Dave

It does my heart good to hear others quoting the Princess Bride. A friend of mine when I was at school was doing fencing as a sport (with swords and stuff) and was told by his fencing instructor to watch that movie. I assume his instructor wanted him to use his left hand.

Cheryl, sorry about old wounds. I’m praying.

Craig, I never got your email. Did you try dave@achurchinryde.com?

Amaranth @ 200 said, “I would never trust a God just because he had all the power. I will, however, trust a God who has all the power if I know he loves me. I trust an appeal to loving authority. I balk at an appeal to a loveless/inscrutable authority.”

Amen! I think this is where I am coming from. Perhaps I should avoid rambling!

Amaranth @ 200, I think you come to some conclusions that I have recognised in the Australian gender debate. Those who believe in the ordination of women were labelled as liberal – people with an unhealthy interest in “love” to the extent that they did not even believe in the truth and the authority of the Bible; and those who did not believe in the ordination of women were labelled as “fundamentalist” who were too wrapped up in the truth of scripture to give a hoot about how other people felt.

I think though that there is a growing third dimension to the discussion which I think is reflected here at CHeryl’s blog. It is a desire to know both authority and love, or if you like, truth and grace. Cheryl has experienced God’s love, and wants to live in submission to his authority. I like this because it reflects the Gospel of Jesus – it contains truth (the identity of Jesus as the Son of God, a desire to see sin dealt with, not swept under the carpet) and also contains grace (Jesus taking our sin for us, showing love not legalism).

This is why Cheryl argues her case for a loving God using the authority of God revealed through scripture.

I see Egalitarianism as a reflection of God’s love that is in line with the truth of his authority. Sorry to ramble and sorry if this is not clear!

Ahhhh yes… The Princess Bride. Wuve, twue wuve, bwings us togever…

There is much wisdom to be found in that movie – inconcievable! You raise a good point Amaranth.

I am really enjoying the discussion!

Thanks TL and Cheryl to your response regarding parental authority over children…ages ago! It was very helpful.

Craig, where in Australia are you?

Does anyone else see similarities between Philippians 2:3-5 and Ephesians 5:21?

In regard to parents having authority over children, I do not want to disagree with others, but I must confess I do not see myself having authority over my children. I do see two things at work though.

1 – My children have been entrusted to me for a short time. During this time I have responsibility in preparing them to be fully functioning adults when the time comes.

2 – Discipline is key to both preparing my children to becomes fully functioning adults, and to them knowing they are loved by me. I therefore submit to my kids by disciplining them. An undisciplined child is often very insecure.

If someone can point me to scripture that speaks about my authority over my children I would be happy to consider it (being not completely set in my position!).

Mark, I appreciate the fact that you have not had the time to answer all questions. There have been a lot of us asking them and only you to answer them. I did however note a pattern in the ones being answered and the ones that were not. Even with your response in regard to what Grudem said, I realise that “beginning” and “source” are not synonyms. I never stated that they were, nor did I suggest that Grudem had mentioned “beginning”. “Origin” and “Source” however are synonyms, and this is what I stated. Grudem admits at one point in his research that “origin” is a valid meaning but then removes it from the final findings. Why? Because it would prove him wrong. In other words he is not consistent within his own work. But once again, the main point, the issue at hand, has been deflected and remains without a response. Sorry, but that is how it feels.

Yes, I am set in my position, but that is because I see it as the truth. If facts could be introduced to show me that I am wrong I would change. One does not hold my position in the PCA easily. It has resulted in ‘my’ little church being kicked to the curb a number of times in a number of ways. This hurts, but I still prefer the truth, as does others in my church. I credit this blog in helping me to survive within my denomination!

Mark, I do consider you a brother in Christ, and worthy of the truth in love. Blogs are not good at conveying love (or sometimes even truth!), so I want you to know that although I am frustrated by your method of debate, you would always be welcome to drop in at church or on our blog, and you have a place in my heart! I will keep praying for you, and ask you to continue to do the same for me!

Amen to your last paragraph!

Dave

Hi Pinklight! I find I cannot stay away from my friends here for too long!

Craig, I was not having a go at you. I have been encouraged by your open and honest dialogue that to me appears to be seeking the truth. My frustration has to do with the “M” man.

I assume others have noticed that this conversation with Mark goes around in great big circles (as well as lots of little ones). Along the way Mark is asked LOTS of questions and lots of good points are made. These he does not respond to. He responds to anything he thinks he can use to discredit the egal argument, but not to anything that will hurt his perspective. In the meantime I have seen others like Cheryl and Kay and others (all of you) patiently explain and re-explain and try very hard to respond to EVERYTHING Mark says.

One example for me is the issue of whether or not authority is tied to submission. We have never been given the reference details or the entire definition of submission from Mark’s Oxford Dictionary that seems to be the only dictionary supporting his view. He either ignored other definitions I offered or argued over the wording in a way that demonstrated no desire to see or accept what the definitions were actually saying. Mark is trying to change the meaning of a word – and this is an English word. Obviously with the meaning of Greek words from 2000 years ago we can keep a discussion going for ever!

Can we move forward in a discussion where one or both parties take this tactic? I think not. As a result I have concluded that my role in this discussion with Mark from now on will mainly be one of prayer! I have found my attitude has changed towards Mark. The same happened when I blogged for extended period with an Athiest group here in Sydney. I came to a point where I realised they did not want to know the truth. I was surprised I had not come to this conclusion sooner! I am not saying Mark is an Athiest(!) but I am saying that I have come to the conclusion that he is not seeking the truth in this issue. I realise I could be wrong, I realise that I am commenting to some degree on Mark’s motives, but I am being honest about how I feel. I am struggling with this conversation more and more. I think it has shown in my comments and I hope by expressing this I can be more my cheerful self again. I am sorry for my negativity and I think it has been a credit to others here that this has not been contageous.

Just keep seeking the truth in love Craig. I think your questions and your contribution have been great.

I find it interesting to note that Grudem’s own research of the use of kephale “proved” that it meant “source” zero times. However his research did show that it was used to mean “origin” (or other synonyms) more than anything else (other than literal head).

Of course he failed to recognise that “source” and “origin” are also synonyms…but other than that I like his research!

I find it frustrating that this has degenerated to a discussion centred around word meanings. The fact that Mark would not accept that submission does not dictate authority (despite modern English dictionaries) shows that we will have little joy in determining the meaning of words used 2000 years ago with him.

I just recently had another one of those discussions where I was labelled a heretic and a prowling wolf. Grrr… At least there was no quibbling over the meaning of words as clearly defined…though I did question if he knew what a heretic was…he did! 🙁

OK Mark, perhaps you do not understand how to use a dictionary, so I will spell it out. You are saying that submission MUST involve authority. The definitions say that it can involve other things, though it CAN involve authority. Now my Oxford defintion (probably older than yuors) says, “(to authority, fortune, insult, conqueror, doing…)”. The “…” indicates at the end that there are even further possibilities than the ones offered, of which authority has only been one. Note the “insult” is relational even if “fortune” is not. “Conqueror” is relational, but the point is that there are other options. Note the Websters defintion, as I have said before, refers to authority OR will!

With regards to the fact that I have said submission does not dictate authority but have also said that within the Ephesian culture husband authority was accepted I do not believe you have really tried to understand me at all. Paul has spoken to the Ephesians understanding their cultural situation but attempting to redefine what it should look like in CHrist. There is nothing contradictory in what I am saying, there is nothing that I need concede.

Mark, to be honest, I think it would not matter what was said, you would not agree. The way you are using dictionary definitions shows this. At every step of the way you question and protest. I give the Webster defintion and you say it proves your point because it has the word authority. I say it says authority or will and you ignore that and go back to your Oxford definition. I provide an Oxford definition that backs up the idea that submission does not dictate authority and you claim the other things that are not authority have nothing to do with relationships. I provide anbother dictionary definition and you ignore it. I say that the definition is allowing for more options…and I just wonder what you are going to say next. Perhaps I should save you the trouble? “Because the dictionary allows for other options but does not say what they are we would be wrong in assuming it could refer to marriage relationships without authority…and so Mark is right?!?!”

I give up Mark. You win.

I love you brother…but you have frustrated me…

Mark, I see the name of Dave has been used in vain, “This became clear for me with Dave’s comments- since the whole egal system is built on mutual submitting, but the verb submit is rdefined from it’s biblical use and it’s modern english meaning.”

You continue to define submit as, “Submit-”accept or yield to a superior force or stronger person”.

As I stated earlier, this definition is not accurate. The reason is that it is not complete. Even when I look at my Oxford dictionary, it agrees with Webster’s;

“Submit – oneself without resistance tp the orders or treatment or lot met with; give way, yield, (to authority, fortune, insult, conqueror, doing…)…”

Please note Mark that even the dictionary you are quoting says that submission can be to authority, or others things, such as even “fortune”.

The free online dictionary agrees that it does not have to be in reference to authority;

“1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
2. To subject to a condition or process.
3. To commit (something) to the consideration or judgment of another. See Synonyms at propose.
4. To offer as a proposition or contention: I submit that the terms are entirely unreasonable.
v.intr.
1. To give in to the authority, power, or desires of another. See Synonyms at yield.
2. To allow oneself to be subjected to something.”

I have already given you Wbsters defintion.

Please Mark, concede the point.

Susanna, you asked, “Do you know of any other model in which authority-obedience comes to play? Which one of these is used in the analogy of Christ/Church?”

I do not think there is an authority/obedience model that can accurately describe the Christ/church analogy. This is why the NT uses the analogy of a groom and his bride. It is a relationship between two individuals who although remain seperate become one. I think that if we want to link the question to Ephesians then I would point us again to Eph 1:10 and say that the plan is that we will all be in harmony with Christ as the head. We know that head does not equate with authority.

Hierarchalists don’t seem to mention that we will rule with Christ, that we are joint heirs with Christ, that we will one day judge, that we are his friends not his servants. And all this when he has recieved all glory, honour and power. I am not denying Christ’s authority, but for those who love him as they have been loved, authority is not relevant. They are his friends.

Not sure if this answers the question or was what you were after.

I am bowing out of things again for a while…life, sadly, stops for no blog! 🙁

Hi Susanna! You said, “Dave, tell me: if the description of a relationship in which one always obeys and the other commands is tyranny, and the description of a relationship between parties in which both obey and command is democracy, what’s in between?”

I am not sure if I am following you. I am not sure if I would describe democracy quite like that, nor what something in between would look like. I assume it relate to something I have been saying, but not sure what. Perhaps I am a bit slow?

Mark, you said, “You are streching things are little thin don’t you think.”
No, I don’t think so. The passage uses the following logical links with each relationship being linked to Christ.

Submit to one another out of reverance for Christ.
Wives submit to husbands as the church to Christ.
Husbands love wives as Christ loved the church.
Children obey parents in the Lord.
Fathers don’t exasperate children but instruct them in the Lord.
Slaves obey earthly masters as you would Christ (your heavenely master).
Masters be a master who remembers your common master – Jesus.

The passage shows the same logic through out. Now, you tell me where in the passage it says explicitly that the husband/wife relationship is different, not cultural but God ordained hierarchy. All the relationships are linked with Christ – how is the husband wife one different?

Mark, you said, “You sound like a hoarder with your bikes…you are spending too much time on blogs and not on your bikes!”
I only have two bikes though. I once had three…though I think I might have had four at one stage. Or was it five, I forget. But you are right, I am spending too much time on blogs!

You said, “Let me try to be a bit clearer. Submission is a choice, i.e we choose to be humble and meek. But that is far different than saying I ‘submit’ to a 12 year old boy. I do not submit to a 12 year old boy because he is not in authority over me. I will serve him or be ‘submissive’ but not submit or ‘yield to his superior force’. This is the crux of the matter, distinguishing between an adjective and a verb, especially in light of the verbal use in Ephesians 5.”

So, you are saying you can be submissive, but that you can’t submit – that they are fundamentally different. I do not follow you. How is it different…dictionary definitions please!

Mark, you said, “So if you wish to continue to draw a parellel between slavery and the marriage, you must explain how the two are connected culturally only. This is the fundamental difference- the wife is told to submit as the church is told to submit to Christ- it’s a lasting ordinance until the second coming. The whole slavery argument never works Dave, I would have thought you would know that, unless of course you wish to show me where the slave/master paradigm is linked with Church/Christ!”

But the slave/master paradigm is linked with Christ and the church. Paul says, “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him.”

Slaves are also told to serve their masters like they are slaves of Christ. Paul has linked both marriage and slavery to our relationship with Jesus AND in verse 21 he links our relationship with everyone in the body of Christ with Jesus when he asks us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Mark, you said, “No I wouldn’t describe it as ‘mutual love’ because it’s not mutual. You can say the act of love is mutual but the love itself is not mutual, it is different.”

I really must disagree! It is the love itself that is mutual. The act (how the loved is manifested in words/action/attitudes) might not be though. You have it around the wrong way IMHO. But like I say, don’t use the term mutual if you do not want. In fact Mark, I will submit to your assertion that it is the wrong word (though you are not in authority over me), and from now on I will call it “complementary submission”. I hope this is cool. I might call it “CS” for short. Or “Comp Sub”. Or “Sub Comp”. No, that doesn’t sound very good…

Mark, you said, “I agree submission is something we do. A wife is told to submit to her husband. She has to choose to do it, it cannot be demanded by the husband. God demands it, not the husband. But it is not mutual since the husband is not commanded to submit to his wife, as to the Lord. This is why ‘mutual’ is not effective to communicate what you believe.”

I am glad we both agree that submission is a choice. Your logic following though flies in the face of verse 21 where we (once again for the dummies!) submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

With regards to Webster’s definition, the power is not necessarily in the relationship at all. It says “the power OR will of another”. i.e. there does not have to be power, though there might be. Therefore in Eph 5:22 the wife is not necessarily submitting to any ‘power’, though I think, as we have said before(!) culturally the husband had power. We know that. Peter also suggests that as the man is the stronger vessel he needs to use his strength appropriately when dealing with his wife the weaker vessel. This too could be the power. Surely the question you are yet to answer is whether or not the power is God ordained authority over the wife by the husband.

You said, “I liked your nose wiping, ear washing analogy. Let’s expand it further…are they the same thing? As the dictionary defined mutual, it is done to others, what A does to B, B does to A. So if you wish to stick with the term ‘mutual’, you must by definition say it is identical.”

Not sure if you have been listening Mark despite your clean ears! What is it that we are saying A does to B, and B does to A? Submitting. A submits and B submits. You never answered my questions, can we have mutual love? Will this look the same for a mother loving her child and a child loving her mother? Love is lived out in actions, just as submission is. If you don’t want to use the word “mutual”, then don’t, but it is not going to help you in regard to the fact that two people can submit to each other. Sue, I think it was, has given examples of hypotasso being used when authority is not at play.

You said, “I might be reading you wrong but you almost sound like a comp. You agree authority exists, yet the one in authority is to serve (though you use submit) the other. That is comp is it not.”

Yes, I have said right from my very first comment under Cheryl’s original post that authority exists. For the Ephesians their culture dictated that a husband had authority over his wife. The question all along is whether or not the authority is God given and therefore valid. Paul has told us all to submit, and goes to the trouble to make it explicit to husbands, parent and masters that they should all treat their wives/children/slaves by meeting their needs – dare I say submitting. He also goes to the trouble to say that wives/children/slaves should remember that they should still meet the needs of their husbands/parents/masters. The question (once again!) is does this mean that Paul is saying that men have a God given authority over their wives? Do masters have a God given authority over their slaves Mark?

You said, “One last point in relation to hypotasso. You need to remember that it is not an adjective or noun, so things like meekness and humility are not the best descriptions…we need to look at the verbal form.”

True, but the noun form can still be useful to display relevant meaning. You can be meek and humble you know!

Mark, no one is doubting that their was authority in the relationship between a husband and a wife in Ephesians. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not that authority is God given or culturally driven. That was poetic. No one is questioning whether or not a wife should submit to her husband, but rather whether or not Paul’s purpose is to make the husband the boss.

Mark said, “I never said subordination was the same as submit.” (21)

Mark said, “You cannot be in authority and submit to the same person…it’s an oxymoron- because to be submissive means to be subordinate, and to be subordinate excludes the possibility of being in authority over the person you submit to.” (4)

Hmmm!

I want to respond to some other things you said Mark, but I think it is great that we have some other people entering the discussion with different perspectives on hypotasso.. I hope you don’t feel ganged up on Mark!

I still have not hit the road on the bike Mark because I foolishly bought another one, so now I have two, neither of which are going. 🙁

Now, I am going to hypotasso my comment. I wonder who will have authority over it?

Mark – thanks for taking the challenge!

You said, “I’m basing what i say on the assumption that you believe in ‘mutual submission’, or ‘reciprocal submission’.”
This was not necessary. I think if we understand submission first we will see how it can be mutual later.

You said, “BDAG translates hypotasso as i’m sure we all know as ’subordinate’”
Literally hypotasso means to place oneself under another. In light of this we need to determine if BDAG has used the correct English word when they provide the word “subordinate”. You see, if I place myself under another, then this is something that I have chosen to do. After all, why would Paul tell us to do something in Eph 5:21 that we have no choice in? The nature of submission is that there is choice.

So, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is this what “subordinate” means? Apparently it means “to set in order” by “order, class of rank; occupying a lower position in a scale, inferior in nature, power, importance, etc”. The thing about subordination is it is determined by things that are often out of our control. This is why it speaks of things like ‘inferiority by nature.’

You then said, “Most english translations make hypotasso as ’submit’.”
Glad to hear it! You said, “ So according to the Oxford dictionary submit means…“accept or yield to a superior force or stronger person”.

Hmmm, Webster’s gives us a bit more info, it says “to put under”, “To yield yourself to the power of another (not necessarily superior), and under submission we find words like, “meekness” and “humble”. To me this sounds like a much more accurate description of hypotasso. Would you not agree Mark?

Note the difference between the two. One has to do with placing things in a natural order – something we might or might not have control over. The other has to do with where we choose to place ourselves – it is about the choice of being the last, not the first.

You then said, “So it doesn’t appear that the english term ’submit’ allows for such a concept as ‘mutual’ since it involves a ’superior force’. But what about ’submission’ which is similar but different…“the action or fact of submitting”The Oxford allows the term ’submitting’ which is grouped under the same title as ’submit’. So again it appears that the english words ’submit’ or ’submission’ do not allow for a mutual or reciprocal force. Therefore are comps all that wrong!”
Hang on there big fella! Because it is something that we can choose to do, then I can do it to you, and you can choose to submit to me. Subordination, however, does not allow for mutuality because when you place things in an order they go from highest to lowest which dictates their position.

You then said, “ It seems hard to understand the egal system when it uses terms that are oxymoron’s in nature.”
According to the dictionary, we haven’t.

With regards to what you say about the word ‘mutual’, I think with the correct understanding of hypotasso the rest of your comment is seen as being incorrect. Perhaps your Oxford dictionary says submission is to a superior force, but my Webster’s does not mention this. Which is correct? Webster’s of course, as well as the other two dictionaries I looked up that did NOT mention that submission was to a superior force. Further, “submission” is a term that is used to describe the actions of a person who has lost a dual or a fight. In the case of knights, you submitted so you could have your life. Some chose not to submit, even though they had been beaten. They died – but the chose not to submit, which shows that those who submit to have their life spared still chose to submit. So even in this use (I suggest that this is where your dictionary is coming from) there is an issue of choice!

Mark, you suggest that because we say the submission will look different in different relationships it is not mutual. But this goes against your own definition of ‘mutual’. If I submit to you by washing behind your big ears and you submit to me by wiping my rampant snoz – we have submitted mutually. Submission is the thing that is mutual – not the nose wiping or the ear washing.

So, I suggest you recalculate your own terminology. I should add I am not denying authority. It is not in the Eph passage to deny.

Finally, Mark can love be mutual? Can we agape mutually? Can we bear one anothers burdens? Can we pray for each other mutually? According to your understanding of ‘mutuality’, apparently not. We do not have the same needs, so we will not pray the same things for each other. Does that mean we cannot mutually pray?

Again, Jesus told us to all carry our cross. Does that mean we must all die on a cross? Mark, it is just silly to hold to this view that submission must be identical to be mutual, and submission and subordination are fundamentally different. You have confused them.

I get it Mark, though I do have a bit of a rampant snoz…so I am slightly sensitive about my nose! :0(

Mark said, “I have to admit that you are the first egalitarian i have ever spoken with who is not a pentecostal or at least charasmatic in their theology!”

I must be the second!

Mark said, “You cannot be in authority and submit to the same person…it’s an oxymoron- because to be submissive means to be subordinate, and to be subordinate excludes the possibility of being in authority over the person you submit to.”

Mark, p[lease use your dictionary. In it you will find that subordination and submission are two very different things. For starters, subordination is a result of hierarchy. It is a result of one being over another and can happen through legitimate social relationships, but can also simply happen through abuse and the stronger dominating the weaker. A person has not choice over whether or not they are subordinate, it is dictated by the hierarchy.

Submission, however, is something that someone can choose to do. I can choose to submit to my subordinate. If you doubt this, then perhaps you should look at God’s example in Christ Jesus!

Lets use words correctly and stop redefining things to suit theology!

Mark, to quote Calvin regarding Eph 5:21 he says, “God has bound us strongly to each other, that no man ought to avoid subjection; and where love reigns, mutual services will be rendered”

Do you think he is correct?

Hi Kay! It has been a joy to visit. I was trying to stick to my blogfast, but a ocnversation with three willing comps was too much to resist. I am hoping to get back ‘on the wagon’ soon though!

I find this blog a greta home away from home!

I forgot two other things Mark,

Not only would a wife of one man submitting sexually to another man not be what was in the best interest of either men, scripture makes it clear that ‘marital rights’ are not hers alone to submit (1 Cor 7:4).

Also, Mark, if Ephesians 5 is showing one type of submission which we do to one another, and another type of submission that we do within marriage, please tell me what the actual difference in submission between my wife and I and you and I as outlined in the passage. If Paul is making a distinction, what exactly, as outlined in the passage, is it?

Hey Mark! Thanks for the interaction.

Yes, my wife ought to submit to you the same as she submits to me. No this does not mean marital rights. This does not mean, however, that the submission is not reciprocal – just not identical. But then, my submission to my wife is not identical to her submission to me. Why not? Because we are different people. My needs will be different to her needs. Although Jesus submitted to us by dying on a cross, it is not expected that all of us will die on crosses as we submit to him. But it is expected that we will all take up our cross and follow him.
Is this really that hard to understand and follow.

You might find the idea of mutual submission repetitious, but I do not, especially as it is a part of growing and maturing to become like Christ. No one is suggesting that we should all be running around doing nothing but blindly washing one anothers feet whether they have dirty feet or not. True submission, as Paul describes, is doing (or not doing) what is in the best interest of the other. This means it cannot be identical for everyone – but Paul calls for it to be reciprocal.

You said, “Now therefore, submission cannot be reciprocal in all relationships. I cannot ask your wife to do something you may ask her to do. Not only that, but women are commanded to submit to their OWN husbands, not others. SO what egalitarians claim Eph 5:21 to mean is meaningless.”

Mark, you have really confused things here. You say “SUBMISSION cannot be reciprocal in all relationships” because “I cannot ask your wife to do something you may ask her to do.” But Mark, how do you go from my wife submitting to your needs to my wife having to do what you say? Oh, thats right, you think submission = ‘authority over’. BUT it doesn’t. You might ask my wife, or for that matter, another person to shoot you, but that would hardly be in your best interest – which is at the heart of the submission we are being asked to exercise – surely! A man might ask another man’s wife to sleep with him, but it is not in the best interest of either man for that woman to do it. It would not be love.

Is this really that hard to understand or follow?

Thanks Mark, 1 Peter 5 has been helpful to me, including the bits that tell me to humble myself, to be submissive and to serve, not lording it over those in the flock. What does 1 Peter teach me about authority within my church that I am missing Mark? I cannot see your point?

Mark, I will push my theology all the way, ask questions, think up situations, but I do not think my theology will crumble. I am happy for it to be tested. If I am in error I want to know.

You said, “The lines are blurred. I’d rather stick with the Bible. Women submit to THEIR husbands (not others). ALL submit to governing authorities. ALL submit to church leaders as the shephards and overseers.”

If you want to stick to the Bible I have two suggestions. Don’t forget Eph 5:21, and stop blurring submission and authority, or submission and subordination. It is not that hard to understand and follow. This might also stop your line blurring.

I suggest you read Calvin. I never thought I would say that to anyone.

By the way, I meant to say ages ago to SM, I thought you did a great job in your comments. I learnt heaps!

Mark, I neglected to respond to this, “By the way, where is the 2 or 3 witness to this reciprocal submission command?”

I was not aware that I brought up the need for 2 or 3 witnessess, but I ask you, do you think Calvin is correct in his commentary on Eph 5:21 to link submission directly to love? If so, then I think you should be able to find several witnesses yourself, such as Romans 13:8-10.

After all, we are trying to follow the spirit of the law in all this, not the letter?!

Hi Charis,

I had a look at the Dictionary according to Jesus. I do not have a problem with the fact that Jesus stretches our understandings of concepts. Some people say Jesus redefined the law (eg Matthew 5:21-22), or that he redefined forgieness (eg Mattheew 5:38-42), or love (eg John 15:13). But I do not think Jesus starts using words so that they mean different things, instead he strips away all the pretence and religion and gets to the heart of the matter. His definitions are pure, not soiled by sin (and excuses).

At the same time there are some here who would like to re-define authority to suit their theology. The truth is that one can nurture without authority. One can die on a cross without authority. One can be the least without authority. You can, I agree, have authority that respects others, and authority that does not, but authority is still authority either way. It is power, and if you choose to use it, then you choose to use the power.

So, if a man has authority over his wife he can tell her what to do. Is NN and others saying that husbands only tell wives to do things that are nurturing, encouraging and loving? That would be authority, but it is not the husband who is being nurturing – he is telling the wife to be nurturing.

Or do they tell them to do things in a way that is nurturing and encouraging? This is authority, and is nurturing, but are they the same thing? No.

Or, are they saying that husbands should nurture, love and encourage their wives? Because that does not require authority, as it does not require obedience on the part of the wife.

If Jesus has truly redefined authority in the way described, then unless the Prime Minister of Australia is nurturing, I do not have to obey him (or his government) as it is not authority. But this makes a bit of a mess out of the beginning of Romans 13!

Markie Sparkie! Thanks for the reply (558). I note you only got to point one. Is there more coming or did you forget to keep numbering? Or perhaps you only had one point in you? 🙂

You said, “After all, I’m sure you would not say that 5:21, means that I submit to your wife and your’s to mine in the same way they submit to us.”
Yes, I do. Paul is clear, we should submit to one another. It might look different in different relationships, but yes, we should one to another. No ifs or buts.

You said, “ Submission/authority will depend on the relationship involved. Now if you wish 5:21 to be equally reciprocal in all relationships (one another!) it would be ludicrous. Sure we serve one another (which is a form of submission), but I don’t think that Paul’s intention in 5:21ff is a reciprocal nature in the egal sense.”
No it would not be ludicrous. Further, I agree, we are called to serve one another, but just because you say Paul’s intention is different, you need to show how. If you want to say it involves authority, then please indicate where Paul mentions authority.

You said, “ if I was at your church I would submit to you as the Pastor.”
I am touched, but if I was your pastor I would hope that you would submit to me as I would submit to you. I am a brother in Christ, no more. I might have certain responsibilities within my church, but neither the Bible nor the Presbyterian Church of Australia instills me with any authority over you. I do however have “the power invested in me” to marry you (but we both already are!!).

You said, “ However, you and egals, are claiming much more than your statement suggests. Eph 5:21 does not prove I should submit to my wife in the same sense as 5:22. That would suggest that I should submit to my 3yr old in the same way she submits to me as her father. “
I submit to my 14, 12 and 9 yo kids. It looks different at points for all three of them, as it does for my wife. But this is a different topic to whether or not I have authority over my kids and/or them over me.

You said, “Like it or not, egals claim that the husband has to submit to his wife reciprocally, but the Bible does not teach that.”
Yes it does. We should all submit to one another. No one is excluded. It will look different in different situations, but the Bible DOES teach that husbands and wives, indeed all of us should submit to one another. But this is a different topic to whether or not a husband has authority over his wife. It is not in the passage.

You said, “If all Egals were saying was quote “we should submit to one another because the Bible explicitly says WE should” then we would agree. We do submit to one another in many ways within the Christian community. I’m afraid though you and others push much more than what you have said above.”
Well, it sounds like we do agree, except you comps(!) push much more and say that there is different types of submission due to hierarchy.

You said, “So I must disagree that the instruction proves your point. All it proves is the common ground you share with comps, that within the Christian community we ought to submit to one another.”
Yeah, common ground! I have found this comment interesting with how you want to say we sort of submit to one another, but it would be ludicrous for this to actually happen, and yet we do submit to one another…but we don’t really…!

You said, “What you have failed to prove, is that male headship does not exist, or that I as a husband ought to submit to my wife in the same way she is called to submit to me. Until you can do that, your point is never proven.”
Mark I cannot prove something does not exist. All I can ask is for you to prove something does exist. Until you can do that…

Cheers big ears!
(I have never seen your ears and was simply giving a customary farewell often used in the small town of Gulargambone…)

Charis, you said at 541, “When one consults “the dictionary according to Jesus” authority bears little resemblance to the world or Webster’s definition.”

I agree with Cheryl, we cannot make words mean what we want them to mean. The purpose of a dictionary is so that we can all use words consistently, not simply using our own definitions. I believe Jesus entered our world speaking our language (not English…but you know what I mean!).

I appreciate that some words do not have an equivelent in another language, but if authority has to have its meaning changed to fit in with what Jesus meant, then we need to find a new word, not re-define the old word.