T
TrueLight
Guest
Hey all,
What is the Eastern viewpoint of Ephesians 5?
What is the Eastern viewpoint of Ephesians 5?
- Status
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
St. John Chrysostom has an amazing commentary on this very passage. Check it out at New Advent: newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm.
It’s been several years since I’ve read his (linked) commentary, but if memory serves me correctly it is very much in line with how John Paul II interpreted the same passage in his Theology of the Body (or rather, John Paul II was in line with St. John Chrysostom). Also, I believe it’s important to read this passage of Chrysostom’s in light of his other teachings on marriage contained in the book On Marriage and Family Life. In many ways Chrysostom’s teachings sound very “modern,” in that much of what he says is now being said by today’s marriage and family counselors. One of my favorite pieces of advise from Chrysostom is that husbands should never call their wives by their first name, but should rather have an affectionate “pet name” for them.
It’s been several years since I’ve read his (linked) commentary, but if memory serves me correctly it is very much in line with how John Paul II interpreted the same passage in his Theology of the Body (or rather, John Paul II was in line with St. John Chrysostom). Also, I believe it’s important to read this passage of Chrysostom’s in light of his other teachings on marriage contained in the book On Marriage and Family Life. In many ways Chrysostom’s teachings sound very “modern,” in that much of what he says is now being said by today’s marriage and family counselors. One of my favorite pieces of advise from Chrysostom is that husbands should never call their wives by their first name, but should rather have an affectionate “pet name” for them.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Thanks for responding Philip. I started this thread then forgot about it.St. John Chrysostom has an amazing commentary on this very passage. Check it out at New Advent: newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm.
It’s been several years since I’ve read his (linked) commentary, but if memory serves me correctly it is very much in line with how John Paul II interpreted the same passage in his Theology of the Body (or rather, John Paul II was in line with St. John Chrysostom). Also, I believe it’s important to read this passage of Chrysostom’s in light of his other teachings on marriage contained in the book On Marriage and Family Life. In many ways Chrysostom’s teachings sound very “modern,” in that much of what he says is now being said by today’s marriage and family counselors. One of my favorite pieces of advise from Chrysostom is that husbands should never call their wives by their first name, but should rather have an affectionate “pet name” for them.
I’ll check out St John Chrysostom.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
He’s the manThanks for responding Philip. I started this thread then forgot about it.
I’ll check out St John Chrysostom.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I think this is indeed amazing. However, I don’t see JPII in this link necessarily. This seems to me closer to traditional thinking.
I would love to know what this translates to on the ground.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
I believe you will find that most of us in the Eastern Churches are very traditional.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
For a more practical interpretation I’d say see Chrysostom’s treatise On Marriage and Family Life, published as part of the “Popular Patristics Series” put out by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Awwwww.He’s the man
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
One thing that’s extremely important to remember, as Chrysostom points out, is that the woman’s submission to her husband does not come about in a vacuum. There are two points that must be drawn out in order to understand the wife’s submission: First, her submission is based on the “mutual submission” spoken of at the end of the previous version. St. Paul says, "Be subject to one another, in the fear of Christ. Wives (be subject/submit) to your husbands… etc. Two points here: 1) in the original Greek text the command “submit” is not repeated by St. Paul in reference to the wives, but is carried over from the previous statement and implied in this one. This was not uncommon in both Greek and Latin literature of the day. 2) There is no punctuation in the original Greek text. Punctuation itself is an interpretation of the intent of the original text. This sentence from St. Paul could’ve easily been punctuated, “Submit to one another in the fear of Christ, wives to your husbands as to the Lord…” etc. The point is, the wife’s submission is founded on the mutual submission of husband and wife to one another. Essentially St. Paul is simply reiterating to wives what he has already said of both husbands and wives, i.e. that they ought to submit to one another.
Secondly: the husband himself must love his wife “as Christ loves the Church.” St. Paul then goes into a great deal more detail of what that means for husbands than he does with regards to the submission of the wife. Chrysostom says, “You have heard how great the submission… now hear what he (Christ) also requires at your (the husband’s) hands…” Chrysostom, like St. Paul, then goes on to place the wife’s submission within the context of the husband’s Christ-like love for his wife. So the wife submitting to her husband has nothing to do with her being a doormat for him, but everything to do with the husband being “Christ” to his wife, sacrificing himself and his own will for the sake of his wife. A professor of mine - who actually wrote his doctoral dissertation on this very passage - once pointed out that with regards to this text the husband certainly has the more difficult task. What person, man or woman, would not want to submit themselves to someone who is willing to sacrifice anything, even their very life, for the sake of the good and happiness of the beloved? That is the standard to which we husbands must hold ourselves. Incidentally it is also the standard to which wives ought to hold their husbands. If a husband fails to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, then he does not deserve the submission of his wife, and how can he demand it!
Speaking from my own experience, it is a VERY difficult task. Christ has set a rather high bar for us husbands. I know I fail to measure up to this standard at nearly every turn. I find myself constantly begging my wife for her forgiveness, not because she’s angry with me, but because I have failed to love her with that completely kenotic, self-emptying, self-sacrificing, Christ-like love. Any success I have had in loving my wife has been purely by the grace of God and his action in my life.
So long story short: Spouses, submit to one another; wives to your husband because he is the head; husbands submit to your wife by loving her as Christ loves the Church.
Secondly: the husband himself must love his wife “as Christ loves the Church.” St. Paul then goes into a great deal more detail of what that means for husbands than he does with regards to the submission of the wife. Chrysostom says, “You have heard how great the submission… now hear what he (Christ) also requires at your (the husband’s) hands…” Chrysostom, like St. Paul, then goes on to place the wife’s submission within the context of the husband’s Christ-like love for his wife. So the wife submitting to her husband has nothing to do with her being a doormat for him, but everything to do with the husband being “Christ” to his wife, sacrificing himself and his own will for the sake of his wife. A professor of mine - who actually wrote his doctoral dissertation on this very passage - once pointed out that with regards to this text the husband certainly has the more difficult task. What person, man or woman, would not want to submit themselves to someone who is willing to sacrifice anything, even their very life, for the sake of the good and happiness of the beloved? That is the standard to which we husbands must hold ourselves. Incidentally it is also the standard to which wives ought to hold their husbands. If a husband fails to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, then he does not deserve the submission of his wife, and how can he demand it!
Speaking from my own experience, it is a VERY difficult task. Christ has set a rather high bar for us husbands. I know I fail to measure up to this standard at nearly every turn. I find myself constantly begging my wife for her forgiveness, not because she’s angry with me, but because I have failed to love her with that completely kenotic, self-emptying, self-sacrificing, Christ-like love. Any success I have had in loving my wife has been purely by the grace of God and his action in my life.
So long story short: Spouses, submit to one another; wives to your husband because he is the head; husbands submit to your wife by loving her as Christ loves the Church.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
TrueLight,
First, let me just say that I’m glad to see you over here and to be blessed with another conversation with you. It’s been far to long.
I would like to ask you two questions here. 1) How do you define/describe the traditional thinking of the Eph. 5:22ff passage? I ask this because the majority of “traditional” (not in the sense of pre-Vatican II, but in the sense of long-held understanding) interpretations I’ve heard and read are simply wrong because they are unbalanced. Most folks focus on the “wives submit…” statement without reading about the husbands unique form of submission through Christ-like (heroic) self-sacrifice. When read in this way the husband becomes a tyrant over his wife instead of a “Christ” figure for his wife.
- Have you read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? If not, is your not seeing John Paul II’s teachings contained in this passage based primarily on interpretations of John Paul II’s work from other theologians, particularly Christopher West. If the latter is the case I can completely understand why anyone would not see John Paul II’s teachings contained in this passage from Chrysostom. Most commentators on The Theology of the Body tend to focus primarily on the first section of the catechesis and its affirmation on the “goodness” of the human body and human sexuality. But there is so much more to the Theology of the Body than an affirmation of the goodness of the body and sex (be it gender or intercourse). I strongly encourage you to (re)read John Paul II’s comments on Eph. 5:22ff contained in the Theology of the Body itself. In fact, I should go back and read it again myself.
Peace and blessings,
Phillip
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Phillip, I hate to bust your bubble but I was talking about St. John ChrysostomAwwwww.
:blush:I do love reading his writings as well.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Constantine,Phillip, I hate to bust your bubble but I was talking about St. John Chrysostom
I do love reading his writings as well.
Thank you for bursting my bubble. You have safeguarded me from “puffiness.”
If pride comes before a fall, you have made my fall from a lower height, thus reducing the impact. 
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But on the CAF scale, YOU are the manConstantine,
Thank you for bursting my bubble. You have safeguarded me from “puffiness.”
And I know you won’t take offense in knowing that St. John Chrysostom is more of “the man” than you are
J
jwinch2
Guest
I know this was addressed to Eastern Christians so I will keep this brief. Dr. Pitre’s third talk in this set has what I believe to be an excellent representation of Catholic Church teaching on St. Paul’s statements regarding mutual submission of husband and wife. I have listened to it a couple of times and having just read the link provided above, I can’t really see anything that would conflict with Eastern Catholic teaching on the subject. Of course, I do not remotely claim to be knowledgeable on Eastern Catholic thought so there may be things I have missed.
catholicproductions.com/store/audio/WOG%20Conference/2009/order_conference_set.html
Peace of Christ,
catholicproductions.com/store/audio/WOG%20Conference/2009/order_conference_set.html
Peace of Christ,
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The conference looks like it would be good. Too bad one has to buy the CDs. 
But given that Dr. Bergsma, one of my former Scripture professors, is involved, I’d imagine the conference was outstanding.
But given that Dr. Bergsma, one of my former Scripture professors, is involved, I’d imagine the conference was outstanding.
J
jwinch2
Guest
It really was. All of their stuff I have heard has been excellent. I have several of Dr. Pitre’s CD sets and they have not disappointed in the slightest. As a heads up, you can purchase them in MP3 format as well if you like, which is a bit cheaper route to go.The conference looks like it would be good. Too bad one has to buy the CDs.
Peace,
T
TrueLight
Guest
When I say “traditional”, I do not mean in the sense of a husband being a tyrant over a wife. Heaven forbid. Anyone who has read the Bible, should see the the glaring passage that says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Christ loved us enough to die for us! That is amazing love.TrueLight,
First, let me just say that I’m glad to see you over here and to be blessed with another conversation with you. It’s been far to long.
I would like to ask you two questions here. 1) How do you define/describe the traditional thinking of the Eph. 5:22ff passage? I ask this because the majority of “traditional” (not in the sense of pre-Vatican II, but in the sense of long-held understanding) interpretations I’ve heard and read are simply wrong because they are unbalanced. Most folks focus on the “wives submit…” statement without reading about the husbands unique form of submission through Christ-like (heroic) self-sacrifice. When read in this way the husband becomes a tyrant over his wife instead of a “Christ” figure for his wife.
Husbands and wives should submit to one another. However, the husband is still the head.
The reason I see this as more traditional is because in some forums, the minute you bring up the word, the husband is the head or that wives should submit, you get a flurry of declarations of feminism. For the most part, with a few exceptions, folks don’t post about what you posted here. They don’t say, “Yes, the wife should submit to the husband as to the Lord, but both are to submit to each other.” They see the wife’s submission as servitude.
There are people who just don’t get it.
Nope, but I have seen folks quote John Paul as saying “I’m a femnist!”
Aww, I am so touched. Truly! I didn’t even think my meanderings over here were noticed.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Jason, I think I might have forgotten to tell you that I loved these talks. Thanks!
J
jwinch2
Guest
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Yeah. I don’t like that interpretation of the Ephesians passage. In fact, when we were picking our readings for our wedding, someone advised my wife and I not to pick that particular passage because the majority of the people end up focusing on the “wives submit” and ignore the “husbands love.” It’s sad, really.When I say “traditional”, I do not mean in the sense of a husband being a tyrant over a wife. Heaven forbid. Anyone who has read the Bible, should see the the glaring passage that says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Christ loved us enough to die for us! That is amazing love.
Husbands and wives should submit to one another. However, the husband is still the head.
The reason I see this as more traditional is because in some forums, the minute you bring up the word, the husband is the head or that wives should submit, you get a flurry of declarations of feminism. For the most part, with a few exceptions, folks don’t post about what you posted here. They don’t say, “Yes, the wife should submit to the husband as to the Lord, but both are to submit to each other.” They see the wife’s submission as servitude.
There are people who just don’t get it.
Nope, but I have seen folks quote John Paul as saying “I’m a femnist!”
Aww, I am so touched. Truly! I didn’t even think my meanderings over here were noticed.
There is a context to John Paul II’s “I’m a feminist” comment. He was not saying that he’s a “secular” feminist. Rather he’s a feminist in the sense that he upholds the true dignity of woman as a human person created in God’s image and likeness, and endowed with a special mission in this world that men simply can’t fulfill. Basically he upholds the dignity and vocation of women as presented in Scripture and Church Tradition, while at the same time trying to proclaim that Tradition in a post-modern world. His interpretation of Eph. 5:22ff and other related passages from Scripture is VERY traditional, while at the same time being somewhat of a breath of fresh air.
I strongly encourage you to read The Theology of the Body. In my opinion it’s best to start with Love and Responsibility because that’ll give you some philosophical context for what John Paul II teaches in The Theology of the Body, but really both books can stand alone very nicely.
And yes, it is noticed when you go absent for long periods of time. I know you spend most of your time on the Traditional Catholics Forum. I don’t usually go over there because it tends to disturb my inner peace. So I sit over here wondering how you’re doing.
- Status