Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

Close this search box.

Fear or Respect in Ephesians 5:33?

Nevertheless, each one of you [husbands] should love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife hina phobētai her husband (Ephesians 5:33).

Some Christians are puzzled over Paul’s instructions in Ephesians 5:33 where he says that the wife should “respect” or “fear” (phobētai from phobeō) her husband. Did Paul want wives to be afraid of their husbands?

In antiquity, and even up until more recent times, many rulers, military leaders, masters, and employers, etc, thought that they needed to be feared if they were to be respected and have their wishes met. Moreover, these powerful men and women could wield their authority over subordinates in terrifying ways.[1] The Greek verb phobeō, which can mean “fear”, “revere,” and “respect” reflects this dynamic. However, the use of phobeō does not necessarily imply that fear always accompanies reverence or respect.

Tragically, many husbands have also believed that they needed to be feared if they wanted to be respected and have an obedient wife under their control. Yet the meaning and context of Ephesians 5:33 rules out the understanding that a wife should be afraid of her Christian husband. Rather, she should expect to be loved and nurtured, and have a husband who gives himself up for her (Eph. 5:25, 28–29). Accordingly, very few English translations use the word “fear” in Ephesians 5:33.[2]

Fear or Respect in 1 Peter 3:2?

… they [non-Christian husbands] will be won over when they see your pure conduct accompanied by phobos (1 Peter 3:1b-2).

The situation in 1 Peter is different, however. In his first letter, Peter tells wives that their unsaved husbands may be won over when they observe their wive’s chaste conduct combined with respect (phobos) (1 Pet. 3:2). Some Christian wives with unsaved husbands living in the patriarchal Greco-Roman world would have had genuine reasons for fearing their husbands. Nevertheless, a few verses down, Peter writes that wives should not fear any terror (1 Pet. 3:6). So like Paul, Peter is not instructing wives to be afraid of their husbands but simply to treat them with respect.

Peter also told husbands to respect their wives but in 1 Peter 3:7 he uses a different Greek word—timē. This word means “honour,” which is arguably a better kind of respect than phobos. Peter’s reason for this honour is that both husband and wife are co-heirs of the grace of life. I like how the New Living Translation puts this phrase addressed to men: “she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life” (1 Pet. 3:7 NLT).

In the new life that Jesus gives us, we all—men and women, husbands and wives—are equal, and there is no place or provision for fear or intimidation. Instead, there should be mutual honour and respect.

Be devoted to one another in love.
Honour one another above yourselves.
Romans 12:10

Fear Respect Christian Marriage Ephesians 5:33 Paul Wives


[1] Today we consider some of the behaviours and demands of powerful people of the past as unethical, abusive, and downright cruel. And their behaviours are now illegal in many nations.

[2] Ephesians 5:21, which prefaces the passage on wives and husbands, contains the noun phobos: We are all to mutually submit to one another out of “reverence” (phobos) for Jesus Christ. “Reverence” and “respect” rather than “fear” seems to be the meaning here. Moreover, the attitudes of submission and respect seem to be related here as they are in other New Testament passages. [See “explore more” articles below.]

© Margaret Mowczko 2015
All Rights Reserved

Postscript 1: Notes on the Grammar

Phobos and phobeō in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3

In Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 3:2 the noun phobos is used. In both Ephesians 5:33 and 1 Peter 3:6 middle-passive forms of the cognate verb phobeō are used. The middle voice is often used for verbs of emotion.
Ephesians 5:33, hina plus subjunctive

Hinaphobētai in Ephesians 5:33

The last clause at the end of Ephesians 5:33 (hē de gunē hina phobētai ton andra) is difficult to translate precisely from the Greek, and many English translations add words to help make some sense of it. In particular, what do we do with conjunction hina (ἵνα: “that, so that”) plus the subjunctive verb phobētai (“she may respect”)? Is the wife’s respect dependent on, or a result of, her husband’s Christ-like, sacrificial and loving behaviour?

Here are three possible ways of dealing with hina (ἵνα) in Ephesians 5:33.

1. A wish with an unstated verb.
Thayer explains that a weakened hina (ἵνα) with the subjunctive verb can denote something which one wishes to be done by another person, and that an unstated verb of commanding, exhorting, or wishing must be mentally supplied by the reader before the hina (ἵνα). Thayer cites a few examples of New Testament verses where this may be happening, including Ephesians 5:33. (See ἵνα II 4b here: Bible Hub.)

This idea of an unstated, implied verb is perhaps reflected in the words of exhortation in the ESV, NKJV, and many other translations that add the verb “see” to Ephesians 5:33b: “and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

2. “Respect” functions as an imperative.
Zerwick states that hina (ἵνα) can express either an independent wish or an exhortation, and adds, “That ἵνα can in the NT be used absolutely with the sense of an imperative or the like is shown by examples such as Eph 5:33: «let each one love his wife (ἀγαπάτω), and let the wife fear her husband (ἵνα φοβῆται)»; cf. 2 Cor 8:7. (See Zerwick 415.c  (294) on p. 141 here: Google Books.)

BDAG (ἵνα 2g) also cite Ephesians 5:33 as an example where a weakened hina (ἵνα) with a subjunctive verb functions as an imperative. Their translation is, “the wife is to respect her husband.”

Hina (ἵνα) in an independent clause with an imperatival sense starts as early as 250 BCE. For example, there are half a dozen examples in the Zenon archives (261–229 BC) including PCairZen III 59490. (Hina in an independent clause expressing a directive is also common in Modern Greek, which admittedly doesn’t help us with New Testament Greek.) Option 2 makes the most sense to me.

Zerwick briefly argues for a causal hina in the New Testament while acknowledging that most scholars reject this idea. He gives Rom. 5:25, 6:1, 1 Cor. 7:34, 2 Cor. 4:7, 12:9, and 3 John 1:8 as examples. (See footnote 7, p. 141.)

3. The wife’s respect depends on the husband’s love.
Cynthia Long Westfall notes that hina (ἵνα) is a marker that denotes result (or purpose, aim, or goal/ objective). Consequently, she believes the implication in Ephesians 5:33 is that the wife’s respect is contingent or conditional upon the husband’s love. Westfall offers this translation of the entire verse.

“In any case, as for you individually, each one of you should love his wife as himself so that the wife can honor/ respect her husband.”
Westfall, “‘This is a Great Metaphor’: Reciprocity in the Ephesians Household Codes” in Christian Origins and Greco-roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (eds) (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 561–598, 595.

Julie Walsh and Jeffrey D. Miller also argue for this interpretation in their paper, “Translating Ephesians 5:33,” The Bible Translator 74.1 (April 2023), 93–109. (Online: Sage Journals)

In A Patristic Greek Lexicon, edited by G. W. H. Lampe, gives a possible sense of “indicating consequence” for hina with Romans 5:20 as an example. (See p. 674)

Postscript 2: September 22, 2023
Markus Barth on the Hina Clause in Ephesians 5:33

Markus Barth translates the hina clause in Ephesians 5:33 as “and the wife … may she fear her husband.” And he makes the following comment.

A complete change of tone has taken place. After the rigid instruction given each individual husband in imperative form [in 5:33], Paul speaks of “the wife”—hesitates, and continues with an anacoluthon (a broken sentence): “may she fear her husband” (hina phobētai …). In some cases such a hina-sentence replaces a (blunt) command or imperative, but it does not in the two other instances in which it occurs in Pauline letters: in 1 Cor 7:29 Paul suggests that in the remaining short time (before the last woes and the parousia) “those who have wives live as though they had none (hinaōsin). In 2 Cor 8:7 he utters his confidence that the Corinthians who abound in faith, proclamation, knowledge, zeal, and love, will also be abundant in contributing to the collection for Jerusalem (hinaperisseuēte). He adds, immediately and explicitly, “I say this not as a command” (2 Cor 8:8). In consequence, that which is known of Pauline diction (or might be imitated by a disciple of Paul) prohibits the interpretation of Eph 5:33b as an imperative statement. Paul’s sentence about the wife is so phrased as if he wanted to say, “I hope and trust she will be enabled to fear her husband; I expect it but I cannot command it.”
Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4-6, vol. 34A, (Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2008), 648–649.

Barth goes on to discuss the verb “fear” which he sees as meaning fear rather than respect or reverence. I’ve put his discussion on “fear” in the comments section below.

Postscript 3: March 1, 2021
Jerome on “Fear” in Ephesians 5

I like this quotation from Jerome’s commentary on Ephesians where he comments on the “fear” (reverence or respect) that wives are to have for their husbands (cf. Eph. 5:21, 33).

We must inquire whether wife, and the fear belonging to a wife, is to be understood in a fleshly manner, since wives are frequently found who are much better than their husbands. They rule over them, manage the household, educate the children, and maintain the discipline of the family while the husbands revel and run around with harlots. I leave it to the decision of the readers whether these women ought to rule their husbands or fear them.”
The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, translated by Ronald E. Heine (Oxford University Press, 2003), 242. (Google Books)

You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!

Explore more

Paul’s Main Point in Ephesians 5:22–33
Ephesians 5:22–33, in a Nutshell
Submission and Respect from Wives (1 Peter 3:1–6)
Submission and Respect from Husbands (1 Peter 3:7–8)
Mutual Submission in Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5
Wifely Submission  and Holy Kisses
The Grammar of Ephesians 5:21–22  
A Note on the Mystery in Ephesians 5:31-32

artigos em portugues sobre igualdade entre homens e mulheres no lar e na igreja

29 thoughts on “Fear or Respect in Christian Marriage? (Eph 5:33 & 1 Pet 3:2)

  1. The bible I read the word used is respect not fear. In fact, I have always thought the word was respect and never heard it to mean fear except in one article I read. I agree that respect and fear are two different things and don’t believe Paul implied that wives should fear her husband.

    1. Thankfully, fear and respect are two distinct concepts in many cultures today. But it wasn’t (isn’t) always like that.

  2. For me it was enlightening to read Dr Gordon Fee’s article «The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18–6:9», I think it can be found at


    It seems to me that for this passage even more than for many others, we tend to forget that the words are not said directly to us, but to some people who lived long ago.

    We also tend to evaluate the words in a context of faithful marriage. In the households Paul may have been thinking of, both husband and wife may have had extra-marital affairs. So he is telling the husband not just to love his wife, but to love his OWN wife. If we can think the same way about the wife, then the wife’s respect might be understood as respect for their relationship, and have as a consequence that she should terminate her extra-marital affairs.

    1. Thanks for the link.

      I agree with you. Many modern, western Christians evaluate and internalise some of Paul’s teachings – especially Ephesians 5:22-33 and a few other passages I can think of – with no appreciation of the original audience and their situation.

      In another article (on Ephesians 5:22-33), I write briefly about the reality of married life in the first century Roman world, but I hadn’t thought about the idea that Paul’s reference to a wife’s respect may be tied to her fidelity. Food for thought.

  3. Fear is the proper reading. The Bible is not ever the problem, people are. Fear does not always mean horror, but fear of consequence is what drives kids from behaviors that lead to discipline. Fear of God is proper because He ultimately decides the fate of our soul and that’s to keep us from improperly fearing someone who can kill only our physical body. In the case of marriage, a wife should care what her husband thinks and fear what he might think if she did something at all detrimental in the relationship, because it will deter her from that action. That same healthy fear of God is to keep a husband from acting detrimentally toward the wife. A loving Father is also a disciplinarian, which is why Jesus having the Father came first as a lamb and will return as a lion to judge. None of this is to be taken lightly by mincing words.

    1. Hi Danny, I’ve highlighted the word “fear” in the following verses. (There are numerous other verses I could have chosen.) Love and fear are incompatible in Christian marriage and in the New Covenant.

      “Dear friends, let’s love each other, because love is from God, and everyone who loves is born from God and knows God” 1 John 4:7 CEB.

      “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear expects punishment. The person who is afraid has not been made perfect in love” 1 John 4:18 CEB

      “All who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons and daughters. You didn’t receive a spirit of slavery to lead you back again into fear, but you received a Spirit that shows you are adopted as his children. With this Spirit, we cry, “Abba, Father’” Romans 8:14-15 CEB

      Or if you prefer:

      “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God” 1 John 4:7 KJV.

      “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love” 1 John 4:18 KJV.

      “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father’” Romans 8:14-15 KJV.

  4. To all who have never been in, or are not in, fearful, abusive relationships (be it verbal or physical abuse), you will never know the feelings of such relationships. It’s not enough to look at their bruises or listen to there confused language.

    I feel it is important to be able, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to explain exactly what the Bible really is trying to say as in the case of the duties of husbands and wives, as it will cause more confusion and misunderstanding to the word of God, and to the married couples, who read this if it is not explained properly.

    It was truly nice to read here that St Peter says “honour” rather than “fear” in Peter 3:7 in the case of married couples.

    God Bless

    1. Hi Adriana,

      Yes, fear has no place in Christian marriage. And a man who is disrespectful to his wife–which includes causing her to be afraid and being unkind to her–will have difficulty being heard by God. Peter told husbands, “. . . show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7 NASB) This is a strong warning to husbands.

      There are few things worse than being married to an abusive spouse. 🙁

      Importantly, the basic teachings in the New Testament about love and humility and selflessness and patience and “do unto others”, etc, do not override or contradict verses which are specifically about husbands and wives. When we look at verses about husbands and wives, we mustn’t lose sight of, or distort, the basics. We also mustn’t lose sight of Ephesians 5:21 which is about mutual submission and prefaces the Ephesians 5 verses about wifely submission. More on this here: https://margmowczko.com/ephesians-522-33-in-a-nutshell/

  5. Marg,
    I just found something interesting. Eph 5:29 uses the word thalpei for cherish. The root word means to warm followed by nourish, foster, comfort. It is a rare word and is used in papyrus for nursery language. It is only used one other time in the NT and the context of its use is astonishing!

    1 Thessalonians 2:6-7
    Nor seeking glory from men, nor from you, nor from others, though having authority with weight to be, as apostles of Christ. Instead, we were gentle in the midst of you, as if a nursing mother would cherish (thalpei) her own children.

    So even though they had authority with weight, instead of exercising authority over them and seeking glory and status, they were gentle and cherished instead. This word “cherish” is linked to gentleness and is in stark contrast with exercising authority over another. I found the context it is used in very interesting.

    1. Yes, Cynthia Westfall writes that much of language used about husbands in Ephesians 5 is, in other contexts, used about what women usually did in first-century society, laundry and child care, etc.

      I’ve written about Paul, and Moses, maternal leadership here: https://margmowczko.com/masculine-and-feminine-leadership/

  6. I’m glad I’ve never heard anyone say that wives should be afraid of their husbands. It’s hard to imagine being afraid of someone who loves you. However, since the reason fear and respect are intertwined is because rulers thought they needed to be feared, does the use of the word phobētai imply a situation where a person is a ruler/leader of another person, even if that person isn’t afraid of that leader? Or can it be used without the connotations of leadership?

    1. Phobētai (phobeō) is used in all kinds of contexts and with various nuances and degrees of strength. Sometimes it means to be terrified or fearful. At other times it can mean to reverence. “To respect” is a still milder sense. Sometimes it has the senses of to be worried or concerned.

      The verb is often used in contexts where there is no mention of a leader (e.g., Matt. 1:20). And there is no connotation of leadership whatsoever within the word itself. You can see all the instances where the word occurs in the NT here: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_5399.htm

      1. Thank you for link, those examples were helpful. I thought Mark 6:20 about Herod “fearing” or respecting John was interesting, especially considering the amount of power Herod had. Interestingly, I saw that Thayer’s lexicon on Bible hub used Mark 6:20 and Ephesians 5:33 as examples of “fear” meaning reverence, deference, and veneration. But I also noticed it included reverential obedience as part of it. I can’t see that Herod ever obeyed John, but I was curious how often obedience is a part of fear? And is there any way to tell besides context?

        1. ~ Yeah, I saw the “reverential obedience” bit too. Thayer has gone too far. Reverential obedience was certainly an expectation of wives in New Testament times, and even until relatively recently, but “obedience” is not a nuance of the word phobētai (phobeō).

          ~ Herod did revere John the Baptist. I think he was also a bit scared of him. But he certainly didn’t obey him.

          ~ Phobētai (phobeō) has a range of meanings but they are all related to terror, fear, reverence, and respect. Obedience is not part of the meaning of the word, but it may be part of the context.

          1. Thank you. That bit confused me, but I think I understand better now. I’ve recently been reading some of your’s and other’s articles about marriage. To be honest, I used to be scared of getting married. I was worried I would always have to do what my husband said without talking it over with him, or God would be displeased with me. I’ve started to gain a better understanding of marriage from your articles, and I’m very grateful for that.
            There is one thing, though, that I wonder if you had some insights on. I was reading Grudem’s 1985 paper on head and Cervin’s response on CBE. I enjoyed Cervin’s response, but some of the examples of Grudem’s weren’t discussed or still confused me. I’ve been thinking it over, but I would deeply appreciate some thoughts from someone who knows Greek better than I do.
            There are 2 examples in Philo’s “On Rewards and Punishments.” One is in XIX 114, where Philo speaks of a nation lording over other nations as the head is to the body occupying the preeminence of situation. I wasn’t sure if he is connecting the head and preeminence to authority, or if he is saying that the head is preeminent to the body and the nations will also be preeminent. Another is in XX 124-126. He speaks of a virtuous man as becoming head. But he also says the head vivifies the body. I can’t tell if he’s speaking of authority, or of the head as a place of life.
            There are also 2 military examples that I’m confused about. In Pelopidas 2.1, Plutarch uses head of military generals. I know this isn’t an independent metaphor, but does it show that head is used of persons with authority? Another example of this that seems closer to the Ephesians passage is Galba 4.3. Plutarch connects imperial power to a vigorous body needing a head. I was wondering if this also shows that the head was thought of as the authority of the body, and could be used metaphorically in that way.
            I’m sorry my question is so long. I want to understand how the head metaphor was used and understood, and something about Grudem’s use seems wrong, but I can’t quite place my finger on it. I would deeply appreciate any thoughts you have.

          2. Hi Taylor,

            I’ve found several errors in the way Grudem handles Greek texts and words. He does not have the proficiency of a seasoned Greek expert.

            ~ He openly admitted in a book he co-wrote with Vern Poythress that he did not know that adelphoi can mean “brothers and sisters.” And this was after his investigations into kephalē, the Greek word for “head.” See footnote 1 here.

            ~ In his essay “Grounds for Divorce, his method for working out the parameters of what en tois toioutois (“in such cases”) means is flawed. See here.

            ~ A minor issue: In his essay entitled “The Myth of Mutual Submission,” he repeatedly gives an irrelevant accusative form of the pronoun allēlois (lexical form: allēlōn), a word that means “one another,” See footnote 4 here.


            Philo makes it easy for us; he explains what he means by kephalē in section 14 of On Rewards and Punishment: “… as the head is to the body occupying the pre-eminence of situation …” It means “preeminence” which is a common sense of kephalē.

            Philo also explains what he means by kephalē in section 20: “For as in an animal the head is the first and best part, and the tail the last and worst part, or rather no part at all … the virtuous man shall be the head of the human race whether he be a single man or a whole people. And that all others, being as it were parts of the body, are only vivified by the powers existing in the head and superior portions of the body.” The head-tail metaphor also occurs in the Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 28:12-13 in the context of prosperity for Israel; Deuteronomy 22:43-44 in the context of Israel not being prosperous; Isaiah 9:14-15 in the context of disaster for the Jews because they did not obey God; Isaiah 19:15 in the context of no one, great or small being able to help Egypt. In the head-tail metaphor, “head” is a metaphor for capable people who are in an honoured, prosperous, superior position while “tail” is a metaphor for people in a despised, poor, lowly position. (The head-tail metaphor does not occur in the New Testament.) The prominent people in elevated positions may be leaders and may have authority, but the word kephalē, in and of itself, does not convey the meaning of a leader with authority.

            In The Life of Pelopidas by Plutarch, kephalē is used in a kind of head-body metaphor. The purpose of the metaphor is to show that General Pelopidas is not “one man” by himself. Rather, his hands, his feet, and chest, that is, his light-armed troops, his cavalry, and his men at arms, are all part of the “one man” and all will perish as one man, if and when the general makes a bad move. The general is in a prominent, superior position, and he is a leader with authority, but kephalē refers to oneness here. Not authority.

            There are a few differences between Ephesians 5:23 and The Life of Galba 4.3. In Ephesians 5:23 Paul tells wives that their husbands are their heads: one head for one body member. In the Life of Galba the “body” is the provinces of Gaul, perhaps several hundreds of thousands of people. Also, Galba is invited to aspire to the Imperial throne, and in fact he does succeed Nero, albeit briefly. Husbands had power over their wives in the first century, but Paul encourages them to follow Christ’s example and love and serve their wives. He does not mention power or leadership or authority when speaking to husbands. In fact, he uses the word “love” 6 times when speaking to husbands in Ephesians 5.

            Because prominence is a meaning or nuance of kephalē it is used in some passages when speaking about people who are leaders. That is because leaders are usually prominent. But kephalē does not mean leader.”

            More about kephalē here: https://margmowczko.com/head-kephale-does-not-mean-leader-1-corinthians-11_3/

  7. Hi Marg, your last response to Taylor regarding head-tail metaphors brought a thought to mind. The New Testament may not use this metaphor, however it certainly refutes its implications of power. So many passages speak of unity, mutual submission, sacrificial love, giving greater honor to the lesser parts, how to treat all people of any station as equal or better than yourself, being a servant to all as Christ (and Paul) exemplified. I’m sure there is more that could be said here, but 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 and Ephesians 5:23 sure seem to allude to this apparently well known metaphor and eliminate the idea of “tail”. And, isn’t it interesting that the wife, and not family, friends, coworkers, etc., is the husband’s body- he is to be in closest unity, mutual support and sustenance with his wife.

    1. I love these thoughts, Jenn.

      Yes, unlike the head-tail metaphor, or the head-feet metaphor which is used in the NT, the head-body metaphor is not about extremities or polar opposites but about unity and oneness even if the head is more prominent than the body.

      1 Corinthians 12 is one of my favourite passages and, as you say, Paul wanted the Corinthians to give greater honour to the parts, the people, that lacked it. Paul even says that the parts, the people, that are already respectable and honourable do not need special treatment; they do not need more honour (1 Cor. 12:24). I’ve written about this more here: https://margmowczko.com/honour-for-underdogs-1-cor-12_12-31/

  8. Thank you for your article…though several years old now…was very pertinent this morning. What do you think of this related quote from Tolstoy “Respect was invented to cover the empty space where love should have been?” I find, with one that I love, there isn’t much “respect” we regularly joke around, insult each other, tussle frequently, play practical jokes etc. and etc., and neither of us take it seriously. Like Rodney Dangerfield, we “get no respect” because unconditional love has replaced it. Deano in Cincinnati

    1. Hi Deano, I don’t have an opinion on Tolstoy’s remark. However, are you sure you don’t respect the friend who you joke with? There is one person in my life who I am very close to and we sometimes joke around in disparaging ways, but we are able to do this because there is a bedrock of respect and admiration.

  9. I believe that “respect” in Ephesians.5:33 have to do with Genesis.2:15–17 and Genesis.3:3 “But God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.” God never told Eve anything and she use the word “touch”.
    Eve desrespected Adam while he was working and went to the tree on her own.

    1. Eve was created to help Adam in his work. She was made from his side so they could work side by side.

      That’s a huge assumption that God never told Eve anything! And it’s incorrect. God clearly speaks to Eve in Genesis 3, and there’s no reason to presume he did not speak to her earlier.

      I’ve written about Eve’s words to the snake here:

    2. It’s not actually an accurate statement that “Eve…went to the tree on her own.” Much less “while Adam was working.” Rather, we see in that passage that Adam “was with her.”

  10. Thank you for posting the link to our article, Marg. Love your work!

    1. Thanks, Julie. The feeling is mutual.

  11. Markus Barth on “May she fear!” in Ephesians 5:33 which follows directly on from the quotation in a postscript above.

    However, the soft tone of “may” appears to be contradicted by the radicality of the verb “fear” which goes even farther than “subordinate” in vss. 21–22, 24. Despite the scarcity of dictionary and biblical evidence for the meanings “reverence” or “respect” of the Greek words phobos and phobeomai, the modern versions quoted in fn. 175 and in other translations seek to make Paul less patriarchal and (vs. 33) more palatable to modern readers by substituting “respect” for “fear.” But elsewhere Paul does not consider it beneath a Christian’s dignity to show “fear” at the right place and on proper occasions. All those addressed in the Haustafeln, both the seemingly superior and the allegedly inferior, are called to the “fear” of Christ (5:21). Such resumption of a motif from the beginning of a hymn or discourse has been called a ring-composition (see Introduction, section II) or an inclusio (cf. M. Dahood’s frequent references in the Anchor Bible to the occurrence of this pattern in the Psalms).

    If Paul had known the statement, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear … He who fears is not perfected in love” (1 John 4:18), he might have called for at least one exception: the love of Christ for the saints, and the love of the saints for Christ does not wipe out the fear and trembling with which they expect his coming. When proselytes are called “God-fearers” (Acts 10:2; 13:16, etc.), there is no notion of undignified servility in this appellation. All depends on whom a person fears, on his reasons for fear, and on the corresponding special character of fear. To live in constant “fear of death” means to live in hopeless thralldom; from that fear men have been liberated through Christ’s coming (Heb 2:15). Where there is nothing else but fear of men, a person is prone to neglect what the fear of God, the beginning of all wisdom, bestows and requires.

    In the Bible and, e.g. in Sophocles’ Antigone, fear of men is drastically cut to size, but this does not exempt men from a special fear of their fellow men which may be necessary or holy. A broad stream of OT, rabbinic, NT and extra-biblical traditions speaks of such fear.181 In Rom 13:3–5 evildoers (even among the Christians) are warned they must “fear” the political authorities and their wrath. At first sight, a similar thought seems to underlie Paul’s exhortation to wives in Eph 5:33: the same evil impulse which can drive a man not to love his wife the way he “owes it” to God and her (5:28) may cause a wife to try to dominate her husband or to antagonize him and assume the role of a permanent revolutionary; see COMMENT II for evidence from Pauline churches. Just as a political revolutionary must “fear” the “wrath” of the authorities, wives appear to be enjoined to live in “fear” of (the wrath of) their husbands. But even in Rom 13:4–5 Paul places motivation by “conscience” higher than that by “fear.” Certainly a wife’s “fear” of her husband need not be a consequence either of a failure on her part or of a special risk she has taken to pursue a cause and tactics which she considers justified. She can have many good reasons to fear her husband, and can fear him in a way that does not degrade her in her own or in his eyes.

    When a husband loves his wife with a love inspired by Christ’s love and (however feebly) resembling it, she would be a fool to prefer or seek autonomy apart from him, sufficiency in herself, or a dominant position over him (e.g. in applying to him a possessive or managerial motherly love, care, or anxiety). Instead of attempting to move him in the manner or by the tricks by which she may be able to move other men, she will be moved by him. Instead of shaping and changing him after her heart’s desire, she will feel thoroughly changed by him. Instead of bringing him under control, she will be overwhelmed by his love. No less than the sunburned Shulammite from one occasion to another, she awaits her lover’s coming and the ever-new experience of his love with fear and trembling. A woman moved by this “fear” will by no means seek to make herself autonomous in relation to him who loves her and she will receive him as one who in his own imperfect way reminds her of the true head of all the world, the church, her lover and herself: Jesus Christ, cf. 1:23; 4:15–16; 5:23, 29–30. She will be willing to be a companion to him as a very special “help,” cf. Gen 2:18.

    There is nothing degrading in “fear” thus interpreted. The “fear” of which Paul speaks resembles that of the people who expect the Lord’s coming “with uplifted heads,” cf. Luke 21:28. Certainly Paul neither contemplated nor anticipated the emancipation of women occurring much later and still unfinished. But within the limits set by his contemporary world, he attempted to show that a woman is neither primarily passive, nor weaker than, nor inferior to man. He describes the union between husband and wife as a give and take, an exchange of offering and receiving, seeking and finding, tension and fulfillment.

    “Subordinate yourselves to one another!” [Eph. 5:21] Unless he and she are different there cannot be meaningful unity, but only boring sameness, stifling identity, abstract egalitarianism. Unless they demonstrate together to one another and all others what it means to be truly human, they do not live up to the creation of man in “God’s image” as “male and female” (Gen 1:27). They are true mates and a convincing pair inasmuch as each one of them is active and passive, imaginative and yielding, preceding and following, in carrying out their special responsibilities for one another. According to Paul it is to be expected and it may and will happen that the husband’s abounding love finds the response of the wife’s admiring and festive fear. However, Paul does not prescribe or predict that even in the absence of love there must or can be a “fear (and trembling)” resembling that of the Bride expecting the Bridegroom’s parousia.

    Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4-6, vol. 34A, (Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008), 649–650.

  12. Hi Marg,
    I believe you said above that you favor the imperitave option for interpretation of the hina clause. I read the paper by Julie Walsh and Jeffrey D. Miller that you linked, and it seemed compelling to me to treat it as “so that”. Is there something grammatically that doesn’t work as well for you with their interpretation?

    1. Yes, the imperative interpretation of the last clause of Ephesians 5:33 makes good sense to me, but so does Markus Bath’s suggestion.

      I regard both Jeff and especially Julie as friends, but I personally don’t find their arguments compelling. I find the “so that” translation awkward.

      Here is Ephesians 5:33 with ἵνα (hina) translated as “so that”:

      πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν,
      Nevertheless, indeed each one of you [husbands] should thus love his wife as he loves himself,

      ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.
      And the wife so that she may respect her husband.

      Compare with:
      ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.
      And the wife should respect her husband.

      Or, Bath’s suggestion (which I like):
      “And the wife … may she respect her husband.”

      In the three examples given in Julie and Jeff’s paper where the subject precedes ἵνα in word order (as it does in the last clause of Ephesians 5:33) the subject does one or two actions which then results in something expressed by ἵνα (hina) plus a subjunctive verb.

      In Ephesians 2:4-7, God (the subject) raised us up with him (συνήγειρεν) and seated us with him (συνεκάθισεν) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that he may show (ἵνα ἐνδείξηται), in the coming ages, the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

      In Ephesians 4:29, a good word (the subject) comes out of a person’s mouth, for building up according to the need, so that it may give (ἵνα δῷ) grace to those who hear. (The sense of the action, “comes out of a person’s mouth,” is borrowed from the previous phrase.)

      In Ephesians 5:25-26, Christ (the subject) loved (ἠγάπησεν) the church and gave up (παρέδωκεν) himself for her behalf so that he may sanctify her (ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ).

      In these three examples, it is easy to see that hina + subjective expresses a result caused by the respective subjects’ prior actions. In Ephesians 5:33, however, the wife is the subject of the last clause of Ephesians 5:33 but does no action before the hina + subjunctive verb. So I’m having trouble seeing how ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα in this verses is a valid result clause, and I’m not the only one. It’s a tricky clause to figure out.

  13. […] Fear or Respect in Christian Marriage (Eph. 5:33)? […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marg's Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Join Marg's Patreon

Would you like to support my ministry of encouraging mutuality and equality between men and women in the church and in marriage?