For my reflection on the readings for his Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time, I am going to focus on the New Testament reading from the Letter to the Ephesians. My guess is that whoever preached at your parish this weekend probably passed over this reading in silence. If the preacher didn't ignore it, he may have made a slight allusion to it to bolster a point. Of course, there is the possibility that it was misunderstood and then communicated in an inaccurate and less than helpful way. In my view, this is one of those lectionary passages for which it is important to use to the extended version. Understandably, the repetitive use of the English word "subordination" is disconcerting for a lot of people, women especially but some men, too, including me.
The first thing to point out is that Ephesians is generally not considered to be one of the seven authentically Pauline letters. In other words, the scholarly consensus, with some notable exceptions, holds that this letter was not written by Saint Paul himself. Hence, it is considered a deutero-Pauline composition. "Deutero," in Greek, means "second," as in Deutero-Canonical books. The Deutero-Canonical books are those books held by Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants to be inspired and so are considered scriptural. These books, such as Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, etc., are not recognized as belonging to scripture by many Christians.
Because they were indisputably written later than the rest of what Christians call the "Old Testament" and written mostly in Greek, not Hebrew, these books are called by those who hold them to be inspired as a "second canon." In the same way, the deutero-Pauline letters were perhaps written by followers of Paul but not the apostle himself. However, Christians agree that these deutero-Pauline letters are inspired and so belong in the Bible. For Christians, Ephesians and the other deutero-Pauline letters are scriptural.
Some would suggest that the passage from Ephesians that constitutes today's New Testament reading is proof that this letter was not written by Saint Paul. Judging from those letters universally held to be written by the apostle himself, when compared with the passage under consideration, Paul, it would seem, had a more egalitarian and less hierarchical view of marriage and family than what we find in Ephesians.
This passage from the fifth chapter of Ephesians, along with others both in Ephesians and in other of the deutero-Pauline letters, seems to be derived somewhat from (Greco-)Roman household codes. This particular passage, it could be also be argued, departs somewhat from authentically Pauline Christology and ecclesiology. Nonetheless, the passage is built on a foundation of an egalitarian understanding of marriage.
The Church's current Code of Canon Law recognizes the equality of spouses: "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life..." (Canon 1055 §1). Partners are equals.
Similarly, the passage from Ephesians that concerns us starts with this exhortation: "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). The word translated from Greek into English by the phrase "Be subordinate to" transliterates as hupotassomenoi. Indeed, it means "to be subject to." Foundationally then, for Christians and Christian spouses subordination is mutual. The rest of the passage seeks to explain how this mutual subordination works for the purpose of making an analogy.
In what follows, it would seem that the inspired author places a greater burden on the husband than on the wife. In considering this passage, we must never lose sight of how it is that Christ leads the Church. He leads us kenotically, that is, in a self-emptying and selfless way, not in a domineering tin-pot dictator, do-what-I-say, my-way-or-the-highway kind of way. To relate, let alone lead, in any other way is a rejection of the fundamental equality mutual subordination for Christ's sake requires of Christians and Christian spouses.
In this context, it also seems important to point out that the phrase "he himself the savior of the body" refers to Christ, not to the husband in this passage. Now, the husband is to give himself wholly to his wife in imitation of Christ. But our imitation, even when sincerely attempted, is only ever a pale imitation of Christ and, while it can perhaps faciliate salvation, is not ultimately efficacious for salvation. Only Christ's passion, death, and resurrection saves our bodies and our souls.
Jumping to the end of the passage, I think there are two additional things worth noting. First, is that the inspired author explicitly cited what I call the Ur verse in scripture regarding marriage. It is the same verse invoked by Jesus in his disputation about marriage and divorce in the parallel passages found in Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12. The Ur verse is Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." What always strikes me about this verse is that it seems to assume that the woman is already prepared to receive the man and that it is the man who might otherwise lack the maturity and perhaps the strength to leave his parents.
Secondly, our Ephesians passage ends with the inspired author admitting that what he is trying to describe "is a great mystery" (Eph 5:32). Words always fall short of the mystery. What the author attempted is a description of Christ's relation to the Church using marriage as an analogy. Analogies, as they say, always limp. Take any analogy (i.e., x is like y) and if you pull the thread far enough the similarity disappears and you are left with two dissimilar things. To say something is like something else is not to assert an identity (i.e., x is y or vice-versa) but seeking to identify similarities for the purpose of giving an example of something that might otherwise result in lack of comprehension. Therefore, along with any similarities, an analogy also implies from the get-go some dissimilarities.
At least from a Catholic perspective, Christian marriage is intended to be a sacramental (i.e., visible and tangible) sign of Christ's relationship to his bride, the Church. When people (Christian and non-Christian alike) see married Christians- how they relate to each other, how they relate to others, the tone and tenor of their household, etc.- it should give the observer a concrete idea- albeit one that falls short of the reality to which is points as a sign- of Christ's commitment to the Church. This brings us back to the necessity of that fundamental equality of spouses.
No comments:
Post a Comment