NN

To Sue #82&83
“Authenteo” as a Koine term meant “to have absolute authority – even over life and death.”

Luke 10:17 & Rom 8:7 – “hupotasso” as a passive voice
Rom 10:17 however is in a middle voice (“Let every soul be subject..”)

To Susanna #78
I would think that it would be quite obvious how one submits oneself to a need or a law. That is, one acts under the requirements of said need or law and places those above one’s own inclinations on the matter. This is not an uncommon use of the word submit. I quite disagree about the flavor of its usage in James by the way, I think that it is most reasonable to read this passage as telling us to “arrange ourselves under the authority of God” to resist the devil (since we know that we are to obey him absolutely it makes the most sense to translate this word – which typically has connotations of obedience in this way).

Similarly, it quite makes sense to speak of “obeying” (or disobeying) the directives of a faith. As to knocks on the door, “to listen with intent to respond” makes absolutely perfect sense (in fact this is the most literal etymological sense of the word).

As to your statement:
“If you give kyrios the meaning ‘lord’ you make the man the absolute lord of the woman and you contradict what you just wrote in your previous post for a ‘lord’ had full authority over his slave.”
– “lord” does not mean the same thing as “absolute lord” which is why you had to use a different word set in English. Hierarchy means that there is a chain of authority – it is not a binary quantity.

To Sue #77,
Looking at it – I should have said “The words use when instructing wives is in the middle voice, typically indicating a voluntary submission on the part of the person in other instances of NT use” to be more exactingly careful in my statement.

My apologies. Hazards of trying to answer so many different threads of conversation at once – I shall seek to be more careful.

To Susanna #76

All evidence indicates that Paul was extremely well educated within Greek society and would have been very familiar with the various uses and nuances of Greek words both in the current Koine and the literature of earlier dialects such as Attic and and Ionic. As to Ephesus – its cultural history was primarily Greek, it started as a Greek colony and never quite lost its Grecian roots despite its multicultural blending. Certainly not all of the citizens would have been familiar with the literary nuances of the word from Attic, but an audience never fully is and we were talking about the penmanship of Paul.
I never said nor meant to imply that “hupotasso” was used only as a military word at the time of Paul – in fact I explicitly said quite the opposite. It had drifted into common parlance in a variety of instances – quite akin to a number of English military phrases which have come into general use in non-military contexts. They retain their original imagery but lose their military technical meaning. And this is the most probable way of understanding it, a non-military use of an originally military word. Non-military in use but retaining its historic imagery “to arrange oneself under” – hence is it most directly translated “to submit.” If we had a specific word in English for a junior officer following the orders of his commanding officer this would probably be an ideal translation of nuance but we do not have such a word. (I guess in this sense it might be translated “wives form ranks under your husbands” but this would be confusing for other reasons.)
And your argument regarding Roman citizens and their government doesn’t work. While the Roman government recognized no “king” so that any citizen was theoretically equal to any other citizen under law, all citizens were still under the authority (submitted to) the government itself (at least theoretically).

To Cheryl #69
I will reiterate – I have not said that the husband is the governing authority. Merely that this passage would be compatible with this case and therefore does not disprove complementarian claims. You will have to look for other arguments in support of your view.

And if I may for a moment play complementarian’s advocate – I don’t think that any of them would say that the husband has full authority. Actually I am fairly sure that I have seen Piper claim that man has a limited authority within the scope of the commandments of God. Certainly this text would override absolute authority, but I don’t think any of the complementarians actually believe that anyways.

So consider this an extended advertising campaign in support of truth and honesty in debating this topic. When we (collective we including both complementarians and egalitarians) find that we have made a faulty argument, let’s acknowledge it and move on. Let us seek truth and understanding rather than “winning the argument.”
(http://nuallan.livejournal.com/34685.html)

To Sue #71,
I would entirely agree about the vagueness of the particular usage of the Greek voices. I simply note that here the verb is in the middle voice, and if you look throughout the NT, the middle voice for this verb is most typically associated with a voluntary submission on the part of the subject.

To Susanna #70
A great many things said, and I think that a point-by-point response would be excessively long and the more critical bits could be lost. Instead, I shall keep this to a few core responses.

Every study of this word (hupotasso) which I have ever read and those I know who are actually scholars of ancient Greek have all told me that this word is primarily military in origin and early usage. Other usage such as “to append to” in literary usage, or “to be associated near & under” as used by a Greek playwright (I think it was Aeschylus) were later expansions upon its original usage. If you have some further information on this I would be interested to hear it – but all of my research on that topic to date has been entirely agreed on this point.

Its use in conjunction with an implied unfriendly command can be clearly seen in Luke 10:17,19&20. Since it refers to a command by the disciples to “devils” which the devils are unable to disobey; I would hardly call this a friendship or voluntary situation.

On hupakouoe, the most common usage for this word was “to obey” and it was the word used by Paul to instruct both children and slaves in obedience. To “hearken” or “listen with intent to respond” is another possible translation with the same general object in mind. But the passage says that “Sarah” “hupatasso”-ed Abram [by] “hupakouoe”-ing him and calling him lord/sir (kurios). So we have a word most commonly used for submission (literally “to arrange under”) coupled to a word most commonly used for obedience (literally “to listen with intent to respond/act”) included with her using a title of respect (however exactly you want to translate it – your comment itself indicates that its usage in this passage is one of reverance). Even if you think that the word should not technically be translated obey but stated that Sarai “submitted” by “listening attentively with intent to respond” and by considering her husband respectfully; the implications of the passage are still quite clear.

On the use of hupotasso & God, there are others in which the verb is indirect in its use of us with respect to the things of God (His law, His righteousness,… I don’t recall with exactitude at the moment).

To Cheryl #63
“Exousia” as a jurisprudence word has the meaning of a “right” in a very similar sense to the modern English usage, similar to the US Bill of Rights. My reference of Acts 25 was never meant to be exegetic, I simply sought to give a biblical example of Roman Empire jurisprudence. Exousia is used in exactly this sense (as a right of claim) in Heb 13:10. Perhaps I should have simply used this from the beginning rather than using an example to illustrate. But even to have a “right” with respect to a governing authority does not negate the governance. (In the Hebrews passage – even those with the “right” to eat of the sacrifice are not therefore removed from the governance of God).

To Cheryl #58,
For the last time, I never said that the word exousian was used in the Acts 25 passage, I was simply trying to use an example which would be familiar. The word for appeal is epikalaeo, the word for authority is exousiadzoe. They are etymologically unrelated. However, the conceptual link, is that for Paul to be able to make a legitimate legal appeal, he had to have the authority to do so.
No this passage does not imply hierarchy, but nor does it deny it (the mistake made in your original post).

On the topic of where I stand, I prefer to be heard for what I say and not what people will presume that I believe.

“One of the most vexing things in the universe is a poor argument for a true idea.”

To Sue #59,
On greek verb “voice” see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_voice for a general explanation of the idea of “middle” voice. If you go through and look at the general usage of this verb as it occurs in the middle voice it seems to generally indicate a “voluntary submission.” If you look at the idea behind middle voice and also the idea of submission the reason for this becomes clear.

On the rest, I never said that and I’m not at all sure where you got it.

Oh, come on… you could get alot more information about me from my livejournal page that I provided.

To Cheryl #45,
You are quite right about what word Paul uses (epikaleoe) and what its meaning was in Roman empire jurisprudence (e.g. “to appeal”). However, to make this appeal, Paul had to have authority/claim as a Roman colonial citizen. Many others would not have had the authority/right to do this. Peter for instance had no such authority as an Israeli Jew, a Parthian traveling in the Roman empire would not as a subject of a different kingdom, etc.
The word is not used in the Acts text. I was simply pointing out the fact that the right to make a claim upon the rulership does not negate that rulership.

Again, I have made no claim that hierarchy is necessitated by this passage. I merely point out that this passage is not incompatible with the idea of hierarchy.

To TL #49 (& further to Susanne #37)
To the best of my knowledge, hupotasso was in origin a Greek military term. We have no record of its use before the Hellenic period (which started in 500 BC); but extensive use within that period and following. Most commonly used in literary works by the ancient historians to describe military action. As time went on the word became much more widely adopted, used by Greek playwrights and considerably even in common writing. For instance, one common non military specialized usage was in document preparation to denote attachments & submissions. (E.g. “we submit the attched note for your inspection”, or “see appended note”).

This word is also used several times in the Septuagint and is used to translate words that we translate as “subjugate,” “subdue,” “silence,” “be still,” “serve,” “put,” etc.

The words use when instructing wives is in the middle voice, indicating a voluntary submission on the part of the person.

As far as using it for “arrange under” in a technical translation for these instructions, that would be quite reasonable. But this does not change the distinction that Paul makes in his instructions to husbands and wives (again I offer no commentary as to what or why this distinction is, I merely point out that the apostle makes it).

To Kay #48
I did not say that the husband/wife relationship was like a master/slave or parent/child relationship. Merely that the fact that parents and masters are not exempt from the “mutual submission” instruction, but are also given hierarchical authority over their charges means that this instruction of mutual submission must not NECESSARILY exclude the possibility of hierarchy within a relationship. I have made no effort to prove any sort of hierarchy, I am merely demonstrating the logical possibility intrinsic within the text.

To Susanna #37
To the best of my recollection I never said anything about any passage using both of these words (hupotassoe & epitassoe). Feel free to draw my attention to that which you would like. It is noteworthy that the word hupotassoe is specifically tied to hupakouoe within the context of the marriage relationship in 1 Pet 3 (hupakouoe meaning “to obey” often used by Paul referring to the obedience of slaves and children).

On the passages using the word hupotassoe with regard to our relationship to God, there are several. But I have every confidence that you are quite capable of digging them up, so why not point out which one you think needs to be brought into this discussion.

For hupotassoe itself being a military term, it was. It finds use in the writings in several of the ancient well known Greek authors including Polybius through later Greek authors such as Plutarch (writing around the same time as the NT was penned). And its primary etymological meaning was of the arranging of troops under the orders of a commander. As such it also became coopted into non-military use to the direction and division of tasks and responsibilities.

To Cheryl #41,
“exousiadzoe” is from the noun “exousia” which contains the ideas of governance, rule, the power of choice, jurisdiction, right of claim, etc. It is from “exesti” which means “to be lawful” (and which in turn comes from a combination of the preposition “ek” = “out” and the “to be” verb “eimi”). But it is the idea of sovereign claim which is primarily in view. I am a citizen of the US and therein reside, as such France has no sovereignty over me directly. As a citizen it is my sovereign right to claim trial by a jury of my peers (at least theoretically). Typically authority is the best rendering for this word; however, “claim” is also contained within the scope of this word. Indeed any Roman citizen had the “authority” to demand a Roman trial – this did not make them any less subject to the overarching authority of Rome.
And relating to the trial of Paul, this word is not used. Indeed he barely mentions his appeal to Caesar before Festus insists on shipping him off. But the fact of Pauls “authority” to do this is clearly manifest under Roman jurisprudence.

To Kay #42,
In the Textus Receptus, the word is there directly. In some of the other texts the meaning is there as a reflexive use of the word (Greek can do that in a way that english can’t).
Beyond that I made no claim to interpretation, simply pointed out that Paul made a distinction in using this word.
It might further be noted given your general form of argument that the “mutual submission” commanded in Eph 5 does not exclude the possibility of relationship hierarchy as can be seen in the commands to children regarding their parents and slaves regarding their masters.
Again, I offer no proof that there exists a hierarchy of relationship within the marriage relationship; I merely point out that the arguments here leveled against the idea are intrinsically flawed.

To Cheryl on #36
Now that we have clarified what I was saying I shall answer your question by a restatement:
The word in 1 Cor 7:4 – “exousiadzoe” most commonly translated “power” or “authority” contains the idea of jurisdiction, or lawful claim. Both in current thought and even back then, the existence of lawful claim of a subject does not negate governance. For instance, in Acts 25, Paul appeals to have a Roman trial because it was his right (lawful claim) as a citizen of Rome, and all citizens of Rome were afforded certain legal standings and rights. This did not make them less the subjects of the state.

Therefore, it is possible to use this word to refer to the rights of an otherwise subordinate individual. That is it would have been legitimate to say that Paul had the “exousiadzoe” with respect to the government, even though that government was over him and had the right (“exousiadzoe”) to then put him to death.

As such this passage is compatible with either belief structure – and therefore “proof” for neither.

To Cheryl (#34 & 35)
I did not say that men were exempt. Merely that Paul made a distinction in his instructions to husbands and his instructions to wives (that is he told them two different things). Presumably this is good for doctrine, learning and reproof; so it seems reasonable to presume that the words of the apostle and the inequivalent instructions that he gives are of consequence and meant something.

More precisely, I am saying that since this passage (1 Cor 7) could is compatible with both interpretations, it is proof for neither.

To Lin in #23 & 24, and Kay in #27 ,

I never made any statements even remotely akin to what you state my logic to be. I simply pointed out that there are passages of Scripture in which Christ is likened to the (human) husband of a wife – I made no comment as to what exactly this meant.

I also never said that men were “exempt” from the general instruction on submission. Merely that Paul gave distinct and inequivalent instructions to the husbands and to the wives in which the wives are explicitly told to “submit” (hupotasso) and husbands are not told this but rather an instructed to “love” (agapao). What the distinction is and why Paul made it I didn’t say, I merely pointed out that he did make this distinction.

To Cheryl (comment # 22)
The basic meaning of a word is determined by the basic meaning of a word, specific nuance within these possibilities are inferred from context. And as I noted in response both to you and others, I did not say that anything in this passage necessarily indicated hierarchy (indeed it does not). I was simply pointing out that this passage is not incompatible with hierarchy (which was the basic logical flaw inherent in your post). I was never trying to say that the passage proved hierarchy, only that it does not prove anything either way with regards to the overall marriage relationship because it could be compatible with either case.

From this passage we cannot infer that there is hierarchy, but nor can we infer that there is none (as discussed previously). And this was the sole point of what I said.

To Kay on # 26, regarding comments #11 & #13.
You quoted the passage “… no man can serve two masters…” I was simply pointing out that the nature of chains of command is such that a subordinate is required to submit to a variety of “masters” each in order of precedence. But this is the requirement, the two cannot be of equal precedence – if they disagree then only one can be obeyed.

I assume that you refer to Eph 5:21. But this is a generalized command within the Christian church, Paul makes a point of “hupotassoe” when speaking to the wife (and a point of agapao when talking to the husband) indicating distinction between the two.

And on the possible meanings of “hupotassoe,” it should be pointed out that this is the word used in Luke 10 to describe the subjection of devils to the commands of the apostles. I think this could hardly be couched as a friendly exchange of suggestions.

As stated, it was not my intention to put forth a general interpretation. Merely to point out a flaw in the argument as it was made. To partially answer your question let us say that women are never told to be under “exousiadzoe” from their husbands in Scripture. However, wives are pointedly told to be under the “hupotassoe” of their husbands, (A Greek military term speaking of troops arranging themselves under the commands of their leader). while no reciprocal statement is made to the husbands (Eph 5, Col 3). Again I offer no interpretation of what this is supposed to mean or why exactly the apostle wrote it, I merely point out that these passages are present in the Scripture and do indicate an inequality in the instructions of the apostle.

1 Cor 7 seems to indicate an equality between the man and woman regarding their “exousiadzoe” toward each others bodies. Since “governance” has no meaning in instances of equilateral power (it is impossible to have a pure democracy of two equal members). I think “jurisdiction” or “claim” might be a better technical understanding of the word here. But certainly the passage does seem to indicate equality in this claim between each spouse to the other’s body. It simply must be noted that this one aspect of relational reciprocity does not negate the possibility of hierarchy in the relationship overall.

To Kay (#11),
Does the Ensign obey the Captain or the Admiral?…

And the correct answer of course is both, and the Admiral is supreme. Such is the nature of hierarchy.

You seem to have missed the essential point of my statement. Your assumption is that “I am comparing apples to oranges” – but my very point was that this was an assumption of yours and not intrinsic to the word itself. Therefore this passage can either be interpreted as a situation in which hierarchical governance exists or not. But the use of this word does not negate the possibility (as you seem to have claimed). Once again, I leave it to the reader to decide whether it is the case that there is hierarchical governance within the Biblical marriage relationship or not, I simply wanted to point out that the argument presented here was flawed and inconclusive.

On 2 – You say that “We cannot compare Him (Jesus) to the human husband” in the context of marriage; it must be noted that Paul does (1 Cor 11:3. Eph 5:23). I offer here no explanation as to the particular interpretation of these passages and what Paul is saying but seek only to point out the direct scriptural problem with the claim made above.

Two brief notes one on the post, one to a commentator:

1) On the post itself, the word in 1 Cor 7:4 – “exousiadzoe” most commonly translated “power” or “authority” contains the idea of jurisdiction, or lawful claim. Both in current thought and even back then, the existence of lawful claim of a subject does not negate governance. For instance, in Acts 25, Paul appeals to have a Roman trial because it was his right (lawful claim) as a citizen of Rome, and all citizens of Rome were afforded certain legal standings and rights. This did not make them less the subjects of the state. I point this out simply as a flaw

2) On comment #8: “How can they so misrepresent the beauty of the mutual love of “one-flesh” marriage relationships (like mine) turning them into a lord/servant relationship?” – We are called to total unity with Christ and yet to absolute obedience to him. We are called his friends only after we have called him Lord (Jhn 15:14-15).

I shall make no attempt to prove anything beyond pointing out the flaws in the noted reasoning and leave any readers to draw your own conclusions.