Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You asked regarding Ryan’s comments:

In what way is the husband the source of his wife? What does that mean from the context? Then in what way does that parallel the Church and Christ?

The husband is the original source of the woman and thus she is from him and equal to him. The husband today is to see his wife as being from him as his very own body so that he is to care for her as if she is his own flesh. In the same way the Church is the body of Christ and is from Him as the start or origin of the Church.

No, a wife should not worship her husband. What everyone failed to mention (especially Kristen in her thread) was that wives are told to submit as the Church does to Christ.

We are to submit to serve Christ and to receive His service to us in love. The attitude is to be one of love and respect, not of constraint.

So does submit give any indication that auhtority exists. As far as i know, all lexicons say yes.

Yes authority does exist and submission is at times to an authority but you have already been shown by Suzanne here and myself at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/06/02/submission-and-origin-of-authority/ that authority is not something that is to be assumed as submission can exist between equals and the fact that Paul said that the submission that is required of us is reciprocal, shows that it is not about submitting to an authority.

Some of you egalitarians do a good job at trying to discredit those who disagree agree with you.

I don’t know what “disagree agree” means but I am assuming that is a typo. I also think that you should rethink your sentence. Egalitarians certainly do a good job at discrediting the argument not the people. Those who are in disagreement with us are brothers in Christ – no ones to discredit. I don’t see anyone here calling you a heretic or airing your dirty laundry or any other tactic of personal discrediting. Do you see the difference?

But as far as i can tell, two themes are common, 1) i don’t answer supposed tough questions (although they never seem to directly relate to the topic) and 2) you introduce and extend what i have said to things i have never said.

Are you saying that whenever there is a tough question that you can’t answer you are going to claim that the question doesn’t relate to the topic so you don’t need to answer? I think that it is good to answer the tough questions anyway as they are important to us. If you feel they are beyond the topic, tell us why. As far as extending what has not been said, there are logical outgrowths of a position and it is fair to discuss these things. If you do not believe that they are logical outgrowths you can tell us why we should not see it this way. It is not an attack on your person, but a part of discussion.

So although you want to discredit my position by introducing all these other extremities that i have not mentioned, let me be clear. I’m focusing only on what the wife is told to do, in the same way the church is told to do in Eph 5.

The wife is told to have a reciprocal submission with the husband. Since the verb is in verse 21 and it is reciprocal, there is no way to get around that. How can you take submission from verse 21 but leave out the specific grammar that is attached to submission that renders it specifically two-way? If you can explain how you have detached the reciprocal grammar from the verb, it would be helpful to understand your argument.

If you wish to continue discussing this with me that is fine, but stick to the topic. Don’t attach foreign labels and concepts.

I think that everyone has been doing quite fine. Perhaps you can explain what “foreign labels” and “foreign concepts” you believe to be off topic?

You said to Susanna:

You only accept authority if it is the ‘big’ idea of the passage it seems.

I think it would be helpful for you to deal with the grammar that makes submission as reciprocal. Reciprocal submission would leave authority out of the picture, wouldn’t you think?

You also said to Susanna:

So i dare you, to actually accept the Biblical words for what they mean, and not do exegetical backflips to dismiss authority.

Actually Mark, I would like to put this one back on you. How about we dare you to show how reciprocal submission can mean that authority is in mind? How does both have authority over each other? I would really like you to answer this. It is not a side issue but a very important piece of grammar that should not be ignored.

I would like to know how many think Eph 5 is ‘cultural’ (in that the husband had authority in that culture but it was not God ordained) and how many don’t?

I think that all of us can agree that the husband had authority in that culture and that many cultures still hold to the husband having full authority over his wife. The question is always whether God ordained such an authority or whether it comes from sinful man wanting to dominate and control the physically weaker one? The question has been asked many times to show us where God has ordained the husband to have authority over his wife. You have as of yet given no Scripture where such an authority was transferred from God. If you have no Scripture that has a God-ordained authority transferred to the husband, then why should we believe that the mutual submission of Ephesians 5:21 is not mutual in the marriage when the only verb that verse 22 can attach to is found in verse 21 and that verb is absolutely and without a doubt reciprocal? Can you explain this?