ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

I cannot tell you how good this book is:

Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen Jobes & Moises Silva

A few posts ago, I suggested that it would be more helpful for students to learn case usage based on the lexical semantics of verbs rather than on cases and functions. I was probably rightly criticized for being so broad sweeping in my words, but I continue to hold that there would be great benefit in teaching semantic roles to students in some form – not necessarily what Danove or Wong have done (by the way, I just picked up Danove’s book for a great price).

I’d like to approach the issue from the different angle. Instead of simply glossing over the vast complications of how cases work, I’ll like to give you a case study that results from the many commentaries on Ephesians that I have read.

By basing our study on semantic roles rather than on case categories, we can teach students to focus more on the clause than on individual words – i.e. What’s happening semantically in this clause? Not – How is this word in the dative functioning?

I’d like to give an extended example from a commentary – actually my third favorite commentary on Ephesians. Its the longest commentary on Ephesians every written in English and is more comprehensive than anything else out there. If you want to know the literature on a particular pericope, verse or sentence in Ephesians, you’ll want to go to Harold Hoehner’s Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. But as great as this commentary is, there are a number of times where Hoehner could have saved significant page space by focusing on how a given verb impacts the semantics and usages of the phrasal constituents within the clause. Specifically, by focusing on case categories and case usage instead of verbal semantic requirements, Hoehner at times conflated his exegesis and the number of exegetical options or meanings that are available or possible.

The clause in question here is Ephesians 1:22

καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ

Now this is one of the more difficult instances of δίδωμι in the New Testament already, but in what follows, you’ll see that by focusing on individual words and their cases rather than on the semantic role requirements of the verb, one’s discussion of even a single clause can become quite unnecessarily complicated.

Beginning on page 285, Hoehner gives the following discussion (highly summarized here):

First he delineates the proposed meanings of ἔδωκεν. It could either mean “he gave” or it could mean, “he appointed.” Hoehner chooses the former meaning on the basis of it being the primary one for the verb and since it makes “good sense in this context” (285).

From there he moves on to the meaning of κεφαλήν and ἐκκλησίᾳ. Hoehner rightly follows Richard Cervin and Andrew Perriman, who hold that κεφαλήν does not mean “authority,” but rather denotes preeminence or prominence (see Hoehner, 286 for references). As for ἐκκλησίᾳ, he holds that it refers to the universal church.

From there we move onto a discussion of the relationship between αὐτόν and κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα. First, κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα could be in apposition to αὐτόν: “he gave him, the head over everything…” Or, κεφαλὴν could be a double accusative: “he gave him as head over everything…” Hoehner’s third view sees ὑπὲρ πάντα as further defining κεφαλὴν so that it would mean that the apostles and prophets were heads of the church, but Christ is appointed head over all of them. Finally, the prepositional phrase could be viewed as  attributive to the noun. It would then mean, according to Hoehner, that Christ has been given by God to the church as the head over everything. This section of on the accusatives here is amazingly convoluted and redundant – particularly since, for the most part, all four views are virtually identical, which is extremely frustrating.

But this is what gets me.

From here Hoenher discusses the dative: τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. What does it mean? He writes,

There are three interpretations: first, it could be taken as a dative of reference or respect, that is, God appointed Christ as head over everything with respect to the the Church; second, it could be taken as [a, sic] dative of advantage, in which as god appointed or made Christ the head over everything for the church (RSV, NIV, NRSV); or third, it could be taken as a dative of indirect object, in which case God gave Christ to the church (AV, RV, ASV, NASB, NEB). The third option is preferred because it allows ἔδωκεν to be translated normally  as “he gave,” while the first two interpretations would make it necessary to translate the verb “he appointed” or “he made” (289).

I could go on from there, he gives a couple other reasons for why it should be an indirect object.

But this is the thing:

Had Hoehner simply stated at the very beginning of this 5 page discussion that δίδωμι with the sense “to give,” by definition, requires an Agent, Patient, and a Recipient, he would have saved a whole lot of ink and paper. He only needed to argue against the meaning, “to appoint” or “to make” once, but because he did his exegesis word by word, case by case, he had to do it multiple times – I think three total.

Worse still, in his five pages he lost the forest in looking at the trees and at times seemed to have made up a few exegetical options in his narrow word by word analysis.

Now I’m not arguing whether he’s correct or not about the meaning of δίδωμι here.

But either way, time and space could and should have been saved here by dealing with the semantic role requirements of the verb itself rather than dealing with each individual grammatical case in seclusion.

Davis asked the question in the comments of the last post:

What do you see are the main differences between teaching seminary students and teaching translators?

This is a good question and I answered it in the comments there, but I decided that my answer was worth promoting to a full post and I’ve expanded it somewhat as well.

Its mainly that translators and those planning on going into translation missions work already have the linguistic and grammatical background for studying the language.

Its like this: In Mounce’s first year grammar, he provides discussions of English grammar before discussing the Greek. This functions as a sort of way to provide hooks for students to hang the Greek grammatical discussion on. Most students, in general, do not take any sort of formal grammar classes even for English these days. This makes Mounce’s approach generally quite helpful and I attribute the success of his textbook to that fact. But at the same time, its partially not helpful because English Grammar and Greek Grammar do not coincide.

In contrast to that, when a student takes Grammatical Analysis at the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics, they learn how to recognize and analyze grammatical constructions and patterns well beyond the English language. This is because the goal of the classes there are to prepare students who are going to an unstudied minority language to both study and learn the grammar while also learning the language for communication. Such a goal requires a significantly larger view of grammar. So in effect, translation/linguistic students already have the hooks for learning Greek, but many of the hooks are vastly different than the ones Mounce provides through English comparison.

The secondly major different is a direct result of the previous. Because of the classes and studies taught to translation/linguistics student tradition grammar text books like Mounce are extremely foreign for the students – both in how inflectional morphology (e.g. case & number) and syntax (particularly phrase structure which is never touched on) are represented. Then there’s the issue of a vastly larger grammatical vocabulary that the translation/linguistics student has acquired for concepts that typically are not taught, but are important.

For example, no textbook that I’m aware of talks about Control Relationships in Greek. But they exist all over the place. The so-called adjectival participle clauses are in a control relationship with their head noun – i.e. the adjectival participle clause never has a Subject of its own. It relies on the Head noun it modifies for its subject. That is called a Control Relationship. The same thing happens with Adverbial Participle Clauses as well as a variety of Infinitive constructions.

On top of all of that, there is the issue of how languages are learned. Translation/linguistics students are also taught language learning methods that have significantly more in common with what Randall Buth is doing than what is done in virtually every other 1st year grammar available. After you’ve flown once first class on an airplane, the thought of flying coach will never have any appeal to you ever again, whereas before, the idea of flying in of itself was exciting.

So with all of this to teach translation/linguistics students with a traditional textbook leaves the students frustrated because 1) they know there are better and easier ways to learn the language and 2) their understanding of how to study and learn grammar in general is often in direct contradiction of the methods and descriptions provided in the traditional textbook.

Aside from the question of authorship, I continue to consider Andrew Lincoln’s WBC to be the best commentary on Ephesians in existence.

In the most recent spat of Review of Bibilcal Literature reviews, Lincoln reviews Talbert’s commentary on Ephesians and Colossians, focusing on Ephesians. Its worth a read. While his introduction and conclusion are generally positive, the body is surprisingly negative in comparison.

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’m enjoying some delicious Rio Star Texas Grapefruit. Undoubtedly the sweetest grapefruit in existence – and grown, incidentally just a few miles away from where my grandfather teaches.

Oh yeah.

This blog now features threaded comments – so that you can more efficiently argue with each other.

Have at it.

I don’t know if I can continue this Ephesiand discussion…I can’t keep up with the comments! There’s too many!

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.