyle and not just to spoken words.

Christians are to give thanks to God always for everything “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “Name” is a way of referring to what the person stands for and has accomplished. Christians are to give thanks “on the basis of” who Jesus is and what he has done, or “in accord” with who he is. The implicit Christology and Trinitarian focus of this section are significant, for the experience of the risen Jesus in worship was the first step to Christology. By the time any New Testament documents were written, a full blown Christology already existed.

This text is Christologically significant, for it is evidence of the worship of Jesus, of his being linked with God liturgically, and of the transfer to him of the title “Lord.”18 The early church was aware that in encountering the risen Jesus, they were encountering God. They did not merely equate Jesus and God, but they knew that in Christ the fullness of God was made known to them (e.g., 1:23; 2:21–22).

The last participle describing life in the Spirit is perhaps the most surprising. People led by the Spirit “submit to one another” (v. 21). Many are offended by the word “submission,” as if it points to a passive, weak life dominated by a negative self-image, a giving up of control and free will. This is not Paul’s intent, except for the fact that control for Christians has already been given over to Christ.

The Greek word hypotasso (“submit”) literally means “arrange under.” It is used of submitting to God’s law (Rom. 8:7), of everything being subjected under Christ’s feet (Eph. 1:22), or of younger men being subject to older men (1 Peter 5:5). Attempts to translate “submit” by “be supportive of,” “be committed to,” or “identify with” are unacceptable. It is important to note that this text does not ask some Christians to submit to other Christians. It asks all Christians to submit to each other. No privileged group is in view.

Submission is a crucial ingredient in Christian living (this theme is central in 1 Peter). Christians in Corinth were asked to submit to workers who had made themselves servants to the church (1 Cor. 16:16)—they were to submit to servants! Prophets were to submit to other prophets to whom revelation came (14:32). Submission was so important for New Testament writers because it described the self-giving love, humility, and willingness to die that are demanded of all Christians. For example, in Philippians 2:3 Paul rejects selfishness and asks that in humility people consider others as “surpassing” themselves. In the verses that follow he shows how Christ himself modeled such a life (cf. Rom. 12:3; Gal. 5:13).

Jesus repeatedly makes the same point: Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Matt. 23:12). Neither Jesus nor Paul was weak, nor did either acquiesce to anyone, but both knew what God requires. Christians are called to live in mutual submission, and without mutual submission they cannot fulfill their destiny. Such submission is a strong and free act of the will based on real love of the other person (cf. 4:2). In the end, submission is nothing more than a decision about the relative worth of another person, a manner of dying and rising with Christ, and a way to respect and love other people. In fact, for Christians, authority and submission are the same thing.19

Also troubling in verse 21 is the statement that submission is to take place in fear of (NIV, “reverence to”) Christ. This is the only time this expression occurs in the New Testament, and it is important Christologically when compared to the usual emphasis on the fear of God. In the Old Testament “fear” is a covenant word, a characteristic of those who love God. “Fear” and “love” are used almost synonymously to describe allegiance and obedience to God (e.g., Deut. 6:2, 4; 10:12; Ps. 103:17–18). The New Testament continues this meaning in describing God-fearers like Cornelius (Acts 10:2) and early Christians (9:31), or in describing Christian life and ministry (2 Cor. 5:11; Phil. 2:12).

For us the term “fear” is usually negative, and the biblical writers knew this negative use. But by and large they used it in a positive sense, for which there is no satisfactory English equivalent. Words like “reverence” or “respect” are too weak to capture the nuance intended. The positive sense of the fear of Christ points to his power and holiness and to the recognition that he is Lord and coming Judge. Such fear is the ground of both praise and obedience. We ought not forget that the one who is feared is the same one who “loved us and gave himself for us” in 5:2.

Bridging Contexts

EPHESIANS 5:15–33 CONTAINS three different kinds of material that require three different processes in bridging the contexts. (1) Verses 18–21 are exhortation that in most cases causes little difficulty in bringing into our generation. The language and ideas are not so historically or culturally rooted that they present significant problems. Nothing in them addresses a circumstance true only of the ancient world. However, as elsewhere, we must identify the theological assumptions driving the exhortations.

(2) The house code instructions to husbands and wives in verses 22–33 are rooted deeply in a different time and culture from our modern world. Bringing this section into today is a major task. Careful attention will need to be paid to the differences and the problems the text addresses.

(3) Portions of verses 22–33 are theological descriptions of Christ and the church. While they are as pertinent to the modern church as to any other, the language assumes a background of religious ideas and a theological framework. Both may require explanation.

Life in the Spirit (5:15–21). The theological implications of 5:15–21 are important. “Watch closely how you walk”35 suggests a purpose and direction to life. Life is not aimless, nor is it a series of frenetic activities followed by down time. It is the steady progress toward the goal. The way has been marked out, as is underscored in verse 17 with “the will of the Lord.” We must watch where we are going and make steady progress along the way. Verses 15–16 suggest a diligence about life and indicate that the journey is dangerous. We should watch closely because missteps are easy and the consequences disastrous.

Verse 16, with its concern for redeeming the time, reflects an urgency about life. Time is important, and it ought not be frittered away. Both a theology of life and a theology of time lie behind these brief exhortations.

The exhortations for wisdom and understanding drive us to consider the wisdom tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism. The main concern is not on the intellect, even if an intellectual emphasis is present. It is on wise living, on an understanding of God sufficient to produce insight into life and obedience. Wisdom involves considering all information in light of one’s relation to God and acting on what one knows. As we have seen throughout Ephesians, the focus is on the mind and the process of discerning what the Lord wants.

Drunkenness (v. 18) was as real a problem in the ancient world as it is today, although it may not have been as pervasive. While wine was produced in large quantities, the variety and potency of alcoholic beverages were not as great as today. In addition, wine was often diluted with water. But alcohol was still a problem, and both Old Testament writers and ancient Hellenistic philosophers frequently warned against its abuse. Although a few groups in the ancient world condemned all consumption of alcohol, this text does not. Drunkenness is clearly a sin, but not all consumption of alcohol is sin. On the other hand, one does have to deal with the dangers of alcohol and the numerous problems it causes in our society. This is precisely one of the areas where we have to discern the will of the Lord.

Two portions of this text would have been as uncommon for ancient readers as for us: “Be filled with the Spirit” (v. 18), and “Submit to each other” (v. 21). The first was unusual, even though people knew about possession by evil spirits.36 Yet we should not be surprised at this language if we have paid attention to Paul’s teaching about the Spirit throughout the letter.37 How it can be achieved today? By union with Christ, which is Paul’s emphasis from the beginning of the letter. The Spirit is the one who conveys the presence of Jesus to us. Faith creates such a consciousness of the presence of God and Christ in us that we have heightened attention about God’s desires and a sense of God’s work in us to enable his will.

The idea of mutual submission would have been as offensive to people in the ancient world as today. Despite our nervousness over the word “submission,” this text should not be watered down. Especially when the focus is on Christ as a pattern for Christian lives, the text confronts both ancient and modern cultures.

The text does not ask us to be “religious.” The five participles do not call for trappings of piety that can be faked. Such a religious front is offensive to anyone seeking integrity. The text calls instead for a sense of God’s presence that results in a spontaneous and authentic joy. Such joy may be expressed in a variety of fashions.

The relation of wives and husbands (5:22–33). Several factors point to the difficulty of bringing this message into our modern world. The very existence of house codes and the stereotypical focus on the three pairs (wives-husbands, children-parents, slaves-masters) points to the distance between this text and modern society. While we may be concerned about relations within the household, we do not have explicit codes, we do not have slaves, and we would not group wives, children, and slaves together as philosophers and ethicists did in the ancient world. The very form of the text is cultural. Furthermore, we would not ask wives to “fear” their husbands (v. 33). Modern society at least talks about equality of women, even though women are still frequently treated as lesser beings.

Most importantly, other biblical texts indicate that advice in the house codes was addressed to a specific cultural situation—the fear of some that Christianity was subversive. Any movement in the ancient world that threatened the social order was viewed as dangerous.38 Titus 2:5 is revealing because it gives a reason why wives ought to submit: “so that no one will malign [lit., blaspheme] the word of God.” Clearly the relation of Christian wives to their husbands was a source of scandal to non-Christians.

Reading other passages sensitively indicates why this potential scandal was apparent. Galatians 3:28 gave equal value to women. Also, in a society where wives were expected to take the religion of their husbands, 1 Corinthians 7:15 assumed that Christian wives owed their first loyalty to Christ. If an unbelieving husband was content to stay married to a Christian wife, there was no problem; but if he chose to leave, the wife should let him go—and vice versa. That a wife had a greater loyalty to her religion than to her husband was no doubt shocking.

Other parts of 1 Corinthians 7 create tension with Ephesians 5:22–33 and consequently give hint that specific reasons have called forth the statements in the house code. Whereas the husband is head in Ephesians, 1 Corinthians 7:2–16 expresses a mutuality that is surprising. There Paul goes so far as to say that the wife has authority over her husband’s body (7:4), and ten times he is careful to say explicitly about the wife what he says about the husband. Texts such as 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; 14:34–36 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15 are evidence of questions about the behavior of women in the early church. The tension within the biblical text itself indicates historically conditioned material. We must ponder both sets of texts for guidance.

Analysis of the other house codes in the New Testament shows a great deal of concern for testimony to unbelievers. Colossians 4:5 (parallel to Eph. 5:15) encourages Christians to walk wisely with respect to those outside the church (cf. 1 Cor. 10:32). Likewise, 1 Peter 2:12, 15; 3:1–2 encourage behavior that will stop slander against Christians and bring people to God. Such apologetic motivation must be considered in applying these texts in a society that views family relations differently.

Further indication of the difficulty of understanding the message of this text is provided by historical research on attitudes toward women in the ancient world. Women are viewed differently in modern Western civilization that in ancient Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world. The sources do not tell us equally about women in all social strata.39 But what information we do have about women and attitudes toward them paints an absolutely awful picture. For example, one writer said women were the worst plague Zeus made. Another said, “The two best days in a woman’s life are when someone marries her and when he carries her dead body to the grave.” In Judaism women were not counted in the quorum needed for a synagogue and were ritually unclean during menstruation. One rabbi advised, “Do not talk much with a woman.” Another added, “Not even with one’s wife.”40

By and large, women were viewed as inferior and were given relatively little freedom. Of course, their status varied in different places and times. Generally speaking, the farther west one went the better their lot, but even in Rome women were only in a slightly better position than their sisters in the East.

In a few places like Sparta and Egypt women were given greater freedom and responsibility. In most places, however, if they were allowed to live at birth, women were minimally educated, could not be witnesses in a court of law, could not adopt children or make a contract, could not own property or inherit, and were viewed, as both Aristotle and Josephus said, in all respects to be inferior to a man. They were seen as less intelligent, less moral, the source of sin, and a continual temptation (see Ecclesiasticus 25:13–26:27).

Respectable women—at least the ones described in our sources—were kept from public life. Typically, women lived in one part of the house and men lived in another. In many cases they did not eat meals together. In larger homes virgins spent most of their time in a section set aside for them. Conversation with people outside the house was kept to a minimum. For a woman even to do her spinning in her doorway was scandalous. Imagine how scandalous some would view the early church where both sexes met together in a house for worship and shared the Lord’s Supper!

When girls married (usually about age fifteen or sixteen), they were expected to take the religion of their husbands. They were either under their father’s, their husband’s, or some other male relative’s authority all their lives.41

Anyone who reads the New Testament texts about women without an awareness of the context will surely not apply them properly. We must take into account both this devaluation of women in the ancient world and the problems caused in the early church by the new freedom and valuation women found in the Christian faith. Are the statements made to wives so historically conditioned, then, that they can be ignored? In spite of what some Christians claim, the answer is “No.” All statements are culturally and historically conditioned, some only more so than others.

While some texts have little or even no application for us,42 no biblical text can be jettisoned or ignored. The issue is how they should be understood and applied. They point to a reality about God, humanity, and the relationship between the two that needs to be appropriated.

We have seen three important facts about the house codes:

(1) They were motivated by the desire to avoid slander on the church.

(2) They provided instructions on Christian conduct within the household.

(3) They addressed the same three groups that other Greek and Jewish writers addressed, but focused more on the responsibility of the husband, father, and master.

Slander from non-Christians about family relations is no longer an actual threat, although it will be where Christians have unhealthy family relations. The modern context still needs instruction for conduct within the family, but assumptions about the family are different. As before, the greater responsibility must still be placed on the persons with the most privilege.

Another question we must face is whether the statement that the husband is head of the wife is descriptive or prescriptive. That is, does this statement only tell us what is a fact in the ancient and/or modern sinful world, or does it express God’s intention? Clearly the society described in ancient texts was patriarchal. Is this just the way life is in a sinful world? Or was headship already established in Eden before the Fall?43 Despite the claims, nothing in Genesis supports such an idea. But then does Ephesians use male headship merely as a foil to teach something else? No answers are given in the text, but it is difficult to say Paul is only describing life in a sinful world when he compares the husband’s headship to that of Christ. The fact that the husband is head is a given for Paul and for his society.

To some degree the same is still true. Our society is also patriarchal. If it were not, discussions about “glass ceilings,” unequal pay, abuse of wives, and rape of women would not be so prevalent. The greater strength and aggressiveness of males often give them advantages and options denied to women. Further, women are more likely to be victims of the sinful abuse of male dominance. The issue is the abuse of power. The husband as head has a responsibility for the care of the wife in such a context. These comments do not suggest women are passive and cannot care for themselves; they only point to a responsibility given to husbands.

How do we determine what is normative in such a text? We must ask about its intention and its teaching about God, his salvation, and his purposes for humanity. And as Luther emphasized, we must always answer these questions in the light of Christ and his work. This text is not intended to grant husbands a position of privilege or to teach that women are inferior. Its intent is to avoid offense to outsiders by encouraging mutual submission—a submission on the part of the wife and a self-giving on the part of the husband—with both partners having their lives determined by and motivated by Christ’s own self-giving love. Still, a priority is placed on the husband, a priority that gives him a greater responsibility to care for his wife.

How far should the teaching of this text be extended? Does it have any relevance for women and men more generally? There are many more single people in our society than in the ancient world. What does 5:22–33 imply for them? This text is not about all women being submissive to all men. It is about mutual submission of all Christians to each other and of the submission of wives to their own husbands. It has nothing to do with the inferiority of women nor does it imply that women cannot function in leadership roles. On the other hand, I would suggest that the logic of the text directs Christian men to stand against the victimization of all women in our abusive world.

Does this text have relevance for decisions about the role of women in the church and ministry? The answer is “No,”44 except for the fact that mutual submission gives all persons equal value. The passage is about mutual submission and family relationships, not about church leadership and what women may or may not do.

A crucial factor in understanding this passage is an awareness of the limitation of the text. The description in 5:22–33 assumes an ideal situation: Both partners are Christians and are eager to model their lives after Christ. This presents problems.45 Why does Ephesians not address the problems in marriage relations? What is the relevance of this text when one or neither of the partners is a Christian? What if one or neither is willing to follow the will of the Lord? What if the relationship is abusive? The text provides no answers.

The “ideal” character of the description is required by the analogy between Christ and the church. This is not pastoral marriage counseling, and to treat it that way is short-sighted. The passage does model how the marriage relation should function, but it is only a foundation on which we can begin facing problems. An interpreter must develop a theology based on the ideal in this text and on other relevant texts—no text is to be interpreted in isolation—and then discern how that theology is to be applied to life.

A further factor may help in applying this text. The parallel discussion of the relation of slaves and masters in 6:5–9 is instructive, for there too an ideal situation is assumed in the directions given to Christian households. Slavery has long since been abolished, largely through the influence of scriptural principles. Just as we applaud the abolition of slavery, we need to ask how the world has changed for wives and how it needs to change further. What implications of the gospel still need to be worked out? What seems unlikely to change and what ought not change? How do we wrestle with the ideal in an ancient world, the ideal in our own, and the real problems we encounter? How should our lives be determined by the character of Christ and motivated by his self-giving love?

Paul did not directly attack slavery or the society’s views on women. He focused on the gospel, a gospel in which “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). The differences still existed, but they had no value, for all were one in Christ and all had the same task of living lives determined and motivated by Christ. Paul did not work out all the sociological implications of his gospel. He did not have the time, nor was that the focus of his missionary efforts. He addressed some societal implications as required by his context and the problems of his churches. Other implications have been drawn only over centuries, and the task of understanding and applying the implications of the gospel continues today.

The relation of Christ and the church (5:22–33). This is an appropriate place to point out that theology is not done merely in the section on bridging contexts, but is present at all three stages of interpretation. In understanding the original message we focus on the theology explicit in the text or underlying the text. In bridging we seek the theology that spans cultures and contexts and is still pertinent. In application we determine how that theology takes root in our own context. We constantly must ask what the text teaches about God and humanity and adapt that teaching to life.

Specifically with regard to this text, the task of bringing the theological descriptions of Christ and the church into today’s world must explain the significance of the metaphorical and religious language.

That Christians are the body of Christ will always cause difficulty. This concept expresses a unity and attachment to Christ similar to Paul’s idea of being “in Christ.” In fact, it is an extension of that language. Faith creates an intimate solidarity with Christ.

The marriage analogy likewise has its difficulties. Paul uses this analogy to convey the same idea as the body analogy: Christians are one entity with Christ, and accordingly he is to define the shape of their lives. For males, being the bride of Christ may seem strange, but neither males nor females should understand these ideas with sexual overtones. The oneness of the sexual union of a married couple merely illustrates the similar oneness of Christ and believers. Unfortunately, reading our own sexuality into our relation with Christ is a larger problem than most of us are willing to admit. Attraction or discomfort in relation to Christ and God are too easily enmeshed with an understanding of our own sexuality.

Further, we do not usually think of the church submitting to Christ, but this text does (5:24). Implied in such a statement is Christ’s role as Lord and the church’s need always to follow his leading and example. This text also focuses on Christ’s activity for the church—saving it (v. 23), giving himself (v. 25), sanctifying and cleansing to present it pure and holy (vv. 26–27), and nurturing it (v. 28). Clearly we are to see the value Christ places on the church, the love he has for it, and his present work in it.

Other parts of the language are liable to misunderstanding or may sound foreign, but they are important for our lives. Most of us do not feel “holy and blameless,” but that is what Christ seeks for us now (cf. Phil. 2:15). This part of this passage is not just for judgment day. It has in view Christ’s present relation to the church and should have its impact in the present. That Christ sanctifies the church (v. 26) focuses on his setting the church apart for himself. As people set apart, Christians should live “set apart” lives, which is, of course, what the word “holy” means.

Contemporary Significance

AS WE NOW seek to apply this passage, we must keep four questions in mind:

(1) How closely does the situation of the text correspond to today?

(2) What theology, explicit or implicit, should be appropriated?

(3) What will the practice of that theology look like in our present context?

(4) In what ways may that theology be applied to areas not addressed by the text?

Life with the Spirit (5:15–21). This text requires energy and effort on our part, for spiritual maturity only comes with work. If we are to watch closely how we walk, we must be attentive and self-analytical. Self-analysis can be stifling if out of balance, but Christians cannot expect to succeed in life with God without being honest with themselves and God about their chosen destiny. Any traveler inattentive to direction and progress will never arrive at the destination. We have already been asking ourselves: Do our lives grieve the Spirit (4:30)? Is our action an imitation of God (5:1)? Is it appropriate and fitting for those in Christ (5:3–4)? Does it please the Lord (5:10), and is it his will (5:17)? This section forces us to ask ourselves further questions about our Christian walk. Worship and prayer are the primary contexts where the pattern and goal for life are kept in view.

Time (5:16). The concern for time is given brief treatment in the text, but it is of enormous importance. Our society is the hurried society. We seem determined to pack as many activities into as brief a time as possible. We are too busy for life. We must reconsider how we use time. Most households in our society spend at least four to five hours a day watching TV, even though we may not care for what we watch. Other “diversions” take our attention too. But how much time do we give to life with God or to learning about that life? How much is invested in people or in doing something beneficial? We must not fritter away our lives on unproductive diversions and learn instead to invest time in our faith. The urgency and dangers implied in verse 16 are discussed in 6:10–20 as a spiritual conflict.

The will of the Lord (v. 17). Usually when Christians speak of discerning the will of the Lord, they have in mind God’s will regarding major decisions about a spouse or a career. This is not what the text is about. The text is more concerned about God’s intent for the way we live every day, about what is pleasing to him. Perhaps we would not have so much trouble in finding God’s will for important decisions if we were more accustomed to discerning his will throughout life, making our lives conform to the pattern Christ has given.

What to do about alcohol? The text’s prohibition of drunkenness obviously is directly applicable and possibly needed even more now than in Paul’s day. Drunkenness has no place in the life of a Christian. How can we watch closely how we live if we are drunk? Consumption of alcohol is not necessarily a sin, but we surely must warn against its dangers and abuse.

Drunkenness—to say nothing of alcohol addiction—is a major problem in our society. This is clear in the problem of drunken drivers, of drunkenness as a form of escapism, of binge drinking (especially by students), and by our society’s strange notion that to have fun we ought to get drunk. We spend a lot of time trying to get people not to drink and drive. If it impairs judgment so much, maybe we should just say, “Don’t drink.” Nothing makes more sense for a faith that emphasizes the development of the mind and human discernment.

The distributors and sellers of alcohol spend enormous amounts to persuade people to drink, while warnings of addiction and abuse are whispered. Why does our society complain bitterly about the abuses of the tobacco industry but say nothing about the alcohol industry? Consumption of alcohol has become acceptable for Christians, with the result that they too are guilty of laxness and over-indulgence. Drunkenness and addiction are not a mere innocent loss of control; they are the destructive waste of a life that ought to be lived unto God. Paul’s real concern is the avoidance of “debauchery”—excessive and wasteful indulgence. If we as Christians choose to drink alcohol, we must make sure that it is a carefully monitored amount and that our witness is not compromised by our actions. The greater the abuse in a given culture, the less Christians should take part.

Obviously the prohibition of drunkenness extends to abuse of drugs, but it also applies to any excessive indulgence. Humans were created to live in relation with God, and any practice that diminishes a person’s awareness of God and ability to respond to him and that suggests a life out of control stands under the indictment of the text. Surely society’s excessive focus on materialism, beauty aids, cosmetic surgery, and spectator sports are all under indictment here.

Be filled with the Spirit (5:18–21). The text assumes the reader knows the importance of the Spirit and why we should sing and give thanks, but the command to be filled with the Spirit is not easily understood. It places emphasis on our action, whereas we are more accustomed to think of humans as passive instruments awaiting the working of the Spirit. We are so fearful of works-righteousness or of synergism that we have increased passivity. The New Testament does not share our fear, and God does not perform magic on passive instruments. Salvation is the work of God, but synergism is capable of being understood positively.46 God calls for the human will to respond to his work and to be actively engaged with him. We must make choices for life with God if we are to appropriate this text, choices that involve the way we use our time, that open ourselves to God, and that make us willing to be transformed.

The Spirit’s role in this cannot be overemphasized, for Christianity is a religion of the Spirit. All we are and have is a result of his work. The Spirit is not an optional add-on, a second work of grace, or a privilege of the elite. Rather, he is the agent of God’s work in the world and is both the source and proof of conversion. To be in Christ and to be in the Spirit are virtually the same. In fact, the Spirit is the presence of Christ with the believer.

To ask us to be filled with the Spirit does not point to repeated charismatic experiences, as some claim. It is to ask us to focus our attention on Christ and his presence in us, to open ourselves to the continual transforming work of the Spirit so that the presence of Christ empowers and shapes our lives. The Spirit is to be the dominating influence for all Christians.

No text is a complete discussion of the subject it addresses, and 5:18–21 certainly is not a complete discussion of being filled with the Spirit. Still, the teaching here is important. Whereas people often claim that being spiritual includes speaking in tongues, self-denial, mysticism, or religious exercises, this text points to singing, thankfulness, and Christ-like submission.

True spirituality is focused on the gift of life in Christ, is shaped by Christ, and overflows with songs that both explain to other people the reason for joy and give thanks to God. Such spirituality goes to the core of our being and cannot be produced by spiritual exercises, valuable though they may be. The text does not address changes in mood, but surely no one should expect that emotions are always at the same level. While emotions are always involved in spirituality, being spiritual does not depend on a level of emotional feeling.

Because of the dangers of emotionalism, many Christians—especially middle class, white ones—squelch any expression of emotion about life in Christ. As John MacKay points out, however, “nothing great ever takes place without emotion.” He further warns against the danger of destroying faith in our attempt to stifle fanaticism.47 The Christian life is not sedate. Emotionalism is an error, but we need emotion—passion—in our worship and lives. Without it we are not human. We need both peace and passion, both to be filled with the Spirit and disciplined by Christ.

The implicit Trinitarian Christology here is important. Early Christians sang to Jesus and gave thanks to God on the basis of what he had done. The early church did not start with a Christology and move to an experience with Jesus. They started with an experience of the risen Jesus, which led them to worship him. Christology grew out of their experience. The same is true for most people today. The experience of Jesus is the basis of worship and reflection.

Singing. Application of this text could lead to an artificial religiosity: People sing or say the expected words and hope that spirituality follows. The spirituality promoted by religious broadcasting often does just this, and in none too natural a way. But spirituality is the cause of singing, not its result. No one is asked to take on cultural religious trappings. People are expected only to express an inner joy Christ brings, even if they cannot carry a tune or even if they have to write new songs to express with integrity the reality they have found in Christ.

Thanksgiving. The second mark of the Spirit, thanksgiving, is given only perfunctory attention by most Christians, but it may well be the most important activity we do. As several people have pointed out, sin is basically ingratitude, and in Christianity, religion is grace and ethics is gratitude. The giving of thanks is the first act after the recognition that we are not independent creatures but people who owe allegiance to God and have been blessed by him.

We need to affirm that all we are and have comes from God. Only then can we live lives of response to grace. The practice of thanksgiving is itself transforming. It is difficult for a person to be thankful and spiteful at the same time. It is difficult for a person to be thankful for his or her spouse and at the same time to be desiring another person—not impossible, but difficult.

Ephesians 5:20 asks that we always give thanks for everything in the name of Christ. Christians have sometimes felt compelled through texts like this to be thankful even in a tragedy, such as the death of a child. The result has been heartache for themselves and others. Surely such reasoning pushes the text beyond its intention. When the Bible uses “all” or “every,” we must ask whether it is meant with or without qualification. Paul’s intent is not that we are to be thankful for evil or tragedy. John Stott is correct in saying “everything” in verse 20 is hyperbole.48 We are not asked to thank God for evil. Rather, we are asked to live out our awareness that all of life, even the “bad,” is lived out under his control and in relation to him.

Submission. The most difficult part of this text for ancient and modern readers is the expectation that Christians will submit to each other (5:21). Some have argued that mutual submission is illogical, which it is, if viewed apart from Christ. However, if we understand the gospel, mutual submission makes perfectly good sense. What Paul has in mind is that Christians reject self-centeredness and work for the good of others. Submission is nothing more than a decision about the relative worth of others.

Our society emphasizes equality, but mutual submission is a much stronger idea. With equality, you still have a battle of rights. Equality can exist without love, but it will not create a Christian community. With mutual submission, we give up rights and support each other. Mutual submission is love in action. It brings equal valuing and is the power by which a Christian community establishes itself.

Mutual submission will not allow us to promote ourselves and our own interests, but neither does it make us “doormats” to be used by others. Legitimate submission cannot be coerced. The text assumes that everyone in the community is supported and enhanced. Where that does not take place, a person will have to be wise enough to discern whether to forego his or her own rights or seek justice. Christ’s pattern of self-giving love does not mean that we can never seek justice for ourselves. Jesus did not acquiesce to Herod or the Pharisees, and Paul did not hesitate to defend himself or speak strongly to the Galatians or Corinthians. Submission will mean that even in seeking justice, we are motivated by love for others in the community, rather than by love of self.

The relation of pastors and congregations is an obvious place where mutual submission needs to be implemented. In a wordplay on the word “submit,” 1 Cor. 16:15–16 asks that people arrange themselves under (i.e., submit to) those who have arranged themselves for service to God’s people. That is, they are to submit to servants. Pastors are servants of a church and should submit to the people, but they are not to be belittled or made subservient. From such a position they lead as they model the character of Christ. People in the church are to submit to the pastor, but not so that the pastor becomes a dictator to whom they acquiesce. Each is responsible to seek the benefit of the other as both live out the self-giving love of Christ.

Mutual submission should be applied to current discussions of worship styles. To insist that worship can take place in only one manner is myopic and limits the expression of the whole body. Mutual submission requires the humility to listen, tolerate, be taught, and be enriched by the worship of others, so long as it is within legitimate bounds.

A further place where mutual submission has application concerns money. Usually we allow our society to dictate how money is used, assigned, and hoarded. Mutual submission is disturbing to this society’s dictates, for it requires reconsideration of how wages are determined and how wealth is shared. This raises difficult questions, but do not equal valuing and self-giving love have economic impact? Our wallets are not bracketed from mutual submission. Is not 4:28 with its command for the thief to work to have something to give an example of mutual submission? In particular, justice needs to be done to equal pay for women. Sadly, Christian organizations are among the worst offenders in underpaying female workers.

Mutual submission is to mark the relations of all Christians. This does not mean people will always agree, for they will not, just as Paul and Barnabas did not agree about Mark (Acts 15:36–41). Certainly it will not mean giving in to error, for there are times when one must not submit. Note Paul’s refusal to submit to his opponents (Gal. 2:5) when the character of the gospel was at stake. But if the issue is not error, the gospel calls for the sacrifice of self-centeredness and the valuing and promoting of other people. As we have noted, greater responsibility belongs on the person enjoying privilege. Consequently, the mutual submission of rich and poor places added pressure on the rich, but with the realization that each makes a contribution to the other. In the end submission is nothing other than humility and the self-giving love of Christ.

To add the idea of the “reverence of Christ” to submission only compounds our discomfort. “Reverence” (lit., “fear”) expresses a recognition of the holiness of God and an awareness of being bound to him by his love. Here it expresses a Christological basis for submission. Self-centeredness is jettisoned because one knows Christ is both loving Savior and coming Judge. Christ is a friend, but not just a friend. He is also Lord of the universe.

The relation of wives and husbands (5:22–33). Few issues create as much debate and disagreement as that of the status and roles of women, particularly as they relate to their husbands. We would do well to remember that no other relationship so mirrors God’s relation with us and his purpose for us. The marriage relation is the most revealing of who we really are, and for those who are married, it is the primary relationship for discipleship. In a day when many young people are giving up on marriage, we need to hear this text.

Wrong turns. Too often men have concluded that women are theirs to control or treat as they like. The painful fact is that these verses have been used like a club to keep women in a defeated role. Christians and non-Christians alike know and use the statements “Wives, submit to your husbands,” and “The husband is head of the wife,” even if they have never read Ephesians 5. These statements have been misinterpreted to mean that wives always have a subservient role and that husbands always make the decisions. Women have been viewed as property that husbands may treat as they wish.

Even abusive behavior by husbands has even been justified on the basis of Ephesians 5:22–24. Pastors have been willing accomplices by telling women that they must submit. A book like James and Phyllis Alsdurf’s Battered into Submission49 presents in horrifying detail how distorted the interpretation of Paul’s statements has become. Their book is not about wife abuse in general, though estimates are that one-third of all wives are beaten during the course of their marriage. Their book is—painfully—about wife abuse in Christian homes. Studies have shown that 18 percent of Christian wives report abuse of some sort by their husbands and about 5 percent suffer physical abuse. Men in more conservative denominations with traditional views of marriage are more likely to abuse their wives.

Such misuse of Ephesians 5 is scandalous and cannot be tolerated. Christians must take a much more forceful stand against wife abuse and against all denigration of women. Churches must not only speak out against the problem, but be much more willing to confront, instruct, and if necessary, to discipline members who are abusive.

The problem is broader than physical abuse. The attitudes of men about women, and specifically of husbands about wives, are often demeaning. Their comments may not be intended to hurt, but the truth is that husbands frequently belittle and ridicule their wives with comments about their level of intelligence, their worries, cooking, or habits. Wives, of course, are capable of the same sins, but husbands are more likely to engage in such belittling as a result their sense of being “head.”

The abuse of women in the family is a manifestation of the sexual illness of our society. We live in a sex-diseased society that has developed manifold ways to debase women. Movies and TV focus on rape, violence, and “use” of women. One fourth of all the sex images in “cybersex” involve the torture of women. Virtually everyone agrees all this is terrible, but no one does anything, and “good” people still take part. Christians must separate themselves from such “entertainment” and from such treatment of women. It will not fit with Christ.

Some Christians have also distorted this passage by speaking of a husband’s “umbrella of authority.” So much emphasis is placed on the husband as head that he is seen as a privileged authority figure and wives are reduced to second-level status. In extreme cases wives are not even held responsible for their actions; their husbands are! Headship in this text has nothing to do with privilege; it is about the servant character of authority. Wives do have responsibility for their actions, and they also have equal value. Husbands are not bosses to be served, and wives are not their unthinking slaves.

What does it mean for us? We must once again emphasize that what is said to wives (and husbands) is only an example of the love and mutual submission required of all Christians and that the word “submit” does not even appear in the Greek text of 5:22. Wives are to submit to their husbands. That is, they stand in a giving relation to their husbands as their husbands do to them. But this text does not endorse a chauvinist mentality, with wives being servants doing all the work or agreeing to any request their husbands think up. All it asks is that wives give up self-centeredness, take seriously their mutuality with their husbands, and promote the benefit of their husbands. It underscores that no part of life may be excluded from the marriage relationship.

On the other side, headship does not give husbands privilege and superiority. Arguments from analogy about the headship of Christ and that of the husband cannot conclude that the headships are identical. Just as the fear due the husband is not the same as the fear due Christ because the husband and Christ are different, so the headship of Christ is different. He is Lord over all things; the husband is not lord over anything. The point of the headship analogy is the responsibility husbands have to give themselves to their wives as Christ gave himself for the church. They must be givers, not takers. Husbands are to give up self-centeredness and any privilege of being head in order to promote the well-being of their wives. They are to love their wives as themselves, recognizing that the unity of marriage makes their wives like their own bodies. Husbands should nurture and care for their wives so that they are established and enhanced. When wives are enhanced, so are husbands. The two partners are assumed to be one, mutually enabling each other.

The way Christian marriages are to function is therefore clear from this text. Both partners live first of all in, to, and for the Lord. The real head of the marriage is always Christ, and both partners are to live in mutual submission to each other, seek to promote each other within the purposes of Christ, and live out the oneness of their relationship.

Mutual submission means too that decisions are made by both partners for unselfish reasons. When disagreement occurs, the husband does not automatically have the deciding vote. In such cases, one partner may grant the other person’s choice or both may agree to reject both options. Mutual submission may mean that one partner places career objectives on hold while the other completes an education. It may mean that one person gives up a satisfying job to enable a transfer by the other. It may mean no more than giving the other person freedom to make incidental choices for himself or herself.

It is obvious that this text addresses an ideal situation. What if the husband does not practice mutual submission and love? What if the husband only wants a servant? In the ancient world a woman would have had few choices, and for some women this may still be true. Peter urged wives to instruct husbands and win them to Christ by godly conduct (1 Peter 3:1–6). This too expresses an ideal, but it does point to the need for instruction for husbands.

When a woman enters a marriage relationship today, she does so in a far different way from in the ancient world where she may have had little say in the matter. She and her mate should both enter marriage wisely and with every intention of heeding their vows and living in mutuality. Mutual submission virtually eliminates divorce.

Whereas women in the ancient world had few options other than homemaker, women in our culture have almost unlimited lifestyle, career, and ministry opportunities. Our text does not imply some roles are open to women and others are excluded, and it certainly does not teach the inferiority of women. The increase in opportunities for women changes the way the responsibility of husbands functions. To derive from this text that women may not be in positions of authority is superficial reasoning. If husbands love their wives as themselves, they will both give and seek freedom, respect, and possibilities for their wives. They will support them emotionally and physically and make sure that there is justice in the division of labor in the household.

There are, of course, cultural variations in what is permitted to women. In some cultures women are no better off now than women were in the ancient world. What is the task of the church in these societies? Feminism must never be substituted for the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the church cannot allow the implications of the gospel to be muffled. The gospel includes a focus on the equality of all persons before God and in the church. The old valuations based on sex, race, and economic status can no longer define relationships. All Christians are called to live in mutual submission in the unity found in Christ. No matter what the cultural practice, Christian marriages should be different, and where necessary the sins of the abuse of power and insensitivity by husbands must be confronted.

To what point can the wife live out her Christian commitment and promote the benefit of her husband—and herself—when she receives no benefit in return? Where husbands (or wives) refuse cooperation in mutuality, difficult choices will have to be made. Sadly, one has to admit some circumstances make a marriage unworkable. If there is no mutuality, there is no marriage. If the relationship is abusive, either emotionally or physically, the wife cannot be asked to submit. She is asked to model Christ’s love, not suffer or die at the hands of an abusive husband. She should be advised to remove herself from danger. Truth and justice cannot be ignored.

If a husband asks his wife to do something inappropriate for a Christian, again, she should not submit. Her attitude must be the same as the early church in Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men!” Every human relation is experienced as part of our relation with God.

Since the text places greater responsibility on the privileged person and recognizes that the wife needs to be nurtured, Christian men ought to be particularly concerned to seek justice for women. With the pervasive mistreatment and injustice to women in virtually every culture, I am convinced that Christianity has both a responsibility and an opportunity to speak strongly for the justice of women. Christian men have a responsibility to support all women, single or married, without being patronizing in the process and without turning the responsibility into an opportunity for sexual exploitation.

Sexual intercourse. Paul’s comments on unity in marriage, especially his quotation of Genesis 2:24,50 make an important point about human sexual relations. As the parallel in 1 Corinthians 6:15–17 shows, Paul did not view sexual intercourse merely as a physical act. Rather, he viewed it as an incorporative act whereby two people are bound together and made one. The wife becomes part of her husband and for him to love her is to love himself.51

Dangers. There are dangers, however, in focusing on oneness and mutual submission. One danger is that a husband or wife may give so much attention to the marriage partner that he or she ends up idolizing and fawning over the spouse (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32–35). The marriage relationship is only one relationship, and husband and wife do not enhance each other merely as individuals, but as Christians. The primary commitment of both is always to the Lord, and mutual submission within marriage is only an expression of commitment to the Lord.

A second danger is that so much attention is placed on oneness that individuality is lost. Despite oneness, husband and wife remain two different people with different purposes and callings from God. If dependence becomes overemphasized, one or both partners will be less productive, and the death of one spouse will create havoc in the life of the other.

The relation of Christ and the church (5:22–33). The Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology expressed in this text are all important for the life of the church today. We sometimes get mired in the duties of the church and forget the role of Christ in the church. This text underscores both the love of Christ and the lordship of Christ. That he is head and the church submits to him ought to be a constant reminder that the church has no other agenda than that set and modeled by Christ. Pastors and church boards do not lead churches, other than to help them find the purposes of Christ. A greater sense that Christ leads the church, joined with mutual submission in finding his purposes, will move the church past many of its current problems.

Ephesians 5:25 points to the love Christ demonstrated historically on the cross, but verse 29 and the marriage analogy both point to the continuing love of Christ. He still nurtures and cares for the church, and the church will be much stronger if it is more conscious of his on-going love and presence. More time in church needs to be spent on experiencing Christ, worshiping him, and reflecting on identification with him, rather than just talking about him. The quotation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 ought not be allegorized to refer to Christ’s leaving the Father to come to earth. Paul is interested only in the oneness of Christ with the church.

Christ’s saving work (vv. 26–27) also has a present focus. While the perfection of the church will not occur until the end time, Christ’s work on the cross set apart and cleansed the church to be holy and without blemish in the present. In the doxology (1:4) God’s purpose before the foundation of the world was that his people be holy and blameless (cf. Phil. 2:15).

Obviously one of the most difficult questions is why the church is so filled with imperfections. Do we take imperfections for granted or have we bought into an understanding of “cheap grace” that merely gives salvation, but requires no obedience? Paul knew, of course, the imperfections of the church, as the Corinthian letters attest all too well. But, as all of his letters and especially Ephesians 4–6 show, he repeatedly asked Christians to make true in their lives what God had done for them. Christians are to live differently because they have been set apart to God (cf. 5:26–27). The New Testament knows nothing of a salvation that does not change lives.

The church. The striking part of this text is surely its ecclesiology. Paul’s “body theology” most frequently is used to describe the diversity of the church and the importance of each individual member.52 In Ephesians and Colossians Paul develops his thinking so that Christ is now the head of the body. He focuses now on the relation of Christians to Christ as the one from whom all the body is energized and bound together (Eph. 4:16).

In Ephesians 5:30 the body theology finds its climactic expression. As members of his body, Christians are part of Christ: They are one with him and one with each other. Incorporation into Christ and participation with him are two of the great theological truths of this letter. Paul expects his readers to live with an awareness of being part of Christ.

We have seen earlier that this theology means Christians can no longer view themselves merely as individuals.53 They are bound to Christ and defined by him. With that comes a sense of value and privilege and of Christ’s presence and power for living. Oneness with Christ also brings a sense of mission and involvement in his purposes. We are not part of Christ merely for privilege, but for growth and service (cf. 4:16).

The ethical implications of this theology are immense. Mutual submission is merely a logical conclusion of Paul’s understanding that Christians are part of each other. Oneness with Christ is the basis of all Christian ethics (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15). What sort of activities fit with being part of Christ? The character of Christ is not some external norm to which Christians are to aspire, but the framework of their being. How can they not put into practice their oneness with him? No hint of perfectionism is intended, but being part of Christ is a transforming privilege.

Such reasoning goes far beyond usual explanations of the gospel. The first step in appropriating this text will be in changing our evangelistic ideas. Any proclamation of the gospel is inadequate that does not show people the need of and the possibility of oneness with Christ and of being part of him. Such a diminished gospel will never provide sufficient ethical motive.

This text is of obvious importance for understanding the marriage relation, but that theme fades from center stage. The primary focus is on the relation of Christ and his church. The key themes are the love of Christ and the oneness of Christians with him. That relation drives all other Christian relations, including that of husband and wife.

Original Meaning

The House Codes (5:22–33)

“HOUSE CODES” IS the label assigned to those sections of Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter that give instructions to wives and husbands, children and parents, and slaves and masters. While these same three relationships were frequently addressed by Greek and Jewish writers in somewhat stereotypical fashion, no source for the Christian house codes has been discovered, nor do Greek or Jewish writers use the same language as the New Testament writers. The specific wording of this material emerged within the church.

Christians had to treat these subjects, at least in part, because they were accused of destroying society with their focus on freedom, love, and following Christ. Non-Christians needed to know that this was not the case, and Christians needed to be taught the relevance of their faith for their primary social relations. Unlike other house codes, Christian house codes focused not only on wives, children, and slaves, but also on the responsibilities of the more powerful persons (husbands, parents, and masters).

Instructions to wives (5:22–24, 33b). We must begin by emphasizing that the instruction to wives to submit to their husbands is only the first example of the mutual submission required of all Christians. The word “submit” is not even used in the Greek text of verse 22.20

Christianity brought with it significant change for women, and apparently their freedom was a source of offense to non-Christians. In Galatians 3:28, for example, Paul wrote that distinctions like male and female no longer determined value.21 In 1 Corinthians 7:15 he counseled Christians that they did not have to stay with an unbelieving spouse who wanted to leave. That he would have granted wives such privilege would have been surprising to non-Christians, for the assumption of the day was that a wife would take the gods of her husband.22 It is understandable, therefore, that in Titus 2:5, Paul instructed women “to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God.”

What Paul meant by saying wives should “submit to [their own] husbands as to the Lord” is unclear. The words could mean (1) in a similar manner as the submission they give to the Lord, (2) as if the husband were the Lord, or (3) as part of their submission to the Lord. While it is hard to imagine Paul suggesting the second option, either of the other two would be legitimate, but the theology implicit in the third choice clearly underlies the text. The wife’s relation to the Lord is the basis, motivation, and qualification of her submission to her husband. In verse 24 the words “in everything” indicate that all spheres of life are included in this submission, provided, of course, that it is in keeping with life lived “to the Lord.”

Verse 23 is surely one of the most abused and debated texts in the New Testament. Its focus is not on the privilege and dominance of the husband, and Paul never intended to suggest that wives were servants, compelled to follow any and every desire of the husband. The text does not tell women to obey their husbands, nor does it give any license for husbands to attempt to force submission.23

The debate has intensified in recent years over the meaning of kephale, the Greek word for “head.” Many have assumed that kephale means “boss,” “person in charge,” or “leader,” since the word has those metaphorical meanings in English. And the Hebrew word for “head” (roʾsh) is often used metaphorically in the Old Testament for tribal leaders or other persons in authority.24 The problem is that this metaphorical meaning is not common in Greek. Most of the time the LXX uses some other word (such as archon) to translate roʾsh. Kephale was used only sixteen times in the LXX to translate roʾsh when the idea of “authority over” is present (about 180 occurrences).25 Consequently, some have suggested that the metaphorical use of kephale should be understood as “source.” A few scholars have suggested a meaning such as “prominence” or, for Ephesians 5:23, “one who brings to completion.”26 Unfortunately, no one involved in this debate is objective and evenhanded with the evidence.

Although the debate will no doubt continue, the most important factor for determining the meaning is the context of Ephesians and Paul’s other writings. The argument for “source” as the meaning of kephale is not convincing. Although it may mean this in a few extracanonical texts, it is rare. Furthermore, “source” does not fit well in most of the Pauline texts. Paul is not arguing in 5:22–24 that the husband is source of the wife as Christ is source of the church. Scholars appear to have chosen this meaning only to avoid negative connotations for the discussion of male-female relations in modern times. The use of kephale in 1:22 and Colossians 2:10, where the issue is the subjection of all things under Christ, precludes the idea of source as the meaning in those texts. Paul is not arguing that Christ is the source of the principalities and powers, but that he has authority over them. Some connotation of authority appears to be included in Paul’s metaphorical uses of kephale.

Still, Ephesians 5:23 does not focus on authority, but on the self-giving love of both Christ and the husband. “Head” in this context suggests “responsibility for.” The husband has a leadership role, though not in order to boss his wife or use his position as privilege. Just as Jesus redefined greatness as being a servant (Matt. 20:26–27), Paul redefines being head as having responsibility to love, to give oneself, and to nurture. A priority is placed on the husband, but, contrary to ancient society, it is for the benefit of the wife. The activity of both wife and husband is based in their relation to Christ and in his giving himself for the church.

Although Paul makes explicit the priority or responsibility of the husband, the text also assumes the oneness and equality of husband and wife in 5:28 and 31. Both headship and equality must be given their due. As elsewhere, the truth is in the tension of the text.

The parenthetical statement in 5:23 that Christ is the Savior of the body (i.e., the church) does not mirror the husband’s relation to the wife. The NIV does not show it, but 5:24 actually begins with a contrast (“but”) to 5:23. Although the husband has responsibility for the wife’s welfare, he is not her savior and plays no role in her salvation.

In the summary statement in 5:33 the wife is asked to “fear” (NIV, “respect”) her husband. This provides a ring composition that recalls 5:21 and offers another way that the husband-wife relation mirrors that of Christ and the church. But there is no thought of terror or fear of harm. The translation of the Greek word used here as “respect”—if joined to love—comes close to the idea intended for the attitude toward husbands. A wife is to show recognition of her husband’s role and responsibility. No doubt, the fear due Christ is far different from the fear due husbands. The latter do not love as greatly, are not inherently holy, and are not end-time judges.

Instructions to husbands (5:25a, 28–29a, 31, 33a). Since wives are asked to submit, one might expect the text would ask husbands to rule in an appropriate way. It does not; instead, it asks husbands to love and give themselves with the same self-giving love that Christ had in giving himself for the church. Both the directions to the wife to submit and to the husband to love only make specific commands that had already been given to all Christians in 5:2 and 21 (cf. 4:2).

Ancient sources, surprisingly, do not speak frequently of husbands loving their wives. Paul’s words to women seem negative to us, but in his day they were surprisingly positive. Why he did not ask wives to love their husbands is unclear.27 Is something different intended with the command for husbands to love than the command for wives to submit? No, for both commands are Christologically grounded and require giving oneself to the other person. In the final analysis, submission and agape love are synonymous. If anything, the stronger language is used of the husband’s responsibility. The command for him to love his wife as himself is an application to husbands of the expectation of mutual submission required of all Christians (5:21).

In the ancient world husbands had relatively few obligations beyond providing food and shelter. They were free to do as they pleased, whereas wives were obligated to do domestic chores and to do what their husbands required. Paul’s words change the picture dramatically. Rather than being guided by self-interests, the husband is asked to place the well-being of his wife first and to give himself to caring for her.

Ephesians 5:28 applies the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Lev. 19:18) specifically to the wife. Paul is not suggesting we must love ourselves before we can love someone else. Both the writer of Leviticus and Paul assume that a person will look after his or her own interests and welfare, and both seek the same for other people. In the end love is a matter of justice for the other person, but raised to the degree that one is willing to forego one’s own rights, interests, and desires. Paul here assumes a theology of the oneness of the husband and wife based on Genesis 2:24 (see 5:31). Consequently, the idea of hating or neglecting one’s wife is as strange as hating or neglecting oneself.

The words of 5:29 express a tenderness and nurturing expected from the husband so that the well-being and wholeness of the wife are assured. Verse 33 only repeats in an emphatic and personal way the command for husbands to love their wives. This love is not merely the natural love of a man for a woman. As wonderful as such love is, it is insufficient for the marriage relationship. Such love is not confined to feelings and attitudes; it involves a series of choices that expresses discipleship to Jesus Christ. The love required of husbands is Christologically defined. Christ’s love motivated him to give himself for the good of the church. Husbands must follow the same pattern and love enough to give themselves for their wives.

The relation of Christ and the church (5:23b–24a, 25b–27, 29b–32). Often overlooked in this passage is Paul’s mature reflection on salvation and the church. The marriage relation is seen as an analogy of Christ’s love, his saving work, and his ongoing care for the church. Imagery from the Old Testament about the relation of God and Israel stands behind this use of the marriage analogy. Israel was viewed as God’s marriage partner (see esp. Isa. 54:5–7; 62:4–5; the book of Hosea). Ezekiel 16:1–14 may provide the background for Ephesians 5:26–27, for it describes God as caring for, washing, marrying, and adorning Israel with splendor.

Verses 25–27, which explain how Christ is Savior (v. 23b), are often identified as confessional material borrowed from the early church. Such dependence on early church formulations is possible, especially because of some of the unusual phrases Paul uses here,28 but it is often difficult to separate traditional material from Paul’s own. The expression “Christ loved the church and gave himself for her” (5:25) is paralleled almost verbatim in 5:2 and Galatians 2:20. If this is confessional language, Paul has made it his own theology.

The importance of Christ’s love in Paul’s thinking cannot be overemphasized, nor should it be set over against the Father’s love. In this letter God’s love is the motivation for election (1:4) and salvation (2:4); Christ’s love surpasses human knowledge (3:19) and is the motive of his sacrificial death (5:2, 25) and indwelling (3:17). The Father and the Son are unified in their love of humanity.

In addition to the sacrificial language of 5:25, Christ’s saving work is described in terms of sanctifying, cleansing, and presenting. The choice of the language “to sanctify” (NIV, “make holy”) a bride may seem strange, but these words were especially appropriate for Paul. The main emphasis in the word “sanctify” means “to set apart,” which is exactly what one does in marriage—one’s partner is set apart from all the rest. There are overtones here of Christians’ being set apart to God.29 In other words, the act of sanctifying does not refer here to Christian growth, although the “sanctify” word group can be used that way (cf. Rom. 6:19, 22). Here it is used as general description of salvation as a whole.30

Nor should the “cleansing” in verse 26 be seen as action prior to salvation.31 Christ sanctifies and saves by cleansing; they are one and the same act (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:5). Most scholars assume that Paul is referring to the cleansing of baptism in 5:25. But references to water or washing do not necessarily point to baptism, and a reference to baptism is unlikely, especially if Paul is drawing his language from Ezekiel (esp. Ezek. 36:25).32 Nowhere else in the New Testament is the church baptized. While “cleansed with washing of water in a word” (lit. trans.) is a difficult expression, two ideas are in view: (1) cleansing brought about by the Holy Spirit, and (2) the role of preaching the gospel in bringing about this cleansing. The association of cleansing, washing, and the Holy Spirit is frequent in both Old and New Testaments.

The purpose of Christ’s cleansing the church is “to present her” to God without blemish. In 5:26 Christ presents the church to himself, whereas in 2 Corinthians 4:14 God will present us with Jesus (to himself?). In Colossians 1:22 Christ presents believers either to himself or to God. Elsewhere Paul describes himself as presenting the Corinthian church as a holy virgin to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2). Obviously Paul could use the language of “presentation” in several ways and in reference both to the church in the present and at the end time. Future eschatology is clearly in mind in 2 Corinthians 4:14, but this passage and 2 Corinthians 11:2 seem to refer to the present.

The language about the church in this section is unusual. The church is given a focus as an entity prompting the work of Christ, not merely (as elsewhere) being viewed as the result of Christ’s work. Here Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.33 This does not mean the church is viewed as already in existence at Christ’s death; rather, it is a way of reflecting on the significance of his death.

One of the most startling and powerful ideas about the church is expressed in 5:30–32. The union between believers and Christ is so real that Christians are members of Christ’s body. In 4:25 Christians are said to be members of each other, and this mutual joining provides a theological motive for telling the truth. In 5:30 Christians are assumed to be so intimately joined to Christ that they are part of him.

Any explanation of Paul that does not do justice to a Christian’s being part of Christ fails to explain his theology adequately. Ephesians itself can be conveniently summarized by these two expressions: part of Christ and part of each other. The “body” is not a vague ecclesiological concept for Paul; rather, it is a term that expresses the solidarity of believers with Christ. Surprisingly, the quotation of Genesis 2:24 is understood, not of the relation between husband and wife, but of the relation of Christ and the church (see Eph. 5:32; cf. also 1 Cor. 6:15). No doubt, the relevance of Genesis 2:24 to the relation of husband and wife is assumed, but the focus in Ephesians is on the solidarity between Christians and their Lord.

Paul describes this relation as “a profound mystery.” While it is not impossible that “mystery” means “difficult to comprehend,” this is not the way “mystery” is understood elsewhere, especially in Ephesians. Paul uses this term to point to a revelation from God, something one would not know had not God revealed it.34 What Paul probably meant is this: “The revelation about Christ and the church is tremendous and profound.”

Bridging Contexts

EPHESIANS 5:15–33 CONTAINS three different kinds of material that require three different processes in bridging the contexts. (1) Verses 18–21 are exhortation that in most cases causes little difficulty in bringing into our generation. The language and ideas are not so historically or culturally rooted that they present significant problems. Nothing in them addresses a circumstance true only of the ancient world. However, as elsewhere, we must identify the theological assumptions driving the exhortations.

(2) The house code instructions to husbands and wives in verses 22–33 are rooted deeply in a different time and culture from our modern world. Bringing this section into today is a major task. Careful attention will need to be paid to the differences and the problems the text addresses.

(3) Portions of verses 22–33 are theological descriptions of Christ and the church. While they are as pertinent to the modern church as to any other, the language assumes a background of religious ideas and a theological framework. Both may require explanation.

Life in the Spirit (5:15–21). The theological implications of 5:15–21 are important. “Watch closely how you walk”35 suggests a purpose and direction to life. Life is not aimless, nor is it a series of frenetic activities followed by down time. It is the steady progress toward the goal. The way has been marked out, as is underscored in verse 17 with “the will of the Lord.” We must watch where we are going and make steady progress along the way. Verses 15–16 suggest a diligence about life and indicate that the journey is dangerous. We should watch closely because missteps are easy and the consequences disastrous.

Verse 16, with its concern for redeeming the time, reflects an urgency about life. Time is important, and it ought not be frittered away. Both a theology of life and a theology of time lie behind these brief exhortations.

The exhortations for wisdom and understanding drive us to consider the wisdom tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism. The main concern is not on the intellect, even if an intellectual emphasis is present. It is on wise living, on an understanding of God sufficient to produce insight into life and obedience. Wisdom involves considering all information in light of one’s relation to God and acting on what one knows. As we have seen throughout Ephesians, the focus is on the mind and the process of discerning what the Lord wants.

Drunkenness (v. 18) was as real a problem in the ancient world as it is today, although it may not have been as pervasive. While wine was produced in large quantities, the variety and potency of alcoholic beverages were not as great as today. In addition, wine was often diluted with water. But alcohol was still a problem, and both Old Testament writers and ancient Hellenistic philosophers frequently warned against its abuse. Although a few groups in the ancient world condemned all consumption of alcohol, this text does not. Drunkenness is clearly a sin, but not all consumption of alcohol is sin. On the other hand, one does have to deal with the dangers of alcohol and the numerous problems it causes in our society. This is precisely one of the areas where we have to discern the will of the Lord.

Two portions of this text would have been as uncommon for ancient readers as for us: “Be filled with the Spirit” (v. 18), and “Submit to each other” (v. 21). The first was unusual, even though people knew about possession by evil spirits.36 Yet we should not be surprised at this language if we have paid attention to Paul’s teaching about the Spirit throughout the letter.37 How it can be achieved today? By union with Christ, which is Paul’s emphasis from the beginning of the letter. The Spirit is the one who conveys the presence of Jesus to us. Faith creates such a consciousness of the presence of God and Christ in us that we have heightened attention about God’s desires and a sense of God’s work in us to enable his will.

The idea of mutual submission would have been as offensive to people in the ancient world as today. Despite our nervousness over the word “submission,” this text should not be watered down. Especially when the focus is on Christ as a pattern for Christian lives, the text confronts both ancient and modern cultures.

The text does not ask us to be “religious.” The five participles do not call for trappings of piety that can be faked. Such a religious front is offensive to anyone seeking integrity. The text calls instead for a sense of God’s presence that results in a spontaneous and authentic joy. Such joy may be expressed in a variety of fashions.

The relation of wives and husbands (5:22–33). Several factors point to the difficulty of bringing this message into our modern world. The very existence of house codes and the stereotypical focus on the three pairs (wives-husbands, children-parents, slaves-masters) points to the distance between this text and modern society. While we may be concerned about relations within the household, we do not have explicit codes, we do not have slaves, and we would not group wives, children, and slaves together as philosophers and ethicists did in the ancient world. The very form of the text is cultural. Furthermore, we would not ask wives to “fear” their husbands (v. 33). Modern society at least talks about equality of women, even though women are still frequently treated as lesser beings.

Most importantly, other biblical texts indicate that advice in the house codes was addressed to a specific cultural situation—the fear of some that Christianity was subversive. Any movement in the ancient world that threatened the social order was viewed as dangerous.38 Titus 2:5 is revealing because it gives a reason why wives ought to submit: “so that no one will malign [lit., blaspheme] the word of God.” Clearly the relation of Christian wives to their husbands was a source of scandal to non-Christians.

Reading other passages sensitively indicates why this potential scandal was apparent. Galatians 3:28 gave equal value to women. Also, in a society where wives were expected to take the religion of their husbands, 1 Corinthians 7:15 assumed that Christian wives owed their first loyalty to Christ. If an unbelieving husband was content to stay married to a Christian wife, there was no problem; but if he chose to leave, the wife should let him go—and vice versa. That a wife had a greater loyalty to her religion than to her husband was no doubt shocking.

Other parts of 1 Corinthians 7 create tension with Ephesians 5:22–33 and consequently give hint that specific reasons have called forth the statements in the house code. Whereas the husband is head in Ephesians, 1 Corinthians 7:2–16 expresses a mutuality that is surprising. There Paul goes so far as to say that the wife has authority over her husband’s body (7:4), and ten times he is careful to say explicitly about the wife what he says about the husband. Texts such as 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; 14:34–36 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15 are evidence of questions about the behavior of women in the early church. The tension within the biblical text itself indicates historically conditioned material. We must ponder both sets of texts for guidance.

Analysis of the other house codes in the New Testament shows a great deal of concern for testimony to unbelievers. Colossians 4:5 (parallel to Eph. 5:15) encourages Christians to walk wisely with respect to those outside the church (cf. 1 Cor. 10:32). Likewise, 1 Peter 2:12, 15; 3:1–2 encourage behavior that will stop slander against Christians and bring people to God. Such apologetic motivation must be considered in applying these texts in a society that views family relations differently.

Further indication of the difficulty of understanding the message of this text is provided by historical research on attitudes toward women in the ancient world. Women are viewed differently in modern Western civilization that in ancient Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world. The sources do not tell us equally about women in all social strata.39 But what information we do have about women and attitudes toward them paints an absolutely awful picture. For example, one writer said women were the worst plague Zeus made. Another said, “The two best days in a woman’s life are when someone marries her and when he carries her dead body to the grave.” In Judaism women were not counted in the quorum needed for a synagogue and were ritually unclean during menstruation. One rabbi advised, “Do not talk much with a woman.” Another added, “Not even with one’s wife.”40

By and large, women were viewed as inferior and were given relatively little freedom. Of course, their status varied in different places and times. Generally speaking, the farther west one went the better their lot, but even in Rome women were only in a slightly better position than their sisters in the East.

In a few places like Sparta and Egypt women were given greater freedom and responsibility. In most places, however, if they were allowed to live at birth, women were minimally educated, could not be witnesses in a court of law, could not adopt children or make a contract, could not own property or inherit, and were viewed, as both Aristotle and Josephus said, in all respects to be inferior to a man. They were seen as less intelligent, less moral, the source of sin, and a continual temptation (see Ecclesiasticus 25:13–26:27).

Respectable women—at least the ones described in our sources—were kept from public life. Typically, women lived in one part of the house and men lived in another. In many cases they did not eat meals together. In larger homes virgins spent most of their time in a section set aside for them. Conversation with people outside the house was kept to a minimum. For a woman even to do her spinning in her doorway was scandalous. Imagine how scandalous some would view the early church where both sexes met together in a house for worship and shared the Lord’s Supper!

When girls married (usually about age fifteen or sixteen), they were expected to take the religion of their husbands. They were either under their father’s, their husband’s, or some other male relative’s authority all their lives.41

Anyone who reads the New Testament texts about women without an awareness of the context will surely not apply them properly. We must take into account both this devaluation of women in the ancient world and the problems caused in the early church by the new freedom and valuation women found in the Christian faith. Are the statements made to wives so historically conditioned, then, that they can be ignored? In spite of what some Christians claim, the answer is “No.” All statements are culturally and historically conditioned, some only more so than others.

While some texts have little or even no application for us,42 no biblical text can be jettisoned or ignored. The issue is how they should be understood and applied. They point to a reality about God, humanity, and the relationship between the two that needs to be appropriated.

We have seen three important facts about the house codes:

(1) They were motivated by the desire to avoid slander on the church.

(2) They provided instructions on Christian conduct within the household.

(3) They addressed the same three groups that other Greek and Jewish writers addressed, but focused more on the responsibility of the husband, father, and master.

Slander from non-Christians about family relations is no longer an actual threat, although it will be where Christians have unhealthy family relations. The modern context still needs instruction for conduct within the family, but assumptions about the family are different. As before, the greater responsibility must still be placed on the persons with the most privilege.

Another question we must face is whether the statement that the husband is head of the wife is descriptive or prescriptive. That is, does this statement only tell us what is a fact in the ancient and/or modern sinful world, or does it express God’s intention? Clearly the society described in ancient texts was patriarchal. Is this just the way life is in a sinful world? Or was headship already established in Eden before the Fall?43 Despite the claims, nothing in Genesis supports such an idea. But then does Ephesians use male headship merely as a foil to teach something else? No answers are given in the text, but it is difficult to say Paul is only describing life in a sinful world when he compares the husband’s headship to that of Christ. The fact that the husband is head is a given for Paul and for his society.

To some degree the same is still true. Our society is also patriarchal. If it were not, discussions about “glass ceilings,” unequal pay, abuse of wives, and rape of women would not be so prevalent. The greater strength and aggressiveness of males often give them advantages and options denied to women. Further, women are more likely to be victims of the sinful abuse of male dominance. The issue is the abuse of power. The husband as head has a responsibility for the care of the wife in such a context. These comments do not suggest women are passive and cannot care for themselves; they only point to a responsibility given to husbands.

How do we determine what is normative in such a text? We must ask about its intention and its teaching about God, his salvation, and his purposes for humanity. And as Luther emphasized, we must always answer these questions in the light of Christ and his work. This text is not intended to grant husbands a position of privilege or to teach that women are inferior. Its intent is to avoid offense to outsiders by encouraging mutual submission—a submission on the part of the wife and a self-giving on the part of the husband—with both partners having their lives determined by and motivated by Christ’s own self-giving love. Still, a priority is placed on the husband, a priority that gives him a greater responsibility to care for his wife.

How far should the teaching of this text be extended? Does it have any relevance for women and men more generally? There are many more single people in our society than in the ancient world. What does 5:22–33 imply for them? This text is not about all women being submissive to all men. It is about mutual submission of all Christians to each other and of the submission of wives to their own husbands. It has nothing to do with the inferiority of women nor does it imply that women cannot function in leadership roles. On the other hand, I would suggest that the logic of the text directs Christian men to stand against the victimization of all women in our abusive world.

Does this text have relevance for decisions about the role of women in the church and ministry? The answer is “No,”44 except for the fact that mutual submission gives all persons equal value. The passage is about mutual submission and family relationships, not about church leadership and what women may or may not do.

A crucial factor in understanding this passage is an awareness of the limitation of the text. The description in 5:22–33 assumes an ideal situation: Both partners are Christians and are eager to model their lives after Christ. This presents problems.45 Why does Ephesians not address the problems in marriage relations? What is the relevance of this text when one or neither of the partners is a Christian? What if one or neither is willing to follow the will of the Lord? What if the relationship is abusive? The text provides no answers.

The “ideal” character of the description is required by the analogy between Christ and the church. This is not pastoral marriage counseling, and to treat it that way is short-sighted. The passage does model how the marriage relation should function, but it is only a foundation on which we can begin facing problems. An interpreter must develop a theology based on the ideal in this text and on other relevant texts—no text is to be interpreted in isolation—and then discern how that theology is to be applied to life.

A further factor may help in applying this text. The parallel discussion of the relation of slaves and masters in 6:5–9 is instructive, for there too an ideal situation is assumed in the directions given to Christian households. Slavery has long since been abolished, largely through the influence of scriptural principles. Just as we applaud the abolition of slavery, we need to ask how the world has changed for wives and how it needs to change further. What implications of the gospel still need to be worked out? What seems unlikely to change and what ought not change? How do we wrestle with the ideal in an ancient world, the ideal in our own, and the real problems we encounter? How should our lives be determined by the character of Christ and motivated by his self-giving love?

Paul did not directly attack slavery or the society’s views on women. He focused on the gospel, a gospel in which “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). The differences still existed, but they had no value, for all were one in Christ and all had the same task of living lives determined and motivated by Christ. Paul did not work out all the sociological implications of his gospel. He did not have the time, nor was that the focus of his missionary efforts. He addressed some societal implications as required by his context and the problems of his churches. Other implications have been drawn only over centuries, and the task of understanding and applying the implications of the gospel continues today.

The relation of Christ and the church (5:22–33). This is an appropriate place to point out that theology is not done merely in the section on bridging contexts, but is present at all three stages of interpretation. In understanding the original message we focus on the theology explicit in the text or underlying the text. In bridging we seek the theology that spans cultures and contexts and is still pertinent. In application we determine how that theology takes root in our own context. We constantly must ask what the text teaches about God and humanity and adapt that teaching to life.

Specifically with regard to this text, the task of bringing the theological descriptions of Christ and the church into today’s world must explain the significance of the metaphorical and religious language.

That Christians are the body of Christ will always cause difficulty. This concept expresses a unity and attachment to Christ similar to Paul’s idea of being “in Christ.” In fact, it is an extension of that language. Faith creates an intimate solidarity with Christ.

The marriage analogy likewise has its difficulties. Paul uses this analogy to convey the same idea as the body analogy: Christians are one entity with Christ, and accordingly he is to define the shape of their lives. For males, being the bride of Christ may seem strange, but neither males nor females should understand these ideas with sexual overtones. The oneness of the sexual union of a married couple merely illustrates the similar oneness of Christ and believers. Unfortunately, reading our own sexuality into our relation with Christ is a larger problem than most of us are willing to admit. Attraction or discomfort in relation to Christ and God are too easily enmeshed with an understanding of our own sexuality.

Further, we do not usually think of the church submitting to Christ, but this text does (5:24). Implied in such a statement is Christ’s role as Lord and the church’s need always to follow his leading and example. This text also focuses on Christ’s activity for the church—saving it (v. 23), giving himself (v. 25), sanctifying and cleansing to present it pure and holy (vv. 26–27), and nurturing it (v. 28). Clearly we are to see the value Christ places on the church, the love he has for it, and his present work in it.

Other parts of the language are liable to misunderstanding or may sound foreign, but they are important for our lives. Most of us do not feel “holy and blameless,” but that is what Christ seeks for us now (cf. Phil. 2:15). This part of this passage is not just for judgment day. It has in view Christ’s present relation to the church and should have its impact in the present. That Christ sanctifies the church (v. 26) focuses on his setting the church apart for himself. As people set apart, Christians should live “set apart” lives, which is, of course, what the word “holy” means.

Contemporary Significance

AS WE NOW seek to apply this passage, we must keep four questions in mind:

(1) How closely does the situation of the text correspond to today?

(2) What theology, explicit or implicit, should be appropriated?

(3) What will the practice of that theology look like in our present context?

(4) In what ways may that theology be applied to areas not addressed by the text?

Life with the Spirit (5:15–21). This text requires energy and effort on our part, for spiritual maturity only comes with work. If we are to watch closely how we walk, we must be attentive and self-analytical. Self-analysis can be stifling if out of balance, but Christians cannot expect to succeed in life with God without being honest with themselves and God about their chosen destiny. Any traveler inattentive to direction and progress will never arrive at the destination. We have already been asking ourselves: Do our lives grieve the Spirit (4:30)? Is our action an imitation of God (5:1)? Is it appropriate and fitting for those in Christ (5:3–4)? Does it please the Lord (5:10), and is it his will (5:17)? This section forces us to ask ourselves further questions about our Christian walk. Worship and prayer are the primary contexts where the pattern and goal for life are kept in view.

Time (5:16). The concern for time is given brief treatment in the text, but it is of enormous importance. Our society is the hurried society. We seem determined to pack as many activities into as brief a time as possible. We are too busy for life. We must reconsider how we use time. Most households in our society spend at least four to five hours a day watching TV, even though we may not care for what we watch. Other “diversions” take our attention too. But how much time do we give to life with God or to learning about that life? How much is invested in people or in doing something beneficial? We must not fritter away our lives on unproductive diversions and learn instead to invest time in our faith. The urgency and dangers implied in verse 16 are discussed in 6:10–20 as a spiritual conflict.

The will of the Lord (v. 17). Usually when Christians speak of discerning the will of the Lord, they have in mind God’s will regarding major decisions about a spouse or a career. This is not what the text is about. The text is more concerned about God’s intent for the way we live every day, about what is pleasing to him. Perhaps we would not have so much trouble in finding God’s will for important decisions if we were more accustomed to discerning his will throughout life, making our lives conform to the pattern Christ has given.

What to do about alcohol? The text’s prohibition of drunkenness obviously is directly applicable and possibly needed even more now than in Paul’s day. Drunkenness has no place in the life of a Christian. How can we watch closely how we live if we are drunk? Consumption of alcohol is not necessarily a sin, but we surely must warn against its dangers and abuse.

Drunkenness—to say nothing of alcohol addiction—is a major problem in our society. This is clear in the problem of drunken drivers, of drunkenness as a form of escapism, of binge drinking (especially by students), and by our society’s strange notion that to have fun we ought to get drunk. We spend a lot of time trying to get people not to drink and drive. If it impairs judgment so much, maybe we should just say, “Don’t drink.” Nothing makes more sense for a faith that emphasizes the development of the mind and human discernment.

The distributors and sellers of alcohol spend enormous amounts to persuade people to drink, while warnings of addiction and abuse are whispered. Why does our society complain bitterly about the abuses of the tobacco industry but say nothing about the alcohol industry? Consumption of alcohol has become acceptable for Christians, with the result that they too are guilty of laxness and over-indulgence. Drunkenness and addiction are not a mere innocent loss of control; they are the destructive waste of a life that ought to be lived unto God. Paul’s real concern is the avoidance of “debauchery”—excessive and wasteful indulgence. If we as Christians choose to drink alcohol, we must make sure that it is a carefully monitored amount and that our witness is not compromised by our actions. The greater the abuse in a given culture, the less Christians should take part.

Obviously the prohibition of drunkenness extends to abuse of drugs, but it also applies to any excessive indulgence. Humans were created to live in relation with God, and any practice that diminishes a person’s awareness of God and ability to respond to him and that suggests a life out of control stands under the indictment of the text. Surely society’s excessive focus on materialism, beauty aids, cosmetic surgery, and spectator sports are all under indictment here.

Be filled with the Spirit (5:18–21). The text assumes the reader knows the importance of the Spirit and why we should sing and give thanks, but the command to be filled with the Spirit is not easily understood. It places emphasis on our action, whereas we are more accustomed to think of humans as passive instruments awaiting the working of the Spirit. We are so fearful of works-righteousness or of synergism that we have increased passivity. The New Testament does not share our fear, and God does not perform magic on passive instruments. Salvation is the work of God, but synergism is capable of being understood positively.46 God calls for the human will to respond to his work and to be actively engaged with him. We must make choices for life with God if we are to appropriate this text, choices that involve the way we use our time, that open ourselves to God, and that make us willing to be transformed.

The Spirit’s role in this cannot be overemphasized, for Christianity is a religion of the Spirit. All we are and have is a result of his work. The Spirit is not an optional add-on, a second work of grace, or a privilege of the elite. Rather, he is the agent of God’s work in the world and is both the source and proof of conversion. To be in Christ and to be in the Spirit are virtually the same. In fact, the Spirit is the presence of Christ with the believer.

To ask us to be filled with the Spirit does not point to repeated charismatic experiences, as some claim. It is to ask us to focus our attention on Christ and his presence in us, to open ourselves to the continual transforming work of the Spirit so that the presence of Christ empowers and shapes our lives. The Spirit is to be the dominating influence for all Christians.

No text is a complete discussion of the subject it addresses, and 5:18–21 certainly is not a complete discussion of being filled with the Spirit. Still, the teaching here is important. Whereas people often claim that being spiritual includes speaking in tongues, self-denial, mysticism, or religious exercises, this text points to singing, thankfulness, and Christ-like submission.

True spirituality is focused on the gift of life in Christ, is shaped by Christ, and overflows with songs that both explain to other people the reason for joy and give thanks to God. Such spirituality goes to the core of our being and cannot be produced by spiritual exercises, valuable though they may be. The text does not address changes in mood, but surely no one should expect that emotions are always at the same level. While emotions are always involved in spirituality, being spiritual does not depend on a level of emotional feeling.

Because of the dangers of emotionalism, many Christians—especially middle class, white ones—squelch any expression of emotion about life in Christ. As John MacKay points out, however, “nothing great ever takes place without emotion.” He further warns against the danger of destroying faith in our attempt to stifle fanaticism.47 The Christian life is not sedate. Emotionalism is an error, but we need emotion—passion—in our worship and lives. Without it we are not human. We need both peace and passion, both to be filled with the Spirit and disciplined by Christ.

The implicit Trinitarian Christology here is important. Early Christians sang to Jesus and gave thanks to God on the basis of what he had done. The early church did not start with a Christology and move to an experience with Jesus. They started with an experience of the risen Jesus, which led them to worship him. Christology grew out of their experience. The same is true for most people today. The experience of Jesus is the basis of worship and reflection.

Singing. Application of this text could lead to an artificial religiosity: People sing or say the expected words and hope that spirituality follows. The spirituality promoted by religious broadcasting often does just this, and in none too natural a way. But spirituality is the cause of singing, not its result. No one is asked to take on cultural religious trappings. People are expected only to express an inner joy Christ brings, even if they cannot carry a tune or even if they have to write new songs to express with integrity the reality they have found in Christ.

Thanksgiving. The second mark of the Spirit, thanksgiving, is given only perfunctory attention by most Christians, but it may well be the most important activity we do. As several people have pointed out, sin is basically ingratitude, and in Christianity, religion is grace and ethics is gratitude. The giving of thanks is the first act after the recognition that we are not independent creatures but people who owe allegiance to God and have been blessed by him.

We need to affirm that all we are and have comes from God. Only then can we live lives of response to grace. The practice of thanksgiving is itself transforming. It is difficult for a person to be thankful and spiteful at the same time. It is difficult for a person to be thankful for his or her spouse and at the same time to be desiring another person—not impossible, but difficult.

Ephesians 5:20 asks that we always give thanks for everything in the name of Christ. Christians have sometimes felt compelled through texts like this to be thankful even in a tragedy, such as the death of a child. The result has been heartache for themselves and others. Surely such reasoning pushes the text beyond its intention. When the Bible uses “all” or “every,” we must ask whether it is meant with or without qualification. Paul’s intent is not that we are to be thankful for evil or tragedy. John Stott is correct in saying “everything” in verse 20 is hyperbole.48 We are not asked to thank God for evil. Rather, we are asked to live out our awareness that all of life, even the “bad,” is lived out under his control and in relation to him.

Submission. The most difficult part of this text for ancient and modern readers is the expectation that Christians will submit to each other (5:21). Some have argued that mutual submission is illogical, which it is, if viewed apart from Christ. However, if we understand the gospel, mutual submission makes perfectly good sense. What Paul has in mind is that Christians reject self-centeredness and work for the good of others. Submission is nothing more than a decision about the relative worth of others.

Our society emphasizes equality, but mutual submission is a much stronger idea. With equality, you still have a battle of rights. Equality can exist without love, but it will not create a Christian community. With mutual submission, we give up rights and support each other. Mutual submission is love in action. It brings equal valuing and is the power by which a Christian community establishes itself.

Mutual submission will not allow us to promote ourselves and our own interests, but neither does it make us “doormats” to be used by others. Legitimate submission cannot be coerced. The text assumes that everyone in the community is supported and enhanced. Where that does not take place, a person will have to be wise enough to discern whether to forego his or her own rights or seek justice. Christ’s pattern of self-giving love does not mean that we can never seek justice for ourselves. Jesus did not acquiesce to Herod or the Pharisees, and Paul did not hesitate to defend himself or speak strongly to the Galatians or Corinthians. Submission will mean that even in seeking justice, we are motivated by love for others in the community, rather than by love of self.

The relation of pastors and congregations is an obvious place where mutual submission needs to be implemented. In a wordplay on the word “submit,” 1 Cor. 16:15–16 asks that people arrange themselves under (i.e., submit to) those who have arranged themselves for service to God’s people. That is, they are to submit to servants. Pastors are servants of a church and should submit to the people, but they are not to be belittled or made subservient. From such a position they lead as they model the character of Christ. People in the church are to submit to the pastor, but not so that the pastor becomes a dictator to whom they acquiesce. Each is responsible to seek the benefit of the other as both live out the self-giving love of Christ.

Mutual submission should be applied to current discussions of worship styles. To insist that worship can take place in only one manner is myopic and limits the expression of the whole body. Mutual submission requires the humility to listen, tolerate, be taught, and be enriched by the worship of others, so long as it is within legitimate bounds.

A further place where mutual submission has application concerns money. Usually we allow our society to dictate how money is used, assigned, and hoarded. Mutual submission is disturbing to this society’s dictates, for it requires reconsideration of how wages are determined and how wealth is shared. This raises difficult questions, but do not equal valuing and self-giving love have economic impact? Our wallets are not bracketed from mutual submission. Is not 4:28 with its command for the thief to work to have something to give an example of mutual submission? In particular, justice needs to be done to equal pay for women. Sadly, Christian organizations are among the worst offenders in underpaying female workers.

Mutual submission is to mark the relations of all Christians. This does not mean people will always agree, for they will not, just as Paul and Barnabas did not agree about Mark (Acts 15:36–41). Certainly it will not mean giving in to error, for there are times when one must not submit. Note Paul’s refusal to submit to his opponents (Gal. 2:5) when the character of the gospel was at stake. But if the issue is not error, the gospel calls for the sacrifice of self-centeredness and the valuing and promoting of other people. As we have noted, greater responsibility belongs on the person enjoying privilege. Consequently, the mutual submission of rich and poor places added pressure on the rich, but with the realization that each makes a contribution to the other. In the end submission is nothing other than humility and the self-giving love of Christ.

To add the idea of the “reverence of Christ” to submission only compounds our discomfort. “Reverence” (lit., “fear”) expresses a recognition of the holiness of God and an awareness of being bound to him by his love. Here it expresses a Christological basis for submission. Self-centeredness is jettisoned because one knows Christ is both loving Savior and coming Judge. Christ is a friend, but not just a friend. He is also Lord of the universe.

The relation of wives and husbands (5:22–33). Few issues create as much debate and disagreement as that of the status and roles of women, particularly as they relate to their husbands. We would do well to remember that no other relationship so mirrors God’s relation with us and his purpose for us. The marriage relation is the most revealing of who we really are, and for those who are married, it is the primary relationship for discipleship. In a day when many young people are giving up on marriage, we need to hear this text.

Wrong turns. Too often men have concluded that women are theirs to control or treat as they like. The painful fact is that these verses have been used like a club to keep women in a defeated role. Christians and non-Christians alike know and use the statements “Wives, submit to your husbands,” and “The husband is head of the wife,” even if they have never read Ephesians 5. These statements have been misinterpreted to mean that wives always have a subservient role and that husbands always make the decisions. Women have been viewed as property that husbands may treat as they wish.

Even abusive behavior by husbands has even been justified on the basis of Ephesians 5:22–24. Pastors have been willing accomplices by telling women that they must submit. A book like James and Phyllis Alsdurf’s Battered into Submission49 presents in horrifying detail how distorted the interpretation of Paul’s statements has become. Their book is not about wife abuse in general, though estimates are that one-third of all wives are beaten during the course of their marriage. Their book is—painfully—about wife abuse in Christian homes. Studies have shown that 18 percent of Christian wives report abuse of some sort by their husbands and about 5 percent suffer physical abuse. Men in more conservative denominations with traditional views of marriage are more likely to abuse their wives.

Such misuse of Ephesians 5 is scandalous and cannot be tolerated. Christians must take a much more forceful stand against wife abuse and against all denigration of women. Churches must not only speak out against the problem, but be much more willing to confront, instruct, and if necessary, to discipline members who are abusive.

The problem is broader than physical abuse. The attitudes of men about women, and specifically of husbands about wives, are often demeaning. Their comments may not be intended to hurt, but the truth is that husbands frequently belittle and ridicule their wives with comments about their level of intelligence, their worries, cooking, or habits. Wives, of course, are capable of the same sins, but husbands are more likely to engage in such belittling as a result their sense of being “head.”

The abuse of women in the family is a manifestation of the sexual illness of our society. We live in a sex-diseased society that has developed manifold ways to debase women. Movies and TV focus on rape, violence, and “use” of women. One fourth of all the sex images in “cybersex” involve the torture of women. Virtually everyone agrees all this is terrible, but no one does anything, and “good” people still take part. Christians must separate themselves from such “entertainment” and from such treatment of women. It will not fit with Christ.

Some Christians have also distorted this passage by speaking of a husband’s “umbrella of authority.” So much emphasis is placed on the husband as head that he is seen as a privileged authority figure and wives are reduced to second-level status. In extreme cases wives are not even held responsible for their actions; their husbands are! Headship in this text has nothing to do with privilege; it is about the servant character of authority. Wives do have responsibility for their actions, and they also have equal value. Husbands are not bosses to be served, and wives are not their unthinking slaves.

What does it mean for us? We must once again emphasize that what is said to wives (and husbands) is only an example of the love and mutual submission required of all Christians and that the word “submit” does not even appear in the Greek text of 5:22. Wives are to submit to their husbands. That is, they stand in a giving relation to their husbands as their husbands do to them. But this text does not endorse a chauvinist mentality, with wives being servants doing all the work or agreeing to any request their husbands think up. All it asks is that wives give up self-centeredness, take seriously their mutuality with their husbands, and promote the benefit of their husbands. It underscores that no part of life may be excluded from the marriage relationship.

On the other side, headship does not give husbands privilege and superiority. Arguments from analogy about the headship of Christ and that of the husband cannot conclude that the headships are identical. Just as the fear due the husband is not the same as the fear due Christ because the husband and Christ are different, so the headship of Christ is different. He is Lord over all things; the husband is not lord over anything. The point of the headship analogy is the responsibility husbands have to give themselves to their wives as Christ gave himself for the church. They must be givers, not takers. Husbands are to give up self-centeredness and any privilege of being head in order to promote the well-being of their wives. They are to love their wives as themselves, recognizing that the unity of marriage makes their wives like their own bodies. Husbands should nurture and care for their wives so that they are established and enhanced. When wives are enhanced, so are husbands. The two partners are assumed to be one, mutually enabling each other.

The way Christian marriages are to function is therefore clear from this text. Both partners live first of all in, to, and for the Lord. The real head of the marriage is always Christ, and both partners are to live in mutual submission to each other, seek to promote each other within the purposes of Christ, and live out the oneness of their relationship.

Mutual submission means too that decisions are made by both partners for unselfish reasons. When disagreement occurs, the husband does not automatically have the deciding vote. In such cases, one partner may grant the other person’s choice or both may agree to reject both options. Mutual submission may mean that one partner places career objectives on hold while the other completes an education. It may mean that one person gives up a satisfying job to enable a transfer by the other. It may mean no more than giving the other person freedom to make incidental choices for himself or herself.

It is obvious that this text addresses an ideal situation. What if the husband does not practice mutual submission and love? What if the husband only wants a servant? In the ancient world a woman would have had few choices, and for some women this may still be true. Peter urged wives to instruct husbands and win them to Christ by godly conduct (1 Peter 3:1–6). This too expresses an ideal, but it does point to the need for instruction for husbands.

When a woman enters a marriage relationship today, she does so in a far different way from in the ancient world where she may have had little say in the matter. She and her mate should both enter marriage wisely and with every intention of heeding their vows and living in mutuality. Mutual submission virtually eliminates divorce.

Whereas women in the ancient world had few options other than homemaker, women in our culture have almost unlimited lifestyle, career, and ministry opportunities. Our text does not imply some roles are open to women and others are excluded, and it certainly does not teach the inferiority of women. The increase in opportunities for women changes the way the responsibility of husbands functions. To derive from this text that women may not be in positions of authority is superficial reasoning. If husbands love their wives as themselves, they will both give and seek freedom, respect, and possibilities for their wives. They will support them emotionally and physically and make sure that there is justice in the division of labor in the household.

There are, of course, cultural variations in what is permitted to women. In some cultures women are no better off now than women were in the ancient world. What is the task of the church in these societies? Feminism must never be substituted for the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the church cannot allow the implications of the gospel to be muffled. The gospel includes a focus on the equality of all persons before God and in the church. The old valuations based on sex, race, and economic status can no longer define relationships. All Christians are called to live in mutual submission in the unity found in Christ. No matter what the cultural practice, Christian marriages should be different, and where necessary the sins of the abuse of power and insensitivity by husbands must be confronted.

To what point can the wife live out her Christian commitment and promote the benefit of her husband—and herself—when she receives no benefit in return? Where husbands (or wives) refuse cooperation in mutuality, difficult choices will have to be made. Sadly, one has to admit some circumstances make a marriage unworkable. If there is no mutuality, there is no marriage. If the relationship is abusive, either emotionally or physically, the wife cannot be asked to submit. She is asked to model Christ’s love, not suffer or die at the hands of an abusive husband. She should be advised to remove herself from danger. Truth and justice cannot be ignored.

If a husband asks his wife to do something inappropriate for a Christian, again, she should not submit. Her attitude must be the same as the early church in Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men!” Every human relation is experienced as part of our relation with God.

Since the text places greater responsibility on the privileged person and recognizes that the wife needs to be nurtured, Christian men ought to be particularly concerned to seek justice for women. With the pervasive mistreatment and injustice to women in virtually every culture, I am convinced that Christianity has both a responsibility and an opportunity to speak strongly for the justice of women. Christian men have a responsibility to support all women, single or married, without being patronizing in the process and without turning the responsibility into an opportunity for sexual exploitation.

Sexual intercourse. Paul’s comments on unity in marriage, especially his quotation of Genesis 2:24,50 make an important point about human sexual relations. As the parallel in 1 Corinthians 6:15–17 shows, Paul did not view sexual intercourse merely as a physical act. Rather, he viewed it as an incorporative act whereby two people are bound together and made one. The wife becomes part of her husband and for him to love her is to love himself.51

Dangers. There are dangers, however, in focusing on oneness and mutual submission. One danger is that a husband or wife may give so much attention to the marriage partner that he or she ends up idolizing and fawning over the spouse (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32–35). The marriage relationship is only one relationship, and husband and wife do not enhance each other merely as individuals, but as Christians. The primary commitment of both is always to the Lord, and mutual submission within marriage is only an expression of commitment to the Lord.

A second danger is that so much attention is placed on oneness that individuality is lost. Despite oneness, husband and wife remain two different people with different purposes and callings from God. If dependence becomes overemphasized, one or both partners will be less productive, and the death of one spouse will create havoc in the life of the other.

The relation of Christ and the church (5:22–33). The Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology expressed in this text are all important for the life of the church today. We sometimes get mired in the duties of the church and forget the role of Christ in the church. This text underscores both the love of Christ and the lordship of Christ. That he is head and the church submits to him ought to be a constant reminder that the church has no other agenda than that set and modeled by Christ. Pastors and church boards do not lead churches, other than to help them find the purposes of Christ. A greater sense that Christ leads the church, joined with mutual submission in finding his purposes, will move the church past many of its current problems.

Ephesians 5:25 points to the love Christ demonstrated historically on the cross, but verse 29 and the marriage analogy both point to the continuing love of Christ. He still nurtures and cares for the church, and the church will be much stronger if it is more conscious of his on-going love and presence. More time in church needs to be spent on experiencing Christ, worshiping him, and reflecting on identification with him, rather than just talking about him. The quotation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 ought not be allegorized to refer to Christ’s leaving the Father to come to earth. Paul is interested only in the oneness of Christ with the church.

Christ’s saving work (vv. 26–27) also has a present focus. While the perfection of the church will not occur until the end time, Christ’s work on the cross set apart and cleansed the church to be holy and without blemish in the present. In the doxology (1:4) God’s purpose before the foundation of the world was that his people be holy and blameless (cf. Phil. 2:15).

Obviously one of the most difficult questions is why the church is so filled with imperfections. Do we take imperfections for granted or have we bought into an understanding of “cheap grace” that merely gives salvation, but requires no obedience? Paul knew, of course, the imperfections of the church, as the Corinthian letters attest all too well. But, as all of his letters and especially Ephesians 4–6 show, he repeatedly asked Christians to make true in their lives what God had done for them. Christians are to live differently because they have been set apart to God (cf. 5:26–27). The New Testament knows nothing of a salvation that does not change lives.

The church. The striking part of this text is surely its ecclesiology. Paul’s “body theology” most frequently is used to describe the diversity of the church and the importance of each individual member.52 In Ephesians and Colossians Paul develops his thinking so that Christ is now the head of the body. He focuses now on the relation of Christians to Christ as the one from whom all the body is energized and bound together (Eph. 4:16).

In Ephesians 5:30 the body theology finds its climactic expression. As members of his body, Christians are part of Christ: They are one with him and one with each other. Incorporation into Christ and participation with him are two of the great theological truths of this letter. Paul expects his readers to live with an awareness of being part of Christ.

We have seen earlier that this theology means Christians can no longer view themselves merely as individuals.53 They are bound to Christ and defined by him. With that comes a sense of value and privilege and of Christ’s presence and power for living. Oneness with Christ also brings a sense of mission and involvement in his purposes. We are not part of Christ merely for privilege, but for growth and service (cf. 4:16).

The ethical implications of this theology are immense. Mutual submission is merely a logical conclusion of Paul’s understanding that Christians are part of each other. Oneness with Christ is the basis of all Christian ethics (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15). What sort of activities fit with being part of Christ? The character of Christ is not some external norm to which Christians are to aspire, but the framework of their being. How can they not put into practice their oneness with him? No hint of perfectionism is intended, but being part of Christ is a transforming privilege.

Such reasoning goes far beyond usual explanations of the gospel. The first step in appropriating this text will be in changing our evangelistic ideas. Any proclamation of the gospel is inadequate that does not show people the need of and the possibility of oneness with Christ and of being part of him. Such a diminished gospel will never provide sufficient ethical motive.

This text is of obvious importance for understanding the marriage relation, but that theme fades from center stage. The primary focus is on the relation of Christ and his church. The key themes are the love of Christ and the oneness of Christians with him. That relation drives all other Christian relations, including that of husband and wife.