WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
Ephesians 5.26-33
Milk
December 8th 2019
So, last week we addressed the biblical idea of submitting and then attempted to address verse 22 of wives submitting to their husbands – which was averagely received by some of you.
Our sister Karen posited the opinion that the word submit (huppotasso) is not found in the best manuscripts or oldest manuscripts and therefore gave the inference that it should not be a directive to wives.
I disagreed as it is found in some of the better manuscripts – but not in all. None the less, if we strip it from verse 22, verse 21 still sets the idea firmly in place. Listen to a reading without huppotasso in verse 22:
Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
So whether the term was missing from the verse, as Karen maintains, or not, as I maintain – the meaning is the same – at least on that point.
However I want to reiterate what I said last week: Hupotasso is not a command – it is advice to which a wife must willingly choose to embrace and is not ever, in any way forced. Understanding this is essential to application of it.
Okay, so we addressed those comments regarding wives and entered into the demands Paul places on husbands, saying at verse 25:
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Like it would best read about wives in the Greek, this verse ought to read: “The Husbands!” as if to call them out to pay attention to what he was about to say.
The Husbands! love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.
Then speaking of Christ giving Himself for the church or the assembly or called out, which is the example Paul gives for husbands toward their wives to follow, Paul speaks to this in the next two verses and says:
26 That he (Jesus) might sanctify and cleanse it (the assembly or church) with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
I want to cover these unique passages that Paul inserts here which are highly insightful but debatable as to interpretation.
First of all, Paul is sold out tooth and nail to Christ Jesus – as evidenced in his writings. And so even in giving instructions to husbands and wives he cannot help but insert parallels to Christ and His relationship to His bride – the assembly or the bride.
The first key to interpreting the passage is to see why Paul would include Jesus and the Church here and of course its because he told “the Husbands! To love their wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.
That line speaks to giving up his life for the church – in redeeming her with His blood, which is wherein the life exists.
So Christ loved the called out or assembly and gave His very life for her. Again, died that she might be forgiven, redeemed, justified before God.
But there was a reason for Jesus justifying the bride – and Paul gives it in the very next verse, saying:
6 That (in other words, “So that”) he (Jesus) might sanctify and cleanse it (the assembly or church) with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Now, these verses may or may NOT have application to husbands loving their wives. In one sense they seem to be an added extension from Paul in explaining why Jesus died for the Bride – so that he might sanctify and cleans it with the washing of water by the word so THAT he might present it (the bride) to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle or any such thing, that IT (the church) should be holy and without blemish.”
And then in the next verse he continues forward and returning to the example of husbands and wives says:
28 So (in a like manner) ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
In many ways, this is the most direct and frankly simple manner to explain what these verses mean.
Again, and for reiteration:
Verse 25 says for husbands to love their wifes AS Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.
Then verses 26-27 are why Christ gave himself for the church – as a means to
6 That (in other words, “So that”) he (Jesus) might sanctify and cleanse it (the assembly or church) with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he (Jesus) might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
And then he returns speaking specifically to husbands and says
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.
And then he goes on and talks about this type of self-love one has for their own bodies.
Of course there is another way to interpret Paul’s words here to husbands – and in order to apply it rightly, we have to first see what Paul says here about Christ and the Church or bride in the best way possible – meaning through the Greek – which I have written on the Board.
VS26 That he might sanctify
Hagiazo – make holy, venerate, blameless
Katharizo – to cleanse purge purify
Loutron – to bathe as in baptism
Rhema – a phrase (not LOGOS) and probably meaning the next verse
VS27 That he might present it to himself a glorious
Endoxos – glorified, gorgeous, pristine
Not having Spilos – stains or corruption
Rhutis – wrinkles – especially of the face
Hagios – absolutely holy and sanctified
Amomos – without blame, faultless
So, for starters, IF this is Paul Only and Just speaking about Christ to His Body the Bride, we can see firsthand and from these verses that the BRIDE was to be absolutely without blame. Paul says it right here. It was to be spotless, without wrinkles, and gorgeous.
This was the bride the apostles were preparing in that day from those believers then because if we are still waiting for Christ to come and take his bride, we (the body) are dressed in rags, ugly, wrinkles and spoiled.
But – if (and this is a big IF, mind you) but IF Paul is taking what Christ did with His bride and assigning it to what a husband is expected to ALSO do with his, then
It does not speak to saving her or justifying her sins, it speaks to sanctifying her through his love for her in their marriage which might lead to the process of her sanctification;
That just as Christ sought to sanctify His bride, so she was without spot or wrinkle but remained gorgeous and blameless, a husband, by and through His unconditional love and the fruit of such love, would have the same effect on His bride, as Jesus love and attention had on His.
Remember, there are several allusions to the assembly that are used in scripture. One is the called out, another is the church, another is the bride and another is the Bride.
These are all one and the same.
And Paul says in verses 26-27 what Christ is doing with His bride, which is His own body, as He is the head of it.
And He Jesus is taking her, his own body of which He is head, and He is sanctifying her so that she is without spot but is instead, gloriously gorgeous.
To the same end we then read in the first line of verse 28
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
In my estimation this is the connection to what Paul writes about Christ and his Body and the Husband and his – who is also His wife.
Again, this hearkens back to the garden where man and woman – came from the same source, which is just as Christians come from the source of Christ. And Paul uses this latter example in his instructions to husbands.
Just as Christ loved His body (the church or bride) and prepared her to be without spot or wrinkle when He made her His bride, so husbands ought to treat their wives with the same adoration – as their own bodies. And he adds:
He who loves His wife loves his own body – which is a direct reference to me to the garden and the establishment of marriage – which is when two are one flesh.
And this hearkens back to what I said last week about the origins of Man and woman – and that the natural establishment in marriage, which is when the two become one, is founded on the creation of the two in the first place – the Man created out of the dust by God – which God formed in His own image – and the woman created out of the Man.
Just as there would be no believer in Christ, no Christianity without there being a Christ, and therefore Christ is the head of the Body or bride, there would be no (WO)man without (NO)man.
So headship is implicit by virtue of the creation of the species, remembering that Christ the Head of the Body or Bride, loved His body so much He gave His life for it, and the same expectations are given to the Husband to his wife.
Paul adds now:
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
This point – that we (believers) are members of one body – His body – the body of Christ is made repeatedly in 1st Corinthians 11:3; 12:27; John 15:1-6 and even Ephesians 1:23.
The idea here that Paul seems to be making is that there is a close and intimate union between the Christian and the Savior–a union so intimate that they may be spoken of as being “one,” or as Paul says:
“Of his flesh, and of his bones.”
This appears to be a direct allusion or reference here to the words Adam used respecting Eve, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” in Genesis 2:23.
It is language which is employed to denote the closeness of the marriage relation, and which Paul applies to the connection between Christ and his people.
Naturally, this cannot be understood literally – as some might suggest. It is a mystery of which Paul will soon admit.
And then hearkening back to the advice of Moses to the Children of Israel, Paul says:
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
I have long maintained that this is the biblical definition of Marriage – that it is not what Man has made it with ceremonies and legal documents but in God’s eyes marriage is when two people choose to unite physically one with another, becoming one.
In this state, Paul is telling the husband to love his wife as His own flesh, like the Man Adam would have loved the Woman Eve in the garden before the fall – as His own body – with Eve, prior to the fall, respecting the one from whom she came.
Jesus restored the thinking of this original creation of man and woman back to the hearts of those who are His, by the Spirit of agape love, and in Him (Jesus) marriage discovers its truest definition.
Like it or not, this is what Paul is saying. And then he adds:
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
The first five words of verse 32 appear to have Paul referring to the two male and female becoming one flesh as the mystery, but the second line he adds prevents this interpretation and shows that He is speaking of the mystery of Christ and the Church/Bride or Body being one.
Why is it a mystery? Because it is certainly not literal – that our bones are a part of the bones of Christ’s actual earthly body or our flesh is his flesh.
In other words, it’s not a physical union, though some faiths speak to it as such. But it is a union of attachment, of feeling, of love experienced by the Spirit in us when we become one with Him, His will, His ways, His heart.
I think it was Bultman who said, in “Christ we are all female” meaning he enters us, and in that koinonia experience we do become one with Him.
It is in this very expression of two (man and woman) becoming one that in the earthly state people can experience between each other a similar union.
It is in this union that a man and woman leave father and mother and become one with each other.
It is this union that enables children to leave the nest and cling to another. Which is why it is so sacred – and how it is the very same union with Christ that causes all people, once it has been experienced, to also leave father and mother, brother sister, lands and occupations, for a relationship with Him.
Get it?
So just as a man or woman would go to some great extremes in their lives for the wife that they love or the husband they respect, leaving parents, suffering loss, experiencing depravations and difficulties, so is the Christian willing to experience all manner of losses and difficulties and sacrifices for Him.
In all of this, and so much more, we have the reason behind God hating divorce. This is not to say that it is anathema – its not. We also have some clarification on sexual relations, that they are sacred and important, and reflect to a great extent, the union individuals and nations have with God. That he does not dislike the uniting together as one – he hates the tearing apart.
Paradoxically though, He himself divorced his bride the Nation of Israel though he once claimed her as his bride, as stated in Jeremiah 3:8 saying:
“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”
Getting back to Paul’s advice to married couples, and after speaking of the mystery that was in the union of Christ and His bride, Paul gives us a summary statement, saying:
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
So, Paul reiterates the set up established from the beginning, saying:
“let every one of you in particular (meaning those of you who are married) so love his wife even as himself;
There it is – plain as day – and based in the creation – husbands FIRST (I submit to you, because He was created first) “love your wife EVEN AS HIMSELF, EVEN AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH, and GIVE YOURSELF to her.
And then he adds, what is going to be some bad news for some of you:
“and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”
Now listen – this is speaking of a Christian couple WHERE the husband sets the tone and tenor of the marriage, as head, as one of love. This does not include the nuances of our day with perverts, abusers, controllers, authoritarians, molesters, criminals and the like. The context was not only to them/then but it was also to those Christians couples who followed Christ.
Again, why? Because the Bride was to be holy, sanctified, righteous and without spot or wrinkle. Therefore the apostolic demands given believers was stern.
When Paul says wives are to reverence the husband, the unfortunate but actual term in Greek is FOB-EH-O – and it means,
To frighten, to fear as in to be in awe of.
And there is really no getting around this.
It does not mean to fear him coming home and being in a good mood or not. It means to respect him so much that you seek to please him.
Remember, remember – this is a two way street, but Paul is telling them then how to be in their marriages – and in a perfect world the advice is good.
Ultimate respect would create the kind of response Paul means to give when he uses the term fobeho – but remember the age and day and time.
What these people came from and are still living in! The Spirit, in all believers today, male and female, bond and free, of all nations and creeds, moves in love and the fruit of the Spirit.
So with your spouse discuss these things and see what works best in your marriage, realizing that this advice is given to members of the bride in that day, age and culture and has specific application.
So, this moves us into the next and final chapter of Ephesians – chapter 6 – where Paul now writes:
Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honor thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
We automatically see a difference in the advice Paul gives to husbands and wives – which I did not take notice of last week.
To Husbands love – agapao
To wives submit – hupotasso and Fob-eh-o
To children (and servants) – hoop-akoo-oh
Which is similar to hupotasso but better means to subordinate oneself to, as in to obey. In fact, in every translation I looked at the term was obey which makes sense because the term means
“became obedient”
“becoming obedient”
“heed”
“obedient”
“obey”
“obeyed”
The term is used 21 times in the New Testament, including these examples:
Matthew 8:27: “and the sea obey him!”
Mark 1:27: “unclean spirits, and they do obey him.”
Mark 4:41: “even the wind and the sea obey him?”
Luke 8:25: “the winds and water, and they obey him.”
Acts 6:7: “company of the priests were obedient to the faith.”
Ephesians 6:5: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and”
Philippians 2:12: “beloved, as ye have always obeyed, ”
Colossians 3:20: “Children, obey your parents in all things: ”
Colossians 3:22: “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not”
1 Peter 3:6: “Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: ”
Why Paul used hupotasso in speaking to wives and hupokoo-oh when speaking to children and servants is the one is a choice of the will and the other is a command for adherence.
These differences tell us a great deal about both terms as the wife has the choice on submitting to her husband as led of the spirit and always in the case of whether the husband is in the will of the Lord by love, whereas children and servants are, from the word used, to do what their parents and masters tell them to do.
These were objective demands given by Paul then and have to be understood in this sense when we consider the times and the state of the Bride.
Because the faith is subjectively lived and approached, and the Spirit is moving each individual in their respective lives, there are exceptions to this relative to our age.
I do not think that a child or employee is to unquestioningly obey their parents today when we consider the demands of some parents upon them nor are they emphatically commanded to do whatever their employers tell them to do.
But considering that this was Paul’s advice to them then, and within the scope of reason, I think the decision to be obedient to parents and employers even today continues to remain a best practice for Christians all things considered.
Again, we are talking about the heart of the matter, the spirit of the situation – and not the exceptions.
Reason and wisdom are of the Lord and not a lock-step rule written in ink. Therefore, generally stated, children of Christian parents should obey them, and employees who follow Christ ought to do the same.
The word for children here is “tekna” and it means those who were young enough to be under the care and governance their parents (meaning those who were not of age).
And of course this demand originated from the ten commandments where it reads to honor your parents but the meaning is the same.
Proverbs 23:22 says:
“Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.”
Besides all the obvious reasons for this advice – harmony in the home, the benefit to the child, the fact that children cannot navigate this world effectively without parental advice, the words are important because the family (governance, as it were) is designed to be an imitation of the government of God.
In other words, the government of God, which I described as a hierarchy last week – perhaps insensitively – is what a an ideal family government would be.
Therefore, we would find children being obedient to parents as His children are obedient to Him with the idea being that a disobedient child to their parent will certainly be disobedient to God.
Similarly, and in many cases – the end of a child disobedient to parents (which is often addiction, sorrow, imprisonment and the like) is a similar end (so to speak) to a creation that ignores the directives of his or her maker.
So after commanding children to obey their parents, which is not the command in the ten commandments, Paul resorts to that too, adding at verse 2:
2 Honor thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
What Paul means by this is that this commandments was the first that came with a promise by God annexed or attached to it. And he explains what that promise is in verse three, saying:
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
This promise is given in Exodus 20:12 where we read:
“Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
This promise was actually one specifically applied to this command, but general obedience to all of God’s commands in the Old Testament were tied to the general promise of blessings to those who complied.
Here, Paul just reminds his reader that complicity to the command of honoring father and mother brought with it a specific promise:
“That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.”
The promise is made even more specific in Deuteronomy 5:16 where we read:
“Honor thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
Now, this was the Old Testament promise that was given to the children of the House of Israel.
And Paul certainly appeals to it – but I have to believe that this application is speaking from a general reasonable rule.
What I mean by this is children who are obedient to their parents are generally speaking going to live longer and be better protected from the dangers of this world and life than those who are disobedient.
I mean, that is certainly a fact. But it doesn’t mean it is a concrete promise. There are certainly obedient children who die early by disease or accident or some other horrific meaning – so we can’t get to literal here as Paul is borrowing from the TANAHK.
Perhaps, what he says to them/then there was a continued promise that was applicable, but I think we cannot take these words literally and use them as a sure fire way to avoid premature death in our children.
Perhaps a better way to read this is to say:
The chances of an early death of a child do up commensurately as the child is disobedient (I mean a child who ignores the parents demands to stay out of the street is surely in more danger of being hit than a child who complies) but nevertheless, there are times when God will take the best of children home prematurely, and to use this passage concretely would create quite a disappointment in a parent suffering from such loss.
And I think we will end here.
Questions/Comments
PRAYER
