With all of my Greek studies, I've gotten to the point where I don't really like translations all that much any more (although it has increased my appreciation of the KJV somewhat, ironically). While I still primarily use the NIV for personal reading, for instance, I would never use it for more in-depth study. It's translations of Romans and Galatians, for instance, are particularly horrid and completely distort the sense of the Greek, reading into it things that either are not there or even completely changing the meaning in an unwarranted fashion. More literal translations tend to be better but not necessarily - the NASB's version of Song of Songs, for instance, misreads crucial sections of the Hebrew so that the Wisdom sub-genre of the Song is nearly lost, resulting in a very inferior version.
In any case, looking at the (in)famous "wives and husbands" passage in Ephesians 5, a favorite at weddings (well, more conservative ones at least), one finds something somewhat different from what winds up in most English translations. Most treat verse 21 as a command for everyone to submit to one another and then move on in 22 to a command for wives to submit to husbands, and then a rule to the effect that this is how things ought to be in verse 24. The thing is, in the Greek none of these commands, "should"s or "ought"s show up in the Greek. Sure, "submit" words show up, but none are in the Imperative mood - which is what is used in Greek to make commands (there are no modal or "ought" words either).
What is found instead is a full complex sentence in verse 18, ending with a command to be filled with the Spirit. What follows in 19-21 are a string of phrases built around a series of participles (think "-ing" words like "singing" or "submitting"). The ESV has a fairly decent literal translation of 19-21:
19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Verse 21, then, contains a participle, not an imperative. All these phrases are attached to a clause with an imperative, yes ("be filled with the Spirit" in verse 18), but the participles here are probably best seen as describing the results of what is said in that clause rather than, say, what it consists in. 19-21, then, are telling us what happens as a result of the Ephesians being filled with the Spirit. They are not commanded to submit to each other in 21, then, but the submission is portrayed as a natural byproduct of being Spirit-filled.
Now we turn to verse 22, which normally gets stated in English as "Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord". In Greek, however, what it literally says is "Wives to your husbands as to the Lord". It is common in Greek to leave out a word from a sentence or phrase if it has already been used in the previous one and this is what is happening here - this apparently verb-less expression is actually picking up its verbal element from the previous verse. And the verbal element from the previous verse, while a form of the verb for "submit", is not in the imperative form. So it's not a command. Instead, it is a participle - one that was explaining the result of being filled with the Spirit. So this is saying how things are or will be, not how they ought to be let alone commanding them to be that way.
In verse 24 we have something similar - another verse usually translated as a command in English (e.g., "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands"). But in fact, the Greek has literally "but as the church submits to Christ so also wives to husbands in everything". The second half of that sentence "so also wives to husbands in everything" lacks a verbal element but again picks it up from the previous bit. But the previous verbal element, though again a form of "submit", is not in the Imperative. It is not a command, but a statement of what is in fact happening - the church is submitting to Christ. So again, we have a case of explaining what is going on rather than a command that wives are required to follow.
All in all, then, the Greek syntax seems to bar this passage from being used straightforwardly for any view of women's roles in life. There are, of course, other passages in the Bible that could be used by either side in that debate, but I don't think a very good case could be made for whatever side you take based on this particular one.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Ephesians 5 Contains No Command for Wives to Submit - Or, Why Things are Often More Interesting in the Original Greek
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Dr.Ian,
I am enjoying reading your blog. I wanted to offer a counter argument to your post on Ephesians 5. Paul says "Wives submit(hupotasso)to your own husbands as to the Lord."
1. Hupotasso is a military term which means to "place under or subordinate." Used also in I Pet 3:1. It is a voluntary submission. This is not because of essential feminine inferiority but because God has place the husband first in order of creation as head of the home, just as Christ is Head of the Church. Verse 24 says "Wives are to submit to your own husbands in everything."
2. It seems that it is certainly prescriptive because the submission in view is "as to the Lord." When is there an occasion when our submission to God is not prescriptive? The full context of this section on wives and husbands is compared by Paul to Christ and the Church, so I don't see the ambiguity that you mentioned.
3. Often overlooked is the command for "husbands to love your wives as Christ loved the Church." That is not descrptive, it's a command that uses a verb that has continous habitual action. Christ loved the chuch not because it was holy, but in order to make it holy (v26).
Thanks
Ken B.
Hi Ken, thanks for the great comments! I'm definitely open to changing my mind on this passage, so here are my initial thoughts on your comments:
"1. Hupotasso is a military term which means to "place under or subordinate." Used also in I Pet 3:1. It is a voluntary submission. This is not because of essential feminine inferiority but because God has place the husband first in order of creation as head of the home, just as Christ is Head of the Church. Verse 24 says "Wives are to submit to your own husbands in everything."
In my post I didn't argue that women shouldn't be submitting to their husbands or that God didn't establish the order of creation you mention - it's just that that's not what Ephesians 5 actually says. Nowhere does it say in Ephesians 5 that God has established that every family should have the husband as sole head of the household and that wives should submit. You might argue that from elsewhere, but there is insufficient evidence in Ephesians 5 itself. It does say that wives are in fact submitting in Ephesus and that this is a result of the Spirit but not that they should. Verse 24, as I state in the blog, does not say "Wives are to submit to your own husband in everything", but rather that wives, just like the church to Christ, are in fact submitting to their husbands. There is no imperative form in that verse in the Greek.
"2. It seems that it is certainly prescriptive because the submission in view is "as to the Lord." When is there an occasion when our submission to God is not prescriptive? The full context of this section on wives and husbands is compared by Paul to Christ and the Church, so I don't see the ambiguity that you mentioned. "
This actually relates to some of the stuff in the blog post that follows this one, but I also want to say that the text is saying that wives ARE submitting to their husbands as to the Lord, not that they SHOULD do so. The former is a description of what's going on, the latter a prescription of what should go on. Similarly, I might say that Germans were submitting to Hitler as to the Lord but without implying that they should have done so (note that I'm not saying that male headship is like Nazi Germany, I'm just trying to make a point).
"3. Often overlooked is the command for "husbands to love your wives as Christ loved the Church." That is not descrptive, it's a command that uses a verb that has continous habitual action. Christ loved the chuch not because it was holy, but in order to make it holy (v26). "
I agree, but there are no commands in the Greek prior to that one. I'm not arguing in this post against male headship views, just that you cannot rely on Ephesians 5 alone to do all the heavy argumentative lifting for you given what it looks like in the original Greek.
Post a Comment