Translating Ephesians 5.33

Abstract

This article argues that Eph 5.33b should be understood as “so that the wife may respect her husband” and that translations should reflect this understanding in ways appropriate to the target language. In English translations, φοβῆται “may respect,” though subjunctive in form, is typically rendered as a command in function, thus giving the wife a unilateral instruction instead of expressing a probable result of the prior command for husbands to love their wives. For English translations, Eph 5.33b should be translated as a dependent result clause, with ἵνα “so that” expressed rather than omitted from translation, and with the subjunctive form φοβῆται “may respect” translated as subjunctive in function.

The NIV of Eph 5.33 exemplifies how the verse is typically rendered in English: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” This article argues, however, that Eph 5.33b should be understood as “so that the wife may respect her husband,” and that translations should reflect this understanding in ways appropriate to the target language. For English translations, Eph 5.33b is best translated as a dependent result clause, with ἵνα “so that” expressed rather than omitted from translation, and with φοβῆται “may respect” translated as a subjunctive rather than as an imperative—hence, “so that the wife may respect her husband.” In contrast, the habit among English Bibles is to translate ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα ¹ as an independent clause, leaving ἵνα unexpressed and rendering the subjunctive as a command. ²

Various features of the Ephesians household code are integral to interpreting 5.33b. Careful consideration of ὑποτάσσω “submit, yield” and πλήν “but, in any case, to sum up, indeed,” for example, show Paul’s instructions to husbands as consistent with his teaching on unity in Christ. ³ Similarly, one’s translation of 5.33 affects interpretation of the household code of which it is a part. As part of the christological epideictic rhetoric found throughout Ephesians, Paul’s code subverts the overlapping Hellenistic household culture and the culture of Artemis worship. ⁴

Historical-cultural context

Some scholars consider Ephesians a circular letter for the province of Asia. Nevertheless, since Ephesus was the most prominent city in the region and was central to Paul’s missionary activity, it is appropriate to think of the Ephesian Christians as the primary recipients.

Ephesus reached its zenith during the first century A.D. It boasted certain characteristics of Greco-Roman culture. Most notable was its temple for the goddess Artemis. Rick Strelan argues that maintaining εὐσέβεια, which he defines as having right relationships, “including those of marriage, family, and city, but also with the gods,” was critical in Ephesus (1996, 28). ⁵ The household code in Ephesians speaks to this concern. Strelan also describes the role of the Artemis cult in determining family relationships, and Artemis as a σωτήρ “protector, deliverer, savior” (1996, 48; Hoag 2015, 151, 181). A σωτήρ, however, was not typically understood by the Ephesian people as implying divinity but as one who provides safety, protection, and preservation (Strelan 1996, 50, 50n66, 51). ⁶ Emperors, benefactors, and civic leaders were called “saviors” (Hoag 2015, 40, 42, 55, 137). Strelan notes, “According to Callimachus’ Hymn, Artemis asked Zeus to be allowed to be an eternal virgin, roaming the mountains, and visiting towns only to help women in childbirth” (1996, 48). Therefore, Artemis was also known as the goddess of childbirth (Hoag 2015, 28, 91–92). Artemis was believed to grant epiphanies, too (Strelan 1996, 75–76); therefore, the letter’s epideictic rhetoric emphasizes God’s revealing of mysteries in Christ (e.g., 1.9, 17; 3.3, 4, 9; 5.32; 6.19) and what is praiseworthy in the present, not only in the future (Witherington 2007, 9).

Intertwined with maintaining εὐσέβεια and the Artemis cult was the honor–shame culture of the recipients. Lynn Cohick explains that the path to accumulating honor included submission to those in authority or of higher status. She further clarifies that Paul expected Christians, by contrast, to relinquish honor in certain situations (2010, 129; 2020, 349–50, 369–70).

Though Ephesian women held essential roles in cults and civic affairs more than in most Greco-Roman cities, patriarchy was pervasive. The Romans envisioned their household as a temple and the paterfamilias as its priest (Turcan 2001, 14). In contrast to the household codes in Eph 5–6 and Col 3–4, Greco-Roman writers stressed that a man should treat his wife as rational but lacking authority, and that he should rule his children like a king and his slaves like a despot (Witherington 2007, 320). The culture’s reciprocal patron–client relationships inform the logic of Paul’s household codes in Ephesians and Colossians (Westfall 2013, 578). ⁷

Literary context

The several editions of the Greek New Testament in wide use print the same wording of Eph 5.33. The Center for New Testament Textual Studies critical apparatus notes nine points of minor variation in 5.33. These variations, however, are inconsequential.

Ephesians is a masterpiece of ecclesiology, setting forth a doctrine of the church as the universal and united body of Christ (e.g., 1.22; 5.32). Paul describes the body in 2.1–3.21 and gives instructions for the body in 4.1–6.20.

Κεφαλή “head” appears in 1.22-23, with Christ as “head over all things,” and again in 4.15-16 (“the head … from whom the whole body … grows”). The household code uses κεφαλή to emphasize the unity implicit in the metaphor of the head attached to the body or torso (Hemphill 2021, 3–9). Paul’s controlling ethic in Ephesians is love, poignantly expressed in 5.2: “walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself for us.” Ephesians mentions the cross once, in reference to unity between Jew and Gentile in 2.16a: “and might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross” (NRSVue).

Ephesians 5 begins with the imperative clause “therefore, be imitators of God,” continuing a series of imperatives from 4.25 (“speak the truth”) to 5.18 (“be filled with the Spirit”). The chapter connects to preceding material by means of οὖν “therefore,” thus joining forgiveness of one another (4.32) with imitation of God (5.1).

To imitate God is the first of several imperatives in ch. 5, both positive and negative. The positive commands describe this imitation as one’s walk or way of life: “walk in love” (5.2), “walk as children of light” (5.8), “watch carefully how you walk” (5.15). The negative commands function both as rules to live by and as warnings (e.g., vv. 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, 18). This string of parenetic imperatives ends with “be filled with the Spirit,” which in turn introduces a stack of five participles naming features of a Spirit-filled life. The last of these participles (“submitting, yielding yourselves”) leads to Paul’s household code. Not only is marriage in view (5.22-33), but the code goes on to address children and parents (6.1-4), and slaves and masters (6.5-9).

Ephesians 5.21 should be understood as a transitional verse, given its connections to the preceding participles and to the subsequent household code (Cohick 2020, 350–51; Witherington 1988, 54). Cynthia Westfall rightly argues against Andrew Lincoln’s “broad chiasmus” view, in which he sees wives addressed in 5.22-24, husbands in 5.25-32, then wives again in 5.33 (Lincoln 1990, 384). Westfall believes there is a “literary unity” and a summary-conclusion device, but not a formal chiasm (2013, 595n94).

Understanding 5.33, the subsection’s final verse, as a summary-conclusion of directions to the husband and not also as a wife-oriented section of a chiasm aligns with the fact that none of the other nineteen NT household codes’ subsections ends with additional instruction for formerly addressed persons. Instead, each of the groups is addressed once and separately. ⁸

The Ephesians code deviates from the eight common Greco-Roman elements of such a code. One deviation is that “the element of imperative exhortation is missing from the instructions to the wives. Though she is the first addressed, her obligations are relatively backgrounded by the grammar” (Westfall 2013, 574). In contrast to the instructions to husbands, at whom Paul aims two imperatives (vv. 25, 33) and one “ought” construction (v. 28), the wives’ instructions in vv. 22 and 24 are implied rather than expressed. At the outset, Paul limits the yielding of wives to their husbands to how they similarly yield to other Christians in mutual submission (Westfall 2013, 576), especially since the “yielding” participle implicit in 5.22 ⁹ is reciprocal in 5.21 (ἀλλήλοις “to one another”).

The main definition in BDAG for ὑποτάσσω, found in Eph 5.21 and 24, is “to cause to be in a subordinate relationship, to subject, to subordinate … bring someone to subjection … become subject … subject oneself,” yet BDAG also qualifies Eph 5.21 with “the sense of voluntary yielding in love.” This qualification is proper, given the difference from the instructions to children to obey (ὑπακούετε) their parents (Gibson 1904, 380; Bushnell 1921, 133). ¹⁰

Context requires a middle (“yielding yourselves”) rather than passive translation of ὑποτασσόμενοι here in 5.21 and, by implication, in 5.22. Cohick concurs that Paul intends the middle voice: “Most likely Paul stresses the middle with its emphasis on the believers’ choice to submit to others in the community’s worship life as believers soberly and joyfully celebrate their new life in Christ” (2020, 349; cf. Cohick 2010, 136–37; Merkle 2016, 177). Paul is not asking the Christians of the province of Asia to obey each other, but to voluntarily yield to each other in love.

Concerning understanding ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ in v. 22 in the sense of “as for the Lord,” F. F. Bruce discerns that wives are to exhibit deference to their husbands because it is a duty they owe to the Lord, in contrast to the view that wives owe their husbands the same kind of deference they give to the Lord (2012, 119). ¹¹ Paul’s intent is further clarified by his instructions to wives in Col 3.18: “Wives, yield yourselves to your husbands in such a way as is fitting [BDAG, 1103] in the Lord.” Compare CEB: “Wives, submit to your husbands in a way that is appropriate in the Lord” (italics added). It is not unqualified deference, nor the same type of deference. She is to give the appropriate type of deference for a Christian. As will be seen in Eph 5.33, understood within the obligations of a patron–client relationship, the wife will naturally return respect to a husband from whom she receives love, instead of unilaterally yielding to his supposed authority (Westfall 2013, 587).

In Eph 5.23, Christ the σωτήρ of the church is best understood as Christ the “protector.” This is the case because of both the literary context (husbands are not asked to be their wives’ saviors) and the cultural context (Artemis as a σωτήρ who protects [Hoag 2015, 164n11]). Paul, then, is subverting Artemis and calling the wife to yield to her husband as her protector instead of Artemis, in the way that the church yields to Christ as its protector.

As previously noted, Paul’s use of κεφαλή “head” in Eph 5.23 emphasizes his grand theme of unity in this letter. The united body/head metaphor is further defined by the quotation from Gen 2.24 in Eph 5.31, with the unity of one flesh from the two: The head and body are one flesh. This is counter to the argument that “head” in the 5.23 metaphor should be additionally interpreted in a secondary sense as “authority” or “source” (Hemphill 2021, 3–9), since there is no “headship” in Gen 2.24. Moreover, this analogy in 5.23 contrasts with the analogy in 1.22-23, where κεφαλή “head” is compared to and conquers what is under his πόδας “feet” (Cohick 2010, 137).

A full treatment of the instructions to husbands is beyond the scope of this article, ¹² but several keys should be pointed out before we examine Eph 5.33 in depth. First, a husband’s rule over his wife as paterfamilias would be typical in a Greco-Roman household code, but here Paul subverts such codes by replacing “rule” with “love” (Strelan 1996, 48).

Second, Paul does not command husbands to demand submission from their wives. “A command to submit does not constitute a reversed mandate for the other to subjugate” (Westfall 2016, 76).

Third, as I. Howard Marshall recognizes, “The biblical command to love one’s neighbor as oneself is here transmuted and focused into love for one’s wife as for oneself” (2005, 199; cf. Witherington 2007, 334–35; Lincoln 1990, 384). Similarly, Westfall calls Eph 5.33 the “Golden Rule in gender relationships” (2016, 95).

Fourth, by combining the Lev 19.18b reference with the “one flesh” concept in the more obvious intertextual reference to Gen 2.24, Paul has theological warrant to apply Lev 19.18b to marriage. Lincoln concludes, “It is because of the claim of the Genesis text that the act of marriage makes husband and wife one flesh that he can make the comparison of the wives to their husbands’ bodies” (1990, 378). J. Richard Middleton elaborates that Eph 5’s appeal to God’s creational intent in Gen 2.24 is paralleled in Jesus’s answer to the Pharisees concerning divorce (2017, 51).

Last, John Barclay sees an inversion of hierarchical order as foundational in Paul’s ethics and applicable to the marriage relationship. Noting the reference to Lev 19.18b in Gal 5.13-14, he states, “This reciprocity of relations, which does not eradicate but continually inverts a hierarchical order, is a hallmark of Pauline social ethics, not only with respect to the church as a ‘body’ … but also in marriage” (2011, 435–36). In contrast to using their freedom, free persons were to serve others as slaves.

Serving as if a slave is comparable to Paul asking husbands to serve their wives in love as if they themselves were wives. Where the husband is told to care for his wife, the verbs employed are associated with that culture’s typical women’s work; “the wife is the husband’s model for mutual submission” (Westfall 2013, 594, cf. 572).

Translating Ephesians 5.33

πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ’ ἕνα, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.

Ephesians 5.33 begins with πλήν. We agree with BDAG that πλήν here indicates “breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important.” Our agreement is based, in part, on the position of 5.33 at the end of a distinct unit of text. Translations such as “To sum up” (CSB) and “In any case” (CEB) are aimed in this direction. We propose the simple translation, “Indeed,” which does not contrast with what has come before (as would “but” or “however”). Instead, “indeed” here signals the reader or hearer to expect an important statement (a reason, conclusion, ramification, or motivation) that closes a segment of the argument. As further explained below, we believe Eph 5.33b is best understood as giving the passage’s final motivation for the husband’s Christlike actions.

The subject of this independent clause is emphatic, even redundant. CEB captures the emphasis (“as for you individually, each one of you”). The important statement anticipated by πλήν includes a focus on individuals, in contrast to the use of plurals more typical in 5.22-32. Our translation adds the word “husband” to be clear that “each of you” does not refer to wives or to unmarried men. Hence, “Indeed, as for you individually, each husband among you.”

Reflexive pronouns surround the remainder of the independent clause. The first adds clarity (ἑαυτοῦ, hence “his own wife” and not someone else’s), much like τοῖς ἰδίοις in 5.22, where wives are to yield to “their own” husbands, not to all husbands or to men in general. The second (ἑαυτόν) functions reflexively (“as he loves himself” ).

The verb ἀγαπάτω “love” is third-person imperative. Adding “must” to the translation accommodates English grammar’s lack of a third-person imperative. Thus, our translation of the independent clause is, “Indeed, as for you individually, each husband among you must love his own wife as himself.”

Moving to the second clause in 5.33, we approach the heart of our argument. The mid-verse conjunction is postpositive, as is typical, hence ἡ δὲ γυνή. The conjunction’s function here is “additive relation, with possible suggestion of contrast, at the same time” (BDAG 213.3), ¹³ and we embrace BDAG’s comment that “in certain occurrences” δέ “may be left untranslated” (213). Consider, for example, Matt 24.20 and its parallel, Mark 13.18, which—like Eph 5.33—have a sequence of an imperative, then δέ+ἵνα, then a subjunctive verb: “Pray [imperative] that [ἵνα] your flight may not be [subjunctive] in winter or on a Sabbath” (Matt 24.20 NET). Like NET, numerous versions leave δέ untranslated in such a construction (CEB, CSB, ESV, NIV, NRSVue, RSV, etc.). The conjunction does not influence the force of the subsequent ἵνα. Whereas some scholars see δέ as Paul linking commands to husband and wife and thus translate δέ as “and,” we suggest he uses δέ to slightly contrast the command of loving one’s neighbor (5.28, 33a) with the additional motivation of gaining a wife’s respect, given in the dependent clause.

This dependent clause presents a wife’s respect for her husband as a result of the husband’s love. That is, one natural result of the husband’s love is the wife’s respect. Because this is not the majority view, three alternative views are summarized below. The two less-common alternative views will be treated briefly; the third and dominant view will be examined more closely.

“The wife” as a pendent nominative: “and the wife, she should respect the husband”

The least common of the three views we will survey concerns the pendent nominative. One recent proponent of this view is Benjamin Merkle, who identifies ἡ γυνή “the wife” as a pendent nominative, citing Daniel Wallace’s definition (2016, 192; Wallace 1996, 51–52). But essential to Wallace’s definition of a pendent nominative is the presence of a pronoun: “This nominative substantive is the logical rather than the syntactical subject at the beginning of a sentence, followed by a sentence in which this subject is now replaced by a pronoun in the case required by the syntax” (1996, 51; cf. Wallace 2000, 34; Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer 2020, 61–62). Wallace reiterates this need for a subsequent pronoun in a paragraph labeled “Clarification,” and such a pronoun is then present in each of the five examples he provides (1996, 51–52). Wallace, in turn, points to the definition of a pendent nominative given by Maximilian Zerwick, who also requires a subsequent pronoun (1962, §25; cited in Wallace 1996, 51n49). Tracing the pendent nominative view from Merkle to Wallace to Zerwick is not intended as an exhaustive survey of grammarians; rather, it shows the theory moving forward unchallenged.

Not only does the absence of a subsequent pronoun from Eph 5.33 challenge γυνή as a pendent nominative, but there is also no need to consider functions of the nominative beyond its standard use (nominative as subject). Such a need would arise if the nominative were “grammatically unrelated to the rest of the sentence” (Wallace 1996, 51; 2000, 34).

Word order—that the subject γυνή precedes rather than follows ἵνα—is the culprit causing some to consider the subject disjointed (Morrice 1972, 329; Hoehner 2002, 783). However, surveying the twenty-three instances of ἵνα+subjunctive in Ephesians shows that the subject can indeed precede or follow ἵνα without resulting in atypical translations. Examples of varying word order are provided below (neither list is exhaustive).

Subject preceding ἵνα

2.4-7: ὁ δὲ θεὸς … ἵνα ἐνδείξηται, “so that God may show”

4.29: ἀγαθὸς … ἵνα δῷ, “so that the good [word] may give”

5.25-26: ὁ Χριστὸς … ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ, “so that Christ may sanctify it”

Subject following ἵνα

1.17: ἵνα ὁ θεὸς … δώη, “so that God may give”

2.9: ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται, “so that no one may boast”

3.10: ἵνα γνωρισθῇ … σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, “so that God’s wisdom may be made known”

5.33b as elliptical: “I wish the wife would respect the husband”

A second minority view, found periodically in scholarship but essentially absent from English translations, is that Eph 5.33b is elliptical. That is, the author has implied, rather than stated, both a subject (“I” or “we”) and a verb (“desire,” “wish,” etc.). In 1944, A. R. George posited that θέλω “I desire” should fill this supposed ellipsis (57). More recently, in 2009, William Larkin reiterated the elliptical view (143).

This elliptical view seems appropriate when context clues prompt it. Four texts will serve as examples, two from the Gospels and two from Paul’s Letters. In Mark 10.51, Jesus is addressed in the vocative (ραββουνι “my teacher”), setting a deferential tone. Ραββουνι, ἵνα ἀναβλέψω could be rendered as a command, “My teacher, make me see!” But Jesus has already asked, “What do you want me to do for you?” The presence of θέλω in Jesus’s question gives contextual rationale for inserting “wish, want” into the answer: “Teacher, I want to see!” A subjunctive translation, of course, is also suitable: “What do you want me to do for you? Teacher, that I might see again!” (Evans 2001, 134).

Matthew 20.33 follows the pattern of Mark 10.51 with a vocative followed by ἵνα+subjunctive. In light of Jesus’s “what do you want” in the previous verse, the blind men’s answer could be translated, “Lord, we want to see again.” A subjunctive rendering would also be appropriate: “Lord, that our eyes might be opened!”

Moving to the Letters, in 2 Cor 8.7 Paul says, “But as you excel in everything … see that you excel [subjunctive] in this act of grace also” (ESV). Should we follow ESV, NIV, and so on, rendering this subjunctive as a soft imperative, “see that you excel”? Or is a starker imperative preferable, such as the CSB’s “excel” or CEB’s “Be the best”? Again, we lean away from using an imperative, and the subsequent verse provides the context clue: “I say this not as a command” (2 Cor 8.8 ESV, RSV). Because Paul says he is not commanding, a translation that fills the ellipsis, such as NRSVue (“we want you to excel”), is appropriate.

In Gal 2.10, we read one of the results of Paul (and Barnabas and Titus) speaking with the Jerusalem leaders: “Only, they asked us to remember [subjunctive] the poor” (ESV). ESV rightly supplies “they asked” to fill the ellipsis. In fact, numerous translations have added “they asked,” but no translation has instead supplied “they ordered/commanded” or even “they instructed.” Richard Longenecker states, “Some such verb as ᾐτήσατο (‘they asked’) or ἐθέλησαν (‘they desired’) needs to be supplied after the adverb, but, as we have seen (cf. v 9b above), such an omission is not uncommon for Paul (cf. 6.12 and 2 Thess 2.7 for the omission of a verb after μόνον [‘only’] …)” (1990, 59). Thus, since the subject and verb are missing, the addition of “they asked” in Gal 2.10 is required after Paul’s use of μόνον “only,” a word not present in Eph 5.33.

In the four examples above, context clues prompt the translator to consider filling an ellipsis. Ephesians 5.33b, however, has no such context clues.

Subjunctive as command: “and the wife must respect the husband”

A third, and by far the most common, approach to translating Eph 5.33b is to render the subjunctive as a command. Here we will broaden out from this verse and ask the more foundational question of whether Greek subjunctives are indeed sometimes best translated as commands in target languages.

Wallace notes that approximately one-third of the 1858 subjunctive verbs in the New Testament follow ἵνα. Of these, he describes two in which ἵνα+subjunctive may be considered a command because of an “imperatival ἵνα”—Mark 5.23 and our text, Eph 5.33—while also listing Matt 20.33; Mark 10.51; 1 Cor 7.29; 2 Cor 8.7; Gal 2.10; and Rev 14.13 without description. Wallace sees this imperatival ἵνα as an independent use of the subjunctive (1996, 462–63, 471, 476–77).

Concerning Eph 5.33, Wallace explains, “The parallel with the imperative ἀγαπάτω in the first half of the verse shows the independent force of the ἵνα clause” (1996, 477). Here Wallace agrees with K. L. McKay, who argued in 1985 that a ἵνα+subjunctive clause is sometimes used independently, as in Eph 5.33, where it “balances” the imperative ἀγαπάτω (223). None of Wallace’s seven other examples, however, has a parallel imperative. Furthermore, when parallel imperatives are found, they do not necessarily lend imperative force to the nearby subjunctive. The example of Eph 4.28 is ready at hand: “Let the thief no longer steal [imperative], but rather let him labor [imperative], doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have [subjunctive] something to share with anyone in need” (ESV).

Three of Wallace’s eight examples are from the Gospels. In each case, the author puts someone’s spoken words in the subjunctive to show the speaker’s deference in addressing Jesus. The vocatives κύριε “Lord, sir” and ραββουνι “teacher,” as well as other context clues, point to this deference. Two of these texts, Mark 10.51 and Matt 20.33, were discussed above under the elliptical view. The third, Mark 5.23, could be translated as a command: “Come and lay [subjunctive] your hands on her” (CSB, ESV, NET, NKJV, RSV). Translations that retain the speaker’s deference, however, are preferable. Various translations, for example, add “please” (CEB, NASB, NIV), since the man implores (παρακαλεῖ), rather than commands, Jesus.

In Wallace’s Gospel examples above, imperatives—while possible—are not the preferred translations, for they undo the authors’ nuance. Matthew and Mark present these characters as deferential, rather than demanding, in their encounters with Jesus.

Wallace’s next five examples (including Eph 5.33) are from Paul’s Letters and Revelation, and in each case retaining the subjunctive in translation is preferable to changing it to an imperative.

First Corinthians 7.29 reads, “the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none” (ESV). Some translations, such as NASB and CSB, retain both the ἵνα+subjunctive and the dependent nature of the clause: “the time has been shortened, so that [ἵνα] from now on those who have wives should be [ὦσιν] as though they had none” (NASB, italics added). The continuation of the sentence in the following verses secures our view that rendering the subjunctive form with the function of a command in 7.29 is not the best translation: “and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods” (1 Cor 7.30 ESV). In 7.30, where the subjunctive ὦσιν is still in effect, Paul does not forbid mourning, rejoicing, and purchasing.

Wallace’s other two Pauline examples, 2 Cor 8.7 and Gal 2.10, were considered above under the elliptical view. Wallace’s final example is Rev 14.13. The ἵνα in this verse, however, precedes a future indicative verb (“will be refreshed”) rather than a subjunctive. In any case, those who die in the Lord are not commanded to be refreshed.

Support for “so that the wife may respect her husband”

Our view, to summarize, is expressed in the following translation of Eph 5.33, which treats 33b as a dependent result clause: “Indeed, as for you individually, each husband among you must love his own wife as himself, so that the wife may respect her husband.” Our proposal is not unique; various aspects of it find support in scholarship.

Support from scholarship

Westfall’s 2013 article, “This is a Great Metaphor!,” affirms our thinking, and her translation is similar to ours (595). Support for our stance, however, goes back to at least 1904, when Margaret Gibson stated, “Translators take no notice of the little word ἵνα in Eph 5³³. It appears to me to be a sensible advice to husbands that every one in particular should love his wife even as himself, ‘in order that the wife may reverence her husband’” (380).

More recently, in 2007, John Paul Heil wrote that the wife’s respect is “a reciprocal response to the love of her husband” (254). In 2017, Karl L. Armstrong, referencing McKay and Stanley Porter, wrote, “ἵνα is expressing an ‘ideal’ state of the relationship between the subjects (husband and wife). English translations (i.e. NRSV, NIV, ESV, esp. NASB) seem to be missing this grammatical point in v. 33—the more specific command is for the husband to love his wife … so that she might respect her husband” (159–60; cf. Porter 1989, 323–35; 1994, 224). Kelvin Mutter also states, “ἵνα with the subjunctive φοβῆται introduces the prospect that a wife’s ‘respect’ is contingent on the husband’s actions … ‘so that she may respect her husband’” (2018, 18). Larkin says the ἵνα clause in Eph 5.33 “does not introduce a clause that functions like an imperative parallel with ἀγαπάτω” (2009, 143).

Support from Ephesians and from New Testament household codes

Examining the twenty-three occurrences of ἵνα+subjunctive in Ephesians, using ESV as a test case, reveals that ESV translates ἵνα as “that” or “so that” and includes a helping verb (“may,” “might,” “should”) in its rendering of the subsequent subjunctive(s) in all twenty-two ἵνα+subjunctive occurrences in Ephesians (exempting 5.33, the verse in question). ¹⁴

Moving beyond Ephesians, Witherington has discerned that the structure of the NT household codes includes an “address to a particular social group within the household, an imperative, often with an appropriate object, an amplification of the imperative usually in the form of a prepositional phrase, and a reason clause providing theological warrant or sanction or motivation” (2007, 321). This last “reason clause” is where Eph 5.33 is positioned. The husband is first given imperatives and theological warrants before ending with the added motivation of the wife’s respect.

Of the twenty separate times groups are addressed in NT household codes, ten of these subsections have the format Witherington recognizes—with the reason clause at the end giving a theological warrant, sanction, or motivation—eleven if Eph 5.33b is included in this list, as we propose. ¹⁵ Nine of the ten do this by including a ἵνα+subjunctive clause at the end of the passage. This same type of ἵνα+subjunctive dependent purpose or result clause construction is witnessed, for example, immediately following Eph 5.33b in the code’s next subsection. Ephesians 6.1-3 instructs children to obey and honor their parents “so that it might be well with you” (the command is to obey and honor [imperatives], not to be well [subjunctive]). One of the ten (1 Pet 3.7) does not include ἵνα, but its last clause conveys the same meaning as a ἵνα purpose or result clause.

Virtually all English Bibles translate most or all of these ten subsections as dependent purpose or result clauses but change course at Eph 5.33. We contend that Eph 5.33b is also a result clause that supplements the imperatives to the husband, given that it too is in the closing position of a subsection of the household code.

Conclusions

Against not expressing ἵνα and translating the subjunctive as an imperative and, instead, supporting the translation of Eph 5.33b as a dependent result clause, this article illuminates the fact that none of the twenty subsections of the NT household codes give instructions to a previously addressed person or to a person to be later addressed. Instead, each is a self-contained unit. Thus, it would be unique for Eph 5.33 to go back and include another directive to wives.

Second, of these twenty NT subsections, ten—including Eph 5.33—have ἵνα+subjunctive in their last phrases, providing theological warrant, sanction, or motivation. Translations of these other nine phrases have typically been as dependent clauses with “in order that,” “so that,” “that,” or “so” and are non-controversial. We argue the ἵνα+subjunctive in Eph 5.33b should be translated similarly.

Third, such translations (“that,” “so that,” etc.) are also regularly used for the twenty-three occurrences of ἵνα+subjunctive in Ephesians, except for Eph 5.33b. The view that the author used ἵνα+subjunctive in 5.33 in a different way from the other twenty-two occurrences, and that translations should reflect that difference, is remotely possible, but it bears the burden of proof.

The ramifications of these findings reveal that Paul’s household code in Eph 5–6 moves in the direction of equalizing the husband and the wife in status and dignity and toward the creational intent of Gen 1 and 2. Even as Jesus argues “from the beginning” (Matt 19.4), thus before the sin of Gen 3, Paul argues from the beginning for the creational intent of marriage. Instead of a wife being required to unilaterally submit to and reverence her husband, a husband is to embody the sacrificial love of Christ, sparking his wife’s respect. Reflecting this understanding in ways appropriate to various target languages lays an exegetically sound foundation for interpretation: “Indeed, as for you individually, each husband among you must love his own wife as himself so that the wife may respect her husband.”