Tertullian — Commentary on Scripture

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that "wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands: " what reason does he give for this? "Because," says he, "the husband is the head of the wife.

Ephesians 5:23 · 2 passages

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

But he declares that "wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands: " what reason does he give for this? "Because," says he, "the husband is the head of the wife." Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: "even as Christ is the head of the Church; " and again, in like manner: "He who loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church.

Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: "even as Christ is the head of the Church; " and again, in like manner: "He who loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church.

Ephesians 5:25

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: "even as Christ is the head of the Church; " and again, in like manner: "He who loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church." You see how your Christ and your Church are put in comparison with the work of the Creator.

Ephesians 5:26

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

" What more disgraceful than immodesties? If, moreover, even from a "brother" who "walketh idly" he warns the Thessalonians to withdraw themselves, how much more withal from a fornicator! For these are the deliberate judgments of Christ, "loving the Church," who "hath delivered Him self up for her, that He may sanctify her (purifying her utterly by the layer of water) in the word, that He may present the Church to Him self glorious, not having stain or wrinkle"-of course after the laver-"but (that) she may be holy and without reproach; " thereafter, to wit, being "without wrinkle" as a virgin, "without stain" (of fornication) as a spouse, "without disgrace" (of vileness), as having been "utterly purified.

Ephesians 5:29 · 2 passages

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

“No one,” he says, “hates his own flesh”—excepting only Marcion, obviously—“but he nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church.” But you [Marcion] are the only one who hates it, since you deprive it of resurrection. So you also hate the church. But Christ loved the flesh, as seen in his love for the church. The point is that as no man hates his own flesh so he does not hate his own wife but indeed acts to preserve, honor and crown her.

How much honour is given to the flesh in the name of the church! "No man," says the apostle, "ever yet hated his own flesh" (except, of course, Marcion alone), "but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord doth the Church." But you are the only man that hates his flesh, for you rob it of its resurrection.

Ephesians 5:31 · 5 passages

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

For, inasmuch as Adam straightway predicted that "great mystery of Christ and the church," when he said, "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall become one flesh," he experienced the influence of the Spirit.

I shall now endeavour, from my point of view, to prove that the same God is (the God) of the man and of Christ, of the woman and of the Church, of the flesh and the spirit, by the apostle's help who applies the Creator's injunction, and adds even a comment on it: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, (and shall be joined unto his wife), and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery." In passing, (I would say that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries in the estimation of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the heretics.

But why enlarge on such a subject? When the very apostle whom our heretics adopt, interprets the law which allows an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn, not of cattle, but of ourselves; and also alleges that the rock which followed (the Israelites) and supplied them with drink was Christ; teaching the Galatians, moreover, that the two narratives of the sons of Abraham had an allegorical meaning in their course; and to the Ephesians giving an intimation that, when it was declared in the beginning that a man should leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife, he applied this to Christ and the church.

if, however, (it take place) a second time, or oftener, immediately (the flesh) ceases to be "one," and there will not be "two (joined) into one flesh," but plainly one rib (divided) into more. But when the apostle interprets, "The two shall be (joined) into one flesh" of the Church and Christ, according to the spiritual nuptials of the Church and Christ (for Christ is one, and one is His Church), we are bound to recognise a duplication and additional enforcement for us of the law of unity of marriage, not only in accordance with the foundation of our race, but in accordance with the sacrament of Christ.

What kind of yoke is that of two believers, (partakers) of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? Both (are) brethren, both fellow servants, no difference of spirit or of flesh; nay, (they are) truly "two in one flesh." Where the flesh is one, one is the spirit ton.

Ephesians 5:32 · 4 passages

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

In passing, (I would say that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries in the estimation of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the heretics. "But I am speaking," says he, "of Christ and the Church." This he says in explanation of the mystery, not for its disruption.

Small in the eyes of heretics but great in the eyes of the apostles are the Creator’s works. Of just such a great mystery the apostle speaks when he says: “But I speak of Christ and the church.” He says this to confirm the mystery, not to undermine it. He shows us that the mystery was prefigured beforehand by the One who is the author of the mystery.

What had he that was spiritual? Is it because he prophetically declared "the great mystery of Christ and the church? " "This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman.

However, even (Adam) himself at that time, reverting to the condition of a Psychic after the spiritual ecstasy in which he had prophetically interpreted that "great sacrament" with reference to Christ and the Church, and no longer being "capable of the things which were the Spirit's," yielded more readily to his belly than to God, heeded the meat rather than the mandate, and sold salvation for his gullet! He ate, in short, and perished; saved (as he would) else (have been), if he had preferred to fast from one little tree: so that, even from this early date, animal faith may recognise its own seed, deducing from thence onward its appetite for carnalities and rejection of spiritualities.

Ephesians 6:2

Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

Now, although Marcion has erased (the next clause), "which is the first commandment with promise," still the law says plainly, "Honour thy father and thy mother.

Ephesians 6:4

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

" Again, (the apostle writes: ) "Parents, bring up your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord." For you have heard how it was said to them of old time: "Ye shall relate these things to your children; and your children in like manner to their children.

Ephesians 6:9

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest.

Ephesians 6:11

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

But as our struggle lies against "the rulers of this world," what a host of Creator Gods there must be! For why should I not insist upon this point here, that he ought to have mentioned but one "ruler of this world," if he meant only the Creator to be the being to whom belonged all the powers which he previously mentioned? Again, when in the preceding verse he bids us "put on the whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," does he not show that all the things which he mentions after the devil's name really belong to the devil-"the principalities and the powers, and the tillers of the darkness of this world," which we also ascribe to the devil's authority? Else, if "the devil" means the Creator, who will be the devil in the Creator's dispensation? As there are two gods, must there also be two devils, and a plurality of powers and rulers of this world? But how is the Creator both a devil and a god at the same time, when the devil is not at once both god and devil? For either they are both of them gods, if both of them are devils; or else He who is…

But as our struggle lies against "the rulers of this world," what a host of Creator Gods there must be! For why should I not insist upon this point here, that he ought to have mentioned but one "ruler of this world," if he meant only the Creator to be the being to whom belonged all the powers which he previously mentioned? Again, when in the preceding verse he bids us "put on the whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," does he not show that all the things which he mentions after the devil's name really belong to the devil-"the principalities and the powers, and the tillers of the darkness of this world," which we also ascribe to the devil's authority? Else, if "the devil" means the Creator, who will be the devil in the Creator's dispensation? As there are two gods, must there also be two devils, and a plurality of powers and rulers of this world? But how is the Creator both a devil and a god at the same time, when the devil is not at once both god and devil? For either they are both of them gods, if both of them are devils; or else He who is God is not also devil, as neither is he god who is the devil.