ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

18 καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, 19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ, 20 εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί. 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.

Barbara Aland et al., The Greek New Testament (4th ed.; Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979), 512.

(18) [A]nd do not get drunk on wine – that way ruin lies – but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to each other in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and chanting in your hearts to the Lord, (20) always giving thanks for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to him who is God and Father. (21) Submit to each other out of reverence for Christ: (22) wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord, (23) because Man is the head of Woman as also Christ is the head of the Church, being himself the saviour of the Body. (24) But as the Church submits to Christ so also wives are to be to their husbands in everything.

John Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians (BNTC 10; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004) 243-344, 256.

Now I’m definitely not satisfied with Muddiman’s translation and do not care for his division between 20 & 21 in his commentary, but there are some definite strengths.

I’m curious what other think of his treatment of the ellipsis in verses 22 & 24 and how well you think it fits (or doesn’t fit) with the passage.

I’m cynical about the vocative. Its clear that extremely early interpreters who knew Greek (i.e. the scribes who introduced the 3rd plural imperative reading considered “wives” to be nominative: “Wives should submit to their own husbands…” I think that fits just as well without the verb: “…wives to their own husbands…”

Slowly, you’re getting more and more small pieces of my view of this passage.

I don’t have much time this week for analysis, but I will post the textual evidence for this verse taken from a variety of sources:

Tischendorf:

τοις ιδι. ανδρασιν sine additam cum B cdd ap Hier Clem⁵⁹² (citat vv. 21–25). Sic autem Hier ad h. l. “Hoc quod in Latinis exemplaribus additum est: subditae sint, in Graecis codd. non habetur, siquidem ad superiora refertur et subauditur: subiecti invicem in timore Christi, ut απο κοινου resonet subiectae, et mulieres viris suis sicut domino. Sed hoc magis in Graeco intelligitur quam in Latino.” … ϛ (Gb) add υποτασσεσθε cum KL al plu syr^utr Chr al, item post γυναικες DEFG d e g 19^lect … Ln add υποτασσεσθωσαν cum אAP al fere¹⁰ (et. cat^txt) f vg go cop arm aeth Clem³⁰⁸ (sed ibi tantum v. 22 affert) Bas^{eth 309} (sed incipit locus a versus 22) Euthal^cod Thdrt Dam^{parall 406} et Dam^paris Or^{int 3,61} Victorin Ambrst al (2:693)

Metzger’s Textual Commentary:

Comfort & Barrett’s Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (P46):

NET Note:

Now there are a couple of issues to deal with first here. For one, I don’t really feel like typing out the NA27 evidence, nor is it terribly necessary. Our bases are relatively well covered here.

Secondly, there is some variation regarding how Origen is cited: this post and especially the comments, clear up that issue.

So here are my questions for my readers today:

#1. What do you think of the NET’s proposed chronology? Why?

∅ ->ὑποτασσέσθωσαν -> ὑποτάσσεσθε

#2. What do you think of the NET’s explanation for the textual development (i.e. the addition originated in the lectionaries)? Why?

This post picks up from John’s comment a couple posts back:

On another thread, Mike has already stated his opinion that upotassomai involves (let me put it this way) acceptance of someone’s lead “in their sphere of authority.”

So, unless Mike has since changed his mind, we in agreement on this point.

I’m not sure that anyone would say otherwise – e.g. even in the 1 Clement 38 where ὑποτάσσομαι is also paired with ἀλλήλοις there is still that sense which I’ve described, which we’ll now examine:

“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

Σῳζέσθω οὖν ἡμῶν ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ὑποτασσέσθω ἕκαστος τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ, καθὼς καὶ ἐτέθη ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι αὐτοῦ.

Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 70-71.

In 1 Clement submission does not refer to and ordered structure of authority but simply where one defers to another regarding gifting. Submission becomes an act where one person defers to another depending on circumstances or abilities. In fact we see that the one who is in authority in 1 Clement actually ends up serving the one who submits. The following sentence continues:

(1) The strong must not neglect the weak, and the weak must respect the strong. Let the rich support the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He has given him someone through whom his needs may be met. Let the wise display his wisdom not in words but in good works. The humble person should not testify to his own humility, but leave it to someone else to testify about him. Let the one who is physically pure remain so and not boast, recognizing that it is someone else who grants this self-control. (3) Let us acknowledge, brothers, from what matter we were made; who and what we were, when we came into the world; from what grave and what darkness he who made and created us brought us into his world, having prepared his benefits for us before we were born. (4) Seeing, therefore, that we have all these things from him, we ought in every respect to give thanks to him, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

(2) ὁ ἰσχυρὸς μὴ <ἀτημελείτω> τὸν ἀσθενῆ, ὁ δὲ ἀσθενὴς ἐντρεπέσθω τὸν ἰσχυρόν· ὁ πλούσιος ἐπιχορηγείτω τῷ πτωχῷ, ὁ δὲ πτωχὸς εὐχαριστείτω τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ διʼ οὗ ἀναπληρωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὑστέρημα. ὁ σοφὸς ἐνδεικνύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λόγοις ἀλλʼ ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς· ὁ ταπεινοφρονῶν μὴ ἑαυτῷ μαρτυρείτω, ἀλλʼ ἐάτω ὑφʼ ἑτέρου ἑαυτὸν μαρτυρεῖσθαι· ὁ ἁγνὸς ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ <ἢτω> καὶ μὴ ἀλαζονευέσθω, γινώσκων ὅτι ἕτερός ἐστιν ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν. (3) ἀναλογισώμεθα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐκ ποίας ὕλης ἐγενήθημεν, ποῖοι καὶ τίνες εἰσήλθαμεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον· ἐκ ποίου τάφου καὶ σκότους ὁ πλάσας ἡμᾶς καὶ δημιουργήσας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον αὐτοῦ, προετοιμάσας τὰς εὐεργεσίας αὐτοῦ πρὶν ἡμᾶς γεννηθῆναι. (4) ταῦτα οὖν πάντα ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες ὀφείλομεν κατὰ πάντα εὐχαριστεῖν αὐτῷ· ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

Ibid.

So we see in this passage that the strong are the authority on strength, the rich are the authority on wealth, etc. But each of those cases, still we see that the author places the treatment of the weak and poor within the context of mutual submission – just as Paul does in Ephesians 5:21 with love and respect for the husband and wife. What’s clear here is that the author is talking about “mutual deference” (I don’t use “submit for reasons discussed previously), but the expectation for the weak τοὶς ὑποτασσόμενοις (pardon the code-switching) is to respect the strong – that’s ὑποτασσόμενοι for them. So what’s interesting for me is the parallel between the 1 Clement 38 & Ephesians 5. Again the greater burden is placed on the strong/husband and his role and actions not on the weak/wife. The author of 1 Clement goes further (at least in the short passage) emphasizing the great need for humility for the strong and rich.

And there are a good half dozen other themes that pop out here that parallel Ephesians – e.g. read the “where we’ve come from” sentences in light of Ephesians 4 that are equally relevant to the topic at hand as well.

I would consider this passage to potentially be our earliest documented application of our Ephesians passage – and thus an important key for interpreting it. Granted, that is only speculation, but I think its reasonable speculation considering both the verbal and thematic parallels between the two.

The Greek text is from Documenta Catholica Omnia, though I’ve removed the numbers and set line breaks based on the punctuation. I haven’t yet finished a translation of this section. I’ve actually haven’t done much more than the first couple sentences, so for now, we’ll just have the Greek. English will appear eventually. I’ll do this in parts – here is part αʹ.

ΟΜΙΛΙΑ Κʹ.
Αἱ γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτάσσεσθε, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, ὅτι ὁ ἀνήρ ἐστι κεφαλὴ τῆς γυ ναικὸς, ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς Ἐκκλη σίας, καὶ αὐτός ἐστι σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος.
Ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἡ Ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Κυρίῳ, οὕτω καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί.
αʹ.
Σοφός τις ἀνὴρ ἐν τάξει μακαρισμῶν πολλὰ θεὶς, ἓν καὶ τοῦτο τέθεικεν ἐν τάξει μακαρισμοῦ·
Καὶ γυνὴ, φησὶν, ἀνδρὶ συμπεριφερομένη.
Καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ μετὰ τῶν μακαρισμῶν αὐτὸ τίθησι, τὸ γυναῖκα ἀνδρὶ μετὰ ὁμονοίας συνεῖναι.
Καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς δὲ πολλὴν ὁ Θεὸς φαίνεται πρόνοιαν πεποιημένος τῆς συζυγίας ταύτης·
καὶ ὡς περὶ ἑνὸς, περὶ ἀμφοτέρων διαλεγόμενος, οὕτως ἔλεγεν·
Ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς·
καὶ πάλιν, Οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ.
Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνδρὸς πρὸς ἄνδρα τοσαύτη οἰκειότης, ὅση γυναικὸς πρὸς ἄνδρα, ἂν ᾖ τις, ὡς χρὴ, συνεζευγμένος.
Διὰ τοῦτο καί τις τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν ἀγάπην δηλῶν μακάριος ἀνὴρ, καί τινα τῶν αὐτῷ φίλων καὶ ὁμοψύχων πενθῶν, οὐ πατέρα εἶπεν, οὐ μητέρα, οὐ τέκνον, οὐκ ἀδελφὸν, οὐ φίλον, ἀλλὰ τί;
Ἔπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἡ ἀγάπησίς σου, φησὶν, ὡς ἀγάπησις τῶν γυναικῶν.
Ὄντως γὰρ, ὄντως πάσης τυραννίδος αὕτη ἡ ἀγάπη τυραννικωτέρα.
Αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλαι, σφοδραί·
αὕτη δὲ ἡ ἐπιθυμία ἔχει καὶ τὸ σφοδρὸν, καὶ τὸ ἀμάραντον.
Ἔνεστι γάρ τις ἔρως ἐμφωλεύων τῇ φύσει, καὶ λανθάνων ἡμᾶς συμπλέκει ταῦτα τὰ σώματα.
Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς ἡ γυνὴ, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνή.
Ὁρᾷς σύνδεσμον καὶ συμπλοκὴν, καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀφῆκεν ἑτέραν ἐπεισελθεῖν οὐσίαν ἔξωθεν;
Καὶ ὅρα πόσα ᾠκονόμησε.
Τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἠνέσχετο γαμῆσαι αὐτὸν τὴν αὑτοῦ, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐ τὴν ἀδελφὴν, ἀλλὰ τὴν θυγατέρα, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐ τὴν θυγατέρα, ἀλλά τι πλέον θυγατρὸς, τὴν σάρκα τὴν αὑτοῦ.
Τὸ δὲ ὅλον ἐποίησεν ἄνωθεν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λίθων, εἰς ἓν αὐτοὺς συνάγων.
Οὔτε γὰρ ἔξωθεν αὐτὴν εἰργάσατο, ἵνα μὴ ὡς ἀλλοτρία προσέχῃ·
οὔτε πάλιν μέχρις αὐτῆς τὸν γάμον ἔστησεν, ἵνα μὴ συστέλλων ἑαυτὸν καὶ συνάγων, τῶν λοιπῶν χωρίζηται.
Καὶ καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν φυτῶν ἐκεῖνα μάλιστά ἐστιν ἄριστα, ἂν καὶ ἓν πρέμνον ἔχῃ, καὶ εἰς πολλοὺς κλάδους ἐκτείνηται, ὡς ἐὰν περὶ τὴν ῥίζαν στρέφηται μόνον πάντα εἰκῆ·
κἂν καὶ πολλὰς ἔχῃ τὰς ῥίζας, οὐκέτι θαυμαστὸν τὸ δένδρον·
οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα, ἐξ ἑνὸς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τὸ πᾶν ἐποίησε φυτευθῆναι γένος, τοῦ μὴ διασπᾶσθαι καὶ χωρίζεσθαι καταστήσας εἰς ἀνάγκην μεγάλην.
Καὶ μᾶλλον συστέλλων, οὐκέτι ἐποίησεν ἀδελφὰς γαμεῖσθαι καὶ θυγατέρας, ἵνα μὴ πάλιν τὴν ἀγάπην εἰς τὸ ἓν συστέλλωμεν, καὶ ἑτέρως ἑαυτῶν χωριζώμεθα.
Διὰ τοῦτο ἔλεγεν·
Ὁ ποιήσας ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς.
Μεγάλα γὰρ ἀπὸ τούτου κακὰ τίκτεται καὶ μεγάλα [62.136] καλὰ καὶ οἰκίαις καὶ πόλεσιν.
Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως ἡμῶν συγκροτεῖ τὸν βίον, ὡς ἔρως ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός·
ὑπὲρ τούτου καὶ ὅπλα πολλοὶ τίθενται, ὑπὲρ τούτου καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν προδιδόασιν.
Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ εἰκῆ πολλὴν ὑπὲρ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος ἐποιήσατο τὴν σπουδὴν Παῦλος, λέγων·
Αἱ γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτάσσεσθε, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ.
Τί δήποτε;
Ὅτι ἐὰν ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ὦσιν οὗτοι, καὶ παῖδες τρέφονται καλῶς, καὶ οἰκέται εὐτακτοῦσι, καὶ γείτονες ἀπολαύουσι τῆς εὐωδίας, καὶ φίλοι καὶ συγγενεῖς·
ἐὰν δὲ τοὐναντίον, πάντα ἀνατέτραπται καὶ συγκέχυται.
Καὶ καθάπερ τῶν στρατηγῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἰρηνευόντων, πάντα ἐν ἀκολουθίᾳ ἐστὶ, καὶ ταραττομένων πάλιν ἐκείνων, πάντα ἄνω καὶ κάτω γίνεται·
οὕτω δὴ καὶ νῦν.
Διὸ, Αἱ γυναῖκες, φησὶ, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτάσσεσθε, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ.
Βαβαί! πῶς οὖν ἀλλαχοῦ λέγεις·
Ἐὰν μή τις ἀποτάξηται καὶ γυναικὶ καὶ ἀνδρὶ, οὐ δύναται ἀκολουθῆσαί μοι;
Εἰ γὰρ ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ ὑποτάσσεσθαι χρὴ, πῶς λέγει διὰ τὸν Κύριον ἀφίστασθαι;
Καὶ σφόδρα μὲν οὖν χρή·
ἀλλὰ τὸ, ὡς, οὐ πάντως πανταχοῦ ἰσοτιμίας ἐστίν.
Ἢ τοῦτό φησιν·
Ὡς εἰδυῖαι ὅτι τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύετε·
ὅπερ καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ φησιν, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μὴ διὰ ἄνδρα, ἀλλὰ προηγουμένως διὰ τὸν Κύριον·
ἢ, Ὅταν ὑπείκῃς τῷ ἀνδρὶ, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύουσα ἡγοῦ πείθεσθαι.
Εἰ γὰρ Ὁ ἀρχαῖς ταύταις ταῖς ἔξωθεν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀντιτασσόμενος, τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκε, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ τῷ ἀνδρὶ μὴ ὑποτασσομένη.
Οὕτως ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἠθέλησε, φησὶν, ὁ Θεός.
Ὑποθώμεθα οὖν τὸν μὲν ἄνδρα ἐν τάξει κεῖσθαι κεφαλῆς, τὴν δὲ γυναῖκα ἐν τάξει σώματος.
Εἶτα καὶ ἀπὸ λογισμῶν δεικνὺς, Ὅτι ὁ ἀνὴρ κεφαλή ἐστι τῆς γυναικὸς, φησὶ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ αὐτός ἐστι σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος.
Ἀλλ’ ὡς ἡ Ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτω καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί.
Εἶτα, Ὁ ἀνήρ ἐστιν, εἰπὼν, κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς, ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ αὐτός ἐστι σωτὴρ, ἐπάγει, τοῦ σώματος·
καὶ γὰρ ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος σωτηρία ἐστίν.
Ἤδη προκατεβάλετο τῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ τῆς ἀγάπης τὴν ὑπόθεσιν καὶ τὴν πρόνοιαν, ἑκάστῳ τὴν προσήκουσαν ἀπονέμων χώραν, τούτῳ μὲν τὴν ἀρχικὴν καὶ προνοητικὴν, ἐκείνῃ δὲ τὴν ὑποτακτικήν.

In light of the present discussion, I’m bring back up my translation of Chrysostom on Ephesians 5:21. If for anything, it would be nice to get it critiqued again.

The problem of verses twenty-one and twenty-two can be most easily seen in the perspectives of Max Turner and Daniel Wallace. The latter writes in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, “In Ephesians, a more polished, less emotional letter, we are surprised to find [anacoluthon of the conjunction] at the beginning of the “house tables” (5:22): αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ (no other paragraph after 1:3 in the body of this letter begins without a conjunction).”^[1] Wallace believes verse twenty-two not only begins a new sentence but a new paragraph, in accordance with the English Bible translations.

On the other hand, Max Turner disagrees.  Regarding verses 18-24, he writes, “These verses are grammatically a single sentence (obscured by all translations).”^[2]

These two very different perspectives, both by respected grammarians are bewildering to me. There is a question that I would be inclined to as Wallace. You can probably imagine what it is. And I look forward to Turner’s NIGTC volume on this letter/homily.

^[2] Max Turner, “Ephesians,” n. p., in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition by D. A. Carson, ed., in The Essential IVP Reference Collection on CD-ROM (Rev. ed. of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd ed. / Edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970; 4th ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), Eph 5:3.

There are very few textually transparent translations of Ephesians 5:22. In fact, there are only three truly transparent ones of the 12 shown below – four if you include the NET, which though providing a text critical discussion is not actually transparent to the text it reads. What we need are translations that accurately represent their textual decisions either by a footnote or in the translation.

These first eight give no indication in either direction as to what text is read – the imperative or the ellipsis.

1. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ESV
2. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. GNB
3. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. NIV
4. Wives, yield to your husbands, as you do to the Lord. NCV
5. For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. NLT
6. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. NRSV
7. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. RSV
8. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. TNIV

The next three either give a note or italicize the words not in the original text:

1. Wives, submit ⁱ to your own husbands as to the Lord. HCSB
   ⁱ Other mss omit submit
2. Wives, submit yourselvesⁱ to your husbands as to the Lord. ISV
   ⁱ Other mss. lack submit yourselves

3. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, NASB95

Finally, the NET provides a lengthy note, but reads an imperative in the translation anyway. So much for accuracy.

1. Wives, submit³² to your husbands as to the Lord, NET

   ---

   ³² tc The witnesses for the shorter reading (in which the verb “submit” is only implied) are minimal (P⁴⁶ B Cl Hier^mss), but significant and early. The rest of the witnesses add one of two verb forms as required by the sense of the passage (picking up the verb from v. 21). Several of these witnesses have ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (hupotassesthōsan), the third person imperative (so א A I P Ψ 0278 33 81 1175 1739 1881 al lat co), while other witnesses, especially the later Byzantine cursives, read ὑποτάσσεσθε (hupotassesthe), the second person imperative (D F G M sy). The text virtually begs for one of these two verb forms, but the often cryptic style of Paul’s letters argues for the shorter reading. The chronology of development seems to have been no verb – third person imperative – second person imperative. It is not insignificant that early lectionaries began a new day’s reading with v. 22; these most likely caused copyists to add the verb at this juncture.

Most the translations are disappointing, providing no note at all. Two of the translations that do, well, follow the more difficult reading to defend text critically. One translation makes the translated source text some what clear by using italics, but provides no explanation or note, not to mention the fact that the use of italics in a translation is itself a dubious procedure. Finally, the last translation provides an extremely helpful and length note, but then creates the same textual reading in English that it says in the note is not original.

Thus, just as John Hobbins has discussed for the Old Testament, translations generally do an extremely poor job on textual criticism and explanation in the New Testament.

Honestly, the division of these two verses, in my opinion, is a perfect example of Biblical scholars knowing little to nothing about how language functions holistically, particularly at the level of pragmatics and discourse – this is one occasion where my always seeking to give the benefit of the doubt really struggles.

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been irritated with the explanation,

“The imperative mood is implied in verse 22.”

That’s not an explanation. That’s a cop out.

Its a group on Facebook that recently found my post summarizing his discussion of the the phrase “Holy Spirit” in Paul and its variations in Greek.

There are some other good summaries about Fee’s scholarship and his very excellent article on the cultural context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9. From a textual standpoint, Fee is one of the very few who has accurately treated this passage the way it should be treated – starting at verse 18. I can’t tell you how frustrated I get with all the commentaries that either split it at either verse 21 or 22. There is no grammatical justification for either of those – its a theological decision rather than a textual one.

Logos has released a number of different Greek resources where the Greek text of the New Testament is tagged with Louw & Nida numbers.

• The Lexham Greek English Interlinear
• Opentext.org’s Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament
• The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament

On top of that, Logos has also developed tables that link a give Greek word to its correct lexical entry in L&N. This was a big task. It used to be that keylinking on a word to L&N would take you to the word’s entry in volume 2 and then from there you could choose any of the possible lexical entries.

But there has always been a problem. You seen, Louw & Nida followed the practice of differentiating lexemes from lexical forms when the middle/passively inflected form differred in meaning from the active even in the Greek index of volume 2. Thus, there is an entry in the Greek index for both υποτάσσω and also υποτάσσομαι. Unfortunately, most people are not aware of this. Thus when we look at all these resources tagged for L&N numbers, we are always taken to υποτάσσω rather than υποτάσσομαι and give the wrong meaning.

In terms of definitions, the difference is startling:

36.18 ὑποτάσσομαι; ὑποταγή, ῆς; ὑπείκω: to submit to the orders or directives of someone—‘to obey, to submit to, obedience, submission.’
L&N, 1:467.

37.31 ὑποτάσσω; καταστέλλω: to bring something under the firm control of someone—‘to subject to, to bring under control.’
L&N, 1:475.

You can imagine what this would meaning for Ephesians 5.21 if we took the meaning that presently every Logos resources provides us with.

All of these resources have been tagged by different people. Opentext is by Stanley Porter and Co., the Lexham interlinear is by W. Hall Harris III, and the tables were done by Logos (creating the tables didn’t make anything worse since keylinking before the tables still didn’t send you to the correct entry in the index).

There is still one resources left that can get it right. The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament is yet to produce Ephesians. I do hope that they get it right on their first pass. And…I also hope that the other completed resources will be corrected in the near future. I have a feeling that there are a number of other words that are in similar situations and we simply do not know it.