# Help to understand Ephesians 5:26.



## Jash Comstock

What does Paul mean, when he says that Christ gave himself up for the church, to sanctify her, "having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word" (ESV)? What is cleansing by the washing of water with the word? Is the water baptism? I'm a little confused.


----------



## Mathetes

According to Hoehner's commentary:

"Many think this refers to baptism. Unfortunately, this is reading patristic and modern liturgy into the first century, and moreover, there isnothing in the present context or in Titus 3:5 to indicate that this has reference to a baptismal rite. Furthermore, the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin. Even in the Qumran community the ritual washing was not considered as that which cleansed them. Rather, it was God who wiped out their transgressions and justified them. Also, as Erdmann rightly observes, nowhere in the NT is the rite of baptism used in connection with the entire Christian community but only in connection with individual believers. On the other hand, Barth and Dunn think it is a reference to the baptism of the Spirit. Once again, nothing in the present context suggests the Spirit's baptism.

It is probably best to see it as a metaphorical expression of redemption with the imagery of the bridal bath practiced in the first century. Christ gave himself for the community of believers, the church. The purpose of this was to set apart the church because she had been cleaned with the washing of water. In 1 Corinthians 6:11 it also mentions washing. There, unlike those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, believers were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God. Here, too, the washing has reference to the cleansing accomplished by Christ and not the ritual of baptism. In Titus 3:5 it refers to the washing of regeneration, indicating a cleansing that comes with salvation making us acceptable before a Holy God. Why is the term "water" used? The most likely explanation is that water is the most common element used for washing. Along with the above mentioned, Hebrews 10:22 refers to the new covenant that promises forgiveness of sin as fulfilled by Jesus' death allowing those who trust in that death to come to God because their hearts were sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water. Again, these are picturesque ways of expressing the cleansing affected by Christ's death. None of these passages have any suggestion of a sacramental setting. Nothing appears to be part of a formula associated with baptism such as "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, the idea of washing involves bathing rather than just a few drops of water or a quick dip into the water. In addition, baptism is always administered individually whereas this context speaks of the effect of Christ's death on the body of believers. As initially stated then, the washing of water is a metaphorical way to express cleansing.

As mentioned above, not only is this a metaphorical expression of redemption, but it also evokes the imagery of the bridal bath. This is significant since the present passage deals with the relationship of the husband to his wife. The prenuptial bath in Jewish marital customs reflected the imagery of God's marriage to Israel related in Ezekiel 16. At the time of her birth, Israel was in a pitiable state, lying in blood, uncleansed by the washing of water, and was abhorred by all (16:4-6). When she grew up God entered into a covenant with her and bathed her with water, washed off the blood, anointed her with oil, and clothed her with the finest materials, making her exceedingly beautiful, fit to be a queen (16:8-14). The custom of prenuptial bathing seemed to be practiced also among the Greeks. Analogous to this bridal bath, the present verse relates that Christ's death on behalf of the church was to cleanse her by the "washing of the water."

(Harold W. Hoehner, "Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary", pp. 753-754)


----------



## Jack K

Even being a Presbyterian, I would read it not as a direct reference to baptism but as a reference to cleansing from sin. Then I would go on to say that this passage and baptism use similar imagery to speak of the same spiritual event.


----------



## Peairtach

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

With reference to the Hoehner quote,Now of course, patristic liturgy came from somewhere. *All* the church's practice was not cast away in a generation or two after the apostles, to be replaced whole-cloth by ritualism. When there is at least some thought of retaining (and not replacing) the authoritative patterns handed down, it is most natural that the church should have found in the Scripture texts more-sure grounding for their practices than simply "tradition."

Furthermore, *all* Scripture is _liturgical text._ It was so right away by recognized inspiration and eventual canonization. Without reading too much apostolic church-practice _into_ the text, we have to be careful not to read such material _out of_ the text.

Lastly, I'm even more amazed by the author's own reliance on a supposed connection between the apostolic word, and Jewish/Greek _bridal-bath_ practice! Seriously? You've got to be kidding me. He rejects any sort of "organic" connection between later church-practice, and a traditional interpretation of a text that is interwoven with that practice from its inception (regardless of what one thinks happened to the tradition in the interim). But he admits an _unfounded_ connection between a culturally-normed habit, that has nothing to do with ecclesiology or theology, inasmuch as that habit predates the NT. Classic _post hoc_ fallacy (the putting of Ezk.16 to service is sheer desperation).​

A.T.Robertson, Baptist grammarian of no small fame, does not hesitate to assign to Paul's intent clear allusion to baptism:


> The reference here seems to be to the baptismal bath (immersion) of water, “in the bath of water.” See note on 1Cor.6:11 for the bringing together of apelousasthe and hēgiasthēte. Neither there nor here does Paul mean that the cleansing or sanctification took place in the bath save in a symbolic fashion as in Rom.6:4-6. Some think that Paul has also a reference to the bath of the bride before marriage. Still more difficult is the phrase “with the word” (en rēmati). In Jn.17:17 Jesus connected “truth” with “sanctify.” That is possible here, though it may also be connected with katharisas (having cleansed). Some take it to mean the baptismal formula.


Interesting, that he mentions the "bridal-bath" as an alternate interpretation, but does not commend it. The best he can say for it is that there are others offered that have greater problems.


----------



## Mathetes

Contra_Mundum said:


> With reference to the Hoehner quote,Now of course, patristic liturgy came from somewhere. *All* the church's practice was not cast away in a generation or two after the apostles, to be replaced whole-cloth by ritualism. When there is at least some thought of retaining (and not replacing) the authoritative patterns handed down, it is most natural that the church should have found in the Scripture texts more-sure grounding for their practices than simply "tradition."
> 
> Furthermore, *all* Scripture is _liturgical text._ It was so right away by recognized inspiration and eventual canonization. Without reading too much apostolic church-practice _into_ the text, we have to be careful not to read such material _out of_ the text.​




You're equivocating. Hoehner is talking about the eisegeting specific "liturgical" or sacramental practices in texts where the context doesn't justify it - much like Catholics reading baptism into John 3:5.



> Lastly, I'm even more amazed by the author's own reliance on a supposed connection between the apostolic word, and Jewish/Greek _bridal-bath_ practice! Seriously? You've got to be kidding me. He rejects any sort of "organic" connection between later church-practice, and a traditional interpretation of a text that is interwoven with that practice from its inception (regardless of what one thinks happened to the tradition in the interim). But he admits an _unfounded_ connection between a culturally-normed habit, that has nothing to do with ecclesiology or theology, inasmuch as that habit predates the NT. Classic _post hoc_ fallacy (the putting of Ezk.16 to service is sheer desperation).



This is long on assertion and short on argument. Someone calling himself a pastor should be careful not to be sloppy. Hoehner argues for his position, whereas you do not. Furthermore, if this is a practice that makes up Paul's Jewish background, and is also familiar to Gentiles, then all the more reason to use it as a metaphor.




> A.T.Robertson, Baptist grammarian of no small fame, does not hesitate to assign to Paul's intent clear allusion to baptism:
> 
> 
> 
> The reference here seems to be to the baptismal bath (immersion) of water, “in the bath of water.” See note on 1Cor.6:11 for the bringing together of apelousasthe and hēgiasthēte. Neither there nor here does Paul mean that the cleansing or sanctification took place in the bath save in a symbolic fashion as in Rom.6:4-6. Some think that Paul has also a reference to the bath of the bride before marriage. Still more difficult is the phrase “with the word” (en rēmati). In Jn.17:17 Jesus connected “truth” with “sanctify.” That is possible here, though it may also be connected with katharisas (having cleansed). Some take it to mean the baptismal formula.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, that he mentions the "bridal-bath" as an alternate interpretation, but does not commend it. The best he can say for it is that there are others offered that have greater problems.
Click to expand...


I don't know if you're quoting this because you think I'll agree with a fellow Baptist, or because you think his argument is convincing. The fact that he's a Baptist is rather irrelevant, since he's not an authority to me. As for his statement, he doesn't really argue for his position, so that's not compelling either.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Mathetes said:


> You're equivocating. Hoehner is talking about the eisegeting specific "liturgical" or sacramental practices in texts where the context doesn't justify it - much like Catholics reading baptism into John 3:5.


I wasn't confused about Hoehner, and I'm not under misapprehension about the immaturity of much patristic exegesis. Comparatively however, the ACF's attempts at textual support for practices often bequeathed to them, is inherently superior to the post hoc cultural explanations for apostolic statements, offered by the author. The irony is deepened by an apparent quest to find a textual reference point (Ezk.16) for a traditional and non-cultic practice (bride-bath), out of which it is claimed Paul reasons to his authoritative and ecclesiastic statements. It is *the very type* of the least defensible patristic citations.




Mathetes said:


> This is long on assertion and short on argument. Someone calling himself a pastor should be careful not to be sloppy. Hoehner argues for his position, whereas you do not. Furthermore, if this is a practice that makes up Paul's Jewish background, and is also familiar to Gentiles, then all the more reason to use it as a metaphor.


Sir,
Your statements are as long on assertions and short on argument as mine, but I don't fault you for them. They are yours and you're welcome to them. Someone calling himself a Christian should be careful not to project. I do not apologize for offering my judgment, minus any substantial reasoning, in a short internet-post. I never expect people to simply accept my views because they are mine. In the unlikely event that anyone wanted to know more of why I think this or that, I usually try to oblige them.

Whoever Mr. Hoehner is, he has embalmed his opinion in printer's ink, has had that judgment placed before us. And therefore it may be criticized. I criticized it, and gave a minimal explanation. Dr. Robertson criticized it, primarily by counter-exegesis (of which I only quoted a few sentences). I did not criticize the man (ad hominem), and neither did Robertson, so for instance, by calling him "sloppy." And clearly, I find socially (as opposed to textually) weighted exegesis irresponsibly speculative.




Mathetes said:


> I don't know if you're quoting this because you think I'll agree with a fellow Baptist, or because you think his argument is convincing. The fact that he's a Baptist is rather irrelevant, since he's not an authority to me. As for his statement, he doesn't really argue for his position, so that's not compelling either.


I never assume that anyone confident enough in his own opinions to state or reference them publicly is a subject for conversion. At best, I hope perhaps he may be given some new thought with which to wrestle. As it stands, there are now two dueling quotations (and opinions on them) the reader may engage to help form his own judgment.

I made reference to Dr. Robertson's ecclesial affiliation and academic credentials, for the benefit of any reader who might assume that Hoehner's work (and the poster's affiliation) made the reasoning offered more plausible. I presented it to *undermine*, not strengthen, an appeal to authority. Anyone who is interested in Dr. Robertson's (an early faculty member of SBTS) opinions may consult his _Grammar_ (a standard, if now somewhat dated (late 19th c.) text); as well as his _Word Pictures in the New Testament_, from which my quotation was drawn.


----------



## jwithnell

Rev. Buchanan, is it possible that too much emphasis has been placed upon Baptism? Taking the plain meaning of the English text, can this not be the purifying (cleansing) effect of God's word, particularly as it is preached or taught, first in the church, then by the husband to his wife? The previous verses mention "speaking" and "the will of the Lord" vs 17.; "psalms," vs 19, and "thanksgiving," vs. 20 before bringing in the idea of "washing of water with the word"vs. 26. And this teaching would be of little value without the sacrificial love shown first by Christ to His church, then by the husband to his wife. At least, this is how I've always read this text. But then, I may have always been wrong on this text ; )

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mathetes

Contra_Mundum said:


> I wasn't confused about Hoehner, and I'm not under misapprehension about the immaturity of much patristic exegesis. Comparatively however, the ACF's attempts at textual support for practices often bequeathed to them, is inherently superior to the post hoc cultural explanations for apostolic statements, offered by the author. The irony is deepened by an apparent quest to find a textual reference point (Ezk.16) for a traditional and non-cultic practice (bride-bath), out of which it is claimed Paul reasons to his authoritative and ecclesiastic statements. It is *the very type* of the least defensible patristic citations.



It still falls wide of the mark, since the purpose of Hoehner's quote isn't to go into the minutae of patristic exegesis, but to determine if people are seeing baptism where there is no baptism, particularly in a passage that is framed with reference to spousal love/relations. That's what he means by reading patristic and liturgical practices into the text.

Now that we're on the topic though, I would argue that the sitz-im-leben is relevant to exegesis since it informs original intent. I don't really agree that the ECF's are necessarily the first and best place to go for the interpretation since a lot of them were clueless about Jewish culture, the Hebrew language, and sometimes even Greek. Different fathers have different levels of expertise, of course.




> Sir,
> Your statements are as long on assertions and short on argument as mine, but I don't fault you for them.



Irrelevant, since I'm not vouching for my own statements but Hoehner's.



> They are yours and you're welcome to them. Someone calling himself a Christian should be careful not to project.



Projecting is when a person makes a stab in the dark as to someone's emotional or psychological state, and then uses that to draw a conclusion about their statement. That's not what I was doing. I simply looked at your counterpoint and determined that all of your assertions were lacking in supporting arguments.



> I do not apologize for offering my judgment, minus any substantial reasoning, in a short internet-post. I never expect people to simply accept my views because they are mine. In the unlikely event that anyone wanted to know more of why I think this or that, I usually try to oblige them.
> 
> Whoever Mr. Hoehner is, he has embalmed his opinion in printer's ink, has had that judgment placed before us. And therefore it may be criticized. I criticized it, and gave a minimal explanation. Dr. Robertson criticized it, primarily by counter-exegesis (of which I only quoted a few sentences). I did not criticize the man (ad hominem), and neither did Robertson, so for instance, by calling him "sloppy." And clearly, I find socially (as opposed to textually) weighted exegesis irresponsibly speculative.



What you call "judgment" and "criticism" looks more like open mocking to me ("Seriously? You've got to be kidding me", "sheer desperation"). Now that can be justified, since the ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. But it raises the expectation that you'll be able to demonstrate why it's ridiculous; however, that never happens, so what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.



> I made reference to Dr. Robertson's ecclesial affiliation and academic credentials, for the benefit of any reader who might assume that Hoehner's work (and the poster's affiliation) made the reasoning offered more plausible. I presented it to *undermine*, not strengthen, an appeal to authority. Anyone who is interested in Dr. Robertson's (an early faculty member of SBTS) opinions may consult his _Grammar_ (a standard, if now somewhat dated (late 19th c.) text); as well as his _Word Pictures in the New Testament_, from which my quotation was drawn.



That's fine as far as it goes, but it's a weak comparison since - right or wrong - Hoehner goes through pains to explain the context and justification for his interpretation while Robertson...doesn't. And since Robertson doesn't offer any further detail, all the audience sees is a thorough argument vs. a weak argument (or no argument at all).

Reactions: Like 1


----------

