Understanding ἀνήρ in Ephesians 5:23
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 4:10 pm
This text ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς kaί ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας (Eph. 5:23) has traditionally been construed as “the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church.” A friend is arguing that the first clause (ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς) should be understood as “the man is head of the woman” (the same as a similar clause in 1 Corinthians 11:3 κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ). He argues, essentially, that because Paul usually uses the definite article with ἀνήρ when he means ‘husband’ and omits the article when he means ‘man,’ we should understand ἀνήρ in 5:23 not to mean ‘husband.’ I suggested to him that it is difficult for me to construe ἀνήρ as indefinite because 1) it occurs in the middle of a long sentence, 2) is part of a causal clause that points back to the preceding clause, and 3) the noun phrase in the preceding clause is articulated (τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν).
My understanding of the grammar rules covering articulation/definiteness is that articulated nouns remain definite even without an article in the following instance. Unfortunately, I cannot find this a rule per se. The closest I can come is in Robertson (page 768): “The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The article is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed. The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. ... In Eph. 5:23, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλή, the context makes it clear that ἀνήρ is subject [and thus, according to him, definite] even without the article.” I realize Robertson is not saying exactly what I’m saying, but it seems that he implies it.
Are there specific grammatical or syntactical reasons that compel construing ἀνήρ as ‘husband’ in this case?
Doug Knighton
My understanding of the grammar rules covering articulation/definiteness is that articulated nouns remain definite even without an article in the following instance. Unfortunately, I cannot find this a rule per se. The closest I can come is in Robertson (page 768): “The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The article is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed. The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. ... In Eph. 5:23, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλή, the context makes it clear that ἀνήρ is subject [and thus, according to him, definite] even without the article.” I realize Robertson is not saying exactly what I’m saying, but it seems that he implies it.
Are there specific grammatical or syntactical reasons that compel construing ἀνήρ as ‘husband’ in this case?
Doug Knighton