Keith Ferdinando on Ephesians 6:12 and the "principalities" being supernatural personal beings

  

Carr claims there is no reason to regard the powers as evil at all. He argues partly on the grounds that the influence of astrology and the fear and despair it engendered, can be dated only after the writing of the Pauline epistles; and also that the Bible and the literature of post-biblical Judaism suggest there was little notion of evil spiritual powers in Jewish religion. Consequently the idea of mighty forces hostile to man is not found in the first century, and the relevant Pauline passages should be exegeted accordingly. Since Ephesians 6:12 presents an apparently insuperable difficulty for his theory, he claims that it is a later interpolation and should be excised from the text. However, evidence for fear of demons and astral powers in both first century Judaism and paganism is considerable. ‘The concept of a world populated with evil spirits and oppressive demons which lead people astray from God is undeniably attested in the Synoptics.’ Moreover, Carr’s exegesis, particularly of Colossians 2:14f., is often forced, and there is no textual basis for the claim that Ephesians 6:12 is an interpolation.

 

That at least some references to the powers have evil supernatural beings in mind is undeniable, Ephesians 6:12 being the most obvious example. The powers mentioned in Ephesians 1:21 were also probably so understood. The passage describes Christ’s exaltation through an allusion to Psalm 110:1, embedded in which are ideas of warfare and the subjection of the enemies of the one enthroned. When the same psalm is cited in 1 Corinthians 15:24f. the ‘principalities and powers’ are explicitly identified as the enemies to be subdued. Consequently, when in Ephesians 1:20f. the reference to Psalm 110 is followed by a list of powers which are subject to Christ’s authority, the clear implication is that they are similarly understood as enemies now defeated. Colossians 1:15–20 implies that the powers are, or at least have been, hostile to God, since they are among the ‘all things’, τὰ πάντα … εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, which are reconciled. Furthermore Colossians 2:15, on most interpretations, portrays the cross as a triumph over formerly hostile powers.

 

Other references are more ambiguous. The ἀρχαὶ of Romans 8:38 are probably hostile in that they might in principle separate from Christ’s love, although the context does not demand such an interpretation. If the disputed expression, οἱ ἀρχόντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (1 Cor. 2:6–8), refers to supernatural powers, they are clearly evil in that it is they who crucified Christ. Ephesians 3:10 may, like 1 Peter 1:12, allude simply to angels contemplating Christ’s redemptive work. However, the letter’s recipients would almost certainly have understood αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ αἱ ἐχουσίαι ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις as hostile beings, and that the more so in the light of Ephesians 1:21 and 6:12. Moreover an exegesis which sees them here as diabolical angels makes good sense: ‘By her very existence as a new humanity … the Church reveals God’s secret in action and heralds to the hostile powers the overcoming of cosmic divisions and their defeat.’ Such an interpretation fits well into the aims of the letter, one of which is to reassure readers who were feeling threatened by these powers.

 

The phrase ἐπουράνια καὶ ἐπιγεῖα καὶ καταχθόνια (Phil. 2:10) may simply refer to the totality of the cosmos, including, but not emphasizing, the powers. Otherwise it might be an allusion to a threefold division of the universe into angels, demons and men, or to the ‘mighty angelic powers which were thought to rule over the realms of the cosmos—astral, terrestrial, chthonic’. In favour of this last view is the reference to the superiority of Jesus’ name, τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, which recalls Ephesians 1:21 where the powers are plainly in view and also evokes contemporary magic with its invocation of supposedly mighty ‘names’ as power sources. Paul would thus be affirming the subjection of all such ‘names’ to Christ. Moreover, most frequently when Christ’s exaltation is affirmed elsewhere in the New Testament, it is associated with the subjection of the powers: ‘It is just the oldest formulas of faith as we find them already in the New Testament and in the Apostolic Fathers which regularly repeat the statement that Christ sits at the right hand of God, with all powers subjected to him.’ Hence Martin argues that the verb ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, when used in 2:11 in the context of an enthronement drama, implies not so much ‘that creation confesses with personal response the lordship of Christ as that the angelic powers own His right because it is their duty to do so’. Thus if ἐπουράνια καὶ ἐπιγεῖα καὶ καταχθόνια are spiritual beings, they have been subjected to Christ by conquest and are forced at his enthronement to acknowledge that. They must accordingly be hostile powers, the passage therefore coinciding with Ephesians 1:21 and 1 Corinthians 15:24.

 

Thus, while some exegetes argue that the powers in the New Testament may be good or bad angels, in Paul they are invariably evil. While some Pauline references to them do not define their moral orientation with precision, the unambiguous ones always identify them as hostile beings. This necessarily creates a certain presumption in favour of understanding the powers as evil beings whenever they are mentioned, and that the more so since such an approach invariably produces good sense.

 

Some attention must be given to the relationship, if any, between the Pauline terminology of ‘principalities and powers’, and vocabulary used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to evil supernatural beings. Ephesians 6:12 indicates the relationship of the powers to Satan. That they are mentioned in the same context, are engaged in similar activity, and are resisted by the same means implies an identity of nature and purpose, and there is also the suggestion of Satan’s primacy. Moreover, Colossians 2:14–15 and perhaps Romans 8:38–9 suggest that the powers are to be understood as accusers of human beings, again like Satan.

 

It is generally assumed that the powers cannot be simply identified with the synoptic demons. ‘Paul has in view demonic intelligences of a much higher order than the “devils” who possessed the poor disordered souls that meet us in the Gospel pages. These are cosmic spirit forces which possess and control not only individual human lives but the very course of the universe.’ The vocabulary employed may suggest that they are to be differentiated from the synoptic demons, not only because of its connotations of cosmic power, but also because of the derivation of some of the terminology from Jewish speculation about angels. Thus it seems likely that Pauline ‘principalities and powers’ language refers to beings identified elsewhere as Satan’s, or ‘fallen’, angels (Matt. 25:41; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev., 12:7–9). Such a view is supported by the juxtaposition of ἄγγελοι and ἀρχαὶ in Romans 8:38, and also by the association of ἄγγελοι with ἐχουσίαι and δυνάμεις in 1 Peter 3:22 as a category of powers subjected to Christ.

 

Nevertheless the distinction between the synoptic demons and Pauline powers should not be overdrawn. Both synoptic gospels on the one hand, and Pauline epistles on the other, suggest the essential unity within a single ‘kingdom’ of the various evil supernatural beings of whose existence they speak (Mk. 3:23ff.; Eph. 2:2; 6:11). The synoptic demons and Pauline powers have an analogous relationship of subservience to Satan, and are put under attack by Christ’s coming. Moreover the powers were feared in Ephesus, not only because they controlled world forces as astral deities, but also because they were believed to afflict people much like the synoptic demons, and the famed Ephesian magic was intended to manipulate them for the good or ill of particular persons. However, the exact relationship between demons and powers remains unresolved in the Pauline epistles, as indeed is the case elsewhere in the New Testament. (Keith Ferdinando, The Triumph of Christ in African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and Redemption in the African Context [Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster Press, 1999], 261-66)

 

The Roman Catholic Dogmatic Understanding of Original Sin "was not universally held in the second century"

While claiming that the Roman Catholic dogmatic understanding of Original Sin finds attestation earlier than many believe (e.g., Ireaneus, Against Heresies, 3.22.4), one Catholic apologist noted that

 

It is worth noting that this more developed view of original sin was not universally held in the second century. Neither St. Theophilus of Antioch nor St. Justin Martyr affirm the transmission of sin in infants. However, both do affirm that Adam’s sin is the cause of death in the world. Indeed, this is one of the central arguments in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. These fathers then can still be said to hold the doctrine albeit it not fully. Their view was certainly not universal though, as shown by the example of Irenaeus. Justin and Theophilus ought not to be read in isolation, but within the larger context of the consensus partum. (Gideon Lazar, “Analyzing Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin: A Response to John Romanides and John Meyendorff,” in I Believe in the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth: Studies in the Theology of Creation, ed. Gideon Lazar [St. Basil Institute Press, 2024], 1:46)

 

"Worlds, Plurality of" in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (1894)

  

Worlds, Plurality of. The question whether other globes besides the earth are inhabited is one of great interest both to the student of nature and to the theologian. There are two classes of arguments that may be brought to bear upon its solution.

 

1. Probabilities from Analogy.—From the fact that our own globe is populated, it has naturally been inferred that the stellar bodies are so likewise. Else why do they exist? Surely, it is contended, they cannot have been formed merely for the delectation of the comparatively few denizens of this relatively insignificant orb. But are we sure of that? If man be the only intelligent creature, it is inconsistent neither with reason nor with Scripture to suppose that the whole visible creation was intended for his express benefit and behoof. Moreover, the presumption from analogy almost wholly breaks down if extended to its legitimate results in this question. If the other celestial spheres are inhabited, it is doubtless with rational and moral beings like ourselves, for mere unaccountable animals would be a sorry outcome of so vast creative power and skill. In that case they are free of will, and some of them, at least, have probably fallen, like men and angels. Has a Redeemer been provided for them also? It would seem not, from the silence of revelation on the subject, or rather from the implications of soteriology. It is hazardous to aver that Christ has died for other worlds than our own, or that he will ever do so. Here is apparently an incongruity which clogs the hypothesis of other planetary bodies being inhabited.

 

2. Evidence of Science.—This is really a problem within the domain of physics, and should be decided by an appeal to known facts. These are neither few nor indistinct. The moon, which is our nearest and most familiar neighbor, is pronounced by the latest observers to be utterly uninhabitable. She has neither atmosphere nor water, at least not on the hemisphere which is constantly presented towards us. But she has enormously deep craters, which speak of fearful convulsions upon her surface, and her face appears to be entirely destitute of all possibilities even of vegetation. In fact, an ordinary-sized farm, or even a considerable dwelling, had it existed there, would probably have been detected by the powerful telescopes which have scanned and even photographed the lunar landscape.

 

Turning now to Venus, our nearest fellow-planet, we find her not much more favorably situated. She has so wide a variation of temperature at different seasons of the year, owing to the great obliquity of her ecliptic, as must be fatal to all animal or vegetable existence. Mercury, the sole other planet within our orbit, is even worse off, being so near the sun that no life could possibly endure the terrific heat. Mars, our first outside neighbor, is circumstanced most like ourselves; but the close observation, for which he affords peculiar facilities, have failed to discover any positive indications of habitability. Of the remaining members of our own planetary system, Jupiter and Saturn may perhaps have a temperature capable of supporting life, but the different colored moons of the former and the singular electric zone of the latter, besides their exceedingly low density, imply a difference of constitution incompatible with the conditions known upon our own globe. The improbability of their being inhabited is increased by the revelations of the spectrum, which discloses a composition of each materially different from the other and from the earth’s. As for the asteroids, which occupy the place of a lost intermediate sphere, they seem to have consisted of terribly explosive materials, fragments of which frequently fall to us in the form of meteorolites, and furnish compounds not found in terrestrial bodies. The more distant planets are too intensely cold to admit of life in any form.

 

The only remaining member of our planetary family is the central orb, the sun itself. If its body is coequal with its luminous disk, the surface must be too rare to sustain beings of anything more than ethereal weight; and whether this be the real body of the sun, or whether the interior sphere, glimpses of which are obtained through the so-called “spots,” and which only appear dark by contrast with the vivid incandescence of the atmosphere, still the fiery ardor of the surface must be such as to preclude all life of which we can form any conception.

 

The fixed stars are but the central suns of other systems, and are evidently of a like nature with our own. Their planets, if they have any, are a matter of pure conjecture. Comets and nebulæ are too flimsy in their structure to form a habitable abode for creatures of any sort; they seem, indeed, to be but fire-mist or electric vapor. We have thus exhausted the range of space, and find no home except earth at all suitable or possible for a creature having the least resemblance to man. To suppose a being capable of existing under the abnormal and intolerable conditions of vitality such as we have ascertained is as gratuitous as it is preposterous. We cannot, it is true, limit the power and resources of the Almighty, but we are forced by the facts in the case, and by the invariable analogies of all life with which we are acquainted, to deny its existence upon the other celestial bodies. Nor is there the slightest evidence that any of the globes except our own has ever been inhabited, or is likely to be so in the future. See Proctor, Other Worlds than Ours (Lond. 1870). (“Worlds, Plurality Of,” in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Supplement—A–Z, ed. John M’Clintock and James Strong, 12 vols. [New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1894], 12:1077-78)

 

John Muddiman on Ephesians 6:12

  

12 The struggle with the powers of darkness is described as our contest (palê) or wrestling match, presumably implying close, hand-to-hand combat (Gudorf 1998: 334). Carr (1981: 104–10) is forced to excise this verse as a later interpolation, because it conflicts with his theory that the principalities and powers are neutral or benign (see on 1:20f. above); this theory has been refuted by Arnold (1987: 71–87).

 

The contest is not with human opponents, literally ‘blood and flesh’—the reverse order (cf. also Heb. 2:14) of the normal stock phrase (cf. Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:50). The reversal may be in response to a context that implies bloodshed in battle. Four terms for the superhuman opponents of Christians are mentioned, amplifying the reference to the devil in the previous verse: literally translated, they are ‘principalities’, ‘authorities’, ‘world rulers of this darkness’ and ‘spiritual beings of wickedness in the heavenlies’. The first two terms, principalities and authorities, have been discussed at 3:10 and 1:21, where they were joined by ‘powers’, ‘dominions’ and ‘every name that is named’. Two more of the names for the fallen angels who form the army of Satan are added. Powers of this dark world (lit. ‘world rulers (kosmokratores) of this darkness’) occurs only here in the New Testament but compare Testament of Solomon 18.2 (see Charlesworth 1983: 1.960–87). In magical papyri, the sun and the gods of the mystery cults are occasionally addressed as ‘world ruler’ (understood positively as a devotional title): Arnold (DPL 581) quotes the Hymn to Serapis (PGM 13.61.8–40): ‘I call on you Lord, world ruler … protect me from my own astrological destiny, destroy my foul fate, apportion good things for me in my horoscope.’ The addition, ‘of this darkness’, is therefore crucial; it gives the term the necessary negative connotation—pagan deities are rejected as demonic (cf. also Paul at 1 Cor. 10:20).

 

The remaining title, the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly realm, may be a summarizing description of all the preceding powers rather than a further category (so Lincoln 444). But it is equally possible that the text is working upwards from the evil geniuses that inspire oppressive political regimes (‘principalities’) or cause disruptions in the natural order (‘authorities’), to the demonic deities worshipped in pagan cults and astrology (‘world rulers’), and finally, with this phrase, to those who are the closest adjutants to the Prince of the Power of the Air (2:2). They are located ‘in the heavenlies’ (cf. 3:10; for this idiom, which is distinctive of Ephesians, see on 1:3) but, as the term suggests, there are many levels in the spirit-world, where evil angels have their own spheres of autonomous malevolent activity. If it is the case that the higher up in the hierarchy of evil (and the closer therefore to the throne of God) they are, the more arrogant these fallen angels become (see T. Sol. chs. 6, 8 and 18), then ‘the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly realm’ of Eph. 6:12 could be identified with what the author of Col. 1:16 called ‘thrones’, the term which is missing from Eph. 1:21 (see above). The throne of God can be shared by Christ and the victorious Christian (see Rev. 3:21) and by the loyal council of God’s prophets and apostles (see Rev. 4:4, cf. 4:11), but when the Prince of demons claims a throne of his own (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4) his treason becomes fully apparent as open rebellion. (John Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians [Black’s New Testament Commentary; London: Continuum, 2001], 288-89)

 

Ernest Best on Ephesians 6:12

  

κοσμοκράτωρ, only here in the NT, came to be used in astronomy and astrology and was applied to various gods (the names of the planets show their association with deities). The word is found also in T Sol 8:2; 18:2, in both cases qualified by a reference to darkness as in Ephesians; it is not clear whether the Testament of Solomon predates Ephesians, depends on it, or uses the word independently; if the last were the case it would indicate the probable existence of the word prior to Ephesians; alternatively it may have been AE’s own creation. It would be a suitable term to apply to God as ruler of the cosmos; in 6:12 however it obviously has an evil connotation as its qualification with darkness implies; the qualification may have been necessary if the word was already in use in some circles, perhaps with reference to earthly rulers, without an ‘evil’ connotation. ‘Darkness’ itself carried the idea of evil (e.g. in 5:8) and, in a sense, is also linked to astronomy for it is only in darkness that the planets are visible. The world rulers belong to the sphere of darkness rather than the time of darkness (cf Gnilka). The term then indicates in 6:12 a group or class of supernatural evil beings and since these belong to the darkness they will attempt to lure believers away from the light, i.e. from redemption (Schlatter).

 

The final term in AE’s sequence appears to be comprehensive as if he were seeking to avoid omitting any evil supernatural power (cf 1:21; 5:27). GNB therefore wrongly makes the first three terms explanatory of this fourth. πνευματικός is normally used in the NT in relation to the Holy Spirit (e.g. Rom 1:11; 1 Cor 2:13; 3:1; 9:11; 12:1; 14:1), and was used in this way earlier in the letter (1:3; 5:19). But there are of course evil spirits (cf T Sim 3:5; 4:9; T Levi 18:12; 1 En 15:8–12; 99:7; 1QM 13:2, 4; CD 12:2; Lk 7:21; 8:2; Acts 19:12f) and the qualification here with πονηρίας ensures that the reference is to these and not good spirits. Evil spirits are regularly associated with the devil (cf v. 11). Here they are not of course the demons which may inhabit humans and require to be exorcised; exorcism is not mentioned in respect of the defeat of any of those named here. These evil spirits dwell in the heavenlies (cf 2:2; T Benj 3:4; 2 En 29:4f; Asc Isaiah 7:9; 11:23), and this accords with the association of the powers with astrology. Contemporary Judaism thought of a multiplicity of heavens; do the powers then live in the same heaven as Christ and God (the last phrase of the verse referring to the heavenlies covers all four named categories and not just the fourth)? Since AE uses the same plural phrase here as in 1:20, this suggests he thought they did. Such a possibility gave patristic commentators difficulty. Chrysostom, Theod Mops, Theodoret all understood ἐν as if it were περί or implying that the struggle was not about earthly but heavenly matters. 𝔓⁴⁶ Did avoid the difficulty by omitting the phrase. Some Fathers read ὑπουρανίοις, ‘under heaven’; Theod Mops is aware of this reading though he does not accept it. Jerome believed that the powers were in the heavenlies and this also seems to have been the opinion of Tertullian, adv. Marc 5:18. The conclusion cannot be evaded that AE presents the powers as heavenly inhabitants and the war between them and humans as taking place there where believers already are (2:6); yet it should also be recognised that heaven is a fluid concept. But, despite Rev 12:7; 13:1ff, can there be war in heaven? To avoid this implication Chrysostom and Theod Mops spoke of a war waged on behalf of the Kingdom (i.e. heaven). From Origen onwards many have connected 6:11 to 2:2 and sought a distinction between an upper and a lower heaven; Pelagius identified the latter with the sphere of birds. Whatever the precise resolution of this problem, it is important to realise that AE wishes to drive home to his readers that as believers their struggle is of a superhuman nature. The repeated πρός stresses both the fact of the struggle and its many aspects. AE’s emphasis obviously impressed the early church; the first two volumes of Biblia Patristica contain forty-three references to quotations of it or allusions to it. It also attracted the attention of gnostics (in NHC Hyp Arch II, 4 86:23–35; Exeg Soul II, 6 130:35–131:13; Teach Silv VII, 4 117:14–18; Ep Pet Phil VIII, 2 137:10–30; Testim Truth IX, 3 32:28; cf Exc Theod 48:2). The concept of battle with the powers is also found in Melch IX, 1 20:22–3. (Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians [International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1998], 593-95)

 

Markus Barth on Ephesians 6:12

  

12. we are wrestling not with blood and flesh. Lit. “Our struggle is not …” A rather impressive textual tradition has, “your” struggle. It is more likely that the unexpected pronoun “our” was changed to “your” by mistake or for the purpose of uniformity with the context than that an original “your” was converted into “our” (Abbott). While it is clear that palē (“struggle” or “wrestling”) is used in a spiritual sense, the metaphor has been explained in various ways. A hand-to-hand fight is designated by the Greek word, not struggle or conflict in general (as in the English adage, “life is a struggle”). If a sport contest is in mind, then the form and rules of the ancient pagkration may apply; this was an “ ‘all-in’ contest in boxing and wrestling.” But if hand-to-hand fighting “in battle” is meant, no means of inflicting wounds, pain, and death are excluded. No doubt Eph 6 describes a “spiritual war” and “spiritual weapons”; but rather than use the term “war” (polemos) Paul chooses a concept that originally denotes the activity of an athlete. The emphasis placed on “peace” in 2:14–16; 4:3 and 6:15 may have prevented Paul from speaking in this epistle of an ongoing war. Just as, e.g. Plato and Philo mixed metaphors of sport and of war, so Paul appears to have conflated them. Again, the effect of Paul’s choice is an antidote against a tragic-dualistic world view. Life is not by definition a battle, war is not the father of all things. But the attacks extended against the Christians require that they stand their ground as “good sports” and soldiers. While in the Pauline description of the Christians’ internal battle in Galatians, Romans, and II Corinthians the “flesh” is the opponent, and in 1 Peter 2:11 and James 4:1–2 the “desires” are the adversaries, Eph 6:12 describes another fight: a struggle “not with blood and flesh.” “The contrast … between human and superhuman powers” is meant (Abbott). A reason why the formula “flesh and blood” (meaning humanity in its frail and perishing aspect, or in rare cases, the outstanding sacrificial elements)³⁵ is reversed here has not yet been found, as Dibelius observes; see also Heb 2:14; John 1:13. Perhaps “blood” substitutes for “soul” or “life”; for “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” according to Lev 17:11. In this case “blood and flesh” is a synonym of “soul and body.”

 

with the governments, with the authorities, with the overlords of this dark world, with the spiritual hosts of evil in the heavens. The first two of these four terms resume the diction found in 1:21 and 3:10. The other two contribute information about the nature and history of all evil powers. As in 2:2 where the air or “atmosphere” was the location of the devil’s reign, now “the heavens” are mentioned as the seat of all powers, i.e. one region of heaven which is to be clearly distinguished from others. See Comment IV for details and variant interpretations. (Markus Bart, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4-6 [AYB 34A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 763-64)

 

Lynn H. Cohick on Ephesaisn 5:26

  

Making believers holy involves “cleansing … by the washing with water through the word.” The participle “cleansing” usually means making someone ethically pure or free from the guilt of sins. The cleansing happens with water, and immediately the question arises whether Paul alludes to baptism or is developing the imagery of a bride’s wedding preparations. Evidence for the latter comes from two quarters. First, the verse lacks the verb “to baptize,” which Paul uses in 1 Cor 12:13. Second the image seems to call to mind the common practice of bridal baths. Following this analogy closely in the context of this verse, however, would require the bridegroom giving his bride a prewedding bath, which would contravene custom and modesty codes. Responding to this challenge, some argue that Paul draws on Ezekiel’s vision of adulterous Jerusalem, in which the Lord washes and clothes her, but then she commits idolatry (Ezek 16:1–43). In this vision, the Lord enters into a covenant with Jerusalem and declares: “You became mine” (16:8), after which the Lord bathed his wife and clothed her (16:9–13). In any case, the Lord serves Jerusalem, his “wife,” with love and compassion by washing and putting ointment on the wounded flesh, adorning her with beautiful clothes. The prophet’s picture of Israel’s infidelity and God’s faithfulness help illuminate Paul’s emphasis that Christ does not overlook the church’s sin, but has “pledged himself to the church [and] will establish the church’s holiness.”

 

If the bridal bath is in view here in Eph 5:26, then 5:27 fills out the picture in possible ways. Christ’s actions as menial household chores of laundering and ironing implicitly contrast the typical masculine tasks of the public square. The spotless, wrinkle-free garment might be compared to the vision of the bride adorned for her husband—the new Jerusalem, descending from heaven (Rev 21:2). The bride, the wife of the Lamb, is also the holy city Jerusalem, which shines with God’s glory as a precious jewel (21:9–11). This verse has been understood as highlighting the brilliant beauty of the young bride, the church. From here, some commentators stress the physical beauty of a young bride, even after acknowledging that the verse itself speaks to moral uprightness. This subtle switch, praising female physical beauty and connecting ugliness and sinfulness, runs counter to several strands within the biblical text and reinforces a troubling cultural message that women’s worth is tied to physical appearance. Both Peter and Paul enjoin women to develop an inner beauty and eschew pearls, gold, fancy hairstyles (1 Tim 2:9–10; 1 Pet 3:3–6). And are wrinkles to be erased as ugly, even immoral? Is maintaining a youthful appearance a godly activity? I wish the church answered with a resounding “no,” but too often women’s self-worth is measured by society’s definition of beauty. Viewing others as beloved members of God’s family, being made new from the inside out, could mitigate against our culture’s obsession on external appearance.

 

Those who favor an allusion to baptism in Eph 5:26 offer several arguments. First, they observe that Paul uses an article before the noun “washing,” thereby specifying “the washing.” A parallel with 1 Cor 6:11, which is more directly tied to baptism, strengthens this, but the claim cannot rest solely on the tenuous argument of the article’s presence. Second, Titus 3:5 is the only other time the noun “washing” is found, there most likely referring to baptism. Paul mentions baptism in Eph 4:5 in his proclamation of the oneness of believers in the Lord, and will reemphasize unity in 5:30 as believers are members of Christ’s body. Finally, the enigmatic phrase “through the word” is best understood as part of a liturgical setting. The “word” might refer to a liturgical phrase, perhaps drawing on the testimony in 4:2–5 and covering the actions of sanctifying and cleansing with water performed by Christ. Or it may refer more broadly to the gospel message that is testified to in the rite of baptism. Paul uses the noun again in 6:17 in describing the sword of the Spirit as the word of God. Paul describes the message of faith with the same noun as he explains to the Romans that the word is near you (Rom 10:8, citing Deut 30:14). Even though the phrase’s grammatical place in the sentence is not clear, the message rings out that Christ’s actions in making his people holy occurs in and through the power of God’s word. Taken together, these arguments tilt the scales in favor of seeing Paul allude to baptism as part of Christ’s work in creating a radiant church. (Lynn H. Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians [New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2020], 363-65)