Browse / Scripture Commentary / Comment
Charis

Charis

2010-06-02

Dave (19) Mark and TL

Not going to quote all of you in the interest of time.

TL keeps saying hupotasso is voluntarily arranging under someone else. Mark has given us the definition from BAGD- “subordinate”. Dave strenuously objects to the idea of “subordinate”, can’t mean that, must mean “submissive”….

The Greek roots are hupo- under and tasso- arrange or order. Same for the Latin roots of the english word “subordinate” sub=under and ordinate=arrange.

Personally I dislike both “SUBORDINATE” and “SUBMIT”. I prefer “being subject” in Eph 5:21 and “are subject” in Eph 5:24. IMO, it better conveys the PASSIVE force of the verbs used.

Now, if we look at Eph 5:24 where God an Paul make a statement which IS NOT ADDRESSED TO WIVES but to the entire audience:

“but even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also [are] the wives to their own husbands in everything. ” Eph 5:24 YLT

Dave said:

Note the difference between the two. One has to do with placing things in a natural order – something we might or might not have control over. The other has to do with where we choose to place ourselves – it is about the choice of being the last, not the first.

So, Dave and TL
you think the wife is being told in Ephesians 5:24 that she is supposed to
ALWAYS VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO BE LAST
ALWAYS VOLUNTARILY COME UNDER
????????????????????????????????

TBH, I lived that for 22 years of marriage and its horrid bondage
a very bad way of understanding what Paul/God is saying there A message that makes the wife pretty much disappear into the woodwork because “whatever he says, goes”. I mean Eph 5:24 says EVERYTHING and if she is responsible to voluntarily “be submissive” to him in EVERYTHING there might as well not be a her. God shouldn’t have made her at all. Clone Adam or stop with a dog or monkey.

Nope.

The verb is PASSIVE.

And I prefer the translation “SUBJECT” because it is a more accurate description of what the verse means. Paul is describing to the congregation that withing marriage a wife IS SUBJECT to her husband in a completely involuntary way IN EVERYTHING. Her husband’s decisions and behavior will have a massive impact and affect on her. Like a garden IS SUBJECT to the gardener. If the gardener withholds nourishing and cherishing, the garden will die. Or, as the passage indicates, like parts of a body ARE SUBJECT to one another. They are intimately connected and work together.

I just learned about homeostasis in the human body- how the body regulates. For example, if you are cold, you shiver and that helps warm you. I think the way of understanding Eph 5 which makes the wife responsible to voluntarily submit to her husband IN EVERYTHING ruins homeostasis of the marriage. No longer is she allowed to shiver when his decisions are making her cold, she must abort her natural response to the deprivation in order to let him be first. I submit that that understanding is actually the polar opposite of what Paul/God is describing. Paul/God is saying Wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands in EVERYTHING. Its a DESCRIPTION not a PREscription. So husbands- if you take her out in the freezing cold with no coat, she’s gonna shiver! That’s homeostasis of the “one flesh” of marriage! And husbands, BTW, you are to LOVE, NOURISH, CHERISH {Greek thalpo=keep warm}

Your Tags

Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.

...more