Postcolonial Reading of ύποτασσώ (to submit) in Ephesians 5:21: Hope for the Family Today

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Feb 23, 2022
https://doi.org/10.71064/spu.amjr.4.2.60
Download
pdf
Statistic
Vol. 4 No. 2 (2019): African Multidisciplinary Journal of Research (AMJR)

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Elijah Makhanu

Abstract

There has been a lot of discussion and debate in recent years over the precise meaning and interpretation of Ephesians 5:21. The concept of ύποτασσώ (to submit) in the book of Ephesians is one that has been grossly misinterpreted and misapplied in different situations but worst of all, in the marriage set up. This is even complicated by an alternative interpretation, popularly known as 'mutual submission,' which has become increasingly accepted in Church circles. Yet, the interpretation of Ephesians 5:21 is to be viewed as one of the foundational verses upon which a successful approach to marriage, self and life are built. Incidentally, this verse has been used by those who are in power to suppress the voices of those who may not be in a position to voice their views. This paper examines the concept of ύποτασσώ as used in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians through the lenses of postcolonial biblical criticism with a view of recovering an interpretation Paul had in mind informed by the circumstances surrounding him at the time of writing. More specifically, the paper endeavors to investigate the concept of ύποτασσώ with its cognates, in light of current Postcolonial studies in order to see the impact the Roman Empire had on Paul and his understanding of the concept in discussion. The purpose of this paper is to first, evaluate the contemporary historical and social-scientific interpretations of ύποτασσώ and argue for the importance of understanding the concept in the light of ancient rhetoric. Secondly, having situated this paper within a postcolonial dialogue, the study will seek a specific definition of Postcolonial interpretation looking for domination/ subordination relationships in the book of Ephesians. Additionally, the paper will seek to reconsider Paul’s ύποτασσώ in light of the slavery metaphor by comparing Paul’s concept with the ancient concept of submission. And finally, the paper will offer a new interpretation of the term ύποτασσώ as it reveals Paul’s suppressed status as a colonized Jew looking for an alternative way to express the deep longing of his heart for an ultimate master worthy of his loyalty and devotion. It is the intention of this paper to bring to the surface the slave metaphor and stimulate the mind of the readers as to the exact meaning of the concept under study in order for us to grasp the relationship of Paul with Christ as seen from the book of Ephesians.
Key words: Family, Ephesians, Postcolonial Reading

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Makhanu, E. (2022). Postcolonial Reading of ύποτασσώ (to submit) in Ephesians 5:21: Hope for the Family Today. African Multidisciplinary Journal of Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.71064/spu.amjr.4.2.60

References

  1. Achtemeier, J Joel B. etal. 2001, Introducing the New Testament: its literature and theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmann’s Publishing Company.
  2. Afolayan, F 2004. Culture and customs of South Africa. London: Greenwood.
  3. Balch David L. 1981. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter
  4. Chicago: Scholars Press,
  5. Balch David. 1990 Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes, ANRW. II.26.I, 389-404.
  6. Balch, David. 1986 “Hellenization Acculturation in 1 Peter,” Perspective on 1 Peter, ed.
  7. Charles H Talbert, NABPR special studies series; 9, Macon. Georgia: Mercer University press.
  8. Brad, Inwood. 2005. Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.
  10. . “The Third Space: Interview with Homi K. Bhabha.” 1990. Identity:Community, Culture, Difference (Ed). Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence.
  11. Boehmer, Elleke. 1995. Colonial and Postcolonial Literature: Migrant Metaphors.
  12. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  13. Brennan, Timothy. 1990 “The National Longing for Form.” Nation and Narration. Ed.
  14. Homi K. Bhabha. London: Routledge.
  15. —. “The Third Space: Interview with Homi K. Bhabha.” 1990. Identity:Community, Culture, Difference. Ed. Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence.
  16. Browning W.R.F, 1997. Household codes,” A Dictionary of the Bible.
  17. Encyclopedia.com. 17 http://www.encyclopedia.com (accessed 23 September 2009).
  18. Chandra, Russell J. 1993 “Development of Christian Theology in India: A Critical Survey,” in Readings in Indian Christian Theology, vol. 1, (eds). R. S.
  19. Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves London: SPCK.
  20. Charvet, J 1982. Modern ideologies: Feminism. London: J M Dent and Sons Limited.
  21. D’Angelo Mary R. 2003. “Knowing How to Preside over His Own Household:
  22. Imperial Masculinity and Christian Asceticism” in the Pastorals, Hermas and Luke-Acts,” in New Testament Masculinity, (ed) by Stephen D. More and Janice Capel Anderson. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
  23. Everson Stephen (ed). 1996, Aristotle, the Politics and the Constitution of Athens.
  24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Gritz Hodgin S., 1991. Paul, Women Teachers and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus:
  26. A Study of 1Timothy 2: 9-15 in the Light of the Religious and Cultural Milieu of the First Century. Lanham: University Press of America.
  27. Hanisch, Carol. 2006 “The Personal Is Political: The Women’s Liberation Movement Classic with a New Explanatory Introduction.” Women of the World, Unite!
  28. Writings by Carol Hanisch. <http://carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.html>
  29. Hay David M. 2000. Colossians. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Nashville:
  30. Abingdon Press.
  31. Hindin, J M 2003. Understanding wife beatings 81(7), 501-508.Available at www.who.int.innopac.up.ac.za/bulletin/volumes/81/7/Hindin0703.pdf,
  32. Holleman, J F 1952. Shona customary law. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
  33. Hubbard Moyer V. 2010. Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing LLC.
  34. Jeffer, James S. 1999. The Graeco-Roman World of New Testament Era:
  35. Exploring the Background of Early Christianity New York: Intervarsity Press.
  36. John Roberts, (ed.). 2005. “Asia Minor,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World
  37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  38. Kaplan, Ann. 1997. Looking for the Other: Feminism, Film, and the Imperial Gaze.
  39. London: Routledge.
  40. Kruse Kronicle, 2007. Household: The Household Code, http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/ kruse_kronicle.
  41. Lenski R. C. H. 1961. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Philippians and Ephesians Minneapolis: Augsburg.
  42. Letty, Russell M. 1987, Household of Freedom: Authority in Feminist Theology
  43. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
  44. Lincoln Andrew T. The Household Code of Wisdom Mode of Colossians. Toronto: Wycliffe College, University of Toronto http://jnt.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham.
  45. Lin Foxhall and Lewis A.D.E. 1996. Greek Law in its Political Setting: Justifications not Justice Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  46. Loomba, Ania. 1998 Colonialism/Postcolonialism. New Critical Idiom. London: Routledge. Melick Richard R.(Jr.) 1991. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, The New American Commentary, vol. 32 Nashville: Broadman.
  47. Miles, Carries A. “Patriarchy or Gender Equality. The Letter to the Ephesians on Submission, Headship, and Slavery, http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchyor
  48. genderequality.pdf)
  49. Mukonyora, I 1999. Females and ecology in Shona religion. Available at http://www2.luthersem.edu/Word&World/Archives/19-3_Politics/19- 3_Mukonyora.pdf.
  50. Musa, Dube W. 2000 Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible St. Louis: Charlice Press.
  51. Musa, Dube W. 2006 “Reading for Decolonization (John 4.1-42),” in Voices from the
  52. Margin: Interpretingthe Bible in the Third World, ed. R.S. Sugirtharajah (New York: Orbis Books.
  53. Neill Stephen etal. 1970, “Accommodation,” Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission London: Lutterworth Press.
  54. O’Brien Peter T. 1993. “Caesar’s Household, Imperial Household,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove,
  55. Leicester: Intervarsity Press.
  56. O 'Brien, Peter T. 1999. ‘The Letter to the Ephesians’. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
  57. Osiek Carolyn, Balch David. 1999. Family in the New Testament World. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, Press.
  58. Otiso, K M 2006. Culture and customs of Uganda. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  59. Peter Garnsey, Richard Saller. 1987. The Roman Empire, Economy, Society and
  60. Culture Berkeley: University of California Press.
  61. Pheme Perkins. 1998, Reading the New Testament: An Introduction Mahwah: Paulist Press.
  62. Radice Betty (trans). 1963 The Letters of the Younger Pliny. London: Penguin Books.
  63. http://www.korcula.net/history/mmarelic/mmarelic_korkyra.htm (accessed 11 July 2010).
  64. Rafael Leyre, “Greece,” An Essay on Violence, Tradition and Modernity, http://www.essayvtm.netfirms.com/Greece.htm (accessed 11 June 2010).
  65. Ralph Martin P. 1972. Colossians: The Church’s Lord and Christian’s Liberty (Exeter: The Paternoster Press.
  66. Salm, S T and T Falola 2002.Culture and customs of Ghana. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  67. Schüssler, Fiorenza E. 1997 “The Praxis of Coequal Discipleship,” Paul and Empire,
  68. edited by Richard, A. Horsley. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, International.
  69. Schüssler, Fiorenza E. 2007, The Power of the Word: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
  70. Standhartinger, Angela. 2001; 23; 117 “The Origin and Intention of the Household
  71. Code in the Letter to the Colossians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, (http://jnt.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham.
  72. Sugirtharajah R.S. 2002, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  73. Sugirtharajah, R.S. 1998, Asia Biblical Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism: Contesting the Interpretations. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/
  74. Taylor A. E. 1934, The Laws of Plato. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
  75. Thomas, Carol G. 2007. Alexander the Great in his World. Oxford: Blackwell
  76. Publishing.
  77. Spivak, Gayatri. 2001. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Edited by Vincent B. Leitch etal. New York: Norton
  78. Strecker, George (ed). 2001 “Household Rules,” The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Vol. 2, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
  79. Verner David C. 1983. The Household of God: the social world of the Pastoral Epistles, Dissertation series. Society of Biblical Literature); no. 71 Chico CA: Scholars Press.
  80. Zanger, Paul. 1990. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. Alan Shapiro.
  81. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.