Craig

Hi Elaine @241,
I think this is a good thought. It has been mentioned to Mark in the past but may be worth mentioning again. Thanks.
@242. Referring to #237. Certainly love has to be the core of everything. Respect without love would seem like lifeless religion.
If I am understanding our discussion before properly (which may be highly doubtful!) I think I am trying to say here what Gengwall @211,212 and Kristen @219 said. I think there is still a true and valid authority that Jesus has over the church but that is not what is in view with the head/body metaphor. Maybe I could express it a little better, and maybe I am wrong. I think Dave is questioning whether the bible really speaks of Christ’s authority over the church at all. I think you are also questioning this concept, but at this stage I am sorry to say I am still struggling to follow what you and Dave are saying and put it all together.

There is still more stuff in Mark’s email. I think that may do me for a while. I could send what I have done so far and see what he says. Do you think I am on the right track?
Let me know (especially Cheryl if you are there?) if all this is a bit much for everyone. Is it interesting or a bit of overload?
I find it helpful to get feedback from those of you who have thought through all these things a lot more than I have.
Thanks everyone.

Mark said

If ‘submit’ here means ‘put others first and meet their needs’ or it means something like ‘serve’ then I cannot see any substantial difference between Paul’s instructions to wives and to husbands. The ‘submission’ wives offer to husbands is basically the same as the ‘love’ husbands offer to them. Different words are used to indicate the same basic reality. If not, what is asymmetrical at this point? What should wives be doing that is not a requirement for husbands in this context and what is a requirement for husbands that is not for wives in this context?

I think this is an important question. Could it be that there is not a lot of difference and that this is Paul’s point. Submission is to be mutual v21. Yesterday, my wife and I were at a church conference all day. As we looked around, I saw a spot in the auditorium where the type of seats would be more comfortable for my sometimes bad back, but my wife preferred a different seat in a different spot in the auditorium so she could see (she is a little vertically challenged 🙂 ). We decided to try the spot where she could see and I found I could manage with a towel behind my back in that spot. I would see that as a very small example of me submitting to her. Generally she is much better in this than me and putting herself out for me. Is this submission or is it love? I am not sure, but I think it is both. It happens throughout our lives in a mutual kind of way.

Mark said

And if that’s the case, how would you go about indicating that we should (pick a word that we used to use ‘submit’ for to do the work) to God’s authority from the NT? The issue for me is not what it could mean, but what it does given the parallels.

If the NT said “submit to God’s authority” that sounds ok to me. That would mean voluntarily yield to God’s authority. No problems in interpretation. Just needing lots of God’s grace for the application 🙂

Mark said

It still raises the question I asked you earlier in this context. There is a parallel here between husbands and the Lord. If the submission to Christ that the Church offers is without authority then it is for wives to husbands.

Yes, because submission to one another has to also be in the mix, and it is difficult to see authority there. Perhaps the word authority isn’t there because it is not essential to the meaning of the word submit and Paul is concerned about encouraging submission and not authority.

Mark said

And so my question to you is – do we sometimes submit to Christ in an authority-kinda-way but we don’t other times in the NT? And if so, how do we work out which submit is on view in which text? Or do we never submit to Christ in an authority-kinda-way, submission to Christ, God, ruling authorities et al just does not have any authority connotations in the NT?

I’m not sure that I fully understand your questions but I will have a go.
I think it is possible to submit to Christ for various reasons- some of them good and others not. I may submit to Christ because He is my King and my Lord and he commands me to submit to Him because of His authority. I think this is appropriate because He is Lord of the universe.
If the NT says for me to submit to Christ because he is my Saviour who loves me and gave his life for me it results in the same action (submission) but for a different reason, and I don’t think authority is what it is about. I think it is possible to submit in a Galatians error legalistic-kinda-way. It is also possible to submit to Christ in a John 15:9-17 “you are no longer my servants but my friends whom I love” kinda-way.
We can respond to Christ in submission out of respect for his authority or out of love and thankfulness for all he has done for us. Both are valid. Ephesians 5, and the head-body metaphor seem to me to be emphasising the latter.

Mark said

And if we have to accept that ‘serve’ and ‘submit’ must both have been transformed by Christ, because both were part of being a slave, but were put to different usages in the NT, why leave out ‘obey’? Slaves had to obey their masters, but obedience is a general Christian virtue, and slaves need to obey their masters in Eph 6, and Sarah obeyed Abraham in 1 Peter 3 (and surely the case could be made that in the record we have in Genesis it is hard to see Sarah’s relationship with Abraham being her doing what he tells her to do – so the example in Genesis should shape how we understand it in the NT). If it is inconsistent to say ‘serve and not submit’ then surely it is to say ‘serve and submit but not obey’ are transformed.

Just thinking aloud. Obedience to God is a general Christian virtue. But we are never told to “obey one another” as a general Christian virtue. We are told to serve one another, and submit to one another.

Mark said

Or do we now have two “submits” in the NT? In some places it means what it normally meant and its meaning hasn’t been transformed by Christ—submit to masters, rulers, God means what any contemporary would immediately recognise. But other places, oh let’s see, ah, husbands, there it means something different. There is some connection being made between 1 Peter 2:18 and 3:1, so I think the ‘submit’ needs to be the same in the two instances—either it has no authority connotations for slaves, or it does have authority connotations for wives.

See above. I think it always means voluntarily yield to. I think in the culture of the day, the patriarch did have a similar authority over the slave and wife. Slaves and wives are told to voluntarily yield to their master and husband.

Mark said

While the word ‘serve’ can (and did) have non-authority usages, it is harder to see how that can be done with the ‘submission’ words without changing their base meaning in a way that then doesn’t make sense in their non-biblical usage. ‘Obeying your instructions’ ‘Bowing the knee’ etc becomes ‘put you first and meet your needs’.

See above

That’s what Peter is telling slaves to do in 1 Peter 2:18? There’s no indications of submitting to authority there? It’s putting the master first and meeting his needs? It’s what he is saying in 2:13-15 to Christians generally with regards human rulers of different kinds? It’s what Paul is saying in Roman 13:1ff on the same topic?

In the case of slaves in 1 Peter 2:18, do we know that the slave is under authority because the word submit is used? No, I don’t think so. We know he is under authority because of what we know of the culture at the time. Slaves were under the authority of their masters. Do we know that this authority is divinely established because he is told to submit? No, we have to study the rest of scripture to determine if that is the case.
For the king and governors in 1 Peter 2:13 do we know that they have authority just because the word submit is used? No, I don’t think so. We know from our knowledge of the culture at the time that the king had authority. Christians were under the authority of the king. Do we know that this authority is divinely established (divine right of kings) because the word submit is used? No, we need to search the scriptures and study to see if this is so.
Likewise, I think this same reasoning would apply to husbands and wives in 1 Peter 3.
I think you may be placing more meaning and significance to the word submit than it actually carries in and of itself.

Mark said

I don’t think submission is in Phil 2. I think that is a crux passage for this debate, but I think you only see submission there once you’ve decided that submission means putting others before yourself and meeting their needs. The word isn’t there (from what I can see), and in this instance I think the concept isn’t either.

Again George Knight on p166 discusses Phil 2, Matt 20:26-28, 1 Pet5:4,5 Eph 6:9 and Eph 5:21 as all explaining the voluntary yielding that is a characteristic of the Christian community. Just letting you know that these ideas that you are disagreeing with are not just from egals.

Just working out some responses to Mark that I can send. Any thoughts are welcome.
Mark said

I think egals have reconstructed ‘submit’ to mean something like ‘voluntarily yielding our own desires to put others first and meet their needs’. You won’t find that meaning in any greek lexicon I know of (not that I’m a linguistic guru) that covers extra-biblical examples. It is a meaning that simply doesn’t work in many contexts in the NT. Submit to the authorities = voluntarily yield your desires to put them first and meet their needs? Submit to God means I meet his needs?

My understanding is that a well accepted definition of submit is “voluntarily yield to”. When I first started to question these issues a few months ago with one of the staff at my church, he pointed me in the direction of “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”. On p166 George Knight (a comp) quotes from BDAG p848 that submission is “voluntary yielding in love”.
I expanded that a bit as to how I see it operating in practice in the “one anothering“ that goes on in church to give ‘voluntarily yielding our own desires to put others first and meet their needs’. I don’t know if other egals would agree with this definition, but of course, as you rightly point out, this whole definition is a bit silly when applied to other spheres like governments, slaves/masters, and to Christ. But I think you have focussed on the way I apply the yielding to one another rather than on the yielding itself which is the heart of submission. Sorry to cause confusion. If I say what something means I should just stick to what it means rather than how it applies to me in a particular sphere. I hope that helps to clear up many of the comments and questions below where you discussed the weaknesses of the way I understand submission.
So in order to have one consistent definition that applies in all spheres I would just leave it with the core meaning of “voluntarily yield to” in agreement with George Knight and BDAG. I think this can be applied to submitting to one another, as well as to Christ, the government etc.
As I see it, if it is just “voluntarily yield to” then this can be done to someone whether they are in authority or not. We can “voluntarily yield to” one another and also “voluntarily yield to” the government. So I think just because the word submit is used in the bible doesn’t necessarily imply that it is to an authority. How do you understand “submitting to one another” if you see submission as always to an authority? Eph 5:21, Eph 6:9, 1 Pet 5:5, 1 Cor 16:15,16. How do you understand what these sort of passages are teaching?

You were wondering about extra biblical examples. I believe 1 Clement 37:5-38:1 explains the Christian duty of submission to one’s neighbour.

Hi Kristen,
You said

I honestly don’t understand where Mark is getting the idea that egals think “submit” means “put the other first and meet their needs.” “Submit” means “voluntarily yield to.”

I must “fess up here that this is my fault.
As I wrote in #226 I have heard “voluntary yielding” is the main idea behind submission. When I have thought about how I do this “to one another” in the church and to my wife I have thought of it as “voluntarily yielding of my own desires so that I put others first and meet their needs”. I expressed this to Mark. He has then applied this definition to all types of submission (like to governments and slaves to masters and to Christ) and of course found it wanting. He sometimes left out the voluntary yielding part and just used the last part. I should have just left it as “voluntary yielding to” as you say and then he wouldn’t have taken off with it like he did. I’ll try and learn from that.

Thanks Elaine and Gengwall for your help. I will ask him questions along the lines you propose.
In “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” George Knight (a comp) on p166 describes submission as “voluntary yielding in love”.
He says this comes from BDAG. He actually seems to believe in mutual submission and relates it to Phil 2, Matt 20:26-28, 1 Peter 5:4,5, Eph6:9.
Mark doesn’t seem to agree with this at all. I am not sure how he relates Eph 5:21. As you say Gengwall, he seems to ignore it.

Hi Kristen,
Sorry to hear you are not well. I hope you are feeling better soon.
I wasn’t going to post this just yet until we finished more of the subject at hand, but just in case you do get a chance to focus on Mark’s comments this weekend, I thought you (and others) might be interested in his latest email that arrived today. I sent him some thoughts along the lines of #189, comparing serving one another, and submitting to one another, and this is his reply. Sorry again for the length. I have left out my comments and some of Marks for the sake of brevity, but I think you will be able to follow his main arguments.

Hi Craig,

A couple of thoughts. My impression is that doulew had a semantic range that included ideas that did not involve being a slave or a servant (in the social status sense). So at that level the NT’s use of the word is not doing something outside the semantic range the word had. Nonchristians could speak this way as well. So I agree that authority did not have to be on the radar in the NT, but that’s because it didn’t have to be on the radar with this word.

However, doulew and its linguistic relations certainly had strong associations with slavery and servility. The choice of this word is saying more than ‘voluntarily giving ourselves to meet the needs of others’ – it is casting the flavour of being a slave towards others in our mutual relations. Being a slave had more connotations than just being in an authority relationship, so such a flavour could apply even to someone who had authority.  I doubt that non-christians would feel comfortable with putting so much weight on this wordgroup. I think that’s important for the debate, for it means that the associations are not lost, but it’s not directly related to your point above (it more affects your approach to ‘submit’). The previous paragraph is though, I think.

I think egals have reconstructed ‘submit’ to mean something like ‘voluntarily yielding our own desires to put others first and meet their needs’. You won’t find that meaning in any greek lexicon I know of (not that I’m a linguistic guru) that covers extra-biblical examples. It is a meaning that simply doesn’t work in many contexts in the NT. Submit to the authorities = voluntarily yield your desires to put them first and meet their needs? Submit to God means I meet his needs?

I don’t think submission is in Phil 2. I think that is a crux passage for this debate, but I think you only see submission there once you’ve decided that submission means putting others before yourself and meeting their needs. The word isn’t there (from what I can see), and in this instance I think the concept isn’t either.

While the word ‘serve’ can (and did) have non-authority usages, it is harder to see how that can be done with the ‘submission’ words without changing their base meaning in a way that then doesn’t make sense in their non-biblical usage. ‘Obeying your instructions’ ‘Bowing the knee’ etc becomes ‘put you first and meet your needs’. That’s what Peter is telling slaves to do in 1 Peter 2:18? There’s no indications of submitting to authority there? It’s putting the master first and meeting his needs? It’s what he is saying in 2:13-15 to Christians generally with regards human rulers of different kinds? It’s what Paul is saying in Roman 13:1ff on the same topic?

Or do we now have two “submits” in the NT? In some places it means what it normally meant and its meaning hasn’t been transformed by Christ—submit to masters, rulers, God means what any contemporary would immediately recognise. But other places, oh let’s see, ah, husbands, there it means something different. There is some connection being made between 1 Peter 2:18 and 3:1, so I think the ‘submit’ needs to be the same in the two instances—either it has no authority connotations for slaves, or it does have authority connotations for wives.

And if we have to accept that ‘serve’ and ‘submit’ must both have been transformed by Christ, because both were part of being a slave, but were put to different usages in the NT, why leave out ‘obey’? Slaves had to obey their masters, but obedience is a general Christian virtue, and slaves need to obey their masters in Eph 6, and Sarah obeyed Abraham in 1 Peter 3 (and surely the case could be made that in the record we have in Genesis it is hard to see Sarah’s relationship with Abraham being her doing what he tells her to do – so the example in Genesis should shape how we understand it in the NT). If it is inconsistent to say ‘serve and not submit’ then surely it is to say ‘serve and submit but not obey’ are transformed.

The irony I find, is that you are asking for the very thing that egalitarianism insists cannot happen with regards to ‘equality’. Complementarians argue that the word ‘equality’ must be compatible with notions of permanent submission (and possibly even subjection on some accounts). They don’t (in my view) argue this because they’ve made a reconstruction that the word has been transformed this way and then look to see if it fits. They look at the texts and go, “Based on normal meanings of the words, the texts seem to be saying that you can be equal to someone you always have to submit to”. And then fumble around trying to give some kind of account of that, with varying degrees of success. That ‘varying degrees of success’ to my mind indicates that what we have, basically, are people getting their views out of the text and finding it hard to work out a framework for it—similar to how the Nicenes struggled to articulate orthodoxy whereas Arianism was able to put forward its view clearly from the beginning, it was a priori. Egalitarians say, “No the word just can’t mean that, it makes it meaningless”. And yet, their argument hinges on a transformation of the meaning of at least two word groups (at least on your take) that isn’t, from what I can see, ever explicitly taught in the NT (so we are taught to have a different view of what submit and serve means) but only ever assumed even if the egalitarian account is right. The transformation of their meaning happened ‘off camera” and in the text we have the signs the change occurred.

Let’s do what you suggest, and put your view of submission into the relevant verses:

Wives put your husbands first and meet their needs as to the Lord.

But as the Church puts Christ first and meets his needs in everything so also the wives ought to their husbands in everything.

My thoughts about that as an exegetical solution:
1)       It still raises the question I asked you earlier in this context. There is a parallel here between husbands and the Lord. If the submission to Christ that the Church offers is without authority then it is for wives to husbands. And so my question to you is – do we sometimes submit to Christ in an authority-kinda-way but we don’t other times in the NT? And if so, how do we work out which submit is on view in which text? Or do we never submit to Christ in an authority-kinda-way, submission to Christ, God, ruling authorities et al just does not have any authority connotations in the NT? And if that’s the case, how would you go about indicating that we should (pick a word that we used to use ‘submit’ for to do the work) to God’s authority from the NT? The issue for me is not what it could mean, but what it does given the parallels.
2)       If ‘submit’ here means ‘put others first and meet their needs’ or it means something like ‘serve’ then I cannot see any substantial difference between Paul’s instructions to wives and to husbands. The ‘submission’ wives offer to husbands is basically the same as the ‘love’ husbands offer to them. Different words are used to indicate the same basic reality. If not, what is asymmetrical at this point? What should wives be doing that is not a requirement for husbands in this context and what is a requirement for husbands that is not for wives in this context?

There’s a whole raft of problems I see from that:
a.        The counsel Paul is giving is as radical a turn for wives as it is for husbands, if not more so—he’s at least used ‘love’ in a way that fitted its normal semantic range. And yet he grounds the teaching to husbands with expansive content with reference to Christ’s example. But offers nothing concrete for the wives as to what this new submission looks like in the church’s relationship with Christ. And surely something like that is called for? The Church submits to Christ in everything in a way that has no authority connotations? This is revolutionary! What does that mean? What does it look like? No idea, we need space to talk about what love looks like—something that is dealt with at length in the NT already and involves no fundamental transformation of its basic meaning.
b.        What does it add to the exhortation to the wives to say that they are to do it like the Church does it to Christ? If what is on view is mutual submission of the kind that we offer to one another, why bring Christ in at all at this point as the one to whom we submit? Usually it is Christ’s example that is held up, not the Church’s (!!! For how rare this is). What is gained by this unusual step? Why not appeal to Christ’s example of submission to the Church in line with an egalitarian reading of Phil 2, rather than the Church’s imperfect example of submission to Christ just as he does with the husbands? It wouldn’t affect the material to the husbands on this reading (from what I can see)—the husband section can still be a type of Christ and the Church. Or why not just drop Christ out altogether and go with ‘as the Church submits to one another’ or the like?
c.        Again, does this mean that the Church in its relationship with Christ is in a mutual-submission relationship, with no authority on view in the relationship? Or does it mean that some aspects/dimensions/names for the Church’s relationship don’t have authority and other ones do? Does Christ, inasmuch as he is the Church’s groom, not have authority, but inasmuch as he is something else (Lord maybe, or possibly firstborn) he does? (Or have all these terms been transferred by Christ and how do we know?)
d.        Does the NT really intend to collapse ‘serve’ and ‘submit’ into each other so that we can swap them in for each other? Is service and submission really the same as love (or almost the same)? When Paul says through love serve one another is he basically saying the same thing twice?
3)      If we put ‘serve’ in instead, it works for you for verse 22. But “as the Church serves the Lord in everything, so wives should serve their husbands in everything” raises the same questions I’ve raised. Do we offer two types of service to the Lord? In one case it is a joyful submission to his authority and in other places (like here) it is a mutual service? Or when we serve the Lord mutuality is always on view between him and us and this word group also is devoid of authority connotations in the NT when used of Christ and us/God and us?
4)      I don’t know where this goes, so I’ll throw it in here. If this view is right, then why doesn’t the NT (as far as I know) never say that God submits to us, that Christ submits to us? If the meaning has been transformed, surely the way to drive that home, and possibly cut off 2000 years of complementarian dead end exegesis and ethical thinking would be to clearly and strongly state in several places that God submits to us. If the word has no authority connotations that’s a perfectly fine thing to say. We don’t have to hedge by saying, ‘he submits to our needs/need for salvation’ (that was what my Church used to say to avoid saying outright that God submits to us, but be consistent with the view that its base meaning had been transformed to remove any sense of submitting to an authority).

Hi Dave,
You said

Craig, it was in your ponderings at the bottom of 189, “Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?”.

Just to clarify. That bit was not actually my ponderings. I was rather hoping that if I said this to a comp it would make him ponder. They believe that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as they believe Christ is in authority over the church. I was hoping that when I write this to a comp it would make him question whether this is really what Paul is saying. I don’t think it is what Paul is saying. I don’t think the issue of Christ’s authority over the church is on the agenda in Eph 5. We have to look at the rest of the bible on that one. What about the letters to the churches in Rev 1-3. Do you think they indicate the authority of Christ over the church?
Sorry if I wasn’t clear with #189.

Sorry Dave- just to add to your questions. How can Jesus be Lord over each of us individually and not be Lord of us collectively as the church?

Hi Kristen,
Are there any single issues that Mark raises that you would like to discuss here first, or would you prefer to wait and do one single reply when you are ready?

Hi Dave,

I have done a bit of a search and cannot find scripture where it says Jesus in authority over the church. Can comeone help me?

Jesus gives us commands to us (an indication of authority), and after saying that all authority had been given to Him in Matt 28:18 he commands the disciples to go therefore…

Hi Dave,
“In your ponderings you mentioned that Christ is in authority over the church.”
Where did I actually ponder that Dave? Not saying I didn’t, I just don’t remember it. Maybe I am at that age…….

Just thinking aloud.
2 problems in the church (and culture):
1. Abusive authority. Submission in fear of man. Corrected by “not in the fear of man, but in the fear of Christ”.
2. Only unidirectional submission. Corrected by “one another”.

Thanks Pinklight @194.
Hey Dave. Good question @196 🙂 I was hoping you would have the answer and I could sit back and enjoy!

Hi Pinklight,
I hope “lol” means that you thought the reasoning of #189 was ok. I just sent something with similar reasoning to Mark B. I thought it may be easier to deal with one thing at a time from the very long email @161. How are you going Kristen? Are you still planning on replying to Mark?

Just thinking about an inconsistency I see in the comp position and wondering how to express it best. Any thoughts to correct or improve it are welcome.
In the culture of the day a servant/slave had no authority and was under the authority of his master. If the word “slave” was used, people thought of one under authority.
Yet Comps can usually accept that one can serve someone else without implying being under the authority of the one being served.
If someone is said to be a servant of someone else in the bible, or commanded to serve someone else in the bible, or we are commanded to serve one other Gal 5:13 no thought of being under authority comes to mind. We may think of it as voluntarily giving of ourselves to meet the needs of others. We think of this as something all Christians should do- male or female.
Similarly, comps argue that in the culture of the day if someone submits to someone else, then it means that this person is under the authority of the one being submitted to.
Why is “submission” treated differently to “service”?
Why is it that if one submits to someone else, it implies being under the authority of the one being submitted to?
Why is it that if someone is said to submit to someone else in the bible, or commanded to submit to someone else in the bible, or we are commanded to submit to one another Eph 5:21 the thought of being under authority immediately comes to mind. Why does it seem so unthinkable that it could be voluntarily yielding of our own desires to put others first and meet their needs Phil 2:3,4. Why can’t we think of this as something all Christians should do- male or female?
Just hypothetically, what would comps think if after Galatians 5:13, Paul had written
“Wives, “serve” your husbands as you “serve” the Lord. As the church “serves” Christ, so also wives should “serve” their husbands in everything.” Would they limit Gal 5:13 as just those under authority are to serve those in authority over them? Would it mean that husbands did not need to serve their wives? Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?

Must be one of those variant reading thingies because one Greek text I looked up says “God” and another says “Christ”. KJV has “God”. NIV, ESV, NASB have “Christ”.

Thanks TL, but unless I am not following you I am not sure that this answers my “wonderings”. I am wondering why Paul chose “fear of Christ” rather than as a “loving response to God’s grace”as the motivation for submitting to one another. Maybe I am contrasting these too much?
Dave commented how “Jesus does not see his relationship with us as one of master/servant, but friends”.
If Dave is correct and this is the aspect of the relationship with Jesus that Paul is emphasizing when he tells wives to submit to husbands as to the Lord, why would he not say in v21 submit to one another out of “friendship with Christ” rather than out of “fear of Christ”?

Just thinking aloud. Why do you think Paul said in 5:21
Submit to one another “out of reverence (or fear) of Christ” rather than “out of love, thankfulness, joy in our relationship with Christ”?

Sorry Dave, I meant thanks for #175.

Hi Dave,
Thanks for #172. I always appreciate your comments. Thanks for being willing to “argue many times” because I am a bit slow and each time it sinks in a bit better and I appreciate a different angle.
We are studying Galatians at church at the moment. I wonder if the comp view of our relationship with Christ is a bit like law vs grace. Submitting to the Lord is viewed as the obligation of complete obedience of a slave to the all powerful master rather a loving, voluntary, joyful response to all that Christ has done in His love and grace.

Thanks Kristen for #170.

Mark said,

For me, 5:22 and 5:24 can’t be reconciled to an egalitarian understanding. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, and as the church submits to Christ in everything so wives are to their husbands. Are there two kinds of submission that we offer to the Lord? One where he does not have authority, and one where he does? And if so, how do we distinguish between them? And if not, how can we submit to someone as to the Lord, and yet that not indicate authority? How would such words have been understood by an overwhelming patriarchal society with no pre-existent concept of egalitarianism?

Does anyone have any comments on this? Thanks.

Mark said,

“what is going on is the reshaping of authority to be used as an exercise of service to those under authority rather than as a lording over them. My question here is – does Jesus model the kind of way of using authority that Kristen is speaking about here? Does he use it with humility? does he lay down his life, does he not exasperate us? And would she (and you) be happy with describing that as Jesus ‘laying down power’ in his relationship with us? 
I certainly wouldn’t be happy to use such language about the one I call Lord. And yet he is the model, and I don’t see it as a model of laying down power, but of using it in a servant way.”

But is Paul really reshaping authority so it is service rather than lording over? I think the same question arises in Matt 20:24-28.
Mark is rightly concerned with how the readers of the time would have understood what is said in the bible. A servant had no authority over anyone he served. Wouldn’t an exercise of service be viewed as an exercise that wasn’t with authority. When Jesus washed the disciples feet and calls us to serve one another, submit to one another, be as slaves to one another, he is not telling us how to exercise authority. Christians at that time would have understood that serving others had nothing to do with authority.
I am happy to describe Jesus as “laying down power” Phil 2. Isn’t this central to what Jesus did for us on the cross? He is the King of the universe, but He laid down His power, “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, humbling himself.”
Do others have the same sort of response to this comment of Mark’s? Is this where you were heading Kristen @162? I look forward to your further comments as you have the time.