In verse 22 the writer begins a new sentence, “and all things he (God) subjected under his (Christ’s) feet.” This continues and completes the description begun in verse 20 of how God’s mighty power is demonstrated in Christ; God raised Christ from death, installed him in the place of honor and power, and (verse 22a) placed all creation in subjection to him. The language is drawn from Psalm 8.6 which, like Psalm 110.1, was used by New Testament writers to describe Christ’s present status as supreme over all creation (compare Heb 2.6-8; 1 Cor 15.27).
In some languages the statement God put all things under Christ’s feet means practically nothing. Readers have actually assumed that Christ climbed up on a high mountain and stood on top of all kinds of things. It may therefore be better to avoid the figurative expression and translate “God has given Christ power over all things” or “… over whatever exists,” or “God caused all things to be under the authority of Christ.”
Verse 22b is not completely clear, “and he (God) gave him (Christ) as head over all things to the church.” Some understand that the statement means implicitly “he gave him, the supreme ruler, to the church (as its ruler)” (so Translator’s New Testament and others). The church is in the dative case, and it can be taken as (1) the indirect object, “God gave Christ to the church,” or (2) the beneficiary of the action, “for the church” (so Revised Standard Version, New International Version).
Some take the verb “he gave” here to mean “he appointed” or “he installed” (so New English Bible “appointed him … to the church”; Barth “appointed him … to be head of the church”; New International Version “appointed him to be Lord over everything for the church”). But Abbott, Robinson, and Beare contend that here the verb has its usual meaning of “to give”; Christ is God’s gift to the church. Therefore the Good News Translation rendering is and gave him to the church as supreme Lord over all things. But it must be admitted that the meaning as expressed by Jerusalem Bible, “and (God) made him, as the ruler of everything, the head of the Church,” is possible and fits in very nicely with the context.
There is a subtle problem involved in a literal rendering of gave him to the church, since this might imply that the church existed quite apart from Christ. Hence, in some languages it may be much better to translate the second part of verse 22 as “God … caused Christ, who rules over everything, to be the head of the church” or “… to be the one who directs the church” or “… the one to whom the church looks as its ruler.”
Verse 23 begins by defining the church as the body of Christ, “which is his body” (Revised Standard Version; Good News Translation The church is Christ’s body). This is a familiar concept (see Col 1.18, 24), and for similar ideas see 1 Corinthians 12.12; Romans 12.5. There is hardly any way to avoid this figure in translation; at the most a simile (“is like his body”) may be substituted for the metaphor (“is his body”). The figure stresses the close, organic, living relationship between Christ and his people. It is not simply a functional, an official relationship, like that of a president to a business organization or of a chairman to a committee, but a relationship of a common life, a mutual, interdependent existence. Of course there is no idea of equality: Christ is the head and the church is subordinate to him.
The completion of him who himself completes all things everywhere: the church is called “the fullness of Christ” (the Greek abstract noun is from the verb meaning “to fill, complement, fulfill”). Here the relation of the church to Christ is advanced even more; it is not simply one of relative degree of importance and power (Christ the head, the church the body), but in a bold figure of speech the church is seen as an indispensable part of Christ without which he is not complete. So to speak, the writer says that apart from the church there is no Christ in the fullest meaning of the concept. As Robinson says: “in some mysterious sense the Church is that without which the Christ is not complete, but with which He is or will be complete.” Or as Abbott says: “When Christ is called Head, the figure implies that however complete He is in Himself, yet as Head he is not complete without His body.”
Some, however, take “fullness” not in the active sense of “completion” but in the passive sense; so the church is seen, not as “filling” or “completing” Christ, but as being filled by him. So Goodspeed has “the church, which is his body, filled by him who fills everything everywhere” (similarly Twentieth Century New Testament, Moffatt; also Barth). Most modern commentators and translators, however, take the word in the active sense of “fullness.”
In most languages it is almost impossible to use a literal rendering of the Greek noun in the sense of “to be full” or “fullness.” To say that the church is “the fullness of Christ” might mean nothing more than to say “the church constitutes Christ’s internal organs,” and this would result in a serious distortion of the underlying figure of speech. It may also be extremely difficult to speak of “completing Christ,” for this might suggest that Christ was not fully grown, and therefore the church was required to add somehow to his height. Some translators have experimented with a phrase such as “that which makes Christ truly real,” but this has the disadvantage of implying that Christ is somehow unreal and that it is the church which guarantees his existence. In some instances the concept of “filling” or “completing” may be rendered as “to add that which is lacking,” but not with the implication that such a lack is necessarily an imperfection but only that the addition results in an intended completion. Therefore, verse 23 may be rendered in some instances as “the church is Christ’s body and as such adds to Christ what is lacking even as he himself adds that which is lacking to everything” or “… to what is lacking in everything.”
Who himself completes all things everywhere: the final genitive phrase (Hdb|fig:Table_EPH1-14.jpg “of the one who all things in all places is filling”) can be understood in two ways: (1) “of him who is (being) filled with all things everywhere,” or (2) “of him who fills all things everywhere,” depending on whether the present participle of the verb “to fill” is read as the passive voice or as the middle (the two forms are identical in Greek). The Good News Translation gives the alternative in a footnote; New English Bible gives in footnote two alternative renderings of the text. Beare prefers the passive sense, commenting: “All created things contribute to the fullness of Christ.” Similarly Dodd: “Him who is everywhere and in all respects growing complete.” The Good News Translation alternative in footnote is similar to New English Bible text: “him who himself receives the entire fullness of God”. It would seem that the majority of modern commentators and translations favor the meaning expressed in the Good News Translation text, who himself completes all things everywhere. Thus a certain parallelism is established: the church completes Christ, who himself completes all things. A translation should try to retain this parallelism.
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1982. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .