Dave

Mark – thanks for taking the challenge!

You said, “I’m basing what i say on the assumption that you believe in ‘mutual submission’, or ‘reciprocal submission’.”
This was not necessary. I think if we understand submission first we will see how it can be mutual later.

You said, “BDAG translates hypotasso as i’m sure we all know as ’subordinate’”
Literally hypotasso means to place oneself under another. In light of this we need to determine if BDAG has used the correct English word when they provide the word “subordinate”. You see, if I place myself under another, then this is something that I have chosen to do. After all, why would Paul tell us to do something in Eph 5:21 that we have no choice in? The nature of submission is that there is choice.

So, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is this what “subordinate” means? Apparently it means “to set in order” by “order, class of rank; occupying a lower position in a scale, inferior in nature, power, importance, etc”. The thing about subordination is it is determined by things that are often out of our control. This is why it speaks of things like ‘inferiority by nature.’

You then said, “Most english translations make hypotasso as ’submit’.”
Glad to hear it! You said, “ So according to the Oxford dictionary submit means…“accept or yield to a superior force or stronger person”.

Hmmm, Webster’s gives us a bit more info, it says “to put under”, “To yield yourself to the power of another (not necessarily superior), and under submission we find words like, “meekness” and “humble”. To me this sounds like a much more accurate description of hypotasso. Would you not agree Mark?

Note the difference between the two. One has to do with placing things in a natural order – something we might or might not have control over. The other has to do with where we choose to place ourselves – it is about the choice of being the last, not the first.

You then said, “So it doesn’t appear that the english term ’submit’ allows for such a concept as ‘mutual’ since it involves a ’superior force’. But what about ’submission’ which is similar but different…“the action or fact of submitting”The Oxford allows the term ’submitting’ which is grouped under the same title as ’submit’. So again it appears that the english words ’submit’ or ’submission’ do not allow for a mutual or reciprocal force. Therefore are comps all that wrong!”
Hang on there big fella! Because it is something that we can choose to do, then I can do it to you, and you can choose to submit to me. Subordination, however, does not allow for mutuality because when you place things in an order they go from highest to lowest which dictates their position.

You then said, “ It seems hard to understand the egal system when it uses terms that are oxymoron’s in nature.”
According to the dictionary, we haven’t.

With regards to what you say about the word ‘mutual’, I think with the correct understanding of hypotasso the rest of your comment is seen as being incorrect. Perhaps your Oxford dictionary says submission is to a superior force, but my Webster’s does not mention this. Which is correct? Webster’s of course, as well as the other two dictionaries I looked up that did NOT mention that submission was to a superior force. Further, “submission” is a term that is used to describe the actions of a person who has lost a dual or a fight. In the case of knights, you submitted so you could have your life. Some chose not to submit, even though they had been beaten. They died – but the chose not to submit, which shows that those who submit to have their life spared still chose to submit. So even in this use (I suggest that this is where your dictionary is coming from) there is an issue of choice!

Mark, you suggest that because we say the submission will look different in different relationships it is not mutual. But this goes against your own definition of ‘mutual’. If I submit to you by washing behind your big ears and you submit to me by wiping my rampant snoz – we have submitted mutually. Submission is the thing that is mutual – not the nose wiping or the ear washing.

So, I suggest you recalculate your own terminology. I should add I am not denying authority. It is not in the Eph passage to deny.

Finally, Mark can love be mutual? Can we agape mutually? Can we bear one anothers burdens? Can we pray for each other mutually? According to your understanding of ‘mutuality’, apparently not. We do not have the same needs, so we will not pray the same things for each other. Does that mean we cannot mutually pray?

Again, Jesus told us to all carry our cross. Does that mean we must all die on a cross? Mark, it is just silly to hold to this view that submission must be identical to be mutual, and submission and subordination are fundamentally different. You have confused them.