1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

In our continuing critique of the post-conciliar Church’s attempt to reinterpret the proscriptions of Scripture regarding the woman’s role in society, church and family, in the last issue we left off citing some of the Fathers and Aquinas on the subject of submission. As we noted, most of today’s liberal-minded prelates seek to diminish the traditional teaching on this subject, preferring to speak of a “mutual submission” between husband and wife. We have seen thus far that there is no such teaching in either the patristics, Scripture or the magisterium of Tradition. Let’s continue our analysis of the Scriptural mandates and how the Church has consistently interpreted them. Our next stop is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

For the record, the phrase “to be subject” is from the Greek word hupotasso, the same word St. Paul uses in Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:1, 5 in his command for the wife to submit to her husband. Additionally, we notice in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that St. Paul uses “the law” as his precedent and authority. This means the wife’s submission to the husband is not a some new-fangled teaching being forced upon the churches, but one that has come directly from the precepts of the Old Testament, and which apparently is still in force. Again, this shows the legal undergirding of the wife’s obligation to be in submission. In addition, in verse 37, St. Paul adds: “the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Thus, by reference to “the law” and “the commandments,” St. Paul gives two legal witnesses to his testimony concerning a woman’s obligation to submit to her husband, the same two or three witnesses he requires of himself (cf., 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb 10:26-31).

The Church Fathers had no qualms about this passage. In fact, so precise was their interpretation that they insisted on prohibiting women from ever speaking in Church. As representative of their teaching, we will cite a relatively early Father, Origen, on 1 Cor 14:34:

First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14]. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16).

Next in line is 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

But, as it becomes women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. 13 Adam was first formed; then Eve. 14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

As representative of the Church’s consensus, Aquinas understands this passage as follows. You will notice that it is not what you see occurring in post-conciliar churches today:

The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:34): ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ and (1 Timothy 2:12): ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16 (Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2).

Next we have Colossians 3:17-19:

All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them.

The tradition of the Church has understood this in the same way as the above passages. John Chrysostom writes:

Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake. (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304).

Chrysostom adds that there is great harmony if the husband loves his wife and the wife is submissive to the husband.

Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)

Augustine says the same about Colossians 3:18:

Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’ (On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267).

Theodoret says the same:

Paul is particularly concerned here with believing women who are married to unbelieving men: thus, their subjection is in service to the Lord, that is, as the Lord commands.” (Interpretation of the Letter to the Colossians PG 82:621A).

Next is Titus 2:4-5:

That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands: that the word of God is not blasphemed.

Here the wife is told both to “love” her husband and be “obedient” to him (NB: “obedient” is the Greek hupotasso, which is also translated “be in submission” or “be subject,” as in all the previous passages). The wife is to make sure she does these things so that “the word of God is not blasphemed.”

Next is 1 Peter 3:1, 5-6. This passage gives even more graphic language regarding the wife’s requirement to be submissive to her husband, using Sarah as the example par excellence:

In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives... For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.

Representing the consensus of the Fathers on 1 Peter 3:1, Tertullian writes:

Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned. (On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII).

Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church. (Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII).

Last but not least, there is Ephesians 5:22-33

22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it:26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27 That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33 Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife as himself: And let the wife fear her husband.

Let’s open up the investigation of this passage by asking an obvious question: If by a reading of Ephesians 5:21 (“Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ”) it is concluded that spouses are required to submit to one another on an equal basis, then why did St. Paul include the sentence: “Let women be subject to their husbands” in Eph. 5:22 if that so-called “truth” was already covered in Eph 5:21's statement “Be subject to one another”? Would it not be superfluous and confusing to specify, in the very next verse, only one of the submitting parties (the wife), while the other spouse (the husband) receives no direct command, here or any other place in Scripture?

Let’s look closer at Ephesians 5:22-33 for the answer. The underlined words show that the wife is told three times to be in subjection to her husband, while the italicized words show that the husband is never told to be in subjection to his wife; rather, he is told three times to love her. Moreover, not only is the wife told to be submissive, but verse 24 adds that it is to be “in all things.”6 “All things” covers a lot of territory, does it not? Could the teaching be any more emphatic? An unbiased reading of the text clearly shows that not only is the husband’s submission to the wife absent from the context, but the wife’s submission is accentuated in addition to what was originally introduced in Ephesians 5:22! In addition to the clear emphasis on the wife to submit to the husband, St. Paul never confuses the husband’s love with wife’s submission. The two are kept entirely separate. Hence, the weight of the context on this issue is absolutely overwhelming.

To Whom Does Ephesians 5:21 Apply?

As noted above, modernists claim that Ephesians 5:21 is the topic sentence for the remainder of the chapter, and thus conclude that it applies directly to husbands and wives. They neither make any acknowledgment that the verse can apply to all Christians, nor do they posit any distinction between the general submission required in Ephesians 5:21 with the specific submission required in Ephesians 5:22-33. The Fathers and the Tradition saw Ephesians 5:21 quite differently. They made the necessary distinction between the context that ends with Ephesians 5:21 (“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”), and the context that begins with Ephesians 5:22 (“Let women be subject to their husbands”).

As representative of their views let’s look, for example, at Chrysostom. Interestingly enough, Chrysostom ends his “Homily XIX” at Ephesians 5:21, and then begins his “Homily XX” at Ephesians 5:22, thus treating the two contexts separately, indicating that verse 21 is a general statement for the whole church in a context that begins as far back as Ephesians 4:1, a section in which St. Paul does not specifically address the husband/wife relationship; rather, he speaks to all the relationships that Christians have in and out of the Church (e.g., bishop/priest; pastor/parishioner; master/slave, husband/wife). Ephesians 6:1-9 does the same, and thus the command to “be subject to one another” is surrounded on all sides by general instructions for all classes of people.

Theodoret regards the distinction between Ephesians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:22 in the same way, that is, there is a general law wherein each Christian is to subject himself to the other as a humble servant (Ephesians 5:21), but the legal specifics that go beyond the general admonition are covered in the remaining context, that is, Ephesians 5:22-6:9:

We must not be submissive to those who command us to act unlawfully. But to those who call us to live with piety, we must be subject to one another. Having laid down this general law of obedience, Paul next advises the Ephesians in detail on their duties to another. (Commentarius in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas, 2:33).

The Greek Grammar

Not only do the Fathers show us a distinction between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22, the Greek grammar reinforces it. The phrase “being subject” in Ephesians 5:21 is from the Greek imperative-present-participle, hupotassomenoi. This is a somewhat unusual form in Greek. Its uniqueness would certainly catch a Greek expert’s eye, especially if he saw four other imperative-present-participles preceding the one in question. He would immediately know that the author (St. Paul) was trying to signal the reader to see that all the verses employing the imperative-present-participle are directly connected. Such is the case in Ephesians 5:19-21. Here are the verses as recorded in the Douay-Rheims:

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord: 20 Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father: 21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.

The underlined words are the imperative-present-participles. The first is lalountes, appearing in verse 19, which is normally translated as “speaking.” The second is adontes and translated as “singing.” The third instance is psallontes and is translated as “making melody”or “psalming.” The fourth instance is eucharistountes, appearing in verse 20, and is translated as “giving thanks.” The fifth instance, of course, is hupotassomenoi, appearing in verse 21, and translated as “being subject.”

As the context clearly shows, these five commands are given to all the Christians of the Church, not specifically to husbands and wives. We can conclude from St. Paul’s grammatical arrangement that verse 21 is directly related to verses 19-20.7 Interestingly enough, the Greek manuscripts that contain the phrase “be subject”8 in Ephesians 5:22 (i.e., “wives be subject to your husbands”), reveal that here St. Paul breaks his pattern of using the participle that he used in verses 19-21. In verse 22 he switches to the non-participle, hupotassasthe, which is an obvious sign that he is now on another topic and direction.

Not only does the grammar of Ephesians 5:19-21 show us the nature of Christian submission, but so do the specific words St. Paul chooses to express his teaching. Let’s look at the verses again:

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord: 20 Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father: 21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.

The underlined words describe the Christian who is constantly mindful of God and continually seeks to give Him worship. He does so, in part, by creating intimate communication

with his fellow Christians (cf., James 5:13-14). He “speaks” to his Christian brothers in psalms, hymns and spiritual poems; he “sings” to them by using the God-given gift of “melody.” In everything he expresses “thanks” to God. He is never bitter or despondent. It is an atmosphere saturated with heavenly love. It is an idyllic scene, almost like the ones we see in traditional art of saints walking in heaven with halos and playing music on harps.

That being the case, we certainly wouldn’t expect the leading participants in this idyllic atmosphere to be strutting around with an air of authority. There are appropriate times for the exercise of authority, and there are times when one’s authority is better off deferred or concealed. In the general atmosphere of Christian worship and comradery, it is best not to assert one’s authority, but to humble oneself before others, knowing that anything one possesses, whether talent or authority, is from the Lord. For example, a Christian employer needs to know how to get along with his Christian employee, and vice-versa. The hierarchy of the Church needs to know how to get along with their clerics and parishioners. Unlike the world, Christians answer to a higher authority. In so doing, they show care and concern for even “the least of his brethren” (e.g., Matthew 25:40, 45). Superiors, in order to foster good relations among all Christians, will voluntarily “submit” themselves as servants in an effort to be much more sensitive to their underlings than the world’s rulers are to theirs, because that is what Christ, their model, showed them when He washed the apostles’ feet (cf., Matthew 20:25-28; John 13:14). The important point to distinguish in each of these cases, however, is that the legal requirement for subordinates to be subject to superiors is not suddenly evaporated if and when the superiors voluntarily humble themselves to their underlings “in the fear of Christ.”

As noted previously, the Fathers understood Ephesians 5:21 in the same way. As Jerome says of the passage:

Let bishops hear this, let priests hear, let every rank of learning get this clear: In the church, leaders are servants. Let them imitate the apostle...The difference between secular rulers and Christian leaders is that the former love to boss their subordinates whereas the latter serve them. We are that much greater if we are considered least of all.”(Migne PL 26:530A, Col. 653-654).

This is also Chrysostom’s understanding. We see this as he applies Ephesians 5:21 to masters and slaves, a category of relationship that is not even mentioned among the verses in question (i.e., Ephesians 5:22-33):

‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet. (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142).

We see here that Chrysostom has used the same example of Christ washing the disciples’ feet that I had used earlier. This shows that Chrysostom understands that, when Christ “submits” Himself to the apostles, it is based on the desire to serve and love them, not because He is legally mandated to obey them, or even that His submission to the apostles should then be classified as “mutual.” Again, the Fathers consider Ephesians 5:21 as merely a general command to all Christians to have the proper attitude and readiness of service toward each other. But when the Fathers address the specific duties of underlings toward those in authority, they never say that the latter is to be submissive to the former, that is, masters are never told to be “subject” to their servants; bishops are never told to be subject to their clerics, and husbands are never told to be subject to their wives. Since Scripture was careful to make that distinction, the Fathers never referred to superior/subordinate relationship with the words “mutual submission.” In the legal framework, there is no such mutuality or mixing of roles.

In Homily 10, Chrysostom shows this important distinction as he maintains that those in subordinate positions (e.g., wives and servants) are to continue showing the proper legal submission:

For if I charge free men to submit themselves one to another in the fear of God - as he said above, ‘submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ’ - if I charge moreover the wife to fear and reverence her husband, although she is his equal; much more must I so speak to the servant. It is no sign of low birth, rather it is the truest nobility, to understand how to lower ourselves, to be modest and unassuming, and to give way to our neighbor.

Here he says, even though the wife is equal, she is to “fear and reverence” her husband (as does Ephesians 5:33 - “And let the wife fear her husband”). Thus, human “equality” is not to be used as an excuse to withhold one’s submission when it is legally due to someone else.

Again, in Homily 10, Chrysostom clearly defines the separate roles of husband and wife. The wife is to submit, the husband to love, even if one or the other of the spouses fails in their role.

For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.” And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God. Just so, I say, is it also here. Let the wife at least, though she be not loved, still reverence notwithstanding, that nothing may lie at her door; and let the husband, though his wife reverence him not, still show her love notwithstanding, that he himself be not wanting in any point. For each has received his own.

An emphasis on remaining in subjection to an authority would be an important one for New Testament Christians to acknowledge, since in their newfound liberty they might fall into the mistaken notion that traditional roles of authority have become obsolete.9 A servant, for example, may think that because he now enjoys Christian liberty, he is not required to obey his master, at least not in the same way he did previously. Similarly, a wife might think that since she and her husband are now Christians, she is not required to submit to him. Not so, says St. Paul. In Colossians 3:22 he tells servants they have no such liberty, but are to continue being subject to their masters (“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh”). In 1 Timothy 6:1 he tells servants:

Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor; lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed. 2 But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but serve them the rather, because they are faithful and beloved, who are partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Again, in Titus 2:9 St. Paul tells the bishops: “Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters.” St. Peter does the same in 1 Peter 2:18: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward.” As for the command to wives to continue to be submissive to their husbands, we have addressed those passages earlier (cf., 1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14; Titus 2:5, 1 Pet. 3:1-6, et al).

We’ll cover more on this important topic of submission in our next issue.

End for CFN 12-07-04

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8