FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS IN 4QINSTRUCTION

AND IN EPH 5:216:41

Jean-Sébastien Rey
Université de Metz

From the beginning of the 1960s, the connections between the texts of
Qumran and the Epistle to the Ephesians have been highlighted by bibli-
cal scholars.2 Indeed, a good number of expressions, stylistic elements
and theological themes characteristic of Qumran’s vocabulary are to
be found in the Epistle.3 J. Murphy-O’Connor has even suggested that
the author of the Epistle may have been a colleague of Paul who was
inluenced by Essene ideas.4 In considering the relationship between
the literature of Qumran and the New Testament, I will concentrate on
one text in particular: the family code (Haustafeln) of Eph 5:21–6:9.
Most scholars are of the view that the origins of family codes are
to be found in Aristotle5 or Stoic morality6 via Judeo-Hellenistic

1
I wish to thank Professor George J. Brooke for his valuable comments, Benjamin G.
Wold for our fruitful discussions, and Jill Husser-Munro for her English translation.
2
K.G. Kuhn, “Der Epheserbrieg im Lichte des Qumrantexte,” NTS 7 (1961): 334–346;
J. Coppens, “Le ‘mystère’ dans la théologie paulinienne et ses parallèles Qumrâniens,”
in Littérature et théologie pauliniennes (ed. A. Descamps; Louvain: Desclée, 1960),
142–165; F. Mussner, “Contributions made by Qumran to the Understanding of the
Epistle to the Ephesians,” in Paul and Qumran (ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor; Melbourne:
Priory Press, 1968), 159–178; P. Benoit, “Qumran and the New Testament,” in Paul
and Qumran (ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor; Melbourne: Priory Press, 1968), 1–30.
3
In addition to the articles of K.G. Kuhn and F. Mussner, a list of similarities is
given in the introduction of most recent commentaries on the Epistle, see for example:
J.-N. Aletti, Saint Paul épître aux Éphésiens (EBib 42; Paris: Gabalda, 2001), 34–37;
M. Barth, Ephesians 1–3 (AB 34; New York: Doubleday, 1986), 405–406; Chantal
Reynier, L’épître aux Ephésiens (Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament 10; Paris:
Cerf, 2004), 39.
4
J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Who Wrote Ephesians?” Bible Today 8 (1965): 1202.
5
Politica I 1253b–1255b; Ethica nichomachea VIII 1160a 23–1161a 10; V 1134b
9–18.
6
Seneca, Epistolae morales 94,1. he irst comparisons with Aristotle and Stoic
morality go back to M. Dibelius, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (HNT 12;
Tübingen: Mohr, 1912), and his disciple K. Weidinger, Die Haustafeln. Ein Stück
urchristlicher Paränese (UNT 14; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1928). See also K. Thraede, “Zum
historischen Hintergrund der ‘Haustafeln’ des NT,” in Pietas, Festschrit B. Kötting
(ed. E. Dassmann and K. Suso Franck; JAC Erg. vol. 8; Münster: Aschendorf, 1980),
232 jean-sÉbastien rey

literature.7 However, despite the obvious similarities, scholars also agree

that there are fundamental diferences between the New Testament fam-
ily codes and texts originating in the Hellenistic tradition. In particular,
the texts’ motivations difer. Some are essentially ethical, economic or
political, while others are theological or Christological.
he publication of 4QInstruction8 may shed new light on the fam-
ily code of Eph 5:21–6:9 and on the controversial origins of this text.
4QInstruction is a Wisdom text which most likely was written in the
second century b.c. Originating in the Judaism of Palestine, it is close
to the book of Sirach, both in language and content. Columns three
and four of 4Q416 contain two pericopes on the relationships between
parents and children, and husbands and wives. hese merit comparison
with Eph 5:21–6:4.
First, the author of 4QInstruction comments on the ith command-
ment of the Decalogue (4Q416 2 III 15–19). hen he writes at some
length about the relationship between spouses (4Q416 2 III 20–IV
13). As in Eph 5:21–6:4, the author draws on two quotations from the
Pentateuch to justify the order of family relationships: Deut 5:16 (Exod
20:12) and Gen 2:24.
he author of the Epistle to the Ephesians presents things the other
way round: irst comes the teaching about the relationship between
husbands and wives in Eph 5:21–33, and then the teaching about parent-
child relationships in 6:1–4. Most scholars agree that Eph 5:21–6:9 is
dependent on the parallel text, Col 3:18–4:1. here are signiicant dif-
ferences, however, between the two texts, diferences which scholars

359–368; D.L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive. he Domestic Code in I Peter (SBLMS
26; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981).
7
Philo, Hypothetica 7,1–14; De Decalogo 165–167; De posteritate Caini 181; Flavius
Josephus, Contra Apionem II 22–28 §§ 190–210; Pseudo-Phocylides, Sententiae 175–227.
J.E. Crouch distances himself from the hypotheses of M. Dibelius and K. Weidinger
by linking the family codes of the New Testament with Judeo-Hellenistic literature
(J.E. Crouch, he Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafeln (FRLANT 109; Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). K.H. Rengstorf and D. Schröder argue that
the family codes are a purely Christian creation, but this hypothesis has not received
the support of scholars (see K.H. Rengstorf, “Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen
and die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuorden,” in Verbum dei manet in aeternum,
Festschrit für O. Schmitz (ed. W. Foerster; Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1953), 131–145;
D. Schröder, Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testament: ihre Herkunt und theologischer Sinn
(Ph.D. diss., Hamburg University, 1959).
8
J. Strugnell, D.J. Harrington, T. Elgvin, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV, Sapiential Texts,
Part 2 (DJD XXXIV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). hen, in abridged form, in DJD
XXXIV.
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 233

fail to justify either from New Testament sources or from sources in

Hellenistic or Judeo-Hellenistic literature.
In this paper, I will follow the order of the pericopes in 4QInstruction.
I will begin, therefore, with the text about honouring one’s parents in
4Q416 2 III 15–19 and in Eph 6:1–4. hen, I will consider the pericope
about the relationship between husband and wife in 4Q416 2 III 19–IV
13 and in Eph 5:21–33. Finally, I will try to draw some conclusions
from this comparative study.

Honouring ones’ parents in 4Q416 2 III 15–19 and Eph 6:1–4

1. 4Q416 2 III 15–19

Lines 15 to 19 of column three deal with the ith commandment of the
Decalogue. 4Q416 2 III 15–19 overlaps with 4Q418 9 + 9a–c 17–18 +
4Q418 10a–b 1–2 (underlined in the text).
‫ אביכה בריֿ שכה‬b‫ כבוד‬a‫ומה מתוק לגבר‬ ֗ ‫תביט ואז תדﬠ מה מר לאיש‬ 15
‫ לאיש כן אביֿ הוֿ וכאדנים לגבר כן אמו כי‬a‫במצﬠריכה כי כאב‬
֯ ‫‬ואמכה‬ 16
‫ בכה וֿ יֿ צו֯ ֯ﬠל ֗הרוח כן ﬠובדם‬a‫המשילמה‬
֗ ‫המה ֗כוֿ ר הוריכה וכאשר‬ 17
‫וכאשר‬
‫[ה ֗ד ֗ר ֗פניהמה‬
֗ ]‫וב‬
֯ ‫גלה אוזנכה ברז נהיה כבדם למﬠן כבודכה‬ 18
[ ] °‫ ואם רש אתה כשה‬vacat ‫למﬠן חייכה וארוך ימיכה‬ 19

15 a 4Q418 9 16 vacat | b 4Q418 9 17 ‫ • כבד‬16 a 4Q418 9 17 ‫• כאל‬

17 a 4Q418 9 18 ‫המשיל}כה{ם‬

15 (. . .) Honour9 your father in your poverty

16 and your mother in your lowliness.10
For as God11 is to a human being, so is his father

9
Preferably read ‫ כבד‬with 4Q418 9 17 (cf. Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Sir 3:8[A]) rather
than ‫ כבוד‬with 4Q416 2 III 15, since the Qal imperative of ‫ כבד‬is unknown.
10
Strugnell and Harrington (DJD XXXIV) read ‫במצﬠדיכה‬, “in your steps”, in
4Q416 2 III 16 (as does A. Caquot, “Les textes de sagesse de Qoumrân (Aperçu pré-
liminaire),” RHPR 76 (1996): 13–14, who translates: “Que l’honneur de ton père soit
sur ta tête et l’honneur de ta mère sur tes pas”). However, the reading ‫במצﬠריכה‬, “in
your lowliness”, is paleographically possible and is in keeping with 4Q418 9 17. his
reading is therefore preferable, especially since the construction, based on parallelism,
encourages the reader to understand ‫ מצﬠר‬as a synonym for ‫ברישכה‬: “Honour your
father in your poverty and your mother in your lowliness”.
11
4Q416 2 III 16 reads ‫ כאב‬while 4Q418 9a–c 17 reads ‫כאל‬. he second reading
is preferable for three reasons: (1) ‫ כאב‬poses the problem of meaning unless it is a
divine epithet. However, there is no equivalent to this name for God before the New
Testament period. (2) he reading ‫ כאל‬makes sense and ‫ כאב‬can be explained as a
234 jean-sÉbastien rey

and as the Lord12 is to a man, so is his mother.

For 17 they are the crucible13 which taught you.14
According to how he has given them dominion over you and how he
ordered the spirit,15
in this way serve them.16
And according to how 18 he revealed to your ears the mystery of
existence,17
honour them for your glory’s sake and for [your . . .]18
Venerate their faces 19 for the sake of your life and the length of your
days.
Vacat
Lines 15 to 19 are an independent unit, deined by a vacat between
‫ מתוק לגבר‬and ‫ כבד אביכה‬visible in 4Q418 9 16 and ater “length of
days” visible in 4Q416 2 III 19. he unity of the pericope is reinforced
structurally by a quotation from Deut 5:16 at the beginning and the

scribal error induced by the ‫ אביהו‬which follows. (3) Finally, the reading ‫ כאל‬high-
lights the parallel structure of the pericope (‫ כאל‬being parallel to ‫כאדנים‬, ‫ איש‬to ‫גבר‬
and ‫ אביהו‬to ‫)אמו‬.
12
For ‫ אדונים‬as a name for God, cf. Mal 1:16 and the formula ‫ אדני האדנים‬in Deut
10:17; Ps 136:9; 1Q19bis 2 5. I disagree with B.G. Wold, “Reconsidering an Aspect of
the Title Kyrios in Light of Sapiential Fragment 4Q416 2 iii,” ZNW 95 (2004): 149–160,
who sees the term as a name for angels.
13
For the image of the “crucible” or “furnace”, with respect to giving birth, compare
with 1QHa XI 9.11.13 (= III 8.10.12).
14
he term ‫( הוריכה‬ou ‫ )הורוכה‬may come from the root ‫הרה‬, “give birth” or from
‫“ ירה‬teach”. Two interpretations are therefore possible: (1) “for they are the crucible,
they gave you birth (‫( ”)הוריכה‬Qal participle of ‫)הרה‬, cf. Isa 33:11; Sir 3:7LXX and Sir
7:28LXX; (2) or “for they are the crucible which taught you (‫( ”)הוריכה‬third masc. sing.
hip il of ‫ )ירה‬or inally “for, they are the crucible, they taught you (‫( ”)הורוכה‬third
masc. pl. hip il of ‫)ירה‬.
15
Editors have read ‫ ויצר‬and translated “And fashioned (thee) according to the spirit”.
here are two weaknesses in this reading: (1) for the space available, the letter rêš is too
long and would touch the ‘ayin of ‫( ;ﬠל‬2) there is no evidence of ‫ יצר‬accompanied by
the preposition ‫ﬠל‬. For palaeographical reasons, it is preferable to read ‫ויצו‬. he verb
‫ צוה‬is oten associated with the preposition ‫ ﬠל‬in the sense “to order someone” or “to
order [something] as regards someone”. he phrase can therefore be understood thus:
“and according to how he ordered the spirit” or “and according to how he ordered
things concerning the spirit” (cf. CD XV 14 // 4Q266 8 I 5 // 4Q270 6 II 7).
16
he meaning of ‫ רוח‬in this context is not quite clear, especially since it is rarely
used with the article (in 4QInstruction only 4Q418 34 2; 4Q418 172 2).
17
Same expression in 1Q26 1 4; 4Q416 2 III 18 // 4Q418 1a–b 1; 4Q418 184 2;
4Q418 190 2.
18
his lacuna is suiciently large to be able to restore two words. Editors suggest
the following “and with [reverence] venerate their persons”. his restoration seems too
short, unless there was a vacat. It would also be possible to restore a second noun,
beginning with bêt (“Honour them for your glory’s sake and for [your . . . and] venerate
their face for the sake of your life and your . . .”
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 235

end, forming an inclusion. To use a musical metaphor, lines 15 to 19

ornament the ith commandment.
In poetic terms, the text is carefully constructed by a series of
parallelisms:19
‫ כבוד אביכה בריֿ שכה‬.1
‫במצﬠריכה‬ ֯ ‫ואמכה‬
ֿ‫כן אביֿ הו‬ ‫לאיש‬ ‫כאב‬ ‫ כי‬.2a
‫כן אמו‬ ‫וכאדנים לגבר‬
‫המה ֗כוֿ ר הוריכה‬ ‫ כי‬.2b
‫המשילמה בכה וֿ יֿ צו֯ ֯ﬠל ֗הרוח‬
֗ ‫ וכאשר‬.3
‫כן ﬠובדם‬
‫וכאשר גלה אוזנכה ברז נהיה‬
[ ]‫וב‬
֯ ‫למﬠן כבודכה‬ ‫כבדם‬
‫למﬠן חייכה וארוך ימיכה‬ ‫֗ה ֗ד ֗ר ֗פניהמה‬

Honour your father in your poverty

and your mother in your lowliness.
For as God is to a human being, so is his father
and as the Lord is to a man, so is his mother.
For they are the crucible which taught you.
According to how he has given them dominion over you and how he ordered
in this way serve them. the spirit,
And according to how he revealed to your ears the mystery of existence,
honour them for your glory’s sake and for [your . . .]
Venerate their faces for the sake of your life and the length of your
days.
he text is structured by three elements:

(1) he irst element, introduced by an imperative, pronounces the

injunction (“honour your father in your poverty and your mother in
your lowliness”). he author draws on the text of Deut 5:16 (Exod
20:12) and add the motifs of poverty and lowliness, which are charac-
teristic of 4QInstruction.20 As George J. Brooke has shown, this may
be described as rewriting through expansion. he same technique is
evident in 1QS II 2–4, which quotes and expands on each statement
in Num 6:24–27.21

19
See E.D. Reymond, “he Poetry of 4Q416 2 iii 15–19,” DSD 13 (2006): 177–193.
20
he term ‫מצﬠר‬, however is a hapax in 4QInstruction.
21
Cf. G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup
29; Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1985), 295–301.
236 jean-sÉbastien rey

(2) he second element is constituted by two causal propositions intro-

duced by ‫כיא‬, which explain the motives for the preceding imperative.
According to the author, one should honour one’s parents for two rea-
sons: (a) because they are to their children what God is to a man; and
(b) because parents have instructed their children or given them life.
(a) he irst motive is based on the comparison between God’s rela-
tionship with mankind and the relationship between parent-child.
‫כי כאל לאיש כן אביֿ הוֿ וכאדנים לגבר כן אמו‬

For as God is to a human being, so is his father

and as the Lord is to a man, so is his mother.
Now, if the image of God as father is well known in the Old Testament,22
it usually works the other way round; it is usually the father’s rela-
tionship with his children which illustrates God’s love for mankind.23
Conversely, in 4QInstruction, it is God’s love for humanity which
illustrates the parent’s love for his child. It is because of this love,
analogous to divine love, that children must honour their parents. An
identical comparison is to be found in the Epistle to the Ephesians of
the relationship between man and woman: the relationship between
Christ and the Church is presented as a model for the relationship
between husband and wife: “the husband is head of the wife as Christ
is head of the Church” (Eph 5:23).
(b) he term ‫ הוריכה‬makes the second motive ambiguous. he
phrase ‫ כי המה כור הוריכה‬can be translated in two ways: either by hon-
our them “because they are the crucible which taught you” or honour
them “because they are the crucible, they gave you birth”.24 In the irst
instance, the motive is instruction, transmission by means of educa-
tion. In the second, it is the transmission of life. Both interpretations
are grammatically possible and neither can be excluded. he author
plays on the polysemy of the term ‫ הוריכה‬and brings together in one
phrase two traditional motifs: the need to honour one’s parents because

22
See, among others, Exod 4:22–23; Deut 1:31; 8:5; Mal 1:6; 3:17; Ps 103:13; Prov
3:12. To call God father is attested in Western Semitic societies: il ib or il ab in Ugarit,
DINGIR a-bi in Akkadian (Mari), cf. K. van der Toorn, “Ilib and the ‘God of the Father’,”
UF 25 (1993): 379–387; É. Puech, “he Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish and heir
Religious Background,” TA 13 (1986): 13–25; É. Puech, “Dieu le Père dans les écrits
péritestamentaires et les manuscrits de la mer morte,” RevQ 20 (2001): 287–310.
23
See for example Ps 103:13: “As a father pities his children, so YHWH pities those
who fear him”.
24
Cf. Supra, note 14.
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 237

they give life—and in creating, act in the image of the creator—,25 and
because they hand on instruction.26 Whichever translation is preferred,
transmission is expressed in terms of a metaphor of sufering, the
crucible. here is a striking parallel in 1QHa XI 9,11,13 (= III 8,10,12)
(see also Sir 7:27–28).

(3) he third element is constituted by two sentences introduced by

‫וכאשר‬, “and according to how”, which give more details about the
motives. he author reminds the reader that on the one hand, God has
given parents dominion over their children, which is why it is the child’s
duty to serve them. On the other hand, God has revealed to his disciple
“the mystery of existence”, which is why he must honour and venerate
his parents. In so doing, he will obtain glory and a happy and long life:
“for your glory’s sake [. . .] of your life and the length of your days”.
he concept underlying this promise is the traditional theory of earthly
retribution, which assumes that the just man, who honours his parents
will be rich and live to a good age (cf. 1 Chr 29:28; Job 42:16–17). his
long-term goal is developed more fully in 4QInstruction than in the
Decalogue. In the former, the author adds the promise of glory, life and
a fourth element lost in a lacuna. he two expressions “for your glory’s
sake” and “for the sake of your life” may be the reformulation of the
promise of happiness attested in Deut 5:16 or in the Greek versions of
the Decalogue. Indeed, “for the sake of your life” is to be understood
as “so that you might be happy” (cf. Deut 4:1; 30:6,16,19).

2. Eph 6:1–4
he pericope in Eph 6:1–4 about parent–child relationships is most likely
inspired by Col 3:20–21, whose binary structure it retains: “Children,

25
his idea is not unique in ancient Judaism, cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus II
§§ 224–225: “I am at my ith article about the honour due to parents. As I demon-
strated in a commentary especially devoted to the subject, we are here at the very border
between human and divine things. [225] Indeed, parents are midway between human
and divine nature and participate in both: in human nature, obviously because they
are born and have to die; in divine nature because they have procreated and brought
non-being into being. Parents are to their children, I think, what God is to the world;
as God gave existence to non existence, they too, imitating divine power as far as is
humanly possible, bring immortality to our species.” (trans. Suzanne Daniel; Paris:
Cerf, 1975); cf. also Decal. § 107.
26
his idea appears several times in ancient Judaism (see Deut 4:10; Philo, Spec. II
§ 228, b. Ber. 28b; b. Pesaḥ. 117a; b. Qidd. 30a; b. Sanh. 19b).
238 jean-sÉbastien rey

obey your parents” and “Fathers do not provoke your children.” he

pericope is divided into two: verses 1 to 3 are addressed to children
and verse 4 to fathers.
1
Children, obey your parents [in the Lord]27 for this is right
2
Honour your father and (your) mother,
this is the irst commandment with a promise
3
that it may be well with you, and you may live long on the earth
4
And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger,
but bring them up in discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Two elements in the text catch our attention: the quotation from the
Decalogue and the presentation of parents in the role of instructors of
their children.

2.1. Motive and end: quotation from Deut 5:16 (Exod 20:12)
he irst imperative invites children ( )28 to obey ( ύ )29
their parents. his imperative is then backed up by the phrase “for this
is right”. In Col 3:2030 the justiication given is rather diferent. Accord-
ing to most commentators, the term should be understood in

27
he expression ω is missing in a number of ancient texts and in certain
patristic quotations (B D* F G itd, g Marcion Clement Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster).
Since the two readings are justiied, it is diicult to come to a decision (cf. E. Best, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998),
564 and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stutt-
gart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschat, 21994), 541; evaluated {C} by the committee).
28
he term gives no information as to the age of the children, but simply
indicates the family relationship (cf. Matt 10:21; 21:28; Mark 2:5); consequently, the
term can be used metaphorically to refer to people of any age (cf. Matt 3:9; 23:37;
Mark 7:27; Luke 7:35). In Wisdom literature, it is also used to denote the disciple in
relation to his teacher. In Sir 3:1, there is a telling parallel: μ ἀ ύ ,
, “Pay attention to the reprimand of your father, children” (according to the text
restored by J. Ziegler, Septuaginta vol. XII,2, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965)). he Syriac version of this verse, translated from the
Hebrew original, is even more revealing: ‫ܒ܅ܗ‬ ‫ܒ܅ ܕ‬, “herefore, son,
listen to your parents”, note the plural ‫ܗ‬ ‫“ ܐܒ܅‬fathers” to denote parents, as in Eph
6:4. In fact, in ancient Judaism, the ith commandment is not intended exclusively for
young children but for adults with aging parents. his is particularly clear in Sir 3:1–16
since the author insists on being helpful to one’s parents in their old age.
29
Certain commentators note the distinction between submission ( ω) in Eph
5:21 and obedience ( ύω) in Eph 6:1,5. For example, Aletti, Éphésiens, 269–270.
Best disagrees; he claims that the term has not been chosen intentionally by the author
but has been lited directly from its source, Col 3:20 (Ephesians, 565: “no signiicance
should be attached to AE’s change of verb”).
30
ῦ ῳ “for this pleases the Lord”. he object
which appears in Col 3:20 is absent in Eph 6:1.
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 239

moral terms, without any particular religious connotation.31 However,

T. Moritz links the term to obedience to the law: whatever is just is in
the law. Consequently, he links the formula “for this is right” to what
follows and sees it as an introductory formula to the quotation from the
Decalogue.32 If this is the case, ῦ is to be understood as proleptic
and the quotation from Deut 5:16 (Exod 20:12) directly justiies the
obedience due to one’s parents. his quotation from the Decalogue,
absent from Col 3:20–21, has been met with astonishment by scholars.
J.-N. Aletti comments, “Recourse to the ith commandment of the
Decalogue is surprising. Could Paul not have found more Christological
reasons, on a par with those formulated for spouses?”33 However, this
quotation is perfectly appropriate when the text is set in the context
of Palestinian Judaism: Sir 3:1–16 and 4Q416 2 III 15–1 also take the
ith commandment as the fundamental basis for the deinition of the
relationship between parents and children.
It is not easy to know whether the author cites the text in the Greek
version of Exod 20:12 or of Deut 5:16. Most scholars opt for Exod 20:12.34
hey rely on A.T. Lincoln’s35 interpretation, even though his arguments
are weak and few in number.36 Moreover, there is variant from the LXX

31
Cf. Epictetus, Dissertationes 1,22,1: ’ ἡμῶ ὅ
“Who among us does not accept that what just is ine and itting”,
see also 2,17,6.
32
T. Moritz, A Profound Mystery: he Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians
(NovTSup 85; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 171–172. He refers in this case to Ant. I, 158; VI,
165; VIII, 208; C. Ap. II, 293.
33
Aletti, Éphésiens, 295. Reynier makes a similar comment in Éphésiens, 186: “he
author then introduces a quotation, that of Exod 20:12 (LXX), parallel to or inspired
by Deut 5:16 (LXX). his is all the more surprising since he rarely uses quotations to
argue a case”. Reynier’s comment is also surprising because the author of the Epistle
has just quoted Gen 2:24 in Eph 5:31.
34
hus, for example, A.T. Lincoln, “he Use of OT in Ephesians,” JSNT 14 (1982):
16–57; Best, Ephesians, 565–566; Moritz, A Profound Mystery, 154–155; E.E. Ellis, in
Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 152, 185, argued
the very opposite.
35
Lincoln, “he Use of OT in Ephesians”, 37.
36
Two arguments support the theory that the quotation is from Exod 20:12 rather
than Deut 5:16: (1) the absence of the pronoun σου ater μ . his cannot be the
determining factor since pronouns oten luctuate in manuscript tradition (Vaticanus
cor. Quoted by A. Rahlfs and H.B. Swete) and in quotations of the ith command-
ment (cf. for example Matt 15:14; 19:19; Philo, Spec. II, 261; Det. 52 which have no
pronouns); see also the diferent accounts in Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20), especially
since the omission of personal pronouns seems to be characteristic of the author, cf.
the quotation of Gen 2:24 in Eph 5:31, like 5:25, 33; (2) the absence of the phrase ὃ
ύ present only in Deut 5:16; there again the
240 jean-sÉbastien rey

in the text, namely the shit from ἵ . . . ῃ to ἔ ῃ, which is attested

neither in the Greek version of Exodus nor in that of Deuteronomy.37
While it is diicult to come to a irm conclusion, it may be noted that
(1) the phrase “so that it may be well with you” links the formula to
the Hebrew text of Deut 5:16 in the Masoretic version; (2) the insertion
of the formula “this is the irst commandment with a promise”38 ater
μ reminds us of the structure of Deut 5:16, which also includes a
commentary at this point; (3) inally, the Jewish authors of the Second
Temple prefer to quote the text of the Decalogue from the version in
Deuteronomy rather than from the version in Exodus. his preference
is evident in the harmonization of versions and ancient copies on the
text of Deut 5:16.39 he same is true of Sir 3:1–16 and 4QInstruction,
which both seem to refer to the tradition of Deuteronomy rather than
that of Exodus. Each integrates the promise of happiness, without
depending on the Septuagint. his being so, whichever text is cited, it
should be noted that the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians, like
that of 4Q416 2 III 15–16, curtails the quotation from Exod 20:12 by
omitting the promise of the land (“in the land which the Lord your
God gives you”).40 he perspective of both authors is no longer bound
by the importance of the promise of the land. he signiicance of the
promise is universal; it is no longer limited to happiness and long life
in the land of Israel, but is a promise that can be realised anywhere.

2.2. Parents as educators

he irst imperative in v. 4, concerning fathers, 41 is taken up in
Col 3:21 (“Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become

argument is weak, since the quotation is adapted to the context and there is no longer
any real need for such a phrase.
37
Several textual testimonies and quotations from Exod 20:12 conirm the existence
of such a lesson, J.W. Wevers, Septuaginta, II,1, Exodus, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1991).
38
his complement to the commandment has given rise to numerous interpretations.
he most obvious is that Exod 20:12 is indeed the irst commandment accompanied by
a promise, since Exod 20:6 does not qualify as a promise (cf. Aletti, Éphésiens, 295).
39
See, for example, the LXX of Exod 20:12, Papyrus Nash, the phylacteries at Qumran
all contain the text of the Decalogue in the version found in Deuteronomy. 4Q158 7–8
uses the Decalogue from Exodus but quotes a version close to that of Deuteronomy.
40
he same is true of Sir 3:1–16.
41
Aletti, Éphésiens, 295, notes that the noun can refer to the father or to the
two parents (as in Heb 11:23), but since the author uses in v. 1, it is probable
that here he addresses fathers only. It should be noted that there is no equivalent to
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 241

discouraged”).42 he author of the Epistle counters the negative tone of

this injunction by adding a more positive element, related to instruction
and upbringing, “but bring them up in the discipline and instruction
of the Lord”.
he verb ω43 is qualiied by two nouns and .
he diference in meaning between the two terms is not entirely clear.44
If is rare in the NT (Eph 6:4; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 12:5.7.8.11),
it is oten used in the Septuagint, particularly in Wisdom literature,
where it means “instruction” in the broad sense of the term (it gener-
ally translates the Hebrew ‫)מוסר‬. It is oten associated with wisdom45
and can, in some cases, designate corporal punishment. only
appears three times in the NT, where it refers to the transmission of
knowledge (1 Cor 10:11; Eph 6:4 and Titus 3:10). It only appears once
in the Septuagint, in Wis 16:6, as a “warning” or “caution” to children.46
As for the genitive , it qualiies both ᾳ and ᾳ and
may indicate either the origin of instruction, “instruction comes from
the Lord”, or qualify it, “instruction concerning the Lord”. Whichever
option is preferred, the instruction here clearly is religious in character.
Parents have the duty to transmit to their children teaching concerning
the Lord. his same idea is expressed in 4Q416 2 III 17 by means of
the term ‫ הוריכה‬and the theme of the “mystery of existence” strangely
present in the text.

3. Conclusion
Comparison of the texts shows that if Eph 6:1–4 depends on Col
3:20–21, the diferences between the two texts are to be found in 4Q416
2 III 15–19. he most striking parallel is the quotation of Deut 5:16
(Exod 20:12) at the heart of the family code. 4QInstruction and Eph
6:1–4 quote the same text and both abridge it by omitting mention of

in either Hebrew or Aramaic. To designate parents, either “fathers” or “fathers

and mothers” is used.
42
he shit from ω (Col 3:21) to ω (Eph 6:4) is diicult to explain
(cf. Best, Ephesians, 568).
43
ω only appears twice in the New Testament in Eph 5:29 and Eph 6:4. It
can mean “feed” or “bring up” (27 instances in LXX).
44
hey also appear together in Philo in a commentary on the ith commandment
(Spec. II.239; IV.96).
45
See for example: Sir 1:27; 4:24; 6:18.
46
Like , the term can sometimes denote corporal punishment, cf. Josephus,
Ant. III,311–312.
242 jean-sÉbastien rey

“the land which God gives you.” Finally, both texts mention the duty
of parents to instruct their children in heavenly things.
he text of 4QInstruction goes further than the text of the Epistle
to the Ephesians in developing the theological dimension of the com-
mandment, since it establishes an analogy between the parent-child
relationship and the relationship between God-man. However, as we
have seen, this analogy is to be found in the Epistle to the Ephesians
a few verses earlier, where the husband-wife relationship is likened to
the relationship between Christ-Church (Eph 5:21–33). his will be the
subject of the following analysis.

The husband-wife relationship in 4Q416 2 III 20–IV 13

and in Eph 5:21–33

4QInstruction and the Epistle to the Ephesians both develop the theme
of the relationship between husband and wife. In 4QInstruction, it fol-
lows the pericope about parents, but in the Epistle to the Ephesians, it
precedes it. I will irst present the text in 4QInstruction, then in Eph
5:21–33.

1. 4Q416 2 III 20–IV 13

his pericope immediately follows the pericope about parents47 and

partly overlaps with 4Q418 10 5–10 (underlined in the text)
[ ]°‫ ואם רש אתה כשה‬vacat ‫ למﬠן חייכה וארוך ימיכה‬19
[ ] ֗‫ אשה לקחתה בריֿ שכה קח מולדי‬vacat ‫ בלוא חוק‬20
‫ מרז נהיה בהתחברכה יחד התהלך ﬠם ﬠזר בשרכה]ככתוב ﬠל כן‬21
[‫יﬠזב איש‬
bottom margin
[‫את אביו֗ ]ו[ ֗את אמו֗ וֿ ֯ד ֯ב]ק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד‬ 1
[‫אביה‬ ‫ המשיל בה ותש]מﬠ בקולכה‬a‫אותכה‬ 2
[‫מאמה הפרידה ואליכה ]תשוקתה ותהיה‬ ֯ ‫לא המשיל בה‬ 3
[ ]‫ובניכה‬
֗ ‫לאחר יפריד‬
֗ ‫לב ֗שר אחד בתכה‬ ֗ ‫לך‬ 4
[‫ﬠר]ותכה‬
֯ ‫ היֿ א שאר‬a‫ואתה ליֿ חד ﬠם אשת חיֿ קכה כי‬ 5
[‫גבול חייהו ֯ב]רוחה‬
֗ ‫ואשר ימשוֿ ל בה זולתכה הסיג‬ 6

47
he end of line 19 and beginning of line 20 are diicult to reconstruct. Does the
pericope on the relationship between man and woman begin in the vacat of line 19 or
in the vacat of line 20? It is probable that lines 19–20 marked the transition between
two pericopes.
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 243

[ ‫ברצונכה ולא להוסיף נדר ונדב]ה‬ ֗ ‫֗המשילך להתהלך‬ 7

[ ‫השב רוחכה לרצונכה וכל שבוﬠת אסרה לנ֗ ֯ד ֗ר נ֗ ֯ד]רר‬ 8
[  ]‫[ל‬ ֗ ‫הפר ﬠל מוצא פיכה וברצונכה הניא]ה‬ 9
[   ]‫שפתיכה סלח לה למﬠנכה אל ֯ת ֯רב‬ 10
[   ] ‫כה‬ ֗ ‫בנחל ֯ת‬
֯ ‫כבודכה‬ 11
[     ] vacat ‫בנחלתכה פן‬ 12
[     ]‫אשת חיֿ קכה וחרפ‬ 13
[   ]‫ ֗ה‬°°°°°‫[ל‬ ֗ ] 14

2 a 4Q418 10 5 ‫ • ואותכה‬5 a 4Q418 10 7 ‫כיא‬

Vacat And if you are poor, like he who [. . .]48

20 without decree. vacat You have taken a wife in your poverty,
take her (the/your) ofspring49
[for fear that you depart]50 21 from the mystery of existence.
When you are united, together (cf. Gen 2:24),
Walk with the help of your lesh (Gen 2:18)
[for it is written:
“herefore a man leaves]51 1 his father [and] his mother and clea[ves to
his wife
and they will become one lesh” (Gen 2:24)].
2 He has given you dominion over her (Gen 3:16)
and she will [obey your voice . . .52
To her father 53] 3 he has not given dominion over her.
From her mother, he has separated her (Gen 2:24)
And towards you [shall be her desire (Gen 3:16)
And she will become] 4 for you one lesh (Gen 2:24).
He will separate your daughter for another (Gen 2:24),
and your sons [will rule over their wives (?)]

48
For the problems posed by this lacuna, see DJD XXXIV, 122–123.
49
Read ‫ מולדה‬or ‫מולדיה‬. “Take her ofspring,” or “welcome her family” (cf. 4Q415
II 11). he formulation may refer to the father’s recognition of his children’s legitimacy
(see A. Tosato, Il matrimonio israelitico. Una teoria generale (AnBib 100; Rome: Bibli-
cal Institute Press, 1982), 167 and R. de Vaux, Les institutions de l’Ancien Testament.
Vol. I. Le nomadisme et ses survivances, institutions familiales, institutions civiles (Paris:
Cerf, 1958), 89–91).
50
On the basis of ‫ מן‬in line 21, the following reconstruction is proposed “for fear
that you turn aside (‫ )פן תסור‬from the mystery of existence” (cf. Deut 17:11; 28:14;
Josh 1:7).
51
he change from the second person to the third person singular indicates that
Gen 2:24 is quoted here. An introductory formula such as ‫ כאשר אמר‬or ‫ ככתוב‬may
have been found in the lacuna.
52
We agree with the editors, DJD XXXIV, 127, who propose the following recon-
struction: ‫“ ותשמﬠ בקולכה‬and she will obey your voice.”
53
he reconstruction “his father” proposed by the editors, although found nowhere
else, ofers a coherent parallel with the following stich.
244 jean-sÉbastien rey

5 And you, you will be one with the wife of your bosom54 (cf. Gen 2:24;
Deut 13:7),
for she is the lesh of [your] na[kedness] (Gen 2:21–25).
6 And whoever seeks to have dominion over her, apart from you (Gen 3:16),
will displace the boundary of his life.
Over [her spirit] 7 he has given you dominion
So that she might walk according to your will.
So as not to let her continue to make vows and voluntary ofer[ings,]
8 bring her spirit back to your will
and any oath or commitment which she has made,
9 cancel-(it) by whatever leaves your mouth
and according to your will, disclaim [her] (cf. Num 30:7–9).
he author structures his argument around three texts from the Penta-
teuch: two taken from the second creation narrative (Gen 2:18, 24 and
3:16) and one from the book of Numbers (Num 30:7–9). Lines 21 to 7
multiply references to the second creation narrative, while lines 7 to 9
comment on Num 30:7–9. Only the irst part parallels Eph 5:2–33. hree
ideas developed by the author will be considered here: the unity of the
couple, woman as man’s “lesh,” and man’s dominion over woman.

1.1. heme of unity

he author strongly insists on the unity of the couple. he idea is
expressed four times: “when you are united, together ( ‫בהתחברכה‬
‫( ”)יחד‬line 21); “they will become one lesh ([‫)]והיו לבשר אחד‬, (line
1)”; “and she will become] for you one lesh (‫”)ותהיה[ לך לבשר אחד‬,
(lines 3–4); “And you, you will be one with the wife of your bosom,
for she is the lesh of [your] na[kedness] (‫ואתה ליֿ חד ﬠם אשת חיֿ קכה‬
[‫ﬠר]ותכה‬֯ ‫( ”)כי היֿ א שאר‬l. 5).
he formula “when you are united, together (‫ ”)בהתחברכה יחד‬at
the end of line 21, should not be understood in sexual terms55 but as
an expression of marital union more generally. Indeed, the hitpa el of
‫ חבר‬never describes carnal union, but means “to establish an alliance
with someone” or “to associate with someone”. It is therefore used to
designate marriage in Sir 7:25[A] and in Mal 2:14.56 In bringing together

54
he expression ‫“ אשת חיקכה‬the wife of your bosom” is found in Deut 13:7;
28:54,56 and in Sir 9:1[A].
55
Despite the editors who insist that the expression has a sexual connotation (DJD
XXXIV, 123).
56
Sir 7,25[A]: ‫“ הוצא בת ויצא ﬠסק ואל נבון גבר חברה‬Send away your daughter and
your worry will disappear, marry her to an intelligent man”; Mal 2,14: ָ‫וְ ִהיא ֲח ֶב ְר ְתּ‬
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 245

‫ חבר‬and ‫יחד‬, the author highlights the unity which must characterize
the couple’s life together: they are “one”.
On two occasions, the author uses the phrase “they will become one
lesh” (‫ )והיו לבשר אחד‬taken from Gen 2:24. his text is never quoted in
the Old Testament, nor in the literature of Qumran.57 Maurice Gilbert
has shown that in Gen 2:24, the expression describes marital union in
its fullness: “that is to say, the commitment, founded on faithfulness and
love, of man and woman, a commitment which links them more deeply
than any other contract between human beings and which binds them
to each other with every ibre of their being, even more strongly than
the bonds of iliation”.58 It is this same interpretation which is given in
Mal 2:14–15, Tob 8:7 and in Sir 25:26[LXX, Syr]. It is, generally speaking, in
these terms that the author of 4QInstruction understood marital union
also. he sexual interpretation of the expression only appears later in
post-biblical Judaism.59 It is however implied by Paul in 1 Cor 6:16, who
quotes the phrase from Gen 2:24, “they will be one lesh,” to describe
the carnal act committed with the prostitute.60 On the contrary, in Eph
5:31, as in 4QInstruction, the expression does not describe the carnal
act but rather the unity of the couple in a broader sense.

1.2. Woman, man’s lesh

In line 5, the author mentions that woman is man’s lesh, “and you,
you will be one with the wife of your bosom, for she is the lesh of
[your] na[kedness] (‫ﬠר]ותכה‬ ֯ ‫”)ליֿ חד ﬠם אשת חיֿ קכה כי היֿ א שאר‬. his
original interpretation deserves special attention because it is found in
Eph 5:21–30. Despite the ambiguous form ‫ליחד‬,61 the sense is clear: man

ָ‫ית‬ֶ ‫וְ ֵא ֶשׁת ְבּ ִר‬, “She is your companion and the wife of your union” (cf. also Prov 21:9
and 25:24).
57
Certain late authors allude to this (Mal 2:14–15; Tob 8:7; Sir 25:26[LXX, Syr]).
58
M. Gilbert, “Une seule chair (Gn 2,24),” NRT 100 (1978): 88.
59
b. Yebam. 63a, y. Qidd. I,1, b. Sanh. 57b–58b, Philo, De opiicio mundi, 151–152,
Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim I,29. he Targums seem to imply this since
they translate “he will leave the house of his father” by “he will leave the bed of his
father”.
60
In the New Testament, Gen 2:24 is quoted four times: in Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7;
1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31. In Matt 19:5 and in Mark 10:7, the quotation from Genesis is
used to justify the indissolubility of marriage (except in the case of in Matt).
61
he construction ‫ ליחד‬is diicult to interpret. It is only found in late Hebrew:
once in the biblical corpus in 1 Chr 12:18 and 32 times at Qumran (essentially in 1QS
and parallel). As the editors note (DJD XXXIV, 128), it is possible to read: (a) either
a name, ‫( ְליַ ַחד ִﬠם‬s.e. ‫“ ואתה )תהיה‬and you (will form) a community with . . .”; (b) or
an adverb, “you will be together with . . .”, cf. 1QM XII 4, 1QHa XIV 16 (= VI 13), but
246 jean-sÉbastien rey

must be united or form a community with his wife. Justiication for

this unity lies in the fact that woman is “the lesh of man’s nakedness.”
Editors suggest that the text be restored as follows: ‫ﬠר]ותכה‬
֯ ‫שאר‬. his
expression, which has no equivalent in Hebrew literature, is thought to
be a variant of the formula ‫שאר בשרו‬, found in biblical Hebrew and
in Qumran and which designates blood or family ties (Lev 18:6; 25:49;
CD VII 1 // 6Q15 4 4; VIII 6; XIX 19 // 4Q266 3 IV 4 // 4Q269 6 2;
4Q387 A 2; 4Q477 2 II 8). In the context of the creation narrative, it
is surprising to ind ‫ שאר‬rather than ‫ בשר‬here. Nevertheless, the text
seems to refer to the original unity of man and woman; since woman was
taken from his lesh, she becomes “lesh of his lesh” (cf. Gen 2:21–25).
For the author, the conjugal union expressed in Gen 2:24 is the logical
consequence of Gen 2:23 (“this at last is bone of my bones and lesh of
my lesh”). For him, the unity of the couple restores the original unity
of man and woman, since woman is taken from man’s lesh.

1.3. he motif of domination

To deine the relationship between husband and wife, the author of
4QInstruction brings together two quotations from the creation nar-
rative of Gen 2–3: Gen 2:24 to illustrate marital union and Gen 3:16
to justify the husband’s rule over his wife. he author insists on this
motif, repeating it four times:62 “He has given you dominion over her”
(line 1); “To her father] he has not given dominion over her” (line 2);
“And whoever seeks to have dominion over her, apart from you, will
displace the boundary of his life” (line 6); “Over her spirit, he has given
you dominion” (lines 6–7). he hip il of ‫ משל‬is rare and seems to be a
linguistic characteristic of 4QInstruction.63 Its form underlines the divine
character of this order of things: it is God who gives man the right to
rule over woman, and this, as a consequence of the fall in Gen 3: “To

if this is the case, it is diicult to explain the preposition lamed; (c) either, and most
likely, it is the nip al ininitive of the verb ‫ יחד‬written phonetically (‫ ִלוָּ ֵחד‬in place of
‫ ) ְל ִהוָּ ֵחד‬or the pi el ininitive, which is more rare. A similar written form is found in
1QS III 7 (// 4Q257 3 10) and perhaps in 4Q418 172 3. We should therefore translate
as follows: “and you, you have been one with . . .” or “and you, you must be one with . . .”
(for the nuance of the imperative of the ininitive with lamed in late Hebrew, see
E. Qimron, he Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986),
§ 400.02 and P. Joüon, § 124l).
62
he insistence of the author is all the more marked in that the idea is also expressed
in another fragment of the scroll (4Q415 9).
63
In biblical Hebrew, the hip il of ‫ משל‬is found four times (Job 25:2; Ps 8:7; Isa
46:5; Dan 11:39) and four times in Sirach (Sir 30:11a[B]; 30:28b[E]; 45,17b[B]; 47,19b[B]).
At Qumran, it appears 32 times, of which 18 are in 4QInstruction.
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 247

the woman, he said: I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire will be for your
husband, and he shall rule over you (‫( ”)והוא ימשל בך‬Gen 3:16). he
author’s insistence on man’s domination of woman is reinforced by the
paraphrase of Num 30:7–9 in lines 6 to 9. he author diverges from his
source in several respects: (a) he changes the casuistic law in the third
person singular into an apodictic commandment in the second person
singular; (b) he makes the text of Num 30 more radical by eliminating
any exceptional circumstances: the husband must override the wishes of
his wife, whatever they be.64 Together these elements give us some idea
of the situation of women within the family in Palestine in the second
century b.c.65 It should be noted that in the previous pericope, parents
dominate their children (4Q416 2 III 17). Ater marriage, the father does
not rule over his daughter. Rather, he ceases to rule over her. hrough
marriage, domination passes from the father to the husband.

2. Eph 5:22–33
In the Epistle to the Ephesians, unlike 4QInstruction, the recommen-
dations to husbands and wives precede those addressed to parent and
child. he text can be divided in two parts: verses 22 to 24 concern the
woman, while verses 25 to 32 concern the man. Verse 33 concludes the
pericope as a whole, which considers following relationships: Christ—
Church and man—woman.
Be subject to one another out of the fear of Christ,
22
Wives, unto your husbands
as unto the Lord.
23
For the husband is head of (his) wife,
as Christ also is head of the Church, being himself the saviour of
the body.
24
But as the Church is subject to Christ,
so let wives be also, in everything, to (their) husbands.
25
Husbands, love your wives,

64
he same rereading of Num 30 is to be found in CD XVI 10–12 and in 11QT
LIV 2–3, though in more moderate terms.
65
4Q415 11 6–10 gives further information about the marriage of the daughter.
Marriage terms are akin to a inancial transaction (cf. also 4Q267 7 12–14 // 4Q269
9 1–8 // 4Q270 5 14–15 // 4Q271 3 8–9). he situation of women in society in the
ancient world was not uniform and varied much according to region and social class.
It is probable that the women in Asia Minor fared less well than their counterparts in
the Greco Roman world or within Judaism, cf. Best, Ephesians, 532–533.
248 jean-sÉbastien rey

even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;
26
that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of
water with the word,
27
that he might present the Church to himself a glorious Church,
not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing;
but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28
Even so ought husbands [also] to love their own wives
as their own bodies.
He that loves his own wife loves himself:
29
for no man ever hated his own lesh;
but nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ also the Church;
30
because we are members of his body.
31
For this cause:
shall a man leave [his] father and [his] mother
and shall cleave to his wife,
and the two shall become one lesh.
32
his mystery is great
I speak of Christ and of the church.
However, each one of you:
Let each of you love his wife as himself,
and let the wife see that she fears her husband.66
Since this excerpt from the Epistle to the Ephesians raises many prob-
lems of interpretation, in this article I will only discuss those elements
that relate to the text of 4QInstruction, that is, man’s domination of
woman, a husband’s love for his wife, and woman as lesh of man
according to Gen 2:24.

2.1. he motif of domination

hree elements in the text underline man’s domination of woman:
use of the verb ω in verses 21 and 24, the description of man
as “head of woman” ( ῆ ) in verse 23 and the fear
( μ ) in which woman must hold her husband at the conclusion
of the pericope (v. 33).

66
Translation based on RSV with some modiications.
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 249

a) ω
Since v. 22 does not posses a verb, the participle μ of
verse 21 is understood.67 he position of v. 21 is not clear and makes
delimitation of the pericope ambiguous. For E. Best, the passage begins
in v. 22, because of the succession of participles which depend on the
imperative in v. 18b and the collective character of v. 21.68 Gregory W.
Dawes however, puts forward a convincing argument for beginning the
pericope in v. 21.69 Indeed, in terms of syntax, v. 22 is linked to v. 21
and is incomprehensible without it;70 the participle μ must
be read as an imperative (cf. 4:2.25), unlike the preceding participles
which depend on the imperative in v. 18b; moreover, v. 20 displays
some of the characteristics of a conclusion: “giving thanks to God in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”; furthermore, in the parallel text,
the Epistle to the Colossians, the demarcation is clear: Col 3:17, which
parallels Eph 5:20, marks the end of a pericope and in Col 3:18, the verb
ω belongs to the pericope concerning the relationship between
husbands and wives ( ῖ ῖ ἀ ); inally,
there is the inclusion formed by in v. 21 and ω in v. 33.
Whichever structure is preferred, it is clear that v. 21 is a turning point;
it concludes the series of participles dependant on the imperative in
v. 18b and opens the pericope about wives and husbands. If the Christian
ethic is to submit to one another (vv. 15–21), paradoxically, this applies
more especially to women in relation to their husbands.

67
Verse 22 is syntatically linked to v. 21 which itself is linked to the verses which
precede it by a series of participles dependant on the imperative in v. 18 (“be illed
with the Spirit, addressing one another (. . . .) in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs
(. . . . .), singing and making melody to the Lord (. . .), giving thanks in the name of the
Lord (. . .), being subject one to another, out of fear of God, wives to your own hus-
bands, as to the Lord”). Verse 21 thus plays a key role and establishes a link between
Christians submitting to one another and wives submitting to their husbands (cf.
Aletti, Éphésiens, 269, n. 9).
68
Best, Ephesians, 517; M. Barth, Ephesians 4–6 (AB 34; New York: Doubleday, 1986),
like NA27 make the break before v. 21; Aletti does not come to a decision on this.
69
G.W. Dawes, he Body in Question: Metaphor and Meaning in the Interpretation
of Ephesians 5:21–33 (Biblical Interpretation Series 30; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 18–21.
70
Unless one accepts the textual reading which picks up the verb ω in
v. 22 ( or ω , either ater ῖ , or ater ἀ ). Most
reject this (cf. Best, Ephesians, 531; the committee attributes note {B} to the short text,
see Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 541). he long text can be explained easily as a
clariication of the text or a harmonisation based on Col 3:18.
250 jean-sÉbastien rey

he next question is how to understand the verb ω. his

verb is frequently used in the Epistles of the New Testament. Accord-
ing to J.-N. Aletti, it refers to submission. his “consists in recognizing
the superior status of another, and in acting in accordance with one’s
inferior status, as determined by the rules efective within the social
group to which one belongs: family, army, town, state, Church etc.”.71
In Eph 5:21, it does not seem to be a synonym for ω (as in
1 Pet 3:5–6),72 the term used in 6:1.5 for the attitude of children and
slaves. Rather, it is the social status of women which is deined here,
not simply obedience. he same idea underlies the hip il of ‫ משל‬in
4QInstruction. However, an important diference should be noted. In
4Q416 2 III–IV, it is man who dominates woman, while in Eph 5:22,
woman is invited to submit to her husband. he diference in expression
is signiicant; for the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians, woman has
decision-making authority.73

b) Social status is illustrated by use of the term in v. 23. he

term has a fairly broad meaning in the New Testament:74 literally, it
refers to the head as part of the physical body; metaphorically it denotes
authority, the top, source or origin of something. “Source” or “origin”
seem unlikely in this context.75 “Head”, in the sense of “representa-

71
Aletti, Éphésiens, 270. See also E. Kamlah, “Υ in den neutestament-
lichen ‘Haustafeln’ ” in Verborum Veritatis, Festschrit G. Stählin (ed. O. Böcher and
K. Haacker; Wuppertal, heologischer Verlag, 1970), 239–240. For the distinction
between submission and obedience, see also Aletti, Éphésiens, 266–267.
72
hus, Aletti, Éphésiens, 269–270; Barth, Ephesians 4–6, 708–712; Reynier, Éphésiens,
180.
73
here is also an interesting parallel in 4Q415 2 II, where the author of 4QInstruc-
tion most likely addresses a woman in the second person. If this is so, it is unique in
Wisdom Literature.
74
Literature on the use of in this text is abundant, W. Grudem (“he Mean-
ing of (‘Head’): a Response to Recent Studies” in Recovering Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood. A Response to Evangelical Feminism (ed. J. Pipper and W. Grudem;
Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), 425–468) contains summaries of the major publi-
cations on this subject between 1985 and 1990. here is also a review of scholarship
on the subject in Dawes, he Body in Question, 122–149, and a bibliography in Best,
Ephesians, 193.
75
his interpretation has been defended, for example, by S. Bedale, “he meaning of
in the Pauline Epistles”, JTS 5 (1954): 211–215; R.S. Cervin “Does mean
‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature?,” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 85–112;
C.C. Kroeger, “he Classical Concept of Head as ‘Source’” in Equal to Serve (ed. G.G.
Hull; London: Scripture Union, 1987), 267–283. Most scholars, however, understand
the term to refer to authority (e.g. Best, Aletti, and Dawes).
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 251

tive of authority”, “social superior”, is more appropriate here (cf. the

Hebrew ‫ראש‬, translated by in the LXX, for example Judg 11:11;
2 Sam 22:44). he chiastic structure of verses 23–24 strengthens this
message:
A—23 For the husband is the head of the wife,
B—as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the
saviour of the body.
B’—24 But as the church is subject to Christ,
A’—so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.
It is because her husband is her “head” or “chief,” that the wife must
submit to him in every respect.

c) One last indication of woman’s subordination is to be found at

the conclusion of the pericope in v. 33. If the husband must love his
wife as his own self, she must fear him. he expression is surprising.
It is not stated that the woman must love her husband. Verse 33 picks
up the motif of fear expressed in v. 21 and substitutes the notion of
fear for that of submission. In the New Testament, the verb μ
most oten means “fear” or “terror”. In 10 cases out of 95, it means
“honour” or “respect”, but always in the context of man’s relationship
with God,76 never in an interpersonal relationship. Fear is a notion
present in the relationship between superiors and their subordinates.
In Eph 6:5, slaves must obey with “fear and trembling (μ
μ )” (cf. Rom 13:3,4,7). Are we, therefore, to understand the
wife’s relationship with her husband in terms of “honour”, “respect”
and “reverence” or in terms of “fear” and “trepidation” as towards a
superior? he notion of reverence should not be excluded. It may be
justiied by the well developed comparison of her husband to Christ.
By analogy, the woman should fear her husband, as she fears God (cf.
v. 21). However, the idea of fear with regard to authority is also legiti-
mate, especially since this is the most common meaning of ω in
the context of interpersonal relationships.

76
he situation is similar in biblical Hebrew where in 80% of cases, the object of
fear is God. here are however some exceptions, one of which should be noted, Lev
19:3. his verse picks up the commandment to honour one’s parents, replacing the
verb ‫ כבד‬with the verb ‫ירא‬.
252 jean-sÉbastien rey

2.2. he husband’s love for his wife

If wives are exhorted to submit to their husbands in every respect, the
latter are invited to love (ἀ ω) their wives, an exhortation which
is repeated three times (vv. 25, 28 and 33). Two similes develop this
motif: husbands must love their wives (1) as Christ loves the Church
and (2) as their own bodies.
he simile which compares man’s love for his wife with Christ’s love
for the Church is all the more powerful in that Christ’s love is exem-
pliied by total self-giving on the cross. An exhortation of this kind is
extremely rare in ancient Jewish literature77 and contrasts strongly with
the recommendations to husbands in 4QInstruction and in Ben Sira.

2.3. he motif of unity and the quotation from Gen 2:24: woman as
man’s lesh
Verses 28c to 31 logically form a single unit,78 beginning with the state-
ment that woman is “man’s own lesh ( ῦ )” (v. 29) and
concluding with a quotation from Gen 2:24, airming that man and
woman will be one lesh ( ἔ ύ μ ).
In the irst statement, “he who loves his wife, loves himself, for no
one has ever hated his own lesh,” the wife is identiied metaphorically
with “man’s own lesh.” Σ does not have a negative connotation here,
and, as in 4Q416 2 IV 5 (“and you, you will be one with the wife of
your bosom for she is the lesh of [your] na[kedness]”), scholars agree
that the expression “his own lesh” is an allusion to Gen 2:23: “his
at last is bone of my bones and lesh of my lesh.”79 Consequently, the
implicit quotation of Gen 2:24 in v. 31 is justiied.
As in Deut 5:16 (Ex 20:12), the author quotes Gen 2:24 from the
Septuagint: “and the two will be one lesh” (Eph 5:31), while the
Masoretic text reads “and they will be one lesh.”80 It seems fairly

77
Best, Ephesians, cites Ps.-Phoc. 195–197 which uses ω and not ἀ ω and
b. Yebam. 62b.
78
V. 28ab concludes the pericope (25 to 27), forming an inclusion with the airma-
tion in v. 25ab. We ind exactly the same construction in the section about women,
where v. 22a is taken up, almost literally, in the form of an inclusion, in v. 24b.
79
Cf. Aletti, Éphésiens, 284; At the end of v. 30, several manuscripts add ῆ
ῦ ῶ ω ῦ. his reading, even if it is not our choice, conirms that
the ancient writers did indeed understand Eph 5:28c–30 in the light of Gen 2:23.
80
See Moritz, A Profound Mystery, 117. It should be noted that the author of the
Epistle to the Ephesians omits personal pronouns “his father and his mother,” even
though these are attested in the Masoretic text and in the LXX. he same happens
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 253

clear that the quotation applies to the human couple and not to Christ
and the Church.81 Indeed, this quotation concludes the development
(vv. 28c–30) of the motif of woman as “lesh” of man. As J.-N. Aletti82
points out, the irst part of the quotation, “man will leave his father
and mother,” cannot be applied to the relationship between Christ
and the Church. he author of the Epistle understands the expression
“one single lesh” to refer to marital union in the broadest sense, like
the author of 4QInstruction, and unlike Paul in 1 Cor 6:16. By means
of this quotation, the emphasis is no longer on the subordination of
woman or on the husband’s love of his wife but on the unity of the
couple. By quoting Gen 2:24, the author shows that man and woman
are called to rediscover the original unity of creation. Men and women
are invited to become “one” once more, as in 4QInstruction.

Conclusion

4QInstruction and Eph 5:21–6:4 both present a series of instructions

concerning family relationships: parent-child and husband-wife. he
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians add recommendations con-
cerning masters and slaves (Eph 6:5–9; Col 3:22–4:1). 4QInstruction
addresses the same question in the previous column of the scroll in
4Q416 2 II 7–15, but the latter is not adjacent to the other two.
As regards the exhortation to honour one’s parents, we have noted
that where Eph 6:1–4 difers from Col 3:20–21, it has similarities with
4Q416 2 III 15–19. We have noted the following:
(a) Deut 5:13 (Exod 20:12) is cited as the basis of the parent-child
relationship. Both authors abridge the text in the same way, omitting
mention of the land ( ῆ ῆ [ ῆ ἀ ῆ ]ἧ ύ
ω ).

when Deut 5:16 (Exod 20:12) is quoted in Eph 6:2. In Greek, the deinite article can
serve as a personal pronoun, provided that there is no ambiguity. he author of the
Epistle seems to be familiar with this practice. (see v. 25 “husbands, love (your) wives”
or v. 33, “let the wife fear (her) husband”).
81
Jerome had already made a similar observation: “Let’s imagine that the phrase
‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother’ refers to Christ, as a way
of saying that he abandoned his father in heaven to unite with the Church of nations.
If this is the case, how should we understand what follows ‘and his mother’?” (Com-
mentary on Jonah I,3).
82
Aletti, Éphésiens, 286.
254 jean-sÉbastien rey

(b) here is a strong link between the honour due to one’s parents
and parental instruction: “for they are the crucible which taught you”
in 4QInstruction, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but
bring them up in discipline and instruction of the Lord” in Eph 6:4.
We have also noted that in 4Q416 2 III 15–16, the relationship
between God and man serves as the model for the parent-child rela-
tionship. A similar comparison is to be found in Eph 5:21–33, where
the relationship between Christ and the Church serves as the model for
the husband-wife relationship. It should be noted that apart from these
two texts, there is no evidence of any other use of this metaphor.
As regards the husband-wife relationship, we have noted the
following:
(a) the two texts insist greatly on man’s superiority: man dominates
his wife in 4QInstruction and the woman submits to her husband in
Eph 5:22. However, this is not conined to these two texts. Similar
motifs are to be found throughout the literature of the Near East and,
to lesser extent, in Hellenistic culture.
(b) More original is the airmation by both authors that woman is
“the lesh” of man and that she is therefore like him. he origin of this
idea is the second creation narrative, which describes woman as being
drawn from man’s side: “his at last is bone of my bones and lesh of
my lesh” (Gen 2:23).
(c) Another important element is the quotation of Gen 2:24. Both
authors understand the expression “one single lesh” as an invitation to
unity in marriage rather than as an allusion exclusively to sexual union
(as in 1 Cor 6:16). By associating Gen 2:23 with Gen 2:24, both show
that in marriage, man and woman are invited to leave the family home
to restore a lost unity. Indeed, they become “one lesh” once more.
(d) One last element, which has not been discussed in this analysis,
is the use of the term μ in Eph 5:32 and of the term ‫ רז‬in
4QInstruction. It appears 45 times in 4QInstruction and six times in
Ephesians.
(e) Among the diferences, the exhortation to husbands to love
their wives in the Epistle to the Ephesians should be noted. Any such
consideration is totally absent from 4QInstruction and from the book
of Ben Sira.
We can therefore airm that the diferences between Eph 5:21–6:4
and Col 3:18–21 have parallels in the text of 4QInstruction. he two
quotations from Gen 2:24 and Ex 20:12 are critical to this argument.
hey have intrigued commentators, who claim that they seem out of
family relationships in 4qinstruction and in eph :–: 255

place in the Epistle.83 Nevertheless our two authors, writing in the same
context, use the same two quotations in succession to make similar
arguments.
To conclude, it would be diicult to prove that the text of the Epistle
to the Ephesians depends textually on 4QInstruction. Nor is it my inten-
tion to do so. However, certain parallels are undeniable and shed new
light on the question of the origin and formation of the family code of
Eph 5:22–6:4. It seems clear and well founded that the text is inspired
by Col 3:18–21 or by a closely related text. he author also draws on
another source, however, which is close to, or in the same vein as the
text of 4QInstruction. his airmation is justiied by the numerous
parallels noted between the Epistle to the Ephesians and the texts of
Qumran. Palestinian Judaism’s Wisdom Literature had an undoubtedly
strong inluence on the Judaism of the irst centuries and consequently
also the irst Christian communities. he recent publication of Wisdom
texts from Qumran opens up new ields for investigation and enables
us to better appreciate this inluence.

83
Cf. Reynier, Aletti and Moritz comment that, in view of the author’s negative
opinion of the Torah in Eph 2:13–17, it is surprising to ind a reference here to the
Pentateuch as the basis of human marriage and the relationship between parents and
children.