Mark

Hi everyone,

I fail to see the tough questions posed Cheryl. I have only extended the analogy as far as the Bible does. No, a wife should not worship her husband. What everyone failed to mention (especially Kristen in her thread) was that wives are told to submit as the Church does to Christ. So does submit give any indication that auhtority exists. As far as i know, all lexicons say yes. Is it foreign to Paul’s train of thought, no it is not. So i have only ever extended the analogy as far as Paul and the grammar definitions. Some of you egalitarians do a good job at trying to discredit those who disagree agree with you. But as far as i can tell, two themes are common, 1) i don’t answer supposed tough questions (although they never seem to directly relate to the topic) and 2) you introduce and extend what i have said to things i have never said.

So although you want to discredit my position by introducing all these other extremities that i have not mentioned, let me be clear. I’m focusing only on what the wife is told to do, in the same way the church is told to do in Eph 5. If you wish to continue discussing this with me that is fine, but stick to the topic. Don’t attach foreign labels and concepts.

Susannah,

I can’t understand your hermeneutic. You only accept authority if it is the ‘big’ idea of the passage it seems. I find this biblical interpretation hard to follow because i’m sure you don’t say ‘anger’ is the big idea of Ephesians 6, yet i’m sure you would agree with Paul that Father’s should not provoke their children to anger. You can’t re-interpret every word in a passage like that. So i dare you, to actually accept the Biblical words for what they mean, and not do exegetical backflips to dismiss authority.

P.S Cheryl have you responded to my comment about Ryan’s alternative? I would like to know how many think Eph 5 is ‘cultural’ (in that the husband had authority in that culture but it was not God ordained) and how many don’t? I know Dave thinks it’s cultural, and Kristen not. ANyone else wish to add!

Ok just saw this thread and will offer a few comments, although i can’t commit to hanging around becasue i am busy for the next few weeks.

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

Second, why is a wife under her husbands authority? I’m surprised at this really. The best answer is to look at the Bible. Ephesians 5 teaches us that the wife must submit to her husband as the church does to Christ. Now from the threaded comments, most assume this means that a wife has no choices or options- that she is just ‘property’ i saw someone write. But is this the way we view our selves as Christ’s bride? Surely not! I think the answer you look for is bound up in the comparison Paul draws. The church is cherished, loved, sacrificed for. She is free to accept and follow Christ as her head or she is free to reject Him. Likewise a wife is free to follow her head or reject him. She is not just property, but someone cherished, loved and sacrificed for. If egalitarians stop slandering the comp position as much as you criicise them doing it to you that would help.

Finally, the single woman issue is an important one and i’m not sure i can offer an appropriate pastoral perspective. All i can say is that marriage and family are important. God created this world in order that we might multiply and subdue it. God ordained marriage as a reflection of the covenant relationship of Christ and the Church. Marriage is extremly important and beautiful. Anyone blessed enough to be married ought to cherish it and understand how this ‘one flesh’ union reflects the beauty of us as Christ’s bride.

I guess the obvious point is that singleness in women was not an issue in the New Tetament era, so it’s hardly surprising that no instruction is given on the issue. That is why we must do our best to try and grasp and understanding from other areas in the Bible and apply them today. Again it is not helpful to criticise pastors or churches who attempt to give some instruction on this issue. We must not import our 21st century society back into the Bible and demand answers as we wish. It is not a flaw in the comp position, in as much as it is not a flaw in the egal pos. Neither can offer direct biblical teaching on the issue.

Cheryl,

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

Serve- “perform duties or services for”

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

So when a husband goes and buys milk, is he serving or submitting? This is the fundamental difference, and egalitarians should stop confusing the two (or combining the two). When a father reads his child a sory after being asked is he submitting or serving? If you wish to keep using the term submit, you need to give a definition as to why you reject dictionary entries for this word and remove authority from it. This is an important point since egalitarians wish to continue to emphasise that a husband must submit to his wife, yet they are ignoring the very definition for submit. 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.

Cheerio

Gengwell,

Regarding ‘disputable’ issues i think we ought to stick to what Paul allows as disputable. Romans 14 doesn’t intorduce issues like ministry into disputable matters- that is something we often do.

Now i don’t know where i sit on the gender debate= doctrinal issue, but i don’t think it is helpful to classify it into a category that Paul never does. Of course though, it will always be difficult to discern what is doctinal and what isn’t in modern debates.

I agree whole heartedly with you that scripture has to be the determining factor.

Cheers

Kristen,

i agree with you on the ‘cultural’ relevance of Eph 5. I guess where i would differ is that the one flesh union or ‘mystery’ of Gen 1-3 was a foreshadow of Christ and the Church.

Now the question is, wihtin the Christ/Church model, does auhtority exist. I believe it does. I’m not denying that we are co-heirs with Chirst etc- they are glorious truths, but rather also affirming that we will all bow down and worship Jesus as Lord (Phil 2). The problem i see with the egal system is it seems to neglect the latter issue adn only focus on us being ‘friends’. If you couple this with precise definitions of ‘head’ and ‘submit’ as well as where we sit as creatures and not creators i find it hard to accept that Egalitarianism is a biblical alternative.

So if the original marriage was a foreshadow of Christ/Church, adn authority exists in the church/Christ relatioship, why ought we deny the human relationship is different.

To me, you must either reject that marriage is a reflection of the ‘true’ marriage, or reject that Christ has authority over his church to accept an egal system on Eph 5. I’m not willing to do either since i believe both options are unbiblical.

Dave,

call it ‘mutual submitting’ since that is what you are trying to communicate is it not- the verbal action of ‘submitting’ not the adjectival description of submission.

Dave my friend,

You are streching things are little thin don’t you think. Eph 5:24 says, ‘now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands’- this is a tight link.

this never appears with the slave/master paradigm- not once. Sure slaves are told to obey their masters as they would Christ (6:5) which is similar to 5:22, but the relationship between slave/master is never linked to the relationship of church/Christ as the husband/wife is. This is pure facts we are dealing with, nothing else. The submission of wife/Christ, and slave/Christ is similar but again the relationship of Church/Christ is not.

Are you willing to say that the Christ/Church command is only cultural? If not, why not?

Pinklight,

This will be my last comment for a while.

Gal 5:13 is a prime example of the husbands role as husband. The husband is called to love his wife like Christ did the Church. IN Gal we are told to ‘through love serve one another’, so yes i would through love serve my wife. This is a perfect example of how servant leadership applies both for the husband but more generally the whole church. Our love motivates our service (well at least it should).

But note this verse says nothing about husbands being ‘hypotasso’ to their wives. Serving is not the same as being subject.

Sue,

Re Maccabees…

I would assume Grudem would say something like this…it doesn’t respond to his question. He is asking when one PERSON hypotasso’s to another it is always one directional. The maccabee reference is not an example of this. It is a yielding to the ‘rights’ (observances etc) not to the Jews themselves.

Clement may be a good case for you. When i get a chance i will look into it more in the context.

Thanks

Susannah,

You still skirt around the issue, we are talking about hypotasso and it’s relationship to slave/master, wife/husband, Christ/church. Your little side arguments are meaningless.

We all agree much more imagery is used to show our relationship to Christ. But never once is the corrolation between slave/master and Christ/church drawn based on the verb hypotasso.

If we stuck with the relevant topic that would help. As much as this hurts egalitarians it’s the truth. PLease ‘align with’ the relevant argument that Dave has proposed.

Gengwell,

In your definitions of ‘hypo’ I wonder if what you have said is the meaning for verbs only or have you included nouns etc. Also what does your lexicon say about the ‘case’ of the subject or object in order to give the proper definition.

So in James 4 we are told to ‘align with’ (not submit under or to) God in the sense that he does not have authority over us…correct?

This is all becoming hysterical! How far must we go to re-invent Biblical teaching.

Regarding your last point “Isn’t it just possible that Paul, who does not even have a military context on the radar here, is applying a much more “side by side” meaning to hypotasso?”

My response: yeah maybe, if we want to put our selves on a level par with the creator of the world, the creator of us, the sustainer of all things, and say that we are not under His authority. Sure I can accept this novel interpretation, if I thought I was God.

I guess the next argument will be, that Eph 5:21 uses the ‘align with’ and then Paul switches with Christ to ‘submit under’- I can see where this is leading. Paul just loves to be confusing like this doesn’t he!

Susannah (50)

So with your reasoning God is not In authority over us…am I hearing you correct? So although we are told to submit to God, it’s not authoritative because we are not told to submit to God’s ‘authority’- is that essentially your argument? You follow this logic into Eph 5 and say the husband is not in authority because the wife is told to submit to him, not his authority

Lydia,

I wonder if you feel like the church leaders are also a layer between you and God? I’m not saying the husband is the ‘high priest’ so to speak of the wife, not at all. Just that he is the head of his wife and she should submit to him.

I don’t understand why you think an authority figure over you is a ‘layer’ spiritually between you and God. We all have authority over us, but that does not mean I am any less spiritual than that authority figure.

Dave

You sound like a hoarder with your bikes…you are spending too much time on blogs and not on your bikes!

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.

The difference between the husband/wife paradigm and the slave/master is that the former is directly related to the Christ/church analogy. So I believe Paul allowed for the cultural custom of slavery and told servants to submit, but in terms of the wife’s submission, to say it was only a ‘cultural’ thing and not a binding condition, would mean that the church/Christ analogy is only cultural at Ephesus. 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!

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. This is the same point I brought out about the term ‘mutual submission’, when what you really mean is ‘mutual submitting’ i.e. the verbal action. To submit requires to yield to a power or authority. How can it be mutual when one is over the other?

Ive had an apiphony (is that how you spell that???)

Maybe egals should say they believe in ‘mutual submitting’ rather than mutual submission, that way at least the verbal action is what is emphasised not the description. Thoughts???

Problem with that though i guess, is that the verbal form ‘submit’ doesn’t look good for an egal (in terms of dictionary entries), so the adjectival form may be best to convince people even though it doesn’t convey what you actually mean.

Dave,

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.

I think this is key to understanding it’s meaning in the context of Eph 5. A wife who is in submission may be described as meek and humble (as she ought to be), but our interest should be in the verb should it not?

P.S how’s the bike riding in the back yard going? Have you hit the road yet?

Dave,

I never said subordination was the same as submit. I deliberately did not look at subordination since i was trying to understand your view. I can do that if you like. In fact i will at the end here.

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.

Let me ask if i understand you correctly. The husband is in authority, but he still must submit (so the act is mutual not the authority in the relationship). If you accept the Webster’s definition of submit, what is the ‘power’ the submitter is submitting too? In the context of Eph 5:22 what is the ‘power’ of the husband that the wife is submitting too? You may reject the Oxford ‘superior’, but please explain the Webster’s.

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. The way i submit to my pastor, is the exact same way he submits to me- that is mutual. Problem is, it won’t be the same. You are confusing the act of submitting (saying that is what is mutual) when what it appears you mean is that we all choose to submit. The choice of submitting is the same choice but it is not mutual. For it to be mutual, what A does to B, B does to A. There is a difference. That is why the term ‘mutual submission’ is nonsense.

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. The issue appears that you continue to use the word ‘submit’ which the Oxford gives as superior, and the Webster ‘power’ which is why the confusion continues. Of course those egalitarians that reject authority in Eph 5 have other issues to face.

I’m really interested in how you explain the ‘power’ issue in Webster’s. It interests me so that we can see the relatioship between submit and subordination. If one is superior, or in power, is the submitter therefore not subordinate. You can be subordinate and still choose not to submit- kids do that all the time. Just becasue you choose TO submit, does not disregard the subordination.

Finally here is the definition for subordinate in Oxfords just for your reference…

“lower in rank or position…a person under the authority or control of another.”

Remember this is a secular dictionary. No comp driving there theology into this one! So to be subordinate is to be ‘under authority’ and to submit is to ‘yield to a superior force’. What’s the fundamental difference you wish to make Dave?

I must also admit that my nose is probably more out of proportion that my ears!!!

HI Cheryl,

I was just re-reading through your son Ryan’s comment and had a few questions. I realise you are not him, but i assume you know his train of thought.

He said “In other words, because the husband is the source of the wife (just like Christ is the source of the church) and therefore she his equal, they should be mutually submitting to one another in love. (The church is also treated as the equal of Christ in the sense that the new person will have a new body and will no longer sin).

I’m not even going to get into the ‘source’ debate, but i wonder what he means. In what way is the husband the source of his wife? What does that mean from the context? Then in what way does that parallel the Church and Christ?

Ryan saids the Church is ‘equal’ in the sense that we have a new body and don’t sin. Is Ryan here talking about now or in the new heavens and earth? What in the context makes it futuristic like that? If he saids the Church/Christ paradigm is in the future, then it be necessary for the comparison to say that the husband/wife paradigm is for the future. It therefore does not apply today, but even worse goes against the teaching that in heaven there is no marriage? This doesn’t make sense.

I wonder how Ryan thinks that the Church here is described as being equal to Christ when the church is told to submit! Christ is described as the head, the church His body, the saviour, and the church is told to submit to Christ and Ryan looks at all this and draws the conclusion that the church is ‘equal of Christ in the sense that the new person will have a new body and will no longer sin’…hah…did i miss something here? Talk about an importation of ideas into the passage.

Hope you can answer some of these for me. Thanks

Susanne,

Thanks for your insights and thoughts on James 4, i found them helpful. But let me ask a further question to you which relates directly back to your claim at showing Grudem wrong.

‘How did any of what you said disprove Grudem’s challenge’?

Grudem asks egalitarians to show a use of hypotasso between people, when it does not involve authority. IN james 4, we are told to submit to God. To disprove Grudem’s challenge you would have to show how or why God is not in authority over us, which is exactly Grudem’s point. You did not even address his challenge. You need to be specific, when we are told to submit to God, is God in authority over us…yes or no!- this is Grudem’s challenge.

I look forward to further explanation on this and on the other Biblical and non biblical uses.

Cheers

Dave,

I think we have a similar sense of humuor…maybe it’s the Aussie blood, i dunno. I have accepted your challenge to look at dictionary entries and found them interesting. Especially in light of claims that comps give egals definitions that are not correct, such as ‘identical’. Bare with me as i look at some meanings. I’m basing what i say on the assumption that you believe in ‘mutual submission’, or ‘reciprocal submission’. So here goes!

BDAG translates hypotasso as i’m sure we all know as ‘subordinate’

Most english translations make hypotasso as ‘submit’. So according to the Oxford dictionary submit means…

“accept or yield to a superior force or stronger person”

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! It seems hard to understand the egal system when it uses terms that are oxymoron’s in nature. But what about ‘mutual’…maybe that helps qualify the term submit…

“experienced or done by each of two or more parties towards the other or others”

It seems that this is quite good. What A does to B, B does to A. But we must ask how does that fit with the term ‘submit’ or ‘submission’, since by definition it requires a ‘superior force’ to exist. Now reciprocal…

“given, felt or done in return”

Another good definition…what A does to B, B does to A. Now to me, this appears ‘identical’ in nature. Both mutual and reciprocal say that it is ‘done towards others’ or ‘done in return’.

So i maintain that the phrase ‘mutual submission’ is an oxymoron in the English grammar. To ‘submit’ or be in ‘submission’ requires according to the Oxford dictionary a ‘superior force’, so how can it be mutual, since one is superior?

So now how does this ‘mutual submission’ work in practice. You say it is not identical in all relationships which i think is right…but then we must ask, is it then ‘mutual’ at all? Apparently not! It seems to me that the egal system is a nonsense statement since mutual submission is an oxymoron. It’s not mutual because it does not look the same in all relationships, and it is not submission becasue it denies a ‘superior force’. The egal phrase ‘mutual submission’ is a contradiction, so please don’t accuse comps for giving wrong definitions to your terms. You need to re-calculate your terminology so that it does not mean ‘submit’ because you deny authority, and so that it does not mean mutual, since it does not behave the same in all situations or circumstances.

I wish i was gengwell! Sorry Dave, i should have assumed better knowing you are a Pressie minister.

Let me put it this way, where i am studying at the moment, i have not met one egalitarian who holds to a conservative theology.

It makes sense really, since most ‘conservative’ churches don’t generally allow female ministers, so more often than not the egalitarians come from the churches that do- which are generally AOG or the like.

Let me say it is encouraging for me to see egalitarians who hold to a solid theology.

Susannah, i’ll comment more on your comment later on…it’s dinner time!

Cheers

P.S to Dave- ‘same goes big nose’ (hope you get it!)

Lydia,

It sounds like i offended you, that was not my intention. I was simply responding to your ‘culture’ wars remarks.

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!

Now please don’t be hypocritical and say i am the only one with pre-conceived ideas, that’s non-sense. For example you said that ‘wanting authority is sinful’. Who said anything about that? I don’t want authority, i just believe the Bible teaches it, so who now has ‘preconcieved’ ideas??? I’d be happy to accept egalitarianism if i thought it was Biblical because i see how much damage authority does when in the hands of sinful men and women.

The Danvers statement was a response to egalitarianism not the secular culture. Sure the two are tied but you overstate your case. It was a response to Christians not unbelievers.

You have a few huge statements in your response that need addressing. The first is that comp is works based religion! Are you really prepared to state such an accusation and accuse comps as heretics or was that just a rash response? Second, you said that you only discovered egal after you read the word- so you didn’t read the Bible before then, and people like Grudem and Piper don’t read the Word of God? C, mon now, it is obvious when one saids such things that emotions are governing the discussion.

Let’s be honest, you have over reacted to my comment. You bring serious charges against me and loads of other saying we are heretics and promote ‘works’ religion. Maybe this is a ‘first order’ issue for you, i don’t know?

Finally, if you truly do read the Bible and have a true desire for the truth, why is it that you use Gal 3:28 as a proof text. Any time an egal uses this it makes me cringe, since the whole setting of that verse is in relation to salvation not ministry or human/human relationships. I’ll be honest and say it is disappointing to see such poor hermenutics in so many egalitarians. Some i greatly respect (Gordon Fee) but others not so much. It’s good to discuss Gen 1-3, Eph 5, 1 Tim 2 etc, but Gal 3:28 is terrible. You might aswell go tell a Jew they are no longer Jewish but gentile. Paul’s point is salvation through faith is not gender, culture or socially exclusive.

Susannah,

I’m interested to hear how you believe you have answered Grudem’s challenge. Can you explain how James 4:4-10 is reciprocal submission with no authority? Can you explain how 1 Peter 3 is mutual submission with no authority? Can you flesh out how you believe the apostolic fathers were teaching an egalitarian mutual submission with no authority?

Thanks

Kristen,

let me try and understand what your saying. The Bible does promote an authority/submission paradigm but not always. Therefore the husband/wife is not an authority one but a different ‘mutual’ submission. Which one’s are authority based and which aren’t? What criteria do you use to determine what means authority and what doesn’t?

Now let’s apply that to your own testimony with children. You admit you are in ‘authority’ yet you say you are submissive to them. Maybe you need to define your words, becasue it sounds like you confuse service with submission. You don’t ‘submit’ to that child becasue you are not ‘subordinate’ to him/her (BDAG definition of submit), but you use your authority to serve and love that child. 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.

What makes you think ‘one another’ changes the meaning of the verb ‘submit’? Where is your evidence for this change to take place?

If you answered other things on the other post, i’m afraid i didn’t get a chance to read them.

Cheers

Kristen,

“You are not submitting to “one another” but only to “some others.”

That’s right, because I’m not going to submit to the 12 year old youth kid in the same way I would to my pastor. It is illogical to demand a complete mutuality submission between all relationships within the body of Christ- you wouldn’t know who the adults are from the children, the elders from the younger etc etc. I will serve a 12 yr old, but not submit in the way the verb is used.

As regards consistency I have to disagree (surprise, surprise). The comp position is consistent in word-study, context, fuller revelation in the Bible. The egal pos insists on a meaning for ‘submit’ that does not exist, ignores the numerous times wives are told to submit to husbands (not vice versa), and ignores the fuller biblical revelation of husband/wife teaching.

In regards to the meaning of ‘submit’, I’ll stick to the professionals on this one-BDAG is particularly useful

Now James 3 is puzzling. Which verse? Where is the VERB translated ‘submit’ which is in relation to Eph 5:21. I sure can’t see it. Maybe you mean ‘eupeithes’ in verse 17, but that is not the same verb used in Eph 5:21 or any other NT command for person A to ‘submit’ to person B. I find it hard to dialogue when we are not even on the same page to begin with.

So I appreciate your challenge, but it appears you are redefining NT words to fit your theology. James 3, is in no way related to the relevant discussion on Eph 5:21. So let me challenge back, where is the verb ‘submit’ used in the NT (other than Eph 5:21 which is under discussion) which gives the ‘clear’ meaning that authority does not exist. This way we will at least be able to agree on the ‘meaning’ of the word before ascending on the context to understand it. Sure the context determines the meaning, but we at least need to know the ‘possible’ meanings before we look at the context so we don’t import false ideas into the passage. Since this is Paul writing, maybe you can find another instance where Paul uses this verb non- authoritatively. Or do you believe that all of Paul’s references with this verb have a ‘re-defined’ meaning that was foreign to his culture?

Cheers

P.S To all egals- when we are called to ‘love one another’ do you take this to mean you love your husband/wife the same as your neighbour, your child the same as your sister in Christ? In other words does the relatioship define how ‘one another’ applies?

Lydia,

I find it fascinating that you say Christians talk about ‘gifts’ not roles. I think there is an element of truth to your claim, but i also think ‘gift’ based theologies and practices are increasingly becoming unbiblical. Any ‘gift’ that is bestowed will always be in accord with Biblical revelation. Not only that who decides that one is ‘gifted’.

I recommend you read ‘Stirrings of the Soul’ by Mike Raiter. He surveys the rise of ‘pentacostalism’ which i think is intrinsically linked in with the modern ‘gift’ based theologies. It is fascinating to see the rise of charistmatic theology and practice along with the incorporation of eastern religious practices due to modern travel etc. Within our western culture, ‘spirituality’ is big business…just ask any new age movement or health, wealth and prosperity teachers. Australia’s own ‘Hillsong’ church is living testimony to this- it’s a multi million dollar corporation.

As in relation to culture wars, the egalitarian ‘gift’ based interpretations of scripture and practice may not be so innocent as you seemingly hint at. We are all products of our culture, egalitarianism included and probably more so than any other.

Kay,

Yes and No. Yes my wife and i are included in Eph 5:21 since we are both members of the Christian community. We are included in the ‘one another’ as are all Christians in the Church. We will submit to those in the Christian community that God places over us.

No i do not jest! I want to see how far Dave pushes his theology. If it is truly reciprocal and equal in all relationships then the logical conclusion is obvious. Since i’m sure Dave doesn’t believe what i asked, his theology crumbles. He may give lip service to reciprocal submission but in practice it doesn’t happen.

Egalitarians want Eph 5:21 to be reciprocal in all relationships (especially marriage) but where do you draw the line to this mutuality? 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.

P.S Dave, i haven’t read Calvin on Eph 5:21 sorry

TL,

i’m after 2 or 3 verses that tell me to submit to my wife…where are they??

Susannah,

I don’t have time to answer all your questions but just a comment.

You implied that John 1 was ‘explicit’ enough to show Jesus is God. A few months ago i went to a Christadelphian seminar designed to rebuttle the orthodox view of Trinity. The man was quite convinced that ‘word’ did not have to mean what a orthodox christian would have it mean. He used semantics for the word, lexicon definitions, contextual matters etc etc…

so the point is this… it may be ‘explicit’ for you but for a cult it is not!

So your inconsistency still remains. You demand one thing, but neglect others. What is termed ‘explicit’ enough will depend on one’s own Biblical theology and bias’ on the theology.

So to me the teaching of the Bible is quite clear and explicit to support a comp position but for you, the opposite is true. How does noe reconcile this? Consistency in biblical exegesis, hermeneutics etc which i think is far better on the comp side…not perfect but better.

Your little history lessons are fascinating but irrelevant to our topic. After all, you haven’t mentioned that egalitarianism has NEVER been an orthodox position and it’s incline is intrinsically intertwined with the sexual revolution, women’s liberation and post-modern philosophy. Please at least be consistent in your history if nothing else.

As regards your other statements…freewill…not really relevant to this post. I only mentioned them to demostrate the explicit/implicit argument or lack of…that is all.

Dave,

Let’s assume your interpretation of Eph 5:21 is correct. You then say that your wife ought to submit to me the same as to you. Does that then mean marital rights? If not, why not? You and others have essentially said the same as me, in that it will depend on the relationship. 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. None of us submit in the exact same ways to every other Christian- the relationship will dictate the submission. It seems that you are saying that ‘theoretically’ we should submit equally but in practice, no!

I wonder how decisions are made in your church? SInce you submit and then they submit and then you submit and then they submit and then you submit…. boy does it get repititous! At some point someone makes a decision. I think 1 Pet 5 should be helpful for you, to see that you do have authority as a shephard yet you must never abuse that to Lord it over others. An egal system just simply doesn’t work- nothing would ever be decided!

Dave,

My understanding of the husband/wife paradigm stands from more than Eph 5:21. 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. 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.

“So, if you are claiming something is BIblically mandated YOU should show the evidence.
Egals are saying husbands are not in authority because the Bible does NOT say they are – the absence proves our point.
Egals are saying that we should submit to one another because the Bible explicitly says WE should – the explicit instruction proves our point.”

I think you have overstated your case here Dave. Sure we all agree that we submit to each other in some sense within the whole Christian community. I submit to those in authority above me- if I was at your church I would submit to you as the Pastor. 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. Like it or not, egals claim that the husband has to submit to his wife reciprocally, but the Bible does not teach that.

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.

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. 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.

By the way, where is the 2 or 3 witness to this reciprocal submission command?

Cheers