POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation of 's use of the words headship and submit?

[Guest guest]

A kind list member sent me a few interesting links on the translations of

these two terms. I'm pasting the shorter and less opinionated article below

and a link to the other one. Language and it's translations and

interpretations always fascinates me, and on such a matter of importance,

you'd hope that the translation and interpretation of these words was agreed

upon. But that would be too simple, I suppose.

I find it interesting, if these articles are correct, that specifically

chose the word " head " that does not mean " ruler " (although he used that word

elsewhere when he DID mean " ruler " according to these authors) but instead

used the word that means physical head of a body, or first into battle. Same

for the word " submit " which again, according to these authors means " give

allegiance to " (and a few other similar things) rather than " obey " .

I imagine that there is probably a camp that calls these translations of

" headship " and " submit " revisionist. But I also wonder if the alternate

translations - " ruler " and " obey " might themselves have been revisionist

translations that reflect(ed) the cultures/times in which they were/are

popular? And I also wonder, if these authors are correct, how many

translations of the Greek " kephale " and " hupotasso " are there? Are these

authors correct that the other words that did NOT chose ( " ruler " and

" obey " ) have been misintrepreted since English has only one meaning for

" leader " and " obey " , while Greek has multiple meanings and words for these?

What Really Said About Women

Ephesians 5: 21-33, Galatians 3:28

http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Sermons/What%20Did%20%20Really%20Say%20A

bout%20Women.htm

What Really Said About Women

What did the apostle mean when he said 'the husband is head of the wife' and

'wives, be subject to your husbands'?

<http://www.beliefnet.com/story/130/story_13009.html>

By T. Bristow

Excerpted from " What Really Said About Women " with permission of

Harper.

" The husband is head of the wife, " explained, " as Christ is head of the

church. " In English, the word " head " means literally the physical head of

one's body and figuratively the leader of a body of people. The two meanings

are intertwined.

Not so in Greek, where two different and distinct words are translated

" head. " One of these is arche (pronounced ar-KAY). It means " head " in terms

of leadership and point of origin. It was used to denote " beginning " in the

sense of the first or point of inception (and we use this Greek word as a

prefix in such words as archaeology, archetype, and archives, all relating

to old or first things). Just as it was used to denote point of origin, so

we use head that way in the word headwaters (of a river). Arche was also

used to denote " first " in terms of importance and power (and we use it as a

prefix in such words as archangel, archbishop, archenemy, archduke, and so

on, all relating to the head of a group in terms of leadership). Forms of

arche are used throughout the New Testament, including the writings of ,

to designate the head or leader of a group of people. These forms are

translated " magistrate, " " chief, " " prince, " " ruler, " " head, " and so forth.

Now, in the Bible we find many puns, not as a form of humor so much as a

form of wisdom, where a word was used that meant two things, both of which

were true and were intended to be understood by the one word. For example,

Jesus told a woman in Samaria that he would give her " living " water (

7:10), and the word translated " living " also means " running. " Another time

Jesus " breathed " on his disciples and told them to " receive Holy Spirit "

( 20:22); in Greek (and also in Hebrew) the word for " spirit " also means

" breath. "

Therefore, if had believed as Aristotle taught, that husbands should

command their wives and rule over them, then could have made a pun out

of the word arche. He could have written that the husband is the arche

(head) of the wife, and in that one sentence he would have meant that the

husband is to rule over the wife and at the same time have reminded his

readers how man (Adam) was the source of woman (Eve, who was formed of

Adam's rib). Both senses of arche (ruler, and point of origin) would have

been invoked.

However, did not choose to use the word arche when he wrote of how the

husband is head of his wife. He was well aware of that word, but he

deliberately chose a different term.

Instead, used the word kephale (pronounced kef-ah-LAY). This word does

mean " head, " the part of one's body. It was also used to mean " foremost " in

terms of position (as a capstone over a door, or a cornerstone in a

foundation). It was never used to mean " leader " or " boss " or " chief " or

" ruler. " Kephale is also a military term. It means " one who leads, " but not

in the sense of " director. " Kephale did not denote " general, " or " captain, "

or someone who orders the troops from a safe distance; quite the opposite. A

kephale was one who went before the troops, the leader in the sense of being

in the lead, the first one into battle.

Therefore, two words in Greek can both be translated into the one English

word head. One word means " boss, " the other means " physical head " (or,

sometimes, " the first soldier into battle " ). Unfortunately, an

English-speaking person who reads that " the husband is head of his wife "

will normally conclude that this means the husband is to rule over his wife.

This is what Aristotle taught and what most Hellenized people thought. The

husband is an arche to his wife, head of the household and ruler over all

his family. deliberately chose the other word. But people who depend on

the English translation cannot know that.

Can one be certain that arche and kephale were so different from each other

in meaning? Could kephale not sometimes mean " boss " or " ruler " ? One way to

be certain is to note how these two words were used in the Septuagint. The

Old Testament, except for a few portions, was written in Hebrew. But by the

age of , few persons could read that language. Instead, they depended

upon a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek, which was

called the Septuagint. was familiar with this translation and quoted

from it.

Now, in Hebrew, just as in English, one word means both " physical head " and

" ruler. " The word is rosh. If arche and kephale were more or less synonymous

and could be used interchangeably, then when the seventy scholars who wrote

the Septuagint came to the Hebrew word roth, they could have used either

Greek word as they wished, or instead just used one of the two all the time.

However, they were very careful to note how the word rosh was used, whether

it meant " physical head " or " ruler of a group. " Whenever rosh meant

" physical head, " they translated it kephale; or whenever rosh referred to

the first soldier leading others into battle with him, they also translated

it kephale. But when rosh meant " chief " or " ruler, " they translated it arche

or some form of that word. Every time, this distinction was carefully

preserved.

was certainly familiar with both words. He knew the language, he read

and quoted from the Septuagint, and he used both words in his own writing.

The difference between the two would have been obvious to him. Modern

readers, however, may misunderstand , assuming that the word for head

that used also carried the figurative meaning of " boss " or " ruler. "

in fact took great care not to say that.

Understanding " Be Subject To "

In one translation of Ephesians 5:21-33, the words " be subject to " appear

three times. Church members are to be subject to one another, and wives are

to be subject to their husbands just as the Church is subject to Christ.

Three kinds of relationships are defined by a key word that is usually

translated " be subject to. "

This phrase in English may bring to mind images from children's fairy tales

of medieval settings, with kings and their subjects. " Be subject to " may

sound like a command to bow before the ruler, who sits on his throne dressed

in ermine and holding a jeweled gold scepter. And one might then assume that

was telling wives that they are to obey their husbands as a subject

would obey the king.

Now, if the word translated " head " meant " boss, " then husbands are to rule

their wives; and the word translated " be subject to " would naturally mean

" to obey. " But since kephale does not mean " ruler " or convey any sense of

leadership (aside from meaning " the first into battle " ), then perhaps the

word used that is translated " be subject to " does not convey a sense of

obedience. In fact, the use of that word in verse 21 ( " be subject to one

another " ) clearly demonstrates that it does not mean obedience, for it would

be as impossible for a group of people to be obedient to each other as it

would be for a group to follow each other.

New Roles for Husbands and Wives

Now, in Greek there is a word that means " to obey. " It can be translated " be

subject to, " but it carries the idea of dutiful obedience. It is hupakouo

(pronounced hoop-ah-KOO-o), a word that a parent might use regarding a child

or master might use regarding a slave. knew this word: in fact, he used

it a few sentences later in reference to children (Eph. 6:1). But while

Greek philosophers would place wives under the tutelage of their husbands,

and while the custodianship of a Jewish girl was passed at the time of her

marriage directly from her father to her husband, had no thought of

wives being like children to their husbands, so he did not use this word. It

is not the word that is translated " be subject to. "

Moreover, in Greek there is another word that means " be subject to " and

" obey. " It is peitharcheo (peith-ar-KAY-o), one of the words built upon

arche, " ruler. " This word is found only three times in the New Testament,

twice in Acts (5:29 and 27:21) and once in Titus (3:1). There, and in other

writings outside the New Testament, it describes obedience to someone who is

in authority. When and the other apostles were arrested for disobeying

their Judean rulers who had ordered them not to teach in the name of Jesus,

they used peitharcheo in their courageous response: " We must obey God rather

than men. " But had no thought of husbands governing their wives.

When referring to wives, used a form of yet a different Greek word,

hupotasso (hoop-o-TASS-o). It is not a word one would normally use regarding

children or slaves. In its active form, hupotasso might be used of a

conqueror concerning the vanquished. It means " to subject to, " " to

subordinate. " But did not use hupotasso in its active form to describe

any person. He used it only to tell what God does. He did not tell husbands

to " hupotasso " their wives. Instead, used this word in addressing wives

only in its imperative, middle voice form (compare Col. 3:18). By writing it

in the imperative mood, he was instructing wives. He was not describing them

(as Aristotle did when he claimed that " the male is by nature fitter to

command than the female " ). Instead of describing them, he was appealing to

them. And in writing the word in the middle voice form, he was emphasizing

the voluntary nature of being " subject to. "

It is difficult for English-speaking persons to grasp the subtle yet

important distinction between middle and passive voice in Greek verbs just

by reading a definition, and yet we think in ways that the Greek verb forms

express. For example, a person may teach--an active verb. And, one may be

taught--a passive verb. But a person may also teach himself or herself by

careful listening, discovering, reasoning, learning. In that sense, the

person is both subject and object of the action. That is what the Greek

middle voice expresses, a voluntary action by the subject of the verb upon

the subject of the verb.

Now, it would be possible in Greek to tell a person to subject someone else

(although never did so); and it would be possible to describe someone

as being subject to another. But one cannot tell another to be subjected,

any more than one can tell someone to be learned. However, used

hupotasso in the middle voice. This way, he was requesting that wives

voluntarily, willingly, actively be subject to their husbands. This is the

form hupotassomai (hoop-o-TASS-o-my). Since it is asking for something that

is voluntary in nature, " be subject to " is an awkward translation at best.

Hupotassomai means something like " give allegiance to, " " tend to the needs

of, " " be supportive of, " or " be responsive to. " Perhaps the best meaning of

hupotassomai is found in a German translation of that word, sich

unterstellen, " to place oneself at the disposition of. "

There is, in addition, another meaning to hupotassomai. It also served as a

military term, referring to taking a position in a phalanx of soldiers. In

this sense, there is no reference to any idea of rank or status--it was an

equal sharing of the task for which the soldiers were ordered. If a soldier

failed to join the others, or held back during an advance, a captain might

use a form of the verb hupotassomai to order him to return to the line, join

his fellows, be supportive of them, fulfill his part of the assignment.

In that sense, could tell all the members of the Church to be subject

to (hupotassomai) one another, and he could also tell wives to be subject to

their husbands. For hupotassomai is not a ranking of persons as ruler and

ruled. It is a concise appeal for the Church to have its members live out

their call to be " the body of Christ and individually members of it " (1 Cor.

12:27), to be willing to " bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law

of Christ " (Gal. 6:2). What is true of the Church, added, is to be true

of a marriage.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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