Ephesians 5:28-33 commentary

 

So ought men to love their women as their own bodies He that loves his wife loves himself For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it even as the Lord the church For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his woman and they two shall be one flesh This is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ and the church Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself and the wife that she fear her husband

Comments: Ephesians 5:28-33 does not establish gender-based hierarchy, as Christians are so commonly taught. What it establishes is that, because of The Fall, husbands will have a sinful tendency to love themselves more than they love their wives. This passage establishes the fact that the prophecy in Genesis 3:16 is being fulfilled and that husbands need to be encouraged to love their wives at least as much as they love their own selves.

But wait, isn’t Jesus’ command that we one another as HE loves us given to the entire Body of Christ? Is it a gender-based command? Is Paul’s reminder to selflessly love one another by preferring one another before ourselves a gender-based admonition? Was Peter’s reminder to love one another deeply a gender-based admonition? So how is it that husbands needing to be told to love their wives is somehow a good thing?

Only gender-biased-theology can transform a fulfillment of a cursed prophecy into a compliment. Ephesians 5:28-33 does not confirm a gender-based hierarchy. Rather, in fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:16, it confirms that husbands will not only have a sinful tendency not to love their wives as Christ loves us but that husbands will be tempted to not love their wives even as much as they love their own selves.

There is no separate set of biblical rules for wives and husbands than for any other Christian. Christ’s commandment for all of his followers to love each other as HE loves us is not a gender-based command, and it is to be taken seriously by every Believer.

So why is it that husbands need to be commanded to love their wives … at least as much as they love their own selves?

Wives are never commanded to love their husbands. Does that mean they don’t have to? Of course not.

Why is it that husbands are warned that if they do not treat their wives right, their prayers will be hindered? Why is it that Paul warned women (Ephesians 5:33) that they should be afraid of their husbands (The Greek word in that verse is more accurately translated as a phobia-based “fear,” and not “reverence”)?

Gender-biased-theology has transformed and twisted the prophecies in Genesis 3:16, into both blessing (for men) and slander (of women). The prophecy was that men would have a sinful tendency to dominate their women and that women would have a sinful tendency to love their men more than their Creator.

Complementarianism teaches women to ignore the voice of God and follow the voice of their husbands, should the two voices contradict.

Complementarianism teaches that women do not have to answer to God if they obey their husbands, even if their husbands lead them into sin. God does not bless sin, whether it is committed by women or men. And he certainly did not bless the first male for disobeying the only “Thou shalt not,” that he was given in The Garden.

Each of the first pair suffered the consequence of their action. The only blessings given in the Genesis three passage, were given to the woman, when she was told that her conception would be multiplied (children are blessings and not curses) and that one of her offspring would defeat the serpent.

As for Ephesians 5:28-33, It is not a hierarchical passage confirming gender-based-authority of men over women, but rather a reproach on husbands that they even need to be commanded to love their wives in the first place.

Husbands who are living their lives according to the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, do not need to be commanded to love their wives.

Ephesians 5:28-33 is meant for men and women who have drunk **the complementarian Kool-Aid, and, because of that some husbands have become physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual threats to some wives.

**Many couples who give lip-service to complementarianism either have or appear to have happy marriages. Complementarian leaders point to this as proof that their doctrine is scriptural and that their unbiblical model of male governance “works.” Looking below the surface, it is often found that in practice, happy couples who give lip service to complementarianism actually live egalitarian lives. Others, such as in the case of [the late] Elisabeth Elliot, hide the authoritarianism and unhappiness in their marriages. Elliot was a life-long champion of male governance. Her marriages were all based on the complementarian model of females submitting to males. In her 1966 book, Let Me be a Woman, Elliot admitted to unhappiness in her marriage but refused to admit the reason for it. She advised her daughter that she should expect to cry for no reason, that women simply cry for “no reason.” I submit to you, that no one cries for no reason. 

Thankfully, there are men do not fall for the complementarian siren song of male governance. Ephesians 5:28-33 is not meant for such men. Likewise, it is not meant for women who are married to such men. These wives need not fear their husbands.

1 Peter 3 Commentary

       1: Likewise the women yield to your own men that if any obey not the Word they also may without the Word be won by the behavior of the wives [1] 2: While with fear they view your pure lifestyle [2] ^phobo 3: Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair and of wearing of gold or of putting on of [expensive/flamboyant] clothing 4: But let it be the hidden person of the heart in that which is not corruptible even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit which is in the sight of God of great price [3] 5: For after this manner in the old time the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves yielding to their own men 6: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham calling him master [4] of whom you have become offspring’s ones doing good and not fearing anything 7: Likewise you husbands ones making a home together with them in an understanding way giving honor to the wife as to the [physically]weaker vessel [5] and as being heirs together of the grace of life that your prayers be not hindered [6] 8: Finally all of you be [of] one mind having compassion one for another Love as brothers and sisters Be full of compassion Be courteous 9: Not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing but contrariwise blessing Knowing that into this you are called that you should inherit a blessing 10: For they that will love life and see good days let them refrain their tongues from evil and their lips that they speak no guile 11: Let them avoid evil and do good Let them seek peace and pursue it 12: For the eyes of the Lord are over the just ones and his ears are open to their prayers but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil 13: And who are they that will harm you if you be followers of that which is good 14: But and if you suffer for righteousness' sake happy are you and be not afraid of their terror neither be troubled 15: But make holy the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear 16: Having a good conscience that whereas they speak evil of you as of evildoers they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good behavior in Christ 17: For it is better if the will of God be so that you suffer for well doing than for evil doing [7] 18: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit 19: By which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20: Which sometime were disobedient when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was a preparing wherein few that is eight souls were saved by water 21: The representation even baptism which does also now save us not the putting off of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 22: Who is gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God ^YHWH angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him

---

[1] In 1 Peter 3:1, is the writer telling wives that they are basically slaves and should emulate the subjective behavior of slaves as instructed in 1 Peter 2:18?

This writer does not believe so. Hebrew and Greek scholar, Bruce Fleming, does not believe so either. Fleming teaches that 1 Peter 3:1 is not connected at all with 1 Peter 2:18-25 but rather an entirely new subject. He speaks about this in season four of his Eden Podcast, and he makes some very good points: The Eden Podcast with Bruce C. E. Fleming: BEST OF Season Four! 1 Cor 11, 14 & 1 Peter 3 on Apple Podcasts

 Fleming’s interpretation is possible. But regardless, this writer believes there is no doubt [that in the mind of the biblical writer] 1 Peter 3:1 is a continuation of the subject introduced in the last eight verses of 1 Peter 2 [:18-25] about slaves enduring unjust harshness and violence from masters. Without chapter and verse breaks [which is how the Bible was originally written], the passage is clearly one unbroken conversation about one topic, that of slaves being subject to masters and the writer leads seamlessly into the subject of women subjecting themselves to men: QUOTE “Slaves [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this [is] thankworthy if one for conscience toward God endure grief suffering wrongfully For what glory [is it] if when you be beaten for your faults you shall take it patiently But if when you do well and suffer [for it] you take it patiently this [is] acceptable with God For even to this were you called ^{we are all called to this} because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an example that you should follow his steps Who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth Who when he was reviled, reviled not again When He suffered he threatened not but committed [himself] to Him that judges righteously Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead to sins should live to righteousness by whose stripes you were healed For you were as sheep going astray but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls Likewise women …[be] in subjection to your own men that if any obey not the Word they also may without the Word be won by the behavior of the women.” END QUOTE

 Peter certainly made a seamless connection when writing about the subjection of slaves to masters and the subjection of women to their men. This is confirmed in 1 Peter 3:5-6 where he wrote that Sara called Abraham master. Nowhere do we read in scripture where Sarah called Abraham master, so this statement must be taken from the Jewish extra-scriptural writings. These writings are commentary and not inspired scripture, but Peter was obviously familiar with them.

 19^th Century Greek and Hebrew scholar, Katherine Bushnell did not believe women are scripturally commanded to subject themselves to male dominance on any level. But she also believed that 1 Peter 3:1 was connected with 1 Peter 2:18 and she had this to say about it she began with the Hebrew and then show how the Greek [in 1 Peter] connected with it: QUOTE “The Old Testament sense in which "to be in subjection" is sometimes used, is highly suggestive and instructive. Psalm 62:1 reads in the English, "truly my soul waiteth upon God; from Him cometh my salvation.” At verse 5 of the same Psalm, we read: "My soul, wait thou only upon God.” In Psalm 37:7 we find the words: "Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him.” The words "wait" in the first passages, and the word "rest" in the last are all three represented in the Greek version by the single word hupotasso, "be in subjection," while the literal sense of the Hebrew original word is "be silent unto.” Compare this with 1 Peter 3:1,2, where wives are exhorted to win unbelieving husbands by "subjection.” Surely Peter is not here exhorting wives to blindly obey unbelievers, for if heathen, they would at once remand them back to the worship of the gods; if Jews, back to Judaism. Rather, they are to win them away from these by their "manner of life,” “without The Word,"--actions speaking louder than words. "Coupled with fear,"—such fear of God as would cause these women, so gentle, quiet, and patient in daily life, to be as adamant in their truth to God; and the husbands so overawed by their quiet maintenance of principle, whereas they are so ready to yield to their husbands when principle is not involved, that the husbands dare not try to compel their wives to violate conscience, and thus are themselves gradually led into the Christian faith. Where “subjection” is spoken of as a woman’s duty, without further immediate specification, it has been too readily assumed that this means subjection to a husband. But many women even from Apostolic days, and certainly an increasing large proportion of women in latter days, have no husbands. In both 1 Corinthians 14:34, “let them be in subjection”; and in 1 Timothy 2:11, “learn in all subjection,” this O. T. idea of waiting on God, or the thought of a spirit of humility towards God, may be all that is intended.” END QUOTE

 ANOTHER VIEW

The biblical writer’s direction to slaves and women were not biblical condonements of institutionalized slavery or systemically-mandated female subjection to males, but this writer believes the instruction found 1 peter 2:18 and 1 Peter 3:1 stem from concern for the safety of both.

 It was taught then that all Christians [slaves, women, and men] were spiritually free in Christ, and all Christians [then and now] are equal ^{Galatians 3:28,1 Peter 5:5}, but depending on geographic location and local and national laws, all were, and are, not entitled to the same legal autonomy. While earth-bound, Roman slaves and women were still confined by oppressive laws and cultural expectations. That is still the case in many parts of the world today. 1 Peter 2 & 3 was both instruction and encouragement that a godly lifestyle in freely subjecting oneself to an unfortunate legally-mandated lot would not only *keep slaves safer but also was not un-noticed by God and would not go unrewarded. Women were higher on the social and legal scales than slaves, but their autonomy was still greatly restricted, and they were maliciously written about by philosophers, playwrights, and poets of the day. Though enjoying more legal protections, by the first century, domestic violence was still a very real part of Roman and Jewish life and first century Christian women were certainly at risk.

 *Throughout Roman history, slaves could be killed at will by masters with no repercussion. By the time of Christ, manus marriage, which entitled Roman husbands to arbitrarily kill wives was replaced by sine manu marriage, whereby married women remained under the protection of their pater-families or of a male guardian appointed by their pater-families. This made the murder wives [with little to no legal or social repercussion] much more difficult. But domestic violence and abuse was another subject altogether. The Romans from Augustus on, liked to appear fair and gentle in public by passing some very good laws favoring women, but one Greek/Roman historian lamented that literary writings on the subject of domestic abuse and domestic violence [in the late republic] is frustratingly quiet. In other words, domestic abuse was winked at and swept under the rug.

 Domestic violence and abuse are a given in any society that considers women as inferior or lesser than men. Virtually all the Church Fathers, considered women inferior and dangerous if given autonomy. They repeat this often in their writings. These same Church Fathers continue to be studied extensively today, as they should but with their anti-women rhetoric refuted in Christian seminaries, but it is not. It is simply ignored.

 Gender-bias in Bible translation is rampant and creates a perceived scripture-bias against women where none exists. Holy Spirit inspired biblical writers do not exhibit such bias, but this is difficult to see when modern translators insist on holding to historical and traditional attitudes that are harmful to women. Even today, with progressive laws, three women a day [in the United States] die from domestic violence. A Methodist survey done in the 1970’s, found that one in six Christian women experienced violence at the hands of husbands or boyfriends. Domestic violence among professing Christians is just as rampant as among unbelievers. Why would anyone assume that First Century women were not at even greater risk when misogyny was the systemically-legal order of the day and the norm for their culture? 

Cultures exist today, where Christians are both legally enslaved and women are literally slaves of their husbands. Many of these women must hide their faith in Christ. They would not in any case be able to speak of Christ or share his Word with their husbands, who are literally and legally their masters. Many have zero legal recourse against abuse or potentially deadly domestic violence. They must, of necessity endure the harshness and danger, with seemingly no hope of escape. Just as 1 Peter 2:18 is not a message to Christian slaves that institutionalized slavery is God’s will, 1 Peter 3:2 is not a message to Christian women that God created them as inferiors to men or that it is his will for them tolerate violence and abuse. It was a message intended to protect [as much as possible] and encourage slaves and at-risk women of every era.

 [2] ^{1 Peter 3:2} It is interesting that the Bible is full of admonitions to “fear not,” yet wives are told to fear husbands twice in the New Testament. In Ephesians 5:33, the word translated as reverence, literally translates as fear.  

 [3] ^{1 Peter 3:4} Meekness, which should never be mistaken for weakness, is for all Christians, not just women. Moses, the most powerful man among the Hebrews, was called the meekest man on earth ^{Matthew 5:5}.

 [4] ^{1 Peter 3:6} It is thought that Sarah and Abraham lived in or around the time of the “progressive” king, Hammurabi. Among other things, Hammurabi’s law permitted men to divorce wives who did not bear children. Men in every culture of the time were legally masters over their women.

 [5] ^{1 Peter 3:7} Might does not make right

 [6] ^{1 Peter 3:7} Though this verse speaks specifically to husbands, the prayers of anyone male or female, married or unmarried, will be hindered when we throw our strength around, oppressing those who are weaker than us.

 Of note is the fact that most Christians have heard 1 Peter 3:1 quoted or preached on many times during their lives, with 1 Peter 3:7 occasionally thrown in as an after-thought. There is no doubt the priority of traditional-role-religion and its more virulent offspring, complementarianism, has been to keep the influence and autonomy of Christian women to a minimum.

[7] ^{1 Peter 3:17} This passage [beginning with verse 1] has been taken out of context and used for millennia in forcing or guilting Christian women to remain in abusive relationships. Read my commentary on 1 Peter 3:1: Jocelyn Andersen: 1 Peter 3:1 Does not mandate female subordination or male headship.

Titus 2 commentary

    1: But you speak things which are fitting for sound doctrine 2: Men [who are] elders be sober grave temperate sound in faith in love in patience 3: Women [who are] elders likewise in deportment reverent not false accusers not given to much wine teachers of good things 4: To nurture ^[Tyndale] the young be sober affectionate [1]maternal 5: self-controlled pure [2]guards [of the] home good yielding to their men [3] that the word of God be not evil spoken of 6: Young [men] likewise exhort to exercise self-control 7: In all things showing yourselves a pattern of good works in doctrine showing uncorruptness gravity sincerity 8: Sound speech that cannot be condemned that [they] from [the adversary who are] against [us] may be ashamed having no evil thing to say of you 9: Slaves to be obedient unto your masters and be well pleasing in all things not talking back 10: Not embezzling but showing all good fidelity that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior[4] in all things 11: For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to every person 12: Teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present age 13: Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ ^{Jesus is God} 14: Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all sin and purify unto himself a unique people zealous of good works 15: These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority Let no one despise you

---

[1] There is nothing weak or subordinate about being maternal. The Holy Spirit (Greek Pneuma neuter / Hebrew Ruwach feminine) is maternal. We see that in Genesis 1:2 where Ruwach Elohiym broods and flutters over the face of the waters (like a mother hen or bird). Deborah, as supreme leader of the nation, was called a Mother in Israel.

[2] How is it that “guards of the home” gets translated into house-keepers or housewives? Only by misogyny in Bible translation and commentary. 

[3] In the social hierarchy of ancient times, the status of women was only just above that of slaves. The equal status of Christian women under Paul’s leadership was scandalous. The Greek word, hypotasso, mistranslated here [concerning wives] as “be obedient to,” is grammatically in the “middle voice” which softens it from a military term to a voluntary, Christlike, yielding, as in “preferring one another before ourselves.” We see a New Testament example of the word being used in just such a manner in 1 Peter 5:5 (KJV).  

The word hypotasso, most often translated as submit,be subject to, and be in subjection to, does not always mean to be arrayed “under.” So, the accepted definition is erroneous. If Paul intended hypotasso to mean “obey” or “be subject to” in this verse [and we maintain that he did not], it should be taken entirely within the cultural constructs of the time where just a few verses down, he also instructs slaves to be obedient to masters. 

The entire civilized world, now rightly condemns the enslavement of human beings and recognizes it for the primitive sin that it is. So why is it that using religion to enslave women [female submission doctrine] continues to be accepted and touted as God’s *glorious design? 

The fact that some women claim to cheerfully accept the yoke of gender-based bondage, does not change the nature of it. The fact that some women have “good masters” does not negate the fact that their autonomy as adults is abridged by complementarian doctrine. 

Using religion to coerce women into subjection to men is a form of slavery. Calling the design “glorious” is pure propaganda. 

*Since the 2010 release of, Woman this is War! Gender, Slavery and theEvangelical Caste System,” where the “glorious design” motto of CBMW (and the rhetoric of ***prominent complementarians) was compared to that of the Civil War Confederacy,” in touting their “glorious” cause [of preserving a way of life built entirely on slavery], CBMW has since deleted from their website any mention of, **“Proclaiming God’s Glorious Design for Men and Women.” However, leading complementarians in concert with one another, continue use a slightly modified form of their former motto. They are now “Proclaiming God’s Good Design.”

 ** The former motto can be viewed via internet archive screen shots. By 2014, CBMW had completely scrubbed it from its website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128171603/http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Summaries-of-the-Egalitarian-and-Complementarian-Positions

*** “Discipline doesn’t stifle; it gives power…Why shouldn’t it be so when we consider the glorious hierarchal order too?” (emphasis added) Elizabeth Elliott, Let Me be a Woman: Notes to My Daughter on the Meaning of Womanhood, Living Books, Wheaton, Ill, 1982

[4] Jesus is YHWH. Jesus is God…not a subordinate member of the Godhead. ALL the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus in Physical form (Colossians 2:9). The hierarchical theory of the Godhead is the old Aryan Heresy that, historically, was soundly rejected by all respected biblical scholars but revived in the 1980’s by complementarian leaders who found that it worked nicely to shore up female subjection doctrine that is so flimsy, Charles Stanley wrote in his 1988 book, A Man’s Touch (published one year after the Danvers Statement), that if there was no hierarchy within the Godhead, then complementarians had no basis for teaching gender-based subordination.
.. 

...