If now baptism is in view in 5:26 (and there are good reasons for
thinking this) one may wonder why the author brings it in at all. In the
admonitory context husbands are ordered to love their wives as Christ loved the
church and gave himself up for her. Without trying to penetrate the author’s
deepest intentions, it seems natural to assume that to him, as to his master
Paul, baptism was the visible and effective sign which made Christ’s death
relevant to the one baptised. In the present context he establishes a further
connection between his address to married people and baptism by alluding to the
custom of the bridal bath. Moreover, through referring to baptism, the author
succeeds in making Christ’s example more urgent; it is not only a past event,
but the addressees themselves presently enjoy the fruits of it. (Lars
Hartman, “into the Name of the Lord Jesus”: Baptism in the Early Church
[Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd.,
1997], 105)
The passage was probably inspired by Col 1:22, which refers to the
circumstance that the addressees were formerly strangers to and enemies of God
but are now reconciled through the death of Christ: that is, it has to do with
their becoming Christians. The writer of Ephesians has the same things in mind
but adds the reference to baptism. (Ibid., n. 27)