Susanna Krizo

Gengwall, there is a great book out there called
‘Quiverfull, Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement” by Kathryn Joyce, which outlines how the quiverers are heavily into the concept of female submission etc. You are right though that not all those who reject birth control are as extreme, but it as Joyce noticed, these two thoughts are increasingly being identified as one.

I agree Kay. BTW, the Christian Patriarchy movement (quiverers, or something like that) has noticed the contradictions and advocate therefore a full-blown return to the era before the Industrial Revolution when women were home and obedient. But here’s what they have not thought about: the women may have been home, but they contributed financially, which is not true of the modern Patriarchy arrangement. I.e. then the woman was important and a man had to marry if he wanted to survive, but the modern arrangement has eliminated the financial aspect and demands obedience without the balancing act of both contributing financially and the presence of servants, which used to raise the wife’s status. No wonder then that the daughters have had to fill the gap since the wife, overworked with multiple children and without the domestic help her greatx10-mother had, is not able to serve her husband the way he wants to be served.

Dave, I hope you are still here for I found the answer to my question. It was actually Ira, my husband, who gave it to me in the car today. I asked him what existed between tyranny (one makes all the rules) and democracy (rules are made by the people) and he said, “It’s communism. You know, the people elect the government, which then can turn around and shoot you, if it wants to.” This is a pretty good description of complementarism too for the woman chooses whom she wishes to marry but through the marriage she gives him the right to spiritually execute (meaning he can kill her personality through excessive demands) her if he wants to. I wonder what ultra-conservative comps would say about this one…

I see that we all came to the same conclusion independently. Must be the Spirit at work here…:)

I agree with Kay, Mark, why do you not extend the comparison to the forgiveness of sins, healing, raising from the dead, intercessory prayer, exorcism, etc. Why stop at authority, especially since you want to be consistent in your theology?

Dave, I merely wanted to see if you had an insight into an arrangement that I did not. I.e. it cannot be tyranny (one always making the decisions), therefore it must be democracy (making decisions together as a team).

Mark, you wrote: “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.”

I dare you to read Eph 5 without reading authority into the text. I dare you to read the whole entire Bible without reading authority into the text when it is not explicitly mentioned. Will you accept my dare, or will you go on thinking you got it right? Don’t forget that God does not share his “Godlikeness” with humans, i.e. what God has and is because he is God, is not for humans to take. Either you agree that God has attributes that only he can have, or you make the make the man also divine in that he, but not the woman, can have God-like attributes. But consider also this: does the church not have authority? Did Christ not share his authority with the church? Are we not called the co-workers of God? Are we not able to perform the same as did Christ on earth? Why do you only make the man to be like “Christ” when it was the mission of Christ to make all of us like himself? Paul wrote that all of us ought to imitate Christ. How does it differ when it comes to women? You see the relationship between Christ and the church only in terms of authority-obedience, which is based on the false translations of hypotasso and kephale.

As a last note let me leave you with this:
Two cannot have authority over each other at the same time, but they can both oppose each other.
Two cannot obey each other at the same time, but they can draw near to each other.
If the first mentioned does not fit Eph 5.21 because it is impossible, perhaps the latter does, since it is possible. Incidentally, I did a search through the early church writings today and I found that the latter was precisely what they wrote: We should not oppose each other, or God, but to draw near and remain near. This is the biblical definition of Eph 5.21.

Great insights Kristen! I heartily agree!

Mark, let me begin by saying that I understand where you come from. I was a comp for 16 years and I argued exactly the same way as you do, and I had even more of a take-no-prisoners attitude about it. But as I began to challenge my beliefs, I could no longer sustain them. For example, where does the Bible EVER explain how the church is to submit to Christ? It doesn’t. Comps simply assume that it is found in Eph 1 where Christ is portrayed as the having his enemies under his feet. Surely you agree that the church is not an enemy and that we are seated with Christ in the heavenly places and that he is the head of the body, the church? The only place where the NT mentions hypotasso in the context of the church/God is Jas 4.

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, “The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy”? But He giveth more grace; therefore He saith, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.”

In this passage, as in Rom 8 where the law of God is concerned, the contrast is made between enmity and friendship. The believers had become the enemies of God when they were friends with the world through pride. James wishes them to submit to God, i.e. become HIS FRIENDS (as Abraham was called, and Jesus called his disciples) instead of remaining his enemies. How is this done? By drawing near to God and resisting the Devil. Is it God’s authority the believers are told to recognize? No. It is his love, for he is said to give grace to the humble, and grace is given only through love; mercy is given through justice (i.e. mercy triumphs over justice, but ” the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” (Titus 2.11)) So, you see, it is God’s love that is the context in Jas 4 as is the love of Christ in Eph 5. Paul wishes the married couples to walk in love as Christ loved us (which is true of all Chrisitians, Eph 5:1-2) by dying for us when we did not deserve it. This is the greatest love of all (Rom 5: some would die for a friend, but God died for his enemies, for while we were still sinners, we were enemies of God). You do not need authority to die out of love, all you need is – love.

Dave, I was asking what models of authority-obedience there are. There’s tyranny, in which one always commands and it is for life, and there is democracy in which some command, but the “some” changes regularly and the rules are made by all. I know there is oligarchy, aristocracy etc, but these are all similar to tyranny. Do you know of any other model in which authority-obedience comes to play? Which one of these is used in the analogy of Christ/Church?

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

Mark, you wrote: “But note this verse says nothing about husbands being ‘hypotasso’ to their wives. Serving is not the same as being subject.”
I am sure the first century Roman slave owner thougth that serving was the same as being a subject, and it seem Jesus thought so too.
Matt 20:27-28
And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave– just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Unless… subjection is not the subject of Eph 5 and serving is in which case both the husband and wife serve and submit allelon (one another)

Hey Mark, have you forgotten about 1 Cor 7:22?
“For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.”

Seems to me that the analogy slave/master is also used by Church/Christ although in the sense of freedom, not oppression.

Can I ask you something? Where in the Bible do we find how the church submits to Christ? Where is it spelled out, using the word hypotasso?

Mark, you wrote: “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!”

Hey Mark, do you remember what Paul used to call himself? The slave of God. What did he call his co-workers? Co-slaves. Hence you have the problem in that the Church/Christ relationship is depicted also in the terms master/slave. But that’s not all of it. We are also called living stones of a building, Christ being the headstone (as in a pyramid); we are also his body, Christ being the head; and we are called a family, Christ being the big brother. I.e. the Bible uses more than just the marriage metaphor to describe the relationship between Christ/Church wherefore your argument fails. Get this point: the comparison in Eph 5 is only used to enforce the idea of unity.

Husband as hihg priest of his home? Totally Roman idea. The Pater Familias used to be the high priest of the cult of the ancestors, worshipped at the domestic altar.

Kristen, you asked:
“Doesn’t this render it conclusive that “submit” cannot automatically convey the idea of authority– for if it did, there would be no need to qualify it with the word “authority,” because if the idea were already there, that would make it redundant?”
The phrase you mentioned “hypo exousian tassomenos” is not the same as “hypotasso.” Hypotasso is a compound word, whereas tasso (be set) and hypo (under/with) can be used separately and in the case of the phrase mentioned it signigfies the person himself is invested with authority. But you are right that hypotasso does not signify subjection to authority for it is never coupled with authority. If hypotasso is the antonym of authority we will have a huge problem with these verses in particular:

Rom 13:1-4
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever has authority over the authority has authority over the ordinance of God, and those who have authority over will bring judgment on themselves.

Oh, and Mark: isn’t our relationship with God between two persons?

Ah, baby didn’t wake up yet, so I have time for one more comment.
Mark, you asked me how I had answered Grudem’s challenge. The answer is very simple: because hypotasso is never the coupled with authority. Even in Rom 13, the PEOPLE are called exousia (authorities), but they are not said to HAVE AUTHORITY, they are called authorities, i.e it is just a way to say government. We are told to submit to the people, i.e. the people who govern the land, not to their authority. Let me explain a bit more. In comps view a wife should submit to the husband because he has authority, but in the case of the government, we are told to submit to the people themselves, not their decisions. I.e. we are told to agree with them, and not resist them (by breaking the law). The rules are common and made by the people, not the government without the people. A judge does not come up with a decision of his own according to his preferences, he uses the law of the land to meet out justice. In the case of a husband, he makes decisions based on his preferences (i.e. where should the family live, eat etc.) unless he makes a joint decision with his wife, in which case we have mutual submission instead of tyranny. And this is where Grudem’s logic fails. If only the husband makes decisions, and if only the wife always obeys regardless of the outcome, it is called tyranny. Tyranny may work, but it is not biblical.

I take back the last comment! The centurion is said to “hypo exousian tassomenos.” Lit. under authority set. (Too many “tassos” to keep track of, sorry about that) But this means he is the one who has the authority, for the text can also be read “with authority set.” In Eph 1, however, the enemies are said to have been submitted (hypotasso) under (hypo) the feet of Christ, wherefore Gengwall is correct in that hypotasso, and hypo, can have different meanings depending on the context.

BTW, Mark, I understood your comment on wellgrounded egals. There are lot of people who think they have it all together, but don’t. I’m glad you are here.

One more thought before I have to go (since Gengwall just posted). Hypotasso is not the only “tasso” word there is. There is epitasso, antitasso, paratasso, etc. there are tons of them and they usually have the meaning of arranging something. For instance when hypotasso is used in the army, it signifies when soldiers are allies, immovable from their position next to each other, when they are fighting an enemy.
In Luke 7:8 for instance “hypotasso” means that the person HAS the authority:
“For I also am a man set (hypotasso) under (hypo) authority, having under (hypo) me soldiers. And I say unto one, Go’, and he goeth; and to another,Come,’ and he cometh; and to my servant, `Do this,’ and he doeth it.”
You need the word “hypo” added by itself if you want to make the officer-private connection. “Tasso” has the meaning “to be set” but you cannot be “set under” someone for it would literally mean that you are set under that person’s feet (See Eph 1.21-23 where the enemies are hypotasso (submitted) hypo (under) the feet of Christ.) You can only be “under” (hypo).

Gengwall my man, you got it! I found also that hypo is translated “with” and I made the exact same conclusion. The reason is also that for hypo to mean “under” you really need “hyper” which means “over.” “Hypertasso” does not exist in Greek, wherefore “hypotasso” cannot mean “set under.” Incidentally we get the definition “set under” from Latin, I think it is “subicio” but it could another of the sub-words, and it is from here we get the word “submit” with the added meaning “under authority” for “sub” means “under.”

Mark, I wrote a whole chapter on hypotasso and there’s plenty more, especially on 1 Pet 3 etc. Give me a moment and I’ll explain the subject further. Jonathan turns six in two days and I am trying to get his party all set while trying to clean the house for pictures for the realtor, while caring for a baby… you get the point!

Charis, I have still not forgotten about you! I just have too many thoughts going on here. Can you hang on a few more days?

Mark you wrote: “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?”
Absolutely, dear brother Mark! Oh by the way I am the third egal who is not pentecostal. At present I am Presbyterian but about to become a Free Methodist (due to moving to a Free Methodist conference Center).
Let’s start with Jas 4. If hypotasso means subjection to authority, we have a huge problem with this verse since it would mean that as long as we do not submit to God and are in allegiance with the devil we have authority over God. Does it make sense? I didn’t think so. The antonym of hypotasso is antitasso (to resist). I.e as long as submit (are friends with) to the devil, we resist God. When we submit to God, we automatically resist the devil. The same is found in Rom 13: either you submit to the civil government, or you resist it. The text does not say that you have the choice of either having authority over the civil government or submitting to it. The choice is either to submit or to resist the government. Note also that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble; the civil governments will resists the lawbreaker and give praise to the one who does good. There is a parallel and it is the key to the question you asked. The one who submits, i.e. does not resist, is praised, the one who resists is him or herself resisted. In both cases the issue is not about usurping authority (as 1 Tim 2 is falsely translated) but the choice we all have in either agreeing with or resisting the other party. The civil authorities function within agreed rules and limits, i.e. they are not to seek selfish gain, and their submission to the people is seen in how they perform their task. If they seek personal gain, they have become tyrants and the Bible explicitly condemns tyrants. God has all authority as our Creator, but in the case of Jas 4 it is not his authority that is the question: it is our personal allegiance that is the question. We can choose to love God or follow the devil. Note that chapter 4 begins with the condemnation of adultery: the Christian community has committed adultery in that they have loved the world (and the devil) instead of God. This is significant for our understanding of Eph 5: Adultery is a breach of the love and devotion a wife owes her husband. I.e. resist all other temptations and submit to your husband as he submits (loves and remains devoted) to you. In Jas 4 the cure is to submit to God and resist the devil. This would not be possible if there was a hierarchy.

Kristen, you were not too far off! Only by one chapter, for Jas 4 does use the word “hypotasso” and there is no way in this world that you can squeeze an authority-submission thing out of it since the words which are coupled are submit-resist. That’s how the Greek works, that’s how the English works.

Mara, there are some excellent books out there:
Women Officeholders In Early Christianity by Ute E. Eisen
Ordained Women In The Early Church by Osiek and Madigan

There are many others as well, but I found that these were just fantastic.

TL, I think you are right. And it is interesting that the Free Methodists, who broke away from the Methodists over slavery in 1860 (since the Methodist church refused to speak against it) were the first ones to approve female clergy in 1911. Where were the dreaded secular feminists? Sixty years in the future! And how about this one: the Methodist church approved female clergy in 1956 during the “glory days” of homemaking. Were they influenced by secular feminists? Hardly, since there weren’t any.

Mara, here’s an excerpt from chapter 11 my book “When Dogmas Die”

Weinrich claims in his essay Women in the History of the Church that the “utter paucity of instances adduced where women were given or took the function of public preaching and teaching confirms” that only men ought to be leaders in the church. But if women were excluded from leadership in the patristic era, how much evidence of their previous existence in the clergy would be left for posterity to read?
Until the Nag Hammadi library was found in upper Egypt in 1945, the only source of information about Gnosticism were the scanty remarks found in the writings in the early Christian writers. Tobias Churton describes why the condemned material had to be hid in the middle of the fourth century.

Athanasius we know was in hiding among the monks of Upper Egypt in AD 356 during a temporary ‘turn-about’ in his episcopal career. It was perhaps his observation while hiding there that furnished him with a view that ‘some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, but the subtlety of certain men, and should afterwards read other books – those called apocryphal.’ Now, if these texts were buried in response to a heresy ‘clearout’ at the time of broadcasting of the letter, then it was almost certainly the work of monks, in particular those monks who had most to lose from being associated with the condemned literature. If condemned heretics, such people would suffer excommunication and the accompanying divorce from Christ’s interests. Furthermore, the books would, according to practice be burned. We are observing a stiffening in the regime governing the Coptic (that is, Egyptian) Church. … As we shall see, the books buried in the middle of the fourth century would not fit in with the Creed. They had to go.

Although the extant literary evidence of women in leadership is scanty, we do not need to rely solely on written testimonies, for some of the extant evidence of female leadership in the church is found in tombstones and buildings, which are not as easily destroyed as burnable books.
Ute E. Eisen describes two inscriptions within the mosaics of the chapel of St. Zeno which mention episcopa Theodora, the mother of Pope Paschal I (817-824). Her husband, Bonosus, did not possess a sacerdotal title and therefore episcopa does not refer to a bishop’s wife. In a picture she is depicted with a rectangular halo, which was used for persons of high rank, such as bishops; saints were depicted with round halos. Over the halo, the word episcopa is inscribed. The attempts to interpret the mosaic have created an array of suggestions. Some have made it an honorary title for the mother of the pope, who was seen as taking the position of a wife by her son’s side. Others have made her into an abbess, although an abbess was never called episcopa, the title “abbess’ being well known. And yet others have tried to claim an interpolation, which is farfetched since the inscription is found twice, in different locations. No one has suggested that Theodora could have been a bishop, for women just are not supposed to be bishops in the church; instead the title episcopa is frequently omitted in the verbal reproductions of the inscription.
Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek describe an inscription in mosaic in the Basilica of St. Augustine in Hippo, North-Africa, after the era of Vandal occupation which began in 431. The inscription reads, “Guilia Runa the prebyteress (presbiterissa), rest in peace, lived for fifty years.“ And John Wijngaards describes a tombstone from Delphi, Greece, of a woman deacon which states, “The most devout deaconess Athanasia, established deaconess by his holiness Bishop Pantamianos after she lived a blameless life. He erected this tomb on the place where her honored [body?] lies.”
Yet, the most undeniable evidence of women in ecclesiastical leadership is found in the Bible. Because the women leaders found in the Bible challenge the dogma of the woman’s subordination, the women in question have either been ignored – or transformed into men. Junia has become a controversial biblical figure because Paul calls her an apostle (Rom. 16:7). A footnote by the editors of the Early Church Writer’s collection provides us a vivid picture of how scholars have dealt with Junia’s identity.

The more probable view is that Andronicus and Junias [not Junia as Chrys., certainly not if his interpretation is correct; that a woman should have been an apostle is out of the question] are designated as distinguished, honorably known among (by) the apostles. (So De Wette, Philippi, Holmann, Meyer).

Schreiner is candid in his essay The Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership about the problem Junia’s identity poses for complementarist theology.

Of course, if Junias was a woman apostle (Romans 16:7), then a tension is created between the apostleship of Junias (If Junias was a woman) and the other arguments adduced in the chapter, for apostles were certainly the most authoritative messengers of God in the New Testament.

He concludes that the passage is unclear and therefore no decisive decision can be made based on the information given in the Bible. Schreiner is not alone in his indecision for also Grudem writes that we cannot know if Junia was a woman because “the evidence is indecisive,” and therefore we cannot be dogmatic about the name. Although both Grudem and Schreiner wish to ignore Romans 16:7, Grudem does not consider it sound hermeneutic, “If someone says, ‘I am not going to base my decision on these verses because nobody can figure out what they mean anyway,’ then he has essentially said that those passages cannot play a role in his decision about this question.” Grudem must remain indecisive, despite his own advice, for if he claims that the name is ‘Junias,’ he must provide proof, which he cannot, for according to Eldon Jay Epp, “After all, the masculine Junias was asserted (I would say invented) when no evidence for such a masculine name could be found, a circumstance still unchanged.” On the other hand, if he admits Junia was a woman, he must explain how she could have been a bishop for he quotes Epiphanius, “Iounias, of whom [hou] Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria.” Epiphanius used the masculine relative pronoun (hou), but in the endnotes Grudem admits that he is perplexed that Epiphanius designates also Priscilla as a man.
Grudem quotes also Rufinus’s Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Romans which has “Andronicus et Junias,” a Latin masculine, singular nominative. However, Epp cites Caroline Hammond Bammel’s critical edition on Origen which explains that Iunias (“Junias”) is a variant reading from a twelfth-century manuscript subgroup E, which also includes Iulia (“Julia”) as a variant. Earlier manuscripts from the ninth century all have Iunia (“Junia”). In addition, Hraban of Fulda (780-856) cited Rufinus’s translation of Origen literally and the name we find in his text is Junia.
Both the King James Version and New King James Version have Junia, as does Erasmus’s New Testament (1516). The Greek manuscripts all have Junia, except for five that have the variant Julia. In addition, some manuscripts have Junia in Romans 16:15 (where the name Julia appears), a variant which can be explained only if both of the names were feminine. Because of these variants, even Julia has become a male name in the hands of translators and commentators. Aegidius (1243/47-1316) is usually considered the first one to call Junia – and Julia – a man. However, by far the greatest influence over the identity of Junia has been Luther who brought the male Junias to the masses through his German translation of the New Testament (1522) and his Lectures on Romans.
That Junia was a woman is thus established, but was she was an apostle? Grudem attempts to make Andronicus and Junia “messengers” in the broad sense and he provides two examples: 1 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25-6. But his case is weakened by the fact that the “brother” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:23 was chosen by the churches to join Titus as he traveled to Corinth to prepare the offering gathered by the Corinthians. Andronicus and Junia were in Rome and no mention is made of them traveling as representatives of the Roman church, or any other church, to distribute offerings gathered. Similarly, Epaphroditus was sent to Paul by the Philippian church to bring him their gift and to care for him in prison (Phil. 2:25-26). Paul mentions that Andronicus and Junia were “in Christ” before him, making it very possible that they had seen the risen Christ, which was one of the qualifications for apostleship.
Epiphanius writes that Junia whom Paul mentions became a bishop of Apameia, which further strengthens the case that Junia was an apostle, for the offices of an apostle and bishop were identical in the Early Church (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1): “But deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose apostles, that is, bishops and overseers; while apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascent of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church.”
An early witness to Junia’s identity is Chrysostom who did not only call Junia a woman –he also thought she was an apostle par excellence.

“Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.” …Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (?????????) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”

Yet, for some Junia cannot be an apostle and a woman at the same, regardless of the evidence for “if the phrase means ‘distinguished apostles,’ ‘Iouninan is a man…On the other hand, if the name is female, the phrase means ‘of note in the eyes of the apostles.’” Grudem does not dare to call Junia a man for the lack of evidence, but neither is he willing to call her a woman and give legitimacy to the existence of a female apostle and bishop. In a last effort to support his indecision, he writes that Junia was not a common woman’s name in the Greek-speaking world, which is true since it was a Latin name.
(Here ends the excerpt)

Kay, what you wrote mirrors this:
The man’s authority is not in the, but must be accepted.
Mutual submission is in the Bible, but must be rejected.

Mara, I will do so as soon as I have put baby down for a nap.
Pinklight, yes, it is a whole lot of something! You really need to dismiss about 1800 years of church history to avoid it.

I wasn’t clear enough in one point:
The belief that there has never been a female clergy worked until archeologists began to find evidence to the contrary. What has been the comp reaction to this: they simply ignore all the evidence and keep on insisting that there has never been a female clergy.
The same with female inferiority: they deny that it is the foundation for their theology, although all historical evidence contradicts them.
Unfortunately for them, they are not going to be able to continue to do so forever, the truth is going to catch them eventually.

Hey Mark, where’s the text that puts the actual words “submission” (hypotasso) and “authority” (epitasso) into one verse together? If we want to be consistent, and you so do, where’s the word hypertasso (set above someone). Hypo and hyper are always coupled in Greek, why not in the case of hypotasso? Why do we find that hypotasso is coupled always with antitasso (resist), as seen in
“Be subject (hypotasso) therefore unto God; but resist (antitasso) the devil, and he will flee from you.” (Jas 4.7)

Let every soul be in subjection (hypotasso) to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God.
Therefore he that resisteth (antitasso) the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. (Rom 13.1-2)

Hi Lydia! No I have not seen that book, but I do know of his theology from the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. His theology is so warped that it is not even funny.

Oh Mark, I just love it when you comps write like this! I know you are a smart guy, you just have swallowed a bit too much of the comps’ cool aid (isn’t this American saying an interesting way of putting it?)
So, let’s look at your argument:
“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!”

Yes, what you wrote is true… for a cult! They are known to twist words and change meanings, which is why they are called a cult. Christians however cannot and will not do so. If the Bible says the Word was God, it means the word was God. It does not mean he was a god, or an angel or any of that kind. It means what it says.
May I suggest that as far as Eph 5.21 is concerned it your understanding of the word hypotasso (submit) that is the problem not the word itself. I.e. if everyone cannot obey, then perhaps the word does not mean obey? If you cannot squeeze it into your theology, perhaps it is your theology that is the problem?

You wrote: “What is termed ‘explicit’ enough will depend on one’s own Biblical theology and bias’ on the theology.”
I will say Amen to this for I agree that what the comps consider explicit depends on how it supports their theology. I.e. Junia is not a woman, but if she is, she is not an apostle; Phoebe is not a deacon, Deborah is not a judge, but if she is, she usurped the title herself; women should not work, but if they have to (single moms and widows), it’s ok. etc.

You wrote: “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 anyone reconcile this?…Consistency in biblical exegesis, hermeneutics etc which i think is far better on the comp side…not perfect but better.”
Ahem… consistency in biblical exegesis….? Ok, so the comps have a great hermeneutic when they say men have authority over women although the Bible never says so? That mutual submission does not exist although the Bible says it clearly? A minute ago you wrote that what one believes is clear depends on one’s theology. I.e. you may think the Bible is clear, but you have also admitted that it is clear for you because of your own bias: you want it to support complementarism. If we cannot agree what the Bible says explicitly, then we have no change of having a conversation with those who disagree. This is how cults are created. Either the Bible is clear or it isn’t. It cannot be clear to you and not clear to me, unless you want to support the belief that God enlightens the hearts of only some? Naturally I agree that translations often confuse the issue, wherefore it is so important to go back to the original.

You wrote: “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.”
My “history lessons” are irrelevant but yours is relevant? I have never said that egals have not been the orthodox position because it blatantly false. Tombstones, letters, inscriptions etc, all testify that the church had female clergy and that it did not disappear until the 13th century (even Catholics admit to this). It coincides perfectly with Thomas Aquinas twofold subjection in which he made the woman subject to the man from creation due to Aristotle’s philosophy. May I again suggest that you have absorbed a bit too much of comp theology with its revisionist history? Egalitarianism is not an offshoot of secular feminism from the 70s. Women fought for their rights already in the 19th century. Seneca Falls convention (1848) was held in a Methodist church, during which Christian women concluded they needed to get the vote and set out to do so. Did you know that New York revoked female suffrage in 1777, a year after the declaration of independence? As I said before, comps have done a magnificent job of convincing the world that egalitarianism is only about 40 years old. Not so. The early church upheld the equality of all humans.
I find it interesting that all comps come with are these same arguments: a) there has never been a female clergy b) egals. was formed in the 70’s. What about the 1900 years between 70 and 1970? They do not provide any info, which is of course because very few of them have ever touched a history book. Mark here is not an exception.

You wrote: “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.”
Of course… when a comp argument is defeated, it becomes irrelevant. Like female inferiority. As late as 1870, Barnes was adamant that God created the woman inferior to the man. In 1970 all theologians agreed: women are not inferior, we are all equal. Why the change? Because women got the right to vote in the twentieth century and began to change laws, but also because it was proven that girls did better in school than boys (which is still true). But because it would have been impossible to say that girls were smarter than boys, we got a sexless intelligence and the inferior woman had to go.

Love one another,
Serve one another,
Submit (be devoted) to one another

They all say the same thing in different words, fulfilling the words of Jesus: “This is how they will know you are my disciples: that you love each other.”

The Bible does not say:
Women love men this way, men love women that way
Women serve men this way, men serve women that way
Women submit to men this way, men submit to women that way.

Either it is agape (love) or it is not.
Either it is allelon (one another) or it is not.
It cannot mean one thing when applied to men and another when to women.