I’ve read the paper at CBMW by Wayne Grudem entitled,
“The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21" (pdf) and can respond better now than I did in my previous post because there is more material there to work with (that explains what he meant in the article I critiqued).
I now understand what he is saying about hypotasso in Ephesians 5:21: he is saying that hypotasso alleion doesn’t mean “be subject everyone to everyone" (alleion means "one another") as the word "alleion" means in John 13:34, for example, but means “some to others” as it means in Rev. 6:4, Galatians 6:2, and I Corinthians 11:33. He says that, in the latter passages, it would be impossible for everyone to do to everyone whatever "alleion" (one another) refers to, so it must mean "some to others." He says that it must mean "some to others" in Ephesians 5:21 because not everyone can be subject to everyone else at the same time, and, in fact, only wives, children, and slaves are told to "be subject" (submit).
He also tries to show that hypotasso means “submission to authority” because wherever it’s used, it refers to submission to authority. Luke 2:51, Luke 10:17, Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1, and I Peter 2:13, for example. Some of his examples refer to authority but I'm not sure that they all do. (Is it possible to be subject to someone without being subject to their authority?)
Grudem says that, because hupotasso means "submit to authority," and Paul can't be telling husbands, parents, or masters to submit to the authority of their wives, children, or slaves respectively, then "hupotasso alleion" in Eph. 5:21 must mean "submit, one to another some to others" rather than "everyone submit to everyone."
I still disagree with him. Here's why:
Ephesians 5:21 reads: “hupotasso alleion en phobos Christos,” or, "being 'under-set' one another in the fear of Christ." The NASB renders it “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”
Grudem paraphrases it thus: “be subject to others in the church who are in positions of authority over you.” (I would think that the "in the fear of Christ" part is assumed.)
Is this accurate?
Yes, we are back to the question of authority in Ephesians 5:21. Is it to a person, or to that person’s authority, as Grudem says? I previously said “no,” or “yes, depending on just what that means.” I still am saying “yes, depending...” And the depending, in this case, as I see it, is on whatever is indicated by “hypotasso everyone to everyone appropriately as to the Lord,” not "hypotasso some to others, as in, wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters," as Grudem claims.
Ephesians 5:1-21 can be summarized thus:
* be imitators of God
* walk in love, just as Christ also loved you
* let no immorality be known among you
* let no one deceive you with empty words
* do not participate in deeds of darkness because all will be exposed
* be careful how you walk
* do not be foolish but understand the Lord’s will
* do not be drunk with wine but speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs
* always giving thanks
* and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ
So far Paul seems to be speaking to everyone. Grudem says that, at verse 21, Paul turns to address some, not all: he now speaks to wives, children, and slaves, with mere qualifiers for the authority of husbands, parents, and masters. But why would he switch, here, from speaking to all to just speaking to some? Besides, he doesn't, really, because he still addresses everyone: wives, husbands, children, parents, slaves, and masters, in that order.
Here is the main point I’ve been trying to make on this subject: Paul does not just tell those who must submit to submit, he gives instruction on how husbands, parents, and masters are to treat their wives, children, and slaves, respectively. In other words, how we are to be subject to one another as to the Lord. Grudem says there is an absence of any command for husbands to submit to wives, or parents to children, or slaves to masters, which is true. But, what are they told? Husbands are told to give up their lives for their wives! Really, which is the greater sacrifice -- to submit to another, or to give one’s life up entirely for another?
One might say that in some ways there is no difference between the two, and I’d agree. There is a difference, though, in the form of submission to God (in Christ) – the husband gives up his life for his wife, and the wife submits to her husband.
In contrast to the submission called for by wives, children, and slaves, Grudem says that “Paul wisely gives guidelines to regulate the use of authority by husbands, parents, and masters.”
Looking further, into Ephesians chapter 6, we read:
* children, obey your parents in the Lord...honor your father and mother
* fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord
Then, what particularly interests me:
Eph. 6:5-8: "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; and not by way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free" (NASB)
9-10: "And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." (NASB)
This sounds like “everyone to everyone” rather than “some to others" to me, because masters are told to do the same to slaves as slaves are to do to masters.
Does this mean that masters serve their slaves? In a way. Does this mean that masters obey their slaves? No. But it does mean that they be considerate, as husbands are to be to their wives, and parents to their children. It’s this consideration that the wife, child, or slave can joyfully submit to.
So, does hypotasso mean just plain "be subject to," or, as Grudem claims, does it mean "be subject to an authority"?
*****
To repeat myself from earlier posts and comments: if the husband has a unique authority that the wife does not have, what is that authority? In Ephesians 5, it appears to be authority to give up his life. Does his headship have any other meaning here, other than perhaps that woman was made from man, as cross-referenced from elsewhere? Does this fact, and his headship, qualify him as leader, initiator, and hierarchical superior? If so, where does this meaning come from?
Does the wife submit to her husband as leader, initiator, and hierarchical superior, or to him as giver of his life for her? What does Christ’s headship as indicated in v. 23 mean? In the passage we are told that, as head, He is Savior, Who loved the church and gave Himself up for her, and nourishes and cherishes her (vv. 23, 25, 29). Is He also leader and director of the church? If so, is this different from sanctifying her, cleansing her by the washing of water with the word, and nourishing and cherishing it? (vv. 26, 29)
In Eph. 1 we are told that Christ is given as head over all things to the church (v. 22). Does this headship include having all things put in subjection under his feet? (Also I Cor. 15:27) And, if so, does this imply anything for husbands?
You see, the matter is not a simple one. How and what we extrapolate does matter.
*****
Is the main meaning we should take from Eph. 5 that the husband is the head of the wife, and the wife submits to him, or that the husband gives his life for his wife as Christ gave up His life for the church, which submits to Him, and therefore the wife submits to her husband?
*****
Is finding and understanding truth merely about understanding terms, and translation, and cross-referencing? Or is it about understanding the meaning which all the words of a passage have together in the syntax in which they appear?
Is Ephesians 5 about authority? Or about grateful, spirit-filled living, and sincere, good-will service to (one another as to) the Lord?
