Cheryl Schatz

NN,
You said that Luke 22:26 the “leader” refers to one with authority, yet the passage shows that Jesus means leader as one who goes before and leads the way as he was doing for the very next verse Jesus showed them by His going before them as one who led the way that the most important one among them was to serve and not act as one who take authority over others as one of the world’s greatest do.

Luke 22:26–27 (NASB)
26 “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.
27 “For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

If we want to be important in the kingdom of God and in His family, should we be following Jesus’ example as one who leads the way as a servant? Or should we follow the world’s way of taking authority over people to cause them to do what we believe is best? Remember Jesus by his leading example never took authority over Peter when Peter refused to have his feet washed. Would it not have been an excellent time to show what taking authority over people looks like if that was what Jesus was modeling?

Dave,

I love your example of the love coming through the head drawing us to Himself. A perfect example of true Christianity drawn by love, not by authority.

And Dave, how awesome to have you “fly by” the blog!! You Aussie’s are really a wonderful addition to this blog.

NN,
If you wife has decided with her “lesser” authority to a decision and you disagree, can you by your “greater” authority overrule her?

My apologies to Charis. For some reason her comments are ending up in my blog’s spam box and whenever I see them there, I rescue them 😉 Not sure why that is happening, but just to let you know so that you don’t think I am holding your comments back myself.

NN,
What authority did Jesus take over his disciples? Did he make their decisions for them?

When Jesus went to wash the feet of Peter and Peter refused, did Jesus take His authority over Peter? Did Jesus say “I am going to wash your feet whether you like it or not because it is good for you and I am making the decision”? Or did Jesus allow the disciples to make their own decisions by influencing them with the truth and then letting them freely submit by allowing them to give themselves to him?

Where do we ever see Jesus taking authority over His disciples? Where do we see Him making their decisions for them “for their own good”? No where!

Jesus even shunned taking authority over people when he was asked to do so.

Luke 12:13–14 (NASB)
13 Someone in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.”
14 But He said to him, “Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?”

If Jesus did not take authority over people here on earth, then why would we think that He gave men the responsibility over another adult human being to be their authority?

Rita, welcome to my blog!

The term for “saved” that Paul uses is always used by him in the epistles to mean biblical salvation. Paul says that “she” will be saved through THE childbearing. It is one definite “childbearing” which is a noun. There is no doubt that the salvation comes through the promise of the birth of the Messiah through the woman. For much more information I recommend my DVD set which goes through this passage point by point so that we can understand the relationship of verse 15 regarding salvation to the rest of the passage. http://www.amazon.com/Women-Ministry-Silenced-Set-Free/dp/B000FW4N60

I should add that God did an amazing wonderful miracle in my life and in my husband’s life. God spoke to my husband about his authority over me and told him to let me go. He obeyed and our marriage was fully healed. God gave me an amazing love for my husband and his willingness to allow God to be the one to have authority over me without his own control. My husband now gives me his advice and his own wisdom, but he allows me to make my own mistakes. It didn’t take me too long to learn and I have grown tremendously in wisdom and maturity. I am extremely happy and joyful in the Lord and I no longer have another “father” figure looking over my shoulder. I have an amazing best friend back! We are one in a way that we never could fully be when he had authority over me. We are one in true unity and I greatly value his wisdom and advice. He will probably never truly get what is good for a woman, but he doesn’t have to. He is responsible for himself and his authority over another human stops with himself. Would either of us ever go back to him having “authority over” me? Not in your life! He would be the first to say that when he had authority over me he was miserable inside. It was a responsibility that made him unhappy and unfulfilled. But now we are both walking in maturity in the Lord knowing that we look to Him not to the authority of another person. The very best lesson that my husband learned was to “run to God” and not to trust in his own wisdom. And God released him from the false responsibility of an authority over me and the fruit of God’s wisdom has made our marriage strong and filled with love. To God be the glory for the great things He has done in our lives!!!

Hi folks, wow, what a lot of good comments! I will be popping in and out as I am able since this is a really busy time for me.

NN, you said:

And if you read what I wrote above – the proper use of the man’s authority is always to the good of his wife; not selfish exploitation of the woman’s sensuality without regard for her.

I rarely talk about my own past, but this quote brings one last comment about a time that has long past.

I had the most amazing best friend until the day that I got married. That day he changed from my best friend to the person who was now responsible for me. He believed that God would hold him accountable for what I did or did not do and acting as a good and faithful man, he took his authority over me “for my own good”. There is no question in my mind that his actions were out of love for me and out of responsibility towards God. He was going to be the very best authority over me that there ever could be and that would make me perfect and the very best I could be.

After years of his authority over me “for my own good” I lost all the love I ever had for him and I dreamed about freeing myself from my tormentor through divorce. Was my husband to blame? Absolutely not! He was doing the very best job that he could with the teaching he had received that he was responsible for me and he alone would be responsible before God for what I and the family did. His heart was right. He tried the best he could do. It wasn’t his trying his best that was wrong. It was the whole system that was flawed.

Who told us that God has gifted men to know what is “for the good” of their wives? Who told us that women don’t know what is good for them but men do? Who told us that the woman was not meant to grow up to be an independent mature woman who can make godly decisions? Who told us that the woman would need a man who would measure her decisions and her actions and either approve or disapprove of what she does “for her own good”?

The understanding that a male knows better than the woman knows what is “for her good” and can stop her from doing what she desires to do “for her own good” because he has a godlike responsibility for another adult human being to make sure that she always remains under his authority to decide what is “good for her” is actually an evil thing.

The evil is because God created both the male and female to have mature decision making power. God made them both rulers of this earth. He did not make them as one ruler and one child who needed constant supervision because they are prone to mistakes and to not knowing what is good for them. No, that isn’t the truth of God’s word. God made two mature adults. There were no children or dependent adults without the ability to make decisions in the original creation.

One may ask why Eve then made such a bad decision to eat the fruit? First of all she made a decision because she was given decision-making ability by design. It wasn’t her decision-making ability that was the problem. Rather, she ate the fruit because she was deceived. She did not need to have someone make her decision for her “for her own good” but she did need someone to give her the facts that she was missing so that she could have made a wiser decision. She needed to know the facts about God’s character that only one person had seen clearly because of the creative acts that this one person alone had seen in creation. All she needed was more information to make a decision without the influence of deception.

Adam had what she needed but he refused to share it with her. There is no indication that he was responsible for making her decision for her. And God did not call Adam to account for “allowing” Eve to make a decision on her own when he should have made her decision for her “for her own good”. What Adam was called to account for was merely “listening” to his wife’s voice while she was talking to the serpent and doing nothing to stop the serpent’s deception. That was called treachery.

What was the good thing to do that Adam did not do, was not making her decision for her or taking his authority over her. All she needed was a word of truth so that she could have made her own wise decision.

Adam failed Eve in the garden many years ago and today husbands fail their wives when they now fall for the serpent’s lie themselves. So many men have been deceived to believe that God has given them authority over another adult human being to make all the final decisions “for her own good”.

But the truth of the matter is that God has called us all to grow up and be mature and to learn how to make decisions on our own. What women need is not a boss or a decision maker making her decisions for her. What women need is truth. We need all the tools to make our own decisions so that as mature Christians we can be prepared for our place in the next world. We too will be judging the angels and we too must learn how to judge wisely and maturely the things of this world.

When men fall for the lie of the modern-day serpent who has whispered in their ear that men are in charge of women and must supervise them to control their decisions in order to stop them from making “mistakes”, satan laughs at the church because by his deception he is holding back the gifts and the ability of women to grow to maturity unhindered. One half of the Church’s warriors are at stake. And satan has convinced men that they alone are the warriors and they alone are responsible before God and they alone understand women enough to make women’s decisions for them “for their own good”. This is not the truth. It is a lie.

The truth is that God has gifted and called his female “sons” into a spiritual battle and they cannot do the job that they are called to do if men hold them back. I challenge men to look closely at the Scriptures. Where did God tell Adam to make Eve’s decisions for her? Where did God command Adam to take authority over Eve or reprimand Adam for not taking authority over her? Why did God create two rulers on this earth only to hamstring one with no decision-making power? Did not God say that all of us are going to judge the angels in the next life? Do we seriously think that God has created that place of judging for the church in the next life but not allow women the freedom to make proper judgment calls regarding their own life while here on the earth?

One the biggest errors of translation in the entire Bible is the addition of the words “symbol of” in 1 Cor. 11:10. This addition bolsters the lie of satan that women are under the authority of the man instead of having their own authority over their own head. But if you research the verse carefully, not only will you see that the addition of the words “symbol of” are not there in the original text, but the term for “authority” ALWAYS means that the person themselves has the authority and right to do an action. Does a woman have the right and authority to make the decision over what she puts on her head according to 1 Cor. 11:10 or does this verse say that the man has been given authority over her to decide for her “for her own good” what she wears or doesn’t wear on her head? The truth that is clearly shown by verse 10 is that the woman has authority over her own head!

Folks we have fallen for the deception of the one who is the most crafty liar this world has ever seen. He wants to remove authority from women that God has given to them. He wants to make women ineffective in spiritual warfare. And he wants to hurt our marriages by allow men to believe that they alone know what is good for women. Guys you don’t understand us. And you surely don’t know what is good for us. Give us the truth and give us information. But allow us our God-given right to make our own decisions as we walk in maturity with our own fear of God. The Proverbs 31 wise woman was one who made her wise own decisions without having a husband take authority over her. She was a godly woman, mature and wise and capable of judging the angels (1 Cor. 6:3) in the future life.

Men, husbands, you have a choice. You can continue to claim an “authority” over your wife that God did not give you nor did God give Adam “authority over” Eve in the original good creation and you can reap as a result women who are held back, kept from full maturity in their decision-making ability and unhappy that they are never “allowed” to ever be themselves without the control of a man. Or you can release women to God’s control so that they can be Proverbs 31 women capable of making godly choices without a man’s controlling what they do “for their own good” and have mature, godly women who will have their husbands rise up and praise them for their wisdom, their strength and their godliness with their own mature decision-making power (Proverbs 31:28).

It is your choice men, but chose wisely. You can have a strong mature woman at your side or you can force her to remain child-like and dependent so that you can continue to take authority over her “for her own good”. In the next life she too will be judging the angels. It would be a godly and a wise thing for you to release her now and allow her to be all that she was created to be and accept her rulership as God’s good creative act instead of believing the lie of satan that she was meant to be ruled over instead being of a godly ruler herself.

gengwall, it is so good to see your name pop up again! You were missed!

Ah. This is the post I have long been waiting for. I find it excellent.

Thanks! I really struggled at dealing with Ephesians 5 because it is not directly involved with women in ministry. So I procrastinated and procrastinated until I got two emails back to back on the same day on this same subject and that really pricked my conscience that it was time for me to deal with submission in marriage. There will be more in the future on the other marriage submission Scriptures.

Kristen,
Those are excellent, well laid-out thoughts. Thanks!

Elastigirl,
Really well said!

TL,
I agree with your question. Adding rank and authority to a “one flesh” union is like trying to mix oil and water and then finding oneself frustrated how come it doesn’t work like we had been led to believe it should.

A true loving relationship for a woman will never place her under compulsion to obedience. A true loving relationship will flourish with respect and sacrifice for both so that the one flesh union will be there without removing the personhood of each partner.

Jane,
I hear deep pain in your writing. I can honestly say that I know what that pain feels like because it was our frustrating experience with the rank, authority and submission model for many years. It is odd but one would think that the man would be happy to have the trump card and the authority to make a decision even against his wife’s will, but sadly deep down inside most men are really not satisfied in this kind of hierarchical relationship. Although their flesh can love the power trip, inside it is not even close to having a one-flesh union with a full partner and joint heir.

But I do know that many women have had their personalities removed to the point that there is nothing left but a shell because men have bought into a system that leaves full responsibility on their shoulders. Some Christian men feel such stress at having to answer to God for their wives that they struggle so hard to try to force their wives into a mold. In essence they end up usurping the Holy Spirit’s job and it frustrates and discourages them. And women who are so frustrated at having to become something that they are not by a husband pressured to get an A+ on his family report card with God can find themselves losing hope and losing themselves.

In their frustration they can think that they are the problem not even recognizing that it is the “system” that is flawed. It is the worldly system that makes the husband responsible before God for his wife and responsible for every decision in the marriage.

I am greatly saddened by the harm that has come to marriages and spouses who can’t make this hierarchical system work. I, myself, wasn’t even allowed to make mistakes until God intervened in our marriage and He directly told my husband to leave me alone to be a person. It was an extremely hard time for a man who was taught that he had to make things work and he was responsible to make me what I should be. When we dropped the hierarchy and the rank and forced subordination, we never looked back. I can now breathe and be a person and I even have the freedom to make mistakes. And because of this I have grown as a person in ways that I could never have grown when I was under an authority. What I have seen personally is that in many marriages the hierarchical system produces dependent women unable to fully mature and frustrated men who tend toward an unhealthy dictatorial style rulership. When we can give this up and allow the Lord Jesus to be our only master, His burden becomes light on our shoulders and He makes a way where there seemed no way to see happiness and true peace.

I love those men who are still in the hierarchical system but who have decided that unless there is a great emergency, they will never take out their male trump card. And all their lives they live without the trump card on the table, just as we now live.

And I should also once more give a big THANK YOU to NN for joining us on this blog! Your comments continue to be gracious and I can tell that you are trying really hard to be thought-provoking. I affirm you as a brother in Christ and that means that there are likely lots of things that I can learn from you as you are needed in the body. I am also certain that there are many more things that we would be able to agree on in our Christian faith. Women in Ministry and the “role” of godly wives is something that we can debate about in a passionate way while still seeing each other as a child of God for whom Christ died. I hope that you will always feel welcome here even if we do not come to a complete agreement in these matters!

By the way Susanna, I don’t think I said congratulations on your newest addition to the family! It is great to have you back even if it is between feedings!

Susanna,
You said:

As far as governing authorities are concerned: they were given by God BECAUSE OF SIN (Rom 13) to punish evild-doers and give praise to the one’s who do good. There can be no comparison between an authority which is given at creation and one which is instituted because of sin, unless we of course agree with the early church and say that the man’s authority was given because the woman ruined it all by introducing sin, while the man was innocent.

Excellent thought! The issue is indeed what God created at the beginning and unless complementarians can explain where God instituted an authority of Adam over Eve in the beginning and why He did so when He created them equal rulers, their views of authority imported into marriage can only be seen as worldly not God-given.

TL,

It is not the marriage relationship that reflects the Lord and the church. It is the relationship of Christ sacrificing Himself for the benefit of the church that is likened to a marriage. You have it backwards.

You have worded this in an excellent and wise way! Thanks for challenging me with your wisdom!

NN,
No one is saying that there are no worldly “ranks”. However this post is about spiritual “ranks” that give one person a spiritual authority card to override another person’s will.

So while I appreciate your question, it is out of order. I will consider answering if you have a spiritual authority question within marriage. I gave you a couple of real life examples and I wonder if you think that the man who submitted to his wife was wrong? Also do you believe that the man who forced his wife against her will was merely doing his spiritual duty toward her?

Dear Tiffany,

It does make sense. (I don’t agree with you, but your explain is quite clear). Given your perspective on it, I withdraw my original objections with my apologies.
Tiffany

Apology accepted and no offense taken. Your good-hearted comment is accepted and I appreciate your gracious apology!
🙂 Cheryl

NN,
You said:

As such, the idea of authority is implicit within the construction of this passage. Just as Christ’s sacrifice was not of His authority – but of His very life.

This is not true according to Philippians 2. The “normal” sacrifice talked about in Scripture is Jesus’ taking on our sin and dying for us, but Philippians makes it very clear that His act of taking on humanity was a great act of “giving up” himself for us to be just like us. This is why chapter 2 shows 2 acts of humility and a challenge to have the same humble attitude as Christ.

Philippians 2:5–8 (NASB)
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Notice that Paul says that Jesus “emptied Himself” to take on the form of a slave. Then at the end of His life He humbled Himself to the point of death. All of us are to have this same attitude and men are told to especially take this attitude towards their wives.

Even so as we are told to obey the authority of Christ, wives are told to submit to their husbands – “even as to the Lord.”

There is no term “authority” in Eph. 5:22. Rather wives are to do everything including submitting to their husbands to the glory of God. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the husband’s authority but rather the glory and praise of God.

Colossians 3:17 (NASB)
17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.

1 Corinthians 10:31 (NASB)
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Not because it is exacted by Christ (or the husband) but because it is right and proper to God’s ordination of the relationship.

There is no “ordination” of the relationship that adds authority to the husband to override her will. In fact when you add an authority into the mix, the free will offering of her submission is no longer free by is by compulsion. Compulsion removes free will and submission is never to be under compulsion. Paul mentions this when he writes to Philemon regarding an act of his free will consent.

Philemon 13–14 (NASB)
13 whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel;
14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.

If a husband has been given the authority to override his wife’s free will, then there would be no need for willing submission. The answer would have been easy – the man takes out his trump card and then takes what he wants and does what he wants even if there is active opposition from his wife.

The question we should all be asking at this point – is this what Christ does for His bride?

NN,
You said:

To reiterate – we are agreed that Christ (in human form) had authority and that Christ now has authority – in fact All authority (irregardless of its origin).

May I rewrite this to make a more Biblical statement? We are agree that the Word of God gave up His rights and His authority in order to become man and then in time God told Him when He could take authority again and eventually He was given back all authority that He had in the beginning in His existence as God.

You argue that Christ gave up said authority to be the Bridegroom. But both during His time on earth and now, He has authority.

What I was arguing is that the Word gave up His authority and His rights in order to become man. When He was walking on this earth there were times that He did not exercise His authority and times that He did not know things like who touched him and when He is coming back. It was the Father who chose when and where Jesus could exercise expressions of His authority.

Therefore, your argument that Christ gave up His authority to be the Church’s Bridegroom CANNOT logically be correct.

There is nothing illogical about this at all. The church has always believed that the Word gave up his rights so that he could live like us as a human being. He was not walking around as a five year old with all authority. Rather he learned obedience as a human and when the Father decided, Jesus acted in obedience with the Father’s choice to exercise parts of His dominion.

Furthermore, in Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul explicitly relates the proper mutual interaction of husband and wife as a parallel of Christ and His bride the Church.

That is true, however the church has always known that Paul did not give the example of Jesus and the church as a full example of a human husband and wife for no mere husband is the Savior of his wife.

In the marriage union the husband holds the same relation, namely, that of headship, as Christ holds to the Church, and the headship of the one represents the headship of the other.” With regard to the words, “and He Himself is the Saviour of the body,” the same authority says, “It is best taken as an independent clause, stating in a definite and emphatic way an important point in which Christ, who resembles the husband in respect to headship, at the same time differs from the husband.… The husband is head of the wife, and in that he is like Christ; but Christ is also that which the husband is not, namely, Saviour of that whereof He is Head.”
Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament

5:22–24. Most ancient writers expected wives to obey their husbands, desiring in them a quiet and meek demeanor; some marriage contracts even stated a requirement for absolute obedience. This requirement made sense especially to Greek thinkers, who could not conceive of wives as equals. Age differences contributed to this disparity: husbands were normally older than their wives, often by over a decade in Greek culture (with men frequently marrying around age thirty and women in their teens, often early teens).
In this passage, however, the closest Paul comes to defining submission is “respect” (v. 33), and in the Greek text, wifely submission to a husband (v. 22) is only one example of general mutual submission of Christians (the verb of v. 22 is borrowed directly from v. 21 and thus cannot mean something different).
Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Eph 5:22).

NN,
I like the way Elastigirl responded. It seems to me that when we think we have a higher rank than someone else and thus have a basis to claim an authority to make a decision against the will of another, it is an easy case-closed, close-up-the-shop scenario. But when there is no higher rank, what do we do? We actually have to work hard for agreement and resolution. I believe that this is what we need to do more and that “pulling rank” is taking the easy road out.

I appreciate that you tried to answer my question with an example of men serving in the coastguard, but this doesn’t apply to a marriage.

How about the example of a man who hears a great plea from a church who needs money and he decides to sell their house and give everything they have to help pay off the church loan. The wife resists and he cannot sell the property without her signature. He submits to her and they stay in their home.

Or how about a man who is in trouble financially and he knows that he can’t hold off forever but he can keep the dogs at bay for a time by mortgaging the house to the hilt along with everything they own. The wife resists but the husband overrules her will and forces her to sign. He has taken authority over her and his decision stands. Within a short period of time his business goes under and they lose everything.

These are real life scenarios and the outcome is also real. One husband submitted to his wife and the other one did not. One took authority against his wife’s will and the other one did not. Did the one who submitted to his wife and saved his home sin against God by not taking authority over his wife? Or did the man who overruled his wife against her better judgment and against her will act like a real man taking his trump card out and forcing the decision his way? Is this the way that Jesus acts?

pinklight,
Thanks for your comments and the questions that help to keep things going!

Elastigirl,
Welcome to my blog! Thanks so much for joining in the discussion!

Susanna,
So glad to have you back! We have missed you around on the blog and your words of wisdom are also greatly appreciated!

Thanks for the questions NN.

I think this is a wonderful time for others to weigh in before I answer. What do you think?

I am going to attend to important matters and hopefully will be back later in the evening. Those who would like to give your point of view are very welcome to jump in. Just remember to keep the dialog as respectful as you can and with brotherly love.

Hi NN,
You said:

I don’t see how you can possibly construe this to support your idea of ‘Christ – our Bridegroom – being without authority.’

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to restate so that I can be clear on this. What I said was that as God, Jesus did not hold onto His rights but gave them all up for us. In a similar way if a man has any kind of male rights he is to give them up for his bride.

Now as far as taking authority back, whatever God gives to Him is rightfully taken by Christ because Christ is true GOD.

If the human husband is given authority from God he may take that authority but he is not compared to God with all rights and all authority.

Here is the question – where is the husband given authority over his wife? If there is a worldly authority as there is a male-rights authority that is promoted by the world, a godly Christian man is willing to give up that worldly “right” that he owns in order to sacrifice for his bride so that they may become one. The only authority that I can see from the Scripture that God has given the man, He has also given to the woman – as co-rulers of the world. It is a mistake for a man to believe that God has given him authority over his wife when this authority has never been delegated to him.

It is not a mistake for Jesus Christ who is our Lord and our God to take back His authority as God as He has specifically been given this authority by the Father. He not only is our “last Adam” husband of the Church, but He is our God.

There is a limit on comparing Jesus to a human husband. We can rightfully look to Jesus as our example when the Bible says so, but to take His Godly authority over humans and make this authority our own without permission from God goes beyond the Scriptures and keeps our marriages in the realm of the worldly way where men have usurped God’s authority in the area of a human being and made this authority their own.

All I ask is for those who believe that they have authority delegated from God to show that authority over their wives that was delegated by God. If they cannot do this perhaps they think that the worship that we do to Jesus Christ belongs to husbands too because Jesus is the husband of the church? It is risky business to take from Jesus and make everything of His as God to belong to males. Does this make sense?

Tiffany,
You said:

I think I can better answer your questions if you answer one of mine first and then I’ll stop side tracking the conversation. Why did you choose o highlight the future use of the master-slave commands rather than the government-subject commands? both were given the same time/treatment in the post.

I highlighted the master/slave component of submission because it is most like the husband/wife component. God has given no authority to masters or to husbands but he has invested authority in the “governing authorities” of our governments. Does this make sense?

To carry on, Tiffany you said:

Regardless if one is directly quoting an opposing side, quotes can be used in an accurate way(that most correctly conveys what the original author intended) or an inaccurate way (one the conveys something very different than what the original author intended, and thus biasis the audience against said author even though the full quote is right there.)

My understanding from NN is that he was bringing in the comparison of the word “submit” for wives and slaves because these are two areas where he finds hierarchy in addition to a possible Christian equality. My point is that hierarchy is not stated beside the submission nor is authority always the flip side of submission.

I think that it is time to carry on and leave aside the issue of inflammatory dialog unless someone else can clearly identify my “sin”. Thanks!

Tiffany,

You said:

Cheryl- it is uncharitable and inflamatory to take a quote (even a direct, word for word quote) of someone else that is most likely to turn the audience against them.

My friend, do you really consider it uncharitable and inflammatory to repeat back what someone has said? If the audience is going to turn against the person, don’t you think that they would have turned against them when the person first made the statement?

Let’s take this one to its logical conclusion. Let’s say that we are publicly discussing race relations and our opponent says that he hates —- (you fill in the blank with whatever racial slur comes to mind). So it appears to me that you are telling me that it is not> inflammatory for the opponent to say that he hates —– but it is inflammatory for me to state that this is what he has said and to invite discussion on the statement? Sorry, but I am confused. I was never taught that repeating an opponents position in the process of the discussion is an inflammatory statement that will turn the audience against the opponent. I can think of ways that one could twist the opponent’s statement to make it appear that he is making a racial slur when he is not, but to quote a true copy of what is said should not be a problem at any time. I would not be offended if I am quoted in a correct way. In fact, I am happy when I am quoted correctly as that invites dialog and encourages understanding.

You could have just as easily said that “NN believe the submission to be the same as that of the master-slave, government-subject relatioship” or even just the government-subject relationship (if you were going to pick one over the other that was used) or more accurately said that “NN points to the word used to give instructions to the husband-wife/master-slave/government-subject as the same word and draws his conclusions from that”. Perhaps a bit more verbose, but at least far more accurate. Making the master-slave correlation seems to be the go to in egalitarian circles. (Very similar to complementarians makes the egalitarian=feminism correlation which is equally uncharitable.)

I can grant you your point if I had added in the woman/slave connection and NN had not mentioned it. This would certainly be similar to what complementarians do when they bring in an egalitarian-feminism connection. When one doesn’t bring in the bad connection and the other party inaccurately connects things that haven’t been related in the original statement, that could very well be an uncharitable addition. But I fail to see how my quote of NN’s position using his own comparison makes my statement inflammatory and/or uncharitable.

Maybe there is someone reading this who could accurately point out how I was being uncharitable or inflammatory. I honestly do not see it and I work very hard on my blog to promote Christian charity.

Anyone?

NN,
You quoted me and said:

And finally, you state:

You did say that the instructions are the same for both wives and slaves and the same word used. If you are not saying that the submission of women is the same as submission of slaves then why did you link the two? What is the sameness that you are claiming?

I simply pointed out that Paul gave parallel instructions using the same verbage. Surely this must inform our understanding of how the apostle uses this word, no?

Since you are talking about hierarchy here, are you claiming that the parallel instructions shows that only the wife submits and the husband does not have to submit and only the slave submits and the master does not have to submit? In other words are you claiming that the husband and the master have a God-given exemption in submitting because each of them has a God-given authority over the wife and slave? Please explain so that there is no misunderstanding what you are actually claiming regarding hierarchy.

NN,
You said:

The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship; but, the love of Christ – agape – is of FIRST IMPORTANCE. When you are married you are FIRST a christian, then a spouse. Just as in any other aspect of life; Christ is to be central and our other actions a corollary of this most fundamental truth. …Submission is enjoined within marriage, true; but if this interferes with christian interaction then you have done it wrong. And you will lose not only the good of the christian interaction but will destroy the good of submission in the the marital interaction. And when this plays out is it any wonder that so many people question the apostle’s instructions.

I understand that this is what you have said, but this must be understood also in the context of your claim that eros love has a one-way submission. So how is the above lived out when there is a conflict? Does the conflict fall under the one-way submission of eros love or the reciprocal submission from basic Christianity? If agape love overrides eros love, then how is marriage a one-way submission? Are you saying that husband and wife will have to decide in the beginning of a discussion whether their discussion relates to them as Christians or them as husband and wife so they know whether the husband is allowed to submit or must refrain from submitting to his wife? And are you giving a loophole so that anytime the wife is not happy with the husband’s decision she can claim that their eros love is interfering with their Christian interaction? Can you picture it? A husband doesn’t want to submit so he claims their dispute falls under eros love while she claims that the dispute falls under Christian charity? This doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you can reword it so that it is shown to be practical. When can a husband, in your opinion, claim that he is not allowed to submit to his wife and what are the rules that allow him to submit as her Christian brother? And from what Scripture would we find such a division of love where one is attached to submission and the other must not submit? Please explain.

NN,
You said:

Since you repeatedly reference the matter: The word ‘hupotassoe’ appears directly in Eph 5:22 in the Textus Receptus, while it is referenced elliptically from the previous verse in the GNT Morph (Greek can do that in a way English cannot). But, in either case the idea is in the verse – Agreed? So the only question is how we are to correctly interpret it.

While the word “submit” may be in the Textus Receptus, it is not in the Westcott and Hort, the UBS4 or the NA27 which are all based on the older manuscripts. While we can understand that “submission” is implied in verse 22, we know that because it is explicitly stated in verse 21.

As far as how to correctly interpret the implied “submission” in verse 22, it cannot be interpreted in any way that is outside of the explicit word in verse 21. Thus we see that the inspired word is a reciprocal in verse 21 and therefore it must be a reciprocal that is implied in verse 22.

Can we take a reciprocal and deconstruct it and recreate this verb to be a one-way submission by implication only for verse 22? I don’t see how that is possible.