Christian Marriage-Ephesians 5:21-33
This passage of Scripture has made such a profound impact in my life not only as a husband, but as a follower of Christ. In this modern culture, ideas like submission and self-sacrificial love are strange, if not offensive. Yet, if Christian husbands and wives took seriously this passage of Scripture and earnestly tried to live by it, marriages would look radically different from the confused and disordered culture around us. Below is an excerpt from my commentary on the book of Ephesians. I wanted to highlight these few verses in chapter 5 and exposit this section of text on marriage. This is that exposition. May God’s Holy Spirit give us the wisdom and strength to apply this text in our lives!
Ephesians 5:21-33 (NASB): “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.”
Exposition
5:21- “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”
Grammatically, this verse is a continuation of the list in 5:19-20. That is, being filled with the Spirit results in singing and making melody in our hearts (19), giving thanks to the Lord (20) and also proper submission (21). This verse also serves as the basis for submission in 5:22-6:9. We are to subject/submit ourselves to one another out of our reverence and honor for our Lord. Similar concepts can be seen in other places of Scripture. In 1 Peter 5:5, younger believers are to submit to elders. We are told to obey and submit to our leaders in Heb. 13:17. In Rom. 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13 we are told as believers to submit to governing authorities “for the Lord’s sake” -1 Peter 2:13. There are many more examples of believers submitting in one way or another to the established order or roles God has designed. Jesus Christ is our highest and most perfect example of this attitude of submission and obedience. Note how our Lord and Savior displayed the most extreme example of humbleness and obedience by condescending from eternal glory with the Father to take on human flesh and to be obedient to the Father to the point of a torturous death on a cross. Phil. 2:5-8, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Paul adds here in Ephesians the concept of submitting “to one another.” What exactly this means is certainly born out in 5:22-6:9 as mentioned above, and therefore is to be taken as “submitting to others according to the authority and order established by God” as the study note in the ESV Study Bible explains. Similarly, Albert Barnes defines it as “maintaining due subordination in the various relations of life” (Barnes, 5:21) and John Stott notes that “submission is a humble recognition of the divine ordering of society” (Stott, 218). The best example of this in the immediate context is seen in the institution of the Christian marriage and home. As the husband and church in general submits to Christ, the wife submits to the husband and the children submit to their parents. The concept of strict mutual or equal submission makes no sense here as obviously the example of the church submitting to Christ does not include Christ submitting to the church, nor does a father submit and obey his children in the way the children are told to do with their parents. This is why the aforementioned definitions of “to one another” (see above) makes the most sense. Modern society tends to hate the concept of submission to authority, obedience to leaders, or even a difference in roles. It is seen as a wound to personal autonomy and “freedom.” What this really wounds is our sinful pride. The Bible clearly sees the established order by God, a difference in roles, and submission as good and proper things and in no way violates human equality. Such is the case for children who are told to obey their parents and who are submitted under their authority (6:1-2, compare also our Lord’s own subjugation to His parents-Luke 2:51). Does this mean they are inferior or any less equal in God’s eyes? Of course not. As Stott writes, “those who hold an office–whether rulers, magistrates, husbands, parents, or employers–have a certain God-given authority which they expect others to acknowledge. Husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants have equal dignity as God-like beings, but different God-appointed roles” (Stott, 217-218).
Constantine Campbell offers a helpful analogy: “In a healthy workplace environment, for example, all members of an organization ought to work toward the benefit and service of all others, but this does not mean that all members have authority over all others. That would be chaotic. Those in leadership must serve those they lead, but that does not mean they submit to them. Their leadership is to be informed by self-giving love and service, but it is still leadership” (Campbell, 244). While there are certainly exceptions in submitting to earthly authority (those in authority commanding what God forbids or forbidding what God commands-Acts 5:29) the general principle in Scripture is to humbly submit to those in authority, even when it means doing things we don’t enjoy or personally agree with (like paying taxes to the government in which we live-Matt. 22:21, Rom. 13:6-7).
5:22- “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”
Paul says in the previous verse “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”(ESV) then in verse 22, he continues by saying, as the Greek is literally translated, “Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” This is Paul’s first example of what submitting to one another looks like. Most translations will supply the word “submit” or “subject” due to the context and construction of the Greek as well as further re-iteration in verse 24 (NASB, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NET, NLT, etc.-see also the parallel verse in Col. 3:18). Scholars note how Paul differs from the Greco-Roman conventions of total male dominance and inferiority of women. The value and equality that Christianity affords all humans made in the image of God is certainly contrary to the culture in Paul’s day (cf. Gal. 3:28). While roles of leadership are distinct within marriage, the expectation placed on the leader of self-sacrificial love to the point of death (5:25) is a far cry from the expectation of the male leader in Roman society which was not servant leadership, but domineering rule. Campbell, for example, observes that contrary to the culture at the time, the husband is not to subjugate his wife, but the wife’s submission to her husband is to be voluntary and self-yielding. Not only that, but this submission is to be to her own husband, not to men in general. The wife does this “as to the Lord.” This does not mean the authority the husband has is the same as the authority of the Lord over the believer, but rather this is meant to simply be a parallel example of submission. In other words, “just as it is appropriate for the church to submit to Christ, so it is appropriate for the wives to submit to their husbands (5:24). Nevertheless, submission “as to the Lord” grounds a wife’s voluntary self-yielding in her devotion to Christ” (Campbell, 247).
5:23- “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.”
Paul uses a parallel of Christ and the church. Just as Christ is the head of the church (cf. 4:15-16), “the husband is the head of the wife.” There has been much written on this verse in scholarship, but for the purposes of this commentary, I will be stating my conclusions from having done quite a bit of study. Given the context of this chapter and the theological parallel Paul is drawing upon, this verse indicates that part of a wife submitting to her husband is due to the ordering of the husband as the “leader” and “head” of the house. It seems illogical to understand these commands as only relevant to the cultural context of Paul’s day, given that Paul goes on to use the same parallel of Christ and the church in his commands to husbands in verses 25-33. I would no more limit Paul’s instructions to wives to be in submission to their husbands as I would limit Paul’s instructions to husbands to love their wives. To do otherwise would be inconsistent interpretation. In other words, I believe wholeheartedly that Paul’s commands to wives in 22-24 are completely applicable today just as his instructions to husbands in 25-29. Paul gives us the same wife/husband command also in Col. 3:18-19 (wives, submit/husbands, love). Again, Paul is grounding these instructions not in the cultural context of their day, but in Scripture and the relation of Christ to His bride. This theological parallel does not change from culture to culture and neither does the design and roles within the marriage union it is being compared to. As Max Turner notes, the Greek word for “head” does not mean “source” in biblical Greek, but rather something like “master” or “leader” (one with authority). Turner concludes, “The appeal is is then further supported (and transcends convention) by the analogy Paul develops between marriage and the relationship between Christ and the church, with the woman being asked to submit to the husband in the way the church submits to her head, Christ” (Turner, 1242). Andreas Köstenberger similarly sums this up by stating, “Christ’s relationship with the church, in turn, provides the pattern for a Christian marriage, in which the husband is appointed as the head (as Christ is the head of the church) and the wife is called to submit to her husband (as the church is to Christ)” (Köstenberger, 56).
The second part of verse 23 gives us yet another question in matters of interpretation. The apostle states: “as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” There are generally two main ways to take this. One being that as Christ is the Savior of the body (the church), so husbands are to act likewise in regard to their wives. If so, in this verse we get a preview of the husband’s responsibility to come in verse 25. Francis Foulkes posits that “the sacrificial concern of the Lord for the salvation of the church should have a parallel, even if at a much lower level, in the loving and sacrificial concern of the husband for the welfare of his wife” (Foulkes, 156). Albert Barnes also offers a helpful explanation regarding this interpretation by writing: “The idea here seems to be, that as Christ gave himself to save his body, the church; as he practiced self-denial and made it an object of intense solicitude to preserve that church, so ought the husband to manifest a similar solicitude to make his wife happy, and to save her from want, affliction, and pain. He ought to regard himself as her natural protector; as bound to anticipate and provide for her needs; as under obligation to comfort her in trial, even as Christ does the church. What a beautiful illustration of the spirit which a husband should manifest is the care which Christ has shown for his “bride,” the church!” (Barnes, 5:23).
And Campbell sums it up by stating: “the headship of the husband is counter-culturally expressed in his self-giving love toward his wife, just as the headship of Christ is expressed through his saving the church” (Campbell, 251). I tend to hold to this interpretation of the analogy Paul is drawing here, especially due to the apostle using this as the same reasoning for husbands loving their wives in verse 25. Meaning, while husbands are not the literal savior of their wives (the Savior, of course, is Christ), we are to act in the same self-sacrificial manner. Christ is the basis and grounding for the husband's love as well as the basis and grounding for the wife’s submission.
Still, others would see this as where the parallel stops and thus is not connected to husbands. Paul is essentially saying something like: “the reason Christ is head over the church is specifically because He alone is the Savior of the body.” In other words, this is an independent clause not to be analogous to husbands in any way, but simply a teaching on where the authority of Christ as the head of the church comes from (because He is the Savior). This finds support by the beginning of verse 24 which uses the conjunction “alla” meaning something like “nevertheless” (so Wuest, Witherington, Hodge). Paul would then be saying something to the effect of: “Nevertheless, despite the husband not being the savior of the wife in any way like Christ is for the church, wives should still see the submission of the church to Christ as the model for submission to their husbands.” Either way, husbands are clearly to look at Christ’s example and imitate that as indicated by the following verses.
5:24 “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”
In the same way the church submits to Christ, the wife ought to be submitted to her husband. This begs the question, how does the church submit to Christ? Simply put, our submission to Christ is born out of “responding to His love, joyfully, and out of heartfelt desire, not grudgingly or under compulsion” as Max Turner notes (Turner, 1242). “In everything” likely refers to practical as well as spiritual matters, for these cannot be separated for the Christian. Also, as William MacDonald points out, this would mean “everything that is in accordance with the will of God” (MacDonald, 1948). It must be asked, considering the following verses (25-29), does the will of God include abuse, or totalitarian rule by the husband? The answer is an unequivocal and emphatic “No!” For the husband to operate out of willing selfishness, abusiveness or forceful subjugation (and to use this verse as license to do so) is to rebel against God and the very gospel itself! I would go so far to say that using this verse as a weapon for the purposes of a controlling, manipulative, demanding, abusive husband would not only be disparaging of Christ, but the very definition of taking God’s holy name in vain and also willfully neglects the very words of God that follow in the rest of the chapter. In my opinion, such an abuse of this verse would be a clear sign that the love of God is not in such a person (1 John 2:15-17).
5:25- “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,”
The standard to which a husband is held can be no higher than what Paul lays out here, and in these verses we find the supreme example of what God expects of the husbands who are responsible for the precious daughters of God. It’s interesting to note first what is absent from Paul’s instruction to husbands. That is, husbands are not told to subjugate their wives (for that is not their role, but the wife’s voluntary role-5:22). Husbands are not instructed to ensure their wives properly submit to their liking as would have been the expectation in Greco-Roman convention. But rather, Paul continues the theological parallel of Christ and the church by giving husbands the highest standard imaginable. Husbands are explicitly instructed to love their wives in the same way Christ loved the church. How exactly did Christ love the church? By condescending from eternal glory with the Father, adding humanity to His nature and suffering a violent death to cleanse the sins of His bride (Phil. 2:5-8). 1 John 3:16 says this: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters” (NIV).
This is not limited to the ultimate example of physically dying for one another, but also manifests itself in general self-sacrifice; putting the needs of others ahead of your own (dying to “self”-Luke 9:23). Husbands, that is the example and standard. The Greek word agapaō Paul uses in this verse “is a self-sacrificial love, a love that impels the one loving to give himself in self-sacrifice for the well-being of the one who is loved” says Kenneth Wuest (Wuest, 131). This is the same word we find in John 3:16 to describe the love God has for the world by sending His Son. Ben Witherington states: “Clearly enough, by “love” here Paul is not referring primarily or solely to a feeling which cannot be commanded, but rather to decisions of the will and commitments which can be commanded and instructed” (Witherington, 329). In other words, agapaō love is not dependent upon emotions or feelings, but rather actions (actions that will manifest even despite feelings). Along this same thought, Liefeld writes, “The truth that Christ gave himself up for the church elevates the love of the husband far above mere social convention or emotional feeling” (Liefeld, 146).
5:26-27- “so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.”
These verses are a continuation of the end of verse 25 and describe the work of Christ on behalf of His bride (the Church). Christ did what He did so that He might sanctify her and make her holy (set apart for Him). I will first point out the order of things. Christ didn’t love us because we were so pure and lovable. On the contrary, we were ungodly and sinners (Rom. 5:6-10). John Chrysostom points this out by saying, “For you are already married when you act this way, whereas Christ is acting for one who has rejected and hated him” (Chrysostom, 185). Christ died as a perfect sacrifice so that our sins were atoned for and we could be presented to Him in perfect beauty (metaphorically without any blemish or wrinkle; perfectly beautiful). Again, Christ’s act of love was while we were filthy, ungodly and His enemy! Without this cleansing work, we would not be able to be in God’s presence in eternity. Because of this, as Jude 24 says, Christ will make us “stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy” (cf. 1:4). The language of washing “of water with the word” is a bit perplexing to scholars. Most take this as speaking of baptism and hearing the gospel message (or Scripture in general), but perhaps there is also a reference to Ezekiel 16:8-14 given the analogy of God’s cleansing covenant with His people. Either way, Paul’s point is Christ’s cleansing work of the bride He loves.
5:28-30- “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.”
Max Turner writes, “but as Christ sees the church as now having become his own body, by commitment to marriage union, and does everything lovingly and for her own good, so should the husband for his wife. He should recognize that in loving her he is loving himself; for she is joined with him as one flesh” (Turner, 1242). This is a perfect summation of these three verses. While the analogy Paul uses of Christ and the church has its limits (husbands do not cleanse the sins of his wife, for only Christ takes away the sins of the world-John 1:29), the point is stressed on expressing the same love and care as Christ does to the church. While it is impossible to fully comprehend and perfectly imitate the love of Christ, Paul certainly puts it into words that we as flawed humans can understand. We seek the welfare of our own bodies. When we are hungry, we feed our bodies, when we are injured or sick in some way, we take the necessary actions to mend or help heal our bodies. We put on proper clothes to protect against the cold, etc. In general, we desire good for our bodies and especially in our culture, go to great lengths to comfort our bodies. Indeed, the concept of “self-care” is at the forefront of my own culture. Essentially, Paul is advocating for the same principle found in our Lord’s teaching “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” -Luke 6:31.
5:31-33- “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.”
Paul then grounds all this in the OT by quoting Gen. 2:24, which, for his purposes, doesn’t only represent the God created order and design for human marriage (cf. Matt. 19:4-6) but also is an illustration for Christ and the church as made evident by verse 32. In its original context, this passage in Genesis “is the most profound and fundamental statement in the whole of Scripture concerning God’s plan for marriage,” says Foulkes (Foulkes, 161). It promotes the idea of “one man and one woman” in marriage, is used by Paul to refute promiscuity (1 Cor. 6:16) and in this verse affirms marriage roles. This is used by Christ to promote the ideal design and intention of God when instituting marriage (Matt. 19:4-6, Mark 10:2-12). Far from meaning that the two people are literally now one person, Campbell states that the meaning is that “they enter into a deeply interconnected relationship that involves the mingling of body, mind and spirit” (Campbell, 259).
Paul also had in mind an allegorical application of this passage to Christ and the church which he admits is a “mystery.” Certainly in Paul’s day this would have been a novel interpretation, yet one that was Holy Spirit inspired much like the “mysteries” that had been given to Paul as he discussed in previous chapters (1:9, 3:3-5). This also establishes the permanent nature of marriage, thus transcending a particular time in history or culture. As Christ is united to his bride and the two become one (with their respective roles), so ought the human marriage be!
Regardless of if his readers understood the analogy of Christ and the church, he ends in verse 33 with restating and emphasizing the main point. Husbands (each individual among you) ought to love his wife as himself (the same principle found in Lev. 19:18) and the wife ought to “respect” or have reverence for her husband. The verb translated as “respect” is the Greek word phobeomai. Scholars point out that the noun form of this word, phobos, is found in verse 21 as the basis for submitting to one another. That is, “submitting to one another out of reverence (phobos) for Christ”(ESV). The same noun used in a similar context can be found in Rom. 13:7 (NIV), “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Witherington observes that the respect is presumably “given due to the role God has assigned him, not based on circumstances or performance, any more than reverence for Christ depends on circumstances or performance” (Witherington, 334).
Excursus: Further Reflection on Husbands/Wives
In Genesis 3:16, we see the God pronounce the curse on the women. Not only will childbirth result in much pain, but it also says: “Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
In what sense will the wife’s “desire” be for her husband? The only other time this word is used in Genesis is in 4:7 where God tells Cain, “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” John Sailhamer states that this desire “carries the sense of a desire to overcome or defeat another.” Sailhamer goes on to note that the wife “desiring” and the husband “ruling” foreshadows the Lord’s words to Cain of sin desiring and Cain mastering/ruling. If this is the case, “the sense of “desiring” in 3:16 should be understood as the wife’s desire to overcome or gain the upper hand over her husband” (Sailhamer, 58). Kenneth Matthews agrees, stating that “The “desire” of the woman is her attempt to control her husband, but she will fail because God has ordained that the man exercise his leadership function” (Matthews, 252).The significance of the curse in Genesis 3:16 is that the woman will seek to subvert and oppose man’s authority while the man will seek to “rule” over his wife rather than guarding and caring for her. What was meant to be complementary would now be distorted. However, as we see in Ephesians 5:22-33, the call of the Christian wife is to submit/be subject to her husband instead of seeking to oppose him, while the husband is charged with loving and caring for his wife through self-sacrificial love (rather than “ruling” over her). It is in this context that we, in Christ, seek to subvert the consequences of the fall.
While I understand the results of feminism in the 20th and 21st centuries have manifested in rebellion and contempt for God’s design and created order (thus creating more of a need for clear, biblical understanding and teaching of the roles of women), it also seems to me that extensive teaching on a man or husband’s role can go overlooked. For example, I would challenge men to spend a disproportionately large amount of time studying what Scripture teaches of their role rather than worrying about the role of their wife. Men, we should study what Christ’s servant leadership looks like in the gospels (Mark 10:45), study what it means to have the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:3-8), study 1 John 2-3 and put away boastful pride in exchange for humility. We must grasp the concept of Christ’s love for us and how it manifested in extreme humility, servant leadership, suffering and obedience to the Father. We must understand that while we were yet still sinners in rebellion against God, He loved us and gave himself over to a humiliating and horrendous death for us (Rom. 5:8; John 10:18). If Christ displayed His love for a people in rebellion to Him, how might that influence how we act when people do not treat us with the “respect” we perceive we are owed? I submit that it is not the job of the husband to ensure that proper submission and respect is given by their wife. There is no such command for the Christian husband. What is commanded and expected of husbands is loving like Christ, who, despite not receiving the proper fear and respect God deserves, still laid His life down in sacrificial love. Christ, who was reviled, but did not revile in return, who suffered, but did not utter threats is the standard (see 1 Peter 2:21-23).
The same exhortation can be given to women. Culture has told you to desire the opposite of what God’s word teaches in Phil. 2:3-8 and to go after the lust of the eyes and boastful pride of life that is not from God (1 John 2:15-17). You are told to “grasp” for independence, to put your needs, wants and desires above others to be “successful” in life. You are told that equality in value has to mean equality in roles and that anything less is demeaning, unfair and an assault on your autonomy. But is this the mind of Christ? Is this how He thought? Are we grasping at elevating ourselves as high as we can? Is this not what Adam and Eve did in the garden by the alluring temptation to elevate themselves “beyond” God’s obedient creation? We ought not treat our roles within marriage with contempt. Those who wish to minimize or do away with these roles should consider that with which human marriage is compared.
Many people in our society have great contempt for how God made them. They despise being a male or female and therefore covet and desire to become something God did not make them to be. The same attitude can be said about those who despise their roles and covet roles that God did not see fit to grant or bestow. Our goal and directive is to imitate Christ. Christ was humble, He submitted to the Father’s will and He was obedient. Such should be our attitudes when we study Scripture and understand God’s design for His creation, the institution of marriage, and the institution of His Church. Being equal in status does not always mean being equal in roles. This is why Scripture declares that we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28), yet all have different roles within the body (1 Cor. 12:12-27, Rom. 12:4-8) as well as submitting and obeying when appropriate (1 Peter 5:5, Heb. 13:17, Rom. 13:1, 1 Peter 2:13). The Triune God is our ultimate example. The Son is not inferior to the Father, yet the Son humbled Himself and submitted to and obeyed the Father’s will (Luke 22:42, John 6:38, Phil. 2:5-8). In any area of our lives, pride should not be the driving factor, but rather humility and a desire to yield to God’s will. Let us not despise what Scripture teaches, but look to Christ as our example.
For further teaching on the topic of marriage, I highly recommend these two lessons on 1 Peter 3:1-7 by Mike Winger. I consider them to be the best sermon-style teachings I’ve come across on this subject.
"WIVES SUBMIT" - What it REALLY means! Bible Study- https://youtu.be/H8PFVZgIQ2w?si=HtjGAKXV6BAYouvc
"How To Be A Husband" - The LOST art of biblical manliness!- https://youtu.be/65eMggo_xKQ?si=Wk-7xHNCZOH77_jz
Bibliography (works cited):
Barnes, Albert- Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible (Ephesians)
Campbell, Constantine- The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC, 2023
Chrysostom, John- Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol. 8, Ephesians
ESV Study Bible- Note on Eph. 5:21
Foulkes, Francis- The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, TNTC, 1981
Hodge, Charles- A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 1856
Köstenberger, Andreas J.- God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Second Edition), 2010
Liefeld, Walter L.- Ephesians, IVPNTC, 1997
MacDonald, William- Believer’s Bible Commentary, 1995, Ephesians
Matthews, Kenneth A.- Genesis 1-11:26, NAC, Vol. 1A, 1996
Sailhamer, John H.- The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, 1990
Stott, John- The Message of Ephesians, BST, 1979
Turner, Max- New Bible Commentary (Ephesians)
Witherington III, Ben- The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles
Wuest, Kenneth- Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1 (Ephesians)
*Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995): New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.