Ephesians 5:21–6:9 follows the characteristic structure of Pauline exhortations: imperative, rationale, and further imperative. Although the initial exhortation in Eph 5:21 applies universally, calling all believers to “be subject to one another” (ἀλλήλοις), which includes husbands and wives, children and parents, and slaves and masters, ⁸ the rationale for this mutual submission varies for each respective group.

The exhortation to wives (Eph 5:22-24) is underpinned by Christological and ecclesiological motivations while the exhortation to husbands (Eph 5:25-31) draws upon both Christological and anthropological grounds. The exhortation to husbands includes two imperatives to love their wives (vv. 25 and 28). The second imperative (v. 28) reiterates the command to love from v. 25 but introduces an additional rationale: “as their own bodies,” a motivation not previously articulated in vv. 25b-27. Additionally, this section incorporates a biblical argument based on Gen 2:24, which is absent in the earlier exhortation and the instructions to slaves and masters.

The motivations presented in vv. 32-33 incorporate both Christological and ecclesiological themes, particularly through the notion of μυστήριον, serving as a summary of the exhortations directed at both husbands and wives. The exhortation to children (Eph 6:1-3) includes a biblical rationale (cfr. Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16) and includes a promise of blessing. Instruction to parents (Eph 6:4), however, is limited to a kuriological basis. The exhortation to slaves (Eph 6:5-8) alternates between Christological, anthropological, and kuriological motivations, whereas the instruction to masters (6:9) draws upon both anthropological and kuriological reasoning.

Pauline scholars have long debated the interpretation of the opening exhortation in Eph 5:21. It remains unclear whether, in this context, the exhortation denotes unilateral submission or reciprocal subordination, whether it exclusively refers to the submission of wives to the head (κεφαλή) or also applies to husbands.

Armstrong proposes a linguistic approach to clarify the concept of submission. ⁹ His analysis elucidates both the syntax of the passage and the verbal aspects of ὑποτάσσω. His syntactical study indicates that Eph 5:21 can be understood as a transitional statement. First, the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι—functioning adverbially—is linked to the previous participles in vv. 19-20 (λαλοῦντες [...] ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες [...] εὐχαριστοῦντες) and is subordinate to the imperative πληροῦσθε in v. 18b. Second, the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι also introduces the relationships between wife and husband and between the Church and Christ, as articulated in the following verses (22-24). Moreover, Armstrong’s study of the verbal aspect of ὑποτασσόμενοι in Eph 5:21 reveals that the middle voice of the participle highlights, first, the “direct participation” and “specific involvement” of the subjects, ¹⁰ and second, the imperfective aspect of the present action, indicating that it is ongoing. ¹¹

Armstrong makes two further remarks in his syntactic and verbal analysis of Eph 5:21-33. First, he notes that the “reciprocal” middle voice of ὑποτασσόμενοι is paired with the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλοις. Second, he points out that the use of the subjunctive φοβῆται (instead of ὑποτάσσω) in Eph 5:33 affirms the mutual need between husbands and wives. Armstrong correctly concludes that “the verbal aspect, voice, mood, and agency of ὑποτάσσω in Eph 5:21 suggest a voluntary, mutual interchange and direct participation of both husbands and wives in relation to the verb.” ¹² Aletti also emphasizes the reciprocal interpretation of ὑποτάσσω in Eph 5:21.

Aletti also emphasizes the reciprocal interpretation of ὑποτάσσω in Eph 5:21. He notes that although the verb ὑποτάσσω is typically associated with subordination, often understood as inferiority in rank or obedience, the author of the letter clearly distinguishes ὑποτάσσω from ὑπακούω in this context. Aletti clarifies that the submission required of the wife does not imply an attitude of obedience, as is required of children or young people. Instead, her acknowledgment of the husband’s juridical—superior—status does not entail a servile or childish demeanor. Thus, the submission required of one another—rather than obedience—means regarding others as superior to oneself. ¹³

The rhetorical and linguistic analysis of ὑποτάσσω in Eph 5:21 emphasizes its reciprocal meaning, suggesting that the submission in this verse applies to wives and husbands but also to children and parents as well as to slaves and masters. However, scholars approaching the text from a feminist perspective cast doubt on the reciprocal relationship described in the passage and the derived non-reciprocal ecclesial model. Instead, they argue that the household code in Ephesians presents “theologized” models aimed at reinforcing the submission of wives. ¹⁴ This critique calls for a careful study of both the imperatives and their corresponding rationales in the passage.

Both feminist and emancipatory approaches to Eph 5:21-33 challenge its reception within the Christian tradition, though they do so in distinct ways. The feminist approach critiques the use of kuriological arguments to uphold a model of male authority and subordination in the Church. In contrast, the emancipatory reading questions the application of Eph 5:21-33 as a justification for abuse and violence by husbands in Christian communities and churches of various denominations. Despite their differing interpretations, both approaches acknowledge the significance of the head-body metaphor for understanding relationships within the Church.

Schüssler Fiorenza interprets the “head” and “body” metaphor in Eph 5:21-33 as reciprocal. She argues that while the relationship between Christ and the Church functions as a paradigm for marriage, ¹⁵ the marital relationship also becomes a paradigm for understanding the relationship between Christ and the Church. ¹⁶ Schüssler Fiorenza primarily focuses on the σῶμα metaphor, which she sees as subordinated to the κεφαλή). She emphasizes “the imperial-kyriarchal pattern of subjection and subordination, […] since the ekklesia-bride is totally dependent on or subject to her head or bridegroom.” ¹⁷

The interpretation that emphasizes the Church as the wife, subject to the head, understands the metaphor as reciprocal but applies it as if it were bidirectional, i.e., valid for the marital relationship in the same way it is for the relationship between Christ and the Church. This reading further treats the metaphor as though it had anthropological significance and were justified by considerations of power. Do the motivations in Eph 5:22-24 support this interpretation? Do the rationales provided for women suggest that the marital relationship may serve as a paradigm for the relationship between Christ and the Church?

Schüssler Fiorenza’s interpretation of the Church as bride suggests an imperialkyriarchal structure within the Church. However, this structure may not accurately capture the model of the Church conveyed by the metaphor when interpreted as a double metaphor. Furthermore, this interpretation may be misleading—if not contradictory—as it overemphasizes the metaphor’s explanatory function, despite the Schüssler Fiorenza’s acknowledgment that in Eph 5:21-33 the metaphor’s primary function is prescriptive rather than merely descriptive. ¹⁸

In line with Schüssler Fiorenza, Gil Arbiol interprets the σῶμα metaphor— understood as subordinate to the κεφαλή—by highlighting its hierarchical implications. The author situates the use of σῶμα metaphor in the deutero-Pauline letters as an extension of its earlier application in the Pauline epistles. In Ephesians and Colossians, the metaphor of the body undergoes a process of masculinization, significantly impacting the interpretation of Christology, ecclesiology, and the ethical values promoted in these letters. ¹⁹

Gil Arbiol argues that the metaphorical connection between Christ and the husband in Eph 5:21-33, mirrored by the connection between the Church and the wife, is constructed through the concept of “head,” a term attributed to both the husband and Christ, denoting their shared authority. As a result, the husband assumes the same authority over his wife that Christ holds over the Church. ²⁰

Like Schüssler Fiorenza, Gil Arbiol interprets the submission of wives to their husbands within the framework of a patriarchal model. ²¹ According to Gil Arbiol, this model reflects the assimilation of Greco-Roman domestic roles into Christian communities. Both Ephesians and Colossians appear to have introduced this model to mitigate the conflicts provoked by the Pauline model in Christian communities—specifically, the challenges arising from a model that granted autonomy and prominence to subordinate individuals. Furthermore, the deutero-Pauline letters offer a theological justification for this model, elucidating how the second generation of Christians adapted to their evolving social circumstances in Asia Minor. ²²

Gil Arbiol observes that Ephesians modifies this patriarchal model by introducing “the ‘self-sacrificial love’ (παραδίδωμι, Eph 5:25) of Christ for the Church as a model for the self-giving of husbands to their wives.” ²³ Although Gil Arbiol does not explicitly state this, such a correction underscores the prescriptive, rather than descriptive, function of the metaphor. This observation, in turn, invites a reconsideration of the metaphor’s anthropological dimensions.

Mollenkott assesses various scholarly interpretations of the marital relationship in Ephesians, identifying both misinterpretations of its metaphors and overly expansive conclusions derived from feminist readings. In particular, the author scrutinizes interpretations by Thistlethwaite, ²⁴ Schüssler Fiorenza, and Johnson. Rather than dismissing feminist perspectives wholesale, Mollenkott highlights emancipatory aspects within Eph 5:21-33 that offer “liberating alternative interpretations of Scripture” for abused women, while avoiding a direct challenge to the authority of the text. ²⁵ Mollenkott argues that the analogy of the husband to Christ is inherently circumscribed by the text, as “the husband is compared to Christ only in Christ’s self-giving, self-humbling capacity.” ²⁶

Mollenkott’s interpretation is largely accurate, as it (1) underscores the unilateral nature of the κεφαλή metaphor, applying it to the husband only insofar as he embodies Christ’s self-giving attitude, and (2) highlights its prescriptive, rather than descriptive, function. Although Mollenkott perceives the illocutionary force of the metaphor between the lines, arguing that a proper understanding brings to light the prophetic and liberating dimensions of Scripture, this interpretation does not fully address the complementary σῶμα metaphor (Church as the body of Christ) and overlooks the heuristic potential of the dual metaphor, which offers a creative model of the Church as μυστήριον.

The interpretations of the three mentioned authors focus on the translated meanings of the κεφαλή and σῶμα metaphors, seeking to clarify the comparisons they evoke, much like the approach of classical rhetoricians. However, their analyses neither fully explore the heuristic (or creative) potential of the metaphors, as modern rhetorical theory recommends, nor do they adequately account for the illocutionary force conveyed by the metaphors, as insights from Cognitive Linguistics indicate.

The unity bond is illustrated in Eph 5:31 through the citation of Gen 2:24 and the introduction of the notion of μυστήριον. Aletti rightly observes that Gen 2:24 only partially reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church, as the expression “the two will become one flesh” does not entirely apply to them. ³⁸ Eph 5:21-33 demonstrates that when a husband loves his wife as his own body, he effectively makes her his body—they become one flesh (σάρξ)—just as Christ made the Church his body, thereby creating a bond of unity. Thus, the husband’s love, rooted in Christ’s love, establishes a relationship that is divinely ordained from the beginning, but now reinterpreted in light of the Christ/Church relationship. This new understanding also clarifies the introduction of the term μυστήριον. ³⁹

The notion of μυστήριον in Eph 5:32 could be interpreted in various ways: sacramental, typological, and analogical. The sacramental reading interprets Gen 2:24 as the justification for Christian marriage. The typological reading views marriage as a preparation—a τύπος—for the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church. The analogical reading emphasizes the union between Christ and the Church. While the quotation from Gen 2:24 may prefigure Christian marriage in a certain sense, ⁴⁰ in the immediate context of Eph 5:31-32, it primarily highlights the close bond between Christ and the Church. ⁴¹

The expression τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν in Eph 5:32 has historically been interpreted through at least three hermeneutical frameworks. ⁴² (1) In the spousal interpretation, the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο carries an anaphoric function. Thus, the mystery (μυστήριον) refers to the relationship between husband and wife outlined in the preceding verse (Eph 5:31). (2) In the ecclesial interpretation, the pronoun τοῦτο points forward to the Church (ἐκκλησία) as mentioned in 5:32b. ⁴³ (3) In the analogical interpretation, the mystery (μυστήριον) encompasses both unions—the marriage of man and woman, and the union between Christ and the Church. This third interpretation seems to more accurately reflect both the argumentative progression of the passage and the author’s reinterpretation of Genesis.

The μυστήριον referring to Christ and the Church (εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν) suggests an unparalleled novelty in understanding the coherence of God’s saving plan. ⁴⁴ Its formulation in Eph 5:32 links both to the exhortations directed at the bridegroom and to the reinterpretation of Gen 2:24. Thus, this μυστήριον—the bond of unity between Christ and the Church—encapsulates in this passage the nature of God’s new act of salvation/creation, already suggested in Genesis and now manifested in the Church, understood as the body of Christ.

Some scholars trace the Old Testament roots of the notion of μυστήριον to the book of Daniel (2:19, 28-30, 47), ⁴⁵ where God’s plan of salvation is referred to as “mysteries” (μυστήρια). Daniel 2:28-29 also describes humanity’s inability to know these mysteries. Although God reveals His purpose, the understanding of these revelations remains beyond human comprehension. Only God can disclose to humans “what will happen at the end of days” (Dan 2:28). Ephesians and Colossians identify the future comprehension—the full understanding—of these “mysteries” (μυστήρια) on the final day with the event of Jesus Christ. Ephesians, in particular, uses the biblical concept of μυστήριον to substantiate (1) a new understanding of God’s plan of salvation, specifically the proclamation of Jesus Christ crucified, dead, and resurrected; (2) the association of this message with the Church itself, mainly the bond of unity between Christ (κεφαλή) and the Church (σῶμα); and (3) the knowledge conveyed by the dual metaphor of κεφαλή (head) and σῶμα (body). ⁴⁶

The rhetorical analysis of the arrangement of the exhortations and their rationales in Eph 5:21-33 underscores the importance of interpreting the κεφαλή and σῶμα metaphors as dual or correlated metaphors. The images of head and body are employed not to formulate the exhortations themselves, but to provide their underlying rationales. This analysis reveals that the figurative meaning of κεφαλή (head) applies unidirectionally (cf. vv. 22-24), while the figurative meaning of σῶμα (body) alternates with its anatomical sense (σῶμα/σάρξ) (cf. vv. 28-30). Furthermore, a classical rhetorical study of the κεφαλή and σῶμα imagery, ⁴⁷ when considered alongside the rhetorical analysis of this passage, demonstrates that these metaphors (1) convey a dual analogy (between Christ and the head, and between the Church and the body); (2) encapsulate the notion of unity (since a body cannot exist without a head); and (3) introduce a paradoxical relationship, wherein the union of head and body is understood as μυστήριον, as is Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, recent scholarship on Pauline metaphors has emphasized that modern rhetorical theories and Cognitive Linguistics offer a more comprehensive understanding than what ancient rhetoric alone can provide.

Regarding metaphor, several key observations can be made: (1) A metaphor cannot be reduced to a simple comparison; it goes beyond substitution or embellishment. ⁴⁸ (2) The heuristic function of metaphor reveals new relationships, much like a model uncovers new relationships in scientific discourse. ⁴⁹ (3) Cognitive Metaphor Theory “regards metaphors not just as a rhetorical device to adorn speech; rather, they are a fundamental way of conceptualizing the world around us.” ⁵⁰ Recent studies on performative utterances also differentiate between the sociopolitical and phenomenological functions of language. ⁵¹ Both demonstrate language’s capacity to construct reality. ⁵² The former relies on the sociopolitical context, shaping communal or new social orders, while the latter reflects the speaker’s intentionality, generating a world of phenomena.

The double metaphor κεφαλή-σῶμα possesses heuristic capacity and illocutionary force. It generates both an ethical model for marriage and an ecclesial model that extends beyond local assemblies, promoting unity rather than subordination. In Ephesians, the heuristic and illocutionary aspects of the metaphor unfold in unexpected ways, as they intertwine with the Church’s designation as μυστήριον. The mystery τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Eph 3:4; 5:32) refers to the risen Christ, who fosters the growth and edification of the body (Eph 4:15-16) and who confers on the Church the status of a resurrected body, while the mystery τῆς ἐκκλησίας (Eph 5:32) reflects the identity of the universal Church. The concept of μυστήριον also underscores both the continuity and discontinuity between the Old Testament’s salvific design and its New Testament realization.

Understanding the double metaphor of κεφαλή-σῶμα illuminates the ecclesiological model presented in Ephesians. It clarifies the universal identity of the Church and illuminates additional elements that define its nature. Some of these elements are prescriptive rather than descriptive, while others are creative rather than continuative. For instance, this model does not mandate submission but rather cultivates love and respect, conceived as a bond of unity. It neither conforms to nor accommodates the Greco-Roman patriarchal model but instead establishes a reciprocal relationship within the ecclesial context (between Christ and the Church), which in turn gives rise to a nuanced social identity (between wife and husband as one [ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, Eph 5:33], just as between the Church and Christ). ⁵³

Although the model of the Church in Eph 5:21-33 is certainly shaped by the double metaphor of κεφαλή-σῶμα and the notion of μυστήριον, it would be imprecise to establish the Church’s model in Ephesians solely based on this double metaphor. Some scholars note that, in addition to the κεφαλή-σῶμα metaphor, Ephesians employs other metaphors toescribe the Church. ⁵⁴ Most of these are anthropological and architectural metaphors that reflect an organic model, conveying the ideas of growth (toward maturity, to the measure of Christ) and cohesion (in the Spirit). Nonetheless, by employing the notion of μυστήριον, Eph 5:21-33 emphasizes a Christological and ethical model of the Church, with the latter being the consequence of the former. This model complements and amplifies the designation of the Church as the “fullness of Christ” (Eph 1:23), i.e., the Church understood as “his body” (τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ), “the fullness of the one who fills everything in every way” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου).

The ecclesial model presented in Eph 5:21-33 is primarily shaped by the dual metaphor of κεφαλή-σῶμα. Through a synthesis of rhetorical analysis, insights from both classical and contemporary rhetoric, and Cognitive Linguistics, one can more fully grasp how this metaphor articulates the relationship between Christ and the Church, as well as its theological and ethical implications. Analyzing the structure of exhortations and rationales in Eph 5:21-33 reveals the function and boundaries of the metaphor. Elucidating its illocutionary force sheds light on its normative significance for Christian marriage, while clarifying its creative capacity illuminates the ecclesial model advanced in the letter. This study also demonstrates how, in Eph 5:21-33, the double metaphor of κεφαλή-σῶμα is intricately linked to the concept of μυστήριον, thereby generating a Christological and ethical paradigm for the universal Church.

The emerging model conveys both the universal identity of the Church and the call to sanctification in Christian marriage. While feminist interpretations of Eph 5:21-33 perceive the passage as reinforcing a patriarchal framework of submission, rhetorical analysis suggests that it points to a reciprocal, Christological model of the Church. Similarly, while emancipatory approaches interpret the passage as either supporting or challenging subversive models within Christian communities, rhetorical analysis emphasizes the ethical paradigm grounded in an organic vision of the body of Christ. The interpretation advanced in this study demonstrates that Eph 5:21-33 does not merely sanction male authority but rather reconfigures social roles through the transformative love of Christ.

In accordance with Paul’s use of the σῶμα metaphor, the deutero-Pauline letters expand the dual metaphor of κεφαλή-σῶμα, integrating additional layers of meaning, including the μυστήριον, which Christologically affirms both the bond of unity between Christ and the Church and its eschatological identity. This observation highlights Paul’s distinctive preference—continued by his school—for employing metaphors to convey the theological innovation introduced by his understanding of the Christ-event. Consequently, it underscores the importance of examining the heuristic potential and illocutionary force of Pauline metaphors, drawing not only on classical rhetorical frameworks but also on insights from modern rhetoric and Cognitive Linguistics.