Wives submit to your husbands

[phoebe]

1 Peter 3:3-7

Don't just concern yourselves with making yourselves look nice on the outside, such as plaiting your hair, wearing gold jewelry and dressing in fancy clothes. Instead, let the part that makes you look fancy be the inner self, the imperishability of a calm and tranquil spirit which is not angry or prone to temper. This is very expensive in God's eyes. In this way too, once upon a time, the holy women who fixed their hopes on God adorned themselves. They supported [hupotasso] their own husbands, in the way that Sarah paid attention to [hupokouo] Abraham calling him "sir". You are her children if you do the right thing and you're not afraid of intimidation [ptoesis]. Husbands, the above goes for you too [homoios]. Live with [sunoikeo] your wives in the realization the the wife has the weaker [asthenes] livelihood [skeuos] (in a disadvantaged position for getting a living). Show her honor. She is a joint-heir with you in the spiritual favor in life. If  you don't, your prayers will be blocked [egkopto]!
-TSNT


Sounds like mutual submission, to me!

Hupakouo: 5219 uJpakouvw Hupakouo (hoop-ak-oo'-o);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb
from (5259) and (191)

to listen, to harken
of one who on the knock at the door comes to listen who it is, (the duty of a porter)
to harken to a command
to obey, be obedient to, submit to

KJV Word Count (Hupakouo #5219) obey  18
be obedient to  2
hearken  1

Listen, pay attention to, harken. Same thing.

That's fine if you choose the meaning of "submit", but then you have backed yourself into a corner. Then you must also say that the husband is to submit to the wife: "Likewise, husbands..." In the same way, also. Same thing. IOW, what applied to the wife is also applied to the husband. All of it, not just the parts one chooses.

I believe it means that we respect each other, listen to each other, support each other. (Personally, I don't see much honor from Abraham to his wife by asking her to lie for him. Perhaps that is why there is no example given for the men.)  This is definitely not a prooftext passage for wifely submission.

But I give you credit (and manna) for searching word meanings out yourself. It's a great journey to God's full love and restoration.

[chosenone]

1 Peter 3:3-7

Don't just concern yourselves with making yourselves look nice on the outside, such as plaiting your hair, wearing gold jewelry and dressing in fancy clothes. Instead, let the part that makes you look fancy be the inner self, the imperishability of a calm and tranquil spirit which is not angry or prone to temper. This is very expensive in God's eyes. In this way too, once upon a time, the holy women who fixed their hopes on God adorned themselves. They supported [hupotasso] their own husbands, in the way that Sarah paid attention to [hupokouo] Abraham calling him "sir". You are her children if you do the right thing and you're not afraid of intimidation [ptoesis]. Husbands, the above goes for you too [homoios]. Live with [sunoikeo] your wives in the realization the the wife has the weaker [asthenes] livelihood [skeuos] (in a disadvantaged position for getting a living). Show her honor. She is a joint-heir with you in the spiritual favor in life. If  you don't, your prayers will be blocked [egkopto]!
-TSNT


Sounds like mutual submission, to me!

Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before.

[zoonance]

I wonder if Paul was intimately familiar with the Scriptures from which no doubt tempered his teachings.  That would include the book of Ester where at least some concerns about the relationship between men and women was a key component to the story.  Was it consistent with God's teaching or was it only the cultural ramblings of a foreign king?

[phoebe]

1 Peter 3:3-7

Don't just concern yourselves with making yourselves look nice on the outside, such as plaiting your hair, wearing gold jewelry and dressing in fancy clothes. Instead, let the part that makes you look fancy be the inner self, the imperishability of a calm and tranquil spirit which is not angry or prone to temper. This is very expensive in God's eyes. In this way too, once upon a time, the holy women who fixed their hopes on God adorned themselves. They supported [hupotasso] their own husbands, in the way that Sarah paid attention to [hupokouo] Abraham calling him "sir". You are her children if you do the right thing and you're not afraid of intimidation [ptoesis]. Husbands, the above goes for you too [homoios]. Live with [sunoikeo] your wives in the realization the the wife has the weaker [asthenes] livelihood [skeuos] (in a disadvantaged position for getting a living). Show her honor. She is a joint-heir with you in the spiritual favor in life. If  you don't, your prayers will be blocked [egkopto]!
-TSNT


Sounds like mutual submission, to me!

Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before.

You need to work on using the quotes. (we've been round that mountain before, too)  Look at your post. It appears that MM said these words, but in checking his posts, we can see that he didn't. So, I made corrections and I assume that this is your comment to me:

"Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before."

Indeed, if one reads that the wife is to submit to the husband based on 1 Peter 3, then one must also read that the husband is to submit to the wife: "Likewise", homoios. A common expression used in Pauline letters meaning "the above goes for you too". That "above" would absolutely include "submitting". You can't pick-and-choose which ones to apply and which ones not to apply when it says "Likewise".

[phoebe]

I wonder if Paul was intimately familiar with the Scriptures from which no doubt tempered his teachings.  That would include the book of Ester where at least some concerns about the relationship between men and women was a key component to the story.  Was it consistent with God's teaching or was it only the cultural ramblings of a foreign king?

Interesting addition to the equation.

[Mystery Man]

1 Peter 3:3-7

Don't just concern yourselves with making yourselves look nice on the outside, such as plaiting your hair, wearing gold jewelry and dressing in fancy clothes. Instead, let the part that makes you look fancy be the inner self, the imperishability of a calm and tranquil spirit which is not angry or prone to temper. This is very expensive in God's eyes. In this way too, once upon a time, the holy women who fixed their hopes on God adorned themselves. They supported [hupotasso] their own husbands, in the way that Sarah paid attention to [hupokouo] Abraham calling him "sir". You are her children if you do the right thing and you're not afraid of intimidation [ptoesis]. Husbands, the above goes for you too [homoios]. Live with [sunoikeo] your wives in the realization the the wife has the weaker [asthenes] livelihood [skeuos] (in a disadvantaged position for getting a living). Show her honor. She is a joint-heir with you in the spiritual favor in life. If  you don't, your prayers will be blocked [egkopto]!
-TSNT


Sounds like mutual submission, to me!

Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before.

You need to work on using the quotes. (we've been round that mountain before, too)  Look at your post. It appears that MM said these words, but in checking his posts, we can see that he didn't. So, I made corrections and I assume that this is your comment to me:

"Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before."

Indeed, if one reads that the wife is to submit to the husband based on 1 Peter 3, then one must also read that the husband is to submit to the wife: "Likewise", homoios. A common expression used in Pauline letters meaning "the above goes for you too". That "above" would absolutely include "submitting". You can't pick-and-choose which ones to apply and which ones not to apply when it says "Likewise".

common Phoebe , aren't you getting a little touchy in your old age ?

The problem here is, you are so stuck in reverse, and you forgot what going forward looks like.

From Genesis to Revelation there is not one woman other than the great whore that has any power of authority, and even then it was given of herself, to herself.

God didn't make the woman in Genesis with any authority.  If she had authority , her God give authority would have had consequences.  Yet, we see none !  What we do see, is when she gives herself authority and starts to speak to the serpent as one who has authority to speak for God.

When a woman decides that she wanted authority over the man, God puts her in her place.  As we see in the story of Moses, Aaron and Miriam.  And Miriam was a prophetess.  God told all three of them, that God spoke to Moses !

All places within the Word of God , where we see righeous women.  The women are helpers.  To their husbands they are helpmates, but everywhere else they are helpers.

Women are never Prophets, they are prophetesses.  A Prophet is a man, and Elder is a man, etc.  The elder women are to teach the younger women.

Now that I have learned how to post correctly Phoebe.  Isn't it time for you to read the Word correctly ?

Righteous women are daughters of Abraham - I Peter 3:6 . 

[WileyClarkson]

Women are never Prophets, they are prophetesses.  A Prophet is a man, and Elder is a man, etc.  The elder women are to teach the younger women.

Wrong.  Prophetess and prophetesses are OT terminology.  There is only two times in the NT where the word prophetess is used:  Luke and Revelation.  In Luke, it is used in reference to Anna in the Temple, who was  Jew under the Jewish system, and was recognized and highly regarded as a prophet in the Temple.  In the OT, prophetesses or female prophets were recognized and highly regarded.    She was recognized and held in esteem as a prophetess.
In Revelation, the reference is to Jezebel, who was pagan prophetess, not a Christian.

All other references to women and prophecy are in the terms of using a gift of prophesy or being able to prophecy.  No where in the NT (at least the translation we have on our web forum) is the word prophetess used to refer to a Christian woman.  In the Jewish faith, the prophetess Hulda was so highly regarded that the priest Hilkia was sent by the king to her to see if the scroll they had found in the Temple was to be considered God's word.  She was the one who made the determination and the priest accepted it along with the rest of the Jewish believers.

The following link is to an class taught at ACU Lectureship several years ago by Bobby Valentine.  It addresses the term prophet and prophetess in scripture.

Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet
http://www.clarksons.org/articles/huldah_who.htm 

You need to read it.  You might find it usefull.

[Mystery Man]

Women are never Prophets, they are prophetesses.  A Prophet is a man, and Elder is a man, etc.  The elder women are to teach the younger women.

Wrong.  Prophetess and prophetesses are OT terminology.  There is only two times in the NT where the word prophetess is used:  Luke and Revelation.  In Luke, it is used in reference to Anna in the Temple, who was  Jew under the Jewish system, and was recognized and highly regarded as a prophet in the Temple.  In the OT, prophetesses or female prophets were recognized and highly regarded.    She was recognized and held in esteem as a prophetess.
In Revelation, the reference is to Jezebel, who was pagan prophetess, not a Christian.

All other references to women and prophecy are in the terms of using a gift of prophesy or being able to prophecy.  No where in the NT (at least the translation we have on our web forum) is the word prophetess used to refer to a Christian woman.  In the Jewish faith, the prophetess Hulda was so highly regarded that the priest Hilkia was sent by the king to her to see if the scroll they had found in the Temple was to be considered God's word.  She was the one who made the determination and the priest accepted it along with the rest of the Jewish believers.

The following link is to an class taught at ACU Lectureship several years ago by Bobby Valentine.  It addresses the term prophet and prophetess in scripture.

Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet
http://www.clarksons.org/articles/huldah_who.htm 

You need to read it.  You might find it usefull.

Wiley, with all due respect.  Nothing "changes" as you propose .

The body of Christ is the wife to Christ and the prophecy that comes forth from the body of Christ is from a prophetess.  This is because the body of Christ is a woman, the wife to Christ.

A Prophet comes from the building, and not the body of Christ.  And these are all men !

[Mystery Man]

Women are never Prophets, they are prophetesses.  A Prophet is a man, and Elder is a man, etc.  The elder women are to teach the younger women.

Wrong.  Prophetess and prophetesses are OT terminology.  There is only two times in the NT where the word prophetess is used:  Luke and Revelation.  In Luke, it is used in reference to Anna in the Temple, who was  Jew under the Jewish system, and was recognized and highly regarded as a prophet in the Temple.  In the OT, prophetesses or female prophets were recognized and highly regarded.    She was recognized and held in esteem as a prophetess.
In Revelation, the reference is to Jezebel, who was pagan prophetess, not a Christian.

All other references to women and prophecy are in the terms of using a gift of prophesy or being able to prophecy.  No where in the NT (at least the translation we have on our web forum) is the word prophetess used to refer to a Christian woman.  In the Jewish faith, the prophetess Hulda was so highly regarded that the priest Hilkia was sent by the king to her to see if the scroll they had found in the Temple was to be considered God's word.  She was the one who made the determination and the priest accepted it along with the rest of the Jewish believers.

The following link is to an class taught at ACU Lectureship several years ago by Bobby Valentine.  It addresses the term prophet and prophetess in scripture.

Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet
http://www.clarksons.org/articles/huldah_who.htm 

You need to read it.  You might find it usefull.

Huldah was a prophetess in the OT.  Now this article wants to call her a Lady Prophet ? ?

Red flags everywhere !

A Prophet brings forth a message from God and for God. And their words are words that give guidance and reproof and correction and words of "thus saith the Lord God". Words that bring about authority from and for God.    A prophetess repeats what a Prophet has said - Even Huldah.   

There are only two records of Huldah.  Which makes this easy to study.

II Kings 22:14  and   II Ch. 34:22

Context starts at II Kings 22:1 and read threw chapter 23:28.  What Huldah did was repeat the very words that were already in the book.  She also told the King of his heart being right.  Which was not new revelation.   Josiah and his heart was always right in the sight of God. But God still brought about what was written in the book of the Law.  But after the reign of Josiah.

Josiah was right in the eyes of the Lord , and nothing changed abuot Josiah.  And nothing that was said by Huldah didn't change anything, other than Josiah took the book seriously as it was the Words of God.

May I also point out -- The words of a Prophetess are "always" words that comfort and exhort !  Which is exactly what Huldah's words were.

[llewksgood]

That's fine if you choose the meaning of "submit", but then you have backed yourself into a corner. Then you must also say that the husband is to submit to the wife: "Likewise, husbands..." In the same way, also. Same thing. IOW, what applied to the wife is also applied to the husband. All of it, not just the parts one chooses.

WOW... That's a twist of English gramatical sentence construction, if I ever saw one.

[zoonance]

Apollos,

You caught it right off!  You get mana for a good catch.  It is indeed a no-win situation and that is exactly what a oneway submission puts a wife into when the husband has the absolute decision on everything.  She is indeed in a catch-22 situation and, unfortunately, that is also what we put women into today.

Who is we?  Who puts women into this today?

[WileyClarkson]

The "we" is a generalization for the fact that this is not uncommon in today's churches (or any other place for that matter).  It was not directed at those who do not believe in the hard line complimentarian views

[WileyClarkson]

MM,

did you read the entire article or just read the title?

[Mystery Man]

MM,

did you read the entire article or just read the title?

Yes, and I can not express to you how much it turned my stomach.  What a bunch of untruths !

A Prophet is a man - Period !

A Prophetess is a woman - Period !

They have different roles , even though both are called out by God.  You have to look for the differing roles and decide for yourself. 

The role of a Prophetss has no authority.

The role of a Prophet is full of authority. 

[chosenone]

1 Peter 3:3-7

Don't just concern yourselves with making yourselves look nice on the outside, such as plaiting your hair, wearing gold jewelry and dressing in fancy clothes. Instead, let the part that makes you look fancy be the inner self, the imperishability of a calm and tranquil spirit which is not angry or prone to temper. This is very expensive in God's eyes. In this way too, once upon a time, the holy women who fixed their hopes on God adorned themselves. They supported [hupotasso] their own husbands, in the way that Sarah paid attention to [hupokouo] Abraham calling him "sir". You are her children if you do the right thing and you're not afraid of intimidation [ptoesis]. Husbands, the above goes for you too [homoios]. Live with [sunoikeo] your wives in the realization the the wife has the weaker [asthenes] livelihood [skeuos] (in a disadvantaged position for getting a living). Show her honor. She is a joint-heir with you in the spiritual favor in life. If  you don't, your prayers will be blocked [egkopto]!
-TSNT


Sounds like mutual submission, to me!

Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before.

You need to work on using the quotes. (we've been round that mountain before, too)  Look at your post. It appears that MM said these words, but in checking his posts, we can see that he didn't. So, I made corrections and I assume that this is your comment to me:

"Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before."

Indeed, if one reads that the wife is to submit to the husband based on 1 Peter 3, then one must also read that the husband is to submit to the wife: "Likewise", homoios. A common expression used in Pauline letters meaning "the above goes for you too". That "above" would absolutely include "submitting". You can't pick-and-choose which ones to apply and which ones not to apply when it says "Likewise".

The husabnd is told to love his wife and not to submit to her. the wife is told to respect her husband and submit to him.

[HeRestoresMyHeart]

The husabnd is told to love his wife and not to submit to her. the wife is told to respect her husband and submit to him.

I agree, perhaps it can be compared in its essence to a boss/employee relationship for lack of a better way to show it (not saying husband is the employer of the wife or she is the employee- they are partners/family just using this as an example).

Anyway,  an employee is to submit to their employer who is the head, the employer is not to submit to the employee but the employer is/should treat the employee with kindness and respect (love by the husband in a marital relationship).   So that being said if the employer treats the employee with this kindness and respect it then the employee wants to please the employer and will willingly submit to the employer.  However if the employer mistreats and is unkind to the employee then submission comes more difficultly and with resistance and begrudingly.

At the same time an employee who enters into their position with a bad attitude and one of "no one can tell me what to do" etc...  will not command this kindness/respect from their employer.  They are two different positions that are supposed to work with and enhance each other- not fight against or resist each other!

[WileyClarkson]

Posted by: HeRestoresMyHeart  Posted on: January 30, 2009, 09:05:17

So that being said if the employer treats the employee with this kindness and respect it then the employee wants to please the employer and will willingly submit to the employer.  However if the employer mistreats and is unkind to the employee then submission comes more difficultly and with resistance and begrudingly.

While I agree with this to a point being an employee in a company where the employer is an absolute jerk most of the time, I will have to disagree on it's application to marriage.
1)  A wife is not an employee!
2)  A husband is not and Employer!
3)  The roles of wife and husband in the world of 2000 years ago were decidely different from now and they were not the ideal situation of the example given in Genesis by God of marriage when he rejoined Adam and Eve into one "person".
4)  The actual roles of marriage 2000 years ago was one of ownership of the wife by the husband and the wife had less ability to earn a living than some slaves.  She was at the mercy of the husband both in the Jewish marriage and in the Gentile marriage.
5)  In all of Paul's instructions on marriage, Paul gives examples of how a wife should behave in the societies they were in so as to not bring down condemnation on the church by behaving in a way that was contrary to their society and laws. He also tells husbands how to behave towards their wives in those same situations to avoid causing conflict for the church. 

The ideal is mutual submission and equality in the marriage where the joining of the man and the woman makes them one totally unique human of equal protions:  1/2 husband, 1/2 wife, with the halves working together to make the whole.  The ideal was very hard to obtain in those societies.  It is not as difficult to obtain in our society if we understand what Paul said in a historical context.  Not every word in the Bible is meant to apply to our generation.  If it is then we have alot of changing to accomplish to become like the Christians of the 1st Century, which, IMO, is and absolute impossibility!  What we need to do is work at reaching the goal of the ideal of mutual submission and equality in the marriage, which was demomnstrated in the Garden, and then quickly forgotten after being kicked out of the Garden.  It would sure lower the failed marriage/divorce rates!

[WileyClarkson]

Now, not to change the subject, but has anyone seen the show Fireproof, which was in the theaters several months ago and is now out on DVD?  It is quite a show and has a direct bearing on this subject!

[phoebe]

1 Peter 3:3-7

Don't just concern yourselves with making yourselves look nice on the outside, such as plaiting your hair, wearing gold jewelry and dressing in fancy clothes. Instead, let the part that makes you look fancy be the inner self, the imperishability of a calm and tranquil spirit which is not angry or prone to temper. This is very expensive in God's eyes. In this way too, once upon a time, the holy women who fixed their hopes on God adorned themselves. They supported [hupotasso] their own husbands, in the way that Sarah paid attention to [hupokouo] Abraham calling him "sir". You are her children if you do the right thing and you're not afraid of intimidation [ptoesis]. Husbands, the above goes for you too [homoios]. Live with [sunoikeo] your wives in the realization the the wife has the weaker [asthenes] livelihood [skeuos] (in a disadvantaged position for getting a living). Show her honor. She is a joint-heir with you in the spiritual favor in life. If  you don't, your prayers will be blocked [egkopto]!
-TSNT


Sounds like mutual submission, to me!

Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before.

You need to work on using the quotes. (we've been round that mountain before, too)  Look at your post. It appears that MM said these words, but in checking his posts, we can see that he didn't. So, I made corrections and I assume that this is your comment to me:

"Nor to me. no where is the husband told to submit to his wife. The wife is told to submit to her husband. hmmmmmmmmm I think we have been round this mountain before."

Indeed, if one reads that the wife is to submit to the husband based on 1 Peter 3, then one must also read that the husband is to submit to the wife: "Likewise", homoios. A common expression used in Pauline letters meaning "the above goes for you too". That "above" would absolutely include "submitting". You can't pick-and-choose which ones to apply and which ones not to apply when it says "Likewise".

The husabnd is told to love his wife and not to submit to her. the wife is told to respect her husband and submit to him.

Who gave you the authority to pick-and-choose which parts of the "above", the "likewise", homoios, can be deleted from those instructions? All are called into submission to each other. ALL. That includes husbands-to-wives, and there is no way around it.

[phoebe]

Now, not to change the subject, but has anyone seen the show Fireproof, which was in the theaters several months ago and is now out on DVD?  It is quite a show and has a direct bearing on this subject!

We're waiting for it to come out on PPV. I have lots of respect for Kirk Cameron. He's held his faith high in a medium that despises what he represents and stands for. I have suspected that it has a traditional religious POV on marriage, but will be pleasantly surprised if it is truly biblical.


How is your shoulder, Wiley? The biopsy?

[phoebe]

Women are never Prophets, they are prophetesses.  A Prophet is a man, and Elder is a man, etc.  The elder women are to teach the younger women.

Wrong.  Prophetess and prophetesses are OT terminology.  There is only two times in the NT where the word prophetess is used:  Luke and Revelation.  In Luke, it is used in reference to Anna in the Temple, who was  Jew under the Jewish system, and was recognized and highly regarded as a prophet in the Temple.  In the OT, prophetesses or female prophets were recognized and highly regarded.    She was recognized and held in esteem as a prophetess.
In Revelation, the reference is to Jezebel, who was pagan prophetess, not a Christian.

All other references to women and prophecy are in the terms of using a gift of prophesy or being able to prophecy.  No where in the NT (at least the translation we have on our web forum) is the word prophetess used to refer to a Christian woman.  In the Jewish faith, the prophetess Hulda was so highly regarded that the priest Hilkia was sent by the king to her to see if the scroll they had found in the Temple was to be considered God's word.  She was the one who made the determination and the priest accepted it along with the rest of the Jewish believers.

The following link is to an class taught at ACU Lectureship several years ago by Bobby Valentine.  It addresses the term prophet and prophetess in scripture.

Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet
http://www.clarksons.org/articles/huldah_who.htm 

You need to read it.  You might find it usefull.

Wiley, with all due respect.  Nothing "changes" as you propose .

The body of Christ is the wife to Christ and the prophecy that comes forth from the body of Christ is from a prophetess.  This is because the body of Christ is a woman, the wife to Christ.

A Prophet comes from the building, and not the body of Christ.  And these are all men !

No, not the wife, the Bride. A bride did not function as one in submission to the bridegroom. The comparison is not about a hierarchy, but about intimacy, that of two (church and Christ) becoming One.

[zoonance]

So Christ has mutual submission to the church?

[phoebe]

(I am wondering why this thread was moved to the "marriage" forum, as it is clearly an issue of theology. It affects marriages, yes, but it is something to be discussed by everyone, not just the married. Something to be clear and in agreement on PREmarriage, not POSTmarriage.)

[phoebe]

So Christ has mutual submission to the church?

Yes. Christ has the unique position of being in authority, but He has always done so by serving. That is the example by which He lived His life, and the example we are called to live BY HIM to others: "as I have loved you". We unite with Him in His death, burial and resurrection. We become one with Him. If we are truly one with Him, we are supportive and yielding to each other. He became flesh, servant, and crucified for us. We can do no less for each other. And yes, that includes husbands and wives toward each other.

[zoonance]

I don't see him ever even submitting to anybody but the Father.  Certainly not to the apostles (the closest members in his "congregation")  Nor do I find Paul submitting leadership to ... anybody.

[grace]

The word submission (Eph. 5:21). It is made up of two parts. Hupotasso is the word. Hupo means "under" or "by" or "by means of" or "with." Tasso means "to arrange under." It connotes a placement of someone else's desires above your own. To be in subjection is to have someone else's mind and heart before yours and to want to live to bless someone else instead of blessing ourselves.

Submission is not a bad thing!

Jesus Christ humbled himself. He humbled himself and took on the role of a servant.

"Submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

[phoebe]

I don't see him ever even submitting to anybody but the Father.  Certainly not to the apostles (the closest members in his "congregation")  Nor do I find Paul submitting leadership to ... anybody.

He submitted Himself for us. He was always serving others, never THE authority. Even in the Temple, he was angry, not a figure of authority.

Submission is a "for" action, not a "to" action.

[phoebe]

The word submission (Eph. 5:21). It is made up of two parts. Hupotasso is the word. Hupo means "under" or "by" or "by means of" or "with." Tasso means "to arrange under." It connotes a placement of someone else's desires above your own. To be in subjection is to have someone else's mind and heart before yours and to want to live to bless someone else instead of blessing ourselves.

Submission is not a bad thing!

...

Whoever said it was? It is bad when it is a dysfunction, rather than a mutual function. If one is submitting because one feels obligated to or so that the other feels elevated above another, it is a dysfunction. If one submits out of love and respect so that the other can be all that God created them to be, then it is functioning as Christ exampled it. Christ did not example an earthly pattern of hierarchy for us. Not once.

hupotasso is not an imperative, but a participle. The verb is "be filled". It means "support", "supportive", "be attached to". Even if mistranslated as "submit", it would only correctly be translated as "submitting to one another".

[zoonance]

I believe submission to Christ involves some obedience above and beyond some sense of "mutual" functions.

[phoebe]

I believe submission to Christ involves some obedience above and beyond some sense of "mutual" functions.

Mutual submission is not "I will if you will". That's the human selfishness way. It's an intimate relationship where both parties trust the other to do what is best for them. I trust Christ to do what is best for me. Christ trusts me to do what is best for Him (i.e., for His Church).

[grace]

The word submission (Eph. 5:21). It is made up of two parts. Hupotasso is the word. Hupo means "under" or "by" or "by means of" or "with." Tasso means "to arrange under." It connotes a placement of someone else's desires above your own. To be in subjection is to have someone else's mind and heart before yours and to want to live to bless someone else instead of blessing ourselves.

Submission is not a bad thing!

...

Whoever said it was? It is bad when it is a dysfunction, rather than a mutual function. If one is submitting because one feels obligated to or so that the other feels elevated above another, it is a dysfunction. If one submits out of love and respect so that the other can be all that God created them to be, then it is functioning as Christ exampled it. Christ did not example an earthly pattern of hierarchy for us. Not once.

hupotasso is not an imperative, but a participle. The verb is "be filled". It means "support", "supportive", "be attached to". Even if mistranslated as "submit", it would only correctly be translated as "submitting to one another".

Did you not read the rest of my post? I mentioned that Jesus submitted to God (to go to the cross)...He loved us! So we submit to Him by honoring that love.

How do you submit to our Lord?

[phoebe]

Yes, I did. And for the most part, agreed with it. I don't agree 100% with your translation and application of hupotasso, and I took your "Submission is not a bad thing!" as a response to something that I didn't see. Perhaps it was just an editorial comment? If so, I totally agree.

If you don't mind, I don't feel obligated to answer your last personal question.

[grace]

I believe submission to Christ involves some obedience above and beyond some sense of "mutual" functions.

Mutual submission is not "I will if you will". That's the human selfishness way. It's an intimate relationship where both parties trust the other to do what is best for them. I trust Christ to do what is best for me. Christ trusts me to do what is best for Him (i.e., for His Church).

But Christ did love us first...and we responded to Him. Would we respond without Him first loving us?

[grace]

Yes, I did. And for the most part, agreed with it. I don't agree 100% with your translation and application of hupotasso, and I took your "Submission is not a bad thing!" as a response to something that I didn't see. Perhaps it was just an editorial comment? If so, I totally agree.

If you don't mind, I don't feel obligated to answer your last personal question.

So you did submit, you just do not want to share the details?

[phoebe]

Yes, I did. And for the most part, agreed with it. I don't agree 100% with your translation and application of hupotasso, and I took your "Submission is not a bad thing!" as a response to something that I didn't see. Perhaps it was just an editorial comment? If so, I totally agree.

If you don't mind, I don't feel obligated to answer your last personal question.

So you did submit, you just do not want to share the details?

"did"? Do. Submitting isn't a one-time event. It's a way of living. It's a book that doesn't have a final chapter.

Why the personal question?