Heads, bodies, submission and BDAG: Andrew Bartlett’s response to my article on Ephesians 5
Below is Andrew’s response to my latest article. I try to send Andrew an advanced draft of what I’m about to say and keen-eyed observers will notice that I amended the first comment he picks up on, prompted by his comment. With his agreement however, I’ve left the comment as is. This is partly as it gives us a prompt to pick up on something that is pertinent to the ongoing discussion. Partly because I thought it might be helpful to give readers a window into the behind the scenes back and forth that is going on.
Andrew writes…
Here are my brief comments on what you have written:
“Well, Ephesians has already told us how we are to submit to him, in particular where it uses “headship language. Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22)”
But this reasoning does not accurately reflect the text of Scripture. The head and body are united as one (as also in 5:31-32). According to Paul, the church, which is Christ’s body, is seated in the heavenly places with Christ, far above all rule and authority (Ephesians 1:21). In 1:22 Christ is head over all things for the church. The relationship between head and body is described in 4:15-16 – it is a life-giving, nutritious union that facilitates growth in love.
“So, what are wives to do when it comes to submitting to their husbands, I want to suggest that it means that they should entrust themselves to their husbands”
But ‘submit to’ (hupotassō in the middle voice) does not mean ‘entrust yourself to’. It means ‘place yourself under’ – in other words, treat the other person as more important than yourself. This is why this word works beautifully in 5:21 as a description of Christian humility toward one another.
“Laying down your life, putting the other’s needs first seem to me to be good examples of submission, we have been told to submit to one another (v21) and I don’t think that we can read an exception clause in for husbands.”
Yes, we agree on this. And it makes all the more sense when we remember the high pedestal on which husbands were placed in Greco-Roman and Jewish culture. Paul is instructing the husbands to climb down from that high place and be servants of their wives, treating their wives as more important than themselves. This mirrors what Jesus did, coming down from his place in heaven and becoming the slave of all (Philippians 2:3-8, Mark 10:44-45). It is the very antithesis of instructing husbands to exercise their social and legal authority over their wives.
“There isn’t a general Scriptural instruction for men to exercise authority over women”
Yes. And it is worth noting that, similarly, there isn’t any Scriptural instruction for husbands to exercise authority over their wives or to lead their wives. This is an important corrective to most complementarian interpretations.
“BDAG”
On a point of methodology, I see that you twice cite BDAG as an authority. I have found that BDAG is not a reliable source when considering texts which affect how women are viewed. For example, for phluaros (which Paul uses in 1 Tim 5:13), it gives the meaning ‘gossipy’. This rendering expresses a traditional prejudice about women, but Fee points out that there is no ancient example of this supposed meaning. It refers to talking nonsense (as does the related verb phluareō in 3 John 10). This example is one of many such errors in BDAG.
In a p.s. Andrew also observes
“In fact, the imperative “submit” is missing from E4phesians 5:22.” What you say is correct, based on the earliest manuscripts, and I agree with you. Just a reminder (or in case you are not already aware): in a remarkable departure from the straightforward application of the normal principles of text criticism, the 2017 Tyndale House NT text (I think, through the influence of complementarian scholar Peter Gurry) treats the later inserted imperative as if it were original.
Although he added that as a p.s. I do want to pick up on this point as well.
Faithroots 