« A Woman's Place,continued | Main | Do We Change Or Do They Change? »

Submission in Ephesians 5

“Where words are many, sin is not absent; but he who holds his tongue is wise.”

This is, I admit, a strange quote to choose as an opening for a post about submission. But I want to keep it in mind as I write. I am conscious that I am young; that my theology is developing; that I’ve already embarrassed myself enough in the past by trying to “educate” others with my great wisdom. So, my wish is that you would take my thoughts as reflecting where I am now in my journey to understand the Scripture—not as a rant against any who might disagree with me or an attempt to conjure up some kind of conspiracy theory.

Now, with those disclaimers in place, I want to go to Ephesians 5: 21-22. In most of your Bibles, you will find a heading “Husbands and Wives” dividing verse 21 and 22. And verse 22, of course, is usually translated like this: “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” The Greek there is not difficult or ambiguous. The way most English translations render it is good enough. Well, except for one thing. There is no verb “submit” in the Greek "wives {submit} to your husbands. " This is not a matter (like the ending of Mark) where scholars debate whether or not the word is actually in the original texts. Everyone is in perfect agreement that the word “submit” is not in verse 22. Translated literally, the Greek says, “Wives to their own husbands as to the Lord.”

So, how does the word “submit” which is not in the Greek get into our English Bibles in verse 22? Well, it has to be supplied from verse 21, which is usually translated as “Everyone submit to each other out of reverence for Christ.” (The translation of verse 21 is actually a little trickier than verse 22 because the verb “submit” is in a verbal noun form called a “participle” that is a bit difficult to render in English.)

So, if you have followed this discussion so far, it should be clear that (1) verse 22 has no verb in Greek. (2) The verb must be supplied from verse 21. Thus, it is fair to say that verses 21-22 are grammatically connected and only form a whole thought together. They are not separate sentences in Greek. Again, this is not a technical matter or an issue of scholarly debate. They are quite clearly connected. So, I have to ask myself, why do most English translations separate them and insert a heading in between them?

Those are really two questions. First, why translate them as two separate sentences? One answer is that verse 21 is a summary or conclusion of all that is said in the previous section. I think that is true. I’m not claiming that verse 21 is only linked with verse 22 and not with the preceding material. It is linked to both, of course. Because the word “submit” is a participle, verse 21 is not really a complete sentence and the exact way it links grammatically to the preceding main verb is one of the difficulties of translating Greek, especially with Paul’s tendency to write long and complex sentences. And most modern translators do regularly break up Paul’s sentences into smaller “bites,” including so-called “literal” translations like the ESV. So, perhaps the translators simply broke 21 from 22 because they want to avoid long sentences. But, you tell me, is “Submitting to one another out of the fear of Christ, wives to their own husbands as to the Lord,” too long for you to read? I’m fine with it.

Second, why divide the text there with a header? Some would say that the discussion of husband and wives begins in verse 22. And I agree that is where husband/wife relations are first mentioned. So there is some grounds for dividing the text there, if we were simply looking at the topic being “husbands and wives.” But, I wonder, what if the topic is not really “husbands and wives” but “submission” or “mutual relations”? Since 21 and 22 are grammatically united, perhaps their thoughts are also meant to be united. If one simply must insert headings into the texts, then why not divide between verse 19 and 20? Or, even better, why insert headers into the text at all when they may be misleading?

And, frankly, why not translate the Greek text the way it is written? Something like this might be better: “Submitting to one another out of the fear of Christ, wives to their own husbands as to the Lord.” Why give the (I’m tempted to say false) impression, that verse 22 stands alone? Even the ESV, which claims to be a very “literal” translation of the Greek, does exactly what I have mentioned. It divides 21 and 22 with a header, and inserts the word “submit” into verse 22. I understand the need to sometimes divide sentences and insert words for the sake of greater clarity in translation, but I don’t think that a literal translation would be unclear here. Do you?

Some of you might be asking why I am making a big issue out of this. Am I trying to deny that the Scriptures teach that wives should submit to their husbands? Not at all. But I am concerned that we read these verses in context. And the context clearly links 21 and 22. I don’t think either one should be discussed independently of the other. They should be kept together, and translated into English in a unit, just as they are in Greek.

To put it another way, my concern is that we not discount the link between verse 21 and 22. When I studied this passage in seminary, many of the conservative commentators I read seemed to easily brush by verse 21 and hammer hard on verse 22. I have had little contact (whether in person or in books) with more liberal commentators. Perhaps they want to major heavily on verse 21 and brush over verse 22. Neither approach is good.

I think we need to take both very seriously, and not see them as contradictory or competing. Nor should we allow one to “neutralize” the truth of the other. I think both are true and the only way we can understand the practical outworking of submission—whether mutual submission or the submission of a wife to a husband—is through prayerful obedience to God’s word in the situation God has placed us.

Now, what do you think? Does it make any difference to you to know that the word “submit” is not in verse 22? What do you think about dividing 21 and 22 with a header? Finally, are these thoughts helpful to you or confusing?

Related Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Actually, I don't know if it makes much difference. Your translation above makes the same point. I suppose it could make it seem more solemn an weighty to see it repeated.

I do know that not only headings, but also chapter and verse numbers are additions to the text, and not inherent in it. I think both those additions could cause one to forget that things may be linked, which might not seem to be so when divided in an unnatural way.

Posted by: Samantha at March 30, 2006 7:43 PM

I know I'll read it w/that in mind next time. I'd like to know the etymology of submit. I'm guessing sub is under and mit is....ummm...I guess I'll have to go see.

I'll also read it w/out the header.

BTW, I liked your disclaimer. :)

Posted by: Lexie at March 30, 2006 9:52 PM

Thanks, Samantha and Lexie,

I know I might be splitting hairs, or participles or whatever, but it did make some different in nuance to me when I learned that. I just wonder if it make a difference to others, or just me.

And, as for the word "submit", it wouldn't really help to look at it in English to find the original meaning. I did look at it in Greek when I was studying this section of Scripture. The word is "hupotasso." (υποτασσω) Ben Witherington defined "hupotasso" as something like "living under the established order."

Posted by: Hannah Im at March 30, 2006 10:35 PM

I sometimes find verse and chapter numbers to be more of an annoyance than a help. Clearly they're useful for finding a specific passage or phrase, but often they break up the sense or logical steps of an argument. Perhaps it's a good idea to remember that they weren't there in the original text.

Posted by: Pigwotflies at March 31, 2006 4:17 AM

Good points Hannah.

Chapter breaks, verse numbers, and heading titles do, sometimes, confuse the flow of the text. One of my pet peeves is how we evangelicals base our sermons, bible studies, etc., on single verses - completely, in most cases, ignoring the context of the passage which the verse came from (e.g., Jeremiah 29:11).

After reading your post I went to my NET Bible to see what the translator's notes had to say. Some interesting stuff:

30sn Eph 5:19-21. In Eph 5:18 the author gives the command to be filled by means of the Holy Spirit. In 5:19-21 there follows five participles: (1) speaking; (2) singing; (3) making music; (4) giving thanks; (5) submitting. These participles have been variously interpreted, but perhaps the two most likely interpretations are (1) the participles indicate the means by which one is filled by the Spirit; (2) the participles indicate the result of being filled by the Spirit. The fact that the participles are present tense and follow the command (i.e., “be filled”) would tend to support both of these options. But it seems out of Paul’s character to reduce the filling of the Spirit to a formula of some kind. To the extent that this is true, it is unlikely then that the author is here stating the means for being filled by the Spirit. Because it is in keeping with Pauline theology and has good grammatical support, it is better to take the participles as indicating certain results of being filled by the Spirit. See ExSyn 639.

31tn Many scholars regard Eph 5:21 as the verse which introduces this section, rather than 5:22. This is due in part to the lack of a main verb in this verse (see tc note which follows). This connection is not likely, however, because it requires the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι (Jupotassomenoi, “submitting”) in 5:21 to act as the main verb of the section, and this participle more likely is linked to the command “be filled by the Spirit” in 5:18 as a participle of result (see sn above). In any case, 5:21 does form a strong link between 5:18-21 and what follows, so the paragraph division which has been placed between 5:21 and 22 should not be viewed as a complete break in the author’s thought.
32tc The witnesses for the shorter reading (in which the verb “submit” is only implied) are minimal (Ì46 B Cl Hiermss), but significant and early. The rest of the witnesses add one of two verb forms as required by the sense of the passage (picking up the verb from v. 21). Several of these witnesses have ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (Jupotassesqwsan), the third person imperative (so א A I P Ψ 0278 33 81 1175 1739 1881 al lat co), while other witnesses, especially the later Byzantine cursives, read ὑποτάσσεσθε (Jupotassesqe), the second person imperative (D F G Ï sy). The text virtually begs for one of these two verb forms, but the often cryptic style of Paul’s letters argues for the shorter reading. The chronology of development seems to have been no verb – third person imperative – second person imperative. It is not insignificant that early lectionaries began a new day’s reading with v. 22; these most likely caused copyists to add the verb at this juncture.
Posted by: Rusty at March 31, 2006 6:28 AM

Rusty, I love the NET Bible. J. Hampton Keathley, the professor who taught my first year Greek class, had a part in the NET Bible's creation, and some of my DTS professors were involved in the translation. I wish more people knew about it, and used the excellent notes they provide.

I also have a pet peeve with taking verses out of context. It can confuse and mislead people, even with the best intentions. As for headers, I think they are less useful and more confusing in the epistles because the thought break is not always clear. I have less of a problem with editorial headings in the Gospels, especially between stories which are clearly separated. "Parable of the Lost Sheep" "Parable of the Lost Coin" etc. But even then, they can be misleading, ie "Parable of the Prodigal Son" seems to emphazise the son, when the parable just might be focusing on the father.

Thanks for including the notes here. I wondered if I should explain in more detail the earlier context (1st half of chapter 5) in this post, but I decided just to wait and see if it came up in the comments. If I were translating chapter 5, I would try to make the connection between the two "halfs" more clear.

BTW, I am glad that no one so far has taken this as a "conspiracy" post. I'm certainly not trying to imply that all the male Bible translators have a conspiracy to subjugate women or any such thing. Just saying that the break between 21 and 22 seems unnatural and unnecessary.

Posted by: Hannah Im at March 31, 2006 3:20 PM

Last fall in Exegesis in Ephesians, I too wrestled with this passage. I agree that most commentaries and translations pass over it without much (if any) mention. In addition, I find section headings most annoying and distracting.

While I think vss 21 and 22 are related, I do not think they are grammatically related. Rather, the participle "submit" is the last of four participles explicating the meaning of "be filled with the Spirit".

I may be alone, I do not know, but I see the instructions to wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, and masters as connecting all the way back to the command to walk wisely in 5:15. In addition, the main focus of the section on wives and husbands seems to be Christ and the church (a point also often neglected).

So, while the notion of submission is clearly in the instructions to wives, the primary intention seems to be twofold: 1) what it looks like to walk wisely and 2) how the church relates to Christ.

That's my two cents. Good discussion.

Posted by: Laura at March 31, 2006 6:09 PM

...they can be misleading, ie "Parable of the Prodigal Son" seems to emphazise the son, when the parable just might be focusing on the father.

The heading for this parable in the NET (Luke 15) is "The Parable of the Compassionate Father."

Posted by: Rusty at March 31, 2006 6:32 PM

I did find this helpful Hannah - thankyou. I was looking at the passage and wondered if they introduced submit into verse 22 to perhaps also connect the flow of thought with verse 24. I don't know but thought I'd put that into the mix and see what you think.

Posted by: Catez at April 1, 2006 5:27 AM

Thanks Hannah for this and the whole subject headings things is the most annoying pet peeve of my husband's (in fact, he's written to the ESV folk about it). Anyway, I agree and I would think most people who know Greek would agree as well that submission is linked between all of these groups at the end of Eph 5 and that they all point to the example we have in Christ -- who had no reason at all to submit and yet did. Again, I find our motivation in the example of Christ rather than in those commentators who like to hammer on about 'women's submission'. We're all called to submit because we all follow Christ but obviously this looks different in our different roles as men and women.

Posted by: Ashley at April 2, 2006 5:05 AM

The best treatment I know of this Ephesians 5 text and other texts dealing with christian relationships can be found in Discovering Biblical Equality edited by Becca Groothuis and Gordon Fee.

Fee writes on this Ephesians passage, and you can also find a shorter version in the Winter 2002 edition of the Priscilla Papers. The article is titled, "The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9"

Posted by: Susan at April 3, 2006 6:14 PM

Laura, I agree very much with you. I do see the command to submit linkinig back to the command to walk wisely, and I also agree that much of the point of the "husband/wife" section is actually about the relationship between Christ and the church. BTW, I don't think it in inaccurate to say that 20 and 21 are grammatically related, since 20 contains the "verb" which 21 lacks.

Susan, Thanks for the recommendation. I've never hear of the Priscilla Papers. Is that a journal? I'd like to read it if I can find it.

Posted by: Hannah Im at April 3, 2006 7:01 PM

Priscilla Papers is a journal. All the info on the Priscilla Papers is here
!

blessings,
Susan

Posted by: susan at April 4, 2006 12:40 PM

Hannah,

You said: "21 contains the "verb" which 22 lacks"

This is a sticky issue. In my exegetical translation of Ephesians, I went with leaving v22 without a verb because the verb in v21 is a participle (a form which Paul almost never uses as a main verb). On the other hand, Paul has been known to leave out a main verb (that crazy Paul ;-). That is what I see here. Either way, the exegete/translater is making an interpretational choice. I would rather dangle in suspense until v24 when the verb appears.

I'm probably splitting hairs, but I really do see 21 as the end of the previous section, with the idea of submission acting as a kind of glue. Basically, I think the two verses are semantically linked, in that "submitting" in v21 links topically with v22.

Posted by: Laura at April 4, 2006 1:28 PM

Laura, I may not have phrased that rightly. I'm not suggesting that we translate the participle as a main verb, but that we simply translate v 22 as it is written--without a main verb. In any case, I think we are saying the exact same thing in that verse 21 and 22 are obviously linked. They are not separate sentances, at least not complete ones. I realize that "submit" is in participle form and that it links back to the main verb which is why (like you) I might suggest translating is as, "submitting to one another out of reverence/fear of Christ, wives to their own husbands as to the Lord." I'm not getting into what type of participle "submit" is (aka Wallace's categories) but simply saying that I don't see a break between 21 and 22. It is transitioning to the topic of husband/wives and Christ/church but not breaking off from what went before.

Posted by: Hannah Im at April 5, 2006 9:55 PM

Susan, Thanks. I will take a look at it.

Posted by: Hannah Im at April 5, 2006 9:55 PM

If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.