John Mark Hicks

A version of this was published in Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024), 152-158. Brad’s article “Churches of Christ: Once Catholic, Now Evangelical” was published in Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024), 133-143.

Available in PDF here.

In his provocative and engaging essay, Brad East asserts that churches of Christ were “once catholic”—though insufficiently so—but are “now evangelical.” I think, given his descriptions of catholic and evangelical, churches of Christ have always been evangelical and still are catholic. The historical DNA of churches of Christ, according to East, is “catholic rather than evangelical.” In contrast, it seems to me, their DNA has always been and still is, at least in large measure, evangelical catholic.Of course, the terms “catholic” and “evangelical” are begging for definition. More on that momentarily.

But first, why is this claim important? East believes it has explanatory power. It explains, for example, why some have chosen to walk the Canterbury Trail. The liturgical and sacramental spirituality of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican traditions resonates with their experiences in churches of Christ. The turn to evangelical among churches of Christ, East argues, meant their congregations left them and, consequently, they sought those catholic practices elsewhere.

As congregations increasingly absorbed evangelical spirituality and abandoned catholic commitments, according to East, churches of Christ lost their distinctiveness. Becoming evangelical, members of churches of Christ found evangelical spirituality elsewhere in better and more resourced spaces. If there is no difference between the spirituality of churches of Christ and evangelicals, why remain in churches of Christ?

Consequently, East postulates two significant reasons why churches of Christ are dying: (1) they are no longer catholic and thus have lost those committed to catholic principles and (2) they have become evangelical, and others do evangelical better. Moreover, the decline of churches of Christ is also connected with how American Evangelicalism (note the capital E) in the last four decades has morphed into a political and cultural agenda. To the extent that churches of Christ embrace that transformation it contributes to decline. To that last sentence, I say, Amen!

I trust this is a fair articulation of East’s thesis. To assess it we need to focus on those pesky definitions. I’ll get there, but let’s start with the end of his article. He lands in a rather healthy and hopeful place. He describes what “it means to be faithful as a once-catholic, now-evangelical church,” and that description, he rightly believes, “pertains to all churches, at all times, of every kind”—whether catholic, evangelical, or evangelical catholic.

Faithfulness is keeping in step with the Spirit: “following Christ,” obedient to Scripture, gathering with believers, loving each other, “bearing witness” to the gospel, worshiping God “in Spirit” and in Truth (who is Jesus; I capitalized “truth”), “proclaiming the gospel,” participating in the sacraments, “catechizing our children,” serving the poor and needy, listening to all saints past and present, and “resisting the siren songs of culture and politics.”

What East describes is potentially an ecumenical evangelical catholic congregation. It can be a non-sectarian discipled sacramental community. I’m good with that. Indeed, this is how East describes his own work as a theologian: “I want my work to be catholic, evangelical, and ecumenical.”[1] This is essentially, with the addition of a robust sense of mission and other distinctives not encompassed in catholic and evangelical theology, what Mark Powell, Greg McKinzie, and I proposed in Discipleship in Community.[2] Though a proposal for churches of Christ, its intent is catholic, evangelical, and ecumenical. We share East’s conviction that belonging to Christ’s church, “which is never in trouble,” is our hope. I deeply appreciate where East ends his essay. At the same time, the way he gets there is somewhat problematic.

Let us, finally, turn to definitions, particularly “catholic” and “evangelical.” I will not contest the characteristics East identifies (though I have some quibbles) but point out that both have always been (and still are) part of churches of Christ.

First, catholic. East claims it is “more fitting” to describe the DNA of churches of Christ (its origins and historic practice) as “catholic rather than evangelical.” I think that claims too much, but I do agree churches of Christ are “catholic” given his characterization. Essentially, “catholic” refers to a high ecclesiology in which the church is central to soteriology (first three points out of twelve), baptismal sacramentalism (three points), and the assembled liturgical community (two+ points, including weekly communion). [This is similar to Campbell’s three positive ordinances of Christianity: Baptism, Lord’s Day, and Lord’s Supper.[3]] Further it looks to the “early church” as a “paradigm of moral, spiritual and sacramental faithfulness.” As East asserts, “the church simply is Christianity as God instituted on earth.”

Does this describe historic churches of Christ? Yes! At the same time, it also describes Luther and Calvin (except for the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Arminian, and Wesleyan nature of point 9). Indeed, until we are more nuanced, this understanding of “catholic” applies to classic Protestant traditions as well as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglican. For example, one of the most controversial statements in the list might be (especially for American Evangelicals), “Baptism, in short, is necessary for salvation” (point 5). Yet, classic Protestants agree. The Augsburg Confession of 1530, which both Luther and Calvin (specifically, Augsburg Confession Variata) affirmed, states: “Of Baptism they [the Reformers] teach that it is necessary to salvation.”[4] Almost forty years ago Richard Harrison, Jr., highlighted the confluence of Catholic and Reformed sacramental theology in the Stone-Campbell Movement in his article, “Early Disciples Sacramental Theology: Catholic, Reformed, and Free.”[5] The “free” refers to the anabaptist character of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which is missing in East’s article but important for the identity of churches of Christ.

While churches of Christ had their own, often unique, sets of “granular scholasticism” (I like that phrase), every tradition does. It is neither a function of catholicism nor evangelicalism per se; rather, it is the nature of human traditions.

So, agreed. Churches of Christ are catholic in their DNA. And, I add, also evangelical.

Let’s turn our attention to the second term, “evangelical.” At one level, as East notes, “evangelical” can modify Lutherans, Methodists, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Agreed. Alexander Campbell, for example, identified an “evangelical” theological core that all Protestants (including himself) confess: Trinity (without using the word, of course), atoning sacrifice, reconciliation through faith, a life of obedience, and the nature of Christ’s kingdom and the new birth.[6]

But that is too broad a brush for what East intends by “evangelical.” He does not use the word in a specifically theological sense. Rather, it refers to “a certain subset of American Christianity.” In other words, though there are some theological commitments embedded in his description, it is primarily a sociological account of a North American, even White, subculture. 

Again, I will not dispute the sociological identifiers, though I lament the lack of attention to theological identity. For example, the identity of evangelical theology is primarily a witness to the gospel—God in Christ reconciling the world to God’s self by the Spirit. This is one reason “evangelical” may describe Roman Catholics as well as Anabaptists. Indeed, the “purpose” of the Campbell Movement was to “restore the gospel and its ordinances” and “establish Christian Union upon the basis of a simple evangelical Christianity.”[7] The phrase “evangelical Christianity” reflects both ecclesiological and soteriological commitments; it entails, at least for the early Stone-Campbell Movement, the meanings of both catholic and evangelical theology.

East identifies the sociological makers in a series of bullet points. These are: biblicism (specifically nuda Scriptura), “democratic impulse,” “frontier revivalism,” emphases on preaching, conversion narratives, living faith, traditional ethics, “hermeneutical literalism,” individualism, an “entrepreneurial spirit,” evangelism and missions, and “a relative lack of emphasis on structures of governance, sacramental administration, holy orders, and/or patristic-medieval tradition.” I do wonder what “sacramental administration” means. Is that another way of talking about sacerdotalism? I don’t know. And, of course, several particulars are open to diverse interpretations within limits (e.g., there are different forms of “frontier revivalism”).

If his thesis is that churches of Christ moved from a catholic to an evangelical identity, his description of evangelical involves no movement at all. Churches of Christ have always—from their beginning—had these general characteristics to one degree or another. In this sense, churches of Christ have always been evangelical, as East uses the term.

East acknowledges this, sort of. He says those “in the Bible Belt” have “always been evangelical adjacent.” Though I see no reason to restrict this to the Bible Belt, the key word is “adjacent.” I’m uncertain what this means. Is evangelical an addendum to catholic commitments within churches of Christ but not integral to their identity? Whatever “adjacent” means, it was so present (perhaps integral?) that the loss of “catholic distinctives” placed churches of Christ wholly within the “evangelical family;” so much so, no one inside or outside can tell the difference. Thus, East argues, churches of Christ, though once catholic, are now evangelical.

The catholic distinctives, East suggests, kept us “out of step with evangelicals,” especially “American [E]vangelicalism” (my capitalization). That is a legitimate point, though the evangelical characteristics listed are not necessarily hostile to catholic commitments (e.g., East explains what he means by biblicism in a footnote; it can mean other things as well). Further, I would add other distinctives that are not catholic but anabaptist. Nevertheless, East’s observation is one of the reasons I have focused on sacramental theology in my own writing. I have hoped to explain and deepen those catholic commitments.[8] To the extent that a congregation neglects or loses its sacramental imagination and practice regarding baptism or Lord’s supper, it is no longer—at least historically or traditionally—part of churches of Christ.

Yet, where are the congregations among churches of Christ that have lost their catholicity? The largest percentage of congregations are still moderately or historically conservative. Their commitment to East’s catholic twelve points is as strong as it was in the 1950s. Ask any number of the large “Church of Christ” groups on Facebook; they’ll tell you.

Most, it seems to me, have lost their sectarianism, and that is a good thing (though some have lamented that loss and are thus attracted to other traditions more sectarian in their catholicism). They are at least ecumenical to the degree that they no longer believe, to the extent that many once did, that churches of Christ are co-extensive with body of Christ on the earth. Losing this sectarianism meant we no longer fall prey to one of the negative aspects of catholic spirituality, that is, fencing the table to feed only their flock and exclude other believers (particularly Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox).

Whatever the reasons for and the nature of decline among churches of Christ, it is not because churches of Christ are no longer catholic. They are still catholic even as they remain evangelical. I think the reasons for decline and potential death lie elsewhere and in many places.

East postulates that churches of Christ have not remained faithful to their original catholic DNA for at least two reasons. On the one hand, the evangelical subculture ultimately overwhelmed those catholic commitments, especially with the rise of American Evangelicalism in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries. On the other hand, churches of Christ were insufficiently catholic from the beginning. What churches of Christ lacked was an “authoritative community” with “authoritative documents and authoritative leaders.” To put it another way, we lacked a set of creeds and a magisterium to interpret Scripture so we could remain catholic enough to avoid the populist call of Evangelicalism with its “entertainment evangelism and prosperity preaching.” Perhaps, it could be argued, catholic commitments remained as long as they did within an evangelical subculture because an unwritten creed operated within the Stone-Campbell tradition and influential preachers as well as magisterial-like editor-bishops managed the interpretation of Scripture for the community. Maybe. But that has broken down in the past sixty years, and it was never absolute. We have always also been a “wild democracy” with significant diversity (to use Ed Harrell’s language).[9] Nevertheless, without creed and magisterium, East suggests, the catholic distinctives disappeared in some places under the influence of Evangelicalism. At the same time, a magisterium, while maintaining orthodoxy (though also maintaining slavery, colonialism, and patriarchalism), can also suffocate the movement of the Spirit among congregations.

According to East, that insufficiency contained the seeds of an eventual implosion. To maintain a healthy, catholic identity churches of Christ have needed a more robust catholicism. Churches of Christ must expand their canon. East suggests nuda scriptura is insufficient (and it is); it needs a creedal faith (e.g., Rule of Faith and perhaps the first four ecumenical councils) and the “authority of bishops” to secure the church’s faith (is this the solution?). For East, to remain catholic one needs the creedal tradition of the first five centuries and a magisterium to interpret it. In his The Doctrine of Scripture, he argued that “the same level of authority . . . must characterize both the text interpreted and the interpretation itself.”[10] If East is correct, the American Restoration Movement was doomed from the start. It may have had a good run, but its insufficient catholicism killed it.

How do we respond to this identity crisis created, in part, by the influence of American Evangelicalism and contemporary culture in the last sixty years? We could double down on our catholic commitments and more deeply imbibe their resources and practices (e.g., a magisterium). But those so devoted have mostly left already. Or, we could fully embrace

Evangelicalism’s theology, the natural waters of its subculture (in which we have swum for two hundred years), and its new 21^st century features. But Evangelicals do evangelical better. In either case, churches of Christ die. This is what East thinks is happening.

Are churches of Christ dying? I don’t know. Maybe. I hope not. But whether they are or not, it is not because churches of Christ were once catholic but are now evangelical. To be sure, when we lose the catholic dimension, we are no longer an identifiable historical tradition known as the churches of Christ. However, churches of Christ by-and-large have not lost their catholic distinctives. No doubt, some congregations have. That is verifiable. But the vast majority, as far as I can tell, have not. My anecdotal experience is based on teaching sacramental theology and catholic ecclesiology in over twenty countries and forty states to numerous students (over a thousand studying ministry) for forty years in universities associated with churches of Christ. I don’t think churches of Christ have irredeemably morphed into a form of American Evangelicalism because the catholic commitments are still present. I’ve been writing about sacramental theology for twenty-five years to affirm and develop those commitments. Moreover, I doubt if the catholic-evangelical dynamic is the main reason some are leaving churches of Christ or Christianity in general in North America. It is much more complicated than that.

Perhaps, in contrast to the above two options, we might intentionally embrace our identity as evangelical catholics as we reimagine what that means for the current missiological situation. We can remain churches of Christ while we seek new paths of faithfulness in a new context (a 7^th option to add to East’s six). I have sought to cultivate this among churches of Christ over the years and recently in Discipleship in Community. I see this in many spaces.

Should churches of Christ remain a distinctive tradition? Can it? Is it worth the struggle? Does it contribute to the body of Christ as a whole? Do we offer healthy, unique gifts to the body of Christ? A healthy evangelical catholic theology provides balance between personal and communal, between Scripture and tradition, between conversion narratives and catechesis, between evangelism (revivalism) and liturgy, between Word and Table, between emotion and reason, and between freedom and ecclesial governance among other elements.

An evangelical catholic can be sectarian or ecumenical. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are sectarian (e.g., they fence the table). Churches of Christ, drawing on our historic call for unity, can serve the body of Christ as an ecumenical, evangelical, and catholic tradition (I would also add anabaptist and missional, if I get to define those terms).

I’m not willing to jump ship to another tradition. Perhaps I will go down with this ship and provide hospice care (which is a holy calling). But I find in churches of Christ a unique theological set that has possibilities for missional engagement in a Post-Christian Western culture. It may not make a big splash, but that is neither the point nor the goal. Rather, it can, and in many places does, provide a faithful and hopeful presence.

---

[1] Brad East, “Theology in Division,” First Things, available at https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/04/theology-in-division.

[2] Mark Powell, John Mark Hicks, and Greg McKinzie, Discipleship in Community: A Theological Vision for the Future (Abilene: Abilene Christian University, 2020).

[3] See my “Stone-Campbell Sacramental Theology,” Restoration Quarterly 50, no 1 (2008) 35-48.

[4] The Augsburg Confession, Article 9, available at https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/.

[5] Richard L. Harrison, Jr., “Early Disciples Sacramental Theology: Catholic, Reformed, and Free,” Mid-Stream 24, no 3 (July 1985) 255-292.

[6] Alexander Campbell, “Education,” Millennial Harbinger 1, no. 6 (2^nd series; June 1837) 258

[7] Robert Richardson, The Principles and Objects of the Religious Reformation, Urged by A. Campbell and Others, Briefly Stated and Explained, 2^nd ed (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1853) 6-7.

[8] John Mark Hicks, Enter the Water, Come to the Table (Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2014). 

[9] John Mark Hicks, “I Stayed for the Wild Democracy,” in Why We Stayed: Honesty and Hope in the Churches of Christ, ed. Benjamin J. Williams (Los Angeles: Keledei Publications, 2018) 103-120.

[10] Brad East, The Doctrine of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2021) 255.

Paul quotes Psalm 143:2 twice (Romans 3:20 and Galatians 2:16). He stresses there is no one justified before God on their own righteousness.

Psalm 143 is traditionally known as the last of the seven penitential Psalms in the Psalter.

Video linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXO00ERPLU

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss its meaning and significance, and they offer a slightly different perspective. The Psalm is not about repentance but an appeal to God’s faithful love and righteous goodness to create a heart dedicated to following God’s way. The Psalmist finds confidence, in the midst of distress, to trust in God’s covenant faithfulness.

AI summary:

Understanding Psalm 143’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 143, one of the seven penitential Psalms, and its context within the Book of Psalms. Bobby explained the literary structure of the Psalter, highlighting its journey from lament to praise and David’s role as a priest-king leading worship. They explored the themes of God’s righteousness, human flaws, and the need for divine guidance and teaching. John and Bobby agreed that the Psalm emphasizes dependence on God’s grace and mercy, rather than human righteousness, for spiritual growth and fulfillment of God’s mission.

Exploring Psalm 143’s Themes

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 143, focusing on its themes of faithfulness, righteousness, and divine rescue. They agreed that the psalm reflects a plea for God’s intervention rather than a penitential prayer, emphasizing the speaker’s need for God’s protection and deliverance from external threats. Bobby highlighted the psalm’s connection to the Exodus narrative and its broader application to the people of God facing persecution. They also explored how the psalm’s themes resonate with Paul’s teachings on divine faithfulness in Romans and Galatians.

Faithfulness and Covenant in Psalm 103

John and Bobby discussed the themes of divine faithfulness, human unworthiness, and the nature of the covenant in Psalm 103. They explored how the psalmist pleads for God’s mercy, not based on personal righteousness but on God’s steadfast love and past faithfulness. Bobby highlighted the contrast between the law and the covenant, emphasizing that justification comes through God’s faithfulness rather than human performance. They also connected the psalm’s themes to broader biblical narratives, including creation, the Exodus, and the Sabbath, underscoring the psalmist’s reliance on God’s past deeds for hope and courage.

Exploring Psalm 77’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 77, focusing on its themes of distress, waiting on God, and the need for divine intervention. They explored how the psalm reflects David’s experience during the Absalom rebellion, highlighting the internal struggle of being attacked by one’s own family. John noted the psalm’s structure, including the use of verbs like “meditate” and “think,” and its division by the word “Selah.” They emphasized the psalmist’s cry for God’s quick response and the sense of urgency in times of spiritual and physical distress.

Exploring Psalm 143’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 143, focusing on its themes of spiritual struggle, the need for God’s guidance and strength, and the concept of God’s faithfulness and righteousness. They explored how the psalm reflects on the human condition, the role of the Spirit in creation and redemption, and the importance of God’s reputation and glory. Bobby highlighted the psalm’s connection to the broader biblical narrative, including the Exodus and the need for God’s intervention and renewal. They concluded by emphasizing the relevance of the psalm’s message for contemporary believers, who also seek God’s guidance, strength, and faithfulness in their lives.

Harding School of Theology (October 2025)

Syllabus PDF here.

An English version is available here.

El Padre elige, redime y salva en Cristo mediante el poder del Espíritu Santo. La unión con Cristo es la expresión general de la totalidad de nuestra salvación. Esta unión abarca todos los aspectos de nuestra salvación. La sabiduría de Dios —Jesucristo en quien Dios está reconciliando al mundo— es nuestra justicia, santidad y redención (1 Corintios 1:30).

Esta unión con Cristo es a la vez redentora-histórica y espiritual-mística. La obra de Cristo es por nosotros y con nosotros, tal como se identificó con nosotros a través de la encarnación, el ministerio, la muerte y la resurrección. Mediante la elección del Padre, nos unimos a Cristo en su muerte y resurrección, para que su muerte y resurrección sean las nuestras. Al mismo tiempo, nuestra unión con Cristo se efectúa a través del Espíritu de Dios, de modo que constituimos el cuerpo vivo de Cristo. Somos la encarnación de Jesús en el mundo, pues la presencia divina reside en nosotros a través del Espíritu que mora en nosotros. Participamos de la realidad del reino de Dios a través del Espíritu de Cristo, quien nos capacita para ser como Cristo. Unidos con Cristo redentora y pneumáticamente, encarnamos la presencia de Jesús en el mundo por el bien del mundo. Redimidos en Cristo, nos convertimos en la presencia de Cristo en el mundo.

El alcance de la salvación

La soteriología es individual, comunitaria y cósmica.

El cristianismo occidental y evangélico generalmente se ha centrado en los aspectos individuales de la salvación, es decir, «Dios me salvó y Cristo habría muerto por mí incluso si yo hubiera sido el único que lo necesitara». En consecuencia, la teología evangélica a menudo ha enfatizado la seguridad individual, la justificación por la fe y la santidad personal. Este énfasis generalmente se ha vinculado a «ir al cielo al morir», de modo que la salvación a veces se ha reducido al perdón de los pecados y a la entrada al cielo.

Ciertamente Dios salva a las personas individualmente. Dios me salva a mí. El Espíritu de Dios habita en cada uno de nuestros cuerpos, nos llama a la santidad personal, y la presencia personal del Espíritu nos empodera. Dios obra en y a través de las personas y se relaciona con nosotros como individuos. Existe una relación “personal” con Dios: existe comunión entre Dios y las personas. La soteriología no socava nuestra individualidad, aunque no aprueba nuestro individualismo.

Al mismo tiempo, Dios salva a un pueblo y lo reúne. Dios —la realidad relacional y comunitaria del Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu— creó una comunidad (masculina y femenina), redime a una comunidad y glorificará a un pueblo. El Padre creó un pueblo llamado Israel y ahora lo renueva uniendo a judíos y gentiles en un solo pueblo de Dios. La soteriología incluye la eclesiología. La iglesia, finalmente glorificada en el reino, es el objeto de la obra salvífica de Dios.

Más aún, Dios no solo salva a las personas en comunidad (eclesiología), sino que también busca redimir a toda la creación. El telos de Dios es reordenar el cosmos bajo la autoridad de Jesús el Mesías (Efesios 1:10) y reconciliar todo en el cielo y en la tierra con Dios por medio de Cristo (Colosenses 1:20). Dios redimirá la creación misma, así como a un pueblo (Romanos 8:18-26).

En última instancia, la salvación no se trata de mí, ni de nosotros, ni de la creación. Es para alabanza y gloria de Dios Padre, quien elige a un pueblo en Cristo para convertirse en la presencia viva de Dios en la creación por el poder del Espíritu. Esta es la gloria de Dios: descansar con un pueblo redimido en una creación redimida.

Las dimensiones temporales de la salvación

La soteriología aplicada es pasado, presente y futuro en la vida de los creyentes. Los creyentes ya han sido salvos, están en proceso de ser salvos y aún lo serán. Así es exactamente como Pablo usa los términos “salvar” o “salvación” en sus cartas. La salvación es algo ya logrado (Romanos 8:24; Efesios 2:5, 8; Tito 3:5); es algo que sucedió en su propio pasado existencial. La salvación también es algo que aún debe experimentarse en el futuro (Romanos 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Tesalonicenses 5:8-9; 2 Timoteo 2:10); seremos salvos en el futuro. La salvación también es un proceso que experimentamos actualmente; es fuego purificador y olor grato (2 Corintios 2:15); estamos en proceso de ser salvos.

Esta estructura soteriológica histórico-redentora se ilustra en Romanos 6:22:

Pero ahora que habéis sido libertados del pecado y hechos siervos de Dios, obtenéis el fruto que conduce a la santificación y su fin, la vida eterna.

En el pasado, Dios nos liberó del pecado y nos esclavizó a la justicia: hemos sido liberados (justificados) del pecado (Romanos 6:7). Sin embargo, esta realidad salvífica continúa en el presente a medida que avanzamos hacia la santidad (santificación), que es el fruto de haber sido liberados de la culpa y el poder del pecado. Además, nuestra meta (fin, telos) es la vida eterna (glorificación). Este único versículo —y podemos encontrar este énfasis en muchos otros pasajes de Pablo— resume la estructura soteriológica pasado-presente-futuro de la teología paulina. Quienes han sido justificados (liberados) buscan actualmente la santidad (santificación) con miras a la meta de la vida eterna (glorificación).

Los teólogos sistemáticos, especialmente los protestantes, generalmente han resumido las dimensiones pasadas, presentes y futuras de la salvación con los términos técnicos «justificación» (pasado), «santificación» (presente) y «glorificación» (futuro). Este lenguaje es útil siempre que el calificativo temporal siga siendo el punto clave. El lenguaje es problemático cuando un término se identifica estrictamente con un aspecto particular de la salvación (p. ej., cuando la justificación se convierte en la esencia de la soteriología) o cuando los textos bíblicos se ajustan al lenguaje teológico (p. ej., cuando la «justicia» se introduce a la fuerza en el significado técnico de la justificación en textos como Hechos 10:35).

De hecho, Pablo usa el término «justificado» o «justificación» para referirse a realidades soteriológicas pasadas, presentes y futuras. No limita la «justificación» a una declaración forense pasada, aunque a menudo se refiere a ella como un evento pasado en la vida del creyente (Romanos 3:24; 5:1, 9). Más bien, llama a los creyentes a «seguir la justicia» (Romanos 5:13, 16, 18, 19) en el presente como esclavos obedientes de Dios. Y, además, seremos justificados en el futuro (Romanos 2:6-10, 13) mientras vivimos incluso ahora en la «esperanza de la justicia» (Gálatas 5:5).

El lenguaje soteriológico de Pablo es rico en diversidad, ya que no está rígidamente ligado a una ubicación temporal. La santificación (la santidad) también es pasada (1 Corintios 6:11, a veces llamada santificación definitiva o posicional), presente (1 Tesalonicenses 4:3, a veces llamada santificación progresiva) y futura (1 Tesalonicenses 5:23, a veces llamada santificación completa). La glorificación es tanto presente (2 Corintios 3:18) como futura (Romanos 8:17). Y podríamos hacer lo mismo con otros términos como liberación, redención o espiritualidad. El punto es que la soteriología es integral: abarca pasado, presente y futuro. Limitar la salvación a un solo aspecto temporal es reduccionista.

La soteriología como definitiva y participativa

La unión con Cristo no se trata solo del perdón, sino del proceso de participar en la vida de Cristo. La soteriología, por tanto, es tanto declarativa como participativa. Dios salvó mediante un acto declarativo, pero también salva mediante nuestra participación en la vida a la que Dios nos llama. Somos declarados justos (absueltos) por un acto divino de justa imputación en lo que los teólogos han llamado históricamente «justificación» (o santificación definitiva), pero también buscamos y llegamos a ser justos mediante la participación en la santidad de Dios en lo que los teólogos han llamado históricamente «santificación» (o santificación progresiva o impartición de justicia).

Lo definitivo es un acto divino que recibimos por fe, pero participamos en la realidad de este acto al convertirnos en lo que hemos sido declarados en la obra justa de Dios. Lo definitivo es lo que algunos llaman indicativo: declara lo que Dios ha hecho y enfatiza su obra salvífica. Dios justifica, santifica y glorifica. Lo participativo es lo que algunos llaman imperativo: nos llama a vivir el indicativo en nuestra vida personal, comunitaria y en la creación. Significativamente, el indicativo fundamenta y fortalece el imperativo.

Esta relación entre el indicativo y el imperativo es común en Pablo. Ya que vivimos en el Espíritu, sigamos el paso del Espíritu (Gálatas 5:25). Ya que Dios ha mostrado misericordia hacia nosotros, dejémonos transformar por Dios en lugar de conformarnos al mundo (Romanos 12:1-2). Ocupémonos de nuestra salvación con temor y temblor, porque es Dios quien obra en nosotros (Filipenses 2:12-13).

Los creyentes no solo reciben la declaración de la justicia justificadora de Dios; también buscan la justicia para convertirse en la justicia de Dios (es decir, la personificación de la fidelidad de Dios en el mundo).

Los creyentes son tanto pasivos como activos en su salvación. Reciben pasivamente la declaración justificadora de Dios mediante una fe viva, como mendigos con la mano abierta, pero también buscan activamente la justicia (santidad, santificación) mediante una fe que obra por el amor (Gálatas 5:5-6), mientras que, al mismo tiempo, reciben pasivamente el empoderamiento (indicativo) del Espíritu que permite obras fieles de amor.

Aunque creo que Pablo mantiene este equilibrio de forma clara, muchos han enfatizado la definitividad paulina hasta prácticamente perder la participación. Si la teología occidental (especialmente la evangélica) se hubiera centrado en los Evangelios en lugar de Pablo, tal vez el énfasis recaería en la participación más que en la definitividad (como hace gran parte de la iglesia oriental en su concepto de teosis). El llamado al discipulado en el reino de Dios en los Evangelios enfatiza la participación: seguimos activamente a Jesús.

Pero no se trata de una cuestión de una u otra. Más bien, es una cuestión de ambas. La salvación es definitiva y participativa. Aceptamos la declaración de Dios por fe y participamos en su obra transformadora al buscar la justicia, practicar la vida del reino y seguir a Jesús. De esta manera, somos “justificados por la fe” (declarados “en la justicia” por la obra justa de Dios en Jesús) y “justificados por las obras” (hacedores de la ley, Romanos 2:13) —experimentamos la transformación mediante una vida recta y empoderada. Las obras (nuestra “santificación” y conformación a la imagen de Cristo, fortalecidas por el Espíritu de Dios) evidencian nuestra declaración (“justificación”), encarnan nuestra semejanza a Cristo y dan testimonio de la realidad del reino de Dios en el mundo. Por la fe somos “en la justicia” (justificados) y mediante las buenas obras (santificación) nos convertimos en lo que Dios nos ha declarado ser. Somos declarados “en la justicia” porque estamos unidos a Cristo. Unidos con Cristo, participamos de la vida de Cristo al hacernos partícipes de la naturaleza divina (teosis). El objetivo teológico de la santificación —nuestra «entera santificación» o glorificación— es la conformación a la imagen de Dios en Cristo. Llegaremos a ser plenamente —en cuerpo y alma— como Cristo en nuestra futura santificación (resurrección).

El fundamento trinitario de la salvación

La fe es el medio de justificación, santificación y glorificación, para usar los términos técnicos de la Teología Sistemática. En la justificación, la fe recibe la declaración extrínseca de Dios. En la santificación, la fe participa en la vida de Cristo mediante las obras; la fe obra por el amor (Gálatas 5:6). En la glorificación, la fe espera en el futuro venidero y los creyentes —aquellos que han perseverado en la fe— experimentarán la plenitud de la redención de Dios.

Pero tras el imperativo de creer (confiar) se encuentra el fundamento del indicativo divino. El Padre nos ha justificado, continúa santificándonos y nos glorificará. La fidelidad del Hijo fundamenta nuestra justificación, modela nuestra santificación y establece la humanidad glorificada. El Espíritu genera fe en nosotros, nos transforma y animará nuestros cuerpos en el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva.

Somos salvos (justificación) por gracia (fundamento) mediante la fe (medio) para buenas obras (santificación). Este es el telos de Dios. Dios quiere redimir a un pueblo que vivirá como imágenes divinas (representantes) dentro de la creación por el bien del mundo y descansará en el shalom misericordioso y comunitario de Dios.

¿Así que?

La salvación, entonces, se trata del presente y del futuro. No se trata solo de vivir en el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva, sino del rescate de los poderes de las tinieblas en el presente siglo malo. La salvación es apocalíptica, es decir, redime a un pueblo como parte de la nueva era mientras aún vive en la antigua. Es un nuevo orden dentro del antiguo orden: es el reino de Dios presente en el mundo.

Por lo tanto, la salvación no se trata solo de una decisión personal por Jesús (por ejemplo, la decisión de seguir a Jesús al entrar en el agua) y del perdón, sino también del discipulado y el aprendizaje en el ministerio de Jesús como participante del reino de Dios.

La obra salvadora de Dios no solo perdona, sino que transforma. No solo somos salvos del pecado, sino también para las buenas obras (santificación). La obra salvadora de Dios no solo nos prepara para el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva, sino que obra a través del pueblo del reino en el presente para la recuperación de toda la creación (tanto humana como cósmica) para el reino de Dios. Esta obra de Dios a través del pueblo de Dios no solo implica proclamar la buena nueva del reino, sino también practicarla al revertir la maldición.

La obra salvadora de Dios se manifiesta no solo en los creyentes que tienen la seguridad de su perdón, sino también en los creyentes que proclaman el evangelio y encarnan la buena nueva de Jesús mediante las buenas obras (por ejemplo, la justicia social, la sanación, la benevolencia, la ecología, etc.). La iglesia es la comunidad de Dios que proclama la buena nueva del reino y la practica.

An English version is available here.

El Espíritu Santo, como presencia personal de Dios, es el agente activo y la garantía de nuestra salvación.

El Espíritu de Dios está presente desde el principio (Gén. 1:2), a lo largo de todo el desarrollo orgánico de la narración y en el clímax: «El Espíritu y la Esposa dicen: «Ven»» (Ap. 22:17).

El Espíritu y la Trinidad

El Espíritu se caracteriza por atributos divinos: omnisciencia (1 Corintios 2:10), omnipotencia (Miqueas 3:8) y omnipresencia (Salmo 139:7-10). El Espíritu participa en las obras divinas: creación (Salmo 104:30), regeneración (Juan 3:5), resurrección (Romanos 8:11) y milagros (1 Corintios 12:4-11). Así como el Padre da vida (Romanos 8:11), también el Espíritu da vida (2 Corintios 3:6). El Espíritu se identifica específicamente en los dichos trinitarios del Nuevo Testamento (p. ej., Mateo 28:19; 2 Corintios 13:14; Efesios 4:4-6).

Ontología Relacional. El Espíritu es el Espíritu de Dios, el Espíritu de Dios. Pablo, por ejemplo, piensa en el Espíritu principalmente en términos de su relación con Dios Padre. Dios da el Espíritu (1 Tesalonicenses 4:8). Pero Pablo también llama al Espíritu el Espíritu de Cristo (Filipenses 1:19; Romanos 8:9). Estos genitivos expresan relación. Tanto el Padre como Cristo dan identidad al Espíritu: el Espíritu proviene del Padre y el Espíritu es la forma en que Cristo se hace presente en los corazones de los creyentes. Si bien el Espíritu de Dios es idéntico al Espíritu de Cristo (lo cual refleja la cristología elevada de Pablo), el Espíritu no se equipara con el Señor resucitado. El Espíritu y el Señor son distintos entre sí (p. ej., ambos interceden por nosotros en Romanos 8:26-27, 34). El Espíritu es personalmente distinto de Cristo, aunque sus funciones están vinculadas. El Espíritu es el medio por el cual Cristo vive en nosotros.

Algunos cuestionan la personalidad del Espíritu. No existe una metáfora para el Espíritu análoga a «Padre» e «Hijo» que proyecte personalidad. «Espíritu» suena impersonal. Pero el Espíritu (aunque pneuma es gramaticalmente neutro) se menciona en género personal (Juan 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14, «esa persona»). El Espíritu es «otro parakletos» (Juan 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). La ausencia de Jesús significa la presencia de otro, alguien distinto de él, que tiene la misma función. Por lo tanto, los discípulos no se quedarán solos como huérfanos. Más bien, el Espíritu es un representante personal del Padre y del Hijo.

Trinidad Económica. La trinidad económica es el rol de las tres personas en la historia redentora. Cada una tiene un rol distintivo: el Padre elige, el Hijo se encarna y el Espíritu mora en nosotros. Por ejemplo, en 1 Pedro 1:2, el Padre preconoce, el Hijo derrama sangre y el Espíritu santifica (cf. 2 Tesalonicenses 2:13-14). El Padre planifica y elige, el Hijo realiza la redención en la historia, y el Espíritu la aplica en los corazones de los creyentes.

El Espíritu llama a las personas a la fe y las convence de pecado. El Espíritu aplica la realidad de la salvación a las personas. El Espíritu obra en cada individuo para producir los efectos de la salvación en su vida («fruto del Espíritu», Gálatas 5), pero también en la comunidad en su conjunto. El Espíritu completa el objetivo de la glorificación mediante la resurrección. Como sugiere Gordon Fee, el Espíritu es la «experiencia soteriológica de Dios» (Empowering Presence, 843) o la presencia redentora de Dios.

Podemos resumir la labor económica de la Trinidad en dos frases. En primer lugar, todo lo que el Padre hace en el cumplimiento de la redención, el Padre lo hace a través del Hijo. (Efes 1:4-14). El Hijo encarnado realiza la obra del Padre en cumplimiento de la misión de Dios. En segundo lugar, todo lo que el Hijo hace en la aplicación de la redención, lo hace por medio del Espíritu. (Efes. 2:18-22). El Espíritu es el medio por el cual los creyentes experimentan y encuentran al Padre a través del Hijo.

Estructura histórico-redentora: Presencia divina

Acto Uno: Creación–Presencia en el Jardín. Tras seis días de creación, Dios descansó el séptimo día. Este descanso divino no es simple pasividad. Más bien, es una especie de “descanso en” o disfrute de la creación. Dios se deleita (“es muy bueno”) y habita (camina en el Jardín) con la humanidad en el buen cosmos. El descanso de Dios es el disfrute mutuo de Dios, la humanidad y el cosmos.

Acto Dos: Israel–Presencia en el Templo. Este es el lugar que Dios eligió para morar en las Escrituras Hebreas. Dios mora en el templo; sus pies descansan sobre el estrado del Arca de la Alianza. Esta es una presencia especial que se comunica con Israel en una relación. Israel experimentó esta presencia en el templo; allí entraron en el santuario terrenal (morada), que era un símbolo del santuario celestial. Esto es lo que veo en 2 Crónicas 6-7 y Levítico 26:11-12, por ejemplo; o se alude con frecuencia en los Salmos, como el 63 o el 132. Esta es una forma de presencia redentora cuando Dios se encuentra con Israel en el templo para brindarle gracia, misericordia y perdón.

Acto Tercero: Presencia Encarnacional (Logos en la carne). Esta es la presencia de Dios caminando sobre la tierra. Dios habitó con la humanidad en la carne, en lugar de en un templo. Esto es lo que veo en Mateo 1: «Dios con nosotros» (Emanuel), o en Juan 1: «El Verbo se hizo carne y habitó entre nosotros». Este es el momento culminante en el que Dios se hace humano. Es un momento escatológico que anticipa el futuro cuando Dios morará plenamente con la humanidad en una tierra renovada («cielos nuevos y tierra nueva»).

Acto Cuarto: Presencia Pneumatológica (El Espíritu Santo habita en los cristianos). El Espíritu mora en los cuerpos de cada cristiano y en el cuerpo de Cristo como comunidad. Esta es otra forma de presencia redentora: es la presencia santificadora de Dios que nos transforma mediante su presencia divina. Esta es la presencia del Espíritu en la tierra; nuestros cuerpos son un santuario divino y la comunidad eclesial es el santuario de Dios en la tierra. Mediante la presencia del Espíritu, tenemos comunión con el Padre y el Hijo en nuestro diario vivir. A través del Espíritu, Cristo mora en nuestros corazones por la fe y siempre está presente con nosotros. Esto es lo que veo en Mateo 28:20; 1 Corintios 3 y 6. Somos el templo de Dios por medio del Espíritu Santo, pues Dios ha venido a morar entre nosotros en cumplimiento de las antiguas promesas (2 Corintios 6:16, citando Levítico 26:11-12).

Quinto Acto: Presencia Escatológica (Dios mora con la Humanidad Redimida). Es cuando la nueva Jerusalén desciende a la nueva tierra. Dios, el Dios Trinitario, habita plenamente con la humanidad en la tierra. No hay templo ni santuario. Toda la tierra es la morada de Dios. Esto es lo que veo en Apocalipsis 21-22. La presencia del Dios Trinitario se restaura en la tierra, pero no es una simple restauración. Es una glorificación, pues lo mortal se ha transformado en inmortalidad (resurrección). El primer acto no se repite, sino que se consuma, y ​​comienza una nueva fase del mismo camino: un viaje hacia la profundidad y la riqueza de la comunión con Dios, con los demás y con la creación.

Ascensión, Pentecostés y el derramamiento del Espíritu

La promesa. En Lucas 3:15-18 se establece una distinción histórico-redentora entre la obra de Juan el Bautista (bautismo en agua) y la obra de Cristo (bautismo en el Espíritu). El bautismo de Juan fue para la remisión de los pecados, pero no implicó la plena realidad soteriológica, es decir, la presencia del Espíritu.

La promesa del Espíritu forma parte de la realidad del escatón. Es el «ya» de lo que «aún no» hemos recibido. Lo recibimos como anticipo parcial de la plena realidad escatológica. Participamos de esa realidad mediante un solo bautismo: el agua y el Espíritu se unen para mediarnos esa realidad. Es la experiencia colectiva del pueblo de Dios: somos un pueblo bautizado, en agua y en Espíritu.

El cumplimiento. Pentecostés forma parte del acontecimiento de Cristo: su ascensión y reinado (Hechos 2:1-39). Muerte, Resurrección, Ascensión, Exaltación y Derramamiento son un solo acontecimiento, un tapiz completo. Es el resucitado y crucificado quien ascendió a la diestra de Dios y derramó el Espíritu. La dádiva del Espíritu en Pentecostés es la primicia de la cosecha.

Este “derramamiento” es más amplio que el empoderamiento milagroso de los apóstoles (cf. Tito 3:5-6). El Espíritu es derramado y prometido a todos los que son sumergidos (Hechos 2:38). Así como a Jesús se le dio el Espíritu como fundamento de su ministerio, también a los creyentes se les da el Espíritu como empoderamiento para el ministerio. Jesús derramó el Espíritu sobre todos los creyentes como parte del cuerpo de Cristo. El bautismo en el Espíritu no se refiere solo a experiencias individuales del Espíritu, sino al derramamiento del Espíritu, una vez para siempre, en Pentecostés por la iglesia. Participamos de esta realidad cuando somos bautizados en Cristo (1 Corintios 12:13).

El principio. El Señor exaltado es el Espíritu vivificante (1 Corintios 15:45; 2 Corintios 3:17). Existe una identificación funcional entre Cristo y el Espíritu, quien aplica la obra consumada de Cristo. Cristo está presente a través del Espíritu en la vida de los creyentes. Resucitado y ascendido al cielo, se ha convertido, en efecto, en «el Espíritu» o «Espíritu vivificante».

«Espiritual» se refiere al Espíritu Santo (1 Corintios 2:10; 2 Corintios 3:3). En virtud de su exaltación, como el postrer Adán, el Jesús exaltado ha llegado a poseer de manera tan permanente y completa el Espíritu que ambos son equiparables en su actividad. Son uno en la obra escatológica de vivificar la iglesia. Esta obra del Espíritu (el Señor como Espíritu vivificante) se realiza actualmente mediante la renovación interior, pero finalmente nos glorificará mediante la resurrección (2 Corintios 4:14-5:10). Así, la presencia del Espíritu es la presencia de Cristo (cf. Juan 14:12-23). ​​La presencia del Espíritu es lo que nos hace «espirituales», es decir, guiados, orientados por el Espíritu y viviendo en él. La vida que vivimos es la vida de Cristo resucitado por medio del Espíritu.

La dádiva del Espíritu depende de la obra de Cristo (Juan 7:39). Es un acontecimiento histórico-redentor, algo que no se había hecho antes. Es un hito en la historia de la redención. Es la fuente de vida en el creyente. Nuestra vida es la vida del Espíritu, quien nos transmite el poder de la vida resucitada y exaltada de Cristo. (En la sección anterior, agradezco a mi antiguo profesor Richard Gaffin por sus ideas).

La función del espíritu

El Espíritu como presencia interior. El Espíritu es quien nos comunica con Dios. Dios mora entre nosotros por medio del Espíritu. La presencia del Espíritu Santo es testigo de nuestra redención, y la encontramos en la comunidad de Dios, donde Dios mora por medio del Espíritu. No estamos desprovistos de la presencia personal de Dios. Así como Dios estuvo personalmente presente en la encarnación por medio de Jesús, también Dios está personalmente presente en la iglesia por medio del Espíritu Santo que mora en nosotros. En consecuencia, somos el templo de Dios. El Santo mora en medio de nosotros como prenda de nuestra futura morada con Dios en el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva.

El Espíritu como Poder Transformador. Hay tres niveles en los que podemos hablar de esta transformación: (1) Regeneración; (2) Santificación; y (3) Glorificación.

La regeneración es la obra del Espíritu que inaugura nuestra salvación. Es un renacimiento de nuestra naturaleza caída a partir del Espíritu de Dios. La naturaleza humana es creada de nuevo, una nueva creación (2 Corintios 5:7), y el poder espiritual se introduce en nuestras vidas. Este principio de vida enfrenta a la carne en una lucha de poder. La regeneración es la naturaleza humana renacida según el poder del Espíritu, en lugar de la naturaleza humana nacida en la carne (sarx).

La ​​santificación es la obra progresiva del Espíritu en la vida del creyente (1 Pedro 1:2; 1 Tesalonicenses 4:3-8; 2 Tesalonicenses 2:13). Es un proceso de renovación y metamorfosis. La persona interior se renueva diariamente (2 Corintios 4:15-16) y el Espíritu la fortalece (Efesios 3:17-18) a medida que nos acercamos cada vez más a la imagen de Cristo. Los frutos del Espíritu son movimientos hacia la imagen de Cristo en la santificación (Gálatas 5).

La glorificación completa nuestra salvación al resucitar por el poder del Espíritu (Romanos 8:11). La gloria final es la resurrección (redención) del cuerpo. Esta resurrección es cristológica, pues somos conformados a la imagen de Cristo, incluso en su cuerpo. Esta es la transformación final (Filipenses 3:21). Somos conformados a esa imagen por el poder del Espíritu. El Espíritu animará nuestros cuerpos resucitados (1 Corintios 15).

El espíritu como dador. El Espíritu distribuye los dones de Dios. A todos se les da una «manifestación del Espíritu para el bien común» (1 Corintios 12:7). Dios otorga dones «por medio del Espíritu» (1 Corintios 12:6). Estos dones abarcan desde la misericordia, la enseñanza, el liderazgo y la generosidad (Romanos 12:3-8) hasta la sabiduría, el conocimiento, las sanidades, los milagros, la profecía y el don de lenguas (1 Corintios 12:8-10). Ninguna de estas listas es exhaustiva, sino que ilustra la obra de Dios en la comunidad de fe por el bien del cuerpo y del mundo. El mismo Espíritu distribuye una diversidad de dones (1 Corintios 12:11).

¿Así que ?

El Espíritu de Dios es la presencia de Dios en toda la creación. Dios no ha abandonado el cosmos. El Espíritu que estuvo presente en la creación está presente en todos los rincones de la tierra incluso ahora. El Espíritu —la presencia en la que los seres humanos viven, se mueven y su ser— obra la gracia común en toda la creación y en la historia.

El Espíritu de Dios es también una presencia redentora entre el pueblo de Dios, a través de la cual comulgan con Dios y experimentan su realidad personal. El Espíritu es la conexión personal y existencial entre Dios y la humanidad. La morada personal del Espíritu es la experiencia de Dios en nuestros corazones, por la cual clamamos: «Abba, Padre». El Padre y el Hijo vienen a morar en nosotros mediante la presencia del Espíritu. El Espíritu Santo es el poder de nuestra transformación a la imagen de Cristo. El Espíritu está presente para empoderarnos, fortalecernos y santificarnos. El Espíritu produce el fruto del amor, la paz y la alegría en nuestras vidas. El Espíritu nos conforta en nuestro interior. El Espíritu nos capacita para el perdón y la liberación del resentimiento. El Espíritu es una presencia que nos permite transformarnos. El Espíritu Santo fortalece nuestro ministerio al capacitarnos para servir en nuestras comunidades de fe y en el mundo. El Espíritu nos capacita para el bien común: para las comunidades de fe, para la sociedad humana y para la creación. Buscamos estos dones mediante la oración, el discipulado y las relaciones de mentoría.

Just as Ephesians 1:3-14 is the opening doxology that casts a vision for the redemptive work of the Father through the Son in the Spirit, Ephesians 6:10-20 is the letter’s concluding invitation to participate in the ongoing work of God by struggling with the rulers, authorities, and powers in the heavenly places. Having laid the ground of our inclusion into the family of God in chapters 1-3, and inviting believers to imitate God as new creatures in Christ by the power of the Spirit in chapters 4-6, this final section of the letter is a bugle call to participate in the fight against evil. In the strength of the Lord, we engage the powers of evil as we clothe ourselves in God’s own armor of righteousness, salvation, truth, and the gospel of peace. Through the word of God and praying in the Spirit, we can not only stand against evil but also advance the cause of the kingdom of God.

Given the allusions to Isaiah 11:5, 52:7, and 59:17 in Ephesians 6:14-17, “this text portrays the church as a community of ‘divine-warriors’ who continue Christ’s mission by extending the new creation.” It functions, then, to summarize the whole letter. The armor is “more than a defence against the devil, but instead helps expand the new creation inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection.” (See Mark D. Owens, “Spiritual Warfare and the Church’s Mission According to Ephesians 6:10-17,” Tyndale Bulletin 67 (2016): 87-103.)

Allusions to Isaiah

Isaiah: New Exodus	Ephesians: New Creation
“Righteousness (δικαιοσύνῃ) shall be the belt (ἐζωσμένος) around his waist (τὴν ὀσφὺν), and faithfulness (ἀληθείᾳ) the belt around his loins” in 11:5.	“Stand, therefore, and fasten the belt (περιζωσάμενοι) of truth (ἀληθείᾳ) around your waist (τὴν ὀσφὺν) and put on the breastplate of righteousness (δικαιοσύνης)” in 6:14.
“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings (πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά), who proclaim salvation (σωτηρίαν), who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” in 52:7.	“As shoes for your feet (πόδας) put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς εἰρήνης)” in 6:15.
“He put on righteousness as his breastplate (ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα), and the helmet of salvation (περικεφαλαίαν σωτηρίου) on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak” in 59:17.	“Put on the breastplate of righteousness (ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης)” in 6:14 and “Take the helmet of salvation (περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου)” in 6:17.

Wisdom 5:17-20 – “The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor (πανοπλίαν), and will arm all creation to repel his enemies; he will put on righteousness as a breastplate (ἐνδύσεται θώρακα δικαιοσύνην), and wear impartial justice as a helmet (κόρυθα); he will take holiness as an invincible shield (ἀσπίδα), and sharpen stern wrath for a sword (ῥομφαίαν) and creation will join with him to fight against his frenzied foes.”

Significance of Ephesians 6:10-20 Paul urges his readers to participate in the mission of God to defeat evil by sharing in God’s role as divine warrior (cf. Longman and Reid, God is a Warrior). They dress in God’s armor (thus, God’s truth, righteousness, salvation, gospel of peace, God’s word/sword). This participation is both offensive and defensive. The proclamation and embodiment of the gospel is not only a witness to new creation but a participation in new creation which struggles against cosmic powers and defeats evil in the strength of the Lord. Just as Joshua was encouraged to be strong and defeat the enemy to receive the inheritance (Joshua 1:6), so renewed Israel—as new humanity—participates in the defeat of God’s enemies through God’s strength and ultimately receives an inheritance.

Whereas Paul does not command the wives to “obey” their husbands in Ephesians 5:21-33, he does command children to “obey” their fathers (and honor their parents) and for enslaved people to “obey” their earthly masters. How, then, does the call to mutual submission in Ephesians 5:21 function in this insistence on obedience for children and enslaved people? And, further, is Paul endorsing slavery and accommodating the powers?

Ephesians 6:1-9 is a continuation of what it means to be filled with the Spirit as a community that praises God, giving thanks, and mutually submits to another. Just as the instructions to wives and husbands hang on the participles in Ephesians 5:19-21, so do the instructions in Ephesians 6:1-9 as this is the conclusion of the section that began in Ephesians 5:15.

When the community of God is filled with the Spirit, it is filled with praise and mutually submissive relationships. Paul applies this to children and fathers in Ephesians 6:1-4 and to the enslaved and their masters in Ephesians 6:5-9. What does that look in those relationships that in Greco-Roman culture were characterized by dominance and coercion?

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Paul’s instruction here is that he addresses both children and the enslaved. He assumes they are present in the community (they are listening to this read in their assembly), they have agency (decisions to make about how to act), and they are responsible to live in a way that imitates God (Ephesians 5:2) and serves the Lord Jesus. They are members of the community, and therefore they are to walk worthy of their calling (Ephesians 4:2), be kind to one another (Ephesians 4:32), forgive one another (Ephesians 4:32), and submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21).

That Paul addresses them at all is startling since this is not the case in standard Greco-Roman household instructions. Paul gives them dignity and honors them with these instructions whereas in the ancient world they were non-persons without rights or agency. Given this dignity, Paul expects them to live worthy of their calling as members of the body of Christ.

Whatever say about these relationships, they are followers of Jesus the Messiah and share a kinship with the rest of the body of Christ: “we are members of one another” (Ephesians 4:25). The familial relationship in Christ transcends the wife/husband, child/father, and enslaved/master relationships. They are sisters and brothers first, and then whatever relationship connects them. Consequently, there are responsibilities to each other that shape how we live with each other, and one of those is mutual submission. This is true even for enslaved persons. Paul, for example, expected Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16).

Children must obey their fathers and honor their parents, and fathers train their children rather than exasperate them. “Obey” was not used for the relationship between wives and husbands, and here it is appropriate because of the nature of the dependency between children and parents.

The enslaved must obey their earthly master as slaves of Christ, enthusiastically serving them in a way that recognizes they are serving the Lord Jesus when they obey their earthly masters. Masters are to do the “same things” for their charges, and do so without violence or threats as both have the same Master (Lord) in heaven. The mutuality of this relationship is seen in the mutual service both rendered to the Lord Jesus, and they both act without partiality toward the other.

Many modern believers are disturbed that Paul does not command the masters to free the enslaved persons in their charge. Paul does command the masters to treat their slaves with fairness, without coercion (threats), and to have the same attitudes (including service!) toward his charges as they were to have toward him (“do the same [things] to them”). This is a very different relationship than Greco-Roman enslavement practiced where masters had the right to abuse, coerce, and even kill their charges. Threats and punishments were how masters controlled their them. Enslaved people had no rights in the Greco-Roman world, though many were equipped with education, skills, and even could earn money to purchase their own freedom. Whereas Greco-Roman masters had no obligation to treat them fairly or as persons, Paul insists serving the Lord Jesus means something radically different.

But still, why did not Paul command believing masters liberate the enslaved people in their house? The Ephesian house churches lived in a social world where slavery was unquestioned, integral to the economy, and part of the social order of the empire. Followers of Jesus were in no position to challenge that social reality. They could not change the legal system; it was not a democracy or even a Republic. There was no legal recourse. Slaves made up about 10% of the population of the empire, and 30% of the people who lived in Rome itself.

Paul could not call for a wholesale movement to free enslaved people in the Ephesians house churches as this was illegal and would have involved severe sanctions and hindered the opportunities to proclaim the gospel. Freeing slaves in large numbers was regarded as a danger to the social order. For example, during the reign of Augustus, Lex Fufia Caninia was passed in 2 BCE that placed limits on the manumission of enslaved peoples: one could only free some slaves and not all of them. For example, if you had 10 slaves, you could only free 5, and if you had 30 slaves, you could only free 10. The empire discouraged freeing slaves, and no person could be freed under 30 without appropriate legal procedures.

Rather, Paul encourages the Ephesian house churches to change the social order within the community of faith. They can act toward each other in mutual submission rather than living in a social hierarchy within the house church itself. No longer would there be male or female, slave or free, or Jew or Gentile (as Galatians 3:28 says). Rather, they are sisters and brothers as part of the family of God the Father. They are a new creation in an old, sinful world, and their relationships within the community bear witness to the new reality created by God through the death, resurrection, and enthronement of the Messiah. Change begins at home—between wives and husbands, between children and parents, and between the enslaved and the masters.

Does this constitute an endorsement of slavery? I don’t think so. It is more a social realism as well as a missional strategy. Paul suggested that enslaved people seek freedom when they are able (1 Corinthians 7:21). The church cannot revolutionize the empire’s slavery practices in any immediate sense. It can change the dynamics within the community of faith so that there is justice and equity for all (cf. Colossians 4:1). Just like Christians cannot change the practices of oppressive authoritarian regimes but must live within that social order (think about Christians in Iran, for example), so Paul does not call for a social revolution that would hinder the proclamation of the gospel. Instead, he calls for a revolution within the community that will bring light into the darkness of the social world in which the church lives. A revolutionized community of faith might ultimately effect some social change as leaven leavens a whole lump. However, ultimately, the church failed to change the social order when it became a Christian empire, and this is a stain on the witness of the church through the centuries. Enslaved people were not liberated—not until worldwide movements by Christians in the 18^th and 19^th centuries led an abolitionist movement.

In effect, I think in Ephesians 6:5-9 Paul recognizes that the believing community of Jesus must live within the social order of its environment even as they subvert that order in their own practices within the community.

This post is available in PDF here.

Ephesians 5:21/22-33, which addresses the relationship between wives and husbands in the body of Christ, is a controversial text. Some have read it as a directive for husbands to control their wives, or for wives to prioritize their husbands in a way that husbands do not prioritize their wives. Others have understood it as a relationship of mutual submission but where husbands nevertheless have authority over their wives. Still others have understood it as mutual submission where mutuality rather than authority is the point.

This text has been the basis for counseling abused wives to submit to their husbands as well as demanding that wives give their agency over to their husbands so that they have no independence like their husbands have. It is only in recent times (say, within the last 100 years) that wives could vote, own property in their own name, and have their own credit scores. Ephesians 5:22-24 as used to justify these past practices.

Consequently, it is an important text to think about, understand carefully, and seek its intent for the body of Christ. With abuse ranging from husbands as dictators to wives as autonomous agents in the family (neither should husbands be autonomous agents), Ephesians 5:21/22-33 needs to be heard in our assemblies, classrooms, and homes. What does the apostle have in mind? What does he teach?

Context

Ephesians 5:15-6:9 describes the nature of submission in the new creation. It is driven by a communal life filled with the Spirit but lived out in the context of evil days. What does “submission” look like when we live as new creation in cultures driven by a different set of values? More specifically, what does submission look like in a Christian community living in a Greco-Roman world? This is what Paul addresses in this section.

In this post, I will focus on the relationship between husbands and wives, though backing up into Ephesians 5:18-21 to see the thematic and grammatical links. The structure of the text of Ephesians 5:18-6:9 is:

Don’t get drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit

• speaking psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves

• singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord

• giving thanks to God the Father at all times  and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ

• submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ

The next section–the six addresses to groups within the body of Christ–hang on these participles. To be filled with the Spirit means the body praises, gives thanks, and submits in community to one another. The following six groups submit to the other as they are grouped in pairs.

• Wives (αἱ γυναῖκες) [supply “submit” from above line] to husbands as to the Lord

• Husbands (oἱ ἄνδρες) love your wives as Christ loved the church

The profound mystery: union (σάρκα μίαν) in 5:31-32

• Children (τὰ τέκνα) obey your parents in the Lord

• Parents (οἱ πατέρες) raise up your children in the Lord

• Slaves (oἱ δοῦλοι) obey your masters as to the Lord

• Masters (οἱ κύριοι) do the same to your slaves—same Lord.

The imperative (be filled with the Spirit) is modified by five participles. These are probably attendant or result participles, though some suggest instrumental. In effect, when one is filled with the Spirit, they are engaged or their life will result in speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, and mutual submission. The community will experience the reality of the Spirit through mutual gifts in mutual submission as the community praises God through the Psalms and gives thanks in the name of Jesus the Messiah.

In other words, Paul does not begin his discussion of marriage in the abstract. Rather, the context is the mutuality of the whole letter and more specifically the connection to being filled with the Spirit in community. The discussion of the household is directly linked by syntax with the household of the church—the living body of Christ (Cohick).

The six groups named (wives, husbands, etc.) are directly linked to the participles, particularly the last participle: submitting to one another (Helton). The six groups are called to mutually submit to each other as part of the community, the body of Christ. More specifically, the verb submit in verse 21 supplies the verb for Ephesians 5:22. There is no verb for “submit” in 5:22. Rather, the word—and its attendant meaning—are brought down into verse 22 from verse 21. The supplied verb does not change meaning, and the participle “submitting” in verse 21 is a topic term for the whole of the following household code. Paul does not command wives to submit (there is no imperative for submit) but rather extends the idea of submitting to the wives by hanging his instruction on the previous participle (submitting). It is the sort of submission that belongs to the body of Christ and not particularly or especially to wives. Rather, it characterizes everyone in the body.

The point is not that what follows are three types of submissive relationships (wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters). Rather, both participants in the relationship are expected to be submissive to each other as the participle applies to each person in the relationships as part of the body of Christ.

How Different People Read Ephesians 5:21-33

Currently, there are four primary reading strategies for Ephesians 5:21-33 (see Witt).

• Traditional Patriarchy or Hard Complementarianism (Most of Christian History and many Feminists)

James A. Allen. “It is the law of nature, and the law of God, that the influence of woman must be exercised through man, and when she takes the reins in her own hands it works evil to both man and woman by lifting her out of the sphere in which she was placed by the Creator. The influence of a woman is behind the achievement of every great man who has figured in the destiny of the world. But God has not created her to take the lead or to occupy the platform in politics or religion.” (“The Woman’s Christian. Temperance Union,” Gospel Advocate 49 [December 19, 1907]: 812.)

Doug Wilson: “Women have a deep creational need to be loved and led, so that they might submit and follow, and men have a deep creational need to be respected and followed, and when these needs are thwarted or otherwise frustrated, the end result is deep unhappiness for both sexes” (Thesis #9). . . “Submission that is invisible is not really submission at all. As submission is cultivated in the home, it needs to be expressed. It cannot exist as a set of hidden resolves or good intentions. Respect must be verbalized, and the demeanor of submissive deference must be plain to everyone in the home” (thesis #20). (https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/21-theses-submission-marriage.html)

• Servant-Leadership Patriarchy or Soft Complementarianism (Since the 1970s)

Renew.Org. “In marriage, husbands and wives are to submit to one another, yet there are specific gender expressions: husbands model themselves in relationship with their wives after Jesus’ sacrificial love for the church, and wives model themselves in relationship with their husbands after the church’s willingness to follow Jesus.” (Renew Statement on Gender in Sproles (p. 5). Sproles writes, “Headship encompasses the concept of authority…while authority is part of headship, sacrificial love is also part of headship. While leadership is part of headship, submission, honor, and understanding are also parts of headship. . . Before giving particular instructions to wives and husbands, Paul calls for mutual submission. This is followed up with two clear calls: submission and agape love” (p. 73). In other words, there is an imbalance in the relationship: the husband has the authority.

• Revolutionary Submission (Keener, Marshall, Witherington, Dudrey, deSilva)

Ben Witherington. “The emphasis on the modified behavior required of the head of the household (who receives the bulk of the exhortations, as husband, parent, and master), especially in loving and acting in a Christian manner with family members, has the rhetorical effect of setting up a trajectory or momentum in a direction of a more egalitarian approach to the marital situation” (Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians, 323).

• Mutualist or Egalitarian Submission (Barth, Witt, Padgett, Cohick, Gorman, Westfall)

Markus Barth. “The call to mutual subordination seems to relativize, if not blur and destroy, any clear notion of authority and subservience. . . The subordination of wives is an example of the same mutual subordination, which is also known by the husband’s love, the children’s obedience, the parents’ responsibility for their offspring, the slaves’ and master’s attitude to one another” (Ephesians, 2:610).

Greco-Roman Household Codes

1. Aristotle identified the male as a “natural ruler” and the female as a “natural subject” (Politics). Women are constitutionally or ontologically inferior to men (cf. Dudrey). Aristotle wrote: the master is “to rule his slaves like a despot, his children like a king, and his wife treating her like a rational being but one without inherent authority” (Witt).
2. Husbands are not identified as rulers as they are in Greco-Roman household codes (Haustafel; see Mutter). Xenophon (Oeconomicus): the husband is the wife’s instructor (παιδευτής). Aristotle (Politics) provided the social backdrop of these pairs (others followed). The husband rules (ἄρχω) his wife in his monarchy. He is ruler (ἀρχή). Arius Didymus (see Balch, “Household Codes,” 41-42) sees the husband as the ruler (ἀρχή) of the house with aristocratic authority (ἀρίστοκρατικός)—superior and naturally functioning as master/ruler. This social world depicts the husband-wife relationship in terms of power and status. As Mutter argues, Christianity provides an alternative discourse that radically contrasts with Greco-Roman household codes.
3. Plutarch provides a nice summary of the marriage relationship. He spoke of wives obeying and husbands ruling like what is described in #2 above. The wife must be silent in public, modest and chaste for the sake of children and future inheritance, and “talk either through her husband or to her husband,” and follow her husband’s religion. [However, we should remember that women did have avenues of social agency in the imperial period; cf. Cohick.] The perfect wife says Aurelia Philmatio of the first century BCE, “I was chase and modest; I did not know the crowd; I was faithful to my husband . . . He, through my diligent performance of duty, flourished at all times” (see Dudrey).
4. In this way, marital harmony in the Greco-Roman value system was for wives to conform themselves to the wishes of their husbands because the husband is supreme in the relationship (Cohick). While the husbands have a sense of importance and value independent of the marriage relationships, wives are wholly dependent upon the relationship for their significance and value. In effect, the husband was the patron, and the wife was the client (Westfall).
5. The household codes served to solidify social stability and, for Romans, were essential to the health of the city and state (see Gombis). In other words, the household codes had a political function within the Roman empire.

Observations about Ephesians 5:21-33 in Contrast to Household Codes.

1. Wives are addressed whereas in Greco-Roman household codes only husbands are addressed. Typically, only the husband is addressed since it is his responsibility to manage his wife.
2. Wives are not explicitly commanded to do anything. No imperatives are addressed to the wives. But the husbands are twice commanded to love their wives (5:25; 5:33). Moreover, the word “obey,” which is used of both the children and the enslaved, is not used regarding the wife. [The statement that women are to fear or respect their husbands, though often translated as an imperative, is not an imperative. It is subjunctive: that a wife might fear her husband.]
3. Regarding wives, Paul uses the language of submission but not obedience as he does with children and the enslaved (6:1; 6:5). There is a contrast between the nature of the relationship between husbands and wives and those between masters and the enslaved or parents and children.
4. Husbands are not commanded to submit their wives to themselves or enforce their submission but rather “submitting to one another” in 5:21 is middle voice. In other worlds, “submitting yourselves.” It is a voluntary action, not a coerced one.
5. This also provides a different meaning for “submission.” It is not about the submission of rank, power, and authority but a deferential yielding to the other out of respect and love (what Padgett calls the central ethical teaching of the New Testament). This is not a hierarchical ordering but a relationship of mutual submission. The Greek word ὑποτάσσεται may mean submission to a higher authority, but it may also mean as “voluntary yielding in love” (according to BDAG). This is not a top-down submission, but a yielding in deference to the other out of respect or love. It is not subjugation to a higher authority but a yielding to the other in deference for the sake of community, respect, and love (Williams).
6. Moreover, this submission is out of a fear or reverence of Christ, and it is rendered as to the Lord (as are all ethical expectations in the body of Christ). This is the new perspective Paul brings to bear in the situation. Life in Christ as new creatures transforms the relationships so that we are serving Christ when we are serving or mutually submitting to each other. Thus, whether the husband loves the wife or the wife submits to the husband, it is a loving and submitting to Christ that is in view rather than an ordered and hierarchical relationship between the siblings in Christ (even as they are husband/wife, parent/child, and master/slave). Rather than hierarchy, it is a relationship of reciprocity (Dudrey). It is expected of all believers. Both love and submission is expected of both women and men (Cohick).
7. Also, when husbands are addressed, they are counseled to exhibit humility, kindness, and gentleness rather than exercising power or authority.

Reading Ephesians 5:21-33 in the context of Ephesians

1. The language of “one body” with a shared inheritance shapes how we read this text. The church is its own household or political economy. Submission in this context is not something to be asked of wives uniquely but is expected of all Christians as we mutually submit to one another. Ultimately the words addressed to husbands and wives are no different than the words addressed to the congregation as a whole.
2. “One another” (ἀλλήλων) expresses a communal standard (4:2, 25, 32; 5:21). It is mutual submission as in Romans 12:10, Philippians 2:3, and Galatians 5:13. This characterizes the whole body of Christ. It means mutual relationship; it is not something one group owes to another group within the body of Christ, but something owed to each other by all believers.
3. “Mystical Union”—husband/wife as example of the union of Christ and the church. The unity of husband and wife is parallel to the unity of Christ and the church. This union transforms the marriage relationship, and it is the primary ground for that transformation. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31. As “one flesh” they mutually submit to each other. The head-body metaphor gives way to the more fundamental one-flesh idea of marriage.
4. We have been adopted into the household of God with God as father (πατέρα).  We are all siblings organized in a non-hierarchical order (see deSilva). We have one father, and the relationship in the community (including marriages in community) have a sibling context. In the church community, and in our relationships with each other, we relate as sisters and brothers. The marriage relationship within the Christian community is grounded in the mutual submission of sisters and brothers within the church—this is our relation to God the Father.
5. Authority is not mentioned in Ephesians 5 unless is read into “head” and the mutual nature of the submission is minimized. In fact, when Paul discusses marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, he uses the word “authority” and claims it is mutual: the wife has authority over the husband’s body and the husband has authority over the wife’s body. Williams summarizes the significance of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 with these points: (1) mutual authority in central decision making aspects of marriage, that is, sex and prayer; (2) equality of authority rooted in the nature of one flesh; and (3) joint-decision-making.
6. Ephesians 5:24 begins with “but” (ἀλλὰ), which is a strong adversative or contrast. If verse 23 means that the husband has authority over his wife, how does verse 24 stand in contrast to verse 23? If the point in verse 23 is that the husband is “savior” (understanding that explanation of “head”) instead of lord or higher authority, then the adversative makes sense. There is no reason to explain submission if head means authority. But verse 24 explains why wives should submit on the analogy of the church submitting to Christ (see Williams).
7. When Paul addresses the husbands in Ephesians 5:25-33, he addresses them in ways that would have been understood as “women’s work” within Greco-Roman culture. In fact, the man has become a bride to Christ. This subverts male dominance (Westfall).

New Creation Values in the Wife-Husband Relationship.

1. The point of this section is not so much a tactic to lower the profile of Christian communities in the imperial world (as if it functions as an apologetic of some sort). Rather, it provides a new way of being in the world as new creatures or new humanity in Christ (see Gombis).
2. Submission (ὑποτάσσεται), love (ἀγαπᾶτε), and respect (φοβῆται) replace the language of ruling and authority found in Greco-Roman Haustafeln. The command to love, given to the husbands, is a way of saying that they should relinquish the sort of power and authority granted and expected by their culture.
3. While the Greco-Roman context is hierarchical, the language of Ephesians 5 is mutual and reciprocal. It is mutual submission. Jesus himself is the example; his self-giving is the model for the husband, and that is also the content of the woman’s “submission”—self-giving. Jesus models submission.
4. The Christological rationale recontextualizes the relationship (“as to the Lord”). It is the Lordship of Christ that defines these relationships rather than social order. “As to the Lord” is not something the wife alone does, however. It characterizes all believers in the community of faith. We all submit to each other “as to the Lord” (Cohick).
5. The use of head (κεφαλὴ) instead of “ruler” (ἀρχή) or even Lord (Paul does not call the husband a Lord or “boss”) suggests it is not about authority but relationship to the body, which is about mutuality, interdependency, and oneness (unity as in speaking of Christ and the church). This “submission” is not hierarchical but an expression of the unity of head and body as one flesh (Hemphill). It is important to hear “head” in connection with the “body” rather than as a distinct metaphor for authority. It is about connection, not authority. Head (κεφαλὴ) occurs only 1:22; 4:15; 5:23 (cf. Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19). I think “head over” in 1:22 (authority or prominence) is quite different than “head of the body” (unity as in 4:15).  Headship in Ephesians is more about giving life and unity rather than authority. Paul asks husbands to be head of their wives in the same sense in which Jesus is head, that is, by sacrificial love and self-giving. It is not a statement of Christ’s authority but of his service (submission). See Witt, Westfall, and Cohick for more analysis of the word “head.”
6. Another, but complementary understanding of head (κεφαλὴ), is to see “savior of the body” in Ephesians 5:25 as appositional, that is, it explains the meaning of head. Consequently, it refers to the source or origin of care and love, saving and nurturing love. He gives his life for the body. This is what the husband should be for the wife whom he ought to love more than his own body, like Jesus (Williams). In this text, Jesus is savior, not lord. And this is the meaning of “head” in this text.
7. If the husband is to treat his wife as his own body, this implies that she is an equal, or at least mutuality. She is given the status of a male body (Westfall).
8. The women submit and respect, and the men love. Why does not Paul use the language of “submit” regarding men if the point is mutual submission? Perhaps Paul is sensitive to how this would have been heard in a Greco-Roman hierarchical world (as Cohick puts it, “it would have sounded nonsensical” to an audience steeped in patriarchy). Instead of using the word, he describes submissive actions with language that typically describes the work of women such as laundry, bathing, clothing (spinning and weaving), feeding, and nurturing, etc; cf. Westfall). Paul describes the husband’s submission. This is how Paul carefully navigates the slavery relationship. For example, he does not explicitly call upon Philemon to release Onesimus, but Paul does seemingly expect Philemon to do so. This is a matter of social realism while also seeking to transform that reality in the context of the Christian community. Paul does this by commanding the husband to love his wife, which in the context of patriarchy is a submissive self-sacrificial act.
9. This is a paradigm shift from authority and power to mutual submission for the sake of the other. The husband must love his wife so that (ἵνα) she may respect her husband (5:33; see Miller & Walsh).
10. Paul has radically transformed the expectations of the Greco-Roman household into a new humanity shaped by the values of the new creation. Paul redeems the hierarchical marriage expectation through a call to mutuality, humility, and self-sacrificial service. There is no call for authority or its execution in this section of Ephesians.

Bibliography

Balch, David L., “Household Codes,’ 25-50. In Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, ed. David Aune. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Bartchy, S. Scott, “Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 29 (1999): 68-78.

Cohick, Lynn. “Loving and Submitting to One Another in Marriage: Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19,” 185-204. In Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblcial, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, eds. Ronald W. Pierce, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Christa L. McKirkland, 3^rd ed. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021.

Dudrey, Russ, “’Submit Yourselves to One Another’: A Socio-Historical Look at the Household Code of Ephesians 5:15-6:9,” Restoration Quarterly 41 (1999): 27-44.

deSilva, David, “Re-writing ‘Household’ in the Early Church,” Ashland Theological Journal 36 (2004): 85-94, available at https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/36-1_085.pdf

Gombis, Timothy G., “A Radically New Humanity: The Function of the Haustafel in Ephesians,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005): 317-330.

Hemphill, Christy, “Kephale is a Body Part: Unified Interdependence in Relationship in Ephesians 5,” Priscilla Papers: Academic Journal of CBE International 35  (April 30, 2021), available at https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/kephale-body-part-unified-interdependence/

Helton, Stanley, “Ephesians 5:21: A Longer Translation Note,” Restoration Quarterly 48 (2006): 33-41.

Lee-Barnewall, Michelle. Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.

Miller, Jeff and Julie Walsh, “Translating Ephesians 5.33,” The Bible Translator 74 (2023): 93-109.

Mowczka, Marg, “Ephesians 5 Archives,” https://margmowczko.com/category/equality-and-gender-issues/ephesians-5/

Mutter, Kelvin F., “Ephesians 5:21-33 as Christian Alternative Discourse,” Trinity Journal 39ns (2018): 3-20.

Padgett, Alan G. As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

Sproles, Renée. On Gender: What the Bible Says About Men and Women—and Why it Matters. Nashville: Renew, 2019.

Westfall, Cynthia Long. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ.  Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.

Westfall, Cynthia Long, “’This is a Great Metaphor!’: Reciprocity in the Ephesian Household Code,” 561-98. In Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Context for the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Williams, Terran, “What Winger Presently Gets Wrong: Have we Misunderstood ‘Wives Submit’?,” available at https://terranwilliams.com/what-winger-presently-gets-wrong-have-we-misunderstood-wives-submit/

Witt, William G., “Mutual Submission,” 99-120. In Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology of Women’s Ordination. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.

What do you say to God when you are hiding in a cave? Petition? Lament? Confidence? Praise? Yes! Psalm 57 is a powerful testimony to trust in God who is a refuge in a storm. We trust because of God’s steadfast love and faithfulness. God will be exalted, and God’s glory will fill the earth, even when it does not look like it at the moment, moments when we are hiding in a cave. Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss the meaning of Psalm 57.

Deeper Bible study? Engaging Group Discipleship? Training leaders for Small Groups? These online offerings are available at minimal cost.

There are four self-directed opportunities where you are able to learn at your own pace. Each unit contains original videos, suggested readings, and learning activities.

1. Discovery Bible Study: A Group Discipleship Opportunity.
2. Going Deeper: Romans 8, N. T. Wright, and Bible Study.
3. Going Deeper: Studying the Bible.
4. Leading Small Groups.

One course is engages learning with a community through synchronous ZOOM gatherings in connection with course materials like videos, readings, and learning activities.

1. Going Deeper: The Psalms as Theological Narrative.