Wives, SUBMIT yourselves to your own husbands

[tonychanyt]

Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, [submit] yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

Was this a command from Paul?

Interestingly, in the Greek manuscript, the verb "submit" is not even there. Let's check the context in the previous verse:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

As brothers and sisters, a Christian brother should submit to a Christian sister and vice versa.

Submit
Ὑποτασσόμενοι (Hypotassomenoi)
Verb - Present Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 5293: From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey.

The verb here is a participle, not exactly a command.

First, Paul pointed out that believers should submit to one another for Christ's sake. With this context in mind, the following verse:

22 Wives, [submit] yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

Concerning the husband-wife relationship, a wife is to submit to her husband. For the Lord's sake, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, all alike, should submit to one another.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits [G5293] to Christ, so also wives should [submit] to their husbands in everything.

Again, the second "submit" is not in the original Greek but is implied.

Elsewhere, Colossians 3:

18 Wives, submit [G5293] yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

submit
ὑποτάσσεσθε (hypotassesthe)
Verb - Present Imperative Passive - 2nd Person Plural

Here, the verb "submit" is an imperative command.

Now, do husbands need to submit to their wives?

Yes, as we have seen earlier in Ephesians 5:21. In the broader context, we are to submit to one another. In the marriage context, wives are to submit to their husbands. Horizontally, she is your wife. Vertically, in terms of spiritual reality, you and she are both sons of God; you two are siblings. In any case, a husband should consult his wife before making any decision. In the end, it is up to the husband to decide.

 

[Grip Docility]

Ephesians 5:


Was this a command from Paul?

Interestingly, in the Greek manuscript, the verb "submit" is not even there. Let's check the context in the previous verse:


As brothers and sisters, a Christian brother should submit to a Christian sister and vice versa.

SubmitὙποτασσόμενοι (Hypotassomenoi)Verb - Present Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Masculine PluralStrong's 5293: From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey.

The verb here is a participle, not exactly a command.

First, Paul pointed out that believers should submit to one another for Christ's sake. With this context in mind, the following verse:


Concerning the husband-wife relationship, a wife is to submit to her husband. For the Lord's sake, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, all alike, should submit to one another.


Again, the second "submit" is not in the original Greek but is implied.

Elsewhere, Colossians 3:


submitὑποτάσσεσθε (hypotassesthe)Verb - Present Imperative Passive - 2nd Person Plural

Here, the verb "submit" is an imperative command.

Now, do husbands need to submit to their wives?

Yes, as we have seen earlier in Ephesians 5:21. In the broader context, we are to submit to one another. In the marriage context, wives are to submit to their husbands. Horizontally, she is your wife. Vertically, in terms of spiritual reality, you and she are both sons of God; you two are siblings. In any case, a husband should consult his wife before making any decision. In the end, it is up to the husband to decide.

You just blew my mind! In this way, we all have love for one another and find peace with one another! I read Paul many ways, spiritually speaking, but this "holds water" spiritually speaking! Wow! I am processing this and agree it is a spiritual teaching of Paul!

Thank you for exegeting this! It is a blessing and a lesson that I have now processed and am praying to the Holy Spirit of Him Who is in all of us who Love Him, Who loved us first to take this to my Heart as He wills!

1 Thessalonians 5:10 He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with Him. 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

- Amen

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Ephesians 5:


Was this a command from Paul?

Interestingly, in the Greek manuscript, the verb "submit" is not even there. Let's check the context in the previous verse:


As brothers and sisters, a Christian brother should submit to a Christian sister and vice versa.

Submit
Ὑποτασσόμενοι (Hypotassomenoi)
Verb - Present Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 5293: From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey.

The verb here is a participle, not exactly a command.

First, Paul pointed out that believers should submit to one another for Christ's sake. With this context in mind, the following verse:


Concerning the husband-wife relationship, a wife is to submit to her husband. For the Lord's sake, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, all alike, should submit to one another.


Again, the second "submit" is not in the original Greek but is implied.

Elsewhere, Colossians 3:


submit
ὑποτάσσεσθε (hypotassesthe)
Verb - Present Imperative Passive - 2nd Person Plural

Here, the verb "submit" is an imperative command.

Now, do husbands need to submit to their wives?

Yes, as we have seen earlier in Ephesians 5:21. In the broader context, we are to submit to one another. In the marriage context, wives are to submit to their husbands. Horizontally, she is your wife. Vertically, in terms of spiritual reality, you and she are both sons of God; you two are siblings. In any case, a husband should consult his wife before making any decision. In the end, it is up to the husband to decide.

22 Wives, [submit] yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.


I appreciate the second submit put in parenthesis however, the sentence does not make sense without it. What word is used in its place and how is it merely just implied? Thanks for the clarification!
Blessings

 

[Paidiske]

I appreciate the second submit put in parenthesis however, the sentence does not make sense without it. What word is used in its place and how is it merely just implied? Thanks for the clarification!
Blessings

There is no word in its place in the Greek. A very word-for-word translation would run something like this.

"Submit to one another in fear of Christ. Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord."

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There is no word in its place in the Greek. A very word-for-word translation would run something like this.

"Submit to one another in fear of Christ. Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord."

I use the Greek Interlinear Bible and it does have it twice. Unless it is not accurate.

 

[Paidiske]

Here's the Greek text:

21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ.
22 Αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ⸀ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ,

The word we are discussing is ὑποτασσόμενοι; you will see that no form of that word is in verse 22.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Here's the Greek text:

21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ.
22 Αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ⸀ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ,

The word we are discussing is ὑποτασσόμενοι; you will see that no form of that word is in verse 22.

Not getting what you mean that " no form of that word is in the verse". Please clarify.

Info I retrieved:

The word is ὑποτασσόμενοι (hypotassomenoi).

Here's the breakdown:

• ὑποτάσσω (hypotasso): the verb, which means "to place under," "to subject," "to obey"
• -όμενοι (ómenoi): the ending, indicating the present participle passive voice plural masculine nominative case. This means it describes something ongoing, being acted upon by multiple masculine subjects.

English transliteration: hypotassomenoi

Meaning: being subjected, submitting oneself/themselves

 

[Paidiske]

Not getting what you mean that " no form of that word is in the verse". Please clarify.

Neither that word, nor any of its cognate forms, is in verse 22. In order to make sense of verse 22, you have to refer to the word in verse 21.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Neither that word, nor any of its cognate forms, is in verse 22. In order to make sense of verse 22, you have to refer to the word in verse 21.

Humm...what is this then? Wrong?

 

[Paidiske]

Humm...what is this then? Wrong?

View attachment 349625

It's not in the usual Greek text. I checked and there's a footnote in my Greek NT saying that there is a variant in a minority of ancient manuscripts in which that word is present. Scholars think it was inserted by scribes trying to "fix" the lack of a verb.

 

[Diamond72]

Was this a command from Paul?

You are missing the point. The husband is to sacrifice himself for his wife the way Jesus sacrificed Himself for us. She does not submit to her husband, she submits to Christ through the authority of her husband. Clearly God does not want to wife to be in bondage to the husbands flesh. That would be prostitution if she were serving his flesh like that. We do see a lot of that in this world filled with porn. We do not see the intimacy that the Husband and Wife are to have with each other.

 

[tall73]

Humm...what is this then? Wrong?

View attachment 349625

The ISA tool you are using employs a Textus Receptus Scriveners text, at least in the newer editions, from what I understand. So it is present in that text. Bibles such as the KJV, and NKJV are based on a form of the Textus Receptus.

You will also find it in the Byzantine Majority text. In other words, in the majority of manuscripts some similar form occurs. And this was the text largely used by the Greek speaking church.

According to the Text-Critical English New Testament, Byzantine text edition, It looks like around 94 percent of manuscripts have some form with submit in it.

What @Paidiske is likely referencing by the "usual" text, is the UBS United Bible Society/ NA Nestle-Aland text, or sometimes just referred to as the critical text. A majority of newer translations use a critical text, though they may rely on the UBS/NA, plus other resources, etc.

If Paidiske is using a different text, she can let us know.

There is also a new critical text, the SBLGNT, or Society for Biblical Literature, and it does not have the word either.

It's not in the usual Greek text. I checked and there's a footnote in my Greek NT saying that there is a variant in a minority of ancient manuscripts in which that word is present. Scholars think it was inserted by scribes trying to "fix" the lack of a verb.

I think you may have it turned around. The number of witnesses that have the shorter reading, without the word, are fewer, but older. So on the theory that it was clarified with the later text the majority of the committee working on the UBS/NA text preferred the shorter reading. Sorry for the bad photo, but it was hard to get it to lay flat. This is Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament":

 

[Mark Quayle]

The ISA tool you are using employs a Textus Receptus Scriveners text, at least in the newer editions, from what I understand. So it is present in that text. Bibles such as the KJV, and NKJV are based on a form of the Textus Receptus.

You will also find it in the Byzantine Majority text. In other words, in the majority of manuscripts some similar form occurs. And this was the text largely used by the Greek speaking church.

According to the Text-Critical English New Testament, Byzantine text edition, It looks like around 94 percent of manuscripts have some form with submit in it.

What @Paidiske is likely referencing by the "usual" text, is the UBS United Bible Society/ NA Nestle-Aland text, or sometimes just referred to as the critical text. A majority of newer translations use a critical text, though they may rely on the UBS/NA, plus other resources, etc.

If Paidiske is using a different text, she can let us know.

There is also a new critical text, the SBLGNT, or Society for Biblical Literature, and it does not have the word either.



I think you may have it turned around. The number of witnesses that have the shorter reading, without the word, are fewer, but older. So on the theory that it was clarified with the later text the majority of the committee working on the UBS/NA text preferred the shorter reading. Sorry for the bad photo, but it was hard to get it to lay flat. This is Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament":

View attachment 350193

If you expect a response from any particular person, you should reference that person with the @method. It's not a good habit to talk about others without them knowing it. And none of us can read everything. But I can't speak for @Paidiske

 

[tall73]

@Mark Quayle I used the @ tag and quoted her, either of which would notify her.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle I used the @ tag and quoted her, either of which would notify her.

Thank you. My bad. I didn't see that.

 

[Paidiske]

If Paidiske is using a different text, she can let us know.

I usually start with the NA text, but I also use an online tool which is the same in this instance. Not sure which that is, but it's not really a critical point.

I think you may have it turned around. The number of witnesses that have the shorter reading, without the word, are fewer, but older.

Yes. But we think that the larger number of more recent examples are all copies of one edited variant (there are more examples of this kind of editing in the TR), which is why the oldest manuscripts don't have that word present. And are considered more trustworthy.

 

[tall73]

Yes. But we think that the larger number of more recent examples are all copies of one edited variant (there are more examples of this kind of editing in the TR), which is why the oldest manuscripts don't have that word present. And are considered more trustworthy.

I was not arguing with the logic of the committee. The view of the committee is the dominant scholarly position.

I do think the other side, majority text proponents, have some strong arguments, but it is not the dominant view. And that could be reserved for a different thread.

I was trying to help the poster understand why the word was in her text, but not in yours. And also, just to clarify that the argument is based on the early date of the witnesses, rather than the number of witnesses.

In either case, the scholars are not indicating that the meaning is confusing. The word for submit is carried over in some from 21. But it is repeated again in any case in 24, in the simile between the church submitting to Christ, and wives to husbands.

Ephesians 5:21-24 21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ.
22 Αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ, 23 ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος. 24 ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. (SBL NT)

 

[Paidiske]

And also, just to clarify that the argument is based on the early date of the witnesses, rather than the number of witnesses.

I would say it's the number of early witnesses. If you have lots of late witnesses, but they're all copies of one early witness, they really don't amount to anything much in terms of evidence.

 

[tall73]

I usually start with the NA text, but I also use an online tool which is the same in this instance. Not sure which that is, but it's not really a critical point.

If you have a freely available online source with the NA text and notes, please post it. That would be handy for folks.

 

[Paidiske]

No notes, but this is one site I use. Greek New Testament Reader with Word Parsing, Morphology, and Dictionary, Lexicon. I hadn't looked into its underlying scholarship in detail, but apparently it's not always consistent with the NA. It is on this verse, though.