Mark

which of course means you have to reject the very model of Jesus himself!

Kay,

that is becasue you reject servant leadership models. See TL’s comment above.

TL,

“Yes, they exercise an authority which is given by the Holy Spirit. It is an authority to train and direct the people of God to honor God. They do this as servants of the Lord.”

Beautiful picture of servant leadership that you wrote! This might not go down to well with your fellow egals!

Now tell me, why the same paradigm doesn’t work for a husband? WHy do you assume it has to be his authority that he takes? Have you perhaps given false labels to comp theology?

Sue,

But again there are more problems. You told us that your motivation was to live and not be under male authority, and know you relate that to ‘moral guidelines’. I don’t see the connection!

I could equally argue that i am governed by moral guidelines- that really means nothing. What we should be governed by is the Word of God- that is the only place where true morals can be formed, otherwise they are not morals at all. You can’t approach the Bible with a 21st century ‘moral guideline framework’- it doesn’t work that way- it should be the opposite.

I think your first answer seemed far more honest and open. Being under authority is not accepted nowadays, and in some places rightly so, but i don’t think you can only connect your view as morally right and the comp not.

Again regards lexicons, if you don’t trust any, how can you possibly give any explanation for anything. It seems like you have just undercut your own research- why would i trust you? How do i know you aren’t just making up your own terminology or meanings if they are not inline with other relevant scholars.

I think your insistence to disregard BDAG is unwarranted. They cover the koine period as their focus. The question we need to ask is whether their definitions fit the context. Of course they do, they are just repulsive to our generation- that’s the only difference. Does ‘source’ fit the context? In many places not at all- that’s why many egals switch between source and ‘beginning’ and ‘preeminance’, which are totally different meanings. And then we need to ask whether the few lexicons that offer another alternatives can rightly be considered as covering the relevant time frame accurately.

I think we need to steer away from the open hermenuetic mind field. There are not 2 possible meanings to Paul’s teachings. I would have thought that the research you have put into the New Testament, you would have realised the amount of divergents, ducking and re-interpretation of passages, words, meanings goes into the egal position. If it was ‘so obvious’ why did the early church miss it- the natural greek speakers. Why aren’t the fathers writings in line with the egal position? Did they misunderstand the meanings of words from their own time?

This is why i struggle. Many egals claim that the church has just been patriarchal, but yet then claim that the very words of the New Testament shout for egalitarianism. How can the two co-incide. Either they were just patriarchs, or they misunderstood their own language. I don’t see how you can argue the two.

Kay,

So what you are saying is that Church leaders are not in authority-

let’s see…

Tit 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Does Titus have authority here over the congregation? Paul says don’t let anyone disregard him. Maybe you should consider if you are disregarding your church leaders?

gengwell,

i suggest you do read Hosea. Througout all of biblical literature the marriage metaphor is common. Not only is it common, there are may places in which God’s authority over his bride is in view. This is simply common sense. God is God. God is in authority over us.

So although you argue that the marriage metaphor never has God in authority over his bride, i hope you see that that is simply not true. You may wish to further narrow your scope to Paul’s marriage metaphor, that’s up to you, but looking at the Bible as a whole (especially in light of Paul being a Pharisee and being well versed in the Old Testament literature) i’ll stick with my conviction at the moment. It seems like your argument will have to extend to saying that Paul is ‘re-inventing’ the marriage metaphor to exclude authority, especially in regard to Church/Christ.

I’d love your thoughts as this seems to be the crux of your thesis!

Sue,

I admire your honestly regarding your bias. I think that is helpful for all to understand, so that when comments are made rejecting the BDAG for example because of bias, one can see that such an argument is not really an argument at all. But let me ask you this, how do you know you are correct? You told us your motivation- you “want to live”. Are you therefore manipulating the text to suit your agenda? How can you know? And what if your wrong- what then?

The problem i have with Liddell, is that it is much more of a broad survey dealing with an enormous amount of greek literature, most of which is irrelevant to the Koine Greek period. However, to deduce therefore that such a lexicon is more accurate i think is flawed. It is much more accurate to look at the period in question rather than such a broad expanse. It’s like trying to understand what the term ‘awesome’ means from a linguistic period covering an enormous amount of years. Considering it probably is used in different ways every 10 years or so, it would be hard to have an accurate picture from the broad analysis.

Indeed many people are biased, but what makes you think the majority of Greek scholars would be pushing for a comp position? You would have to be assuming that all these publishers and editors are patriarchal advocates…but of course that is just an assumption based on your own bias. Sure someone like Grudem is of course doing that, but the BDAG lexicon was in print before this dabate even began.

Where do we draw the line as to which lexicon to trust? Are all BDAG entries wrong and therefore anything we need to know about Koine Greek and the Bible ought to come from secular sources? To me, it seems like you and many others would be more than happy to take 99.99% BDAG entries seriously, excluding the ones that clash with egal theology. So it’s no so much that they are wrong, but probably more so, that our contemporary readings of passages are wrong.

TL,

My statement was not wrong at all, because i qualified it by saying what i have read. Yesterday i had a look through our college library at all the greek sources availiable. All bar one confirmed what i said- the one exception was Liddell (which to re-enforce again is a lexicon that covers an enormous time period which would be hard to give definitions accurately). Now i also looked at theological word books etc and not just lexicons. They all came to the same conclusion. So either they are all wrong, and the church has been wrong for 2000 years (which of course could be possible since the church is fallible), or our modern debate is an attempt to read back into the text what we want it to say. We see this all the time when ‘new’ theologies pop there head up.

Let me finish with this at least. Reject kephale as authority all you want- i won’t agree but that is ok. But at least give a decent alternative. ‘Source’ is not a good alternative. Source is used in plural forms not singular, and as Sue herself told us, she does not accept that translation. ‘Source’ not only is an impossible alternative, it doesn’t make sense either. I am not the source of my wife because 1. it is singular and 2. she wasn’t created out of me, the same way the church was created out of Christ.

To all,

i haven’t read through all comments yet, but just have time for one brief thought.

Since all but one lexicon and other greek sources identify authority with kephale from what i’ve read, it’s hard don’t you think to disagree with the majority. BUt maybe Gengwell is correct, they all just have their biases.

But then it makes me wonder, why so many of you rely on Sue’s research and conclusions. Is she not also biased in her research? Just seems like the very argument you want to use against the majority of scholars in this area is a little flawed. Why do you trust Sue over others? IS it some bias of your own to stick with your own interpretation?
Let’s be realistic about this. Give me a better reason to ignore the majority of scholars. Note also my point about looking at people, pre egal/comp debate- i think you would get a much fairer response.

Sue,
I’m very serious on this topic and i’ve read your research before, but i’m still not convinced. The whole argument falls to pieces regarding the LXX, since there are instances when kephale is used to mean authority or leader- you may dismiss them, but they are there. Like i have challenged you before, show me one use in the LXX where kephale is meant to translate ‘source’? Let’s get things in perspective! Why are we choosing to select a meaning that is not related to human relationships (i.e source), but not only that, it is used as the plural not singular. Now i know you don’t like source, but what is the alternative, and how does that make sense of the biblical passages?
Would you argue that the majority of scholars in this field of your’s are simply biased? WHy should we believe you that your research is not biased more so than others?

Thanks

Thanks all,

Let me clarify. I’m not pushing anything here, simply looking more deeply into your own position.
No-one has answered my question 2 yet…any takers? Feel free to attach the meaning of ‘head’ to all the passages in which Paul uses it- that way we can all see how consistent people’s meanings are.

Thanks gengwell for confirming my question 1. I’m glad you see that Christ is in authority, just not in the the marriage analogy. I wonder though, if you follow this throught the OT aswell? The marriage metaphor is not new to the NT or Paul. Just think about Hosea. I think you might find it hard to come to a similar conclusion that the marriage metaphor there, gives no indication of authority. Thoughts?
As regards lexicons, i’m rather stunned at your claims that kephale never has authority attached to it. Have you overstated your case here? I find it much more reliable to listen to experts in this regard, especially one’s who publish prior to the whole comp/egal debate in recent decades. Was it you who also said BDAG is unreliable in this regard?

Lydia,
It is good to be reminded of that verse you gave (333), but we also need to be careful not to go the other way. Read 2 Peter 2, where Paul explicitly links false teachers with despising authority.

“then ?the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,? and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially ?those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and ?despise authority.”

Cheers

Cheryl,

A while ago you stated that i did not have authority over my wife because i did not ‘take’ it. Now you have just said regarding Christ…

” He never took an authority to demand love but as the perfect example of husbandly love, He initiated the sacrifice, initiated the cherishing and initiated the clinging to or joining Himself with her.”

So according to your train of thought, Christ did not ‘take’ authority. Does he therefore also NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY? This appears like a fallacy in your critiques…inconsistencies. Again…

“I believe that men as “head” of their wives (not head over their wives) have been set up by God as the preeminent part of the body to initiate in every way so that the wife is granted equality and equal opportunity to serve God.”

Explain how this is equality? The husband is to initiate, which is his role but not the wife’s? This seems like a weak way of saying he is in a leadership position, just with more careful words. If it is the husbands job to initiate to lift his wife up, is she equally called to lift up her husband? I assume you have to say no, since the wife is never called the ‘head’ of the husband, which is what your comment is based on. Why have you jumped from the marriage to service for God, saying the husbands job is to initiate to give her an equal opportunity to serve God. Seems like you missed the point of marriage? Can you state clearly what ‘head’ means for you in ALL of Paul’s usages. I’ll list all the passages from Paul’s letters, and you can give your defintion next to each.

will heap burning coals on his head.” Ro 12:20 2776
that Christ is the head of every man, 1Co 11:3 2776
and the man is the head of a woman, 1Co 11:3 2776
woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1Co 11:3 2776
something on his head while praying or 1Co 11:4 2776
or prophesying disgraces his head. 1Co 11:4 2776
her head uncovered while praying or 1Co 11:5 2776
or prophesying disgraces her head 1Co 11:5 2776
as the woman whose head is shaved. 1Co 11:5
if a woman does not cover her head, 1Co 11:6
her hair cut off or her head shaved, 1Co 11:6
head shaved, let her cover her head. 1Co 11:6
ought not to have his head covered, 1Co 11:7 2776
a symbol of authority on her head, 1Co 11:10 2776
a woman to pray to God with her head 1Co 11:13
or again the head to the feet, 1Co 12:21 2776
gave Him as head over all things to Eph 1:22 2776
aspects into Him who is the head, Eph 4:15 2776
the husband is the head of the wife, Eph 5:23 2776
Christ also is the head of the church, Eph 5:23 2776
He is also head of the body, the Col 1:18 2776
the head over all rule and authority; Col 2:10 2776
and not holding fast to the head, Col 2:19

Thus the fallacy of this position. Paul’s use of kephale changes dramatically.

2776 ??????? [kephale /kef•al•ay/] n f. From the primary kapto (in the sense of seizing); TDNT 3:673; TDNTA 429; GK 3051; 76 occurrences; AV translates as “head” 76 times. 1 the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment. 2 metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent. 2A of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife. 2B of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church. 2C of things: the corner stone.

Note point 2 which deals with the metaphor. Are we dealing with people or things- this is important, contra Cheryl’s above argument.

And thus Paul’s use changes in Eph, and then again in 1 Cor 11, and then again in Col. I’m astonished how you can all just pick and choose your meanings like that. Does it not ring alarm bells?

Here is the basic thesis as i see it: In Eph 5, it cannot be authoritative since authority is not explicitly mentioned. In Eph 1 and Col, authority is not in view because it is not directly over the Church. In 1 Cor 11, the metaphor is not in view, so thus a meaning of ‘source or pre-eminance’ is employed to remove the authority otherwise prevelant. So, in other words, kephale is used by Paul to mean varying things. Is this a fair comment?

2 side points, if anyone wishes to answer for me…
1. Is Christ in authority over the Church at all?
2. Do Church leaders have authority?

Only one brief comment becasue time is limited,

If my children ask me first to hop down, would i tell them to ask their mother aswell…no i wouldn’t.

My example does not say that the wife does not have authority over our children, nor able to make decisions. It simply shows, that when both parents are there, and an authoritative decision is to be made, i make it. My wife expects me to make it. Would she make the same decision if i were not there…of course she would.

I have never said i need to ‘take authority’ over my wife, as appears common in these threads. It is not about ‘taking’ the auhtority, it is whether authority exists. Even when authority exists we can choose not to obey it. I can choose to break laws, but it doesn’t mean that the authority to fine me, no longer applies.

My wife could equally choose to usurp my authority, since it is not in my opinion, my job to ‘take’. As i have said earlier, the Bible commands her and thus God, not me. If she chooses to reject God’s commandment, it is between her and God. Likewise if she chooses to obey God’s commandment, it is between her and God. I will never, and don’t ‘take’ or demand authority from my wife.

To apply it differently, when we moved house last year to another state, we discussed the issue, prayed about it etc. However, when the crunch time came and we needed to decide to do it, my wife left it to me to make the decision. In this process, i did not ignore her, abuse her, not take her feelings etc into account. Simply when an authoritative decision is to be made for us or our family, i make it. If i choose to make a decision deliberately to antogonise my wife, or to make life harder for her, is that reflecting Christ-no it is not. My decisions and thus authority, i always try to manage in a Christ like way.

Anyway i’ve said enough about my marriage.

“Or do you make this decision for them because your wife is unable to make her own decision??”

who saids a wife can’t make her own decision? is this another false label you are attaching to my theology? More circles to go around and around and around. Let me put it this way…ive given an example of how my wife chooses to submit to me as her head- deal with that.

Ive run outta time today so maybe by tomorrow, you might actually wish to address the relevant issues.

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

Cheryl,

Why is it you ask me to give you an example but yet do not wish to address the example i gave? What’s the corner your trying to push me into. I try to give you an example and you have just ignored it, i’m not going to waste my time going over other hypotheticals.

Sue,

re-read what i wrote and please refrain my labelling my house a ‘un-normal’.

Why is you think a no-authority policy shows children something radically different. The way i see it in our western egalitarian, non-authority culture, children no longer have respect. Our children run wildly around since they are taught that there is no such thing as authority- this is a direct result of our culture and you want me to push my children head-long into it. It’s all about ‘my rights’ and it is an epidemic at least in Australia.

I will teach my children that i love and cherish my wife and would die if necessary for her. I will teach them that i will not abuse her or dominate and lord over her. She teaches them that i am the head of our house and that they are to respect and obey that. This is radically different to our culture and why the Bible gives such a beautiful picture of our relationship with Christ. Let me say that the normal picture should reflect Christ and the Bible- an egalitarian model does not do that.

Cheryl,

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

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

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

Let me give one small sample of how i believe my wife chooses to submit to me as her head and the leader of our family.

When we have dinner our children are not allowed to leave the table until they have finished and until everyone else is finished. If both my wife and i are present and one of my children asks to hop down from the table, my wife will always tell the kids that they need to ask me, even if they have asked her first.
I have never commanded that she do this. I have never asked her to do this to show her submission to me. I believe and know she does this to show that she respects me as the head of our house. She believes this is one way she can instill into our children how the Father leads the home. Now is this something she does voluntarily- yes it is. Is it something i command- no it is not. It is an act of submission on her part to recognise my authority as both a husband and a father. It teaches our children that when both mum and dad are around, dad is the one in authority. She could quite legitimately tell the kids they can hop down, but she chooses to point the decision over to me.

Yet it is never something i command or tell her to obey. Hope this helps and please don’t attempt to exegete my words over the computer. Thanks

Cheryl,

Your attempt to criticise me for ignoring the context doesn’t seem to hold. Let’s face the fact’s. You are beginning with the slave/master metaphor and the verb attached to it. You come to a conclusion on the meaning of that section AND THEN go back to hypotasso and argue for a meaning that never exists when one person is told to submit to another.

Sure you may be looking at the ‘context’ but you are not actually looking at the ‘context’. You work backwards in your exegesis in this passage.

It is pretty clear we are never going to agree on this matter- how can we expect to when our hermeneutics are so vastly different.

Let me encourage everyone here to perhaps devote more energy to giving a realist alternative to a comp interpretation. You can argue till your black in the face about the meanings of words and verbs etc, but let’s face it, the alternative you offer is weak- very weak. It seems that egals are so caught up in disproving their opposition that they forgot to think about their alternative. That’s my two cents worth.

Pinklight,

You missed the point. The egalitarian ‘source’ meaning relies heavily on the ‘physical’ aspect as Cheryl has just confirmed. Is this Paul’s interest in Eph 5. Does he talk about about Adam providing for Eve- NO! The only thing that goes back to Gen is the one flesh union- the marriage- not the supposed provisional priority of the male. Here is the fallicy of Cheryl’s son’s whole argument. Not to mention his claims that we are equal with Christ in the sense that we are sinless and whatever else it was that he said. Both ideas are completely foreign to the text and Paul’s meaning.

Now carry this further- Paul contrast this to the Church and Christ. Now in what way does Christ provide physically for us. Does he go and earn money and supply our physical needs in the same way a husband is supposed to under the egalitarian position. Straight away the comparison Paul makes becomes meaningless. That is why egals have to talk about Christ provision being different to the husbands provision- thus we no longer have a comparison. It just seems totally silly, at least Sue realises this and abstains from pushing ‘source’ for the meaning of head.

So why is the comp position so much more consistent- it doesn’t swap and fiddle and sqirm and make nonsense out of the passage. A wife is to submit to her husband who is the head because he has auhtority over her, in the same way the church submits to Christ as the head who has authority over the Church.

Finally you said
“It’s obvious from Ephesians 5 that the woman’s creation out of the man foreshadowed the church being made out of Christ.”

Sure let’s assume this is correct. How then does this apply to the husband in Ephesus who is the source of his wife? In what way is the Ephesian coming out of her husband? This is the problem, the comparison is between the husband and wife in Ephesus and the Church and Christ, from which Paul draws on the one flesh union of Adam and Eve, not the creational order of Eve. It’s interesting how in the two places Paul argues for a creational order, egals protest, and then they insert it into a place where it is not even in view?

pinklight,

why do you use words like ‘obey commands’. Do you think this is helpful in dialogue? When you mutually submit to your husband is it only when you obey his commands? I doubt you would describe your own mutual submission that way, so why describe it for me?

I’m sure we would both agree that submission is much more than ‘obeying commands’, otherwise our submission to Christ is very bleak indeed. But again, over dramatised descriptions don’t help the discussion.

Dave,

Concede what point? Surely you don’t want to say that what a wife is told to submit to is ‘fortune’, or ‘condition or process’. Which one of these definition makes any sense of the context of Eph 5, since what we are actually dealing with in Ephesians is relationships not conditions or fortunes.

You have stated that you believe that authority existed in that culture, so why the big fight against me. Do we not agree on this point, that a wife is told to submit to her husband’s authority. Where we differ is whether the authority is God-given and temporal.

So be as it may you either must conceed on one point. You cannot say that authority is in view, but then say that it is reciprocal. Either Paul is rejecting that authority is in view, or what egalitarians define as reciprocal is not true.

This is why i get so confused. You say husbands had authority over their wives in that culture, yet you then proceed to convince me that Paul’s command to submit is non-authoritative and mutual. So is Paul calling the wives to submit to their husbands authority in that culture, but it doesn’t apply to us, or is Paul re-inventing what the verb submit means?

P.S My Oxford does not say what yours’ does, so either mine is older or newer than yours

P.P.S Is mutual submission in view in 1 Peter 3, when the husband is a non-believer?

Cheryl,

Thanks for the interaction. Let me put it this way. I won’t base my understanding of hypotasso, from a verb that is not the same. I will base my understanding from the lexicons, context and the rest of the Bible. You may wish to swap and fiddle with the verbs to come to the conclusion that you do, but i am not.

Yes i am saying that masters were NOT subject to their slaves. I am confident in this, becasue the Bible never saids that masters are hypotasso to their slaves. If this was the case they would no longer be masters. I think what you need to do is look beyond the verb ‘obey’ and look at all the other things Paul describes for the slaves. Then also look at what Paul qualifies for the masters after ‘do the same thing’, for example ‘stop threatening’. You can’t just take ‘obey’ and ‘do the same thing’ and ignore the rest of the text as if it doesn’t mean anything or rather gives meaning to the exhortation. I thought i had heard it all from you Cheryl, until you come up with this one.

Why will i waste my time explaining how my marriage works on this blog. It is quite clear that we are never going to agree since our ‘foundations’ are completely different. Practical implications flow from theology, if the theology is different, the practical issues will be different. I don’t expect anything i say about my marriage will help facilitate our biblical interpretation of Eph 5.

It seems like in an egalitarian context the book of Ephesians could stop at 5:21, since the husband/wife, Christ/church, slave/master, child/parent relationships all say the same thing right- in a nutshell ‘mutual submission’. It makes me wonder why Paul would go to all that effort to give these exhortations, if he said it all in 5:21. Wow, my relationship with my wife is no different to the slave and his master- that’s encouraging! (sorry for the sarcasm)

Finally, if my wife IS the body with me, how can she come from my body? How can i be the source of her? Puzzling questions! Also again, why are you interpolating Adam and Eve into Eph 5 when Paul does not. Why are you basing your meaning of ‘head’ from something not even in the context? More puzzling questions. I think the reality is, i am not the source of my wife’s body- her parents are (physically). There is no direct correlation between the first pair and me and my wife physically like that.
This is why it appears that ‘head’ has some new age hypothetical mumbo jumbo meaning that makes no actual sense of the word or the context in which it lies. Or maybe i am the source ‘spiritually’ like Christ is for the Church. Can we draw the conclusion that i am the one responsible for the salvation of my wife, like Christ is for the Church? Let’s face it- stick with the proper meaning of the word(s) and uphold biblical teaching.

Cheryl,

Before i answer any more of your questions, can you please answer the one’s i asked of you first in relation to Ryan’s comments. You answered only one of my questions. Can you do the rest?

you said

“The husband is the original source of the woman and thus she is from him and equal to him. The husband today is to see his wife as being from him as his very own body so that he is to care for her as if she is his own flesh.”

Where does Paul even mention Adam and Eve in this context? Why are you importing this idea? Also when the Bible saids “the husband is the head of his wife” you interpret…

“The husband today is to see his wife as being from him as his very own body so that he is to care for her as if she is his own flesh.”

So my wife comes from my body? Are you serious on this one? Or is this some hypothetical idea? How can people think this is a serious alternative to comp theology. Surely you can do better than this?

Actually i will address one issue of yours. You seem to think that Eph 6 is a slam dunk for the egalitarian position. Now this purplexes me, since the verb ‘submit’ is not even in the text. The slave is told to ‘obey’ so why is it you think it confirms the egalitarian assumption on the verb submit? You stated that the masters are to be reciprocal aswell. Are you saying that the masters are to ‘obey’ the slaves? Here is again another example of a tangent in the egaitarian theology. We are discussing EPh 5, but more specifically the verb ‘submit’ and you tell me Eph 6 proves your point. How can this be, when the verb is not even the same?

Cheryl,

First i want to agree with something you said. I agree that for a person to submit it is a voluntary action. This is why Eph 5 is so crucial. I as a husband do not ‘demand’ my wife to submit. In her walk with Jesus she believes she is told to submit to me her husband. It is something God requires of her not me. So i agree that submission is a voluntary act.
However, why do you assume therefore that authority cannot exist? Why is it, that you actually contradict the meaning of this verb? Just saying it is a voluntary action is nothing spectacularly enilightening. You have jumped from voluntary to therefore not under authority, which is a complete reversal of it’s use in the Bible.

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

The problem again seems to be that authority equals ‘demands’ or ‘forcing’ something in your view. You are using words that overstate both what comp teaches and what submission means. You need to show me how submitting voluntarily therefore means that authority is irrelevant since this seems to be the crux of your argument. Please stay away from words (all egals) like tyranny, force, demands, abuse, etc etc. It’s simply evidence to me that you are trying to criminalise the comp position to say stuff it isn’t. Ironic how egalitarians do the same things they accuse many comps of doing. I guess that’s the nature of debates though, right?

I’ve run outta time…

Kristen,

Thanks for clarifying. Let me ask you one question. IF the husband had authority BUT it is only cultural, is Christ’s authority therefore only cultural? OR to put it another way. If a wife is only told to submit in that culture to her husband, is the church only told to submit in that culture? Why or why not? Why is the wife’s submission directly linked to the Church’s submission?

Sue,

I never ignored your comment. Let me say it again- all lexicons i have read say that the verb ‘submit’ has authority attached to it. Now you bring up 1 Clement in BDAG, so let me say again what i said to you earlier. It was in the discussion of Grudem’s challenge, and what i told you was that i would need to look at it in more detail when i get a chance because it seems like you might have a case with that one…how is that ignoring you? I directly addressed what you had said.

Nevertheless, does that then mean that when BDAG list ‘subordination’ or ‘subject’ as meanings it forfeits that authority is involved? I don’t think it does, so my point is still the same. That verb according to lexicons denotes authority. We can argue over the one reference you claim is different once i’ve had time to look into it more fully. But please don’t accuse me of ignoring you.

Tell me this Sue…why do you hang onto one non-biblical use of hypotasso as the foundation for your theology? Of course that is provided that your test case fits into the required condition Grudem challenges.

SM,

Can you explain your question a little broader. What exactly do you mean by ‘rationale’? Are you looking for a non-biblical rational explanation why a wife needs to be under authority?

Thanks

Kristen,

You mis-understood what i was saying. The question was posed about single women and authority- that is what i was addressing.

I am fully aware about Paul’s teaching on singleness, but that was not the question asked of me to answer. Again here lies the issue. Can we please stick with what we are discussing. It doesn’t help any of us when we go off in tangents.

If you think Paul has teaching on whose authority a single woman is under then please enlighten us. Don’t criticise me for not answering a question that i was not trying to answer.

Thanks

Cheryl,

It doesn’t appear that i recieved your emails