I finally got to meet Paige the other day...

The verb is implied in verse 22. Verse 21 is a participial phrase and is used to transition the two passages, tying the two together. It was a stylistic device in Greek that is done. The first word in verse 21 is a present passive participle,. There is no verb in that phrase.


This kind of information can be found in any good grammar book. A.T. Robertson talks about that a little in Word Pictures of the NT. Some of the more critical commentaries will mention it.

 

GB, you continue to make my point. I want to challenge you to do something: Go through your last post and find how many time you used the word "I," or the number of times you make reference to your own experiences. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to call you a liar or deny the actual occurances of the instances you referenced (though you did imply that myself and others like me are wimps - I'm not sure you would make that accusation in person). What I am clearing saying though is that your hermeneutics are based on your own personal biases and not the sound exegesis of Eph. 5:21ff. The bottom line is this: If God did not intend for the wife to be in constant submission to her husband in and out of the home, then why did he use the word "submit" in vv.22-24? You don't challenge the clear biblical teaching that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (v.25ff), but you don't want to accept the clear teaching of vv.22-24. Every time you mention vv.22ff, you do one of two things: You either mention v.21 (which we have already demonstrated is a general reference to all relationships between brothers and sisters in Christ - a verse that must be tied to vv.18-20 as it is in all translations that I'm aware of), or you refer back to your own subjective opinions or experiences. THAT IS NOT FAITHFUL HERMENEUTICS AND EXEGESIS. You still have not answered this question: If vv.22-24 are not to be taken as literal IMPERATIVES by Paul (as they are in the Greek, which you failed to mention), then why did he list them to begin with? If mutual submission was to be the only rule, then 5:22-6:9 wouldn't have been necessary - you can't just explain these verses away as "practical instructions" or "spiritual how-tos." The use of the imperative mood throughout vv.22-24 simply will not allow you to dismiss the commands of those verses as practical instructions or spiritual how-tos.

Further, you implied that conditions to a wife's submission are not possible if one contends that the words of Paul are to be taken literally in vv.22-24 (which is what I contend). That is simply not true - many scholars are of the NCA camp (non-conflicting absolutists) and still hold that vv.22-24 are to be interpreted literally. The reason is because God has provided a wife with one condition in his word - Acts 5:29. Though that verse was not spoken by a wife, it gives wives (and all people) an absolute standard to govern all other relationships. To that end, it is more than biblically possible for someone to contend that vv.22-24 are to be interpreted literally with the condition set forth in Acts 5:29. Your promulgation of the "absolute vs. conditional submission" rule is just a straw man that you look to in order to validate your own subjective views of submission - consider your straw man knocked down by SOUND exegesis.

This is my challenge: Either deal faithfully with the text and admit that your views are steeped in your own biases opinions and experiences, or just admit that your view of submission is unbiblical, but your going to advocate it anyway. As the saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

 

I don’t what you are smoking but I never said or even implied that at all. What is ws in the Greek text in 5:21. Maybe I am missing something and perhaps you need to educate me some. But is that not an adverb which modifies the verb?

You really have given me no facts other than opinion and statements about what you believe. You have not addressed 5;21 at all. Then in 5:22 you have not addressed “as to the Lord.”

As a pastor who preaches each week and I assume who tries to be faithful to the scripture my challenge to you is: show me how you would apply those commands given to the woman if she were told by her husband to steal something from a store. Show me how you would apply that without any condition.

 

So then tell us "liberals" what the adverbial phrase "as to the Lord" in Eph. 5:22 means? While you are at it give us an application from that verse too.

 

GB, I concur whole-heartedly with DD's interpretation of "as to the Lord" (and it is not coincidental that this is the interpretation offered in nearly all trustworthy commentaries of the passage that I'm aware of).

As for the command of mutual submission in Eph. 5:21, I have already clearly explained that v.21 is to be interpreted with vv.18-20. Because you are moderate/liberal on this issue, you are never going to accept that though (and I wouldn't either if I were you because it would tear down my only simblance of a valid argument). If you're so sure that your understanding of submission is correct in Eph. 5:21ff, then try and apply it to the words of Peter in 1 Pet. 3:1-6. You see, you can't argue some "mutual submission" clause as you do in Eph. 5:21ff (even though I've proved that you are abusing the interpretation of 5:21).

If you can read 1 Pet. 3:1-6 (where there is not a mutual submission clause) and still say that women are not commanded to submit to their husbands as you did in your last post, then that will be proof positive that debating this issue with you is a lost cause because you will not accept the truth even when it tears down your false arguments. In fact, Peter is much more specific in explaining the submission of the wife. And again, he is not writing down some "practical how-tos" but he is employing the use of the imperative mood throughtout the aforementioned passage. Honestly, I can't wait to see what you do with the passage.

 

Todd

Not to throw this thread off track - but we (me included) need to be careful about the labels we apply to others on this board.

Moderate does not equal liberal - while I call myself a moderate politically - as it relates to the SBC, I am very conservative theologically, and am very conservative in the secular political sense - anti abortion etc.

I will also note that I have not read any of GB's writings that would make me think that he is anything but conservative theologically.

We may disagree and interpret some of the peripheral issues differently, but on the fundamentals of the faith my guess is that if we were to meet face to face - or if we wound up in the same church, we would enjoy fellowship with each other - and find very few differences.

Now back to the issues we have fun arguing and debating! Interestingly enough even Dorthy Patterson talks about mutual submission in an article she wrote after the Charles Stanley statment earlier this year.

In my opinion, 99.999% of the time submission is not an issue in a home where both the husband and wife are truly trying to live for the Lord. If they have differences they pray about the decision separately and together and seek the Lord's guidance.

In my own life, there was a time that I wanted to make a big purchase, I told my wife that that was what I wanted and was about to sign on the dotted line. In her sweet way, she asked that we take some time to pray about my decision, and that after we had prayed about the situation if I still felt it was the right thing to do she would support it. Needles to say, we saved a ton of money - and she was right. I could have demanded my way, and thrown the submission issue around - but it would have been totally inappropriate - and I would have been wrong.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, verses 21 and 22 share a verb. The Greek language connects those two verses even though your argument tries to divorce them from each other. The words of the Apostle Paul stand against your argument. Since I believe God inspired the words of Paul, and they are God’s truth, I’ll have to stand with the scripture.

Nope. He just trusts God’s word more than your “conservative” position. The “conservative” position on this issue is in error.

If you make your so-called “conservative” theology an idol, you will not be open to hearing the truth of God when it disagrees with your biases.

What’s the problem?

Peter teaches that women should submit to their husbands. Just because he does not mention husbands submitting to their wives does not mean that they are not to do so. You are trying to argue from silence in a passage in 1 Peter to oppose a clearly spoken truth in Ephesians.

I think you are confused. You seem to be under the impression that only one person in a relationship can submit and the other one is, of necessity, in charge. That’s a false assumption. Instead of reading the scripture to see who is in charge, read it to see who serves. Both men and women are called to submit to each other. (Ephesians 5:21)

Not at all.

 

Jimmy, I only use the terms "moderate" and "liberal" as generalizations. There are scores of different interpretations of those terms, but I have already defined my definition of a liberal (at least within Christian higher education - can't remember if it was this string or another). In my opinion, a moderate is either someone who espouses some unbiblical theologies, or they may claim to be "conservative" theologically, but their applied theology is far from it. Again, I only use these terms as generalizations, realizing that not everyone will agree with my definitions of the terms.

Also, I am not implying that men are not to listen to the sound counsel of their wives. Many times I have been spared from the consequences of an ill-advised decision by listening to my wife, but that doesn't negate the wife's responisibility to submit to her husband's leadership (except when he is asking her to do something unbiblical). I hope this clears some things up, and thank you for your thoughts.

 

You wrote exactly my thought on the issue. To listen to your wife is that not mutual submission though? How can you listen if you refuse to submit to her? I think her submission involves letting you take the lead though in accordance with scripture. I think we are on the same page.

 

BB,

I didn't even want to have to get into this, but here goes. I find it interesting that you fail to recognize any other manuscript evidence in continuing to make this claim. The two verses mentioned share a verb ONLY in the Alexandrian texts, but in the Byzantine and Western text types, v.22 contains the word hypotassesthe , a present middle IMPERATIVE commanding the wife to submit. So then, when you say you stand with the Scriptures, let it be known that you are referencing ONLY ONE text type. While those within the NIV tradition have argued that the Alexandrian texts are more reliable, their arguments are not always valid because older doesn't always equal better. Further, every single translation I referenced (KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NAS, NJB, and others I could have mentioned) supplies the word(s) "submit" or "be subject to" when it translates v.22, even though the word "submit" appears in v.21 of all the aforementioned translations. I will acknowledge that some of those translations leave the word(s) "submit" or "be subject to" in italics, but they are provided nonetheless (because there is strong support for the word "submit" in v.22 from Byzantine and Western manuscripts). You may think you have greater insight then those who have produced our modern English translations, but I'm yet to be convinced of that.

Yet, even if you accept the Alexandrian text types, Paul is clearly moving from speaking of general principles of submission within the body of Christ in v.21 to guidelines for the home in v.22. This is why v.21 must be understood with vv.18ff (which is the natural reading anyway) rather than being argued into Paul's guidelines for the home, in some attempt to negate vv.22-6:9 which is clearly what you are attempting to do with your exegesis.

Wow, really? I guess that means that John Piper, Wayne Gruden, Millard Erickson, Pete Schemm, Al Mohler, Andreas Kostenberger, and scores of other evangelical theologians need to retool their views on women just because BB thinks they're wrong.

For me, my theology is not an idol - rather it is the framework by which I must live my life, because it is grounded in the very Word of God. Further, I hope you're not implying that you're the sole arbiter of "the truth of God" BB.

BB, though the problems with your theology on this particular issue are a-plenty, let me narrow them to four here:

1. How can you interpret Eph. 5:21-22 the way you do when Paul clearly gives us the summary of his exposition in v.33: "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see THAT SHE REVERENCE HER HUSBAND." Paul makes it clear that the husband's highest responsibility within the marriage is to "love," and the women's primary responsibility is to "reverence" (a word clearly linked with his use of hypotassesthe in v.22). No matter what you do with vv.21-22, you can't escape this summary statement by Paul in v.33!

2. While you assert that Paul's command that brothers and sisters in Christ submit to one another trumps the rest of vv.22-6:9 in Ephesians, the passage in Peter clearly demonstrates that such is not the proper interpretation of that passage. You're right, an argument from silence is very weak, but this is no mere argument from silence. If mutual submission is to be the OVERARCHING THEME for all other household relationships, wouldn't it have been necessary for Peter to have included it here, since (without such a statement) all the other imperatives about household relationships do not make sense? Again, you demonstrate sloppy hermeneutics - in one passage, you use the command of v.21 to completely make your case for household relationships, yet in another passage you act as if is no real problem that it is not there. As we've said before, you can't have your cake and eat it two.

3. You didn't even mention the great lengths to which Peter goes to define the wife's submission - "your chaste conversation coupled with fear" (3:2), "a meek and quiet spirit" (v.4), "the holy women also...adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands" (v.5), "even as Sarah OBEYED Abraham, calling him lord" (v.6). I'm sorry, but it sounds pretty clear to me within those verses that Peter was commanding the wife's obedience to the leading of the husband in all matters (except those of unbiblical leadership of course).

4. If you take Eph. 5:21-33 and 1 Peter 3:1-7 (passages dealing with husband and wife roles in marriage), even if you interpret v.21 as being a command for the husband to submit to his wife, do you know how many times each party is asked to submit: WIFE - 6 times (some implied, some explicit), HUSBAND - 1 (if that is the way you interpret 5:21, which I've already demonstrated the fallacy of applying that verse to household relationships).

I'd say you've got a few problems there my friend.

Again, you demonstrate that you are basing your whole argument on one verse (5:21), and with that verse you are not even considering the other persuasive manuscript evidence. And since you brought up service, isn't it good to know that our BF&M 2000 (which moderates/liberals seem to love to hate) clearly states that the wife is to "graciously submit to the SERVANT leadership" of her husband. Wow, we're not a bunch of neanderthals after all! You are right to call the man's responsibility one of service, but your whole theology of husband/wife relationships is flawed because you miss the "leadership" part - though the husband's leadership is to be in a spirit of servanthood, it is still leadership that the wife is clearly commanded by Paul and Peter to submit to!

BB (and any other moderate/liberal folks who may be reading this), I haven't even mentioned Col. 3:18-19 yet, but again it proves the validity of the "conservative" interpretation of this doctrine. Paul summarizes the distinctive roles of the husband and the wife within the marriage. To the husband, he says "love...and be not bitter" (v.19). To the wife, he plainly says "submit...as it is fit in the Lord" (v.18). Anytime we see the roles of the husband and the wife explained in the NT, the husband's primary role is always to LOVE (Eph. 5:25, Col. 3:19, 1 Pet. 3:7), and the wife's primary role is always to SUBMIT (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 3:1-6). This is the clear teaching of the Bible, whether you like it or not - you can't carry your own a priori interpretations of the text with you as you seek to define your positions because they will not endure sound exegesis, as I have demonstrated yet again.

 

GB, it sounds like we're getting much closer to "being on the same page," but I'm not quite sure if we're there yet. If you mean by a husband submitting to his wife what is implied by Paul in Eph. 5:21 (as seen also in Phi. 2:3-4), then I will agree with your statement. That kind of submission is to be shared by all brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet, if you mean though that a husband is supposed to consistently to submit to his wife's leadership within the household, and as such allowing her to be the spiritual leader of the family, then I disagree, as would Paul (Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18) and Peter (1 Pet. 3:1-6).

Ideally, husbands and wives need to be in one accord when decisions are made, but reality has clearly demonstrated to all those who have been married for any amount of time that such "mutual submission" within marriage is not always possible - there are going to be times when husband and wife simply will not agree. It is at those times that the wife is to "graciously submit to the servant leadership" of her husband. That is the whole point of my posting throughout this string, but I haven't seen any from the moderate/liberal crowd admit to this yet.

 

Todd says

I beg to differ (slightly) My comment was that 99.999% of the time if a husband and wife are seeking to follow Christ, and are communicating with each other mutual submission will be the rule. I will admit, that there may be situations that the husband must lead out. I am blessed that in 25 years of marriage, my wife and I have not found that situation yet! We have had some pretty good disagreements, but after we give things a chance to cool off, and spend some time in prayer the Lord has lead us to the proper decisions, and we are then both satisfied.

Where I see problems in marriages is when one spouse consistently attempts to impose his or her will, without regard for the other.

 

And I would say women as well.

But there is no discussion regarding verse 21 being tied to the preceding and following verses. It is a participial phrase which was a tool in Greek to do that.

In Eph 5:22-6:9 Paul is laying out the household code.

As I see it there is only one command that carries an absolute submission and that is to God. All the rest are conditional. Children are to obey their parents but not when it violates scripture.

Even Acts shows when they refused to stop preaching at the command of the authorities. Yet scripture tells us to submit to every human institution because they are set there by God.

Are we to summit to the Devil and his agents and those who work to destroy for him? No, we are to flee from the Devil.

The liberals then have to somehow deal with 1 Cor. 11, where God is the head of Christ is the head of man is the head of woman

And God is the head of all of them.

The issue in 1 Cor 11:1-16 is a cultural tradition of respect beginning in verse two. I have in one of my commentaries a picture of a woman making an offering with her head covered and the men do not. I see it as much the same idea of a men and women wearing attire that draws respect to Christ and not attention to the person as an individual. Later in verse 11 Paul shows that nobody is independent of another. And I believe later in chapter 12 as well when he talks about gifts. Gifts being gifts of grace for the church. I think I could easily say that there is a respectable order to everything that God creates and we are not to change that order.

Today, what would you think if a woman came into your church dressed like she had been under Taliban rule? (My sister can tell you all about that kind of tyranny because of having worked in a refugee camp recently. The horror stories of abuse are great.) Or what would you think if a man came in a swimsuit to church?

I think the real issue is said in verse 16. I believe there is a dependency on God and an interdependency on fellow believers.

1 Peter 3:7, “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.”

We are to treat our wife with understanding as the weaker vessel. She is physically weaker and in a weaker position at home being in submission to the leader her husband. God has given the leadership role to the man. When someone is a leader he is to put those under his leadership first. He is not to take advantage of them but rather desire what is best for them. He counts them as more important than himself. He puts himself last. He is their servant. That is not weakness but strength and true leadership in action.

Some years ago I was listening to a man complain about how his wife wouldn’t submit to him. After about 30 minutes of listening I told him, “There is a reason why she won’t submit and I believe the reason is you.” I went on to be much more specific. I asked him if had hit her. The look on his face told me he had been caught.

I believe wives want husbands who are leaders but not dictators. But I have seen too many men in the church who do not lead at home nor in the church. I have also seen it in the youth too. Do you know that family violence in churches is greatest among those who call themselves the most conservative in theology? (Just ask a family attorney or counselor sometime). You might ask, “Why?’I believe it is because there is a difference between those who put all the responsibility on God and those who put all responsibility on themselves. Personally I think we are to put our faith in God and take responsibility for self control.

I have been to the women’s shelter to see what has happened. A few years ago in a church I was pastoring a husband broke his wife’s arm just below where the ball and socket meet. He beat her so badly that she did not even look like who she was. She came to me asking for help. I told her to separate from him until she was satisfied that he was trustworthy and that he had gotten the necessary help for his lack of self control and anger. Within a short amount of time she went back to him after he persuaded her to. She kept thinking that if she just did as she was told everything would be okay. But she went back and the violence started all over. She finally left and they were divorced. The authorities got involved and told him that if he didn’t leave they would remove the children from the home. He finally left to never return. If she had stood her ground I believe their marriage could have been saved. But she didn’t listen and he did not accept responsibility for his actions. So both of them got what they didn’t want. I have seen too many that think divorce is the answer and too many think that submission is the answer. It is neither. It is submission to God that is the real answer.

 

Well, it appears to me that sound exegesis has finally prevailed on this thread. This is the bottom line: Christians are to always submit themselves to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ (Eph. 5:21, Phi. 2:3-4), but such mutual submission does not negate the fact that the wife is to be in constant submission to the husband (Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 3:1-6). The only condition that would negate the wife's obligation to submit to her husband is if he were asking her to do something unbiblical (Acts 5:29). Other than that, let the husband see that he so loves his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25), and let the wife see that she submits to her husband, as unto the Lord (Eph. 5:22).

What I have just stated is a biblically wholistic and exegetically sound theology for husband/wife roles in and out of the home. Please notice that I have argued no biases or personal experiences into my deliniation of this doctrine - everything is grounded in the Word of God. If anyone can offer any further argument against what I have posted here (from the Scriptures - not subjective experiences), then I will be more than happy to hear it. Otherwise, let's put this doctrine to bed and move on to something else.

 

Todd,

Perhaps I misunderstood you. My impression earlier on was that you took submission in 5:22 as an absolute submission and that I had to disagree with because of "as to the Lord" and other examples in passages in scripture. I have heard some in the SBC today espouse a different theology of absolute submission evn if the husband is wrong and not in accordance with scripture much like the Bill Gothard appraoch of years ago. That is a theology that relegates the woman to a non-thinker door mat and a Godless theology making it man centered and led.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

DD, The problem here is that you are dealing in the realm of absolute black and white and I live in the realm of life its own self.

In theory, if you strictly interpret those verses (1Cor 11) a woman must absolutely submit to her husband in any area that is not sin. Of course you then get to start parsing what is and what is not sin. Do you also follow the strict instruction of the rest of the chapter - you do not allow your wife to cut her hair - she always has her head covered because of the angels (whatever that means).

What I see in life is that men who have to demand submission of thier wives are very unhappy, insecure men. It is that subset of men that tend to be phsically abusive of their wives and children.

Somehow, you must meld the commandment to men to Love thier wives as Christ loved the church with the submission requirements.

In general I find that men that practice mutual submission, pray together about decisions, discuss decisions and come to a mutual agreement are much more well adjusted, have better marriages and have children that a much more well adjusted.

If a man truly loves his wife as is commanded, submission is a non issue.