TL

Mark, #152

Thank you for your example of how dinner is handled at your house. It does show an atmosphere of fatherly rule. The fact that your wife defers to you without being commanded is nice for you. It is not uncommon for wives who live in a marriage of male dominance to willingly and frequently defer to the husband. It makes life easier for her to show visible (and often excessive) honor to the husband whenever possible.

This does give us a better idea of the extent of authority in a home arranged on the authority submission paradigm. The atmosphere that you described is one that many of us are familiar with.

IMO for hierarchalists, the issue is really only about authority, male authority. We all agree that wifely submission is honorable in Christ. But hierarchalists don’t agree that husbandly or even fatherly submission is honorable in Christ, because it demeans the authority of the man. We can even agree that a husband’s provision and protection sometimes can look like leadership, but we cannot agree that a wife’s provision and protection might sometimes look like leadership also, because that would take away from the husband’s authority.

It is not surprising that such an issue as authority would take top priority in some people’s lives. The world runs on authority and power; who has it and who doesn’t. Christ’s emphasis on service, humility, and mutuality are difficult systems of living to reorient oneself into. There is a certain amount of grace that can be given Christians that cannot comprehend Christ’s ways on these issues. However, we who know better will likely always be running interference for the benefit of the ones who are damaged and wounded by the world’s systems of living. More is required of those with more understanding. It has to be that way.

LOL, Kay.

They shut down the post on Parchment&Pen, BTW.

Warning: if a blogger by the ID of Truth Unites and Divides comes around, it is best to completely ignore him. He has become an accomplished divider and one who regularly manages to shut down conversation between egals and non egals.

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

We realize that if the theology is different then the practical issues are different. This is why we would like to understand how it is different; how does your theology ‘work out’ in real life for you. Anything that you could share with us would help to clarify for us what you are saying.

”In her walk with Jesus she believes she is told to submit to me her husband. It is something God requires of her not me. So i agree that submission is a voluntary act.”

Mark
All this is saying is that you are not commanding her to submit, but rather God is commanding her to submit. Therefore, you can fall back on saying God said so. This does not describe voluntary anything. This is still you requiring her to submit. In your eyes she is not a good Christian woman unless she submits to your desires, requests, etc. as long as they are not sin.

”Let me say it again- all lexicons i have read say that the verb ‘submit’ has authority attached to it. ……… That verb according to lexicons denotes authority.”

Mark,
There is a difference between having one part of the range of definitions include involving authority and denoting authority. In the range of meanings in English and in Greek, the word submit CAN include authority. But it is not required.

We can see quite clearly that you are ignoring the full range of the meaning of the word because your desire is so strong for it to mean only authority. But reality is that the word submit does not only relate to situations involving authority.

”Why is the wife’s submission directly linked to the Church’s submission?”

First it is not directly linked, but given as an example. Wives are being admonished to submit to the husbands in the same manner believers submit to the Messiah who died that we might have life. They are to submit with reverence for God. As believers we are responding to Christ’s sacrificial love toward us, and in a marriage husbands are to emulate Christ’s sacrificial love toward their wives and wives are to respond to that with the same trust and acceptance that we respond to Christ. We need to find the meaning in the context of what the author is writing about.

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22Wives, to your husbands as to the Lord.

Here is another way to look at this. If we read these two sentences under one another we can see that Paul is basically repeating himself. First we all submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. Then without stopping his thought, Paul continues that wives also to their husbands, still keeping reverence for Christ.

Thanks Kristen. 🙂 You are an incredible support as well.

As for your query regarding disappearing women in churches, that has been my experience in most churches. I do get tired of the overemphasis on family. IMO it should be about individuals. We don’t accept Christ as a family but as individuals accountable to God for our own beliefs and sins.

True, it is rare to find a comp blog where any censoring is the same for all sides of the discussion.

A chef husband and a secret service agent wife. How cool is that. If I were ever to marry again, which I’m not really interested in doing, I’d be hoping for a husband who cooks. I’m just tired of cooking. 🙂

oh Kay, I didn’t intend to put pressure upon anyone to participate there. We all have to choose not only what is best use of our time, but what works for us. It doesn’t work for you at this time and that is fine.

hugs IN Christ 🙂

Lydia, why bother?

Well, I guess one needs to be inspired. My inspiration first was just to see if I could hold my own in the word of God. Now my inspiration is that I have learned that my input affects their lives. And I also have learned that sometimes my words, answers, and attitude help some person to find healing in the Lord and to trust God more.

🙂

I wonder if some of you might consider taking your wonderful polite and insightful dialogue over to Parchment and pen to assist with the discussion.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/02/why-women-cannot-be-head-pastors/

“Now Kay. Don’t you know that you are too deceived and deceptive to know that what you perceive as a contradiction is actually perfectly logical?”

The sad thing is that their are some hierarchical Christians who actually believe that. 🙁

thanks gengwall. That is what I was looking for. FINALLY!! 🙂

Gengwall, I used to have a page saved in Perseus where I could type in an English word, such as submit, and come up with a list of Greek words in which that was part of their translation. Then I could choose the Grk word I wanted more info on and come up with a page of lexicon definitions. I cannot seem to find that link anymore. Any ideas.

One important thing to remember in all of this is that words are tools of communication from one mind to another. So, the question of meaning is not a dogmatic block-chain of this word only means this or that in every situation. The question of meaning belongs to the author. What exactly was the author trying to communicate using the words he/she did. In order to determine meaning we must not be stuck with only the tools of dictionaries and lexicons (which again only show a range of usage) but we must look back to the author’s flow of thought. That’s called ‘context’. In the context of what was written in Ephe. 5, we have a metaphor of ‘head of’ and ‘body of’ which carries huge implications as to the intent of Paul in what he was trying to impart. We also have the foundational thoughts from 5:1 thru 5:21 which are to be carried into all the interpersonal relationship of a person’s life.

Gengwall, do you have a good online source for researching Liddell Scott?

ooops missed reading a letter. So it’s upotagh. It comes out clearer when I copy it here than it does on my program. Go figure. 🙂

Being in the state of subordinate, rather than setting oneself in the position of controller is this word….

uJpotagh/, hvß, hJ (s. tagh/, and cp. 2 aor. of uJpota¿ssw; Dionys. Hal. 3, 66, 3 act. ‘subjecting’) in our lit. only pass. the state of submissiveness, subjection, subordination, as opposed to setting oneself up as controller (Plut., Mor. 142e) (Wsd 18:15 A; TestSol; ApcMos 10; Artem. 1, 73 p. 66, 14; Paradoxogr. p. 218, 7 Westermann e?n uJpotaghvØ; Vett. Val. 106, 8; 11; 17; 24; 198, 28; BGU 96, 7 [III BC] ton e?n uJpotaghvØ tugca¿nonta. Cp. e?n uJp. me÷nein touv qeouv Iren. 4, 38, 3 [Harv. II 196, 3]; Theoph. Ant 1, 6 [p. 70, 11]). hJ uJpotagh thvß oJmologi÷aß uJmw?n ei?ß to eujagge÷lion 2 Cor 9:13 (oJmologi÷a 1). e?n pa¿shØ uJpotaghvØ subordinating herself in every respect 1 Ti 2:11 (cp. cum omni subiectione Papias [1:3]); te÷kna e¶cein e?n uJpotaghvØ keep children under control 3:4. e?n mia?ˆ uJpotaghvØ kathrtisme÷noi made complete in unanimous subjection IEph 2:2. ei¶xamen thvØ uJpotaghvØ (dat. of manner) we yielded in submission Gal 2:5. The system of ordered relationships requires recognition of one’s proper place in the structure. Since Paul is {p. 1042} subordinate to the ‘truth of the gospel’ he cannot comply with some demands imposed by leaders in Jerusalem who have the obligation to recognize their place in the order of things.—Of the members of the body uJpotaghvØ mia?ˆ crhvtai they experience a mutual subjection 1 Cl 37:5. oJ kanw»n thvß uJpotaghvß the established norm of obedience (Kleist) 1:3.—DELG s.v. ta¿ssw. M-M. TW.

I’m just learning how to use my new Accordance software, but I did manage to find this. The above word is upotauh (I think). It describes a sort of involuntary state of being, something like what Charis is interpreting the Ephe. 5:24 passage. But as we can see, this is a different word than the one in discussion which is upotasso(menoi).

This was excellent. Thank you for sorting out all the words.

I’m curious about the ANLEX lexicon resource. They seem to be an inaccurate representative. What you noted from BDAG’s resources are more within the overall usage as we have seen other scholarly sources prove. John Templeton Bristow felt attach was very appropriate especially in Ephe. 5:21. If I’m recollecting rightly Bristow said that the meaning of attach really came through in German.

I didn’t see you use Scott & Liddel. In the past I’ve found them more accurate than BDAG.

“TL, Its distressing to me that you contradict facts.”

Yes, I know how that can be. I need to learn to not post in a hurry. Comes from a desire to do too many things at once.

I totally did not say what was in my mind. Somehow went off sideways. When I get a truly free moment I’ll be back.

Nevertheless, I really don’t accept your interpretation that women are to be helplessly acted upon.

“Personally I dislike both “SUBORDINATE” and “SUBMIT”. I prefer “being subject” in Eph 5:21 and “are subject” in Eph 5:24. IMO, it better conveys the PASSIVE force of the verbs used.”

Personal preferences are fine, but we need to stay in the same grammatical form. “Are subject” is a noun. “Being Subjected” is a verb but one in which one is being acted upon by another; IOW someone else is subjecting you. Hupotassomenoi is a verb in the passive and middle voice. The form of hupotassomenoi is that one is NOT being acted upon, but is acting upon oneself.

More later, I’m out the door.

”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. “

Mark,
I’m guessing that you are a well read Grudemite. Many of us here have read much if not all of his writings also. We just disagree with much of it.

I would classify Grudem as an authoritarian. An authoritarian translates all of life as about authority and submission. He favors the concepts of everyone being in subjection to authority or being the authority figures rather than any concept of individual freedoms. He also classifies wives (and children) as in complete subjection to the will of the husband. With that kind of a life view it would be difficult to perceive the goodness of authority lowering himself to serve the desires or needs of another. It’s all about authority after all. Authority doesn’t lower himself; authority makes decisions and takes action. I can still remember Grudem making a point about the “fact” that when HE decided to move because his wife was not faring well with the climate where they were living, that he was not submitting to his wife or her needs, he was taking action. It was his decision. She had nothing to do with it. Those are the lenses through which Grudem chooses to view and live life.

I submit to you that in the Scriptures we will find a different life view. The Messiah did not come to the world as an authoritarian figure. He came humbly and resisted all attempts at being viewed as an authority or power figure. His power was in how far He would go in arranging Himself under humanity in order to free humanity from the bondage of evil. Christ as God incarnate still had all power and authority as the creator of all life, but He did not exercise authority or His Will over us. He exercised His Holy Will over evil. But for us, His future Body, His primary motive was to serve us for our betterment. Everything Jesus did produced freedom, life, healing, deliverance, knowledge and optimum goodness for those who received Him. He taught us how to live by example.

But we all are brothers and sisters in His Body. We are not Christs. It is not easy to understand how to lower ourselves and walk in humility only seeking to serve the needs of others. But that is what Jesus admonished us to do. We are to walk in agape, the kind of agape that motivated Jesus to suffer death on the cross for our sakes.
Here are some ways that we are to submit to one another in the Lord…

Romans 12:10?Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.

Romans 12:16?Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Romans 14:13?Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.

Romans 15:7?Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.

Romans 16:16?Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings.

Galatians 5:13?You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love.

Ephesians 4:2?Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

Ephesians 4:32?Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Ephesians 5:19?Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord,

Colossians 3:13?Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.

1 Thessalonians 5:11?Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

Hebrews 3:13?But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.

Hebrews 10:24?And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

1 Peter 1:22?Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.

1 Peter 3:8?[ Suffering for Doing Good ] Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.

1 Peter 4:9?Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.

1 Peter 5:5?Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

1 John 1:7?But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

1 John 3:11?[ Love one another ] This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.

1 John 4:7?[ God’s Love and Ours ] Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.?

Just for the record….

Being charismatic has nothing to do with anything as far as one’s leanings toward being hierarchically or equality minded. There are charismatic individuals in every group. Although, I find it almost impossible for a person to be completely non charismatic. Usually, the chief complaint is whether one believes tongues still exist or the miraculous gifts.

“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.”

It is my understanding that Quakers have always had female clergy or female leaders, teachers and ministers.

Mark, the following is a synopsis of what I’m seeing in your posts. If you don’t feel that is accurate, please let me know where I’m off. Since we are dealing with text only communication, sometimes an incorrect picture filters through our lenses.

As my eyes skimmed through the newer posts this morning I noticed something about Mark’s comments.
1. Mark doesn’t believe in mutuality, only submission/obedience and authority (IOW no concept of freely given humbly arranging oneself under another in honoring support of others – unless they are authority figures)
2. Mark views mutuality as ‘same as’ and seems unable or unwilling to treat another in the same value system without having to play ‘copy cat’.
3. Mark questions leadership and ministry by the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. This probably leaves male only leadership within a corporate model in which men give/delegate other men into privileged roles of authority.
4. Mark leans toward the concept that manifestations of the Holy Spirit are all an aspect of warped ‘pentacostalism’ due to a book by Mike Raiter.

This is a rather bleak picture of Christianity with no soul. The Holy Spirit is the moving element and the heart of our lives as Christians. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us humility and inspires us to give ourselves for other’s benefit. When the HS is diminished in a group of people, corporate structures become necessary as forms of government. And then just like the world, the strong will rule over the weaker. Some people have become so comfortable in this model that they really don’t want or cannot conceive of another way of doing life.

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

Mark, all the allelon (one another) verses show reciprocal or mutual submission.

“I would hardly call the subjection of devils to apostles “voluntary”!”

I wouldn’t either. But if the devils subjected themselves, it would be. A lot depends on the subject and object. In the above, the devils are being made subject to another, the apostles. Not voluntary. But when wives are told to subject themselves , it comes out the woman is subjected BY the woman. It is not possible to do this involuntarily.

May your studies go well. 🙂

“In general it can be said that in the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb.”

I agree with Mounce. But, you are forgetting something. In the case at hand, the subject is BOTH the actor and the one acted upon. This makes the difference. We are to subject self. We are not subjected by or acted upon by another, which is what Mounce is explaining. Thus, we initiate the subjection and we also receive the action passively. If you do some research I think you will see what I’m saying.

Kassian’s thoughts on the meanings of ish and ishah (comment 578) have some good points in it. However, she takes it too far in trying to box our souls into the same elements as our physical bodies. Our souls are not gendered. Mental, emotional and intellectual capabilities are not tied to our physical bodies. In this she has gone way too far in her premises.

This is typical of those who tend to sexualize all of life. We are more than sexual beings.

”The hupotasso verb in Eph 5:21 is the only one of the whole series of participles describing “be filled with the spirit” which is in the PASSIVE voice! I don’t think that is accidental.”

Charis, 579

I get what you are saying but I think you are missing the meaning of a passive VERB. Hupotasso is a verb, which means it involves taking an action. To exercise a verb in the passive means that it is something we do to ourselves, not something that is done to us or something over which we have no choice. And what Paul is admonishing all to do (including women) is to choose to submit ourselves to other Christians. He is not saying that we are subjected unwillingly to each other. Rather we are to willingly (with volition) arrange ourselves under. This carries implications of support, respect, honor, nurturing, etc.

I understand what you are speaking of otherwise, that because of a woman’s weaker vessel she is more vulnerable to harm from the stronger vessel. It’s an excellent point and illustrates why it is important for men to use their strengths for good and not selfishly or for harm.

I will not go further than that to say that women are emotionally weaker or have a weaker internal constitution because I’ve had enough men point out to me (and have observed it myself) that men suffer internally and emotionally as well and as deeply. They just have a tendency to express themselves differently or not express anything and “stuff” everything. After a life time of internal stuffing individuals who do that become disconnected with their emotions. And there are a lot of other elements involved as well. Because women nurture and produce life from their own bodies, women are much more sensitive to damage to living things than men are. It affects us more intimately. And so forth. There are plenty of differences, some cultural, some physical, some learned…. These differences do not make men superior and women inferior. Men and women are just different. But we are still equally human.

”And the tendency among egals to try to level the genders bothers me because I think there is a backlash to it. “pro-choice” for example: the desire to get rid of that part of me which makes me distinctively female.

I don’t believe that Christians who believe in Biblical equality do this. We do not seek to “level the genders”. We rather seek to accurately observe the equality of humans among humans regardless of gender. Pro-choice is not a standard of Biblical equality.

“For believing spouses seeking Christ, the right or privilege or burden of “power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine” whether administered rightly or wrongly is a non issue in marriage. However, nourishing, cherishing, and self-sacrificing are characteristics of how a believing husband is to agape his wife, and these are characteristics of how a wife should agape her husband. In this environment, the right to control, command, or determine, etc. is irrelevant.”

Well said! Yet — why is it such a hot topic. Husbandly authority has got to be THE most debated irrelevant topic of our era as Christians. LOL 🙂