Mark

Dave,

I never said subordination was the same as submit. I deliberately did not look at subordination since i was trying to understand your view. I can do that if you like. In fact i will at the end here.

I agree submission is something we do. A wife is told to submit to her husband. She has to choose to do it, it cannot be demanded by the husband. God demands it, not the husband. But it is not mutual since the husband is not commanded to submit to his wife, as to the Lord. This is why ‘mutual’ is not effective to communicate what you believe.

Let me ask if i understand you correctly. The husband is in authority, but he still must submit (so the act is mutual not the authority in the relationship). If you accept the Webster’s definition of submit, what is the ‘power’ the submitter is submitting too? In the context of Eph 5:22 what is the ‘power’ of the husband that the wife is submitting too? You may reject the Oxford ‘superior’, but please explain the Webster’s.

I liked your nose wiping, ear washing analogy. Let’s expand it further…are they the same thing? As the dictionary defined mutual, it is done to others, what A does to B, B does to A. So if you wish to stick with the term ‘mutual’, you must by definition say it is identical. The way i submit to my pastor, is the exact same way he submits to me- that is mutual. Problem is, it won’t be the same. You are confusing the act of submitting (saying that is what is mutual) when what it appears you mean is that we all choose to submit. The choice of submitting is the same choice but it is not mutual. For it to be mutual, what A does to B, B does to A. There is a difference. That is why the term ‘mutual submission’ is nonsense.

I might be reading you wrong but you almost sound like a comp. You agree authority exists, yet the one in authority is to serve (though you use submit) the other. That is comp is it not. The issue appears that you continue to use the word ‘submit’ which the Oxford gives as superior, and the Webster ‘power’ which is why the confusion continues. Of course those egalitarians that reject authority in Eph 5 have other issues to face.

I’m really interested in how you explain the ‘power’ issue in Webster’s. It interests me so that we can see the relatioship between submit and subordination. If one is superior, or in power, is the submitter therefore not subordinate. You can be subordinate and still choose not to submit- kids do that all the time. Just becasue you choose TO submit, does not disregard the subordination.

Finally here is the definition for subordinate in Oxfords just for your reference…

“lower in rank or position…a person under the authority or control of another.”

Remember this is a secular dictionary. No comp driving there theology into this one! So to be subordinate is to be ‘under authority’ and to submit is to ‘yield to a superior force’. What’s the fundamental difference you wish to make Dave?

I must also admit that my nose is probably more out of proportion that my ears!!!