I’m involved in a discussion with a fellow believer who proposes to take ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα as a subordinate clause to the main verb ἀγαπάτω. The resulting effect is something like:
Let each man love his own wife as himself, so that the wife may revere her husband.
While the concept makes sense to me, it seems that the intervening δὲ precludes taking the ἵνα clause as dependent. Am I missing something?
My fellow Coloradan, I’m a bit puzzled by your response.
I appreciate your advice that I and my brother (in this case, actually, sister) love one another, and I certainly don’t dispute a greater need in me for loving others, but the discussion I’m referring to has been an entirely irenic disagreement over a point of syntax.
(And I appreciate your imitation of the syntax of Ephesians 5:33 in your exhortation!)
Perhaps I haven’t read enough Greek, but I have never seen ἵνα used in the way that your friend suggests. For the meaning that you and she are talking about, I would expect something like this:
But maybe you or your friend can cite some parallel usages with the original construction and enlighten me? If there are none, then I think that you have your answer.
Expositor’s Greek Testament
Ephesians 5:33. πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθʼ ἕνα: nevertheless ye also severally. πλήν, connected probably with πλέον and meaning primarily further, besides, is used both for unfolding (= moreover); and for restricting (= howbeit, nevertheless; cf. Thayer-Grimm, ut sup., p. 517; Donaldson, Greek Gram., § 548). Here probably it has the latter application, = “nevertheless, not to say more of that higher union, see that ye, all of you, fulfil the obligation of love to your wives”. The distributive phrase οἱ καθʼ ἕνα, “ye one by one,” individualises the ὑμεῖς, and excludes all exceptions. The καί conjoins the ὑμεῖς with Christ, = “in you also, as in Christ, love is to be fulfilled”. ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν: let each one of you love his own wife as himself. The sentence, which has begun with the plural ὑμεῖς, when it reaches its verb follows the nearest ἕκαστος, and gives ἀγαπάτω instead of ἀγαπᾶτε. The ἕκαστος expresses still more emphatically the absoluteness and universality of the Christian duty of conjugal love—a duty from which no single husband is exempt. As in Ephesians 5:28 the ὡς means not merely that each husband is to love his wife as he loves himself, but that he is to love her as being himself, part and parcel of himself according to the Divine idea of the marriage union.—ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα: and the wife—let her see that she fear her husband. ἡ γυνή is a nom. absol. of a simple kind and emphatic; the δέ is metabatic and slightly adversative; = “so much has been said of the husband, and as to the wife now, reverence is her part”. The change in the construction from the usual imperative to the form ἵνα φοβῆται is explained by some by supplying βλεπέτω, as βλέπετε stands in Ephesians 5:15. But ἵνα with the conj. is used elsewhere in the NT (Mark 5:23; 2 Corinthians 8:7) as an imperative formula, originally no doubt an elliptical form for “I bid you that you do,” or “see you that you do”. It occurs also in later Greek prose (e.g., Arrian, Epict., iv., 1, 41), as the corresponding formula ὅπως is used in the same way in classical Greek with the fut. indic. (Aristoph., Nubes, 823), and more occasionally with the conj. (Xen., Cyr., i, 3, 18). So in Latin, ibi ut sint omnia parata, Cic., Fam., xiv., 20 (cf. Donaldson, Greek Gram., p. 602; Win.-Moult., p. 396). φοβῆται, fear, in the sense of reverence, spontaneous, obedient regard; cf. the frequent application of the verb to the fear of God (Luke 1:50; Luke 18:2; Luke 18:4; Acts 10:2; Acts 10:22; Acts 10:35, etc.); and its use in the case of Herod (Mark 6:20).
(NASB-TH)Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
Joel got it right. The proposal under consideration appears to indicate a lack of understanding of very basic concepts in Koine discourse structure. See any credible author (Iver Larsen, S. Levinsohn[1] on the use of δὲ and καὶ in non-narrative.
I pulled H. Hohner Ephesians Exegetical Commentary off the shelf where it had been sitting unused since I purchased it. He suggests that δὲ in this verse is slightly adversative. Not sure if I agree with Hohner. I think adversative δὲ is perhaps a little over rated in traditional NT Grammar. The NASB[2] cited above indicates the function of δὲ.
[1] S. Levinsohn,Discouse Features NT Greek, 2000, p112ff, Iver Larson, Notes on the function of γαρ, ουν, μεν, δε, και, and τε in the Greek New Testament, 1991.
(NASB-TH)Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
I took another look at this today, yesterday was full of distractions. Hoehner directly addressees the question on the top of page 783 with a foot note giving credit to Margaret D. Gibson,“Let the Woman Learn in Silence” Expository Times May 1904, p380 and S.E. Porter, Verb Aspect, 1989 p331. Hoehner offers the following word order to illustrate Margaret D. Gibson’s reading.
ἵνα δὲ ἡ γυνὴ φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.
Hoehner also addresses the “imperative” use of ἵνα with a long footnote full of references:
ATR 330,933, 943, 994; BDF §387(3); MHT 1.179, 3.95; Winer, 396; Moule Idioms 144-145; Zerwick §415 … C. J. Cadoux, The Imperatival use of ἵνα in NT, JTS 42 (July-Oct 1941) answered under same title by H. G. Meecham JTS 43 (July-Oct 1942), A. R. George, JTS 45 (Jan April 1944), A. P. Salom AusBR 6, (Jan 1958), Porter Verb Aspect, 1989, p331.
Aren’t the existing translations documentation? They were all produced by men who knew a fair amount of Greek. These translators are the same sorts of people that write the grammars and guides to syntax. If the one is wrong so is the other.
If you want to strike out on your own, you’ll need to read Greek until the rules of the language imprint themselves on your brain, and any written grammar or syntax becomes obvious to you as only a poor dead substitute for what is in your head.
Luckily, learning languages like that is what human brains happen to be good at.
