Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 5:21 - 5:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_5:21 f.[270] The words ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣ . ἈΛΛΉΛ . ἘΝ ΦΌΒῼ ΧΡ . still belong to Eph_5:20 (so Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bleek), parallel to the ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤΟῦΝΤΕς Κ . Τ . Λ ., adding to this relation towards God the mutual relation towards one another. Then begins with αἱ γυναῖκες a new section, into the first precept of which we have to take over the verb from the ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣΌΜΕΝΟΙ just used, namely, ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΕ (Elzevir) or ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣΈΣΘΩΣΑΝ (Lachmann). Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, and others (comp. also Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 183), incorrectly hold that the participle is to be taken imperatively; in that case an ἐστέ to be supplied in thought must, as in Rom_12:9, have been suggested by the context. Olshausen quite arbitrarily proposes that we supply mentally: “are all believers.” If the new section was to begin with ὑποτασσ ., then ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣ . ἈΛΛ . ἘΝ Φ . ΧΡ . would have to be regarded as an absolutely prefixed general attribute, to which the special one afterwards to be adduced would be subordinate (“inasmuch as ye subject yourselves in the fear of Christ, the wives ought,” etc.). It would not militate against this view, that in the sequel only the ὙΠΌΤΑΞΙς of the wives follows, while the ὑπακοή of the children and servants, in chap. 6, can no longer be brought into connection with our ὑποτασσόμενοι . For often with the classical writers also, after the prefixing of such absolute nominatives, which have reference to the whole collectively, the discourse passes only over to one part (not to several); see particularly Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 385 f. But against it may be urged the consideration that αἱ γυναῖκες has no special verb; such a verb, and one correlative as to notion with ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣ ., could not but be associated with it.
On the thought ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ ἈΛΛΉΛΟΙς , comp. 1Pe_5:5; Clem. Cor. 1:38.
ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ ] is the fundamental disposition, in which the ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ ἈΛΛΉΛΟΙς is to take place. And Christ is to be feared as the judge. Comp. 2Co_5:11; 1Co_10:22.
τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ] to their own husbands. Without being misunderstood, Paul might have written merely τοῖς ἀνδράσιν , but ἸΔΊΟΙς serves to make the obligation of the ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ ΤΟῖς ἈΝΔΡΆΣΙΝ palpable in its natural necessity; for what a wife is she, who refuses obedience to her own husband! So also Stobaeus, S. 22: Θεανῶ … ἐρωτηθεῖσα , τί πρῶτον εἴη γυναικί , τὸ τῷ ἰδίῳ , ἔφη , ἀρέσκειν ἀνδρί . Throughout the N.T. ἼΔΙΟς never stands in place of the mere possessive pronoun, but has always, as also with the Greeks, an emphasis to be derived from the connection, even at Mat_12:5; Mat_15:14 (see in loc.); 1Pe_3:1; and Tit_2:5 (where the relation is as in our passage). This in opposition to Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 192], and at the same time in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who (comp. also Dorville, ad Charit. p. 452) see in ὁ ἴδιος ἀνήρ nothing more than a designation which has become usual for the husband. From the very context, in itself ὁ ἀνήρ is husband (Hom. Od. xix. 294; Mat_1:16). That which, on the other hand, Bengel finds in ἰδίοις : “etiamsi alibi meliora viderentur habere consilia,” is imported.
Ὡς Τῷ ΚΥΡΊῼ ] By this is not meant the husbands (Thomas Aquinas, Semler), which must have been τοῖς κυρίοις , but Christ, and ὡς expresses the mode of view in which the wives are to regard their obedience towards the husbands, namely, as rendered to the Lord; comp. Eph_6:6-7. For the husband (see what follows) stands in relation to the wife not otherwise than as Christ to the church; in the conjugal relation the husband is the one who represents Christ to the wife, in so far as he is head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the church. To find in ὡς the mere relation, of resemblance (“uxoris erga maritum officia similia quodammodo sunt officiis Christianorum erga Christum,” Koppe) is erroneous on account of what follows; the passage must have run in the form ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία τῷ κυρίῳ , which Erasmus has imported into his paraphrase: “non aliter, quam ecclesia subdita est Domino Jesu.” We may add that the view of Michaelis—that here and Col_3:18 the teachings as to marriage are directed against errors of the Essenes (comp. 1Ti_4:3)—is the more to be regarded as a fiction, inasmuch as Paul is speaking not of the propriety of marriage, but of the duties of the married life.
[270] A more sublime, more ideal regulation of the married state is not conceivable than that which is here set forth by the apostle, vv. 21–33, and yet it is one which has flowed from the living depth of the Christian consciousness, and hence is practically applicable to all concrete relations.