Submission of Women

TJ Curioso

We all know what says Ephesians 5:21-23 (NWT):

21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body.

Others translations like KJV, read something like the NWT.

In the other day, I cross with some information in the net (youtube and other pages of religious ministers) about the subject of women's subjection to the men (husband) and saw that some people say that in the original greek the word subjection don't appear in the vers. 22.

They say that if the vers.22 said that the wife need to be in subjection to the husband, that translation of the greek, will run counter the vers. 21 that says "be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ".

In relation to the word in greek for HEAD, they say that in original greek, in the New Testament and in the normal use of the language at that time, never meant lidership or chief , but origin.

What to you think about it?

WTWizard

This is what I think of it:

No one should initiate the use of force, threats of force, or fraud against any person or their property. This is not limited to just plain men, either--keeping someone in absolute submission is initiatory force, coercion, and/or fraud and should not be tolerated. Women are not like dogs--it is totally acceptable to keep a dog in absolute submission because they are not able to think ahead like people are.

Married to the Mob

I think it would be worth remembering where the bible came from and how it was translated over the years.

During the middle ages up to the turn of the 20 century the bible was studied by monks and those with money who were literate. In preaching the bible was used to ensure order and moral order. As everyone believed that god made the world the bible could be used to enforce justice. In those days as well it was very much the man who was the head of the household, provider of housing and sustinance and thus the boss.

Thus in translation this was reflected. However the translation since has barely changed and the NWT just then takes if further!

In all truth the bible rules can be used and not used, argued and counter argued. Even christ said that the rules didn't matter for the life or welfare of a person, which is a point that is somewhat over looked by JW as it doesn't fit their doctrine.

My choice is not to use that rule! I think free thinking and besides I have enough trouble thinking for myself, let alone anyone else!

TJ Curioso

Can anyone comment on the grammatical issue of the Greek text in question?

Pleeeese…

ziddina

(I'm going to be a brat here... I apologize in advance...)

WTWizard, I totally agree with almost everything you said...

But my dog does eagerly anticipate dinnertime, so she DOES 'think ahead'...

Sort of...

rebel8

OK, I'll comment on the grammatical issue.

One guy wrote down a bunch of his personal opinions on a scroll.

A few generations later, someone started saying those old writings were inspired of the one true spook in the sky.

The rumor started catching on, so much that it became a generally-accepted "truth", like the telephone game.

To disseminate this "fact", people copied it over on other scrolls, putting their own twist on it due to personal preferences, sociopathology, or illiteracy.

Jehoopies made up their own religion based on a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of someone's personal opinions, but claimed the ability to divine the spook's original intent by studying ancient languages (even when they hadn't studied ancient languages).

DaCheech

up until recent century women were not allowed to own property

Leolaia

in the original greek the word subjection don't appear in the vers. 22.

No, but it is implied as the construction is verbless and depends on hupotassomenoi in the preceding verse.

They say that if the vers.22 said that the wife need to be in subjection to the husband, that translation of the greek, will run counter the vers. 21 that says "be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ".

This seeming egalitarianism is not reflected in what follows in v. 22-24. The women are construed as subject to the men "in everything" (en panti)". No similar thing is said of the husbands in v. 25-33; they are not said to be subject to their wives at all, only that they should "love" them. And the asymmetry again surfaces in v. 33: the husbands are to "love" their wives while wives are to "fear" (phóbetai) their husbands.

I think the author is probably using "head" not precisely to mean "authority" (as this appears not to be how the term was used in Greek) but as a metaphor analoguous to 1 Corinthians where head represents Christ (see also Ephesians 1:10) and the body represents the church (see 5:27, 32). The relationship between husbands and wives should be that as between Christ and the church. This means unity, but it also implies that husbands have authority over their wives (just as Christ does over the church, cf. Ephesians 1:22, "God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church") . So kephalé does not mean "authority" by itself, but the sense is imparted by the metaphor comparing the role of the husband with that of Christ.

GLTirebiter

Using verse 22 on its own ignores the message of chapter 5 as a whole. It speaks to the reponsibilities of husbands as well, and it is also important that the context is an allegory comparing Christ's relationship to the Christian church with the relationship between husband and wife. This chapter not only advocates proper relationships between family members, as proper family relationships were understood in the first century, but also metaphorically describes the church as the family of Christ with similar relationships and duties. Keep verse 22 in context by reading all of chapter 5, especially verses 25 through 33 (emphasis mine):

(25) Husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the church and sacrificed himself for her

(26) to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words,

(27) so that when he took the church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless.

(28) In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a man to love his wife is for him to love himself.

(29) A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christ treats his church,

(30) because we are parts of his body.

(31) "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh." [quoting Gen 2:24]

(32) This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to Christ and the Church.

(33) To sum up: you also, each one of you, must love his wife as he loves himself; and let every wife respect her husband.

(quoted text is from the New Jerusalem Bible)

GLT

Heaven

To force someone to 'submit' to another person is not loving. It is oppressing and it is not Win-Win. The scriptures in the Bible give absolute power to one group of individuals (men) over another group (women). Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can put as many conditions on this as you want. They will be ignored. And they are. I've seen it... I've lived it. 'Headship' does NOT work.

When I was a teenager, back in the '70s, I was told that a 'wife is to subjugate herself to her husband.' I didn't know what subjugate meant so I looked it up in the dictionary and here's what I found:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sub·ju·gate (sbj-gt)

tr.v.sub·ju·gat·ed, sub·ju·gat·ing, sub·ju·gates 1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat. 2. To make subservient; enslave. Thesaurus:

Verb	1.	subjugate - put down by force or intimidation; "The government quashes any attempt of an uprising"; "China keeps down her dissidents very efficiently"; "The rich landowners subjugated the peasants working the land" quash, repress, subdue, keep down, reduce crush, oppress, suppress - come down on or keep down by unjust use of one's authority; "The government oppresses political activists"
	2.	subjugate - make subservient; force to submit or subdue subject dragoon - subjugate by imposing troops enslave - make a slave of; bring into servitude dominate, master - have dominance or the power to defeat over; "Her pain completely mastered her"; "The methods can master the problems"

subjugate verb conquer, master, overcome, defeat, crush, suppress, put down, overthrow, tame, lick(informal), subdue, overpower, quell, rule over, enslave, vanquish, hold sway over, bring to heel, bring (someone) to his knees, bring under the yoke Their costly attempt to subjugate the citizens lasted 10 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There was no way ... NO WAY I was gonna become a JW and allow this crap to be done to me.

Submission of Women

Share this