Hasten To The Word of God

PRIDE AND ALLOWING OURSELVES TO BE BESTED

 

 

Prov. 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.

Prov. 26:18 ‘And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.19 I will break the pride of your power; I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze.20 And your strength shall be spent in vain; for your land shall not yield its produce, nor shall the trees of the land yield their fruit.

 

Pride is something I’ve pretty much always avoided talking about. It’s not that I think I am so proud and dare not discuss it. Rather I know that I am like most humans and have a natural tendency toward pride from time to time. We generally do some small bit of exulting when we do well, because really we know we are not all that great. We feel good when we accomplish something. The real problem comes when it gets out of balance and we don’t exult in others when they do well or when we don’t give space for them to do well. And that is the point I wish to discuss today.

Leviticus is kind of scary on this subject. God must always be first. God is love and when we keep Him first we love well. When God is not first we love poorly and slip into different kinds of destruction, one being pride. When we walk in God’s Love as we should, God’s Holy Spirit rains on us and we produce the fruit of the Spirit and the anointing of the Spirit flows through us upon others. The peace of God falls upon us, we praise and honor God and rejoice in Him.

When we get off track and give ourselves the credit justly due to God, Leviticus says God will break the pride of our power and life gets hard around us. We know that life around us can be hard anyway. So, the idea that God would make life harder when we take honor upon ourselves is just scary. But the truth is that we humans do it to some degree all the time.

One area I am thinking of this morning is that of churches and leadership. The world teaches us that leaders are supposed to be better than others. Certainly, leaders need to be accomplished to some degree in order to be able to lead others somewhere. Too often I have seen this taken to the point of control. If we control who serves around us and only allow ministry to those who won’t in our opinion do better than us, then we can maintain our position of leadership. If we just don't give opportunities to others to grow, we can prevent them from possibly doing better than us. This is an issue of pride and fear. Keeping this attitude will make life hard around us. It will also make life difficult for those seeking to mature and gain experience in their Spiritual giftings. And that doesn’t please God who loves us all and wants all of us to be released into the fullness of our callings.

Speaking practically, men do this to women, and then women do it to each other. Men and women who believe that only men are to be leaders and teachers or preachers often become inwardly furious when they see women besting them in some area of church leadership. So, they begin to work to prevent and control these women. Pastors and church leaders will do this when they watch someone preaching a better sermon or teaching better. They feel that their position of superiority is being challenged. So, they simply will refuse to honor or encourage that person in those things giving them fewer opportunities. This is the ugly side of pride. And we will sense the heavens becoming like a wall of iron and the earth like a wall of bronze in being immovable. We will be stuck and either go backwards or simply not move forward.

One of the errors in this is thinking that in order to serve well leaders must do better than those around them. In general they should have a certain degree of competency. Men who think men must be leaders, think they must know more than women. Really men just need to give their strengths, whatever they are, to serving those around them. Being concerned over who is doing better than whom is not an option. In this way anointed leaders can allow themselves to be ministered to by whomever God sends. The best leader releases those around them into ministry and service so much so that eventually he or she will be surpassed in excellence from time to time. This has the potential to blossom into amazing Spiritual ministry and growth.

But pride will stop it all, pitting one against another, shutting down the wind of God’s Spirit. Let us instead concentrate on opening doors for others to do well and rejoicing with them when they do.  So, if you suddenly get a lot of bananas, share some.   :)

 

 

STIGMATIZING THOSE DIFFERENT

 

To stigmatize someone is to mark them as disgraceful or contemptible in some manner. To mark in a negative manner is to brand, to make an end judgment, to deem as unworthy or below oneself. This is something we humans do that is usually an inaccurate assessment of one’s whole person.  The picture above is me in the 1970's.  Hippie Teri.  Now there were some interesting viewpoints of hippies from back then.  :)

Humans are a unique creation of God’s. We have a capacity to be a vessel for either good or bad, and also for both. Thus, judgments and perceptions must be fluid in that we know that people can change directions or go deeper in the direction they are in. We cannot see that deeply into a person’s heart even though some people are more adept at perceiving where a person is at in the present.

Sometimes I wonder how God manages to stay compassionate to those who stray far from His amazing love in how we treat others. And then there is Genesis 6:17.

For behold, I, even I, will bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy all life under the heavens in which there is the breath and spirit of life; everything that is on the land shall die.

The hatred, contempt, fear and pain in human’s hearts and experiences of life must have just been too much for God to handle or to see, after creating humanity with so much hope for grander things. It is interesting that God says, “I even I”. In both the English and the Hebrew it looks like God is even dismayed with Himself. In Hebrew, “I, even me”.   God’s judgment was correct but even then God’s amazing love led Him to determine to find another way to lead mankind toward redemption. Four hundred years after the flood came Abraham who was to be the progenitor of God’s people. Out of the faith of Abraham was born a deep and intimate relationship with God bringing forth the Torah and eventually bringing forth the Messiah to the entire world.

Today we have racism and misogyny as the great universal dividers of humanity. The unimaginable wickedness that is born of this stigmatizing of national differences and gender differences must be painful beyond our understanding to the heart of God.

I just watched a tape of former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard in 2012. She was addressing some proposition being put forward by a member of their parliament (?). The proposition was openly misogynistic and she addressed many of the instances of this attitude in the members present, which was an incredibly brave thing to do. Because of her speech to which the majority said, “hear hear”, the Macquarie Dictionary of Australia adjusted its definition of misogyny to include, “entrenched prejudice of women”. To say I am shocked is an understatement. The hatred of determined misogyny is deeply ugly in so many ways. I think I understand just a pinch of why God said, “I, even I” am going to do this thing (cause a flood to wipe mankind off the earth) because I am overwhelmed with the darkness of heart that mankind has come to with misogyny and racism.

Those are the big ways we brand people we have chosen to elevate ourselves above. We make their very humanity as less than ours because we brand things that cannot be changed, such as gender and nationality (skin color, body shapes, etc.) as less desirable. And when we do that we lead the way to degenerate treatment, cruelties beyond normal thinking, tortures, limiting life styles, etc.

We also brand small things as reason for rejection such as religion, careers, life styles, social status, wealth, political choices, health, and intelligence and so forth to an unending list. To say that arrogance and criticalness have infiltrated humanity and the church to a huge degree is an understatement.

Why do we do this? I have concluded that the biggest reason is because we do not know or understand God’s LOVE. And since I am speaking to the international body of Christ, believers in Jesus as Lord and Messiah, I believe that it is our fault that we have allowed these stigmatizing sins to run rampant in the world without any noticeable check. And yes, that includes me.

We who know the intimate deep love of God toward all, without racism or misogyny, need to speak up. It is time. We will be castigated for it and called many ugly names, no doubt. But if you believe and know God does not segregate, brand or limit people through racism or gender stereotyping, I believe that gift was given for us to share with patience, compassion, forgiveness and diligence. And I sincerely hope that more people will stand up and stand against this international condition of a lack of God’s Love.

Let us read the Bible with prayer and share the truths of God’s healing, deliverance, and freedom to live with all who will hear us. And let us start today.

Male Dominance and the Honor Shame Social Paradigm

 

 

 

Ancient Roman and Asian societies were honor and shame societies. Their lives revolved around who was honored and who wasn’t. There were two main sources of honor: ascribed and achieved. Ascribed honor was your roots, where you came from, your family, your family achievements (wealth, reputation, etc.). Achieved honor had to do with your personal successes and achievements.

Aristotle, a student of Socrates (and considered a genius), developed the social construction of a society whose citizens were the wealthy and noble born men. It is interesting that Aristotle ignored Plato’s more liberal ideas of women (the Greeks liked Plato’s ideas) and chose to view them as completely inferior. A man could become noble by his achievements as well. If one was not male, noble born or from wealth then that person was not considered honorable enough to sit in discussion and planning of the social issues or sit in judgment of law issues. People of this background could not become  leaders. Many well-known and educated men throughout history used this same or similar pattern of thinking including Calvin and Luther. Thus the Rabbis and Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day were greatly influenced by Socrates (469BC-399BC), Plato (424BC-347BC) and Aristotle (384BC-322BC)

Women could be considered noble born by reason of their family status and family achievements. However, because women were considered physically inferior and incapable of the physical and mental challenges that men exchanged between themselves, the primary honor they could gain was in serving their fathers and husbands and in certain personal feminine achievements, primarily the arts.

Men sought to perpetuate their own honor by marrying women who could continue their own nobility, wealth, and good family bloodlines. This is why few men in those times (including the days of Jesus and the early church) thought it of any consequence to love their wives. They married to perpetuate their public honor and continue an honorable bloodline. The majority of society was scrambling in a “quiet” way to outdo each other. And in these struggles women fell to the wayside. These were the issues of women and marriage that Paul so delicately, indirectly and brilliantly spoke into in Ephesians 5. According to Mischke, it is a common theme of the honor/shame way of thinking to speak indirectly. This way one can be directed, direct others and correct oneself without shame of error or failure. It is commonly called “saving face” in Eastern cultures today. And this I believe is what Paul was doing in Ephesians 5 and in 1 Cor. 11:2-16.

It is my belief that the entire system of male dominance we deal with in the church today is built around these ancient paradigms. The hierarchalists don’t say outright that women cannot be leaders and cannot be equal partners with their husbands because women are inferior mentally and physically. But they do say it indirectly and cleverly.

In Jesus’ day and in the early church, the challenge Jesus’ Truth brought to the Pharisees’ power and authority was so feared, so destructive to their (may I say evil) paradigm of honor and shame that they sought to kill Jesus. And they also sought to kill Christ’s disciples before and after Christ’s death and resurrection. God’s Truth brings equality, mutuality, and true compassion, support and help to become like Jesus in humility. These things, especially humility, do not walk well with a scrambling for honor.

The vociferous responses of the hierarchalist male dominance crowd to the teachings of mutuality, is very similar to the attempts by the Pharisees to destroy Jesus and His disciples. We have difficulty getting along because we not only speak different languages but our approaches are opposite. Those believing in equality want to speak more directly. Those in the honor shame paradigms speak their beliefs indirectly so that one has to interpret and guess at what is really being said. Hence the “equal but different” mantra that is really not about equality at all. But they speak their anger boldly and harshly because mutuality threatens their social systems.

Paul chose to be all things to all that some may be won for the kingdom. (1 Cor. 10:31-33) Thus he spoke indirectly in most instances. Christ chose to do both fairly equally. In many instances He strongly rebuked the Pharisees who were constantly challenging him critically and in judgmentalism, and in other instances Jesus wove His answers and directions in metaphors and stories.

My hope is that considering these things we may all (including myself) better learn how and in what circumstances we can respond both directly and indirectly toward the issues of male hierarchies in today’s churches in hopes of bringing and living the humility of honoring all believers.

What say you . . . . . .

Sources:

Honor & Shame in Cross Cultural Relationships by Werner Mischke
Honor & Shame in the Gospel of Matthew by Jerome Neyrey
When Dogmas Die by Susanna Krizo
Woman in Greek Civilization Before 100BC by Arthur F. Ide

 

The Fallacy of the Firstborn Right of Leadership

There is a long time popular fallacy and misinterpretation of Scripture that declares only males can be public leaders because the male was created first in the record of Genesis.

Recently, one of our Bible Study groups had the privilege of reading through the book of Genesis.  One of several things that stood out was that God never choose the first born to be leaders.  God always choose the one whose heart and intent was righteous.  Put these very clear facts of history together with the other glaring omission of God ever stating that the first born had leadership rights, and we see that this concept is man made and inserted into the interpretation of what is said in Genesis.  It is also inserted into the interpretation of what Paul said in 1 Timothy 2. 

What God did say in Genesis is that it was not good for the human to be alone.  This had nothing to do with authority or leadership, but aloneness. AFTER the man discovered what God already knew, that there was no one LIKE him (not different than), God proceeded to take of the man’s own essence and reform and refine it into the only one who was like the human enough to allay his aloneness — another human, but female. All of this had nothing whatsoever to do with the females fitness for leadership because God gave humanity, not male humans, the responsibility of leadership over the creation. The ability to compassionately lead, guide, protect and direct to promote life is part of the image of God that all humans share. Some are more gifted than others. But it is not imparted by being born first. It was imparted to all humans by the supernatural hand of our Creator. 

 

 

Kevin Giles review of a recent Equal and Complementary seminar

The following link is to a google article by well known scholar Kevin Giles who calls himself a non-hierarchical complementarian (I consider myself the same).  In this article Giles is critiquing the teachings of some hierarchical complementarians who claim an interpretation of Scripture that is gender biased toward male dominance in church and home.  I find Giles review of their seminar very informative.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B58yzgL3ovUUZmFiNTMyMjktOTg2MS00YWRlLTljOTktYjE4YjgxM2M5YTFm&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

I will be interested in any questions and comments regarding what Giles has to say on this.

1 Cor. 11:3 Is Not a List Of Hierarchies

 XXX writes:”“as we both trust that God will guide me, as the leader of the home, to make the final decision”

Response: Got a Scripture for that?

XXX responds: ”Of course, you know that I do.  1 Cor 11:3."

 ”11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

  There is nothing in that verse about husband as leader or final decision maker.  This would make God the father be leader of Christ and final decision maker of Christ.  This is the very thing that Athenasius wrote his creed to dissuade people from thinking.  When you introduce an idea of full (and eternal) submission of the Son and presumably the HS to God the Father, you create 3 gods with 3 wills, of which one is superior to the other two.  Only one is truly God and eternal. 

 

” From the time of Athanasius, theologians have recognized that if the Son is eternally subordinate in his work, function or operations, it must mean he is eternally subordinated in being, essence, nature, person or subsistence. If the Son or any human being is a person equal to another, they may choose to subordinate themselves to another; but when subordination is both permanent and obligatory, the personal inferiority of the subordinate is implied. If one party is always and necessarily subordinate to the other, the subordinate person must lack something the superior person possesses (Cf. “The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women”, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, IVP, 2005, p.348)."

That verse is not a hierarchy.  The hierarchy that hierarchalists interpret it into is: Father God, Son God, human male, human female.  A) it doesn’t say that.  B) there are missing parts: HS, children , and slaves.  This makes Paul out to be a bit ditsy.

Instead of an incomplete out of order listing of hierchies, what we really have is a historical chronology of things that came through other things. When God created Adam (hebrew word for humanity, later colloquialized into a proper name) , God was the source for humanities creation , source for life. Both male and female came* from * God though God used dust to form the males physical body.

 

When God formed the woman, He took from the man and created the woman. The man said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." Ish is hebrew for man; ishah (meaning ‘from man’ is Hebrew for woman. So in a different sense woman is from man. We know this is a point because of verses 8-9 and 11-12 in 1 Cor. 11. ".... but the woman is of the man." and "nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman,; but all things of God." Thus, the male was the woman's source for what makes up her physical body.

 

1 Cor. 11:3 ….  3 events in human history of one coming through another, therefore there being due honor bestowed on the one through whom one came.  All humans came through the creative actions of Christ.  The first woman came through the body of the first man.  The Messiah (the God/Man) came to earth through the creative actions of God and HS.  Three major events in human history.  It might not be the wording that we today would choose to say this in, but it is the wording chosen by a Greek and Hebrew speaking anointed man of God two thousand years ago.  Thus we need to understand it from his perspective, not ours.

 

head of (originator, source of) every man is Christ

the head of (originator, source of)  woman is man

and the head of (originator, source of) Christ is God.”

Our Submission - Hupotassomenoi

What does Christian submission entail? My understanding of our hupotassMENOI (passive/MIDDLE voice) submission with the Lord is one of non compelled freely aligning ourselves with His Life. We want to be one with Him like the prayer that Christ prayed we should all be one as they (Trinity) are One, a perfect unity, a cleaving together, a unity of purpose, a perfect mutually sacrificing love of one another. He gave us His life first, we give ours back to Him. Some imply that Christ tells us what to do, or that we are to seek His permission daily as to what we do, but I don’t see that. Certainly, God will give us direction when we ask and since Christ is all wise we do well to ask frequently. Also as Creator Christ will speak to us TRUTH, which is directive by its nature. The Holy Spirit also warns us as Paul says the HS did not ‘permit’ him to go places. And the HS, using prophets warned Paul of danger. And we know that the HS offers us comfort, which we do well to receive, submit to (choice!). Christ is not our boss, our director, our employer, etc. He is our Life. We do well to remain submitting our lives freely INTO Him. That is our submission with Christ. It is also part of remaining (cleaving) as a branch on the vine as Christ shows us in John 15. Neither hupotasso or hupotassomenoi (middle voice) is the same as hupakouo (obey). While a submission that is responding to requests (hupotasso) CAN look like obedience (hupakouo), the meaning of the word does not require it. It is just one of the possible applications. However, hupakouo definitely entails hearing and obeying as hearing is the main part of the word. Hupotasso OTOH has a primary meaning of arranging oneself under. When in the passive voice, that means that there is no need to do so in response to outside influences but rather we can choose deliberately to arrange oneself under others in some way. When Paul tells us to hupotassomai one another (allelon) that means our attitude is to be deliberately set to put others before ourselves. This would entail being supportive, respectful, honoring, helpful, and a slew of other things. It is no small omission that wives are NOT admonished to be obedient to husbands in the original languages. As Christians we are to be obedient to Truth, the Word of God. As fallible humans we are not ever told to command, demand, exercise lordly authority over one another. Rather we are to serve one another following Christ’s example who came NOT to be served, but to serve and give His life for the benefit of others (matt. 20:26-). Thus, the emphasis changes from husbands thinking they have to direct their wives to husbands desiring to serve their wives in ways that God shows the husband is needed. Then wives do well to determine to be responsive in honor and appreciation of their husbands.

With a proper understanding of what the Greek meaning of submission is in the middle voice in contrast to what obedience is, we can then better determine what it means for everyone to hupotassomenoi each other as well as what it means for wives to hupotassomenoi toward their husbands in everything.  If she were hupakouo in everything, that would entail responding positively to every request of her husband.  But husbands have not been admonished in Scripture to instruct or lead their wives and wives have not been instructed to hupoakouo their husbands.  Thus we can leave that aside. Since the passive is self instigated that means it doesn’t matter what the husband says or does or doesn’t do, the wife is still responsible to hupotassomenoi toward her husband in the same way that all Christians are to hupotassomenoi one another (Epe. 5:21). Her submission does not require anything from him.  Rather she is to so arrange herself, her actions, her words so that they support him (under lifting up), encourage him, equip him, warn him, with Godly as well as good Christian love.  As fellow Christians we should be doing this to all other Christians as we are led.  In a marriage we want to do this in everything, so that our marriage is strengthened.

THE TERM HEADSHIP

Since Scripture says “head of and body of”, the term “headship” in effect goes against Scripture. “Head of and body of” infer interdependent relationship. Add to this the foundation of “submitting one to another in the fear of the Lord” and you have a relationship of solid mutuality. We have perfect complementarity with the husband daily loving sacrificially, i.e. giving of his strengths to provide and protect. The wife gives of her strengths to be hupotassomai/be submissive and at her own instigation to support, honor, assist, encourage and do everything to help him be all he can be in Christ. They are sacrificially loving (vs. 1-2) and being submissive to one another (vs. 21) differently as a man and a woman.

Headship on the other hand is unilateral and about authority, power, primacy and supremacy. This is a totally different concept than what Scripture paints in Ephesians.

What I see in general Christiandom are gender hierarchalists (complementarians/patriarchalists) and equality minded (Christian egalitarians) men and women who want to do what I said above being sidetracked by the word ‘headship’. If that term (which is NOT in Scripture) were dropped, it would do a great deal to bring egals and non egals into unity and comparable understanding at least on the question of marriage relationships.

Equal? or Unequal??

Here is an excellent excerpt from “Discovering Biblical Equality, Complementarity without Hierarchy”. Amazon carries it HERE. In chapter 18, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role”, Groothuis points out that one cannot be inherently equal and at the same time inherently unequal. Groothuis notes that Aristotle held the view that women were inferior and that this view continued until very recently.

Kruse notes: on his Blog
“Groothuis raises the question of whether it is logically possible for a person to be ontologically equal but permanently subordinate. She aims to show the illogic of this “equal/unequal” formulation.”

Groothuis writes:

“I believe we can choose between the two biblical interpretations by assessing each one in light of two fundamental premises. The first premise is theological: according to Scripture, women and men are equal spiritually and ontologically – a point that is uncontested in the gender debate. The second premise is logical: the foundational and indisputable law of noncontradiction, which states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time in the same respect. The law of non-contradiction is not a mere human construct that God’s truth somehow transcends. … it is axiomatic that if the Bible contradicts itself, then it cannot be true in all that it affirms. (304)”

Groothuis writes that:

“Either (1) women are created by God for perpetual subordination to men and so are not equal to men in their nature/being/essence, or (2) women are created equal with men and so cannot be permanently, comprehensively and necessarily subordinate to men. (305)”

The Question of Marital Submission: Who Does It and What does it Mean

Quote: from http://www.biblestudyproject.org/local-church-messianic.htm#Its_eldership_is_open_to_men_who_fulfill_the_qualifications

“As a wife must lovingly submit to her husband's leadership in the marriage, so must women lovingly submit to exclusive male eldership in the congregation”.

Third Responses ….

Yes, a wife is to lovingly submit and be of a submissive heart to her husband ( as he must be to her).  However, the submission that a believer gives to the church leaders is not the same as a wife gives to her husband.  Church leaders whether elders, pastors, teachers, deacons, etc. are not to think of themselves in a one flesh relationship with the congregants.  Neither are church leaders to think of themselves as Fathers or Masters.  Rather, following Christ’s exhortations in Matt. 20: 20-28, leaders are to consider themselves servants who did not come to be served but to serve and give their lives.

The Question of Submission

The Grk. Word  (hupotassoMENOI) translated ‘submission’ ( sometimes ‘subject’) in the NT is most often in the passive/middle, thus it is not primarily about responding to requests from others, though it can be. The difference between obey (hupakou) and submit (hupotassomenoi) is that obey is always responding to another, while submit in the middle, is self instigated. We must be submissive to one another regardless of whether or not they ask for it. And our submission must be to their betterment. In this way kings, bosses, parents, and husbands also submit without having to wait for a request. They submit by giving something of themselves to support, assist, honor and improve the other. It is a way of placing oneself beneath another in order to lift them up. It may not always look so honorable. Sometimes, its just keeping the peace.

Notes from Daniel Wallace's grammer: 

The difference between the active and middle is one of emphasis. The active voice emphasizes the action of the verb; the middle emphasizes the actor [subject] of the verb. “It, in some way, relates the action more intimately to the subject.” This difference can be expressed, to some degree, in English translation. For many middle voices(especially the indirect middle), putting the subject in italics would communicate this emphasis.

Middle Voice  (pg. 414-30)

Subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject’s participation; subject acts with a vested interest

A . Direct Middle (a.k.a. Reflexive or Direct Reflexive): verb + self (as direct object); subject acts on himself or herself(416-18)

One of the first things we need to acknowledge about submission is that everyone is to be of a submissive heart. No one is excused from participation.

The following list was taken from Listening to the Spirit in the Text, written by Gordon Fee.

In the early church everything was done allelon ("one another").

They were members of one another (Rom 12:5;Eph 4:25),

who were to build up one another (1Thess 5:11;Rom 14:19),

care for one another (1Cor 12:25),

love one another (1Thess 3:12; 4:9; Rom 13:8; 1John passim),

bear with one another in love (Eph 4:2),

bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2),

be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another (Eph 4:32),

submit to one another (Eph 5:21),

consider one another better than themselves (Phil 2:3),

be devoted to one another in love(Rom 12:10),

and live in harmony with one another (Rom12:16).

Looking briefly at the gist of these Scriptures, we can see that they all entail a humble submissive attitude of mentally (at least) getting ‘under’ someone in order to lift them up. These are attitudes that everyone is to give toward others in the body of Christ; no one is to be left out. 

A question was made in this discussion,  about the uses of hupotage, hupakou,  and hupotasso.  So let’s take a look at where these are used regarding women in the NT epistles and in what forms. In the course of this discussion we will be viewing all of these verses, though not all in this article.

Hupotasso (submit) :  Col. 3:18 (pres. Pl. Middle voice),

Huptassomenoi (submit - passive): 1 Cor. 14:34, Epe. 5:21, 24; Titus 2:5; 1 Pe. 3:1,5

Hupotage (subject) :  1 Tim. 2:11 (n.)

Hupakouo (obey/hear/heed): 1 Pe. 3:6

SUBMIT  meanings in English:

English...... RandomHouse 1967 (fr. Latin submitt[ere])

7 definitions given:

            1. to yield in surrender, compliance, obedience

            2. to subject (esp. oneself) to imposed conditions, treatment

            3. to refer or present for the approval or decision of another

            4. to state or urge with deference;suggest or propose

            5. to yield in surrender, compliance, obedience; to yeild to a conquerer

            6. to allow oneself to be subjected to something imposed or to be undergone

            7. to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision

English ...... Websters 1915 ( fr. L., submittere; sub/under = mittere/to send)

            1. to put or place under  (obsolete)

            2. to let down; to lower  (obs.)

            3. to yield, resign, or surrender to power, will, or authority (often with the reflexive

Greek is not English and has different ways of expressing things.  But even in English we can see that submitting is not only about an inferior yielding to authority.  One can yield, surrender, give in to another’s judgment or opinion without them being an authority over us. Submitting to someone does not confirm that they have authority over us. Therefore, any supposed authority must come from someplace else other than one’s choice to submit to them.  However, submission can have an element of obedience in it depending on the context. Every word has a range of meanings that are determined by context. Context is always the determining factor.

OBEY meanings in Greek:

The word used to mean “obey” throughout the N.T. is (h)upakouo.  It is also used to mean “listen, heed”.  It’s a fairly precise word for those meanings: listen, obey, obedience, obedient.  The verb is derived from akouo, was commonly used in secular Gr. from Homer on.  The adj. hupekoos, obedient, is in the Greek O.T., in Deut. 20:11 of subject peoples and in Prov. 4:3, 13:1 of a son’s obedience to his father.

In Acts 12:13 hupakouo means to open in the sense of “answering the door”. Elsewhere the verb group is used extensively and predominantly by Paul denoting obedience.  And sometimes this obedience includes submission to earthly authorities. As a side note some might find it interesting, that in the Greek translation of the O.T. this was the word used when Adam listened to Sarah and did what she asked of him.   He listened and obeyed.

The conclusion one cannot help but reach is that if Paul had meant obey or obedience in the places he used (h)upotasso or more specifically (h)upotassoMAI, then Paul would have used hupakouo instead.  Fact is he did not.

SUBMIT meanings in Greek:

The Greek words (h)upotasso and (h)upotassoMENOI are more complicated.  Vines Bible Dictionary made the mistake of saying that hupotasso is  primarily a military term, which is truly inaccurate.  Military terms are such that are peculiar to the military and are somewhat out of place when used elsewhere.  But submissive attitudes really permeate all of life including the military. It is used in a military setting to urge soldiers to step into their place in a hierarchical lineup.  And it’s good to remember that neither church relationships nor marital relationships are military in nature.

The base word hupotasso means to arrange oneself under more similar to our word subject perhaps.  It is usually used of one commanding another to “submit”, yield, come under them in some manner. Most hierarchalists interpret submission as always to be compliance to another's commands/demands/requests. Their idea of voluntary and the voluntary inherent in hupotassoMAI are entirely different. The voluntary in hupotassoMAI means that a person is not in sin if she does not volunteer herself in the instances she doesn't believe appropriate. It is her decision, her "offering" to give.

In the N.T. Paul uses submit  primarily in the form of hupotassomenoi , in the sense of a humble attitude, and arranging oneself in unity, conformity, and respect (summarized in Ephe. 5:33). Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Pe. 5:5 show it best.

Epe. 5: 21   Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

1 Pe. 5:5   Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.

Inserting the error of upotassomai meaning obey would make these two verses read that in Ephesians we are all to obey one another, and in Peter we are to first obey our elders and then obey everyone.  Just doesn’t work does it.  That is because upotassomai does not mean obey.

The way Paul uses the word most often throughout the N.T. is in the middle passive voice form.  This way he is requesting that we all voluntarily, willingly, actively arrange ourselves to yield, fit in to one another at our own instigation. When Paul uses the verb in verse 21 and then omits the verb in verse 22 to the wives he is effectively carrying over this attitude and saying of a sort , “wives you too”.

In addition, those who think hupotassomai means submit to authority of another, there are much better and more precise words available that say exactly that, which Paul did NOT use.  That would have been a form of archo (ruler, one in front, primary one, etc.) or despotes (master ).

LOOKING AT EPHESIANS FIVE

Ephe. 5: 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.

In order to understand this excerpt from Ephesians it is important for us to do at least two things: 1) search for some info on the Greek words used, which we just did  2) read the excerpt in the full context of chapter 5. 

One of Paul's purposes in writing to the Ephesians was to admonish them to live in unity. Ephesians 4 starts with:

1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Chapter 4 through 6 tells us how we should live as coheirs of the grace of God, that we should be at peace with one another understanding that we are all equal under Christ.

Chapter five, vs. 1-2,  admonishes all to love sacrificially. This is sandwiched  with vs. 21 where Paul admonishes all to submit one to another.  These are the same two points that Paul pointedly reminds first wives and then husbands in vv. 22-33. 

In between these sandwiched verses are more “unity in the Spirit“ verses. We are to live spiritually clean lives and walk in the light. We are to live wisely, redeeming the days , and be filled with the Spirit. The thought structure is such that walking in love as pure children, being filled with the Spirit, will naturally enable us to be submissive toward one another. And that is what husbands and wives are to carry into ALL their marital and family relationships.

but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.

HEAD-OF AND BODY-OF METAPHOR in Ephesians 5

In Ephesians 5 Paul pictures the marital relationship as two becoming as one flesh.  He shows this by picturing the husband as ‘head of’ (not over) the wife and the wife as ‘body of’ (not under) the husband.  If each views the other as necessary in a similar way that a body must stay connected to the head, and the head must stay connected to the body in order to maintain life, then there is hope that they together may attain what Adam exulted about in Genesis: two becoming as one flesh. It is important that we stick to the metaphor that Paul provides instead of modernizing it. Paul was speaking to the first century Christians in terminology that they understood.

The wife’s submission is to be patterned after the conceptual sandwich that Paul spoke of in the preceding verses 1-21.  She is to carry all of that into her attitude toward her husband in everything,  in the same way all Christians are to express that tenderness and respect toward one another.  The added thing for the wife is the intimacy of living as if one flesh and possibly trusting the husband as believers trust the Lord. We submit to the Lord because we trust his intentions for us.

Paul actually has more to say to the husbands than the wives: ten verses versus two. Husbands are reminded of the point of sacrificial love (fr. verses 1-2).  We are all to emulate Christ in that respect.  Husbands are reminded that admonition applies to their wives as well.  The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her. Christ did this (washed and cleansed believers) so that He could have a bride.  This is a likely a reference to a story in Eze. 16 in which God finds Israel as an abandoned infant laying in her own blood (sin). He washes her and makes her His own.  This is a redemptive story about removing the shame of uncleanness and dishonor.  The early Christians would have recognized Paul was making an appeal to the men to confront the system of shame that surrounded women, where the presence of women were considered a defilement. Christ gave His Life to remove our shame.  Husbands should give their lives so that the one who is now part of their life could live in honor, nurtured, protected and loved.

Ephesians is probably the fullest description of  marital relationships of the NT Scriptures .  It is built on the mutual authority in 1 Cor. 7 (written in 56 AD) and Galatians magna carte of Christian liberty and freedom from bondage to the law (written in 49 AD).  Colossians was written about the same time as Ephesians, but likely shortly afterward (60-62 AD) since the reference to interpersonal relationships in 3:18-23 is a brief summarization of Ephesians 5:21-6:9. Titus and 1 Peter were both written afterwards, 63AD and 64AD respectively. So understanding Ephesians helps tremendously to clarify what Paul thought a Christian marriage should look like.

How Does the New Testament As A Whole View Women?

An Excerpt of an article by John Zens found at:

http://searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm

I'm giving this its own post since it is a sizable excerpt with plenty of "meat" to discuss on its own merit.

How Does the New Testament As A Whole View Women?

 

Before coming to 1 Tim.2:12, which is often seen as a restrictive text regarding females, it is imperative for us to review the overwhelmingly positive picture of Abraham’s daughters painted in the New Testament (Luke 13:16). This information cannot be dismissed or forgotten when reflecting on two passages, 1 Cor.14:34-35 and 1 Tim.2:12, that mention concerns about some sisters. 

 

**Neither the Gospel narratives nor the recorded words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of women.

 

**Jesus fully accepted women as his disciples and they accompanied him in his travels with the male disciples (Luke 8:1-3).  These women also supported the mission of Jesus with their own resources.  These facts may be much more significant that it initially appears.  In the first century it was unheard of for a Jewish rabbi to have female followers. Luke reports this rather matter-of-factly, yet this band of women, men and Jesus was hardly kosher to the curious onlookers as they went from city to village.

 

**After Simeon took the baby Jesus in his arms and saw God’s salvation, Anna the prophetess “gave thanks to God and spoke of him [Jesus] to all the ones expecting redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:25-38).  Anna did not just proclaim Christ to women, but to “all.”

 

**Jesus applauded the evangelistic efforts of the Samaritan woman (John 4:35-38).  After experiencing a revelation of Jesus, she left her jar at the well and went to her city telling men, women and children about the Messiah (John 4:28-29).  Everyone in Sychar knew about her history of broken relationships, yet she boldly proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah – a Redeemer even for those outside of Judaism!

 

**In the context of Jesus’ crucifixion the male disciples fled, yet the women were present and they helped in his burial (Matt.27:55-56,61; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:55-56; John 19:25-27).

 

**A woman’s testimony was disallowed as evidence in first century courts.  Yet the Lord chose females to be the first witnesses and proclaimers of his resurrection (John 20:1-2, 11-18; Luke 24:1-11, 22-24; Mark 16:1-8; Matt.28:1-11).

 

**After Christ’s ascension, 120 men and women prayed together and chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:14-15).

 

**The Spirit came upon the 120 disciples and they spoke the wonderful works of God in many foreign languages (Acts 2:1-4).

 

**Some thought that what was occurring on the Day of Pentecost was evidence of too much wine, but Peter insisted that it was a fulfillment of what Joel prophesied would come to pass – “your sons and daughters will prophesy….I will pour out my Spirit on my male and female slaves and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).  There is no suggestion that males may prophesy freely, but that females are restricted in some ways.

 

**Philip the evangelist had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9).  We would not be wrong in assuming that there were many other sisters who had this gift, not just Philip’s offspring.

 

**Paul entrusted his letter to the Romans to Phoebe, and she delivered it.  She was a deacon in the assembly at Cenchrea and Paul has the highest regard for her (Rom.16:1-2).  Paul recognized her as a prostatis, which carried with it the idea of leadership (cf. 1 Thess.5:12).

 

**Paul designates Priscilla and Aquila as his “co-workers” (Rom.16:3).  The same word is used with reference to people like Timothy and Titus.

 

**Junia and Andronicus (wife/husband or sister/brother) were greeted by Paul as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom.16:7).  They were his relatives and had been in prison with him.  There were people called “apostles” who were not among the Twelve, like Barnabas.  Junia was also among such apostolic workers.  There is no reason to think that she was the only such female apostle.

 

**Among all the people Paul greeted in Romans 16, ten were sisters among whom were “Tryphena and Tryphosa [who may have been twins], women who work hard for the Lord” (Rom.16:12).

 

**In line with Acts 2:17-18, Paul encouraged brothers and sisters to prophesy in the gatherings (1 Cor.11:4-5; 14:23-24).

 

**The open meeting Paul describes in 1 Cor.14 envisions all the men and women – “the whole assembly” – “each one of you” – “you may all prophesy one by one” – functioning together in an encouraging manner.

 

**Gal.3:28 indicates that “in Christ” human distinctions, like male and female, are no longer norms of judgment in the congregation.  In the first century, prejudices abounded in folks’ minds when certain people like “Gentile,” “Jew,” “slave,” and “woman” were mentioned.  Paul is saying that in the body of Christ this should not be the case.

 

**Women were prominent in the assembly at Philippi, beginning with Lydia’s home.  In Phil.4:3 Paul asks for two sisters – who must have had no small spiritual influence in the body – to be at peace with one another.  He calls Euodia and Syntyche “co-workers” and “co-strugglers” in the gospel.

 

**2 John is addressed to “the elect lady and her children.”  This probably refers to a respected sister in whose home the saints gathered.  She had apparently exerted significant spiritual influence upon a number of people.  Women’s homes are mentioned as meeting places for the brethren in Rom.16:5, 1 Cor.1:11, 16:9 and Col.4:15.

 

**In Rev.2:20-24 Christ rebuked the Thyatiran congregation for allowing a false prophetess, nicknamed “Jezebel,” to “teach” some of the Lord’s servants to sin grievously.  If it was such a crime for a woman to teach the brethren, why didn’t the Lord just condemn the assembly for even allowing a woman to instruct others?  This incident in Thyatira implies that the assembly permitted other male and female prophets to teach the truth.  Christ’s bone to pick with them wasn’t that a woman taught, but that what this woman set forth was false teaching.  We will come back to this passage in the course of our investigation of 1 Tim.2:12.

 

This survey of New Testament highlights concerning women is important because it reveals the freedom of the sisters to function in the kingdom.  In the general flow of the New Testament there are no jitters about “restrictions” upon Christ’s daughters.  Such a survey also should also serve as a corrective to those who squelch and intimidate the sisters by using their interpretation of two passages – 1 Cor.14:34-35 and 1 Tim.2:12 – to  cancel out the ministry of sisters unfolded in other Scriptures."