Understanding ἀνήρ in Ephesians 5:23

[dougknighton]

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

[Stephen Carlson]

The strongest argument in favor of husband is context. The passage is about the marriage relationship and it is part of a larger household code. The burden has to be on the one arguing against context for a grammatical rule that forbids the "husband" reading, and there isn't one. Don't get caught in a situation where you are being forced to prove someone's highly improbable position is grammatically impossible. With the right context, any weird wording can become comprehs

Furthermore, the article in the phrase κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικός signals that the γυνή is identifiable from the context, but with a "man" who may not be married, no such woman can be identified. On the other hand, the "husband" reading of ἀνήρ readily supplies the frame to make τῆς γυναικός identifiable. She is the wife of a husband.

In 5:23 I'd say that ἀνήρ is anarthrous because it is indefinite or more appositely generic, "a husband". The thought moves from plural husbands τοῖς ἰδίους ἀνδράσιν to one of them, which facilitates the comparison with Christ's singular relationship with the church.

[dougknighton]

Thanks, Stephen.