gengwall,
Thanks for your thoughts. I must have been tired last night that I didn’t pick up those great points.

Indeed Mark’s example did not show that he is in authority over his wife and it did not show that Mark is a unilateral decision maker or that he would never tell his kids in any situation to go to his wife for a decision. That is unless he comes back and shows us that he doesn’t allow his wife to make decisions over her own make-up.

It also shows an ignorance of the Scripture since the Bible shows that wives are also rulers of the home. If Mark has not shown this to his wife and keeps her in ignorance for his own advantage, it makes me wonder about his silence or perhaps his own ignorance of the Greek.

It also makes me wonder how one can truly come up with a comp example of authority over his wife with unilateral submission which is never reciprocated in any way. I honestly can’t think of any examples. But then Mark’s stubborn claim that he would never stoop to be lower than his own wife to lift her up in her need may produce an example that I could not think of. I eagerly await his return.

NN,

I for one will not be reading your post as I just don’t have time to go outside my own blog most days. And it is too hard to follow any conversation between two blogs. If you would like to post a paragraph or comment here regarding your thoughts that would be appreciated.

By the way I will be doing a post in the future on the hierarchy model of submission that you and your dear wife supplied us. I think it would be helpful to talk about and so a post is in the works but not sure yet when it will go up. I may need to do one or more posts first.

Oops sorry missed this one and then I have to go.

Mark, you said:

who saids a wife can’t make her own decision? is this another false label you are attaching to my theology?

Not at all. I was testing your unilateral submission of your wife to see if you too can submit to your wife’s decision. It would be natural in my example to send the kids to their mom thus doing to her what she did for you. But if you didn’t do that, you would be making the decision for her, taking authority over her makeup and why on earth would you do that?

I think you need to find another example because the one you gave is so easy to be a way to have mutuality and since I think that you must be a good guy deep down in your heart there is no doubt in my mind that you would do the right thing and send the kids to their mom for a decision. So where is an example of submission that is never mutual ever? That is what I am waiting for. Does this make sense?

Mark,
You said:

How does my example show mutual submission Cheryl…enlighten me? Maybe you egals just live like comps and have false labels attached to comp theology…like dominate, abuse etc etc

Your example doesn’t show mutual submission. I didn’t ask you to show mutual submission. What I asked you to show was an example of your wife’s submission where she is doing something to/for you that you would never do for her. That would be an example of unilateral submission. But if you would send the kids to their mother to get an answer just like she sent them to you, then you are both submitting to the other person’s decision in a very similar way.

I do have to go to bed now so I will leave you with this request. Could you please come up with an example of where your wife submits to you and the same kind of action that she does, you could not, would not, and cannot do to/for her (supposing that God forbids you to have this kind of submission to/for her).

This is the very same question I gave you before, just worded in a way so you can not miss the question. The example you gave was a good example of your wife’s submission to you, but your example is also a good example of where you can easily do the same thing for her in certain circumstances so it is not an example of a completely unilateral submission.

So what is unilateral submission for your wife to do in your marriage where you will never, ever for any reason do the same for your wife?

And where does your authority come in? I haven’t seen it in practice with your wife. Perhaps you can give a generic example of Jim and June and how Jim takes a Christ-like authority over his wife. Since you are also out of time, we can pick this up tomorrow. Okay?

Mark,

You asked:

Why is it you ask me to give you an example but yet do not wish to address the example i gave?

I did address your example. But you were asked to show a kind of submission that your wife gives to you that you would never give to her. So you would never tell your kids to ask permission from their mother? You appear to be a bit of an odd duckie if you would never tell your kids to ask permission from their mother. It was quite easy to find a situation where it should be “natural” for you to say that your children should ask their mother about her makeup. In that case you are submitting the decision making to your wife which is a godly thing to do.

Mark,

First of all my comment #156 was posted quite a bit earlier. I am not sure why it arrive on the blog page late.

Mark you said:

Let me say that the normal picture should reflect Christ and the Bible- an egalitarian model does not do that.

That is taking a stab at egalitarian marriages and you shouldn’t do that since you don’t live in our homes or see our respect. You aren’t qualified to judge that.

Secondly the Bible says that the law of the Father and the law of the Mother are to be obeyed. If we set the husband up as the authority in the home and the mother is not set up as an equal parental authority, then the kids may have a tendency to go to father and bypass their mother.

I have seen godly men ask their children what their mother said and then told their children to obey their mother and not to come for a second opinion. This is mutual respect and it shows the children that the mother is also to be respected and her word obeyed just as their father is to be respected and his word obeyed.

Mark,
You said:

The difference between the examples is that in my case the choice my wife makes is when both are present and both could equally say something. Your example tries simply to show whether i would just usurp my wife’s authority over our children when i am not present. See the difference. What might be better to ask, is whether at the dinner table i would tell my children to ask my wife for permission. I’m sure you know the answer to that though.

Try this one:
Your beautiful girls want to look a little more beautiful and so they ask you if they can put on makeup (the makeup belongs to their mother). You as a wonderful godly and respectful Dad say to them….ask your mother? Or do you make this decision for them because your wife is unable to make her own decision??

Mark you said:

Your above example is a good case of muddying the waters. We are not talking about mutual respect but mutual submission.

It was your example. Why don’t you give an example of submission if you think that your wife’s respect isn’t a good example of submission?

I would not just ‘overide’ so to speak my wife’s instruction to my kids because i am sure that her love for them is the reason for stopping them. If i thought she was being unfair i would go and address that with her. If i did just override her, would that show my children that i love her like Christ does the Church- no it wouldn’t.

As Sue said a wife needs respect also from her husband and her “law” needs to be obeyed by the kids. Even if you didn’t see a reason why the kids couldn’t do what you wife forbid them to do, a godly husband would support his wife’s decision thus submitting to her “law” with the children. This is mutual submission and with it comes mutual respect.

I am very glad that you can see that overriding your wife’s decision is not Christ-like. That is exactly how egals feel. It is also my contention that most comps really live exactly like egals do in their marriages. Respectfully godly men will give their wives mutual submission through mutual respect even if they fail to call it this name. They will with love, give to their wives the same kind of things that their wives give to them. Your example shows this and for this I say you are a good man.

Still no answer Mark? I would think you should try a positive approach of your own understanding of authority and submission first. If you have not yet figured out how to give a response, that would be quite telling. It is harder than it looks, eh?

You said to pinklight:

Does he talk about about Adam providing for Eve- NO! The only thing that goes back to Gen is the one flesh union- the marriage- not the supposed provisional priority of the male

Paul talks about the husband to love and give himself up as Christ did. Giving oneself up is part of the provisional aspect of Christ’s love that is to be reflected by the husband and he is to “nourish” her, a link to provision. Are you not complying with this and refusing to provide for your own wife as Paul said husbands were to do? Why a denial that there is a provisional aspect of Christ’s love which is to be modeled by the husband?

Here is the fallicy of Cheryl’s son’s whole argument. Not to mention his claims that we are equal with Christ in the sense that we are sinless and whatever else it was that he said.

No wonder you said whatever else it was that he said because you obviously were skimming through it again and misread. Ryan did not say that “we are sinless”. I would encourage you to understand a position first before you throw out an answer, because an uninformed “answer” doesn’t make for a good argument.

Both ideas are completely foreign to the text and Paul’s meaning.

Not so. Provision is in the text. See Jamieson, Fausset, Brown:

(Eph. 5:29) nourisheth—Greek, “nourisheth it up,” namely, to maturity. “Nourisheth,” refers to food and internal sustenance; “cherisheth,” to clothing and external fostering.
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Eph 5:29).

Mark, I can’t believe that you are working to be in ministry and then you ask this question:

Now in what way does Christ provide physically for us.

Christ as God provides our daily food, our very breath and life and our spiritual nourishment. I could go on and on and on about what He does for us as our source, but surely you have seen this from the Scriptures and from personal experience or do you not even pray for your needs?

Philippians 4:19 (NAS)
19 And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Does he go and earn money and supply our physical needs in the same way a husband is supposed to under the egalitarian position.

You are just playing silly. It comes across as mocking Christ to me. Are you really intending to do that?

Straight away the comparison Paul makes becomes meaningless.

Looking at the text in a mocking fashion will always make it seem “meaningless”. Is this the best that you can do?

That is why egals have to talk about Christ provision being different to the husbands provision- thus we no longer have a comparison.

Provision is compared to provision. No one has ever said that the multi-human body that is Christ’s wife is to be taken exactly as the one woman human wife of one man. No exegete compares the two as exactly the same and for you to make Christ’s work as Savior as exactly the same as the husband’s work for his wife, your entire “case” has fallen apart at the seams.

So why is the comp position so much more consistent- it doesn’t swap and fiddle and sqirm and make nonsense out of the passage.

The comp position isn’t consistent at all. You can’t show us how a wife’s submission is something that God refuses to allow a man to do the same thing for her. Secondly the issue of the husband’s authority and how he is to take it over his wife is not consistent or even understandable and most comps cannot even come up with a real life example of Christ’s love for the bride as shown by their own taking authority over their wife. Third, comps continually have to disregard the reciprocal grammar of verse 21. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their world view. Egals don’t need to ignore the grammar to make their view fit.

Mark,
Your wife’s respect for you is admiral. But are you saying that you are not to display this same kind of respect for her?

Example: Your kids have asked something of your wife and she has told them that they cannot do what they asked. They come to you and ask permission and you don’t see anything wrong with them doing whatever they asked of you. Do you just ignore the refusal your wife has given and go against her “no” to the children? Or do you make your children respect their mother’s denial of their request? Are you not allowed by the command of God to submit your “yes” to the children to her previous “no”? Are you really trying to tell us that the respect that your wife gives you will never be given to her with your children because your “yes” will override their mother’s “no” so that the children will learn to bypass their mother’s “law” and to see her as someone whose “law” is not upheld?

Also where does your authority act out in your example? How have you taken authority over your wife? Can you please explain this part while you are showing us why you are not allowed to submit to your wife’s decision with the children. Thanks!

Mark,
Be fair with pinklight. She was just trying to help you out with an answer since you didn’t give one. If her help wasn’t helpful, perhaps you can give us the answer to our questions on the comp example of authority and submission where the wife does something that the husband will never do and also the place of his authority – how he operates it in the marriage over his wife. I honestly think we are all quite interested in hearing your answers.

No one should command another but respectfully ask with a please and thank you. A husband commanding his wife to act is certainly not honoring her or sacrificing for her.

This reminds me of Wayne Grudem who moved cities and changed his job because of his wife’s health. She had to live in another climate for her health’s sake. When people said that he was submitting to her need, he denied it. He said that he was sacrificing for her. It is semantics and either word can be used to describe the same action.

gengwall,
I love it when you supply us with these pictures in our head! 🙂 Don’t get blue now. Mark has already turned us down once. Here’s hoping he will keep working for understanding.

Mark,
You said:

It is quite clear that we are never going to agree since our ‘foundations’ are completely different.

It is certainly clear for me that you are never going to give up your male privilege. But even so it is a good thing for at least there to be understanding of the position. You are the one who consistently says that egals add to or misrepresent the comp position. Now is your chance to clear the air and tell us exactly how the comp view of authority and submission can work out in a definite “men would never be called to do that” example.

Practical implications flow from theology, if the theology is different, the practical issues will be different.

So, let’s see your different practical issue that flows from your theology. Let’s see the comp view in action. That can’t be too hard, can it?

I don’t expect anything i say about my marriage will help facilitate our biblical interpretation of Eph 5.

What an example will do (whether it is from your own marriage or not) will show how the interpretation of Eph 5 works it way out in real life that is consistent with the passage and with the rest of the Bible.

It seems like in an egalitarian context the book of Ephesians could stop at 5:21, since the husband/wife, Christ/church, slave/master, child/parent relationships all say the same thing right- in a nutshell ‘mutual submission’.

Paul gives specific wisdom for each different set of relationships. Each has a unique set of problems that would challenge each one from mutually meeting each other’s needs.

It makes me wonder why Paul would go to all that effort to give these exhortations, if he said it all in 5:21. Wow, my relationship with my wife is no different to the slave and his master- that’s encouraging! (sorry for the sarcasm)

Funny how you put words into our mouths and then make fun of your own words. The fact is that each relationship has its challenges but each relationship is to submit to each other as to Christ. It is our love for Him and our fear of the Lord that encourages us to do what is right even when we feel like we are the privileged one. We are to realize that the Lord Jesus is Master of all and there is no partiality with Him that would make the master as more privileged than the servant or the husband more privileged than the wife or a parent more privileged than a young child believer. No partiality with God means that all are to submit to the needs of the other.

Finally, if my wife IS the body with me, how can she come from my body? How can i be the source of her? Puzzling questions!

She grows from you as her head. You have been set up first so that you take responsibility to care and nurture her and and selflessly meet her needs. That all flows from the head to the body as the head is the source.

I think the reality is, i am not the source of my wife’s body- her parents are (physically).

While only the first man was the physical source of his wife, all mean are to be the source of care. Surely you feel some responsibility to look after your wife and care for her needs. If you feel this responsibility, then you are acting out the head as source application.

Or maybe i am the source ‘spiritually’ like Christ is for the Church.

Only Christ can supply her spiritual needs. He is the only spiritual source. The husband supplies her physical needs. He is the physical source.

Can we draw the conclusion that i am the one responsible for the salvation of my wife, like Christ is for the Church?

One could certainly come to that conclusion if one is a comp. For if the man can take Christ’s authority, then why not take his place as Savior? If the man is to be just like Christ as the comps teach, then where is the line drawing the boundary? I believe that the boundary line is what is in the natural and everything that is a part of God’s duty toward us has nothing to do with the male. Christ’s authority is His right as God.

Now we will wait to see how Mark will bring out the examples of authority/submission with no male taking on any act of submission toward his wife. It will be a huge learning experience to see into the mind of a comp who believes he has a male privilege that God gave him. I will be waiting with baited breath for you to answer Mark. Go ahead. Your turn.

Notice above that the word for “be obedient” means to “be subject to”, “follow”, “listen to”, “submit to”, “yield to”.

Slaves are to submit to their masters and to do this willingly in sincerity of heart “as to Christ”.

Are masters also to do all of this in sincerity of heart “as to Christ”? Yes, they are also to submit to the needs of the servant and listen to them. These Christian masters are to do all of this in the fear of the Lord. For just as the slaves are to render service to their masters:

Ephesians 6:7 (NASB)
7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men,

…so too are the masters to render service to the slaves:

Ephesians 6:9 (NASB)
9 And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

One other thing that is added on the part of masters is to give up threatening. Although with mutual submission, this would also be applicable to slaves, slaves would not be the ones who would have the power to threaten. It is the masters who had the power to threaten with punishment. They were to stop this.

Notice also that along with doing the same things (plural) to the slaves, they were to consider that the slaves were equal with them in the Lord as they both has the same master and the Lord is not partial to masters over slaves.

You can’t just take ‘obey’ and ‘do the same thing’ and ignore the rest of the text as if it doesn’t mean anything or rather gives meaning to the exhortation.

I didn’t say that the rest of the text didn’t mean anything. I was pointing out the mutual submission that is evident in the English and in the Greek. Whatever the rest of the text includes, it cannot exclude “submission” and “do the same thing”. These words are there for a purpose and they make common sense of Ephesians 5:21 where the grammar is reciprocal. When the command is for all of us to submit to each other and then Paul goes on to show how that is to be operative even in the lives of slaves and masters with masters doing the same things to the slaves as unto the Lord, we have a full description of mutual submission “one to another”.

Why will i waste my time explaining how my marriage works on this blog.

You don’t need to give us an example from your own marriage, but surely you can give a hypothetical example that you would consider a classic example of an authority taken by the husband with submission by the wife where the husband is not required to do for the wife what she is required to do for him. Without an example how is it that we can fully understand what you are saying? Since you don’t agree with my examples of mutual submission, perhaps you can give us a good one or two examples of unilateral submission. Or perhaps you just aren’t able to give such an example. If that is the case just say so. Then our case will stand and we win 😉

To continue with Mark’s comments from #56,

I think what you need to do is look beyond the verb ‘obey’ and look at all the other things Paul describes for the slaves. Then also look at what Paul qualifies for the masters after ‘do the same thing’, for example ‘stop threatening’.

We can look to the verb and at all the other things that Paul tells slaves to do.

Here is a copy of the Greek.

Kristen,
Excellent summary.

I was giving what I believed was Ryan’s view as I was asked. I too believe that the husband is to nourish the wife by suppling her needs thus he provides for her as he is able. But because they are one body there may be times that she has to look after him if he is disabled, etc. But the “norm” would be the husband providing for her needs as he sacrifices for her.

Mark,
You said:

Thanks for the interaction.

You are welcome! And I must say that you are one brave man to post your views on this blog! Most complementarians do not have answers to our questions and so the only thing that they can do is to insult egals and deny that they are following Christ. At least you try to stay away from that although your earlier comment about me being like the Pharisee who thanked God that he wasn’t like the sinner was way over the top and thoroughly unkind. Other than that you have been quite civil and it is much appreciated!

I won’t base my understanding of hypotasso, from a verb that is not the same.

That is most unfortunate. It is pretty much saying that you won’t base your understanding of the word by considering the context of the passage. However we should understand that there are ranges of meanings for a word and the context will be the final determinate in the understanding of the particular meaning of a word. Without considering the context, it appears that you have chosen in advance what you want the verb to mean and you are looking only for things that might support your preconceived notion. That really isn’t wise. It is understandable for one who holds to male privilege, but it isn’t the way to fear God by submitting your preconceived ideas to His test.

I will base my understanding from the lexicons, context and the rest of the Bible.

If you are willing to base your understanding on the lexicons, and you have been willing to admit that the submission is voluntary not forced, then you should be able to see that a voluntary submission in the lexicons does not list voluntary submission “to an authority”. Submission can be given “out of love” without a compulsion or a threat or a fear of an authority that belongs to man.

You may wish to swap and fiddle with the verbs to come to the conclusion that you do, but i am not.

The verbs in the context are all to be considered as part of the context. I have no need to “swap” and “fiddle” when the Bible clearly lists mutual acts that are given by both the slave and the master. This act of mutuality is a repeat of Ephesians 5:21 where the verb that we are discussing is reciprocal. The reciprocal is picked up in Ephesians 6:9 where Paul says, “And master, do the same things to them…” Note that this is plural and the things are the same between what the slaves did and what the masters are to do.

To be continued….

Mark,
So are you actually going to ever tell us how one-sided submission works for the husband and wife and how she does something for her husband that he is not required to do for her? I am eagerly waiting for your explanation.

Mark,
You said:

Actually i will address one issue of yours. You seem to think that Eph 6 is a slam dunk for the egalitarian position. Now this purplexes me, since the verb ’submit’ is not even in the text. The slave is told to ‘obey’ so why is it you think it confirms the egalitarian assumption on the verb submit?

Ephesians 6 lists how one of the pairs from chapter 5 submits. The slave obeys with sincereity of heart. Obedience is the submission and then God tells the masters to do the same.

Are you saying that the masters are to ‘obey’ the slaves?

They are to “render service” Eph 6:7, 8 and the term “obey” in verse 5 means to be “subject to”. Therefore the masters are also to be “subject to” or be in submission to the slaves. BADG lexicon regarding the word for obey:

1. to follow instructions, obey, follow, be subject to
   Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature

You said:

Here is again another example of a tangent in the egaitarian theology. We are discussing EPh 5, but more specifically the verb ’submit’ and you tell me Eph 6 proves your point. How can this be, when the verb is not even the same?

Paul uses a synonym and he carries on the description of submission from chapter 5. It is absolutely the same subjection. The fact that Paul uses another word that means the same thing just reinforces the mutual subjection. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the command for masters to do the same thing is not subjection to their slaves?

Mark,

Before i answer any more of your questions,

Actually you have answered very few of my questions. I would like you to tell us how examples of how submission works in a comp marriage with the wife acting out a submission that is not something that God requires of the husband.

Mark,
You said:

So my wife comes from my body?

The first wife came from the husband (he is the source) but every wife after that IS the body. They are one united body knit together so that there is to be complete unity in care.

Mark,
You said:

Let me say it again- all lexicons i have read say that the verb ‘submit’ has authority attached to it.

The Analytical Lexicon does not mention authority and neither does the Lexham Analytical Lexicon or the Louw-Nida Lexicon. And the reference I read in the Lexicons for the passive grammar didn’t mention authority but that the submission was voluntary. When there is a real authority, the submission would be required not voluntary. In the culture of the day women’s submission was not voluntary. It was only through Christianity that she had the same voluntary submission for her husband that all Christians were to have toward each other.

Nevertheless, does that then mean that when BDAG list ‘subordination’ or ‘subject’ as meanings it forfeits that authority is involved? I don’t think it does, so my point is still the same.

Once again how do you have authority when the submission is in the reciprocal grammar? This “forfeits” authority of one over the other by the specific grammar that makes the submission as reciprocal.

Mark,
You asked regarding Ryan’s comments:

In what way is the husband the source of his wife? What does that mean from the context? Then in what way does that parallel the Church and Christ?

The husband is the original source of the woman and thus she is from him and equal to him. The husband today is to see his wife as being from him as his very own body so that he is to care for her as if she is his own flesh. In the same way the Church is the body of Christ and is from Him as the start or origin of the Church.

No, a wife should not worship her husband. What everyone failed to mention (especially Kristen in her thread) was that wives are told to submit as the Church does to Christ.

We are to submit to serve Christ and to receive His service to us in love. The attitude is to be one of love and respect, not of constraint.

So does submit give any indication that auhtority exists. As far as i know, all lexicons say yes.

Yes authority does exist and submission is at times to an authority but you have already been shown by Suzanne here and myself at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/06/02/submission-and-origin-of-authority/ that authority is not something that is to be assumed as submission can exist between equals and the fact that Paul said that the submission that is required of us is reciprocal, shows that it is not about submitting to an authority.

Some of you egalitarians do a good job at trying to discredit those who disagree agree with you.

I don’t know what “disagree agree” means but I am assuming that is a typo. I also think that you should rethink your sentence. Egalitarians certainly do a good job at discrediting the argument not the people. Those who are in disagreement with us are brothers in Christ – no ones to discredit. I don’t see anyone here calling you a heretic or airing your dirty laundry or any other tactic of personal discrediting. Do you see the difference?

But as far as i can tell, two themes are common, 1) i don’t answer supposed tough questions (although they never seem to directly relate to the topic) and 2) you introduce and extend what i have said to things i have never said.

Are you saying that whenever there is a tough question that you can’t answer you are going to claim that the question doesn’t relate to the topic so you don’t need to answer? I think that it is good to answer the tough questions anyway as they are important to us. If you feel they are beyond the topic, tell us why. As far as extending what has not been said, there are logical outgrowths of a position and it is fair to discuss these things. If you do not believe that they are logical outgrowths you can tell us why we should not see it this way. It is not an attack on your person, but a part of discussion.

So although you want to discredit my position by introducing all these other extremities that i have not mentioned, let me be clear. I’m focusing only on what the wife is told to do, in the same way the church is told to do in Eph 5.

The wife is told to have a reciprocal submission with the husband. Since the verb is in verse 21 and it is reciprocal, there is no way to get around that. How can you take submission from verse 21 but leave out the specific grammar that is attached to submission that renders it specifically two-way? If you can explain how you have detached the reciprocal grammar from the verb, it would be helpful to understand your argument.

If you wish to continue discussing this with me that is fine, but stick to the topic. Don’t attach foreign labels and concepts.

I think that everyone has been doing quite fine. Perhaps you can explain what “foreign labels” and “foreign concepts” you believe to be off topic?

You said to Susanna:

You only accept authority if it is the ‘big’ idea of the passage it seems.

I think it would be helpful for you to deal with the grammar that makes submission as reciprocal. Reciprocal submission would leave authority out of the picture, wouldn’t you think?

You also said to Susanna:

So i dare you, to actually accept the Biblical words for what they mean, and not do exegetical backflips to dismiss authority.

Actually Mark, I would like to put this one back on you. How about we dare you to show how reciprocal submission can mean that authority is in mind? How does both have authority over each other? I would really like you to answer this. It is not a side issue but a very important piece of grammar that should not be ignored.

I would like to know how many think Eph 5 is ‘cultural’ (in that the husband had authority in that culture but it was not God ordained) and how many don’t?

I think that all of us can agree that the husband had authority in that culture and that many cultures still hold to the husband having full authority over his wife. The question is always whether God ordained such an authority or whether it comes from sinful man wanting to dominate and control the physically weaker one? The question has been asked many times to show us where God has ordained the husband to have authority over his wife. You have as of yet given no Scripture where such an authority was transferred from God. If you have no Scripture that has a God-ordained authority transferred to the husband, then why should we believe that the mutual submission of Ephesians 5:21 is not mutual in the marriage when the only verb that verse 22 can attach to is found in verse 21 and that verb is absolutely and without a doubt reciprocal? Can you explain this?

Lydia,
Thanks for bringing this out of what Mark said:

“It is something God requires of her not me.”

For some reason I was reading fast and missed this sentence.

Mark,
It appears to me that you believe you do not need to give anything to your wife unless God requires it of you. You do not believe that God requires you to submit to your wife so you refuse to do so. Is that correct?

It is interesting that the term “submit” in Ephesians 5:21 is reciprocal and yet you will not submit to your wife. Could you give an example of what you will not do for your wife that you would see as an example of submitting to her?

I think that it is wise to give examples since for all of us to understand each other need to know just what we mean by words. I gave examples of submitting “one to another” with husbands, masters and children. Apparently, Mark, you don’t see these as examples of submitting but of “service”. Why don’t you give us examples of submitting? What do you see as an example of submission that your wife is “required” to do by God but that you are not “required” to do? What is an example of submission that a master is not required to do to his servant, but something that the servant is required to do for the master? What is an example of submission that a parent is not required to do for a child, but is an example of what a child is required to do for a parent? When you give these examples we are able to examine them so that we understand what exactly you mean by submission that doesn’t involve service.

Thanks for taking the time to do this for us, Mark. Don’t think you are submitting to a request 😉 These examples are needed to facilitate understanding.

Okay, back to answering Mark from #56,

Again it is not helpful to criticise pastors or churches who attempt to give some instruction on this issue. We must not import our 21st century society back into the Bible and demand answers as we wish. It is not a flaw in the comp position, in as much as it is not a flaw in the egal pos. Neither can offer direct biblical teaching on the issue.

I think that it is valid to criticize pastors and churches who create rules that are not based in the Bible. When single women are instructed to find a church leader to take the position of “head” while she is single, this is going beyond the Scripture.

The issue again is whether a woman needs a man to be in authority over her? If she needs this, then a single woman would have to be looking for someone to take authority over her and to make her decisions when there is disagreement. But the Scripture never assigns a head/body relationship for a single woman. She is never told that she needs to find a “head”. She is never instructed to be under the authority of a man or that she has a need of an authority. Rather it is said that she has freedom to serve the Lord as she is. When complementarians go beyond the Scripture to carry on the myth that women need an authority, they actually harm women who can become convinced that they are not to seek for maturity, but to seek for a man as authority.

as to your 3 examples in your thread, be careful not to confuse submit with service. Again here are the two definitions.

Serve- “perform duties or services for”

Submit-“accept or yield to a superior force or stronger person”>

First of all the definition I was giving for submit was to submit to the other person’s need. While service is a way to submit to the other person’s need, it goes beyond service. They are not the exact same thing.

Now you give the meaning of submit as yielding to a superior force or stronger person, but while submit can mean this it doesn’t always imply force or strength of the other person.

In the English this come through by meaning #7 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/submit

7. to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc

To defer to someone’s opinion doesn’t mean that they are a stronger person or have a superior force. It implies willing submission to another’s opinion. When you leave out the full range of definitions you are trying to stack the deck on your side. That doesn’t come across as very fair to hide meanings that are even in the English but which are not consistent with your own view. I think it is far better to consider the full evidence and not be afraid to see things outside of our own viewpoint.

So when a husband goes and buys milk, is he serving or submitting?

He is submitting to his wife’s need. In the process of submitting to her need, he is serving her. Service is a vital part of submission but service does not deny submission.

This is the fundamental difference, and egalitarians should stop confusing the two (or combining the two).

Under the definition of service:

the serving of god by obedience, piety, etc.: voluntary service.

Here we can see that voluntary submission can also be called voluntary service. While submission goes beyond service, it certainly is the same as service in many areas thus our submission to God can be called our voluntary service. When the comps ignore the connection of the two, they appear to deny that a man is also to give service to his wife when clearly service is attached to submission.

Okay I have to run now and will be back as I am able.

70 Mark,

You said:

However, why do you assume therefore that authority cannot exist? Why is it, that you actually contradict the meaning of this verb?

The meaning of the Greek verb does not force authority before one can submit. Look again at my comment #2. Now think about this. Is Paul using “submit” in a military way regarding relationships? He cannot be using it this way because it would be nonsense. You have not yet answered the specific grammar of reciprocity in the verb “submit”. All you have done is to try to use “reason” to deny it. That is because when you start out with the wrong meaning for a word that says that one must be submitting to an authority or power over them, it makes no sense to tell a master to submit to his slave. But the fact is that Ephesians 6 tells master to do to their slaves what their slaves are to do to them. It is reciprocal in nature because Paul is not using an authority base. We can understand that the slave has no authority over the master so the submission is not possible to be authority based. But the fact that the master is to act in a reciprocal way shows that Paul is talking about respectful Christian behavior not about authority based authority. Thus we can submit to our children’s needs even though they don’t have authority over us. And husbands can submit to their wives needs even though they don’t have authority over their husbands.

Just saying it is a voluntary action is nothing spectacularly enilightening. You have jumped from voluntary to therefore not under authority, which is a complete reversal of it’s use in the Bible.

Ephesians 6 blows this out of the water. To argue that submission is always because there is an authority is made nonsense by Paul’s requiring masters to do for their slaves the same things that their slaves are required to do for them. How complementarians can ignore the very next chapter really does mind-boggle me. They are sometimes so “authority” minded that they are no “earthly” good.

do you believe Church leaders have authority over you? Do they force you to obey and punish you as you describe?

Church leaders have no God-given authority over individuals and this is why it is the church themselves that are to discipline those who are sinning. It is the body that has authority. No church leader can demand submission. This is why we are told to submit to them willingly so that their work is not a grief since they are to watch over us to protect us. They can’t protect us if we refuse to submit.

The problem again seems to be that authority equals ‘demands’ or ‘forcing’ something in your view.

This is the accepted meaning of authority. In fact the very first definition of authority means:

the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

What does God’s authority mean? It means that He has the power and the right to control and to command and for dissenters He has the right to punish. What would authority mean if God had no right or power to enforce His authority? The fact that He has the power and the right to demand and then punish proves that He has legitimate authority. Where is the husband’s legitimate proof of authority?

You are using words that overstate both what comp teaches and what submission means.

Again submission is not the difference between us but it is the authority that is the difference. We submit in love to one who cannot demand our submission. Your position is that the wife submits in love but her submission is also to one who has the right to take authority over her will should she not submit willingly. He then has a “right” to make a decision without her submission. This is where we depart ways.

You need to show me how submitting voluntarily therefore means that authority is irrelevant since this seems to be the crux of your argument.

First of all there is no authority needed if the submission is voluntary. Secondly there is no authority ever given by God to the husband over his wife so we insist on legitimate authority not illegitimate authority that is a usurping of God’s authority without His permission. Since you have shown no evidence to prove that God has given husband’s God’s delegation of authority, how is it that I am to respond to a relevant authority argument when no such authority has been established? I have been arguing that proper God-given authority has “teeth”. It has the authority to punish disobedience. Yet comps appear to teach an authority with no “teeth”, which is a clear indication to me that such “authority” is not God-given.

Please stay away from words (all egals) like tyranny, force, demands, abuse, etc etc.

Fine. I just did. I have shown that there is no “authority” given to the husband that would allow for punishment of non-compliance. If this was true authority, it would be the only authority that I am aware of that has no “teeth”. Not a good sign at all, my friend.

I’ve run outta time…

I do hope that you are able to come back to answer my questions and especially to show your view of comp submission. I have given you an egal understanding of willing submission of one to another without authority that would by the very nature of an authority demand such submission. What I would like to see from you is examples of wifely submission to her “authority” that are not things that a husband would ever do for his wife. What are such unique acts of “submission to authority” life in your viewpoint? I would love to see them.

Thanks for your consideration.

Mark #56,
You said:

The church is cherished, loved, sacrificed for. She is free to accept and follow Christ as her head or she is free to reject Him.

Actually a Christian is not free to reject Christ’s authority. But we are given the opportunity to serve Him (freely) and to receive all that He gives us including His wisdom that allows us to make our own decisions that are wise. But there is punishment that comes to all who reject Christ’s authority. Where is the punishment that is allowed for wives who reject their husband’s authority? Are we really going to give the authority of God to the husband that would allow him to have power over and punish his own wife?

If egalitarians stop slandering the comp position as much as you criicise them doing it to you that would help.

Egalitarians do not slander the comp position regarding our position in Christ. But egals challenge the comp position where an authority is ascribed to the husband that would give him the “rights” of Christ to her. We continually claim that Christ has an authority that is not mimicked by the husband and Christ has a “rule” and “rights” that are not given to the husband. And those who submit to a “rule” of the husband may well be in danger of idolatry.

I guess the obvious point is that singleness in women was not an issue in the New Tetament era, so it’s hardly surprising that no instruction is given on the issue.

Actually that is not true. There were many widows in the church and their singleness was a very big issue in the church. There were instructions on the support to be given to widows but no instruction was ever given regarding who was to be in “authority over” these single women. Instead they were free to served the Lord without a personal “ruler” over them.

Mark #56,

To continue from your comments.

Now from the threaded comments, most assume this means that a wife has no choices or options- that she is just ‘property’ i saw someone write. But is this the way we view our selves as Christ’s bride?

Mark, we are not denying the need to have willingly submission to serve Christ and to receive from Him the gifts that He wants to give us. The issue is whether the husband has a legitimate authority to command submission or if the authority that is claimed belongs to the husband is one usurped from Christ.

Wives then give willing submission to their husbands because they love them and want to serve their needs. In what way would authority even be needed in the human relationship? What “rights” belong to this authority? Since God never delegated an authority to the husband, what “rights” would go along with an un-given authority?

We know that the husband has the right over his wife’s sexuality because that is clearly given along with the wife’s right to her husband’s sexuality. That is why neither one of them has the right to have a physical relationship with another person because that right does not belong to them to give away. But what “right” does a husband claim to have that is never given to him in the Scripture? Since authority goes along with “rights”, it is amazing that husbands can swallow the idea that they have authority over their wives when Scripture never tells them what “rights” they have that are not also given to the wife.

56 Mark,

You said:

First, we are all under authority. I don’t know how important we must stress this point.

We are under God-ordained authority of the government. However God has never ordained an authority of the husband over the wife. Authority cannot be assumed. It must be given.

Second, why is a wife under her husbands authority? I’m surprised at this really. The best answer is to look at the Bible. Ephesians 5 teaches us that the wife must submit to her husband as the church does to Christ.

So you are saying that a wife must be under her husband’s authority because she is to submit to him? The problem with this reasoning is that her submission is never said to be submission to authority. And he is never given authority over her. It is a key point that authority must be given. Authority is such an important issue that it cannot be assumed to exist for resisting authority and disobeying authority brings punishment. Thus because authority has a responsibility regarding punishment, it cannot be assumed but must be given by God.

Authority of a husband over his wife fails every test of legitimate authority. It is never directly given by God to a husband. A husband can never legitimately “punish” his wife for not obeying him. While a government can “punish” its citizens for not obeying and a government can enforce obedience, a husband can do neither. Any “authority” that is taken by the husband is cultural and is not God-given. In our free countries a husband can be held accountable for “punishing” his wife for not obeying him. He can also be held accountable by the courts and by the law for forcing his wife into obedience. Only in non-free lands where the culture gives unilateral authority to the husband can he practice his “authority” over her without impunity.

What kind of God-given authority does a man have that has no power over his wife to force her to obey or to punish her for disobedience? God-given authority always has power and the right to punish. It is only in pagan lands where the culture is not godly that the husband has full authority over his wife. In Christian lands, the husband does not have this power or authority that he can enforce on her. There is no evidence that the husband has a God-given authority over the wife.