Dave

Mark, you said, “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.”

I am glad we both agree that submission is a choice. Your logic following though flies in the face of verse 21 where we (once again for the dummies!) submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

With regards to Webster’s definition, the power is not necessarily in the relationship at all. It says “the power OR will of another”. i.e. there does not have to be power, though there might be. Therefore in Eph 5:22 the wife is not necessarily submitting to any ‘power’, though I think, as we have said before(!) culturally the husband had power. We know that. Peter also suggests that as the man is the stronger vessel he needs to use his strength appropriately when dealing with his wife the weaker vessel. This too could be the power. Surely the question you are yet to answer is whether or not the power is God ordained authority over the wife by the husband.

You said, “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.”

Not sure if you have been listening Mark despite your clean ears! What is it that we are saying A does to B, and B does to A? Submitting. A submits and B submits. You never answered my questions, can we have mutual love? Will this look the same for a mother loving her child and a child loving her mother? Love is lived out in actions, just as submission is. If you don’t want to use the word “mutual”, then don’t, but it is not going to help you in regard to the fact that two people can submit to each other. Sue, I think it was, has given examples of hypotasso being used when authority is not at play.

You said, “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.”

Yes, I have said right from my very first comment under Cheryl’s original post that authority exists. For the Ephesians their culture dictated that a husband had authority over his wife. The question all along is whether or not the authority is God given and therefore valid. Paul has told us all to submit, and goes to the trouble to make it explicit to husbands, parent and masters that they should all treat their wives/children/slaves by meeting their needs – dare I say submitting. He also goes to the trouble to say that wives/children/slaves should remember that they should still meet the needs of their husbands/parents/masters. The question (once again!) is does this mean that Paul is saying that men have a God given authority over their wives? Do masters have a God given authority over their slaves Mark?

You said, “One last point in relation to hypotasso. You need to remember that it is not an adjective or noun, so things like meekness and humility are not the best descriptions…we need to look at the verbal form.”

True, but the noun form can still be useful to display relevant meaning. You can be meek and humble you know!

Mark, no one is doubting that their was authority in the relationship between a husband and a wife in Ephesians. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not that authority is God given or culturally driven. That was poetic. No one is questioning whether or not a wife should submit to her husband, but rather whether or not Paul’s purpose is to make the husband the boss.