gengwall

Paul tells us that we are free to debate and disagree on disputable issues, as long as doctrine is universally upheld (Romans 14, I think). Eph 5 would be a disputable item, I would think, although occassionally someone turns submission into a sin issue or even a salvation issue which makes the passage bleed over into doctrine. Which brings us back to your question, I guess. That is about the time I just give a great big *SIGH*

…or her father, or an uncle if her father is dead.

SM – I can give a possible comp answer from a traditional perspective: women are more easily deceived and less rational, and therefore need “guidance” like a child would. Of course, Mark and NN won’t go there. Yet that is the only reason I have ever heard being given.

Suzanna could entertain us all day, I imagine, on the various views of women through the ages that required them to be under an authority.

Well, Greg, I would say everything has to be done in accordance with The Book. But The Book doesn’t necessarily cover everythign we do. Can you be more specific in the context of Eph 5?

Sorry TL, we cross posted

try http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search or

Just the perseus site

The Liddell-Scott entry is quite informative. In general, it shows that hypotasso has a fairly broad meaning. More specifically, a valid passive usage of hypotasso is to “underlie” (support) or “be associated with”. This is directly in line with the egal view of Eph 5:22.

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

No – in the sense that the text is not talking about God’s authority over us. Why should we introduce it into the text? There are scads of texts in the Bible, especially in the OT, where God is seen as a side by side partner with us, especially in contexts where we resisting some enemy. This is especially true when we are resisting the Devil. What does God’s authority over us have to do with reisiting the Devil? Nothing. Scripture informs us: “if God is with me, who can stand against me”. The way we get God “on our side” is to align with Him.

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

That would be your argument, not mine. My point was that “align with” makes much more sense for 5:21 than “align under”, and Paul would be consistent in 5:22. And yes, I believe the church aligns with Christ, although it certainly aligns under Him as well in some contexts. The question we need to ask is if “marriage” is such a context. I don’t believe it is.

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

My friend – you seem to be like other comps here who think that Christ and God have only one relational paradigm with humans, and that one paradigm is the authoritarian one. That simply isn’t the case. Stop putting words in our mouths by saying that we are contending that God “never” has authority over us. That isn’t what we are saying at all. What we are saying is that in the marrital paradigm, authority is not even in view. It is a reciprocal, equal, unified, “one flesh” relationship.

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

I might give the retort – “How far must we go to reinvent Greek to support our biblical teaching”.

A few hypotasso verses with “align with” instead of “submit”

Romans 8:7 “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not align itself with the law of God”

Romans 10:3 “For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not align themselves with the righteousness of God.”

Romans 13:1 “Every person is to be aligned with the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”

James 4:7 “Align therefore with God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you”

It obviously doesn’t work with every verse. The point is that it does work some of the time, even with verses almost always associated with authority. That indicates that hypotasso may have a broader range of meaning than we have been led to believe. Ephesians 5:21 almost certainly assures it.

Suzanna wrote a while ago: “The antonym of hypotasso is antitasso”

antitasso is a compund of “align” and “against”

If hypotasso is it’s antonym, then it should be a compound of “align” and “by” or “with”. But it is exclusively deconstructed as “align” and “under”. What gives?

Well, I looked at my handy dandy blueletterbible.org lexicon and what did I find?

hypo means “under” OR “by” and is translated “under”, “BY”, and “WITH” amongst others. So, “under” is not necessarily the only possibility and the other definitions seem to preclude the idea of authority.

It makes much more sense in Ephesians 5:21 to say “aligning yourselves one with another” than it does “aligning yourselves one under another”. (“align with” works in many verses, even those speaking about government – align with the governing authorities, i.e. don’t be an anarchist.) Isn’t it just possible that Paul, who does not even have a military context on the radar here, is applying a much more “side by side” meaning to hypotasso?

I disagree Kristen. If it is a simple statement of fact, then Paul is asking wives to remain in the authoritarian submission they already are in. How does this then relate to verse 21? Whatever submission is in Paul’s usage here, it is identical for all believers and wives. If vs. 22 is a statement of fact reflecting the cultural submission wives were bound under, then the mutual submission called for in vs. 21 is nonsensical.

I should add, that Paul’s instructions to men beginning in verse 25 follow the same pattern. He is prescribing what men should do by describing what Christ has done.

Charis – Is 5:24 Descriptive of wives? Only if you divorce the verse from the surrounding text, especially verse 21-22. 5:18b-21 is absolutely prescriptive: “be filled with the spirit; speaking…singing and making melody…giving thanks…submitting yourselves…” These are not descriptions of what the Ephesians are, they are prescriptions for what Paul wants the Ephesians to do. Verse 5:22 continues the prescription addressing wives specifically. 5:22 is not a description of what wives are, it is a prescription for what Paul wants wives to do. In verse 24, Paul then gives a descriptive example for the wives to follow, but he has not ceased prescribing what he wants the wives to do based on that descriptive example. I disagree that 5:24 in relation to wives is descriptive.

The confusion comes from which form of “to be” the translators insert. YLT uses [are] while others use [be] or [should be]. Which should it be? The precedent from verse 22 makes it obvious. You can’t be both prescribed and described as being subject in the same thought. Since the prescription in verse 22 is clear, the continuing prescription in verse 24 is also clear.

“Now you have changed it to “conservative theology” (what ever that is)”

In actuallity, you have changed it to the opposite of conservative theology, which I suppose would be liberal theology. Just wanted to clarify my above comment. The point being that not all liberal churches are pentacostal or charismatic (not by a long shot), nor are all conservative churches stoic.

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

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

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

I think you are drawing a parallel that is unsupportable. At first you said that you had not met an egal who was not “pentecostal or at least charasmatic” in their theology. Now you have changed it to “conservative theology” (what ever that is). The two are not mutually and universally inclusive. For example, you would consider Lutherans to be egalitarian because they allow female ministers. But Lutherans are decidedly NOT charismatic or pentecostal. So, although Lutherans may indeed follow a “liberal” theology (which is also debatable), they do not at all meet the first criteria you set for egals. I suggest your environment provides only a narrow set of examples.

I know this is a secondary issue but I just hate to be stereotyped. I am the least pentecostal and charismatic person I know (my Lutheran upbringing), but I also consider myself to be quite conservative in my theology, and yet I am egalitarian.

Mark said, “I have to admit that you are the first egalitarian i have ever spoken with who is not a pentecostal or at least charasmatic in their theology!”

You certainly must be joking.

“…especially in a debate like this where there are 3 comps… and by my count at least 10+ egals”

Tiffany – please don’t see this as a 10 against 3 fight. If your counts are correct, we are 13 people all searching for truth. And don’t assume all of us egals are in lock step with Cheryl or each other. We all have our differences, and sometimes they are quite striking. In fact, since Cheryl keeps track of this much better than I, I bet she could remember times when every one of the 10 has differed from her, and certainly we differ from each other. There have been times when I have sided with Mark, and I acknowledged some agreement with pieces of NN’s view on the passage at hand. So, I hope we can all best view this as an exploration in which we all have something to contribute and something to learn.

“I think that Paul was telling husband’s that, in Christ “authority,” is quite a different thing and to be used in an entirely different way than the world preaches. That it is about nurturing and sacrificing, quite the opposite of the self-centered power of the world.”

LOL – well then it isn’t authority. If it looks like a sheep, and walks like a sheep, and bahs like a sheep, it certainly isn’t a duck.

Tiffany – I certainly endorse your view that human marriage and Christ/Church marriage are being paralleled, most notably because Paul says so. I would quibble that Christ/Church is the model, not earthly marriage, but I suspect you mispoke. And I would agree also that “we as wives [and husbands] need to figure out what the relationship of Christ and the church is to look like and build our doctrine from there.” The question remains though, is there only one relational paradigm between Christ and the Church? Is the Christ/Husband-Church/Bride relationship the same as the Christ/High Priest-Church/Flock relationship? I would argue that it is not at all. And so, I would amend your comment to read “”we as wives [and husbands] need to figure out what the MARRIAGE relationship of Christ and the church is to look like and build our doctrine from there.” when we are talking about marriage. And I would further argue that in that context of marriage, scripture never points to Christ as the authority over His bride.

Sidebar – a definition of pronography which is well accepted in men’s forums that deal specifically with the subject is “ANY object, event, or act outside of the marriage relationship which either has as its universal intent or has for the individual the effect of sexual stimulation.” I will give an example of each while trying to avoid being explicit. Fettish porn is porn, not because it even necessarily shows any sexual act but because its intent is to sexually stimulate those who have the fettish. On the other hand, lets say that I find, I don’t know, raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens to be not only a couple of my favorite things but also sexually stimulating. I may be the only one in the world who has that particular reaction, but if I seek out those things for such stimulation, they are pornography for me.

Sue – while technically, there can be pornography where both partners are “equal”, the appeal of pornography (at least for men) is control and power. Even if the actors convey a loving relationship (as happens with homemade porn), the observer gets a power rush because they feel like they have control over sex, to put it simply. So, in a sense, it is the observer who is being dominant, even if the actors aren’t. You are not naive; you may only have not been aware of how deep the deviancy goes.

“To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:
Women are told to “hupotassoe” their husbands – this same general instruction is used by Paul in the same context to describe the proper actions of citizens toward their governments and slaves toward their masters.”

Just reading this again, another anamoly jumps out. Marriage and the Body of Christ are decidedly not “in the same context” as the military, goverment and slavery/employment. How horrible if they were. Again, I think the complementarians here need to think outside the box a little. Paul is not drawing parallels to different forms of submission, he is making distinctions from them.

NN – Another thought. Your theory relies on explicit and narrow definitions of words from an author who is quite noteworthy for stretching the conventional meanings of words and using them in novel contexts. I believe I could say your theory is on shaky ground just by citing the numerous times Paul goes beyond tradition and cultural convention in his writing. To presume that Paul is being dogmatic with ‘hupotassoe’ really doesn’t give the aopstle his due as a thinker, informer, and teacher.

As far as falsification.

You could prove our theories false if Paul literally said “obey”, if Eph 5:22 was sufficiently divorced from 5:21, if it could be demonstrated that Eph 5:21 submission contained a hierarchy, if it could be demonstrated that agape is not exclusively selfless and service oriented – that it contained an aspect of authority, if the Greek “head” could be shown to include authority in anatomical metaphor (or “body” include obedience)… that’s just off the top of my head. I believe we have been asking for that all along.

On the other hand, as I noted in my previous post, you acknowledge that your theory could be proven false if “‘hupotassoe’ didn’t really convey the ideas of obedience”. It does not in verse 21. Therefore, your theory is false. Thanks for the heads up.

NN – “What could make this hypothesis untrue? Well if we misunderstood the nature of the instruction given – for instance if ‘hupotassoe’ didn’t really convey the ideas of obedience. Or if the command was given because of a specific cultural condition which is no longer true.”

Exactly. In Eph 5:21, ‘hupotassoe’ does not convey the idea of obedience. Nor does ‘hupotassoe’ literly mean obey. Nor is the idea of obedience absent from Paul’s letter – it is explicit in the next chapter when his concludes his trilogy of relationships. If Paul meant “wives obey your husbands”, why didn’t he just say that like he says it for children and slaves? The answer seems obvious: because he is not conveying the idea of obedience with wives.

NN- I will give my 2 cents on 239.

“To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:
Women are told to “hupotassoe” their husbands – this same general instruction is used by Paul in the same context to describe the proper actions of citizens toward their governments and slaves toward their masters.”

And Christians to each other. You seem to conveniently leave out the preceeding verse.

“Furthermore, we are instructed by the Christ that we are to obey the governing authorities (”render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) so we must interpret Paul’s specific instructions to wives to be in keeping with his use of the words to describe other obedience relationships. Since Paul explicitly gives no such equivalent instruction to the husband the relationship logically must be hierarchical.”

No, it doesn’t logically have to be a hierarchy. Are we instructed to obey the other Christians that we are submitting to in the prior verse? Where is the hierarchy that you believe must logically exist in Ephesians 5:21?

NN – I suggest that you are missing one possibility. I suggest that Paul is turning submission on its head. Sure, Paul talks about hierarchical submission in other contexts such as government/citizen, and master/slave. But marriage and the body of Christ are far cries from those types of relationships. Certainly you would agree with that. Isn’t it possible that Paul is showing us in Eph 5 a different kind of submission, one that is mutual, unifying, and non-hierarchical?

In order for marriage to be a hierarchy based on Eph 5:22, Christian to Christian relationships also are compelled to be a hierarchy. But we know, certainly, do we not, that Eph 5:21 is suggesting no such thing. Paul certainly is not saying, after two chapters about unity in the Body, that we have authority over each other and that we have to submit each of us to the authority of another brother (or sister, I might add) who equally has authority and also must submit. What nonsense.

Do you deny that the submission in Eph 5:21 between believers exists in a new paradigm, without any authority? Do you deny that the submission of wives is of like kind? I don’t know how you could based on the text. I agree with you (and disagree with many of my compatriots here) that the Eph 5 instructions are universal. But hierarchy is not what is at all in view. I believe Paul is saying that wives in particular have a universal problem (others think it merely cultural) with the new Eph 5:21 type of submission when it comes to their husbands. But that submission is not to an authority but to an equal. That submission is not obedience but cooperation. I think wives struggle with that because of the fall and I think Paul is remedying that in his instruction. But it does not confirm that the hierarchy that was brought on by the fall is correct. In fact, Paul’s subsequent instruction to husbands, to agape their wives, remedy’s another evil from the fall – husbandly authoritarian rule. Paul is not creating or even substantiating a god ordained marital hierarchy, he is destroying the the evil hierarchy introduced at the fall.

It is tough for husbands to love. Paul says “get over it and do it”. It is tough for wives to have a submissive attitude in light of the evil that authoritarian male rule has imposed on them throughout time. Paul says “do it anyway”. What results if both spouses follow Paul’s instruction? Marriage ascends to the mysterious level of the Christ/Church relationship. Marriage goes back to what it was like in the garden, before sin tainted our behaviors and perspectives. That is why you can’t divorce this teachign from the Genesis account. Genesis 1 describes a perfectly equal relationship between husband and wife. Genesis 2 shows mutual love and submission melding two people into one flesh. Genesis 3 shows that relationship torn assunder. And what is the evidence of the rupture? Authoritarian rule of husbands over wives. What is the solution? Well, read Ephesians 5 and you will have it.

“Most comps I know don’t see erotic love as a place for male authority over female.”

Boy would we like it to be, though. If there is any realm where men have an overwhelming urge to exercise authority, it is this one. All the more reason we should read 1 Cor 7 every couple of days.

” And if we recognize that this sort of love (eros) is between two inequivalent people”

This is where I think the proof breaks down. What compels me to acknowledge this inequivalency? Nothing that I can see. It is presumptive. I don’t have any proof that the two people in a marriage are inequivalent so I have no reason to recognize anything about eros based on said inequivalency.

Cheryl – along with circular reasoning, hierarchialists also resist the inevitable “in for a penny, in for a pound” reality of their position. They equivocate and use safe sounding words and phrases to not sound “authoritarian” even though they want the husband to be the “authority”. But the reality is you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to use Jesus’ lordship and authority as the model, you have to go the whole 9 yards (ok, enough cliches). The husband has to be everything that Jesus is to the world and the church: husband is law giver; husband is high priest; husband is father; husband is savior; husband is ruler; husband is king; husband is god. They will say “well, I don’t mean THAT”. But the reality is that you can’t avoid that if the husband is the “lord” of the marriage. Anything less and they have absolutely no support for their position. The husband can’t be kinda, sorta, just a little bit lord, for Jesus is no such thing. So if wives really, really want their husband to be Jesus the Lord (instead of Jesus the bridegroom), then they have to accept their husband as all powerful king. If they accept a less powerful alternative, they are actually denying Jesus’ lordship.

Actually, I should have said “can He punish her disobedience” instead of “force her obedience”. I don’t think Jesus forces anything on us. But there are consequences if we don’t follow His perfect commandments.