Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 5:23 - 5:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_5:23-24. Ὅτι ἀνὴρ … ἐκκλησίας ] Reason assigned for the ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ just demanded. For the husband is in the marriage relation the same as Christ is in relation to the church; the former, like the latter, is the head.
ἀνήρ ] a husband is head of his wife; hence ἀνήρ is without, and γυναικός with the article.
ὡς καί ] as also with Christ the relation of being Head exists, namely, in regard to the church.
αὐτὸς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος ] is usually taken as apposition to ὁ Χριστός ,[271] according to which ΑὐΤΌς would take up the subject again with special emphasis (Schaefer, Melet. p. 84; Bernhardy, p. 283): “He, the Saviour of the body,” He who makes His body, i.e. the church, of which He is the Head, partaker of the Messianic σωτηρία (“merito et efficacia,” Calovius). But while there is not here apparent from the connection any purpose, bearing on the matter in hand, for such an emphatic description,[272] there may be urged against it the following ἀλλά , which, if it is not placed in combination with ΑὐΤῸς Ὁ ΣΩΤ . Τ . ΣΏΜ ., admits of no logical explanation. Usually, it is true, this ἀλλά is taken syllogistically (so Beza, Grotius, and others, including Matthies, Olshausen, de Wette). But the syllogistic ἀλλά , and that in the Greek writers combined with ΜΉΝ , is employed for the introduction of the propositio minor (Apollon. Alex. in Beck, Anecd. II. p. 518, 839; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 384; Fritzsche, ad Rom. v. 14; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 63); whereas here we should have the conclusio, and we should thus have to take ἀλλά , in accordance with its usage as breaking off (“argumentorum enarrationem aut aliam cogitationem abrumpit et ad rem ipsam, quae sit agenda, vocat,” Klotz, l.c. p. 5; comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 78), for ὥστε , against which, however, militates the fact that the sentence assigning a reason, ὍΤΙ ἈΝΉΡ Κ . Τ . Λ ., has already fulfilled its destined object (Eph_5:22), so that it could not occur to any reader to seek in the adversative ἈΛΛΆ an inference from this reason-assigning clause. If Paul had wished again to infer, from Eph_5:23, that which is proved by this verse, he would have written οὖν or the metabatic ΔΈ . Besides this, however, Eph_5:24, as an inference from Eph_5:23, would contain a very superfluous prolixity of the discourse, inasmuch as the contents of Eph_5:24 was already so fully given by the thought of Eph_5:23 attached to what precedes by means of ὍΤΙ , that we could not but see here a real logical pleonasm, such as we are not accustomed to meet with in the writings of the concise and sententious Paul. According to Winer, p. 400 [E. T. 565], Eph_5:24 is meant to continue and conclude the argument, so that Eph_5:23 proves the Ὡς Τῷ ΚΥΡΊῼ from the position of Christ and the husband, while Eph_5:24 proves it from the demand implied in this position, and hence ἀλλά amounts ultimately to the sense: “but then, which is the main thing.” But even in this way only a continuing δέ , autem, and not the adversative ἀλλά , at, would be quite in accordance with the thought. When, moreover, it is assumed, with Rückert, Harless, Bleek, that ἀλλά , after the intermediate thought ΑὐΤῸς Ὁ ΣΩΤ . Τ . Σ ., is used as breaking off and leading back to the theme (see Hartung, l.c. II. p. 37), it is self-evident that the brief clause αὐτὸς ὁ σωτ . τ . σ .—introduced, moreover, only as apposition—has not at all interrupted the development, and consequently has not given occasion for such a leading back to the theme.[273] Hofmann finally takes ἀλλά as repelling a possible objection, and to this effect: “But even where the husband is not this (namely, one who makes happy, as like Christ he ought to be) to his wife, that subordination nevertheless remains,” etc. But in this way the very thought, upon which everything is held to turn, is purely read into the passage. In view of all that has been said, I (and Schenkel agrees with me in this) cannot take αὐτὸς ὁ σωτ . τ . σ . as apposition, but only as an independent proposition, and I understand ἀλλά in its ordinary adversative sense, namely, thus: “He for His person, He and no other, is the Saviour of the body; but this relation, which belongs exclusively to Himself, does not take away the obligation of obedience on the part of the wives towards their husbands, nay, rather, as the church obeys Christ, so must also the wives obey their husbands in every respect.” The right view was already perceived by Calvin, when on account of the adversative ἀλλά he proposed the explanation:[274] “Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est servator ecclesiae, nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos praeesse, Christi exemplo, utcunque pari gratia non polleant.” Comp. also Bengel, who aptly remarks: “Vir autem non est servator uxoris; in eo Christus excellit; hinc sed sequitur.” … What Hofmann objects is quite irrelevant; for the thought, that Christ is Saviour of the body, is not superfluous, but has its significant bearing in the contrast which follows; and Paul had not to write ἡμῶν instead of τοῦ σώματος with a view to clearness, since Christ was, in fact, just designated as κεφαλή ; consequently nothing was now more natural and clear than the designation of believers by τοῦ σώματος , the correlative of κεφαλή . The objection of Reiche, that αὐτός comes in asyndetically, can have no weight in the case of Paul especially, and of his brief and terse moral precepts (see immediately Eph_5:28, and comp. in particular Rom_12:9 ff.).
αἱ γυναῖκες ] sc. ὑποτασσέσθωσαν . See Eph_5:22.
ἐν παντί ] in which case it is presupposed that the commanding on the part of the husbands is in keeping with their position as representing Christ towards the wife. Ὡς εὐσεβέσι νομοθετῶν προστέθεικε τὸ ἐν παντί , Theodoret.
[271] Holzhausen (comp. already Chrysostom) has again referred αὐτός to the husband, who is called σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος in comparison with Christ, inasmuch as the being of the wife is conditioned by the husband. Incorrectly, since no reader could refer αὐτός to any other subject than to the one immediately preceding, ὁ Χριστός , and since it was intelligible to describe the church doubtless, but not the wife, as τὸ σῶμα (without further addition). Nor is σωτήρ ever employed in the N.T. otherwise than of Christ or God.
[272] For the view, that hereby a reminder is given to husbands of the fact, which is often forgotten by them, that they (see ver. 29) ought to make their wives truly happy (Erasm., Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rückert, Meier, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius; comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 134 f.), is inadmissible, since the instructions for husbands begin only with ver. 25. Harless remarks: “Inasmuch as the apostle finds the obedience of marriage, realized in it by the wife, also in the relation of the church to Christ, he shows immediately the ground of this peculiar relation in the manifestation of the gracious power of the Lord by redemption.” But in this way the question as to the reason determining this addition is not answered, and the gracious power of the Lord is, in fact, not denoted by the simple σωτήρ . Olshausen (so already Piscator) thought that αὐτὸς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ σώμ . had merely the design of setting forth Christ more distinctly in the character of κεφαλή , inasmuch as it designates the church as the σῶμα which He rules. But it is not τοῦ σώματος that has the emphasis; and κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλ ., spoken of Christ, needed no elucidation, least of all in this Epistle.
[273] And how would Paul have returned to his theme? He would have said again, in another form, in ver. 24, that which he had just said in ver. 23! After so short a clause as αὐτὸς ὁ σωτ . τ . σ ., what an un-Pauline diffuseness!
[274] He did not, however, himself give it the preference, but erroneously took ἀλλά as ceterum, and in αὐτὸς ὁ σωτ . τ . σ . found the thought: “ita nihil esse mulieri utilius nee magis salubre, quam ut marito subsit.”