Mark,

You wrote,

“So does submit give any indication that auhtority exists. As far as i know, all lexicons say yes.”

I can only ask if you have some reason for ignoring my comments. I have already mentioned the fact that BDAG refers to 1 Clement, where Christians are enjoined to submit each to their neighbour. I am unaware that neighbours had authority over each other.

“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.”

Clearly, in Eph. 5:21 and in Clement it is NOT one directional. No exegete in history suggested that Eph. 5:21 was one directional until Grudem. Not the most traditional and patriarchal. This notion that “one another” means unidirectional submission is a unique interpretation made popular by complementarians and completely unsupported by any Greek grammarian, or any historic commentary.

I do not see why a woman should bow to an exegesis that came into style after she was born. Why do men think that women should be at the whim of every exegetical folly that men can make up. I am insulted by Grudem’s exegesis.

Don’t you realise that believing that “one another” really means the women submit to men, is something that a kindergarten child would not accept.

I do feel that anyone who promotes this kind of exegesis is insulting the intelligence of the person they are talking to. =

Regarding the debate as to whether hypotasso appears in the passive or middle voice, these two forms are identical in most tenses of the Greek verb, and so it is an interpretive choice. Either one could be correct, and it is much to be regretted that most commentaries and Greek resources choose one or the other without indicating the underlying ambiguity.

This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the Bible, that submission must be to an authority. A husband asserting authority over a wife is …… I restrain myself.

Here are more details.

Eph. 5:21

submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
1 Clement 38.1:

“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (hypotasso) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”
2 Macc 13.23,

”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (hypotasso) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”

However, Grudem writes,

But in spite of all these different forms of submission, one thing remains constant in every use of the word: it is never “mutual” in its force; it is always one-directional in its reference to submission to an authority.

It clearly is mutual in Clement, and it clearly is not in reference to an authority in 2 Maccabees. I don’t find that Dr. Grudem’s research reflects the broad range of Greek usage or patristic exegesis.

Mark,

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

Please check out in the BDAG under hypotasso, the reference to Clement. You will find that in this citation hupotasso is to submit to a “neighbour.” This is defined as submitting voluntarily out of love. It is certainly not submitting to an authority, because it is to a neighbour.

In addition there is in another place in Greek literature an instance where the king submits to his subjects. It is quite possible for the word hupotasso to not refer to submission to authority.

In fact, Clement, Chrysostom and Calvin all interpreted Eph. 5:21 as mutual submission.

The expression used in Eph. 2:21 “to one another” is explicitly referring to mutual and reciprocal relations.

I personally cannot think of even one of Grudem’s challenges which is not easily disproved.

Cheers

Sue (Suzanne)

In case this sounds anti male, let me add that all women also have needs and control issues, we too should not be in authority over males. 🙂

Human males are incapable of reflecting God to their partners because they wish to have physical relations with their partners for their own satisfaction. Men have a physical need that has to be completed by a woman. This is why their is so much pornography among Christians. Although there are some men who completely repudiate pornography, they have other control issues which need to be satisfied. There is no human male who is free of this.

I regard this doctrine as the desecration of the temple. The female body is violated. I think of Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple. I think he was angry. I see anger as fully appropriate.
The only problem with anger is that it does not commicate well to other people.

I do think that those who hold these doctrines need to hear, however, that some people have a deep anger and regard male dominance as deeply wrong and sinful, in all its manifestations.

It causes even more anger when I read that the exegesis is from flawed studies that do not demonstrate a knowledge of either the text or the Greek language. It makes me understand that knowledge and study are almost valueless, because it is the base appetite which drives the doctrine of male dominance and this is more powerful than any other human faculty.

I do believe that women are naturally vulnerable. I just watched Human Trafficking on TV a few days ago. Tragic. I also believe that it is a desecration of the temple for men to have any rights over women in any way at all, so I find the combination of hierarchy and eros to be harmful and traumatizing. Perhap not heretical though. I don’t know about that. However, I do think this teaching falls in the same category as violent pornography and should be repudiated by Christians as completely wrong. I am surprised we have to do this at all. I am shocked actually.

Here is the opinion of C S. Lewis. I don’t agree with him fully on the authority of husband over wife as intended by God, but I do agree with his conclusions, and who cannot?

“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.

That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen, Filmer would be right, and partiarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused. (C.S. Lewis, “Membership,” from The Weight of Glory, pp. 168-7)

Are you suggesting that having a degree in physics is better than having a degree in Greek?

239

Regarding masters and slaves –

1) The differences are purely prosaic & have no substantive meaning
~ This is implausible as the words used are quite different and non-parallel;

2) The instructions are intended only a particular set of specific individuals or only to the specific culture being addressed and are not universal.
~ This in unsupportable due to in text commentary of the apostles on the matter; each time the apostle discusses the matter he makes no reference whatsoever to the particular circumstance or culture.

3) The instructions are intended to be universal as part of the current created order (whether due to God’s original design or as a result of the Fall it is the proper order now)

NN,

Do you believe in natural slavery? Perhaps those humans with the intellect of Labradoodles should be slaves of physics instructors.

PS. I would also like to know if you are familiar with the use of hupotasso in 1 Clement 38 as referenced in BDAG, and are you aware that Clement, Chrysostom and Calvin, for starters, all interpreted submission to a neighbour as NOT relating to authority. Since “love your neighbour as yourself” represents a truly symmetric relationship, and is the most important law of Christ next to loving God, and imposing your authority on anyone at all is not found in the Bible, I have to wonder if we are refering the same Bible, or if you have some other text.

Okay, I am completely naive but I am totally unaware of any pornography in which there is not some form of dominance, or objectification of one gender by the other.

In any case, most pornograpy is well and adequately described as graphic representation of erotic activity in which one person dominates the other. I can’t imagine that most Christian women would participate in this willingly. I can hardly believe we are even discussing it.

Authoritarian erotic love is deeply problematic and the source of the greatest human evil.

I wonder why democratic rule followed so closely on the Reformation and if complementarians are willing to forego participatory government.

NN,

I guess I have not been reading you clearly. I now understand that your discussion of eros has nothing to do with the scripture. I deeply regret wasting people’s time on this topic.

NN,

“Let us put it another way “eros” describes the type of love which exists between a husband and wife which should not properly exist between other people (surely we can agree that there is such a love and that it should exist only between a husband and wife).”

That is what 1 Cor. 7 is about – the relationship between husband and wife, and it is symmetric. I am unaware that Paul thought that ‘eros’ should exist in marriage.

“On agapeo & phileo – they are not completely synonyms in the ancient text though certainly their scopes of meaning overlap (not really relevant to the current topic but worth the two line response)”

I think you will find that scholars regard them as synonyms as they are used throughout scripture. BDAG writes,

“Phileo is usual word in earlier Greek but gradually loses ground to agapao esp. in the Koine.”

Scholarship does not support your definitions of the word.

NN,

Our comments crossed. I now see the problem. You are talking about romantic love, a topic which is not addressed in scripture at all. But I have some insight into your character, if you see romance as being about governance and submission. That is not the usual meaning of the word, so evidently you have unique meanings for your words.

Also you write,

““agapeo” ~ ultimate love, “phileo” ~ affections, or “storge” familial love.)”

Perhaps you are not aware that agapeo and phileo are synonyms in the Bible.

NN You wrote regarding 1 Cor. 7, ,

“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.”

You seem to imply that in 1 Cor. 7 the relationship is reciprocal and it does refer to the body. Perhaps I am unable to understand your use of the word “eros.”

I think that if you use this word, you will need to elaborate. You say that it is different from agape, and that it is different from the physical relationship as outlined in 1 Cor. 7. I am at loss as to how you derive any doctrine at all about eros in marriage from the scripture. Perhaps you are thinking of poor Michal, the only woman in the Bible who is said to have “loved” her husband – not that it was of any use to her.

NN,

I think the matter is clear from the English. 1 Cor. 7 says that sexual relations, what you call eros, must be reciprocal and symmetric. It depends on symphony – “agreement.”

You say that sexual relations between a husband and wife are hierarchical and assymetric.

Hierarchical and assymetric sexual relations are the basis of the worst behaviour the human animal is capable of. I don’t understand how Christians can promote this.

I will post this on my blog in a bit.

NN,

When we talk about complementarianism, it is not without knowledge. I attended a church with the very best and most well known complemnentarian teachers for many years.

I have missed your response to my questions. I will number them.

1. How do you reconcile your statement –

“As christians the relationship is governed by love [agapaoe] and this leads to mutual ’submission’ however in the marital relationship a second type of love also exists [eros] which is not intrinsic to all christian relationships, and this type of love is naturally hierarchical as established by God.”

with 1 Cor. 7 –

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again,”

Here is the Greek –

? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ???? ? ????: ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ???? ? ????. 5?? ??????????? ????????, ?? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???,

Could you comment on how you perceive the use of ???????? and ???????? refer to hierarchy?

I will also mention that eros and hierarchy are to be had in spades on the internet, and reflect a lifestyle that I would hope that no woman would ever be exposed to. This is very trauma causing language. It should come with a restricted notification on it that it could cause injury to readers.

“the question is not what some people may find offensive”

You need to consider that what I find offensive, is something which is truly abhorrent and cannot be mentioned in public without offending. All men are sinners. They are all capable of imposing very offensive behaviour on their wives, behaviour which is offensive in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of all Christians. I am sure that no one who knows me would ever want to know more about Christianity, because they see what terrible sin it has caused. Do you want this testimony of Christianity?

In 1 Cor. 7 all authority is symmetric, but you deny that physical love – eros – is symmetric. You promote authority and submission, which mirrors the dominance and submission one finds in worldly culture.

And those who claim that submission is aways to authority deny the entry for hupotasso in BDAG, which clearly states that Clement interpreted Eph. 5:21 as being submission to a neighbour, (who has no authority.) In fact, this verse has been interpreted through the ages as a representation of mutual submission among Christians.

If as Christian brothers and sisters we are commanded to live a life of mutual submission, and in 1 Cor. 7 we are told that in the physical relationship husband and wife have symmetrical authority, then I do not understand how you defend your point of view. Perhaps you could recap, because I have read your blog and I still do not see any reconciliation of these opposing doctrines.

And, yes, this causes tremendous turmoil, because I do not feel that any person should have personal authority over another, due to the prevalence of sin. Being under the authority of a sinful person does mean that one suffers evil. This is the fate of many Christian sisters.

Even C.S. Lewis said that although authority and submission was an ideal, one must have democracy because of sin. Authority lead to abuse and therefore we have participatory government. He said about himself that he was not fit to rule a henhouse.

The hybris of men who do think that they are fit to rule their wives, will be dealt by God. He will judge and recompense suffering women. Men store up for themselves God’s judgement. In the meantime, how beautiful it is to dwell in the corner of a house, rather than with a contentious man.

May God give release to women who suffer under this doctrine. I cannot tell you how repellent it is. It repels because it represent sin, not because it represents the scripture.

This should have been a citation –

“All biases aside, authority existed BEFORE the fall and sin! As NN has clearly pointed out, authority is not the sin, it’s the abuse of it that is the sin.”

All biases aside, authority existed BEFORE the fall and sin! As NN has clearly pointed out, authority is not the sin, it’s the abuse of it that is the sin.

And may God give authority over a woman to the first sinless man.

NN wrote on his blog,

“And in each case the apostle acknowledges that these relationships are not symmetric. And we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.”

NN,

Why have you so explicitly and openly denied the message in 1 Cor. 7 that the physical relationship must be at all times and in every way symmetric?

I am very sad tonight as I see my daughter very upset at this teaching. It is centred on the submission of women to the erotic desire of men. I can’t say what I think. It is not fit for anyone’s ears. Christianity needs a thorough cleaning up.

NN.,
Please understand that others do not find any goodness or purity or honour in this teaching. We have lived the sorrow and would do anything to withdraw this sin and sorrow from another generation.

Hi John,

I just wanted you to know that this conversation was going on. As you know, I have not yet been able to understand what you mean by “God’s design.”

Cheryl,

Have you invited John Starke to respond. His blog is called John Ploughman. If you email me, I can give you his email and you can invite him to respond to your posts.

Sue, the proper Greek word for “yield” is “hypieko.” Hence all who claim that hypotasso has the meaning “to yield” are misinformed.

I can assure you that the recognized New English Translation of the Septuagint has translated the passive of hupotasso in this manner, as “yield,” in the passage which I cited for you. This is the best international scholarship available, and the editor was my Greek professor.

Please consider that it is best to refer to scholarship in these issues.

Rom 10:17 however is in a middle voice (”Let every soul be subject..”)

Perhaps you mean Romans 13:1. I would have to ask where you got the information that this was in the middle voice, since the Greek online Bible parses it as a passive voice.

I don’t know what you are referring to either when you say that the instruction to wives is in the middle voice. The middle and passive are the same in many tenses so I don’t see how these two can be differentiated.

In the Greek online Bible, all uses of hupotasso in reference to wives are identified as being in the passive voice. There is no way to tell which voice is used, so I don’t see any point at all in using this in an discussion.

I continue to be intrigued by many of the things that are being claimed in this thread. I am not aware that the military use of hupotasso predates its use in rhetoric and medicine. I do know that it can mean to underlie or be an associated thought, to draw up behind as a spatial arrangement, or to be lower, as in a bone in the body being lower than, or attached to another bone.

However, its use in the military, to my knowledge, dates from the Hellenistic era, and not the classical. But I may be missing something here.

We can also see that it simply means “yield” or “give in to” someone who is beneath one in rank.

2 Macc 13.23,

”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (???????) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”

I would be very interested in any examples that anyone has for what is being said.